Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

the-pi-guy said:
jason1637 said:

The government shouldnt let people make that decision. I don't like the government getting involved in a lot of things but not promoting sucide is a good thing.

That's literally what you asked "Have you worked in the emergency services or the health sector and seen what people have to endure even with the aid of powerful drugs?". I haven't worked in these places but i've been in an emergency room a few times and yeah the pain people go through sucks but they should just fight it and they can get better.

People should not decide to put an animal down because we don't have their consent and it's wrong anyway.

Euthanasia isn't promoting suicide.  

Some people aren't going to get better.  People with painful terminal cancer with 3 weeks to live might want to make the decision to end their life.  

People that are living off machines, in horrible agony, with no chance of recovery, might make the decision that they want to end their life.  

Euthanasia is promoting sucide in some instances. If it were legal worldwide liek Dark Lord suggested then the option would be given to more people.

For the very rare cases where people won't get better they should try to enjoy the little life they have left. Also you don't know if they won't get better. Medicine is getting better everyday so there is always a chance a cure to cancer can be found any day now.

And that's a bad decision.

Immersiveunreality said:
jason1637 said:

So since I haven't experienced something I can't give my opinion on it?

You always can but it looks like your lack of experience holds you back from seeing the full picture,thinking "suicide is bad" and involving that into this argument could be considered a pretty empty black and white thoughtprocess .

My thought process here is not empty. It's very full. If you kill yourself you're commiting sucide. If you're sick and ask someoen to kill you you're still commiting sucide because you're givng them your consent. Medicine is always getting better and even if the odds are low you never know what can happen.



Around the Network
jason1637 said:

The government shouldnt let people make that decision. I don't like the government getting involved in a lot of things but not promoting sucide is a good thing.

The Government isn't promoting suicide.
The Government would essentially be stepping back from dictating any decision relating to it, leaving the choice with the individual and their families.

What you are actually proposing is for government intervention to tell people what they can and can't do...

Besides, if someone is in excessive pain, they can "make" their own creative ways to end their life anyway, regardless of what the Government says or do... I mean, what is the Government going to do? Jail them? They are dead.

Besides when people take action in their own way, it is often a more brutal and painful way anyway. - Having pain-free options would make it a much cleaner and humane process... And hopefully result in me being called to less incidents where someone has literally jumped off a bridge or cliff and I have to scrape up their bloody leftovers.

jason1637 said:

That's literally what you asked "Have you worked in the emergency services or the health sector and seen what people have to endure even with the aid of powerful drugs?".

The Emergency Services isn't just an emergency room.
It's any first responder... Be it an Urban Search and Rescue from a collapsed building, Firefighter entering a burning home, Extricating casualties from a car accident... You name it.

jason1637 said:

I haven't worked in these places but i've been in an emergency room a few times and yeah the pain people go through sucks but they should just fight it and they can get better.

They often don't get better. - That is the entire point. You are proposing that people should suffer in pain indefinitely.

jason1637 said:

People should not decide to put an animal down because we don't have their consent and it's wrong anyway.

A few years ago I went to a truck rollover with about 100 sheep in it.
I had to assist in killing half the stock as many had broken necks, broken legs, large wounds that would have simply meant that those animals would not have had any chance of surviving or minimal quality of life... In short, it was better for the animals to be put down and disposed of then and there. (No, you couldn't eat them due to various reasons.)

Their consent wasn't necessary, you don't allow animals to suffer, it's brutal and wrong.

jason1637 said:

So since I haven't experienced something I can't give my opinion on it?

You can provide your opinion on it (And is something that is welcomed!), it just means it's not from a more educated lived-perspective.

But I am wondering if you have formed your perspective due to religious influences or something else?



jason1637 said:

For the very rare cases where people won't get better they should try to enjoy the little life they have left.

Some people literally can't.  All they will do is live the rest of their life in agony.  

jason1637 said:

 Also you don't know if they won't get better. Medicine is getting better everyday so there is always a chance a cure to cancer can be found any day now.

