No Time for Dissent: NPR Hails Suicide Advocate With 'Elfish Glint' and 'Lilting Voice' Taking His Own Life
Legalizing suicide is a controversial subject, but not to the liberal media. On Monday night’s All Things Considered, NPR honored Oregon activist Peter Goodwin, a major force in passing Oregon’s “Death With Dignity Act,” for employing his own law and taking his own life with some pills at 83. There was no airing or acknowledgment of the opposing side, those who believe that life should end with natural death.
Culture of death? Banish the thought. Reporter Julie Sabatier’s tone was glowing: “As he was about to turn 83 last fall, Peter Goodwin still had an elfish glint in his eye. You can hear his heritage in his lilting voice.”
Goodwin was born and raised in South Africa.
Oregon’s law requires a six-months-to-live prognosis from a doctor to make the suicide legal. Sabatier reported “Two months ago, Goodwin got that prognosis from his physicians. On Sunday, he swallowed a fast-acting barbiturate prescribed by his doctor. He died less than half an hour later.”
The only other voice in the story came from Goodwin’s group with the name “Compassion and Choices.” Sabatier announced “The nonprofit helps patients and doctors learn how to use Oregon's Death With Dignity Act. It's often called assisted suicide, but the law specifically rejects that term.”
The group’s Barbara Coombs Lee “says if a person's death is imminent and inevitable calling it a suicide is a grave disservice.”
Lee declared: “Would we say that the people who jumped from the World Trade Center were committing suicide? I wouldn't because the fire was in their face and they chose a different kind of death.” No one was allowed to suggest that a terrorist bombing and a slowly-advancing disease are highly differing threats. (So much for liberals who hating the political exploitation of 9/11.) The story closed like a eulogy:
SABATIER: Oregon's Death With Dignity Act was the first like it in the nation. Dr. Peter Goodwin considered it his life's work. Earlier this month, Goodwin said that when it came to using the law himself, that was the most difficult decision of all.
GOODWIN: I'm going to be saying goodbye to a lot of people, a lot of people whom I love, and I just wish that I could say to them, when I cross the River Styx, I'm going to be feeling as loving towards you as you feel towards me. That will be a consolation.
SABATIER: Goodwin said having control over his own death allowed him to face it without fear. For NPR News, I'm Julie Sabatier in Portland.
On her Twitter page, Sabatier was receiving kind words on her powerful (and unanimous) story from both Compassion and Choices folks and the Death With Dignity National Center, which tweeted to her: “Really a beautiful interview with Dr. Peter Goodwin. It's great to hear his voice again. He will be missed greatly.” Sabatier replied: “Thanks so much. I'm so glad I got to meet him.”
Other media outlets also used the unanimous formula. The AP dispatch was headlined "Oregon physician behind Death With Dignity dies." The local paper, the Oregonian, used the headline "Doctor who pushed for Oregon's Death With Dignity Act intends to exercise the right." There used to be a time when journalists "erred on the side of plain English."
On ABCNews.com, Susan Donaldson James wrote a one-sided article but at least carried a headline that avoided the suicide-lobby euphemisms of the other stories: "Dr. Peter Goodwin, Father of Oregon Suicide Law, Takes Own Life." At the bottom was this tribute video from Compassion and Choices, which was not labeled as basically an advertisement. One might have started by thinking this was an ABCNews.com video:
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
One less liberal
Submitted by theknight70 on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 7:52pm.
One less liberal who advocates the culture of death that we have to deal with. Now if only the pro abortionists would follow suit. I mean, don't they believe there are too many people on the planet? Why don't they lead the way by killing themselves? Wait a minute! You mean they want other people and other people's children to die, but not themselves.????? Funny how that kinda works out, huh?
That's the treatment the National Obamacare Advisory. . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 7:52pm.
. . Board recommended because it wouldn't pay for anything else.
To heck with these creeps
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 7:59pm.
Kicking and screaming for me,
To paraphrase a commercial, I
Submitted by imjustagirl on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 8:20pm.
