Argument rages across Europe in wake of French mercy killing

(as usual from The Guardian)


One month ago last night, Marie Humbert sat at her son Vincent's bedside in a clinic by the sea in northern France. It was three years to the day since the car crash in which he lost the use of his four limbs, his sight, speech and senses of smell and taste.

Vincent Humbert, 21, a former fireman, did not want to live. "The life I am forced to lead is a shit life. It is not a life, it is not my life. I can lead it no longer; I will lead it no longer," he wrote in a book, I Ask For the Right to Die, that was published the day after his death.

To write it, he indicated what he wanted to say, letter by letter, by squeezing a journalist's palm with his right thumb - the only part of his body he could move - while the man repeatedly recited the alphabet.

Marie Humbert, 48, injected a poison, apparently barbiturates, into the drip that fed her son. He fell into a deep coma. At 9pm a nurse realised something was wrong and rushed Vincent into intensive care. His mother was arrested and spent the night in the police station.

And in the final ethical twist to this tragedy, it was the head of the clinic's reanimation unit, Frederic Chaussoy, who decided to switch off Vincent's artificial respirator two days later. "It was my decision and my responsibility," Dr Chaussoy said. "I ended his life. Let there be no doubt about that."

Euthanasia is, of course, illegal in France, as it is in almost all of Europe. If Marie Humbert and Dr Chaussoy are pursued (a decision that a prudent public prosecutor has yet to take), she could be charged with poisoning and attempted assassination; he with anything from failure to assist a person in danger to premeditated murder. From Barcelona to Berlin, the crime would be the same.

The case has reignited the mercy killing debate across Europe.


whole article :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1071721,00.html

What is your opinion on that issue ?

She did the right thing, her son asked to die. She did something that most people don't have the strength to do. Some people would want to live no matter what, and some would hate to be stuck in a bed, wheel chair, etc... The bottom line is that he made the choice for death not her or the doc. It is funny how most folks believe in an after life but would still rather make people suffer a crappy life here on earth.

I agree she did the right thing, most people would agree I guess. In fact polls show that both in Europe or in France alone more than 80% of people think euthanasia should be allowed in such cases.
But the real question is : should it be allowed by the law ? If it is, how would the law define when it is allowed and when it is not, and who can take such a decision ?

I think it should be allowed by law, but you'd have to write it carefully to prevent people from taking advantage for evil purposes, which might be almost impossible.

I agree Lionel There should be some type of moral law, but it would be hard to enforce.

This is one reason it makes sense to make a will out early. Even if someone is in great shape they should have something that says how to handle a situation like this.

Definitely should be allowed.

A) The right to die should go hand-in-hand with the right to life.

B) It's ridiculous to spend food, time, medicine, and shelter on someone who wants to die when we can't even provide that for all of the people who want to live.

C) There's too many damn humans as it is.

Ethical considerations surround this subject. IMO, we should permit euthanasia.

Originally posted by Leper
Definitely should be allowed.

A) The right to die should go hand-in-hand with the right to life.

B) It's ridiculous to spend food, time, medicine, and shelter on someone who wants to die when we can't even provide that for all of the people who want to live.

C) There's too many damn humans as it is.

ok Leper, sounds like it time for you to go. Go get a plastic bag and put it over your head before you go to sleep, help the humans.

Originally posted by Leper
Definitely should be allowed.

A) The right to die should go hand-in-hand with the right to life.

B) It's ridiculous to spend food, time, medicine, and shelter on someone who wants to die when we can't even provide that for all of the people who want to live.

C) There's too many damn humans as it is.


They are absolutely appauling comments Leper.

People choose to die because, most of the time, they are suffering from a terminal illness which causes them so much pain it makes it unbearable to live.

Euthanasia is such a serious subject. It isn't about someone killing themselves because life has got too tough for them. It is about people who feel that because of either a major physical disability (due to a car or other accident etc) or terminal illness, feel they do not want to continue to breathe in a body which doesn't allow them to 'live'. It isn't about medicine, food or shelter, it is about respecting the person's feelings and rights enough to let them make a decision about their own life, or death as the case may be.

Allowing a person their dignity is the best gift we can give them, and a right we should all have.

Dont talk to liberals about such things as dignity, honor, self reliance, self respect and the like, they are totaly foreign concepts to them.

