Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4331)	2/11/2003 5:18:15 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 7720

"Ashcroft, however, has decided his values should overrule those of Oregon's voters" Of course. He has the certainty of one of thousands of Gods on his side...

To: Lane3 who wrote (4331)	2/11/2003 7:18:36 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

This case would come under a grey area for me: Is it assisting someone struggling and suffering in the throws of death, or does it come under the broader category of assisted suicide. Legally of course it is assisted suicide because we don't have another category to measure it by. Does it come under committing suicide as a human right or under the legitimate reign of the controlling authority. I found this definition: A rule of being, operation, or change, so certain and constant that it is conceived of as imposed by the will of God or by some controlling authority; as, the law of gravitation; the laws of motion; the law heredity; the laws of thought; the laws of cause and effect; law of self-preservation. I am wondering if I should turn myself in for running that stop sign a couple of months ago. It was on a back country road, I could see that no cars were coming in either direction on the cross roads, so I opted to blast thru it. Why should I worry that it was illegal? I saw no benifit to society in me stopping at that sign, I reasoned that I knew better in this instance than the controlling authority. I wonder in the tragic case reported in this article, why it had to come to a matter of assistance. The woman had watched her sister die in similar circumstances. She was competent. Why did she not take responsibility for her own suicide and give the controlling authority the bird on the way out? Why is it necessary to involve another in violating the law of self preservation? It is a matter of self-conscience vs self preservation. It seems inhumane to me to involve anyone else in determining its legitimacy.

To: Lane3 who wrote (4331)	2/13/2003 12:16:31 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

I watched an assisted suicide (Sweden) special on public television last night. Assisted suicide is legal in Sweden but Euthenasia is not. The difference being that in assisted suicide you must self administer the procedure, prescribed by a doctor. The focus of the article was a service that only requires a one hour interview to qualify. If the interviewer agrees that you are competent to make the decision for your self then the doctor is permitted to prescribe an overdose. Several controversial points were brought out even among people who agree with legalization of assisted suicide. For example, suicide was approved for a young schizophenic man. They tracked the case of a cute elderly man who was diagnosed as terminal but seemed to have all of his faculties and in general was doing ok at the time of his death. Even the staunch advocates of the service doubted the timeliness of the suicide. They felt it may have been, too soon.