Belgian twins choose euthenasia

[Helen of Annoy]

I'll repeat my last post especially for you:

Don't be so arrogant to think that everyone involved with euthanasia doesn't go every thought that is proposed in this thread. You don't hold all the exclusive wisdom here.

Aha, I see who does think he's the exclusive dispatcher of wisdom.

Never mind, the thread is not about your bloated self-esteem.

Back on topic.

The murder of a person depressed by possibility of going blind cannot qualify as euthanasia.

Murdering people seen as burden or helping depressed people commit suicide is not euthanasia, and never will be. Euthanasia is killing of incurable patient suffering agonizing pain or stopping life support for body in irreversible coma.

Support for hypothetical situation from the OP (I can’t stress enough how much I doubt contents of that article) is support for eugenics, not euthanasia.

Now, quick, post a photo from your favourite TV show to prove me wrong.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Helen of Annoy

[Render]

Aha, I see who does think he's the exclusive dispatcher of wisdom.

Never mind, the thread is not about your bloated self-esteem.

Back on topic.

The murder of a person depressed by possibility of going blind cannot qualify as euthanasia.

Murdering people seen as burden or helping depressed people commit suicide is not euthanasia, and never will be. Euthanasia is killing of incurable patient suffering agonizing pain or stopping life support for body in irreversible coma.

Support for hypothetical situation from the OP (I can’t stress enough how much I doubt contents of that article) is support for eugenics, not euthanasia.

Now, quick, post a photo from your favourite TV show to prove me wrong.

I'll just quote myself again, because everything is already said before:

It's understandable that some ppl feel a line was crossed here, because they aren't well-informed over the actual issue.

The twins went through all the steps for a year and half, consulted 3 doctors (as is required) and tried a myriad of medications and treatments..but many they couldn't even try because it would have effect on their eyes and other issues.

One of them had respiratory problems and could only sleep sitting upwards. The other one had trouble walking after a neck operation where they think they damaged bone marrow.

And now they were already almost completely blind, not a lil bit.

The twins informed every doctor that they would kill themselves, so ultimately their euthanasia was granted.

Saying that ppl should just commit suicide because that would somehow be better are very close minded. Suicide leads to a series of issues: family members that are crushed because knowing your family members/children committed suicide isn't an acceptable thought. Also, suicide isn't free or anything, the government gets involved either way.

With euthanasia there is a higher sense of acceptance, since family members see it more as a choice than an act of despair. This is something worth considering instead of just dismissing.

Also, these arguments that they should've just driven their car of some place or shot themselves : they were almost completely blind

waddaya want? That they call their mom and ask if she can drive em off a cliff?

Please.

And yanno, all these attitudes here where you just demand that these twins should've just buckled up and faced a life of darkness is very arrogant. Maybe try and have some empathy and understand that it must've been extremely daunting realising that soon they would not be able to communicate anymore. The reality would've been that they would be totally dependant of others and they wouldn't be able to do much anymore, except be condemned to being locked in themselves where images of their memory slowly start to slip away.

Simply demanding that they should just getter over this and keep on living, because you ppl refuse to even think about how reality was for them, is ridiculous.

If you don't trust the article of the OP, go out there on the internet and search for more information. Put some effort into it instead of just trying to make your hypothetical dystopian point.

[Helen of Annoy]

Render,

If your posts were not convincing in the first reading, they won’t magically become more convincing if you quote them, no matter how many times.

I blame educational system for this awkwardness of yours, but you should be able to notice yourself it is not working.

Prospect of blindness is not a reason to kill a man. It’s not a reason to kill a dog or a cat or etc., it’s a reason to take more care about the person going blind.

Also, if your "free killings for everyone depressed" are utopia, then I’d rather live in my dystopia, with my loved ones. And god help those who would try to show their "mercy" on them in case they go deaf or blind.

I’d euthanize them the old way, with an axe. The reason? Stupidity combined with psychopathy. One is passable, if it's both at the same time - off you go. It’s actually eugenic to kill those with undesired traits, but since they themselves insisted that is from now on called euthanasia, so be it, I’m flexible.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Helen of Annoy

[Render]

Also, if your "free killings for everyone depressed" are utopia

the fact that you still think this is what it is about, proves you simply do not understand. And you refuse to consider the extra information around this.