Trav, slander is no way to debate. Start using your brain to debate, instead of your "LIBRULS R BAD, FAGS!" rhetoric.

the truth hurts doesnt it Borg?

Trav, no one here even takes you seriously. You know nothing about politics, except that "LIBRULS R BAD". Maybe you should get a bit educated (ejamacated for you rednecks) before you make a further ass of yourself.

ya, and your the expert, you self righteous jackass. You think we take everything you say as gospel. From what I remember, you have never said much of anything on here either. You slam people for stereotyping, while you do it, you slam people for generalizing, while you do it, you sir, are a hypocrit. maybe you should look that up in your athiest manifesto.

Trav, I can't believe it, I even call you on your slander, and still that's all you do. You can't even defend yourself, how can you defend your beliefs?

I'm a little surprised that he hasn't weighed in on the Savage Nation thread . . . they seem like birds of a feather.

let me get this straight, when you do it its calling me out, when I do it its slander? Who the hell do you think you are Borg?

When have I ever made a generalization regarding conservatives? Or slandered them?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Trav, no one here even takes you seriously. You know nothing about politics, except that "LIBRULS R BAD". Maybe you should get a bit educated (ejamacated for you rednecks) before you make a further ass of yourself.

Hers one to start with. And besides, you cant slander an idea, as you accuse me of, you slander people, as you have done to me.

Oh come on. That's not slander; everyone here, regardless of political affiliation, would agree that you're not too informed, to put it lightly.

oh really? have you asked everyone about that? or do my ideas ring a .little to close to home for you?

It's easy to agree with the mothers choice to inject the dose - to put her in prison would be a travesty, but one case does not make a case for legalisation of euthenasia.

The problem with legalizing that is - it will be abused, a convenient way to get rid of troublesome old parents etc.

For something like that - there would have to be something along the lines of a long lengthy process - similar to a court trial where a judge or jury would make the final decision. Even then it's a tough one to determine a solid way to do it. One miss-used ability to end 1 life outweights the rights of all the rest who may want to die for justifyable reasons

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Oh come on. That's not slander; everyone here, regardless of political affiliation, would agree that you're not too informed, to put it lightly.

I don't know if he's informed or not, but I agree that he doesn't go out of his way to demonstrate that he is.

i don't see why assisted suicide shoudn't be legal. people's lives are their own, and if they want to end it it's their business. it doesn't hurt anyone except the one who commits suicide, and they wanted it that way so it didnt' really hurt them, did it?

ya, it sounds so simple when the left says it, its only the life of the person who wants to die, partial birth abortions are only done for "medical reasons" it sounds so harmless and humane, unfortunatly, if you know anything about human nature, it never hapens like this, all laws are exploited by someone in some way. no matter how cheery and clean the left makes it sound, abortion and "assisted" suicide is death. LOL, assisted suicide is such an oxymoron its not even funny.

vincent said so himself that he wanted to die!! what are you trying to prove here?

whos vincent?

Originally posted by DrewM

For something like that - there would have to be something along the lines of a long lengthy process - similar to a court trial where a judge or jury would make the final decision. Even then it's a tough one to determine a solid way to do it. One miss-used ability to end 1 life outweights the rights of all the rest who may want to die for justifyable reasons

I agree. The problem with legalizing euthanasia is the risk of abuse.

In fact, if we do not legalize euthanasia, this makes it a more difficult decision where you have to be ready to face justice for killing someone.
This is also the role of justice. A jury of people will decide if this woman (and in this case, the doctor) did the right thing. They may be prosecuted for murder but not condemned -isn't it the wisest way of dealing with this very unusual situation ?

Maybe we should legalize drugs first, that way when some one helps another with suicide they won't care becuase they'll be high :D

Originally posted by astrapol2
I agree. The problem with legalizing euthanasia is the risk of abuse.



its amazing that abortion gets a pass on this. When it comes to abortion there is no such thing as abuse, because it is mearly a woman exercizing her "right". Just another contradiction by the left. Its amazing how there can be so many leftists around with all the glaring hypocrisy and endless contradictions, but like the old saying goes "if your not a liberal by 20, you have no heart, if your not a conservative by 40, you have no brain."

Originally posted by Travh20
its amazing that abortion gets a pass on this. When it comes to abortion there is no such thing as abuse, because it is mearly a woman exercizing her "right". Just another contradiction by the left. Its amazing how there can be so many leftists around with all the glaring hypocrisy and endless contradictions, but like the old saying goes "if your not a liberal by 20, you have no heart, if your not a conservative by 40, you have no brain."
*SIGH* Trav, either respond to the SUBJECT AT HAND, or keep your damned mouth shut. Everything you say is "Left this, liberal that, only conservatives are right" and it seems like you never answer a question. Form your opinions on euthanasia without noting any supposed "contradictions" with liberals and actually respond with your opinions on euthanasia!

You know, I just reviewed the whole thread, and look at what you have said in it:
ok Leper, sounds like it time for you to go. Go get a plastic bag and put it over your head before you go to sleep, help the humans.
Dont talk to liberals about such things as dignity, honor, self reliance, self respect and the like, they are totaly foreign concepts to them.
[A bunch of replies to me...]
ya, it sounds so simple when the left says it, its only the life of the person who wants to die, partial birth abortions are only done for "medical reasons" it sounds so harmless and humane, unfortunatly, if you know anything about human nature, it never hapens like this, all laws are exploited by someone in some way. no matter how cheery and clean the left makes it sound, abortion and "assisted" suicide is death. LOL, assisted suicide is such an oxymoron its not even funny.
[Another reply]
[Post at top of this post].
EVERY post slams liberals. Every single one. Now maybe you know why I don't take you seriously.

oy are one hard headed son of a bitch, all I do is point out your contradictions and you say I am jsut bashing liberals? re read the post genius, amybe you can figure it out. Perhaps you didnt see me use abortion to expose your contradictions with legalizing "assisted suicide". Fucking wake up. and have I ever denied not liking liberals? is this not a political forum? What the hell is your problem? am am I getting a little to close to the mark for you and you want to shut me up so I dont expose your stupid beliefs for what they are?

Guess what, Trav? I F***ING AGREE WITH YOU on there not being abuse for abortions!!! I don't think any pregnancy should be aborted during the third trimester unless the woman's life in endangered, because the fetus could be considered developed enough to be alive. So go ahead, point out MY (yes you said they were mine) contradictions, Trav! God, you need to assess before you attack.

Abortion is an entirely different subject than euthanasia. Both should be considered "rights". As George Carlin put it: " ... not every ejaculation deserves a name ... "

Borg, stop waisting your time with Travh. The day he has something interesting to say about this issue or another, we will all be glad to answer him.

I have been lurking these boards for some time now, and Travh20 seems to me to be woefully uninformed (and evidently desperate to remain that way), dogmatic to an incredible degree, and totally incapable of rational thought........IOW, a poster boy for the foolish twits that tend to support militaristic, macho posers like GWBush and the rest of his reactionary Rightwing Administration.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, talk about herd mentality...........

Originally posted by Freethinker
foolish twits that tend to support militaristic, macho posers like GWBush and the rest of his reactionary Rightwing Administration.

You had me then you lost me. How is that statement rational, informed, and non-dogmatic and how does it not make you a poster-boy (or girl) for the left?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
You had me then you lost me. How is that statement rational, informed, and non-dogmatic and how does it not make you a poster-boy (or girl) for the left?

It is a rational statement because it is demonstrably true. It is not dogmatic in any way, because it is factual.

Bush IS militaristic.....as evidenced by his dragging this nation into a so-called "war" that the vast majority of people on the planet were in staunch opposition to.

Bush IS a macho poser.....as evidenced by his little photo op in the flying suit on the aircraft carrier.

The fact that Bush's ultra-conservative Administration is comprised of reactionary Rightwingers is so obvious as to not need expounding on any further.

Furthermore, since i consider Bush and those surrounding him and supporting him to be callous, inhuman Fascists, I am quite content to be considered far, far, faaaar to the Left of them.

LMFAO, what a clown. Example 1,000 of the lefts non stop hypocrisy and contradictions. They old "do as I say not as I do" routine. The left is such a joke and they know it, they are about to go down hard.

Bush is no ultra conservative, that just shows you how far to the left you are. George bush is nothing more than a democrat of 30 years ago. LMAO, this guy is SO INFORMED!!! well I just dont know what to think.

Bush is an ultra-conservative. He's nearly Ronald Reagan. He's a fundie Christian, which is without a doubt ultra-conservative.

LMAO, I guess you dont know what a cnservative is then.

It is a rational statement because it is demonstrably true. It is not dogmatic in any way, because it is factual.

See you had a point about Trav and then you ruined it by doing the same stuff he does - a light layer of factuality with a healthy helping of name-calling on top. Sounds dogmatic to me.

Bush IS militaristic.....as evidenced by his dragging this nation into a so-called "war" that the vast majority of people on the planet were in staunch opposition to.

If you define miltaristic as "uses the military" then I guess you're right. Hey, Clinton was militaristic too - he damn near invaded Haiti.

Bush IS a macho poser.....as evidenced by his little photo op in the flying suit on the aircraft carrier.

Like Dukakis in that tank.

The fact that Bush's ultra-conservative Administration is comprised of reactionary Rightwingers is so obvious as to not need expounding on any further.

Uh huh. Jerry Falwell is ultra-conservative. Bush is moderate as far as conservatives go.

Furthermore, since i consider Bush and those surrounding him and supporting him to be callous, inhuman Fascists, I am quite content to be considered far, far, faaaar to the Left of them.

You're every bit as bad as Trav - quit the BS of pretending like you're making an intellectual argument.

Back to the initial topic.
For those intersted by that story, I just saw on TV that the doctor who finally allowed Vincent to die by unplugging his respiratory equipment could be facing a much harsher sentence than initially thought. The analysis on the body show that in fact Vincent is not dead only because hthe artificial life was stopped, but he had two lethal injections. This makes the doctor face a lurder with premeditation charge, which could lead him to life in prison. Now everything is in the had of the judge who will decide on what charge the doctor will be prosecuted…

Astra - have you heard of Dr. Kevorkian? He advocated the right to die but was so obsessed with it he came off as actually wanting to kill people (and maybe he did). Sounds similar to Vincent's doctor.

who the F*CK IS VINCINT!!?!?!?!

RTFA, Trav. The absolute first post in this thread.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Bush IS militaristic.....as evidenced by his dragging this nation into a so-called "war" that the vast majority of people on the planet were in staunch opposition to.

Originally posted by LionelHutzIf you define miltaristic as "uses the military" then I guess you're right. Hey, Clinton was militaristic too - he damn near invaded Haiti.

The unrelievedly binary thought process of the average mouth-breathing Conservative never ceases to amaze me. Evidently, you think that pointing out that --"hey, Clinton was militaristic too!"--- somehow totally negates the fact that Bush is militaristic.



Originally posted by Freethinker
Bush IS a macho poser.....as evidenced by his little photo op in the flying suit on the aircraft carrier.

Originally posted by LionelHutzLike Dukakis in that tank.

I see.

And ---in your twisted view-- i guess that noting that Dukakis was attempting a macho, militaristic pose somehow absolves Bush of the guilt of doing so.

Originally posted by FreethinkerThe fact that Bush's ultra-conservative Administration is comprised of reactionary Rightwingers is so obvious as to not need expounding on any further.

Originally posted by LionelHutzUh huh. Jerry Falwell is ultra-conservative. Bush is moderate as far as conservatives go.

Falwell and Bush seem to be close political bedfellows. They are both dim-witted fundamentalist religionists who think that America is somehow **chosen of God** and that they are agents working in the "final days" before the Second Coming.

As to just how far to the Right he is, GWBush, it must be recognized, is a die-hard Fascist, committed to placing the control of Government in the hands of the wealthy Corporatists who paid to have him elected.

Under the Bush administration, the Corporate State's drive to seize power and nullify democratic power has been unleashed and gone into full runaway mode. As Mussolini stated, "Fascism IS corporatism, and Corporatism IS Fascism". That is the process we are now witnessing: the ever increasing accumulation of wealth by an ever decreasing number of Corporate entities; the turning over of the government to these entities; and their use of it as an instrument of war, by which they further enhance their profits and power.

Originally posted by Freethinker
The unrelievedly binary thought process of the average mouth-breathing Conservative never ceases to amaze me.

Well you know, conservatives are so stupid, you can't expect any more of us.

Evidently, you think that pointing out that --"hey, Clinton was militaristic too!"--- somehow totally negates the fact that Bush is militaristic.

