Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Interesting Ron Paul article on doctor assisted suicide/right to die laws

  1. #1

    Interesting Ron Paul article on doctor assisted suicide/right to die laws

    He actually came out against it, which really surprised me. I was in favor of those kinds of laws but may have to rethink my position, as he made some good points. Almost all of the commentators disagreed with him though.

    http://www.voicesofliberty.com/video...on-euthanasia/

    https://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/pos...53689608801686

    Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in. Today I would like to talk a little bit about a very delicate subject, and that is euthanasia. It’s legal in some states of our country; it’s not legal in California but they’d like to make it legal and there’s a big discussion going on.

    Discussion is always for humanitarian reasons and it’s understandable. People are suffering and they’d like to end their suffering. But the other side of it is, could it get out of hand? Could mistakes be made? Could patients not be truly reflecting their feelings and their beliefs?

    I think that’s very possible, but I think medicine, the way I was trained, that medicine was for preserving life not taking life. Sometimes I think, “Well, if we’re ever at the point where life has to be taken and it’s going to be legalized, let somebody else do it.” I just can’t comprehend doctors taking life. They’re involved in taking life too often whether, it’s involved with military torture chambers and experimentations and abortion and all these things, so I just… I’m very uncomfortable with that.

    Then you say, “Well, that means you don’t care about suffering people.” No, that is not the case. I think that too many mistakes could be made. It’s a proactive event and people can be confused and, who knows, maybe the patient is confused and maybe the people who are in charge will promote it for various selfish reasons and push the death along. So there’s a lot of possibilities there.

    Another one that is a problem that we face is the fact that we’re almost at the age where the government is paying for all medical care, especially for the elderly. It is a known fact that once government pays for something, prices go up and then there’s rationing. The discussion came up under Obamacare when they talked about death panels. Well, that might be a strong term, but in a way, that does happen because care will be rationed if the taxpayers are paying for the medical care and somebody’s 89 years old and needs a kidney or some surgery, they say, “Oh no, we can’t do it. We can’t afford it. He’s too old,” and the same way with taking care of people. If they’re suffering and they’re not aware of things it’s going to be economically beneficial to take that life. So there will be economic factors that influence it. I think it’s a slippery slope. I think it’s very dangerous and we shouldn’t be entertaining that.

    Then the question is, what do you think should be done if somebody doesn’t want to live, they’re suffering, they have incurable cancer, and they’re having a lot of pain? The one thing that can be done, either under those circumstances or emergency situations where somebody’s been brain injured and permanently comatose, is that you could have a living will and tell people just hold off on active care. That is a big thing. Don’t put in the tubes and don’t feed people who don’t want to be fed because life ends when you don’t eat or drink, and they should be made comfortable. We’re talking about days; we’re not talking about suffering for 10 years or 10 months. If a person decides that they do not want to live and they withhold the vital services, a person just can’t live.

    The other things is, “Well, they’re still going to have a lot of pain whether it’s one day or 10 days or two months before that individual dies.” You know, it’s ironic but the war on drugs has interfered with this too because doctors can lose their license if they give too much pain medication. People who have cancer need a lot more pain medication than the average person. So, if all the sudden since the government knows all the reports now of everything you prescribe, if all the sudden his name pops up and he’s prescribing a huge amount of narcotics for a patient, he can get into trouble.

    I’ve known doctors who have lost their license because they used to much pain medication. The pain doctors who take care of patients like this have to be very, very cautious. So in a way this has backfired. A person who decides they don’t want to live, they don’t want any extraordinary care, they don’t want tubes, they don’t want breathing machines, but they have pain, there’s this hesitancy to just allow them to have whatever they need to be comfortable. That’s another complication.

    The bill that they’re talking about in California, interestingly enough, this says somebody did abuse the law and participated in a death that was borderline. The one thing is [with this bill], if you’re in the medical profession, you get immunity so that you don’t ever get challenged. If you participated in giving these drugs and the patient dies, there’s immunity for the doctor. That means even if there was abuse, it look like the individual wouldn’t be responsible.

    I think that we live in an age where we’ve lost our respect for life. I think this has happened both for the pre-born, and I think that this lack of respect for life has increased tremendously the child abuse that we see in this country and so many other things that we have seen. I think torture is loss of respect for life. I think preemptive war means we’ve lost respect for life, and we’re careless about killing a lot of people in the pretense that it’s making us safe.

    I think it’s respect for life that we need. We cannot be unconcerned about the people who suffer. But I think euthanasia, active euthanasia where somebody just injects it and says, “Your life is done. You want it done, we’ll take care of it,” it’s just a little bit over the top.

    I’ve seen patients who said that they just want hospice care. They don’t want to have any medication or any feeding tubes, they write it in a will and amazingly even the natural course of things doesn’t require more and more drugs for their pain. As a matter of fact, after dehydration, a few things occur. They actually have less pain on many occasions. I’m much in favor of that method.