You're right, no matter how much i repeat myself to you, you wont get it. Consider this my forfeit.

I just hope others do understand, and seeing posts of others in this thread there are ppl out there who comprehend this case on a deeper, more thought-out level.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Render

[Helen of Annoy]

the fact that you still think this is what it is about, proves you simply do not understand. And you refuse to consider the extra information around this.

You're right, no matter how much i repeat myself to you, you wont get it. Consider this my forfeit.

I just hope others do understand, and seeing posts of others in this thread there are ppl out there who comprehend this case on a deeper, more thought-out level.

You’re not giving up your cute pictures instead of arguments approach, huh?

Oh, well, everyone within their own limitations... could you draw me something in crayons? To soften my heart that refuses to believe in socially accepted murders?

Post additional information if you think it will change my opinion about disposing the imperfect biological material and think deeply about the possibility someone someday decides you are not perfect.

Blindness, deafness, depression are not valid reasons for euthanasia. Separately or combined.

If clinics exist that perform euthanasia on people who are not terminal and in pain that resists medication, simply on request of depressed people, then the more I think of it, the more I’m sure someone should be stopped from practicing medicine. To put it mildly.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Helen of Annoy

[Helen of Annoy]

Additional info:

http://www.news.com....d-1226553945755

Euthanasia is legal in Belgium, requiring those who seek it to convince a doctor and judges that they are suffering unbearable pain. The twins’ case was unusual because they were not in physical pain or terminally ill.

The first hospital refused them:

]"There is a law but that is clearly open to various interpretations. If any blind or deaf are allowed to euthanise, we are far from home. I do not think this was what the legislation meant by 'unbearable suffering'," the Telegraph reports doctors at the first hospital saying.[/b]

The parents were against, older brother for:

Mr Verbessem explained his brothers had suffered spinal and heart disease, as well as losing their vision due to glaucoma.

Additional glaucoma info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaucoma

I will refrain from stating my full opinion, out of respect for the brothers who chose to depart.

I do respect their decision and I do feel for their suffering.

But their case has opened the door that was locked for a reason.

Edit: came here to read what horror ealdwita posted and noticed the door were locked so I made that "was locked".

Edited January 19, 2013 by Helen of Annoy

[Ealdwita]

I really wouldn't presume to state that the awful prospect of the onset of deafblindness is sufficient reason to choose euthanasia, but when you consider that the poor sods also had to live in Belgium then I can fully understand their decision!

[Rlyeh]

Murdering people seen as burden or helping depressed people commit suicide is not euthanasia, and never will be. Euthanasia is killing of incurable patient suffering agonizing pain or stopping life support for body in irreversible coma.

Support for hypothetical situation from the OP (I can’t stress enough how much I doubt contents of that article) is support for eugenics, not euthanasia.

Sorry but murder is illegal, and eugenics isn't about ending someone's suffering.

[Helen of Annoy]

Sorry but murder is illegal, and eugenics isn't about ending someone's suffering.

Exactly.

So how can people claim the murder of two viable but depressed men was legal?

And how can anyone expect me to disregard the obvious, big as a house, fallacy they propose, that the disposing of not fit organisms (that’s eugenics) is the euthanasia. It is not.

There's a world of difference between mercy and getting rid of someone who requires help.

Actually, getting rid of disabled is the opposite of mercy.

It is anyone's right to live a merciless life, but I demand my intelligence and emotional balance is not insulted by claiming that this absence of mercy is, in fact, mercy, unknown to my merciless mind. *head explodes* This has gone too Orwellian for my taste.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Helen of Annoy

[Rlyeh]

Exactly.

So how can people claim the murder of two viable but depressed men was legal?

So there is evidence of murder? Because your baseless assertion hardly counts.

And how can anyone expect me to disregard the obvious, big as a house, fallacy they propose, that the disposing of not fit organisms (that’s eugenics) is the euthanasia. It is not.

How is ending someone's suffering, eugenics? Clearly you've disregarded the article instead.

It is anyone's right to live a merciless life, but I demand my intelligence and emotional balance is not insulted by claiming that this absence of mercy is, in fact, mercy, unknown to my merciless mind. *head explodes* This has gone too Orwellian for my taste.

