Immortality

[H4run]

alright I get it, it is in relation to this post of mine

actually human immortality is pretty much pointless if they destroy and not equally obsessed on immortalizing their living platform (planet Earth).

This is not an "either or" suggestion, what I say is the destruction of the earth will kill all of us in the near future, hence if we ever reach immortality, that destruction will de-immortalized us. The logical way to balanced that is to be equally obsessed with immortalizing our living space and our lifespan.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think the future will be very different from what we have now. It isn't exactly playing with fire, though, unless you consider the matches being hidden not in some top drawer but inside of you.

That said, it is also possible that point won't be reached, eg massive war may cause everything to revert to a dark age and then repeat the same up to now.

I think that, regardless of how things are, given the chance most people would rather choose to just be happy, and happiness generally is against change - cause no change is needed. That said, the human species does have a built-in ability to seek other routes if the most obvious one seems filled with debris and impassable. Even as early as the Odyssey, Odysseus claims that he would rather be a nobody who lived a simple and happy life, than a prominent hero.

 

[H4run]

It isn't exactly playing with fire, though, unless you consider the matches being hidden not in some top drawer but inside of you.

most people would rather choose to just be happy, and happiness generally is against change - cause no change is needed.

Even as early as the Odyssey, Odysseus claims that he would rather be a nobody who lived a simple and happy life, than a prominent hero.

truly gold, you seems full of insight, you should write something I think

 

[Kyriakos]

truly gold, you seems full of insight, you should write something I think

If you find the time, tell me what you thought of the game ^_^

 

[H4run]

If you find the time, tell me what you thought of the game ^_^

of course, this night I'll do it

 

[innonimatu]

Can't resist linking this piece here, though I'm not giving my opinion on the subject.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'd like to spend eternity in heaven if:

1) heaven is real

2) it is actually as good as described in the bible.

I'm not sure that either of those is true, but if so, that would be my ideal afterlife.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Can't resist linking this piece here, though I'm not giving my opinion on the subject.

That was a great read, thank you for sharing it.

 

[innonimatu]

In the Netherlands euthanasia is currently outside the really restricting cultural taboo sphere. Meaning more openly discussions of ordinary people not overwhelmed by ideological positions.
From there: there are older people that do want to stop living for many reasons.
Besides the physical inconveniences... (and IDK but perhaps also the fatigue of physical and mental state)... the tredmill of daily work not there, the daily relation of a marriage gone, not really socially engaged anymore, etc. A kind of fullfillment..

In the Netherlands euthanasia, unsurprisingly, turned into outright murder of the "old and useless":

Netherlands euthanasia case: doctor 'acted with best intentions'

Prosecutors argue the unnamed female doctor “acted with the best intentions” but broke Dutch euthanasia law by failing to ensure the consent of a 74-year-old woman with advanced dementia, who may have changed her mind about dying.

It is the first time anyone has gone on trial over a 2002 Dutch law that allows people to ask a doctor to help them die.

The doctor slipped a sedative into the woman’s coffee, before administering a lethal drug, as the patient was held down by her family and struggled against the injection. The woman had previously drawn up an euthanasia statement, but prosecutors say she displayed “mixed signals” about dying.

"Mixed signals", yeah right. This was murder. And it was the reason why I have been, and will always be, against any legalization of euthanasia. The old status quo was acceptable: when it happened it was done carefully and privately, it was a hard thing and knowingly so. Not, it is murder openly carried out by medics and family (and in a hospital?) against a resisting woman. They've gone nazi. With the best intentions.

There are often good reasons for cultural taboos.

 

[Hrothbern]

In the Netherlands euthanasia, unsurprisingly, turned into outright murder of the "old and useless":



"Mixed signals", yeah right. This was murder. And it was the reason why I have been, and will always be, against any legalization of euthanasia. The old status quo was acceptable: when it happened it was done carefully and privately, it was a hard thing and knowingly so. Not, it is murder openly carried out by medics and family (and in a hospital?) against a resisting woman. They've gone nazi. With the best intentions.

There are often good reasons for cultural taboos.

What a nonsense Inno !

You have no specific info other than that article in the Guardian.

Does remind me how newsmedia outside the Netherlands treated abortion long before that was accepted in the mainstream western world
does remind me how newsmedia outside the Netherlands treated use of marihuana long before that was mnore accepted in the mainstream western world

You don't know horsehocky about a consensus society like the Netherlands
Polarising is your trade
Without being correctly informed on topic!

 

[innonimatu]

Saying that everything is all right as it is is yours?

Truth be said, I do not trust the Guardian much. What did they get wrong about this case?

 

[Hrothbern]

Saying that everything is all right as it is is yours?

Truth be said, I do not trust the Guardian much. What did they get wrong about this case?

From the Dutch news so far, comparing, the Guardian article is very limited in what actually played a role in the court case.
And to put that court case in context the article is limited in what is the societal and lawmaking background in the Netherlands of developing an adequate and satisfying euthanasia policy.

Truth has little value when it is not the whole truth and gives the wrong picture !

I will come back on this when I have a better picture from the Dutch news. I guess I have to wait for the weekend before a more comprehensive factual article is there.

But so far:
As background
* Do mind that when no medicin is developed against dementia, and we all get older because other old age death causes are better and better tackled, that many of us will face dementia at the end of their life.
* Do mind that losing someone dear to you on dementia is heartbreaking and many do not want to burden their family and themselves with that last phase of dementia.
"We" feel in the Netherlands that there is a societal need to handle this in a legal and satisfying way.
Everybody involved knows that we have to find the balanced set of considerations, conditions and procedures for that. And enshrine that in Law with enough room for doctors and judges to do what is best for slightly differing situations.

So far on that court case:
* The judge explained that although the verdict was technical murder, that it was not murder in the ordinarey understood sense... and that in his view the GP should not be punished
* The judge also said that the law was not developed enough and needed further precision and practical clarification. The normal process of refining laws. You have to start somewhere.
* The situation became sharp because the demented person had clearly indicated that under no circumstances she would want to be taken into a care home.
* The article does also not mention that everybody involved with this demented person was clear that euthanasia was justified. And that is besides the family in Dutch national health care a whole army of independent professional workers, incl IIRC two geriatrists, when you are still living at home and resist to the last moment to be transferred to a care home.

What I see as main mistake of this doctor is that she based her judgment on the opinion of all these other persons, and did not have a deep 1:1 discussion with that demented person herself.
But as I said... news on it here is still incomplete

Now... despite this widely supported societal understanding here that we have to develop a decent euthanasia policy, we have ofc here also people that prefer to take the stance you take in your post.

These people are a small minority... but our whole societal fabric here is based on wanting to find ways to give room to minorities.
However... this giving room stops at the moment that these minorities start polarising the debate to a degree where an harmonious societal deliberating is negativelively affected.
In that case the only room left for them is their freedom of speech...

With your remarks Inno you just alligned to the SGP political party in NL and their pro-life stance and arguments. And for that matter also the Forum of Democracy.
It is that I am here on this forum, and feel the need to explain to other people here... that's why I answer.

Within my own Dutch bubble I would not even react on your remarks, just like most other here.
Not because we denie your freedom of speech... but because of your destructive polarising attitude, that is only contra-productive to get a balanced euthanasia policy developed in NL that can enjoy the wide support of our people.

 

[innonimatu]

Maybe it's the catholic culture of my upbringing, but euthanasia is not something I have ever found acceptable. My position was always that suicide is a personal choice that poses no moral problems (for others or society, not that I'd ever go for it), euthanasia when nothing can be done and death is very near is understandable but a private matter, legislated euthanasia is institutionalizing murder. And I do not like finding excuses of convenience for what I believe to be murder.

Call it polarizing if you wish. I'll continue to call it murder. Losing someone dear to you is heartbreaking, but it is a fact of life. Death has always been, and will always be, a fact of life. Learn to live with it, instead of trying to hide it away. Learn to live with the dying if you truly love them. Do not dump them to die away and alone in the anti-septic modern hospitals. Or murder them because you... cannot stand to suffer them any more, as it seems to have happened in this case.

They were loved while they were... loveable, but when they become a problem they are to be dealth with by offing them, what kind of love is that? I'll be with the conservative christians on this one!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Maybe it's the catholic culture of my upbringing, but euthanasia is not something I have ever found acceptable. My position was always that suicide is a personal choice that poses no moral problems (for others or society, not that I'd ever go for it), euthanasia when nothing can be done and death is very near is understandable but a private matter, legislated euthanasia is institutionalizing murder. And I do not like finding excuses of convenience for what I believe to be murder.

Call it polarizing if you wish. I'll continue to call it murder. Losing someone dear to you is heartbreaking, but it is a fact of life. Death has always been, and will always be, a fact of life. Learn to live with it, instead of trying to hide it away. Learn to live with the dying if you truly love them. Do not dump them to die away and alone in the anti-septic modern hospitals. Or murder them because you... cannot stand to suffer them any more, as it seems to have happened in this case.

They were loved while they were... loveable, but when they become a problem they are to be dealth with by offing them, what kind of love is that? I'll be with the conservative christians on this one!