    I do not like to see the legalization of a certain group of people killing other human beings, especially when the pressure may be economic now that the government pays all the bills. It’s worth thinking about and it’s worth taking a position on because it will be a challenge to try to figure out exactly the best way to handle in an individual and ourselves when we’re at that moment when our life is going to be passed away.

    Anyway, I thank you for tuning in today and come back to the channel soon.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I'm not surprised he's against it. It's definitely a slippery slope.

    "In 30 years Holland has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for mental illness, from euthanasia for mental illness to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering, and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia or as the Dutch prefer to call it "termination of the patient without explicit request"."

    Then the question is, what do you think should be done if somebody doesn’t want to live, they’re suffering, they have incurable cancer, and they’re having a lot of pain? The one thing that can be done, either under those circumstances or emergency situations where somebody’s been brain injured and permanently comatose, is that you could have a living will and tell people just hold off on active care. That is a big thing. Don’t put in the tubes and don’t feed people who don’t want to be fed because life ends when you don’t eat or drink, and they should be made comfortable. We’re talking about days; we’re not talking about suffering for 10 years or 10 months. If a person decides that they do not want to live and they withhold the vital services, a person just can’t live.
    Living wills and end of life planning are so important. Either you do it, or the fedgov is going to do it for to you.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...-questionable/
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    He actually came out against it, which really surprised me. I was in favor of those kinds of laws but may have to rethink my position, as he made some good points. Almost all of the commentators disagreed with him though.

    http://www.voicesofliberty.com/video...on-euthanasia/

    https://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/pos...53689608801686
    I'm not surprised, he's stated similar things before. And he's right. He's actually consistently pro-life. Weird, ain't it.
    Go Ron Paul!
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  5. #4
    I agree with Ron.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    I'm not surprised, he's stated similar things before. And he's right. He's actually consistently pro-life. Weird, ain't it.
    Go Ron Paul!
    I just thought that it wasn't really a violation of pro life principles to allow people to take their own life with a doctor's help. I'm still not sure that it is, but like I said I may need to reconsider my position and determine whether it's the right position or not.

  7. #6
    Great now instead of the cliche' "He did it to himself" they will laugh an say "he asserted his right to die".
    “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)

    How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?

  8. #7
    Gosh, I'd like the ability to "pull the trigger" or legally instruct my children/wife to have the right to do terminate my life if I were to become a vegetable or have my brains fried as an Alzheimer patient.

    We don't think twice about ending the life of a suffering animal.

    That said, I do NOT want the govt having the ability to decide when I've had enough.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by jbauer View Post
    Gosh, I'd like the ability to "pull the trigger" or legally instruct my children/wife to have the right to do terminate my life if I were to become a vegetable or have my brains fried as an Alzheimer patient.

    We don't think twice about ending the life of a suffering animal.

    That said, I do NOT want the govt having the ability to decide when I've had enough.
    That, minus the animal part. There are lots of things we do to animals that I would hate to be done on me.

    I do not like to see the legalization of a certain group of people killing other human beings
    Sometimes I don't get Ron Paul. Is sorta like saying that he is against doctors because he doesn't like the idea of certain groups of people have the ability to treat other groups of people. I do not want to be a burden to anyone and I am adult enough to sign the correct papers or even give the instructions myself if I can to give other people I trust the ability to off me when my conditions becomes worse than death. I would really hate it for my wife to be arrested and thrown in jail when she carries out my wishes to die when the unthinkable happens to me and I don't care who it is that is against it cos they are wrong and I am right.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    I do not like to see the legalization of a certain group of people killing other human beings
    Sometimes I don't get Ron Paul. Is sorta like saying that he is against doctors because he doesn't like the idea of certain groups of people have the ability to treat other groups of people. I do not want to be a burden to anyone and I am adult enough to sign the correct papers or even give the instructions myself if I can to give other people I trust the ability to off me when my conditions becomes worse than death. I would really hate it for my wife to be arrested and thrown in jail when she carries out my wishes to die when the unthinkable happens to me and I don't care who it is that is against it cos they are wrong and I am right.
    When it comes to ending the lives of other people, not wanting "a certain group of people" to be given special legal priveleges or immunities is perfectly sensible. For example, "a certain group of people" - namely, cops - have already been given special priveleges like that (such as "qualified immunity"). What's wrong with opposing that sort of thing?

    Also, you left off the rest of what Ron said. He said, "I do not like to see the legalization of a certain group of people killing other human beings, especially when the pressure may be economic now that the government pays all the bills." IOW: The same government that would be handing out formal legal "immunity" for euthanasia would also have a very strong financial interest in doing so.