To paraphrase a commercial, I want to leave this world exhausted.
God Bless America
There is no dignity in death.
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 8:02pm.
There is no dignity in death. Why do people say this?
Just a single diagnosis?
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 8:04pm.
Does the Oregon law really require only one physician's diagnosis? If true, the potential for abuse of that law, particularly with respect to potential insurance and estate probate fraud, would be too high. Not to mention, assisted suicide is against every tenet of medical ethics that I learned in medical school and live by every nanosecond of my life. As a psychiatrist and neurologist, I certainly have seen my share of patients commit suicide, but never have I participated in their plans or provided any assistance in doing so.
There is a lot that can happen in six months that can alter a patient's life significantly, not to mention the effect that a suicide would have on family, friends and loved ones. In general, I consider suicide to be the most selfish thing a person can do, and in no way could I ever condone it personally due to my faith or professionally due to my ethics.
Of note, did anyone see the "...suicide is a grave disservice..."? I know that was not said with any sense of humor, but I find it an appalling choice of words.
As they say on Facebook
Submitted by Tim Graham on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 8:21pm.
"Like." Thanks.
Newspeak rears it's ugly head again
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 8:04pm.
It's not suicide because he was going to die anyway. No, it was suicide because he took pills to help him die.
I'm getting more and more frightened every day for this country.
This isn't just a liberal vs. conservative issue..
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 8:43pm.
as a couple of cases with which I'm personally familiar clearly illustrate. My step-father, devoutly Christian and politically to the right of Rush Limbaugh, died a little over a year ago at age 92. He was so profoundly debilitated during the last six months of his life that he would pray each morning that that particular day would be his last. He claimed [the story may have been apocryphal--he had a wonderful, dry sense of humor] to have been issued a cyanide tablet in WWII, and his biggest regret now was that he hadn't saved it.
The mother of my wife's best friend [also a conservative Republican] was stricken with terminal brain cancer about three years ago and during her final weeks the pain was so excruciating and unbearable that even large doses of morphine were only minimally effective. Her mother yearned for the blessing of death to relieve the unrelenting agony that now consumed and defined her life. I don't know what her daughter's views on legalized suicide or assisted suicide were beforehand, but I know what they are now.
Yes, it is a controversial subject, but one which is not well served by politicizing it.
Jer
I agree with you on that, Jer.
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 8:56pm.
The "not politicizing it" part.
I also think that a HUGE subsidiary issue here is that we have forced Doctors to perform CYA medicine, due to potential litigation. We all have horror stories....wherein a condition is terminal, but the "common cure" is administered anyway, with no thought to quality of life, rather no law suit. (Think elderly cancer patients)
I'll leave the assisted suicide alone....but I do believe in personal freedom, and if someone so chooses that path, that is between that person and his/her God.
And we all ought to send a little donation to our local Hospice Care, just because....a little pay it forward, if you will.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 9:08pm.
I have to disagree with you a bit on the elderly care. You've heard my story, I believe the care given to the elderly is being whittled away now, by trying to coerce family into stopping treatment.
I understand what you're saying, when my MIL was in her 80's my sister in laws still wanted her to get a mamogram every year. Why? At 88 was she going to go through a mastectomy and/or chemo? We need more doctor and family decision making, less government and lawyer decision making (nothing against you Jer).
Well, two specific things come to mind, Rad
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 10:57pm.
About 20 years ago, my ex's grandmother (who lived in a nursing home) was diagnosed with cancer in her very late 80's....and they did exploratory surgery on her to determine the extent!!! Needless to say, that was the end of her quality of life. She was relatively chipper before the surgery, but she was bedridden and hooked up to machines for the last several weeks of her life. My only thought at the time was "What WERE they thinking?".
And as of late, a friend of my mom's (89, if she is telling the truth about her age), who had a rather sever stroke three years ago, and is struggling to stay in her own home, wheelchair bound, with 24/7 in-home care, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer....and she went through the whole course of chemo/radiation. IMO, that was a knee jerk reaction by her physician, who should have had the courage to discuss other options with her, but didn't. I post on another board, regularly, and there's a trauma nurse I admire and respect. When her mother was faced with basically the same situation (the Dr. doing his no-sue, here's what should be done routine treatment) my acquaintance presented her mother with all of the facts and options, turned down the cancer treatments. She eventually entered Hospice care.
We really need Tort Reform. As Doc Sam said, he's forced to practice pre-emptive medicine. That's just crazy.
My point, though, is that if someone decides (as Timothy H says in his tag, which always reminds me of my horse) that "sometimes, it just isn't worth chewing through the restraints", I DO believe an individual has the right to choose to end it early. I don't think I'd be brave enough, or coward enough, to do that. But I also believe I don't have the right to tell anyone else how to live, or not live.
It's a really, really difficult subject.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 11:21pm.
Your story kind of illustrates my point. Decisions should be made by family with the advice of a doctor who doesn't have to be concerned about the financial repercussions, either from Medicare or a lawyer.
Not really the same but when my sister's dog was having seizures her vet wanted them to take the dog to the University of Penn vet clinic for a $2500 MRI. They were looking for a brain tumor. My sister refused. She wasn't going to put the dog through brain surgery or chemo So why ware the money and put the dog through it ?
This country often lacks common sense.
I know, Rad...it's maddening
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 11:35pm.
But at least we're all having a somewhat rational discussion, for a change.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
totally agree B
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 11:39pm.
Discussions are so much better than accusations.
So far so good considering the sensitive nature of the topic.
God evening Rad and Blonde
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 1:03am.
You're right, the decision should be made by the individual and their family. Once we open the door for the government to approve and make the decision for us we're lost. Government is already shortening some lives by denying the availability of some drugs. Our lives will depend on people like Jocelyn Elders.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Unfortunately, that is what we do: CYA medicine.
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 9:10pm.
Instead of practicing with the intent of being aggressive on preventative care, we end up practicing defensively because of the extent that litigation has dictated medical practice. Thirty years ago, I would not routinely order a CAT scan or MRI or PET scan for a routine case of migraine. Now if I do not order one, the patient is already out shopping for the lawyer with the best advertising pitch on the local commercial feed for some talk show or another. Or alternatively, they are waiting until some advertisement appears saying that use of this medication 20 years ago caused a heart attack, even though the patient weighs 290 lbs and has a lipid profile that reads like a lab sample of Crisco.
Don't I know it....
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 11:05pm.
I think we need to severely limit litigation. Say, maximum fee of $100,000 to the attorney, regardless of time put in, etc. It's like the lawyers hold up our (as a nation) health care dollars as a big fat freakin' lotto pot. I'm convinced with the proper tort reform, we could reduce medical costs by at least 30%, maybe by half.
I feel your pain, Sam. That's no way to practice a profession that you've honed over a lifetime. It's insulting, if you think about it.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde and DocSam
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 11:14pm.
I also think that part of the problem is the jury. Sometimes they feel bad for a patient who had a bad outcome, even if the proper procedures were performed. Medicine is still very much an art.
There also need ls to be consequences for merit less lawsuits. That way insurance companies wouldn't find it cheaper to just settle cases they can win, but will be expensive to litigate.
If I only ran the world...
Blonde...tort reform
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 11:58pm.
Even though your proposed legal fee limitations are shockingly anti-free market, and your estimated medical cost reductions appear a bit over-optimistic, it may surprise you to learn--assuming you have missed my previous comments on the subject--that I also am in favor of tort reform. Indeed, in many areas of the nation it is more than a theory or mere recommendation but rather a codified reality.
I also agree the literal avalanche of huckstering ads is an abomination and an embarrassment to the legal profession. These crass solicitations have nearly reached the point where the message is essentially "if you or any family member have undergone a medical procedure or treatment, whether or not hospitalization was required, which left you or a loved one less than completely satisfied, or you have been the recipient of or had inserted within your body any medical device, prosthesis or object which has caused you discomfort, or you have been prescribed and ingested any drug which produced less than salutary results, please call the 800 number listed below for a free consultation. You may be entitled to substantial compensation."
