Just thought I'd throw this out here. Initiative 1000 is the Death with Dignity Act. I think it's far past time for something like this to be legal. Actually I'm offended that it ever was and still is illegal. I mean who could be opposed to this? That is, unless your agenda is all about controlling what other people do. I heard actor Martin Sheen on the radio speaking in opposition with some distorted and made up crap about the Act, and I wonder what he's paid to say that sh!t. Why should he give a rat's a$$ what a terminally ill patient does to manage the end of his or her life? The Act doesn't require anybody to use it, but it would be there for those who do want to. If it isn't obvious, I can't stand meddling folks who stick their noses into other people's business, or use the law to cram their religious beliefs into other people's lives, or end of life in this case. They really ought to fvck off.

Sg

I agree with you 100% that people should be able to decided to finish it or not. If the pain is that bad or there is no chance and the family is footing crazy medical bills.....I am going to check myself out for sure. No one has the right in my mide to say any different. It is not about religion though SG. This is not a push against it coming from "nutjobs" as the term around here goes.

Bullsh!t.

Who's funding the opposition?

What does it say for terminal unconcious people with no family around?

+1

Agreed...another battle in my crusade to tell government to stop telling me what I can and can't do in my personal life, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else...and I don't mean "hurt their feelings" because their fundie beliefs don't allow them to have as much fun as me

Fish on...

Todd

I think they should change it to anyone who is terminally sick can be offed by injection of a 45 slug. I'll be the judge.

I'm only kidding....this thing is a no brainer and will easily pass.

Dan S,
The polls i have seen show that well over 60% who regularly go to church support the law. You libs attempt to paint anyone who believes in religion with the same broad brush as a few that take it to far is what pisses the rest of us off. The vast majority support what we deem reasonable but the other side finds some nut on Utube that say some crazy shiat and pretend that is what religion is. Grow up. I know I know......STFU....ha, beat you to it.

I found a great website that goes over ALL the initiatives, and as far as I can tell, it's mostly unbiased. Just the straight dope.

I don't care how anyone votes, just read up on the initiatives, get the facts, make your OWN decision and VOTE.

VOTE!

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_2008_ballot_measures

Oh yeah, and what Salmo said.

So no one on PP opposes it? That's good news, but I'm certain that we don't represent a cross section of WA citizens.

Docspud,

Like Dan asks, someone is funding the opposition, to the tune of a couple million $ I think. Catholic Church is probably one, altho I haven't checked yet. But they have that "only God can choose" and other people control policies, which would be fine if they would just keep it to themselves. Libs or not, we're not trying to paint all religious people with a broad brush; just the assholes who can't mind their own fvcking business and let the rest of us manage our lives the way we see fit.

J7,

A terminal unconscious person is s.o.l., since they have to consult two doctors which sorta' requires being conscious. However, that hardly seems like a valid reason to deny it to those who are.

Slab Happy,

This is a second run. It didn't pass last time, can't remember when, 8, 10, or 12 years ago.

Parker,

Thanks for the link.

Sg

Hell, he founded a college(sic) to continue indoctrinating his hateful agenda into young misguided youth.

KK,
The difference between us is that I will call a nut a nut.....either party by the way. You libs refers only to a select few on this sight....about five or six people who bash unrelenting anyone who does not follow a far left idiology. I am a conservative in the finacial sense of the word (the current admin is not conservative in that sense) but likely have more centrist even left views on everything else (except gun control).
I call a spade a spade. No spin. I think anyone who wants to marry should, anyone who doesnt want and can not take care of a child shouldnt have one, and as Todd stated.....government needs to get out of my life. The patriot act is crap blah blah blah in an endless list of things.
But.....I am not going to sit by and let you or anyone else paint me with the brush of Dobson, Hagee or Robertson. They hijack religion just like Rev Jackson and Sharp hijack race to push their own political agenda. But those like you and JLH who spin spin spin and post stupid internet crap because you are so far left you cant see center is no different that what those you post about on the other side do. Again caml yourself, get some lotion and call todd.