So you're fine with forcing people to suffer in agony, like so many terminal cancer patients were forced to do in Canada before MAiD came into law (Medical Assistance in Dying). I suppose you'd be applauding the heartless staff of the Catholic-run hospitals and nursing homes that refused to allow any patient there to even talk to anyone about MAiD while on their property. There are news reports of terminally ill people forced to sit in a bus shelter outside the hospital or in a parking lot, so they could sign MAiD papers because they were not allowed to do so in their own hospital or nursing home room. When the time came, they were forced to go elsewhere because the "moral" doctors and nurses at these institutions refused to allow these people to die with dignity in their own beds.

That is disgusting. As someone who is at risk for dementia/Alzheimers (two previous generations afflicted with this), I don't think the MAiD laws go far enough. The Supreme Court of Canada directed the government to include advance arrangements in the laws so people like me would not be put in the impossible situation of wanting this but not being able to get it because of being legally "not of sound mind". The Minister of Justice and her committee decided to thumb their noses at this, and she said she thought the law was "fair."

Well, it isn't. There are a lot of things it was supposed to address that it doesn't, and even the MoJ's own party members told her that. She ignored them.

I know my dad wouldn't have wanted his last days to go as they did. He was in a hell of a lot of pain and was terrified because he didn't understand what was happening. Years ago, after watching his girlfriend die of cancer, he told me, "If I ever get like that, take me out and shoot me." Well, of course I wouldn't do that, but the MAiD legislation came too late for him.

If medical assistance in dying isn't your cup of tea, fine. Do whatever you prefer. But you do not have either the legal or the moral right to deny it to others, based on what YOU feel. It's not your body and mind, and not your pain. When it comes to others' medical decisions, have the decency to mind your own business.

 

[Narz]

How is Heaven described in the Bible? I know in the Koran you get 72 virgins but I never actually read any parts of the bible than described heaven.

 

[innonimatu]

So you're fine with forcing people to suffer in agony, like so many terminal cancer patients were forced to do in Canada before MAiD came into law (Medical Assistance in Dying). I suppose you'd be applauding the heartless staff of the Catholic-run hospitals and nursing homes that refused to allow any patient there to even talk to anyone about MAiD while on their property. There are news reports of terminally ill people forced to sit in a bus shelter outside the hospital or in a parking lot, so they could sign MAiD papers because they were not allowed to do so in their own hospital or nursing home room. When the time came, they were forced to go elsewhere because the "moral" doctors and nurses at these institutions refused to allow these people to die with dignity in their own beds.

That is disgusting. As someone who is at risk for dementia/Alzheimers (two previous generations afflicted with this), I don't think the MAiD laws go far enough. The Supreme Court of Canada directed the government to include advance arrangements in the laws so people like me would not be put in the impossible situation of wanting this but not being able to get it because of being legally "not of sound mind". The Minister of Justice and her committee decided to thumb their noses at this, and she said she thought the law was "fair."

If you are dying of old-age infirmity on a hospital bed, dumped out of the environs of your life and away from your loved ones, you have already had your dignity thrown away. Perhaps you did it yourself, perhaps others did it to you. Or perhaps fate did it, you are alone in the world. Death sucks, and modern society invented ways to make it suck even more. My point probably went right over you because you're so used to how things are done now.

There are very few cases of people wanting but not being able to kill themselves. There are very few cases, if any, of doctors being prosecuted if they give away some easy poison for someone dying who asks to have it easier. What I oppose is legislating it, and using such legislation to murder people who, whatever their "state of mind", are fighting to keep living, not actually ready and wishing to die. Which was the thing described in the piece, and which is imo the inevitable outcome of such legislating on an issue that has accompanied mankind since the dawn of civilization without need of any bloody legislation! Everything must be legislated, judicialized, automated, made aseptic and detached from personal involvement and impressionability, up to death itself and caring for the dying? That is disgusting.

Edit: I actually oppose more, I oppose the whole modern attitude towards death, see it as being fundamentally inhumane: death is something to be kept away, far from sight, too disturbing to handle. The elderly are to be dumped on "care". And so on. But I won't go deeper into that. The rot is deep and crosses (sometimes forced) migrations, urbanization, the ideas of family, etc.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If you are dying of old-age infirmity on a hospital bed, dumped out of the environs of your life and away from your loved ones, you have already had your dignity thrown away. Perhaps you did it yourself, perhaps others did it to you. Or perhaps fate did it, you are alone in the world. Death sucks, and modern society invented ways to make it suck even more. My point probably went right over you because you're so used to how things are done now.

WTF does that even mean? Nothing about your point went "over me". I've lost the two people I loved most in the world to Alzheimers/dementia, and their suffering was horrible. There is no way I would have been able to cope with caring for them at home, so don't come with that holier-than-thou attitude about "dumping" people. I am getting the impression that you have no idea at all what it's like to see your closest family members going through a disease that kills twice over - first it kills the mind, robbing the person of memory and identity and dignity, and then it kills the body.

There are very few cases of people wanting but not being able to kill themselves.

Took a poll, did you, of every person with terminal cancer, multiple sclerosis, people who are paralyzed, or who have a multitude of other problems that make them physically incapable of taking their own lives even if it's their last resort for dying on their own terms, to avoid days, weeks, months, or even years of agony?

It's absolutely INSANE that society would see me as a sadistic villain if I did not have a vet euthanize my terminally ill cat, but would see me as a sadistic villain if I did not force my terminally ill father to keep suffering.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

How is Heaven described in the Bible? I know in the Koran you get 72 virgins but I never actually read any parts of the bible than described heaven.

this is spreading misinformation btw, this myth of 72 virgins is something that was instrumentalized by radicals in order to make martyrdom more attractive. it is in fact only mentioned by one single hadith, which is considered very unreliable by scholars. for good reason, it sounds like crazy fanfiction:

It states that "every male admitted into Paradise will be given eternal erections and wed to 72 wives."

sounds like the greek Priapos, not really nice if you ask me. also note how this does not talk at all about virgins (that was another passage about the women being hairless and untouched, somewhere else in the Quran I think) nor does it talk about this being exclusive to martyrs.

 

[Kyriakos]

From the Dutch news so far, comparing, the Guardian article is very limited in what actually played a role in the court case.
And to put that court case in context the article is limited in what is the societal and lawmaking background in the Netherlands of developing an adequate and satisfying euthanasia policy.

Truth has little value when it is not the whole truth and gives the wrong picture !

I will come back on this when I have a better picture from the Dutch news. I guess I have to wait for the weekend before a more comprehensive factual article is there.

But so far:
As background
* Do mind that when no medicin is developed against dementia, and we all get older because other old age death causes are better and better tackled, that many of us will face dementia at the end of their life.
* Do mind that losing someone dear to you on dementia is heartbreaking and many do not want to burden their family and themselves with that last phase of dementia.
"We" feel in the Netherlands that there is a societal need to handle this in a legal and satisfying way.
Everybody involved knows that we have to find the balanced set of considerations, conditions and procedures for that. And enshrine that in Law with enough room for doctors and judges to do what is best for slightly differing situations.

So far on that court case:
* The judge explained that although the verdict was technical murder, that it was not murder in the ordinarey understood sense... and that in his view the GP should not be punished
* The judge also said that the law was not developed enough and needed further precision and practical clarification. The normal process of refining laws. You have to start somewhere.
* The situation became sharp because the demented person had clearly indicated that under no circumstances she would want to be taken into a care home.
* The article does also not mention that everybody involved with this demented person was clear that euthanasia was justified. And that is besides the family in Dutch national health care a whole army of independent professional workers, incl IIRC two geriatrists, when you are still living at home and resist to the last moment to be transferred to a care home.

What I see as main mistake of this doctor is that she based her judgment on the opinion of all these other persons, and did not have a deep 1:1 discussion with that demented person herself.
But as I said... news on it here is still incomplete

Now... despite this widely supported societal understanding here that we have to develop a decent euthanasia policy, we have ofc here also people that prefer to take the stance you take in your post.

These people are a small minority... but our whole societal fabric here is based on wanting to find ways to give room to minorities.
However... this giving room stops at the moment that these minorities start polarising the debate to a degree where an harmonious societal deliberating is negativelively affected.
In that case the only room left for them is their freedom of speech...

With your remarks Inno you just alligned to the SGP political party in NL and their pro-life stance and arguments. And for that matter also the Forum of Democracy.
It is that I am here on this forum, and feel the need to explain to other people here... that's why I answer.

Within my own Dutch bubble I would not even react on your remarks, just like most other here.
Not because we denie your freedom of speech... but because of your destructive polarising attitude, that is only contra-productive to get a balanced euthanasia policy developed in NL that can enjoy the wide support of our people.

To phrase the subject in less polarizing ways and not to focus on specifically dutch cultural items: would you support euthanasia by santa claus if swarte pete, a servant alluding to black people, developed dementia and could no longer slave behind santa and entertain dutch children with blackface? ^_^

On a more serious note: I don't think that, as society is, there can be good laws on euthanasia. Imo it shouldn't be legal, cause it will bring about even more suffering. After all, if a doctor would be ok with killing one, one might feel positively about this cause it might be the good thing to do to allow relatives to not face a difficult life. But would you really want this person as your doctor on his other projects? (or would he just be the bringer of death, helping people shed this mortal coil? ).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Imagine never being able to sleep on your front again! Not worth it.