    And if you carefully read what Ron Paul actually said, he didn't say that euthanasia ought to be criminalized. If you had a system where juries decided on a case-by-case basis whether a given act of euthanasia was criminal or not, that could be perfectly compatible with everytying Ron said. What he is arguing against is formally institutionalizing euthanasia by legally granting automatic exoneration to acts of euthansia beforehand. Being against that is not the same thing as forbidding it under any circumstances.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 01-29-2015 at 03:13 PM.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    When it comes to ending the lives of other people, not wanting "a certain group of people" to be given special legal priveleges or immunities is perfectly sensible. For example, "a certain group of people" - namely, cops - have already been given special priveleges like that (such as "qualified immunity"). What's wrong with opposing that sort of thing?

    Also, you left off the rest of what Ron said. He said, "I do not like to see the legalization of a certain group of people killing other human beings, especially when the pressure may be economic now that the government pays all the bills." IOW: The same government that would be handing out formal legal "immunity" for euthanasia would also have a very strong financial interest in doing so.

    And if you carefully read what Ron Paul actually said, he didn't say that euthanasia ought to be criminalized. If you had a system where juries decided on a case-by-case basis whether a given act of euthanasia was criminal or not, that could be perfectly compatible with everytying Ron said. What he is arguing against is formally institutionalizing euthanasia by legally granting automatic exoneration to acts of euthansia beforehand. Being against that is not the same thing as forbidding it under any circumstances.
    I hear you loud and clear but my main reason for singling out that line is to point out the flaw in that line of thinking. Right now, with the way it is, everybody (or just about everybody) would be prosecuted, convicted and thrown to jail for conducting voluntary euthanasia. Ron Paul in this case argues against relaxing the rules because it's not going to be perfect. I argue that relaxing the rules will still be better even if its something that is licensed and controlled by government.

    Also how is that much different from legalizing Do Not Resuscitate codes in hospitals, holding nutrition and medication when it leads directly to the quicker death of a suffering patient? There are much better ways for opposing govt power than supporting current euthanasia laws. Also the slippery slope argument can be used to oppose anything you can imagine, I don't buy it.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    I hear you loud and clear but my main reason for singling out that line is to point out the flaw in that line of thinking. Right now, with the way it is, everybody (or just about everybody) would be prosecuted, convicted and thrown to jail for conducting voluntary euthanasia. Ron Paul in this case argues against relaxing the rules because it's not going to be perfect. I argue that relaxing the rules will still be better even if its something that is licensed and controlled by government.
    But he's not arguing against "relaxing the rules." This is what I meant when I pointed out that opposing the formal institutionalization of euthanasia is NOT the same thing as supporting "the way it is right now" (where, as you say, "everybody ... would be prosecuted, convicted and thrown in jail for conducting voluntary euthanasia." Ron did not say anything that indicates he supports that situation.

    He's arguing against giving "a certain group of people" (doctors) any special exemptions from the possibility of being held accountable. (Why should doctors be exempted from accountability for ending the life of another when you or I would not be?) And he's not doing it merely because "it's not going to be perfect." He's doing it because of the numerous and excellent points he made about the incentives for promoting and expanding the practice of euthanasia when it is "licensed and controlled by the government."

    And even if we set aside any consideration of those very real incentives, no one should be EVER be "licensed" (i.e., given permission beforehand) to end the lives of others - not cops, not doctors, not anyone. Period. When someone ends the life of another, that person should be held to account for it. Now, if our current system "blanket punishes" euthanasia regardless of considerations of voluntariness or what-have-you, then that's a bad thing. But the answer is not to go to the other extreme and "blanket exonerate" euthanasia by explicitly and formally granting permission "ahead of time" to "certain groups of people" to engage in euthanasia.

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Also how is that much different from legalizing Do Not Resuscitate codes in hospitals, holding nutrition and medication when it leads directly to the quicker death of a suffering patient?
    Permitting people to enact DNRs. "living wills" and the like for the purpose of allowing "passive" euthanasia (where the patient would have died without intervention) is not the same thing as legally immunizing doctors for "active" euthanasia (where the patient would have lived without intervention).

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    There are much better ways for opposing govt power than supporting current euthanasia laws. Also the slippery slope argument can be used to oppose anything you can imagine, I don't buy it.
    Again, Ron did not say anything about supporting current euthanasia laws - and he certainly did not say or suggest anything as bizarre as the notion that suporting current euthanasia laws is somehow a way of opposing government power.

    And the fact that slippery slopes can be invoked to oppose anything does not mean that you can just dismiss any argument that invokes a slippery slope. The question is whether a given slippery slope is reasonable or not. And the factors Ron cited make for a very good case for fearing a slippery slope expansion of euthanasia ...
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 01-29-2015 at 04:34 PM.



Similar Threads

  1. Assisted suicide-the next big social issue?
    By cindy25 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2015, 10:16 PM
  2. Vermont passes law allowing doctor-assisted suicide
    By Keith and stuff in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-22-2013, 10:59 AM
  3. NJ weighs new bullying laws after Rutgers suicide (article)
    By Krugerrand in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-25-2010, 08:33 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-01-2010, 11:38 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-12-2009, 04:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •