Lets say my wife and I are out hiking in a remote wilderness area. She falls and breaks her neck. There is no way to get any medical help. she knows she will be a quadrapalegic dependent on others her whole life. She tells me she wants to die. If I kill her am i a murderer? if she said she didnt want to live like that is that murder? what if I just walked away and let her starve to death? how far can this whole "she told me once she wanted to die" thing go?

Well, let's see. Since I assume that she is not a doctor, if I were you I would not automatically jump to the conclusion that she will be paralyzed for life. I don't believe that you would be so reckless but I don't know for sure.
After stabilizing her condition, I would find help as soon as possible. Chances are if medical help can't reach you then no one else would be able to either and you both would starve to death. That seems very wasteful to me. Starving would take quite some time and it just makes sense that if you could make it that far into the woods, someone else could to. Maybe by helicopter. Be sure to mark the spot so it could be seen from the air.
Once you were out of immediate danger and her prognosis was still bad, i.e. never walk again, she could communicate her deepest desire to end her existance onto tape or CD. This might give you a legal leg to stand on if things go sour. I would try to reason with her if I thought that she had something left to contribute to this world but, ultimately, it would be up to her. Since she cat move, however, it would be up to you to decide on how, or if, you were going to honor you loved one's wishes. You might want to enlist some help here but make sure that you can really trust that person lest he or she ran to the authorities or some local church group in order to foil your plans and the desires of your spouse.

Then, the next time you are foolish enough to go that far into the wilderness without informing anyone where you are, take a fully charged cell phone and some matches with you so you could call and signal for help and not find yourself in this one in a million hypothetical situation again.

you did not answer the question, nice dance though.

oh, and the one in a million situation, is that like a healthy 26 year old woman suffering a heart attack that cripples ehr for life and has no will or documents of any kind stating her wishs?

I'd say without a doctor present, you and Mrs Trav cannot make that kind of decision and expect the 'authorities' to let it go. Most likely you'll be arrested for murder.

Trav: You want answers?
Lionel: I think I'm entitled.
Trav: You want answers?!
Lionel: I want the truth!
Trav: You can't handle the truth!

OK, so we haveone guy saying i would be a murderer, and one guy doing the happy dance around the question. anyone else?

Ok I'll play...dumb hypothetical.

It would only be murder if you were charged with that crime. If you're asking if I think it would be murder...yes I do.

I would suggest that you get the legal opinion before you decide to do your wife in, like Michael Schiavo did.

Ah, but unless lawyers wander the woods like... err... chipmunks, there is no legal opinion to be had. Trav goes to jail. If the wife agrees, would it be suicide instead of murder?

so even if she asked me to do it because she didnt want to live on like that it would be murder?

Originally posted by box19
Ah, but unless lawyers wander the woods like... err... chipmunks, there is no legal opinion to be had. Trav goes to jail. If the wife agrees, would it be suicide instead of murder?

thats a good point box19. I guess it could be said that Terri shiavo commited suicide. when Dr Kevorkian was doing it it was called "assisted suicide". But instead of ust handing them a gun he set up elaborate chemical drip machines of some sort. I think if Micheal Shiavo wanted her dead so bad they should ahvelocked him in a room with her and a gun and made him do it quick and painless. Or he could have used a pillow I guess.

Originally posted by Travh20

oh, and the one in a million situation, is that like a healthy 26 year old woman suffering a heart attack that cripples ehr for life and has no will or documents of any kind stating her wishs?

trav, terry shiavo was bulimic, she went into a coma because she was in incredibly poor health from lack of nutrition. i would guess that if you actually cared about her, then you might know something as simple as the cause of her illness.

Technically, it would be murder since you can't diagnose her condition in the middle of no where.

However, if you KNOW she's at most going to be a quadrapelegic and you know she's serious about dying, I think you have a moral (NOT legal) obligation to do as she asks. I would expect no less of my spouse.

Yes - it would be murder.

This is not a valid comparision to Shaivo - she was brain dead - couldn't speak - a lot different than a quadraplegic. She was in a vegatative state.

You would need to let the courts decide, but if she had any brain function she would be kept alive regardless of what you said.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
trav, terry shiavo was bulimic, she went into a coma because she was in incredibly poor health from lack of nutrition. i would guess that if you actually cared about her, then you might know something as simple as the cause of her illness.

Not to mention that by suffering a heart attack this means, by definition, that she wasn't "healthy".

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Not to mention that by suffering a heart attack this means, by definition, that she wasn't "healthy".

When I had mono I was on a medication that also eats away at the pottassuim levels in the body. So I had to take extra suppliments. Terri's heart attack was brought on because of a misdiagnosed chemical imbalance--ie: pottassium dificiency(sp?). Hence the reason they were awarded 1.2 million dollars in malpractice suit.

Of course it's murder unless you have proof, like Tapeworm said...

she could communicate her deepest desire to end her existance onto tape or CD.

Lets say my wife and I are out hiking in a remote wilderness area. She falls and breaks her neck. There is no way to get any medical help. she knows she will be a quadrapalegic dependent on others her whole life. She tells me she wants to die. If I kill her am i a murderer? if she said she didnt want to live like that is that murder? what if I just walked away and let her starve to death? how far can this whole "she told me once she wanted to die" thing go?

I know you directed this question to the "pro deathers" but I'll answer it too, hope you don't mind. If you had medical opinions confirming her condition and a court agreed with you that she did tell you to kill her, then no you are no a murderer.

I have a question for you. Lets take your situation but add to it the fact that your wife had a living will stating that if she were to break her neck and become a quadrapalegic that she would want to die. Do you consider anyone that helps her die to be a murderer? If not, then why? What is it about the Shreivo situation that you think makes it murder...is it that you didn't know for sure what her wishes were, or is it that someone else removed her feeding tube to cause her death?

Originally posted by Travh20
so even if she asked me to do it because she didnt want to live on like that it would be murder?

Probably manslaughter rather than murder, but yeah, under the laws as they exist, you'd be in trouble. Of course there's always a chance that the prosecutor wouldn't bother charging you with a crime, depending on whether or not he believes you.

Youd be morally innocent but a murderer in the eyes of the law.

But thats OK we all already know in reality you are a murderer and pro-war hypocrite.
:D

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Probably manslaughter rather than murder, but yeah, under the laws as they exist, you'd be in trouble. Of course there's always a chance that the prosecutor wouldn't bother charging you with a crime, depending on whether or not he believes you.

There will be no proof if you killed her out of sympathy or anger. Since she is no longer around people may believe you murdered her. I agree with “L” it really depends on if anyone believes you. Just because she broke her neck doesn’t mean that she will be paralyzed. It depends on if the spinal cord was pinched. And there have been cases where once the neck was reset, the capability of motion below the break came back.

You really need to define "pro deather". Those people who were marching outside of Terri's hospice are pro deathers...they wanted to keep her body alive while her mind was dead...

That's a pro deather. NO?

As for murder or not... yeah... it's murder.

During a discussion today someone noted a friend of theirs with terminal cancer took things into her own hands near the end.

I like this option. She asked to go home from the hospital and made the decision to stop eating and drinking. Within three days she lapsed into a coma... and shortly thereafter died.

I find that rather empowering actually. One does not apparantly starve to death in this situation...one merely dehydrates. If someone truly wants to die...it is this easy.

I like it.

In Holland theres the option of euthanasia, which a lot of people with terminal cancer choose. it allows them to decide when the pain is too much, and not suffer needlessly. people wjo know they have this option have been shown to live longer because they spend their energy fighting the cancer, instead of worrying about the pain. before they go through with this they consult with a family physician who has known them for many years and who helps them make their decision. this is the kind of support system terminally ill people deserve.

Before you cite The Netherland's euthanasia policy, I suggest you read more about it. There seems to be some problems with doctor's determining (for the patient) when to administer a lethal dose of sedatives.

Holland is also considering euthanizing premature babies (ones that need life support, and babies with chronic terminal diseases) . Euthanasia can be a slippery slope, and should be studied at length before legislative implementation.

I'm against Euthanasia - it's just too open to abuse and there is no system possible that could make it foolproof. When you are talking about life, any such system needs to be foolproof.

Originally posted by OldPhart
Holland is also considering euthanizing premature babies (ones that need life support, and babies with chronic terminal diseases) . Euthanasia can be a slippery slope, and should be studied at length before legislative implementation.

Babies overcome alot of odds. That is just wrong. I know a girl who's baby was premature and she is surpassing all assumptions. God, that is murder! The baby can't decide if it wants to live or not.

Originally posted by Travh20
Lets say my wife and I are out hiking in a remote wilderness area. There is no way to get any medical help. she knows she will be a quadrapalegic dependent on others her whole life. She tells me she wants to die. If I kill her am i a murderer?


Not in my estimation.

You'd be perfectly justified in easing her suffering.

Originally posted by OldPhart
Holland is also considering euthanizing premature babies (ones that need life support, and babies with chronic terminal diseases)

Good for Holland.

Holland also marks off sections of public parks where people can go and shoot up heroin.

Don't walk on the grass in your bear feet - you'll get a hypodermic stuck in your foot.

Holland has a lot of very liberal views - they have a policy of minimum societal impact on many issues. In many ways their approach works, but it's just a bit too far for my liking.

Great place though to smoke pot in certain bars. What a selection!

And what a great airport Schipol is for duty free - the shops go on for miles !

Trav, you realize no one is going hiking with you again.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Good for Holland.

Great for Holland!!:mad:
I have already talked about this. I've lived in Holland for 6 years and I know what I'm talking about.
They save millions of euros not giving a proper pre-natal treatment and afterwards they are "surprised" they have babys with serious illnesses which cost a lot of money to their health system. That's crap, utterly crap.

About euthanasia for old people, my office mate had his aunt (his mother died during the war and he was raised by his aunt so she was in fact like his mother) in a hospital dying of old age. He and his daughters stayed all the time (in turns) with her because they were afraid doctors or nurses would give her a high dosis of pain killers in order to clear her bed as soon as possible, as she was old with no chance of recovery, she died but naturally and with her family around. I heard the same fear from some of my old age neighbours....that the State would make the decision for them of when and how to go. When you instutionalise the euthanasia, you can have the State doing those kind of things, they don't care about the person but about the money.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Trav, you realize no one is going hiking with you again.

Forget that - someone needs to warn his wife.

I spent some time in amsterdam, if you ever go make sure you go the the Dampkring "coffee shop", you wont be dissapointed

Trav, aren't you a pro-deather? You are pro-death penalty, right? Yes, they killed someone, but shouldn't you always be on the side of life? If you are pro-life then how can you be pro-death penalty? Seems like a direct oxymoron.

Ooo, a direct oxymoron. Much more serious than an indirect oxymoron.

And now we have the obligatory post that points out, once again, the irony that pro-"choice" are sometimes against the death penalty while pro-life are sometimes for the death penalty. Definitely an oxymoron. Hell, it's a direct oxymoron, by god!!

But I never will understand the group that has sympathy for the prisoner who has committed a capital crime but has no sympathy for infants. That political ideology is a lot more difficult for me to understand than the person who believe that a murderer should be killed while a fetus or a vegetable should be given the right to life.

And now we have the obligatory post that points out, once again, the irony that pro-"choice" are sometimes against the death penalty while pro-life are sometimes for the death penalty. Definitely an oxymoron.
A fetus, depending on what trimester it is in, is not as living as a human being. A fetus, no matter how you look at it, is not classifed as a human.

Also, if you kill killers, that is also an oxymoron. It is comitting the same act that we are punishing them for.

But I never will understand the group that has sympathy for the prisoner who has committed a capital crime but has no sympathy for infants.
Maybe because all human life is created equal...no matter what the person did, it's still a human life. You pro-lifers seem to decide what life is okay to save, and what life is okay to kill.

I think many people who describe themselves as pro-life are, more accurately, just "anti-abortion" (myself included).

