These are the arguments being used against Euthanasia now.

Euthanasia proponents, (we), want to kill babies, selectively exterminate some people, and ignore the fact that some people do recover from apparent death.

Rather than address the issue, whether a person has the right to their own life and death, the opponents of Euthanasia have retreated to a position that relies on fear for it’s support and attempt to use it to encompass all aspects of the Euthanasia debate.

To address their accusations as they might relate to my position of establishing a Compassionate Law and Euthanasia Clinics in which that law could be implemented so that a person with a reasonable and rational desire to end their own life could do so in the company and companionship of their friends and loved ones without fear of criminal prosecution:

Baby Killer. A baby is unable to make a rational choice. End of argument.

Selective Extermination. I do not advocate that any one be forced or persuaded to choose their own time, place, and manner of a peaceful and painless death. I do advocate that people be allowed to die with dignity in the company and companionship of their friends and loved ones. The selection remains with the individual as a matter of choice.

Miracle recoveries. They happen and I am pleased that they do. I advocate that those who are capable of making their own rational decisions regarding their own end of life experience be allowed to do so. Those who are incapable of making their own rational choices are not a part of my agenda.

Euthanasia. A good death. A choice for those who are able to make that choice.

A Euthanasia Clinic would be a place where a Compassionate Law could be implemented, allowing a person to with their friends, family and loved ones at the time of death and to be assured that they would not be subject to criminal prosecution afterwards.

This is a very simple suggestion. It does not require that any other person be involved in the death process itself. It merely allows a person to die with dignity at a time, place, and manner of their own choosing while being comforted by the presence of those they love.

What’s wrong with that?

EuthanasiaClinic.org has more ...

War is about killing other human beings.

Euthanasia is about making personal rational choices.

The first is condoned while the second is condemned.

The first is wrong. The second is right.

While it may be difficult for you to acknowledge, you are not crazy.

Just today I saw another person raise the 'slippery slope' argument in opposition to Euthansia.

Keep in mind that Euthanasia is a 'good death' as defined by the Greeks several thousands of years ago.

We have had 100 generations to improve on the concept of a 'good death'. Instead we have chosen the path that penalizes a person for choosing a peaceful and painless death.

At a time when least able to cope, a dying man may have to decide whether he wants to die alone or with his friends and family around him. If he chooses to have people with him they may be liable for criminal prosecution.

See this link: Man Sentenced to Life, May 07. Man found guilty for assisting his ailing wife end her suffering.
And this link: Times Online, Feb 5, 08. Another man this year convicted of manslaughter.

The slippery slope we are on is one of repression and intolerance.

We need a Compassionate Law to allow a person's loved ones to be with them at the time of death and be assured that they would not be subject to prosecution afterwards.

It has been several thousands of years since the concept was first defined. Isn't it time we get started?

This is a link to an old news story, but current events up in Canada have brought it to mind again.

At Telegraph.co.uk there is a story dated 8 Dec 05. The headline reads, 'Israelis to be allowed euthanasia by machine'.

When I originally found this article I was happy that yet another country had opened their hearts and minds to allow euthanasia. But on reflection I was saddened by the thought that a machine would have ultimate power over your life and death. While the law describes care takers as being able to control the machine, it is still the machine which makes the final determining act in control of a human beings life.

Or, as one of the parliamentary spokesman is quoted as saying, 'The point was that it is wrong, under Jewish law, for a person's life to be taken by a person but, for a machine, it is acceptable. A man would not be able to shorten human life but a machine can.'

This just seems so wrong to me.

Meanwhile Arial Sharon, once the Prime Minister of Israel, lies in a persistent vegetative state and has done so since 4 Jan 06. As of this writing that will be 2 full years. He had his incapacitating stroke just a month after the new law was passed.

Under that new law, if he had left a living will or health care directives, his care takers could let the machine turn itself off. But so far, they haven't done that. He remains hooked up to a machine that continues to breathe for him and to keep his heart pumping and voids his bladder and bowels.

Arial Sharon has become a machine. Yet, under Jewish Law, this is preferable to his being allowed to have a peaceful and painless death.

The Canadian case I referred to above is at this link, The Canadian Press.  It details the story of a Jewish man, 84 years old, on life support, with minimal brain function whose family do not want the hospital to be allowed to 'pull the plug'.

According to Orthodox Jewish law, 'a man in Golubchuk's condition is fully alive' Rabbi Basil Herring, the executive vice-president of the Rabbinical Council of America said.

The story concludes by stating, 'There are no countrywide guidelines on end-of-life decisions. The practice differs from province to province, from health-care region to health-care region, and sometimes, even from hospital to hospital.'

A Compassionate Law and a Euthanasia Clinic would prevent stories like this by allowing people to choose the time, place, and manner of their own death while in the company and companionship of their friends, family, and loved ones.

That seems like a far more rational approach than bickering over whether the machine should be turned off.

Usually I post answers rather than questions, but here is one you should ask yourself.

Isn't it better to practice the word of Christ rather than the doctrine of Christianity?

Up to you of course, but the world would be a better place.

I was reading a forum which dealt with the issue of Euthanasia. I forgot to save the link or I would provide it for you. But I do remember the comment that triggered this blog...

