If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Canoe)   Not News: BBC gets flak for showing something controversial. Fark: Assisted suicide of a stick figure   (cnews.canoe.ca) divider line 37
    More: Stupid, assisted suicide, Terry Pratchett, lethal doses, Lou Gehrig's disease, euthanasias, impartiality, public broadcaster  
•       •       •

2575 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jun 2011 at 10:12 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-06-14 10:14:25 AM
Good thing it wasn't a stick figure of Mohammed.
 
2011-06-14 10:15:36 AM
They get a publicity agent specifically to show something controversial? Seems like putting the cart before the horse.
 
2011-06-14 10:16:15 AM
Whut?

img42.imageshack.us
 
2011-06-14 10:18:03 AM
DNRTFA, did Paris Hilton kill herself?
 
2011-06-14 10:18:37 AM
FLugzeug Abwehr Kannone.

It's flak subby.
 
2011-06-14 10:19:03 AM
i291.photobucket.com
 
2011-06-14 10:21:40 AM
I'm more upset at Alzheimer's. Plenty of people in this world that don't use their heads at all, and it has to manifest in a great mind like Terry Pratchett.
 
2011-06-14 10:21:51 AM
I believe the article said 'sick man', not 'stick man', Subby.

Or was that some kind of headology?
 
2011-06-14 10:24:06 AM
Why would anyone insist that someone in any level of discomfort should be forced, against their will, to remain living? It doesn't even matter if it's terminal or not. If someone wants to kill themselves of course they should be told to not be silly, if it's not terminal, but if they are insistent then help them die, it's their choice. It's either that or I'm late because someone jumped in front of a train, or off a bridge causing traffic, because they will kill themselves somehow.
 
2011-06-14 10:25:41 AM
i594.photobucket.com
 
2011-06-14 10:28:01 AM
oh my, look at the time.
 
2011-06-14 10:28:03 AM

Doktor_Zhivago: FLugzeug Aabwehr Kkannone.

It's flak subby.


It's Flugabwehrkanone, doctor.
 
2011-06-14 10:32:40 AM

danny_kay: Doktor_Zhivago: FLugzeug Aabwehr Kkannone.

It's flak subby.

It's Flugabwehrkanone, doctor.


It's been a few years since German class.
 
2011-06-14 10:38:42 AM
Nicole Richie?
 
2011-06-14 10:41:41 AM

Doktor_Zhivago: danny_kay: Doktor_Zhivago: FLugzeug Aabwehr Kkannone.

It's flak subby.

It's Flugabwehrkanone, doctor.

It's been a few years since German class.


Na denn... Weitermachen!
 
2011-06-14 10:41:42 AM

Slaxl: Why would anyone insist that someone in any level of discomfort should be forced, against their will, to remain living? It doesn't even matter if it's terminal or not. If someone wants to kill themselves of course they should be told to not be silly, if it's not terminal, but if they are insistent then help them die, it's their choice. It's either that or I'm late because someone jumped in front of a train, or off a bridge causing traffic, because they will kill themselves somehow.


THIS. I watched the Paxman-chaired debate immediately after this was aired and one of the anti-assisted suicide people was implying that it shouldn't be allowed because it would be hard work to protect the innocent. Yes, let's stop people making decisions about what they do to THEIR OWN frkkING BODIES AND LIVES because it might be hard to do it properly. They should just suck it up and rot slowly, but the pleasure that some people somewhere may have been "helped" will certainly alleviate the pain, horror and sadness at what's happened to them and the impact on their families.

Then there's the priest saying that, because the subject asked "Do I drink this now?" that he was scared and therefore coerced. Motherfarker, show me one person who wouldn't be scared when faced with death after being driven to the extreme of suicide by being even more scared of a long, slow, lingering death from such renowned "good time" diseases like MND and bone cancer!

frkk OFF. Individual's life, individual's body, individual's choice. If people don't want to do it then don't do it but they have zero right to legislate against people because they simply don't like it or think it's too hard to do it properly. It's not an imposition at all Mr. Saunders, it's providing a framework for people to choose. WTF do anti-euthanasia people think dying from Lou Gehrig's disease is like? Is there something about creeping muscle paralysis followed by death that is somehow fun or uplifting that I'm missing?

/Deep breath.
 
2011-06-14 10:44:39 AM
A right to life includes the right to not.
 
2011-06-14 10:45:49 AM

Slaxl: Why would anyone insist that someone in any level of discomfort should be forced, against their will, to remain living? It doesn't even matter if it's terminal or not. If someone wants to kill themselves of course they should be told to not be silly, if it's not terminal, but if they are insistent then help them die, it's their choice. It's either that or I'm late because someone jumped in front of a train, or off a bridge causing traffic, because they will kill themselves somehow.


I completely agree. I don't understand why everyone gets so butthurt over this topic. It's not your life. It's not your pain. Therefore stfu and gtfo kthxbai. I can see a little more gray area if it's over something treatable or depression, but even then if they can show that it is not just a temporary desire I have no problem with a doctor painlessly helping to reduce our surplus population.
 
2011-06-14 10:51:25 AM

raozmc: Slaxl: Why would anyone insist that someone in any level of discomfort should be forced, against their will, to remain living? It doesn't even matter if it's terminal or not. If someone wants to kill themselves of course they should be told to not be silly, if it's not terminal, but if they are insistent then help them die, it's their choice. It's either that or I'm late because someone jumped in front of a train, or off a bridge causing traffic, because they will kill themselves somehow.

I completely agree. I don't understand why everyone gets so butthurt over this topic. It's not your life. It's not your pain. Therefore stfu and gtfo kthxbai. I can see a little more gray area if it's over something treatable or depression, but even then if they can show that it is not just a temporary desire I have no problem with a doctor painlessly helping to reduce our surplus population.


As far as I see, this is a genuine slippery slope topic.

So, right now we're fighting for people's *right* to kill themselves to end their suffering.
Once this is accepted, one might imagine that terminal patients get told that there is an alternative to more painkillers *wink wink nudge nudge*.
Maybe some day, a terminal patient's environment might get impatient with them for clinging to life when there are "easier" alternatives.
 
2011-06-14 10:55:46 AM
Sarcastica75: oh my, look at the time.

For some reason, I read that in the Professors voice.
 
2011-06-14 10:57:02 AM

danny_kay: Once this is accepted, one might imagine that terminal patients get told that there is an alternative to more painkillers *wink wink nudge nudge*.
Maybe some day, a terminal patient's environment might get impatient with them for clinging to life when there are "easier" alternatives.


True, and I agree, but just because bad things *might* happen doesn't mean that something shouldn't be done. Nothing works perfectly, but it is not impossible to put in place a robust system to manage this issue and try to minimise as much as possible the opportunities for abuse of the system. In fact, having it open and regulated can only serve to make it harder to abuse the system.
 
2011-06-14 10:59:03 AM

danny_kay:
As far as I see, this is a genuine slippery slope topic.

So, right now we're fighting for people's *right* to kill themselves to end their suffering.
Once this is accepted, one might imagine that terminal patients get told that there is an alternative to more painkillers *wink wink nudge nudge*.
Maybe some day, a terminal patient's environment might get impatient with them for clinging to life when there are "easier" alternatives.


I would assume that 'painkillers' are more profitable than 'suicide pills.'
 
2011-06-14 11:00:24 AM
It's simple really...

It's about what everyone has had driven into their brains, with a 50lb sledgehammer, from day 1 out of the womb: Suicide is wrong, and as such, you are condemned to hell everlasting.

Get rid of that little stigma and people might change their minds. Until the masses haven't been brainwashed by this little tidbit, expect this type of conflaguration every time this comes up...

Now, where's my popcorn? This is bound to be good...
 
2011-06-14 11:05:02 AM

danny_kay: As far as I see, this is a genuine slippery slope topic.

So, right now we're fighting for people's *right* to kill themselves to end their suffering.
Once this is accepted, one might imagine that terminal patients get told that there is an alternative to more painkillers *wink wink nudge nudge*.
Maybe some day, a terminal patient's environment might get impatient with them for clinging to life when there are "easier" alternatives.


True, but everything has the potential for abuse. That's what malpractice suits are for. Although that opens the door for relatives to sue the doctor after to the fact. I just find it ridiculous that someone can deny me death. I know, if I was in this position I could grab a shotgun. Maybe doctors should just hand out a diagram of how to construct a helium respirator with phone numbers for where to obtain the parts.
 
2011-06-14 11:19:44 AM
In Oregon, where physician assisted suicide has been legal for years, there really hasn't been a huge problem with abuse of the system, as far as I can see.

Since the law was passed in 1997, 525 patients have died from ingesting medications prescribed under the Death with Dignity Act.^
 
2011-06-14 11:24:37 AM

Slaxl: Why would anyone insist that someone in any level of discomfort should be forced, against their will, to remain living? It doesn't even matter if it's terminal or not. If someone wants to kill themselves of course they should be told to not be silly, if it's not terminal, but if they are insistent then help them die, it's their choice. It's either that or I'm late because someone jumped in front of a train, or off a bridge causing traffic, because they will kill themselves somehow.