Well twisting the meanings of words does nothing to compliment your intelligence.

[Helen of Annoy]

So there is evidence of murder? Because your baseless assertion hardly counts.

Yes, prior to cremation there were two dead bodies. Plus the professional opinion of doctors who refused to do “euthanasia” on people who were not in agony. The autopsy would show these two bodies could have lived and were not disabled in a way that would cause extreme pain - which was the required medical factor until this.

Medicine can't support suicides for obvious reasons, since it deals with curing not encouraging illness. Only extreme cases may allow doctors to consider ending life and depression is not what makes a case extreme in that sense.

How is ending someone's suffering, eugenics? Clearly you've disregarded the article instead.

Clearly I'm disregarding the oh, so fashionable total freedom of choice in favour of protecting life of those who will be victims of arbitrary "euthanasia".

Clearly I'm thinking of ways this case may backfire and take the very much needed actual euthanasia away from those who are in untreatable state and unbearable pain.

Clearly you don’t understand the concept of different levels of pain. Being scared of future may be considered suffering in poetical, but not in medical sense. Extreme anxiety can be alleviated with medication, if it ever gets accepted as a valid reason for “euthanasia”, I sure hope psychopathy will be on that list too.

Well twisting the meanings of words does nothing to compliment your intelligence.

Enlighten me, then. If I claim that getting rid of the disabled is merciless and you guys tell me it’s euthanasia, known also as mercy killing, then where’s the twisting?

Are you ashamed of your opinion?

You would agree with quite arbitrary killings but you have no guts to admit that is in fact what you would support?

[Rlyeh]

Yes, prior to cremation there were two dead bodies. Plus the professional opinion of doctors who refused to do “euthanasia” on people who were not in agony. The autopsy would show these two bodies could have lived and were not disabled in a way that would cause extreme pain - which was the required medical factor until this.

Medicine can't support suicides for obvious reasons, since it deals with curing not encouraging illness. Only extreme cases may allow doctors to consider ending life and depression is not what makes a case extreme in that sense.

The question was is there any evidence of murder, not whether two people were killed or if doctors agree with it.

Do you have any evidence or not?

Clearly I'm disregarding the oh, so fashionable total freedom of choice in favour of protecting life of those who will be victims of arbitrary "euthanasia".

Clearly I'm thinking of ways this case may backfire and take the very much needed actual euthanasia away from those who are in untreatable state and unbearable pain.

So allowing people who are suffering to end their lives will take it from those in pain?

How did you arrive at this marvelous conclusion?

Enlighten me, then. If I claim that getting rid of the disabled is merciless and you guys tell me it’s euthanasia, known also as mercy killing, then where’s the twisting?

Are you ashamed of your opinion?

You would agree with quite arbitrary killings but you have no guts to admit that is in fact what you would support?

Still ignoring the most important factor, the choice to end one's suffering.

[Helen of Annoy]

The question was is there any evidence of murder, not whether two people were killed or if doctors agree with it.

Do you have any evidence or not?

Two dead bodies. Cremated soon after.

If doctors had or had not consensus about justifiability of euthanasia is what makes it euthanasia or murder.

Are you going deaf? Or blind?

I was so close to make the most tasteless joke ever...

So allowing people who are suffering to end their lives will take it from those in pain?

How did you arrive at this marvelous conclusion?

Yes, my dear apparently over-praised child, it may set the justified euthanasia practice back, because obviously the controversy with which this case is ripe will hurt the already highly controversial issue that euthanasia is.

How can you not be able to see the logical consequences?

Still ignoring the most important factor, the choice to end one's suffering.

Aha. The most important factor is what you want. Sure. Not what anyone needs, not what is the objective logical action, it’s only what You want.

It will change once you become a parent... I hope.

And you dare mention ignoring? Which of my points was adressed with anything but complaining about having not enough freedom of choice?

Let me tell you something. Because I too have right to have my priorities, and these are not my whims. Not that I’d ever allow my whims to decide on matters of life and death.

I dread taking my animals to the vet, because they almost automatically suggest killing the patient.

I don’t want to dread taking my mother to the doctor because they will soon automatically suggest killing the patient.