Docspud,

If you stand by your last post, then we have far more common ground than I would have estimated. So when you support politicians who oppose gay marriage and abortion and what to shove RWWJ religion down my throat, but support the Patriot Act, and restriction to Habeous Corpus, and link Iraq to 9/11, am I misunderstanding you?

A lot of what the Democrats offer is a tad too liberal for my taste, but the Republicans haven't given me any other choice for years, at the national level. I think I'm voting for 3 Rs in the state gov't election.

Sg

PS: I call a spade a shovel.

I'm for it. This initiative would have greatly helped one of my family members.
I'll say it - STFU Martin Sheen

KK.....curious statement you made. Are you saying that Dem's don't go to church? or maybe that the Repubs are all religious?

or maybe there are some left wing Republicans? or right wing Democrats?

Do I need to say it? That is one dumbass statement.

You speak in that same post of hate-spewing as if you are exempt. Sure doesn't come across that way to me. The relentless name calling is beyond acceptable, yet you continue. What is with that? You're intelligent and well read, at least in some areas, yet continue with the garbage distribution to anyone who disagrees. Perhaps GTFU is applicable here. (First word...grow).

doc,

Did you just not feel like answering my very simple question?

WHO is funding the oppostition?

Answer that, and tell me again how religion has nothing to do with it.

Dan,
There is no doubt that the primary finacial push comes from the catholic church but donations come in from Drs groups, nurse caregiver groups, and others. Look up no on I1000 as I just did and there are many donations from many different groups. There are some in the religous side behind it but it is not just them. That was my point. If you think Martin sheen is right wing......well he isnt. I am just opposed to the broad brush or saying those dirty religous nuts are push their views. Some might be but not the majority.

Sg,
I am forced to swallow a mouth full of crap because some issues.....Taxes mainly.....are more important to me than other things. I want less govern, believe I can spend my money best and my dontations which I make plenty should be my choice. I worked to get here, spent vitually my hole life in school while others hunted, fished and partied. Now it is my turn damn it. Penalizing me for hard work is B.S. and un-american. No matter how much some want to spread the wealth around or how patriotic it would be for me to pay higher taxes.
I dont like the right either and the last eight years I have been pounding my head against the wall as my freedoms took a hit and govern gets more into my life. 40% increase in size......unbelievable under a GOP admin. I in no way see that getting better under BO though. I see more taxes, more social welfare, more spending and more of my hard earned money gone. Govern needs to mind its own business and stay out of my life and wallet.

doc,

Agreed.

Martin Sheen, STFU and GTFO of my state's affairs.

This really isn't a left / right issue. I probably will vote agianst it, unlike most of you. I have a hard time accepting a doctor killing someone. I have no problem with taking out a tube or denying care, but that is different then prescribing a death prescription. And, as Gregiore and the Democrats have made it clear, not agreeing to prescribe something is the same as inflicting your belief on another person. I think we possibly could see doctors forced to follow guidelines in the future and not follow their own belief system in the future. Mostly though, I struggle with the thought of the pressure someone who is terminal will feel to stop costing his family money and worry. How many people will decide to end life early rather than fight to the end, as the cost of fighting will be to hard fon their family financially and emotionally. Oregon's experience seems to indicate that the numbers will be low, but I am still nervous. I lean more towards freedom, so I understand where everyone is coming from. Not trying to convince anyone, just thought I would throw out a different view.

Krijack,

I appreciate that you shared your view. That's gutsy. I don't appreciate your view and see your view as the problem. This causes me to see you as someone who believes he has some right to insert himself between another WA citizen and his very personal decision about his terminal condition. Who but a monster or arrogant megalomaniac thinks they know better how to treat or not treat someone else's personal terminal condition? Or have any right to be a participant of any kind in this decision? Do you want to make sure the patient doesn't have a handgun in the house to use in lieu of drugs? This is kind of one of those who the fvck do you think you are kind of questions.

Let the doctor and the patient work this out. We're not asking you to accept a doctor "kill" someone. I'm asking you to butt the fvk out of the terminal patient's life/death. If the doctor doesn't want to assist, there is nothing forcing him to. This is a volunteer gig.