Yes, medicine is getting better every day.  That doesn't mean that a miracle cure is on the way.  Even if it was, it certainly isn't going to available tomorrow.  



jason1637 said:

1. The number is random. In their mythology the only state how many people would live by failing while using other methods. They fail to mention the 41% statistic in their methodology. 

Its late, but my god man, the number is not fucking random. They break it down in detail:

To determine those figures, we went through a number of steps and made a number of assumptions. We began with the 42,773 people who commit suicide. According to CDC, 21,334 of them use guns, and 21,439 do not. If the U.S. mirrored the other Western countries, only 3,882 would use guns.

So in our model, those 3,882 remain as firearm deaths, leaving 17,452 who will not commit suicide using guns. Firearm suicide attempts succeed 90 percent of the time, so these 17,452 suicides correspond to 19,434 attempts that will not involve guns in our hypothetical. The question is what becomes of them.

Some of these people, without access to a gun, would likely just choose not to attempt to suicide at all. But it’s also very likely that some will choose a different method.

To be conservative in our calculation, we assumed that all of the people in this group do attempt to commit suicide using means other than firearms. The next question is how they do it.

This question is particularly important because different suicide methods have wide-ranging success rates. While 90 percent of people who attempt suicide with guns succeed, that’s only true of 81 percent of people who attempt to suffocate themselves, 32 percent of people who jump from a significant height, and 4 percent of people who attempt to poison themselves. (We’re using the CDC’s nonfatal self-harm data here, which includes the number of people who attempt self-harm that leads them to end up in the emergency room.)

It’s impossible to know what mix of these alternative methods people who no longer use guns would try. But we’ve come up with two estimates, which you can think of as the lower and upper bounds on the expected decline in suicide rates. Depending on which we use, we either find that the suicide rate declines 20 percent or 38 percent.

38 percent

In this estimate, we apply the same mix of methods that people currently use to attempt suicide – excluding firearms. This distribution – 51 percent poisoning, 24 percent cutting, four percent suffocation, one percent jumping and 20 percent other methods — has an overall fatality rate of 6 percent. In other words, 94 percent of the people who would otherwise have killed themselves with guns now would live.

Obviously, in this scenario, almost all the people who would have died with guns live. So, under this scenario, the total deaths from suicides would be 38 percent lower. Here’s how the math looks on that:

Now:

21,439 original non-gun suicides
21,334 firearm suicides
42,773 total suicides

This scenario:

21,439 original non-gun suicides
3,882 adjusted firearm suicides
1,108 alternative non-gun suicides
26,429 total suicides

But this impact may be too high. Gun users could be more serious about dying than some people who cut themselves or take minor overdoses. That means, they may go to more extreme measures to make sure their suicide is successful. Some academic research finds that method choice is unrelated to the intensity of someone’s intent to die. That is, gun users are no more intent on dying than poison users, so there’s no reason to think they would attempt poisoning differently and die at a higher rate. However, some studies draw the opposite conclusion.

20 percent

To consider a more conservative option, we apply the same mix of methods that people currently use who succeed at suicide – again, excluding firearms. Since this is replicating the mix of methods used by people who have a higher intent on killing themselves, it might reflect the gun suicide population better.

This distribution – 53 percent suffocation, 32 percent poisoning, five percent jumping, three percent cutting and seven percent other methods – has an overall fatality rate of 46 percent. In other words, just 54 percent of the people who would otherwise have killed themselves with guns now would live.

Under this scenario, the total deaths from suicides would be more modest 20 percent lower. Here’s how the math looks on that:

Now:

21,439 original non-gun suicides
21,334 firearm suicides
42,773 total suicides

This scenario:

21,439 original non-gun suicides
3,882 adjusted firearm suicides
8,918 alternative non-gun suicides
34,239 total suicides

This latter estimate of the decline may be too low because it excludes people who are serious suicide attempters, but don’t die, skewing our distribution toward deadlier methods.

Reality may be somewhere in between these assumptions — in between those 20 and 38 percent figures.



Pemalite said:
jason1637 said:

The government shouldnt let people make that decision. I don't like the government getting involved in a lot of things but not promoting sucide is a good thing.