And it could escalate like that because of half-witted, egocentric asses that peddle their religion of self, disregarding millions of normal people in their bizarre pursuit of some esoteric unrestricted choice. Why don’t you choose to notice there’s a ****en difference between feeling down and feeling morphine resistant agony?

If you feel suicidal, it’s not about your right to feel mentally ill, it’s about time you see a doctor. Not to have yourself killed but helped find the strength again.

And do it somewhere off my lawn.

[Kludge808]

Depression can always be solved by other means.

That is sooo not true. I'm 67 years old and depression has been a constant companion most of my life. According to your statement, medication, therapy or some other means should have eliminated it years ago.

The full litany now is severe depression with suicidal ideation, severe PTSD, transient global amnesia, agoraphobia and anxiety. I've been dead once (and, of course, there had to be some damned fool who knew the old "pound 'em in the chest 'til the heart starts again" bit handy who managed to break several ribs in the process), on the edge a few times winding up only in serious pain and or decidedly ill, and terribly disappointed still others.* I still live with the desire to off myself - or have someone do it for me - which has gotten me into a number of situations no "sane" person would enter.

* The last time involved swallowing a gun barrel and pulling the trigger. Three times. (Yes, it was loaded.) Each time it misfired. I took it outside and tried the same rounds in the same gun to see what was up, and they fired.

Getting closer to the OP, my daughter also lives with depression but combined with significant pain. She's terminally ill and has made me promise to find a way to end her life when she simply can't handle it anymore. She's tough and she's a fighter but we both know there will come a time she simply can't go any further. Anyone care to guess how that feels?

[ExpandMyMind]

That is sooo not true. I'm 67 years old and depression has been a constant companion most of my life. According to your statement, medication, therapy or some other means should have eliminated it years ago.

The full litany now is severe depression with suicidal ideation, severe PTSD, transient global amnesia, agoraphobia and anxiety. I've been dead once (and, of course, there had to be some damned fool who knew the old "pound 'em in the chest 'til the heart starts again" bit handy who managed to break several ribs in the process), on the edge a few times winding up only in serious pain and or decidedly ill, and terribly disappointed still others.* I still live with the desire to off myself - or have someone do it for me - which has gotten me into a number of situations no "sane" person would enter.

* The last time involved swallowing a gun barrel and pulling the trigger. Three times. (Yes, it was loaded.) Each time it misfired. I took it outside and tried the same rounds in the same gun to see what was up, and they fired.

Getting closer to the OP, my daughter also lives with depression but combined with significant pain. She's terminally ill and has made me promise to find a way to end her life when she simply can't handle it anymore. She's tough and she's a fighter but we both know there will come a time she simply can't go any further. Anyone care to guess how that feels?

I'm sorry for your various forms of heartache, truly. My heart goes out to you and your daughter.

As I have already mentioned in the thread: I am claiming the battle against depression can always be fought through, and won, but not that this is always the case. There are some who cannot manage it, but this is almost solely a product of our own individual environment, and something that can be combatted with drastic change.

[Kludge808]

Oh, I can think of lots of other reasons besides murder and rape. Bank Robbery, Kidnapping, Armed Robbery of any kind, DWI or DUI where someone else is killed, Child Molesting, Maiming someone intentionally. I have rethought my previously held opinion that Jay Walkers should be on that list. I will have to go with Life without the possibility of parole for Jay Walking.

Nah, jay walkers should be required to cross Farrington Hwy up around Maile on a Friday night. Survivors have to try again.

[Helen of Annoy]

I wouldn’t go while there’s someone who needs me.

I also wouldn’t ever let damn depression win in the end. Hell, no. I was depressed since I discovered what awful planet I was born on, but at the same time I can’t stop being amazed with that same planet.

So I push on forward, insanely optimistic in my paranoid pessimism.

There are situations and pains that would make me give up, but that time hasn’t come yet. And to be honest, no one knows what they would do until it becomes real. It’s a lot easier to say than do, be it dying or staying alive.

[Kludge808]

I agree with you .. Years ago, long before I had children, I wouldn't have agreed, but after the journey I have faced, I have changed that view .....When I lost my daughter weeks before she was due to be born..I viewed her as a little baby girl, ( well she was a little girl ) and no one could tell me any different.