As far as prescriptions go, it's a medical prescription for a lethal drug to treat a terminal condition. And what's it to you if someone decides to end the financial drain on their family from attempting to treat a terminal condition? It's none of your damn business, is it? Remember, this doesn't apply to someone who has a bad case of the flu. The patient's reason or reasons are none of your fvcking business, so why won't you mind yours and stay out of his? Really, as you may infer from my tone, I flat don't understand the mindset that steers your view, and have a low opinion of meddling in that which isn't your concern. If you don't want the patient to end his life and end the misery that his family is going through, why the hell don't you go over and give him a hand with surviving his remaining days, since you seem to care so much about managing his end-of-life experience.

If you lean toward freedom as you claim to, I'd like you to act like it and vote for this measure and remove yourself from other citizen's personal business. Then if and when you are terminally ill and face your end of life decision, you can manage it however you want. And I promise you I won't do a damn thing to influence your decision. Lay there writhing in pain all you want if that's your thing. But be a true friend and don't make me do it your way. Fair enough?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Killing someone? So you believe that if a gun shop owner sells a guy a gun and that guy shoots someone with it, the shop owner is guilty of a crime? If not, please explain the difference.



How is it different?



So now we need a reason to exercise our own freedoms?



It indicates more than that. It indicates that all the horror stories about what will happen if I-1000 passes are patently false.

If you are voting "no" on I-1000, then you are most certainly not leaning towards freedom.

Docspud,

It appears we share some values. I value my money, having been poor much of my life, my income actually since I don't accumulate much. But I value some things more than I value the money, which I guess allows me some liberal values. I don't want to learn that I've committed the sin of the love of money. I'm OK with paying taxes to support the infrastructure that makes this country a great place to be. I don't like but accept that some of my taxes will be spent on things I don't value. That's the way it is with pluralism. The only satisfactory alternative is a benevolent dictatorship where I get to be the dictator, and I don't see that one happening.

Sg

See also.. Fishrangers post in the joke thread on 10/7/08.. applies here as well

Just heard Sheens spot on the radio.. So how much is the medical community forking out to have him spout this nonsense? Should'nt medical
professionals be more worried about helping those who can be helped? There was a movie about this stuff a long time ago..Richard Dreyfuss.."Who's Life Is It, Anyways?" Interesting watch, to say the least.
I believe the NO! on I-1000 folks are motivated by sheer greed, and nothing more..after all the longer they keep someone alive, the more they can suck from the lives of the relatives in the form of useless meds, treatments, hospital time, all of which are catastrophically costly. I liked Sheen better in Team America...We're Guards, yea, we're guards..

I voted for it but I wonder what it will cost for the shot or pill to end a life...10,000 or more?

Im voting no, because I believe it's just not right.

Getting old or watching a loved one waste is definitely not for the weak.
A lot of posts made comments about the cost of keeping someone terminally ill alive. I'm of the opinion, a human life should neve boil down to the almighty buck or be an inconvience.

I'd say it's more of a moral issue.This country should hang on to what's left.

That is an excellent question. I have pondered this a little bit and come up with a question myself. What do insurance companies think of this initiative? Will they or wont they want to cash in on life insurance policies? Seems like when this passes; they might have to shuck out a lot of money.

Been there, done that...I have had the experience of watching someone waste away, even had them ask me to provide them a length of rope to end their misery. At the risk of trivializing this issue.. may I say this.. Lets say you had a horse that worked tirelessly for years, plowing fields, hauling wagons, etc. Now lets say the horse is too old and feeble to enable it to do the very things it was born to do.. Like us, it has lived a long and useful life.. so is it worth the cost to feed it anymore, the time to make its last days more comfortable? Chances are the horse doesn't give a damn, it's tired and lived a useful life, and as a sentient being is ok with the life it's led, and is ready for eternal peace? Who are we to deny them everlasting peace? Ok so people are not horses, and horses are not people, but why should we deny anyone of their right to rest after a long and fulfilling life? Apologies to Stam, as I am sure this may have brought a tear to his eye.Willllbuuuurrrrr!!!!!

I hadn't really thought of the insurance aspect of things. Some life insurance policies don't pay out on suicides. I don't know if that would affect things, but it might.