The Government isn't promoting suicide.
The Government would essentially be stepping back from dictating any decision relating to it, leaving the choice with the individual and their families.

What you are actually proposing is for government intervention to tell people what they can and can't do...

Besides, if someone is in excessive pain, they can "make" their own creative ways to end their life anyway, regardless of what the Government says or do... I mean, what is the Government going to do? Jail them? They are dead.

Besides when people take action in their own way, it is often a more brutal and painful way anyway. - Having pain-free options would make it a much cleaner and humane process... And hopefully result in me being called to less incidents where someone has literally jumped off a bridge or cliff and I have to scrape up their bloody leftovers.

jason1637 said:

That's literally what you asked "Have you worked in the emergency services or the health sector and seen what people have to endure even with the aid of powerful drugs?".

The Emergency Services isn't just an emergency room.
It's any first responder... Be it an Urban Search and Rescue from a collapsed building, Firefighter entering a burning home, Extricating casualties from a car accident... You name it.

jason1637 said:

I haven't worked in these places but i've been in an emergency room a few times and yeah the pain people go through sucks but they should just fight it and they can get better.

They often don't get better. - That is the entire point. You are proposing that people should suffer in pain indefinitely.

jason1637 said:

People should not decide to put an animal down because we don't have their consent and it's wrong anyway.

A few years ago I went to a truck rollover with about 100 sheep in it.
I had to assist in killing half the stock as many had broken necks, broken legs, large wounds that would have simply meant that those animals would not have had any chance of surviving or minimal quality of life... In short, it was better for the animals to be put down and disposed of then and there. (No, you couldn't eat them due to various reasons.)

Their consent wasn't necessary, you don't allow animals to suffer, it's brutal and wrong.

jason1637 said:

So since I haven't experienced something I can't give my opinion on it?

You can provide your opinion on it (And is something that is welcomed!), it just means it's not from a more educated lived-perspective.

But I am wondering if you have formed your perspective due to religious influences or something else?

1.By allowing it they are indirectly promoting suicide.

So you'd be fine with someone wanting to shoot themselves in the head if they're in pain as their way of being creative about their death?

2. The answer is still no. I have not worked in any emergency services.

3. In these rare cases the person will die very soon anyway. They should enjoy the time they have left even if they are in pain. Their pain might even go away with new medicine.

4. So ya'll made the decision that it was better to let the animal die. What if the animals wanted to live?

5. I'm not saying that my opinion is from life experience. Most people don't go through issues that are prominent today but they can still give educated opinions on these problems.

I'm Catholic but i haven't really practiced my faith in the past year/year and a half. My opinion has nothing to due with the Catholic teachings but I am aware that the Catholic church opposes euthanasia.



Around the Network
jason1637 said:

1.By allowing it they are indirectly promoting suicide.

So you'd be fine with someone wanting to shoot themselves in the head if they're in pain as their way of being creative about their death?

2. The answer is still no. I have not worked in any emergency services.

3. In these rare cases the person will die very soon anyway. They should enjoy the time they have left even if they are in pain. Their pain might even go away with new medicine.

4. So ya'll made the decision that it was better to let the animal die. What if the animals wanted to live?

5. I'm not saying that my opinion is from life experience. Most people don't go through issues that are prominent today but they can still give educated opinions on these problems.

I'm Catholic but i haven't really practiced my faith in the past year/year and a half. My opinion has nothing to due with the Catholic teachings but I am aware that the Catholic church opposes euthanasia.

Please respond to my post above.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

1. The number is random. In their mythology the only state how many people would live by failing while using other methods. They fail to mention the 41% statistic in their methodology. 

Its late, but my god man, the number is not fucking random. They break it down in detail:

To determine those figures, we went through a number of steps and made a number of assumptions. We began with the 42,773 people who commit suicide. According to CDC, 21,334 of them use guns, and 21,439 do not. If the U.S. mirrored the other Western countries, only 3,882 would use guns.