There's pro-life and there's Pro-Life.

I think many people who describe themselves as pro-life are, more accurately, just "anti-abortion" (myself included).
Well, so you would be for out-lawing abortion? What would that do? Wouldn't it just lead to more death, since women would be getting illegal abortions? Abortion has been going on since the start of humanity. It would increase the death, for not only the fetus would die, but also the mother as well.

Karan, just as interesting is that many people who are pro-"choice" also are strong animal rights advocates.

Originally posted by Overdose
[B]I Wouldn't it just lead to more death, since women would be getting illegal abortions?

Since you seem to be looking at this strictly as a bean-counter, it would lead to fewer deaths.

Since you seem to be looking at this strictly as a bean-counter, it would lead to fewer deaths.
How so? If every women who wanted to get an abortion, couldn't, I'm sure she would use other means. And the "other means" would not be safe. She would shove a coat hanger up her vagaina or use other ways to get rid of the fetus. That could very well lead to her death, and the death of the "fetus" Taking two lives in the eyes of the republicans.

And again, in the first two trimesters the fetus is not as developed as a human would be. In the last trimester, it is. And third trimester abortions are outlawed.

You have to take into account that, what life would the potential human have? Most abortions are performed on teens, who couldn't raise a child successfully or correctly. Many cases are because of rape and incest. Is it fair for them to have to have the child? Yes, they made a mistake by having sex. But many people and women are not educated on means to protect themselves.

The thing is, outlawing abortion will just cause more death and chaos. I don't see how it would be a positive thing for our society.

Originally posted by Overdose

Well, so you would be for out-lawing abortion?

I will keep it one per head (not counting the ones performed because of real physical health risk).
And afterwards to pass via anticonception education program. If after all that they are so dump to get pregnant again, they should have the baby and either keep it or give the baby for adoption.

And afterwards to pass via anticonception education program. If after all that they are so dump to get pregnant again, they should have the baby and either keep it or give the baby for adoption.
Even if you pass anti-conception education, not everyone will stop getting pregnant. I doubt your plan will work, and how would we fund it? Also, how can we require everyone to take this "class" or whatever it may be? And I doubt it would stop teens from having sex...

Originally posted by Overdose

Even if you pass anti-conception education, not everyone will stop getting pregnant. I doubt your plan will work, and how would we fund it? Also, how can we require everyone to take this "class" or whatever it may be? And I doubt it would stop teens from having sex...

The doctors would find out. An abortion is the medical record and they should refer these women (and if possible their boyfriends) to a sex education class.
One mistake I could understand, two is dumb, stupid..well I have no words to describe it, specially when the mistake ends in abortion:rolleyes: ...I had sex when I was a teenager, I knew about condoms and anticonceptive pills so...I didn't knock up any of my girlfriends.
I agree teenagers are going to have sex, but if they do make mistakes after sex education it means they are not responsible enough to have sex.

In my own "warped" opinion;

Abortion is not an morally acceptable method of birth control.

My favorite stupid slogan from the pro abortionists is "It's my body - I should be able to do as I please". If it's your body, then I think you should be wise enough to practice safe sex. By that same arguement - If it's your body, shouldn't you be able to play hopscotch on the interstate during rush hour?

I know that the US is filled with young people that have NEVER heard of any form of birth control.......LOL.

I have no problem with abortion due to rape, incest, or medical issues that wouldn't allow a person to carry a child to term. I just think that using abortion as retro-active birth contol is assine.

The arguement of "if abortions are illegal - then people will use coathangers in back alleys" is another one of my faves. I'm not saying that it wouldn't happen, it's just that the logic train leaves the tracks on this one. Consider "If drugs were legalized, then people wouldn't have to buy/make home made drugs - there would be less accidental deaths due to overdoses and poisonings" or "If drinking and driving were legal - then we could have drunk lanes on all the roads, so there would be less traffic fatalities.....".

A child is the purest, greatest gift one can be given. I know it's hard to see this until you have your own, but when you do you will know what I'm saying.