Listen, the financial impact on relatives IS a factor, whether you want to face the fact or not. I don't have the answer to the problem, but don't deny that it is a problem. Unless I completely lose my marbles when it comes time to close the door, I want the door to close all the way....not just part way and slowly get drug through the crack.

I've seen death both ways.....quicker is better, by far. Morphine and other drugs can keep you sucking oxygen without a coherant peep, but that isn't my idea of living.

I mercifully shot an old dog who went down with cancer and couldn't get up and was lying there crying. It was at night on a weekend. You tell me if I should have waited until a vet could make the trip out to give him the shot.
I think "No damn way" am I going to make my old friend wait. I patted him on the head, told him he was a good boy, and shot him. I cried like a baby and couldn't even talk to the wife for a while.....but I know it was right.
When it comes my time, I hope someone is around to do the same for me, or to allow me to "pull the trigger" if I am able.

My 2

I signed the petition to get it on the ballot and will vote for it. My 87 year old neighbor asked me to sign it and told me the story of her husband's pain and suffering.
Slab that was quite a story about your dog. I had a buddy put down last year but it was a weekday and I live in the city so the vet had to do the dirty work. Man that would have been very hard for me to do but I'll give you kudos on it.

I recommend you watch or live with a family member or friend who has Stage 4 terminal cancer.

Watching someone wither away and die due to a terminal illness is NOT health care. It's pure pain and agony for all parties involved, INCLUDING their doctors.

What is cruel is not letting them end their life the way they see fit. If they want to ride it out, so be it. If they want to end it now via assisted suicide, so be it.

But to deny a terminal patient that ability is downright barbaric, especially in a first world country in the year 2008.

I agree with Parker.

Until you've been there, you don't know.

What's worse is the burden of the patient knowing that, if they take things into their own hands and kill themselves with more conventional methods, their life insurance policy, which they've been paying for their whole lives, won't pay out.

Have a nice day.

I don't think that's true.

I believe all the polices *have* to pay out - it's just more of an issue of when. Also, it's a matter of how long you've had your policy before deciding to bite the farm. I bet most polices will state that you will have had to have your policy for "x amount of time" before a payout can or will occur.

Suicide might delay the payout to years, instead of days, weeks, etc, but I believe if you've had the policy longer than their given probationary time, they eventually will have to pay out.

A good friend of the family ate from the barrel end of a shotgun and his wife eventually received his life insurance policy. He'd had it a long time, so duration from when the policy began wasn't an issue.

I think one would run in to trouble in they got a policy then offed themselves the next day, week, etc.

As always, for those who have LI policies and are considering killing yourselves, please READ and REVIEW your policies first.

Wow - there's a public service announcement you don't see that often!

So while the medical bills roll in, the costs of the funeral and serices roll in, and all the daily bills roll in, the insurance sompany leaves you swinging in the breeze during the "probationary period" before they pay out?

Comforting to know.

It's a situation that should be remedied.

Watching a patient whither away and die from cancer is a terrible thing to go through, those that haven't walked in those moccasins don't really have a clue as to the pain and suffering these family members go through.

I am very conflicted about this issue. I really wasn't going to reply to anything, as it is such a precarious issue. But, after going over why I feel the way I do, I still am agianst it.


1. I will always be cynical of a society that has no problem micromanaging every aspect of an individuals life, but suddenly backs off on the issue of abortion and now (I think it will pass) assisted suicide. Drug laws, restrictions on types of treatment, seat belt laws, prostitution, but suddenly enlightenment. It is a slippery slope.
2. While there are safeguards in this provision, it appears the medical community is largely agianst it. Other doctors who might be for it may decide that they will not be involved for various reasons. In the end, it will become known among those who want to know who it is that will sign off on the required paperwork. This does leave a wide door open for abuse. Not every doctor is legit. I was listing to a writer for High Times talk about getting a prescription for medical marijuanna in California. When he it was his turn to see the doctor the nurse noticed he looked nervous. She told him not to worry as she had never seen anyone get denied. The doctor sat him in a chair and asked what his problem was. He said he had a weak back. The doctor asked for how long - he answered for a week back. The doctor smiled and filled out the prescription.

3. While I appreciate the story of the putting down an animal, we are not animals. The left has been trying to get us to buy into that one for years. Like it or not, abortion was the start of this issue. When does life become a life of value (no question it is alive in abortion, just a question of when it becomes a life with human value) and when does it cease to be one of value? Just like some people and doctors had no problem with late term abortions, there are also people and doctors who have no problem with expanding the definition of a life that is not worth living. When Palin was chosen, there were calls on the radio from people bashing her for allowing her son to live. They truely felt she was a horrendous person for not aborting him.

We have had this very law in Oregon for over a decade now.
It seems to be working well, although some religious types seem to forget it's optional.

Fishhog,

If you think it's just not right, then you don't have to do it! Where do you get the right to legally prevent me from deciding whether it's right for me? You can decide your morals, but I don't want you deciding my moral beliefs, OK? If you believe in personal freedom, you cannot oppose this initiative. Finally an issue so black and white a conservative should be able to understand it.

Sg

That hurt Sg. Believe it or not some of us conservatives understand things too.

J7,

Actually the cost is not relevant to the issue. The issue that thoughtful people are engaged in is one of personal freedom. Either we should decide how other people manage their personal end of life experience, or we should let each individual exercise their personal freedom and decide for themselves how to manage it. Weighing in about the cost of the drugs is called deflection and avoiding discussing the core or root issue.

Same with insurance and insurance companies. That is NOT the issue. That's tangential deflection, trying to shift the subject of the debate. Let the individual patient make his decision, including whatever the insurance ramifications are or are not.

Anyone bringing up tangential issues is guilty of trying to change the subject, and steer clear of the central issue which is personal freedom to make one's own end of life management decision. I don't care what your moral belief about this issue is, please don't try to impose your morals on me. I don't give a [censored] whether you have life insurance coverage for suicide or not, and I don't expect you to be butting into my life insurance issues either, along with any other of by business.

Same with family. While I respect my family's right to each of their individual opinions and beliefs, I expect each and every one of them to equally respect my personal beliefs, and either support my personal decisions or show some respect and butt out of my final personal business. That part in the ad where Martin Sheen says someone could commit assisted suicide without their spouse's knowledge or consent should be seen as a positive thing, not negative. What is it that some dumb fvcks don't understand about personal freedom being personal, not family or community and sure as hell not governmental.

BWP,

As stated emphatically above, the health care system is also irrelevant. You're just side-stepping the central issue. You favor personal freedom or you oppose it. Take a stand. For freedom I would hope. Go ahead and be afraid of assisted suicide if you want, and don't do it yourself. What I object to is that you seem to think it is you who should decide what I should fear and why I should fear it. I'm willing to let you decide what to be afraid of. How about you give me the same respect and not be constraining my personal freedom? I hate it when anyone would meddle in my personal business. Fvckin' busybodies need to get out of other's lives and take care of themselves.

Slab,

I know your experience well and respect you for your decision and action. A good dog is part of the family. Putting my retrievers down tore my guts out for days. Some things in life, and death, are hard, but nonetheless necessary.

AM,

Nice to be on the same page with you again.

Good post Parker. But again, insurance is a different issue, and an irrelevant distraction from the core issue of personal freedom. I don't expect to still be carrying life insurance in a few more years, but even if I did, I wouldn't let that over-ride the issue of my personal freedom. For those concerned about it, a lot of life insurance policies don't cover suicide in the first two years of the policy.

Krijack,

We're back to you thinking you have the right to limit my personal freedom in a matter that concerns me but doesn't concern you. What's that make you, a facist? I still recommend that you let yourself die writhing away in pain, but get your personal values and opinions out of my life, and let me decide for myself. What you're suggesting makes you the most dangerous kind of citizen in my estimation. You're only willing to let me live with the freedoms you think I should have, and that I shouldn't be allowed any that you don't approve of. I'd like not to take this to a personal level, but it is personal because it appears that you insist on injecting yourself into the most personal aspect of my life even tho whatever I do in this matter has no possible way of personally affecting you. Can you even see the lop-sided nature of the control of freedom that is at issue here?

All of your slippery slope arguments are more about dodging the core issue and less about facing the fact that your position is one wherein you're OK with enforcing your personal values over mine in a matter that affects me but not you. Nobody's making you choose assisted suicide. Your position causes me to see you as the enemy of personal freedom. Can you assemble a clear, cogent, and convincing defense that it isn't?

BTW, thank you for participating in this discussion.

Freespool,

Good points. I agree that it seems to be religious zealots who tend to think that they are the one who should have the right to decide how their fellow citizens manage their personal business, whether it's end of life, abortion, gay marriage, but they forgive priests who sexually abuse children. Sheesh!

Thanks everyone who took the time to contribute!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,
I really don't have an argument against the fact that I am imposing my beliefs on you. That's the problem I struggle with in my position. I try to be a pragmatic in most things. I try to look beyond the emotional issue and look at what is driving an issue, how history relates to a decision, and what the results are or could be. I mention a slippery slope because I believe it is one. When I look at world and history, I see a world where Moslems blow themselves up, where the Germans intiated the "final solution", people abort babies based on convenience, sex or handicap, and places like Rawanda and Darfur are ignored. How did these people come to where human life became so worthless and disposible? Then I look at the United States where the people roll over and let the government pass laws like the Patriot Act, and I start to wonder. Where will we be in 25 years. In less than a day Americans were standing in line to give away their personal freedoms. I suppose I am partly driven to my position by two things; one being that I am a parent of a handicapped child, and two being a child of a parent who was involved in the Hilter Youth and whose grandfather was in the German SS. I don't trust government or society.
I am willing to admit that if I sat through the painful death of a loved one I might change my opinion. In the end, while for most people this is an argument about personal freedom, I look at it as a deeper
issue dealing with the value of life.
So, trust me, I realize the value of your arguments. This is just a place I am unwilling to go at this time. My guess is that it will pass and it will cause little uproar. People will forget about it, and for the most part it will slip (hopefully) into oblivion for most of us. Yet the concious step society is taking one that could have future ramifications. I will leave it at that and allow you to attack as you like.

Krijack,

Although I bring plenty of emotion to this issue, it's really about being rational and objective to me. I have no wish to attack you. I want you to think about it from points of view other than your own, and for you to understand how guys like me see you coming off as the dictatorial one, since we can't force you into using this service, but you can deprive us of using it. And that it is people like you who are limiting our personal freedom, despite that freedom having no direct affect on you.

You say you see the deeper issue being the value of life, not about personal freedom. I agree with you in an oblique way. Sorta' like Patrick Henry I consider personal freedom equivalent with the ultimate value of life - give me liberty, or give me death. Heady stuff isn't it? So when you mess with my personal freedom, you're messing with my value of life. Just like real life itself, there is no way outa' this. It's real messy. Either you value life, and the personal freedom that attends it, or you don't. Please think about this. What do you suppose it is that you're valuing more highly?

Thanks again for being a good sport and discussing this, having an outlying position and all.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

That's right Aunty, ain't none of us getting oughta' here alive. Apparently a type of morals Nazi objects to us making our own personal decisions. I'm trying hard to understand that mindset and what creates it. I'm leaning toward a religious defect of some type.

Sg

wow, welcome to another episode of "As The Stomach Turns"..you really believe religion has no hand in this??? Well I for one don't want somebodies "imaginary friend" telling me what I can or cannot do with my life. Suicide is painless, and should only be the decision of the terminally ill, with sound mind and judgement, not some religious whack job foisting their beliefs upon everyone around them actually believing they are the sword of god or something similar.Many have tried to get you to see that, but you have blinders on..

Salmo - Im not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone. This inititive is to vote for it or against it. You have every right to vote for it, just as I have every right to vote against it. And yes I DO UNDERSTANT IT!!!


You don't want me deciding your moral beliefs, the same way I don't want you deciding mine.

You started this thread stating your opinions/beliefs for which you are sincere. I know I'm in the minority, but I'm fine with that.

Im going to agree to disagree.

I can of have to agree with BWP on this one. The governments hand is in this no matter how you look at it. If it wasn't, there would be no requirements for doctors guidelines. Why shouldn't someone who lost his or her entire family in a car accident and is now a paraplegic be allowed to off themselves, why not someone who is getting alzheimers and looking at a life of slow death and loss of dignity over a longer period. A few years back a business associate of my Dad's came down with terminal cancer. He was the only family member that cared for his severly mentally disabled grandchild, so he took him out the woods, killed the grandchild and then himself. Most people who knew the situation felt he did the kid a favor. Where does it stop, and should it.... In some ways, while this gives more freedom to an individual, at the same time gives more control to the government to decide when a life is still worth living.

Well, first, let me appologize for my belated reply. The first thing I would like to say is, GF Salmo g. The great thing about these boards is that you can go back and read what you typed. The previous 2 posts I put on this thread were pure questions and I was looking for an answer. Anyone suggesting my opinion on an issue from a question is guilty of being a dumb ass. Anyone who does not have a legitimate answer should STFU about how I feel about it and worry about there own well being.

I understand you could just be poking the bear because he is fun to piss off. No problem, thats OK, I accept that, please keep poking.

I have just spent the weekend dealing with the death of my wifes mother. Nothing terminal, she just checked out in the middle of the night. Believe me, I just found out, cost is very much an important issue when regarding death.

If you care, my mother has just been diagnosed with liver cancer. I'll will let you know that she wants to fight/live because that is her natural instinct to do what she or her doctors can do keep her alive. We are unsure of the future and certanly scared. I will also let yo know that cost and quality of care are an issue.

So, again, GF Salmo g., for assuming my beliefs and then directing it towards yourself.

You also bring up the point of personal freedom. Personal freedom is a much larger issue than just assisted suicide. Personal freedom is huge. If you really gave a sh!t about personal freedom, you would not care in any capacity the outcome of voting because it is a personal choice. Since you have posted comments in contrary to true personal choice; you are a hipocrit. FOYFPOS

Now, here is my real opinion/s, since you care. I hate it that hese everyday life issues have to make it on the political ballot. In my view death strikes everybody, evenly, across the board. I agree that death should be quick and with dignity but that is selfish because I dont want to see the suffering and I dont want my family members to experience any pain. That is a me thing. I am a hunter and I hate it when my prey suffers, so I make every effort to end it quickly. Thats a me thing. I dont care if this passes but I want to be sure that there are no loopholes to get abused by anyone involved.

We all fvck the same and we die the same, please keep it off the ballot.

Hang in there, J7.

You know what?

I think you should shut your f*cking mouth.

You lie there in intense agony for weeks crapping yourself from pain before you open your gaping f'n hole and call someone a quitter.

I don't give a sh!t if you set yourself on fire tonight............in fact you'd be doing the world a favor.

You're a real piece of sh!t, bwp. Go f*ck yourself.

...bwp: i'd look out, i think you just made the Top of the List!

I don't give a f*ck WHAT you think, you f'n worm.

Go kill yourself.

damn, he's gonna blow a gasket...

You're a c0cksucker, bwp.

Calling someone so desperate they'd take their own life a quitter is something only a stinkin' fly ridden piece of sh!t would say.

Like you, for instance.

Go kill youself and make the world a better place.

So, according to your own logic (if you can call it that) you just invited a bunch of bs onto yourself...?


:woops:

1. BwP
2. GvD
3. Luntra
4. Jake or KK
5. Man driving slow in fast lane
6. Woman in purple dress
7. Man playing too much techno
8. Man with hat



...movin' on up!!

I'll give you sh!t any time you say some stupid-ass crap.

I don't give a rat's ass WHO you're married to.........it doesn't have a thing to do with the conversation.

You called people in such pain and desperation that they'd take their own life quitters.

And THAT makes you a sack of sh!t.

How simple.

Bring up KARMA again, even though you don't believe in it. It shows the whole world what a f*cktard you are.

I give you whatever the f.uck i want, bitch...

(let's see... how many of my family members DIED from cancer??)


btw, KARMA doesn't really believe in you either

Already did him.

Good, I feel much better now.

Once again Butthurt Wussbag Pansy you have taken douchebaggery to a new and fascinating level.

You're talking big, acting like you know what's up, but until YOU have watched someone YOU love experience weeks/months/years of horrible pain and the physical indignities of a terrible illness and take their own life you should withhold your idiotic judgements and shut your worthless piehole.

Done