So in our model, those 3,882 remain as firearm deaths, leaving 17,452 who will not commit suicide using guns. Firearm suicide attempts succeed 90 percent of the time, so these 17,452 suicides correspond to 19,434 attempts that will not involve guns in our hypothetical. The question is what becomes of them.

Some of these people, without access to a gun, would likely just choose not to attempt to suicide at all. But it’s also very likely that some will choose a different method.

To be conservative in our calculation, we assumed that all of the people in this group do attempt to commit suicide using means other than firearms. The next question is how they do it.

This question is particularly important because different suicide methods have wide-ranging success rates. While 90 percent of people who attempt suicide with guns succeed, that’s only true of 81 percent of people who attempt to suffocate themselves, 32 percent of people who jump from a significant height, and 4 percent of people who attempt to poison themselves. (We’re using the CDC’s nonfatal self-harm data here, which includes the number of people who attempt self-harm that leads them to end up in the emergency room.)

It’s impossible to know what mix of these alternative methods people who no longer use guns would try. But we’ve come up with two estimates, which you can think of as the lower and upper bounds on the expected decline in suicide rates. Depending on which we use, we either find that the suicide rate declines 20 percent or 38 percent.

38 percent

In this estimate, we apply the same mix of methods that people currently use to attempt suicide – excluding firearms. This distribution – 51 percent poisoning, 24 percent cutting, four percent suffocation, one percent jumping and 20 percent other methods — has an overall fatality rate of 6 percent. In other words, 94 percent of the people who would otherwise have killed themselves with guns now would live.

Obviously, in this scenario, almost all the people who would have died with guns live. So, under this scenario, the total deaths from suicides would be 38 percent lower. Here’s how the math looks on that:

Now:

21,439 original non-gun suicides
21,334 firearm suicides
42,773 total suicides

This scenario:

21,439 original non-gun suicides
3,882 adjusted firearm suicides
1,108 alternative non-gun suicides
26,429 total suicides

But this impact may be too high. Gun users could be more serious about dying than some people who cut themselves or take minor overdoses. That means, they may go to more extreme measures to make sure their suicide is successful. Some academic research finds that method choice is unrelated to the intensity of someone’s intent to die. That is, gun users are no more intent on dying than poison users, so there’s no reason to think they would attempt poisoning differently and die at a higher rate. However, some studies draw the opposite conclusion.

20 percent

To consider a more conservative option, we apply the same mix of methods that people currently use who succeed at suicide – again, excluding firearms. Since this is replicating the mix of methods used by people who have a higher intent on killing themselves, it might reflect the gun suicide population better.

This distribution – 53 percent suffocation, 32 percent poisoning, five percent jumping, three percent cutting and seven percent other methods – has an overall fatality rate of 46 percent. In other words, just 54 percent of the people who would otherwise have killed themselves with guns now would live.

Under this scenario, the total deaths from suicides would be more modest 20 percent lower. Here’s how the math looks on that:

Now:

21,439 original non-gun suicides
21,334 firearm suicides
42,773 total suicides

This scenario:

21,439 original non-gun suicides
3,882 adjusted firearm suicides
8,918 alternative non-gun suicides
34,239 total suicides

This latter estimate of the decline may be too low because it excludes people who are serious suicide attempters, but don’t die, skewing our distribution toward deadlier methods.

Reality may be somewhere in between these assumptions — in between those 20 and 38 percent figures.

I read through this already and nowhere here do they mention how they came to the conclusion that 41% of people would still commit suicide. They do mention some numbers for the amount of alternative suicides that could have fail.



SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

Life is precious and the government shouldn't let people kill themselves.

edit: No I haven't worked in an emergency room.

I took my mother off life support in Oct 2017.  It was either that or she remain in a completely vegetative state for several more weeks. No brain activity, no consciousness, no....life.  Her life was exceptionally precious. But given she no longer had one, I had to make the ultimate decision.  So that she can move on with whatever happens when we pass and our family could move on with healing rather than mourning in the hospital everyday.

Had it been illegal, I would have done it anyway. 

This situation sucks and you made the decision that you thought would be best. If I were in a situation similar to this I would have made a different decision and let continue to live.

SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

The government shouldnt let people make that decision. I don't like the government getting involved in a lot of things but not promoting sucide is a good thing.

That's literally what you asked "Have you worked in the emergency services or the health sector and seen what people have to endure even with the aid of powerful drugs?". I haven't worked in these places but i've been in an emergency room a few times and yeah the pain people go through sucks but they should just fight it and they can get better.

People should not decide to put an animal down because we don't have their consent and it's wrong anyway.

I wish your optimism were a valid representation of reality.  I truly wish it were.

Medicine reseach and advancement is moving at a fast pace everyday and we hear about new treatments and advances all the time. So the possibility of someone getting better is always there.

@the-pi-guy Even if medicine is not available to the public immediately there are options to test try these treatments for those that are really ill.



jason1637 said:

1.By allowing it they are indirectly promoting suicide.

False. It just means the Government has no position on the matter.

Otherwise what you are suggesting is that the government promotes murder by not having gun legislation... And that doesn't happen, right?

jason1637 said:

So you'd be fine with someone wanting to shoot themselves in the head if they're in pain as their way of being creative about their death?

That is an option for individuals to take if there isn't more humane ways for people to Euthanase themselves.

I would prefer a drug cocktail that makes it painless and quick in a safe, private area.

jason1637 said:

2. The answer is still no. I have not worked in any emergency services.

Then shouldn't you try taking onboard the perspectives of those that have?
Have a little empathy.

jason1637 said:

3. In these rare cases the person will die very soon anyway. They should enjoy the time they have left even if they are in pain. Their pain might even go away with new medicine.

Absolutely false. Some people last decades in severe pain.

jason1637 said:

4. So ya'll made the decision that it was better to let the animal die. What if the animals wanted to live?

The animals wouldn't have lived either way, making such a thing irrelevant... If anything their suffering would have gotten worse as a couple of farmers don't have the time, money or resources to look after dozens of animals that have life-long debilitating injuries.

jason1637 said:

5. I'm not saying that my opinion is from life experience. Most people don't go through issues that are prominent today but they can still give educated opinions on these problems.

Put yourself in a position where you are pretty much bed-bound for the next 50 years, you are unable to walk, go to the toilet, bathe, go shopping, go to work, go to birthday parties, go to the movies, go to the beach... Unable to sleep or relax because all you can do is scream out in excessive pain... Or get drugged up to such a extent that you cannot perceive the world around you anyway.

Ask yourself is that the kind of life you would find tantalizing?

jason1637 said:

I'm Catholic but i haven't really practiced my faith in the past year/year and a half. My opinion has nothing to due with the Catholic teachings but I am aware that the Catholic church opposes euthanasia.

The Church opposes allot of things I guess, but only when it's convenient.



jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

I took my mother off life support in Oct 2017.  It was either that or she remain in a completely vegetative state for several more weeks. No brain activity, no consciousness, no....life.  Her life was exceptionally precious. But given she no longer had one, I had to make the ultimate decision.  So that she can move on with whatever happens when we pass and our family could move on with healing rather than mourning in the hospital everyday.

Had it been illegal, I would have done it anyway. 

This situation sucks and you made the decision that you thought would be best. If I were in a situation similar to this I would have made a different decision and let continue to live.

SpokenTruth said:

I wish your optimism were a valid representation of reality.  I truly wish it were.

Medicine reseach and advancement is moving at a fast pace everyday and we hear about new treatments and advances all the time. So the possibility of someone getting better is always there.

@the-pi-guy Even if medicine is not available to the public immediately there are options to test try these treatments for those that are really ill.

No medicine has come about since that day that would have regenerated her brain damage. Nor is one likely to ever happen.  Even if you could regenerate brain synapse activity, the individual axon connections that make up a persons consciousness, memories, thoughts, personality, etc....would be gone.

How long would you keep them on life support?  2 days?  2 weeks?  2 years?  Absolutely no chance for recovery by any current treatments and any medications that are expected to help in any capacity are still not yet undergoing human trials which alone can take a decade or more.


And by the way...welcome to America.  You have to pay for all that.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."