As a part of the discussion the comments had reached the point where different people were posting comments about the 'quality of life' and how a vegetative state would not be one in which most of us would want to remain alive.

The comment that prompted this blog was, and I paraphrase..., ' even in a vegetative state I think I am fulfilling my purpose.'

First. What makes you think you have a purpose different from mine? I am sure that my purpose is not fulfilled by lying in a comatose vegetative state. So, unless you profess to be someone better than me, your purpose isn't fulfilled by being a vegetable.

Second. I think that if your purpose were to be fulfilled by lying in a comatose vegetative state you would have been better made a carrot and not wasting my bandwidth with spurious noise.

See my website for some other opinions about death and dying. http://www.EuthansiaClinic.com

A long time ago, in a land far, far away, (unless you happen to be somewhere in the Mediterranean basin), the Greeks invented words that we have taken as roots for our English language words. Among them were 'Eu, "good", and Thanatos, "death".

In my edition of the Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary, Euthanasia is defined as a 'painless and peaceful death'. I think it might be hard to find anyone who thinks that a good death would be anything other than painless and peaceful, so I accept these two definitions as synonymous.

Euthanasia is a peaceful and painless death according to those who first gave us the means to define it.

It is hard to find a discussion of Euthanasia today that deals with the core issue of a good death. Euthanasia today is most often defined in terms of, or in conjunction with, assisted death. One does not necessarily involve the other.

It is quite possible to have a peaceful and painless death without any form of external intervention. It is also possible, that through external intervention, death may be prolonged into an anguishing eternity of pain and suffering.

So why is it necessary to define a word that is meant to describe a peaceful and painless death with additional conditions that serve only to obscure it's basic meaning?

Rational and reasonable people want to die peacefully and painlessly. If the debate were to remain about Euthanasia, 'a good death', then it would be very difficult to rationally oppose that. So the definition has been changed. We now argue about whether a physician should be involved in your death choices.

The debate, given the original definition, should be about whether you will be allowed to make those choices.

The debate terms have been changed but the issue remains the same.

It is your life. You are responsible for it. No one else.

I encourage you to make those end of life choices which will lead to a peaceful and painless death with the companionship of those you love close at hand.

A Compassionate Law and a Euthanasia Clinic will provide the means to achieve that simple goal for those who want it while making no demands on others who wish no part of it.

Euthanasia.

A word derived from the original Greek. Defined, from the original meaning, as a 'good death'. Nothing there about doctor assisted. Just a 'good death'.

The debate is not over whether doctors should be burdened with your death. The debate is over whether you should be allowed to have a good death.

A Compassionate Law and a Euthanasia Clinic would provide the means for you to have what you have always wanted. A good death.

EuthanasiaClinic.com

What is it with all these people who are so vocal in their support of hypocrisy, greed, hate, and fear?

They actually seem to revel in their hatred. Some, I suppose, actually do enjoy inflicting pain on others. They are not the subject of this blog.

It is those who profess to have a moral conscience that encourages them to deny others basic human needs that I am offended by. They claim a higher moral ground while having no morality at all.

Yet we encourage them, enable them, and idolize them. We support them and use them as role models for our children. They are the heroes and the saints, while those who simply want a better world for us all are demonized and marginalized.

Is it any wonder that we, as humans across the globe, are unable to find our way out of the morass we find ourselves in? Yet no effort is made to shift our priorities from greed to compassion. Rather those who are the most greedy, the least compassionate, the most corrupt are those to whom honors and accolades are given.

We are only as evil as we choose to be.

It is your life. It is your world. You can choose to make it different. Hiding behind the school yard logic that, 'It's too big a problem. It's not my fault. I can't make a difference.', is cowardice. You have no right to complain about the way things are until you have chosen to make them different.

Do what you can to make the lives of those around you better. That is enough. The rest will follow. Your reward, if you still have the need for one, is not in the cash accrual, but in the knowledge that above all else, you were honest, compassionate, and kind. And, that whatever else may be said, you made a difference.

Otherwise, you just continue to support those who are antithetical to all that you know to be right.

And before you absolve yourself by saying that you are making a difference by loving and caring for your family, friends, neighbors, and community think hard about what drives you. Is it, above all else, compassion? Or is it the pursuit of a healthy, happy, contented lifestyle? There is a difference. One is centered on the self. The other is not.

Go think about it a bit. Make a difference, no matter how slight. And the next time you think you are paying too much in taxes, feel ashamed. The next time you do not give to charity, feel ashamed. Turn around. Go back. Do it again until you get it right.

And when others ridicule you consider what, if anything at all, they stand for. Are they the people to whom you would like to point with pride and say to your sons and daughters, 'They are right. They are good. They are honest, while I am a loser, a man of little worth because I have chosen to help others while they have chosen to exploit others.'

Of course if you think that they are right then there isn't much I can say that will help you, your family, your friends, or your community. The world is an extension of yourself. It is as you make it.

There is right and then there is everything else. You can choose to do the right thing every time.

Or not.

As with Euthanasia, it is your life. You can choose. You are not exclusively subject to the dictates of others. Choose the right way every time.