When I first began practicing law, that carnival barker garbage was precluded by the Code of Professional Conduct. No longer.
Jer
Isn't it insulting to both of our professions, Jer?
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 12:09am.
To see our professions, which once had very strict rules against the kind of advertising that is used to sell Thigh-Masters and the latest "it slices...it dices...it cooks for you!" kitchen miracle products, reduced to their present state? I never thought I would live to see the day when surgeons where advertising that their rates on procedures were cheaper than "the competition". Good Lord...it is so humiliating and degrading. I believe in freedom of speech, but when ethics are compromised and the professions are reduced to hucksterism like used car salesmen, I really wonder...I really do...
And you are right, Blonde...it IS insulting...
Yes it is, drsam...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 12:47am.
And I've also noticed on the internet a proliferation of ads which are disguised to appear as scholarly medical treatises or official looking and sounding independent studies but in fact are product and/or personal solicitations.
There are reasonable arguments against implementing bans or even imposing serious limitations. Not only would it raise constitutional issues, but, just as a matter of practicality, efforts at stuffing this genie back in the bottle would likely prove fruitless.
Still, I really wish the legal advertising I referenced in my previous post was subjected to some sensible and moderately restrictive guidelines. But, in the end, I guess the best advice for the consumer, the patient, the client...remains "buyer beware" and "due diligence".
Jer
Jer and drsam*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 1:17am.
You guys are not just whistling dixie. Here is something you might want to more closely examine when you have more time.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/12/medical-journals-retracting-mor...
PS...both of you check your pms
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 9:07am.
Any thoughts on specifics or tort reform? It's a dangerous area because as much as we need it, we need to preserve the ability of people to redress a wrong through the court system. I have a few ideas, but they all have problems.
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 3:03pm.
Yes, the field of law is shockingly anti-free market. Attorneys not only make the rules all citizens must abide by but also enforce those same rules on all citizens. Attorneys will threaten citizens and create financial and emotional ruin in a self-designed protected adversarial relationship. Physicians... threatening, adversarial?
The legal fee structure is anti-free market and monopolistic in structure and operation. What third party dictates, let alone moderates, contractual attorney fees? The government? An insurance business? No. None. It's a self-contained system devised, implemented and enforced by the legal system on the citizens who are then at the mercy of.
I can see why you would be insulted by Blonde's comment on the usury of attorneys' fees. It's your rice bowl.
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 8:57pm.
Life wasn't meant to be easy, not at the beginning, the middle, or the end. As far as pain, I often question if medicine is doing all it can. The governments regulation of pain killers at the end of life can be ridiculous (at least the way some doctors interpret it, which is based on them wanting to keep their licenses).
This whole assisted suicide issue is a slippery slope I don't want to see us on. That slope has proven to be extremely slippery in the case of abortion, where now we are hearing proposals that newborn be "post birth aborted".
Unfortunately, these are political issues as it's the politicians who now have the authority to designate our medical care, God help us all.
My Daughter passed away.......
Submitted by dyardley on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 11:38am.
at the age of 36 after suffering greatly. She'd been diagnosed with Juvenile Diabetes at 15. After a multiple transplant (kidney-pancreas) at Stanford (worked for about a year) she progressively got worse. She suffered most of the conditions which accompany diabetes, blindness, broken bones, heart problems, gastro-pareses, in addition to TTP. Towards the end of her life, which we all knew was coming, her Nephrologist didn't want to give her the pain med needed to keep her comfortable because.....SHE MIGHT BECOME ADDICTED......Now, I'm not a violent woman, but let me tell you I've never wanted to strike anyone as much as I did him.
I won the battle without blows, but at that point I realized his concern was for his license, not my daughter's well-being. God Bless her, she died here at home with her Dad and I caring for her, and was as comfortable as we could possibly make her.
Pain relief has to be provided at the end.
Good morning dyardley
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 11:46am.
Total agreement here. God bless you, you blessed your daughter.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
dyardly
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 11:51am.
I think if we could better manage pain assisted suicide would lose a lot of traction. I think the other fear of overdosing a terminal patient is questionable. If a terminal patient is accidently overdosed I think allowances should be made. Comfort and a peaceful passing should be the goal.
Thank you for your post Jer
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 9:05pm.
And thanks for sharing. This is not a black and white situation no matter what side you take.
Where's the debate?
Submitted by Tim Graham on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 9:22pm.
I personally believe that life should end with natural death, not a cyanide pill. But my point here is NPR and other media outlets here lionized (found great poignancy in) a right-to-suicide advocate living down to his principles, and clearly felt it would be crass and unmerciful to allow anyone to disagree. They're happy to construct what they think is pitch-perfect publicity for the secular Left.
The thing is Tim
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 9:34pm.
Many people compare euthanasia to abortion. To me it is totally different.
The baby growing in the womb has no choice. However euthanasia is a personal decision.
Like Jer, said the final years can be very painful and miserable not to mention expensive. The decision to take ones life is betwen the individual and God.
Edit
To be clear I agree with you about the bias of NPR
What you do, is one thing.
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 9:45pm.
But for me, life, all life is so hard to come by. Why not make the most of it.
First creep who suggest I have been here long enough, is going to be in a bind.
then Boudin
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 9:48pm.
That is YOUR business and I respect your opinion.
So,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 10:05pm.
Do you think libs will off themselves to make an ideological point?
Because I have an idea!
Any chance we can start
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 10:21pm.
Any chance we can start convincing Occupiers to go along with that?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
I bet Obama
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 10:29pm.
could
Too late Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 11:18pm.
Obama has already decided. It's now called..."death panels"
This is just another subject to be "redefined" by the media to make an unacceptable policy more tolerable.
Abortion is "reproductive rights". Attacks against the Catholic Church is about "contraceptives" . Abortion and death panels are "choices" instead of eugenics. Post partal abortion or "murder of an infant" is now also being redefined not as murder but as a matter of "ethics".
Good evening Caj
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 11:54pm.
Once we start down the suicide road we will end up like Scandinavia where they now have involuntary suicide. The decision for suicide can be made by the government, your doctor or a money hungry heir. There are even vans that make house calls to hasten your trip.
I don't want Obama or Muddy Waters deciding when I go to meet my maker.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good evening cocodrie*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 12:24am.
Since I am fortunate to be a breast cancer survivor, I am aware enough to know that there will come a day when I am faced with this same scenario as your wife. However, I am of the belief, no matter my pain nor suffering , it is not I who decides when it is my time. It is not an emotionally detatched thing to watch obviously. I too watched my mother waste away. She told me she was ready to go, tired from the struggle but she was waiting for her "escort" to guide her to the light. She could not speak but she smiled at me and my sister just before she took her last breathe. I'm guessing she was right
God bless you Caj
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 12:29am.
Jesus loves you.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
"involuntary suicide"?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 9:06am.
More newspeak. This is exactly my problem with assisted suicide.
Agreed. I view euthanasia as
Submitted by ThatDude on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 11:55pm.
Agreed. I view euthanasia as a matter of personal choice. While legislating it can easily be a slippery slope, if the government can force you to live when you are no longer willing to continue, then you aren't free. Not pro-death, but pro-choice (curse the abortionists for hijacking that term.)
B.S. Dude
Submitted by Marcus Porcius on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 1:23am.
The government can't force you to live. Just because the doctor doesn't HELP you die, it doesn't mean anyone is FORCING you to live.
You can kill yourself in any number of quick and painless ways without help from anyone, much less a doctor.
The only thing the government can do is force you to DIE, which is where the agenda lies with this assisted suicide cult. First it's your choice, then it's a suggestion, then it's "you're not cost-effective enough to treat, but we'll happily supply you with this pill here."
That's how it's done, and right from Obama's mouth. "Maybe she just needs a pain pill." They won't MAKE you die, but you'll be suffering because you can't get treatment and conveniently they'll be right there with your "fast-acting barbiturate."
It's always incremental with Statists, and this is the first step along with abortion. Devalue life, so you won't mind dying when they decide for you that it's time.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." G.K. Chesterton
www.theconservativereview.com
Good evening Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 12:04am.
Mfy wife died of breast cancer. Her death was not pretty, short nor painless by any means. This decision should not be made on emotion but on morality. Your post indicates to me you are basing your opinion on emotion.
Once the government starts weeding the undesirables from the elites the undertaking business will boom.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Then you have misconstrued my remarks, cocodrie...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 1:24am.
I advocate a rational debate of the issue free of emotion and ideology. I understand there are sound arguments--including the customary 'slippery slope' concerns--on both sides of the question, and, at this point, I haven't even formulated a "final comprehensive opinion". But I do think it is a topic which deserves serious dialogue, and not one inflamed with talk of--sorry cajun-- Obama's death panels.
Jer
I may have Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 1:54am.
The decision needs to be made by the individual because it is between that person and God.
The death panels are here and life and death will be in the hands of a government bureaucrat based on the worth of the patient in the eyes of that bureaucrat. It will be an easy way to cut health care costs.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 9:01am.
I'm sorry, but no matter what you call it, death panels, rationing, etc, it's already started. Medicare patients are being STRONGLY DISCOURAGED to stop treatment for ills that are not always terminal, such as pneumonia, because a perception their quality of life is not up to snuff. They are denied antibiotics unless a strong family member carries on enough to have them restarted.
It's a good discussion, but we have to be aware of what is happening and how it could get worse, in order to protect those who choose life.
Good morning Rad
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 9:23am.
Life is not a right as defined in our outdated constitution. It is a privilege to be granted or denied at the whim of our government bureaucrats.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Sounds like a seminar poster
Submitted by Marcus Porcius on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 1:16am.
Liberal seminar posters/callers always seem to know people who are "to the right of Rush Limbaugh" or "a conservative Republican" who agree with liberal positions, as if this somehow proves the liberal position right.
Ironically, you say not to politicize it but you do it yourself by trying to prove your view by using people you claim are conservatives but just happen to believe in your view.
The whole "I'm a right-wing Christian conservative" followed by "but even I believe" followed by "(insert liberal position here)" really gets old.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." G.K. Chesterton
www.theconservativereview.com
In that case Porcius, perhaps you should slide over to
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 2:39am.
Noel's blog which highlights the criticism of Obama by even the noted black liberal pundit Tavis Smiley, and after registering your indignation at Mr. Sheppard's employment of the tedious practice you have described, you can then scoot along to Paul Wilson's critique of the Washington Post's 'On Faith' blog in which he points out that "even liberal critics have harshly criticized [the liberal] Quinn" after which Wilson cites evidence of same. I assume you will also advise him how "really old" this tactic has become.
It would be much better, however, if you remained at this thread and reexamined my initial post, rethought my probable motivation and objective, and then reconsidered your absurd reaction.
Here...I'll help:
Tim Graham's article was generally free of ideological framing, but the first two comments posted on this thread clearly were not. Each immediately and firmly placed the legalized suicide issue into a political, anti-liberal context. I have a different perspective however...one that is not based on ideological predilections. TO ILLUSTRATE THAT POINT, I addressed two episodes with which I had been intimately familiar, both of which involved conservative Republicans. That revelation was important to bolster my argument that there are those on opposite sides of the political spectrum who nevertheless share a common position with respect to this particular issue. As such, political leanings are not necessarily relevant to how and where one comes down on the question. Consequently, it would be, in my opinion, far more productive to debate the matter without injecting partisan rhetoric into the mix.
Now, your opinion may differ dramatically from mine. You may be able to make a very convincing case your opinion is the more credible one. But there was nothing inappropriate by my using the supplied examples to support my view that this is an issue which isn't clearly defined--and thus shouldn't be argued--along ideological lines.
Jer
As a 60 year old
Submitted by Bob K on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 12:25am.
paraplegic I long ago made a number of plans to check myself off this E-Ticket Ride when I wish to do so. I have more than one method and the means to carry out any of them I wish to. I really don't care what anyone else thinks of suicide. It is none of their business.
Well, it's your choice
Submitted by chiefpayne on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 9:58am.
but were I a relative, I would be angry about how selfish you were checking out of the net with no care what those left behind had to say or think about it.
"Selfish"
Submitted by Bob K on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 2:35pm.
Oh please. If you are selfish enough to demand family members wipe your ass for you every day, hey, that's you. Here's a secret. No matter what you think, they will dislike for having to do it. In the end, it is a personal choice.
~Wow
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 2:47pm.
Did you dislike your kids because you had to wipe their bums?
Good evening Bob K
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 2:58pm.
You say it's a personal choice but come down on those that have a different choice than yours.
No need to worry though, When the government gets involved we will be relieved of having to make that choice. Major Owens and Muddy Waters will decide who goes.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Oh yeah
Submitted by Bob K on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 2:37pm.
I forgot. If one commits suicide, no big insurance check for the family vultures to fight over. Admit it, that's it. isn't it? LoL
~I don't think you're coming off as bitter enough
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 2:47pm.
Try harder.
Well, it's your choice
Submitted by chiefpayne on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 9:57am.
but were I a relative, I would be angry about how selfish you were checking out of the net with no care what those left behind had to say or think about it.
Wait, I thought suicide was
Submitted by Darks Shadow Show on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 1:28am.
Wait, I thought suicide was bad. Now it's good? I guess it's only bad when gay teens are bullied, right?
Or I guess
Submitted by chiefpayne on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 9:56am.
when a soldier does it. After all, the military is putting a LOT of money into suicide prevention.
Maybe they should just save their money and say it was just "Death With Dignity".
Alas, the freak posters come out late at night
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 1:35am.
Let's just all ignore the flamesters, and carry on with a fairly serious, and well reasoned, discussion tomorrow.
Night all. (I just watched an animal movie, Haichi: A Dog's Tale...true story). Recommend. Particularly in light of this conversation.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 8:55am.
I picked that up the other week. I'm waiting to watch it with my daughter. Looks like a movie we would both enjoy without me feeling weird because of sex scenes.
Rad
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 12:35pm.
Be sure to have plenty of tissues. Richard Gere isn't my favorite, but the dog (who was actually a Shiba Inu and not an Akita as the real Hachi was) is so bloody cute that he made up for Gere. Actually a true story, look it up on Wiki (which I find okay for stuff like TV & movie write ups).
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
AH would that
Submitted by chiefpayne on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 9:54am.
MORE liberals would follow their own beliefs!
There would be FAR less liberals in the world!!!
~Great thread
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 12:27pm.
A couple of thoughts, one in response to shawn, and the other my general thoughts on this topic.
1. shawn, on your "it's between you and God" copout, first of all, it simply doesn't make sense because everything you do is between you and God, but that doesn't mean that no one else has any valid input, or that they don't have the right to a say in the matter. No man is an island. Secondly, you're excusing sin with an attitude of false piety, which is simply ridiculous.
2. There's no such thing as death with dignity, just as there's no such thing as birth with dignity. Life is a bloody mess no matter which way you cut it, and you can drain it to the last drop or cut yourself off because you can't take it, but what people need when they're suffering isn't death, it's life. What we crave when we're depressed or suffering isn't death, it's life. Death is sorrow and suffering personified; it is the ultimate insult to everything we hold dear, and what we need, what we want, what we hunger and thirst for is life and all it promises. "Where there is life, there is hope"
Love of...
Submitted by aposematic on Fri, 03/16/2012 - 4:32pm.
What is this over the top love the Leftists have with killing people? Criminals excluded, of course...