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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (76882)	10/12/2004 1:05:26 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793838

>>That’s what I mean by euthanasia. That's not the definition of euthanasia. It's morally and ethically acceptable to refuse to have your life prolonged by extraordinary means. I do suggest that you put a clause in there that you be kept comfortable, including sufficient water to palliate thirst. I put that in all the living wills I draft now, because a woman told me about her friend dying in agony, begging for water, which was refused by the health care professionals based on their interpretation of her living will. A simple swab of her mouth and tongue with a moistened cotton swab was refused by the health care providers. You might want to specify that you be given narcotics, as well.

To: abstract who wrote (76882)	10/12/2004 1:49:06 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

About the death penalty I think it needs a much higher burden of proof given the high numbers of mistakes that have turned up in recent years. Conviction mistakes possibly, but not execution mistakes. Fact is, the death penalty already has a higher burden. The appeals process is extensive, with years of opportunity to overturn a verdict or secure a pardon. That is the reason there has not been a single case where an executed person was later proved innocent in the last thirty years.