It's because (at least here in America), the organizations that make money of caring for your sick ass lose millions and millions of dollars. Imagine how much of that margin goes away when we let people decide their own terminal fate. That's socialism! (for the lulz)
 
2011-06-14 11:29:26 AM
Also, this happens in other states, just in a more covert way. My Aunt, in California in 1998, had stage 4 breast cancer (fourth recurrence), and had gone off the chemo/radiation because it was no longer doing anything except making her sick. One day she went to a new doctor, who prescribed two bottles of liquid morphine "for the pain". He was very clear in telling her not to take it all at once, because if she did, it would *wink, wink* kill her. She never even got to the second bottle. According to my (very religious) family on that side, it was all a horrible mistake and she didn't understand the doctor's instructions, but I'm pretty sure she knew what she was doing, and I think the doctor knew what she would do too. And I am completely okay with that. Still, I think it illustrates that the potential for abuse is greater when the laws are not clear. People will find a way to circumvent the system.
 
2011-06-14 11:31:31 AM
The argument that assisted death should not be allowed in case someone abuses the legislation is absurd - why would any society that considers itself civilized be prepared to force people to endure pain and suffering, and, for some, humiliation?

We have laws covering theft, and yet there still seem to be some people who steal. There are laws covering murder, but still it goes on - why are we treating this issue differently? if there is a law, someone, somewhere, at some time, will break it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

We should have a law that allows people a humane and dignified end when life has become a burden. We do it for our pets, why not our people?
 
2011-06-14 11:33:31 AM
www.notarealthing.com
 
2011-06-14 11:42:03 AM
R.I.P., Dr. K
 
2011-06-14 11:57:28 AM
farm6.static.flickr.com

The animation in question?
 
2011-06-14 12:04:12 PM
Okay, I'll bite.

The whole "death seems final" thing makes this a difficult issue for public debate, much like the whole death penalty flustercluck. The idea seems to be that we kill others (death penalty) or ourselves (suicide) to keep other stuff from happening that is worse than death.

Which means that we think that a) we know what death actually is like for the person dying and can compare the process to other things, like petting a puppy or felching a goat, and b) we think we know the future.

If you didn't need to die/kill, you can't fix it. If you were wrong about what the future might hold ("He'll never convert!" "This disease will kill you horribly!" "Archie likes Veronica more than me!"), or if you were simply wrong in assuming you can predict the goddam future in the first place, the mistake can't be undone. And for all we know, death leads us to a place full of unicorns and puppies and semen-free goat holes - in other words, a hideous place of eternal mind-numbing horror - and any earth-bound awfulness is a box of chocolate-covered genitals by comparison.

Another major concern seems to be that rational decision making is the first casualty of such a high stress situation; when something as fundamental as life/death is being decided, rational decision making is fairly important. How a society chooses to treat those seen as unable to make rational decisions determines a lot of public policy - rugrats, feebs, fogeys and the like are almost always given special consideration by civilized societies (not ours) and genuine religions (not yours). Most of these policies involve taking the decision-making power away from the feeble or confused and putting it in the hands of good, decent, reasonable people who think a dove farked a Palestinian girl so life would be more fun after death. Some have a problem with this policy.

People considering suicide are usually vulnerable to outside influence, and there are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAy too many assholes out there who will take advantage of these people, either for themselves ("I am a sociopath and I get off on abusing those weaker than me", "I want your money, grandma", "Sex is a dish best served cold") or for a cause they think transcends the value of the individual ("The world is better without you", "Your economic viability index has dropped below average and we need the meat"), and some of the opposition to assisted suicide stems from this very real concern for abuse.

There's morons, too, but who cares? Kill 'em all, I say.
 
2011-06-14 12:11:18 PM

nrdgrl: The animation in question?


I'm so glad that all of my co-workers have left so they didn't see me wet myself at that. Absolutely hilarious!
 
2011-06-14 12:58:06 PM
i got a neat idea.. how about people look after their own business, and leave others to do the same.
 
2011-06-14 01:08:37 PM
I plan to let everyone know I don't want to suffer through life. This "Care" stuff is BS. My grandpa was alive for a week or more unable to speak or move beyond his bed, and they had him on paliative care, aka slowly waiting for him to die of dehydration. Once the whole family had said goodbye I'm sure he would have wanted a fatal dose of morphine. Or knowing him, EtOH.

/Sorry for the lie in the headline, wasn't trolling just didn't read all that well.
 
2011-06-14 02:06:08 PM
www.thai-blogs.com

Youth in Asia?
 
2011-06-15 01:15:28 AM
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report