My sympathies for your loss. My granddaughter would be 15 now but Noelle lost her in her 3rd trimester.

[shadowlark]

Euthanasia is killing of incurable patient suffering agonizing pain or stopping life support for body in irreversible coma.

No, that's your definition of euthaniasia. There are different definitions that don't include the "agonizing pain" stipulaton:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euthanasia

"the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/euthanasia

"The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/euthanasia

"Also called mercy killing. The act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition."

There are situations and pains that would make me give up, but that time hasn’t come yet. And to be honest, no one knows what they would do until it becomes real. It’s a lot easier to say than do, be it dying or staying alive.

*Bolded by me

I think that's the point - it's easy to say, "Oh, going blind is no big deal - not a reason to kill yourself" but until you're in that particular situation, you don't really know how you'd act. I suffer from depression. The meds they gave me didn't help, so I'm currently not medicated. I also suffer from chronic pain due to an old injury. There isn't a day that goes by that I'm not in pain. There are days I wish I were dead so I didn't have to suffer any more, but it's never gotten so unbearable that I've tried to take my own life. But to someone else, my suffering may be too much to bear and they may make the choice to end it all.

I personally don't have an issue with doctor-assisted suicide, as long as there are strict guidelines in place and the person who wants to die is of sound mind. If someone is able to go to their vet and put down their dog who is suffering from severe arthritis, why don't I have the right to end my own suffering? I really don't think it's going to lead to doctors saying, "Well, this person is 90 years old so there's no point treating the (insert ailment), let's just euthanize." If the patient wants to be euthanized and has gone through the proper couselling, etc, then I don't see the problem.

[Beckys_Mom]

My sympathies for your loss. My granddaughter would be 15 now but Noelle lost her in her 3rd trimester.

Sigh...so sad.. I might add it is also most frightening for the mother.. I recall while giving birth, seeing her little body as it came out..I went into shock and they had to pin me down, I went nuts..It scared the life clean out of me..It really disturbs you.....I woke up afterwards wishing it was an nightmare.. But I felt empty and depression hit me for a long time afterwards..... .... I named my daughter Nicole ..She would be approx almost 3 years old now.. I have a new baby boy though.. I named him Aaron ...He is lovely.. but so big and funny, who loves his food lol ..I know life goes on, but I have to make the most of it

Edited January 19, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[Indiogene]

The twins felt their lifes are threatened by disability they are not prepared for, so they opted to end their lives with dignity and respect, and they never lived the difficulties of high disability the twins didn't want to experience. Such a tough decision to make involving their lifes they privately own and nobody should force them to live an ever-increasingly hard life involve going deaf or blind. I wish the twins a happy time in a better place, still sad to read about it...if there was technology to prevented genetically-coded determined deafness and blindness, would they change their minds?

Edited January 19, 2013 by Tsa-La-Gie Oyate

[shadowlark]

nobody should force them to live an ever-increasingly hard life involve going deaf or blind.

^^This. 100% this. Their bodies, their lives, their choice.

[acidhead]

You're actually against abortion? That surprises me.

For the true rape victim no... For everybody else: Don'T use abortion as a means of birth conTrol.

[Rlyeh]

Two dead bodies. Cremated soon after.

If doctors had or had not consensus about justifiability of euthanasia is what makes it euthanasia or murder.

Are you going deaf? Or blind?

I was so close to make the most tasteless joke ever...

No, that doesn't make murder. Murder is illegal, show that there deaths were illegal.

You've been asked twice and failed to provide evidence of murder. Just a misinformed opinion.

Aha. The most important factor is what you want. Sure. Not what anyone needs, not what is the objective logical action, it’s only what You want.

It will change once you become a parent... I hope.

No, what they wanted. Did becoming a parent affect your reading skills, or did they already suck?

Let me tell you something. Because I too have right to have my priorities, and these are not my whims. Not that I’d ever allow my whims to decide on matters of life and death.

That's lovely, and if you did want to off yourself, I wish you the best.

[Helen of Annoy]

No, that's your definition of euthaniasia. There are different definitions that don't include the "agonizing pain" stipulaton:

http://www.merriam-w...nary/euthanasia

"the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy"

http://www.thefreedi....com/euthanasia

"The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment."

http://dictionary.re...owse/euthanasia

"Also called mercy killing. The act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition."

All three definitions translate to the same, and according to them, blindness and depression don’t justify killing, except if you stretch them far beyond their original meaning.

And when you start stretching definitions, you are bound to have their meaning completely lost and the practice misused.

Already in this thread you can see one more definition of euthanasia: “Killing anyone who comes in and says they would like to die. No questions asked, it was their choice.”

People with serious problems are often even more susceptible to suggestion, so if euthanasia is not very controlled and its definition is not kept un-stretched, it’s a matter of time, short time, before old people, people with arthritis, glaucoma, Down, various curable cancers, crooked teeth, bad breath, brown eyes etc. are talked into receiving mercy.

*Bolded by me

I think that's the point - it's easy to say, "Oh, going blind is no big deal - not a reason to kill yourself" but until you're in that particular situation, you don't really know how you'd act. I suffer from depression. The meds they gave me didn't help, so I'm currently not medicated. I also suffer from chronic pain due to an old injury. There isn't a day that goes by that I'm not in pain. There are days I wish I were dead so I didn't have to suffer any more, but it's never gotten so unbearable that I've tried to take my own life. But to someone else, my suffering may be too much to bear and they may make the choice to end it all.

I personally don't have an issue with doctor-assisted suicide, as long as there are strict guidelines in place and the person who wants to die is of sound mind. If someone is able to go to their vet and put down their dog who is suffering from severe arthritis, why don't I have the right to end my own suffering? I really don't think it's going to lead to doctors saying, "Well, this person is 90 years old so there's no point treating the (insert ailment), let's just euthanize." If the patient wants to be euthanized and has gone through the proper couselling, etc, then I don't see the problem.

I completely agree with you, except about the possibility of misuse.

You think it won’t lead to situation I’ve described above. I obviously (at least I believed I was writing clear enough) support justified euthanasia, only I’m convinced it was already misused the way I described above, by encouraging sick but viable patient to get out of healthy people way.

No, that doesn't make murder. Murder is illegal, show that there deaths were illegal.

You've been asked twice and failed to provide evidence of murder. Just a misinformed opinion.

You've been answered more than twice and it's still you that fail to accept unjustified euthanasia is not euthanasia but murder, which is still illegal.

It’s you that should provide evidence the doctors in the first hospital who refused the twin’s demand are less qualified than those who killed them.

No, what they wanted. Did becoming a parent affect your reading skills, or did they already suck?

When I said “you” that was (obviously, but obviously not obvious to you) because you wrote:

Quoting Rlyeh: “Still ignoring the most important factor, the choice to end one's suffering.”

Clearly it implies in anyone’s euthanasia case you think the choice of the suffering one is the most important factor. I’ve chosen to use “you” instead of “Belgian twins” because I was under impression you would apply the same logic to anyone, not just two of them.

Clearly it implies you see their choice as the most important factor because you see your choice as the most important factor.

In short, don’t get angry at me for noticing you have your logical foot in your logical mouth, because it was you who put it there, not me.

I’m able to argument my opinion, with more than screaming for unrestricted choice. If that frustrates you, you are welcome to present actual arguments that would make me change my opinion and accept utter egotism as the most logical social model.

And the parenting. I chose to point out the selfishness usually diminishes with becoming a parent because in context of euthanasia it changes a lot.

Parents will rarely agree with euthanasia before it’s really the only resort left. Notice the parents of Belgian twins were not agreeing with their sons’ wish.

Children are what makes a lot of otherwise suicidal people stay alive and fight on. Not only children, any true bond makes people motivated, but parenting is good example that even very simple people could understand with not too much thinking problems.

If you could understand that, this conversation would suddenly become less caustic and more constructive.

That's lovely, and if you did want to off yourself, I wish you the best.

Keep your wishes writhe in their own little hell, I plan to stick around for decades and annoy the **** out of little powerless psychos m********ing at prospect of death being handled out like flyers for the newest freak show.

Mercy is the most noble aspect of human character.

That’s why truly humane people will agree to burden their conscience with acts of mercy that are controversial, such as euthanasia, and that’s why I think it’s only the completely inhumane people that will take it lightly and try to make it standard, encouraged practice in cases where it is not justified.