No, rather I'm pointing out that it's the nature of the job. The level of militarism is dictated by the circumstances foisted upon the president.

And ---in your twisted view-- i guess that noting that Dukakis was attempting a macho, militaristic pose somehow absolves Bush of the guilt of doing so.

I don't see how Bust needs to be absolved of anything. Yep, it was pure posing and campaigning. It's the ugly side of politics.

Falwell and Bush seem to be close political bedfellows. They are both dim-witted fundamentalist religionists who think that America is somehow **chosen of God** and that they are agents working in the "final days" before the Second Coming.

Falwell sticks with Bush because he's his best option. Bush avoids pissing off Falwell because Falwell controls the votes of a lot of people. Falwell has some scary views, but I've not heard Bush express anything about the "final days before the second coming." Falwell is clearly way to the right of Bush. Perhaps all conservatives look the same to you.

As to just how far to the Right he is, GWBush, it must be recognized, is a die-hard Fascist, committed to placing the control of Government in the hands of the wealthy Corporatists who paid to have him elected.

Damn, where's my check?

Under the Bush administration, the Corporate State's drive to seize power and nullify democratic power has been unleashed and gone into full runaway mode.

You sound like Willow. What exactly did these corporations do to keep me from voting in my chosen representatives yesterday?

That is the process we are now witnessing: the ever increasing accumulation of wealth by an ever decreasing number of Corporate entities

Corporations don't retain wealth - the shareholders do. And who are the shareholders? Yes, some of them are filthy rich individuals, but the vast majority are inviduals and/or the various mutual funds and retirement accounts that they've bought into.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Evidently, you think that pointing out that --"hey, Clinton was militaristic too!"--- somehow totally negates the fact that Bush is militaristic.

Originally posted by LionelHutz No, rather I'm pointing out that it's the nature of the job. The level of militarism is dictated by the circumstances foisted upon the president.

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. You have a point.



Originally posted by LionelHutz I don't see how Bust needs to be absolved of anything. Yep, it (Bush's photo op on the aircraft carrier) was pure posing and campaigning.

You are the first rightwinger I have ever heard admit it. Bravo. One down, 49,999,999 to go.

Originally posted by LionelHutz Falwell sticks with Bush because he's his best option. Bush avoids pissing off Falwell because Falwell controls the votes of a lot of people. Falwell has some scary views, but I've not heard Bush express anything about the "final days before the second coming." Falwell is clearly way to the right of Bush. Perhaps all conservatives look the same to you.

Not "the same"....but they ARE a pretty monolithic bunch.

Originally posted by FreethinkerAs to just how far to the Right he is, GWBush, it must be recognized, is a die-hard Fascist, committed to placing the control of Government in the hands of the wealthy Corporatists who paid to have him elected.

Originally posted by LionelHutz What exactly did these corporations do to keep me from voting in my chosen representatives yesterday?

As to you as an individual, I don't know what influence they've been able to exert. As to the electorate as a whole, the Corporatist PTB's exert control thru the dissemination of information (IOW, thru ownership and iron control of the mainstream Media), and thru their keeping the masses UNinformed and DISinformed.....which is a function of their decades [nay, centuries] old practice of keeping the gullible citizenry infatuated with mind-numbing religious belief and flag-waving nationalism.


[i]Originally posted by LionelHutz[i]Corporations don't retain wealth

The majority OWNERS and the CEO's of huge Corporations certainly retain a great deal of the wealth of this country. Check out the finances of a person like Jack Welsh if you doubt it.

who gives a crap! shut up already freethinker, I dont know if you have noticed, but most of us dont care how much money the other guy has, we live OUR lives, not the other guys life. Stop being so damn jelous and get a fucking job already.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Astra - have you heard of Dr. Kevorkian? He advocated the right to die but was so obsessed with it he came off as actually wanting to kill people (and maybe he did). Sounds similar to Vincent's doctor.

No, I don't think so. Because in that case the doctor never was a theorician of euthanasia. He just was caught in a moral dilemma : let this guy alive in spite of what he asked and let his mother face the horror of having tried to kill him without success ? I think he decided to let Voincent die and "helped", which is technically murder but which is also a very brave and humane decision. He knew he would probably be in trouble because of this but he dicided to do it. i hope the frnch justice will be understanding with him (but even if he does not get a harsh sentence his carreer is probably over).