Wednesday, July 25, 2007

A new direction

I have another blog for Euthanasia realted subjects (see http://blog.myspace.com/euthanasiaclinic for it), and I am in need of another place to voice my views, so... this is it. Even though this blog is labeled euthansia clinic, it will now be used for My Other Stuff.

Saturday, June 2, 2007

Free at last. Free at last.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian is a free man today.

Having provided deliverance to so many in extreme need, and having forced us to look at the needs of others, it is only fitting that today we acknowledge his release from prison.

Welcome back Jack!

Take it easy for awhile. There are others now who can help carry your load. I'd like to think I were one of them.

Monday, May 21, 2007

What a Fool!

From time to time events reach my attention that are so outlandish or so compelling that I have to make a side track from my intent to make this a blog for and about Euthanasia. This is one of those blogs...

The Huffington Post, always a good source for news you won't hear through the Fox News Network, has a little piece on Jimmy Carter calling GWB the 'worst president ever'. Worth looking at, but what I am going to draw your attention to is the image that leads into the piece.

Here it is. Do you see anything unusual about it?


Well let me help.

All the other Presidents have managed to show sufficient humility to have their official portraits painted with simple backdrops.

Not GWB. He equates himself with the likes of Jefferson, Lincoln, Rooseveldt, and Washington as depicted on Mt. Rushmore.

Each of the others has been President, but that is the only similarity between any of them and GWB. For GWB to think that a meer representation of himself in the same picture frame with the truly great leaders of American Democracy will erase his blight is ludicrous.

The man, as former President Jimmy Carter said, is a disaster. History will laugh longest and loudest at this act of self promotion which, now that it is enshrined in the National Gallery, will stand forever as a hallmark and reminder of deceit and ineptitude.

What a fool...

And for what it is worth, here is my take on the portraits of the other Presidents preceding the current fool on the hill.

Jimmy Carter... hands folded in an attitude of reverential prayer
Ronald Reagan... 'Hey. It's all about ME!'
George Bush, the other... paper pushing bureaucrat
Bill Clinton... 'If there were a Bible there, my hand would be on it'.
The Fool... 'I should be up there'



Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Autralians will not be denied

According to a UPI story, May 7, 2007, elderly Austarlians are taking matters into their own hands.

Choosing a peaceful and painless death in the time, place, and manner of your choosing is not an easy thing to do. Governments, churches, and families may all make it difficult for a person to carry out this most fundamental of individual choices. In Australia some are making trips to Mexico in order to bring back the necessary lethal quantities of barbiturates, (Nembutal is mentioned), in order to free themselves of the burden of a life they no longer want to live.

The Australian government has declared Nembutal to be an illegal drug. Medical personnel are wondering how they help to prevent a person from making this all important decision without a doctor intervening. The church... well the church does what you'd expect in the face of individuals exerting power over death. They have declared it a sin.

But people persist.

Good for them.

To see more of my thoughts on Euthanasia visit my web site at, EuthanasiaClinic.com . While there post your own views on this subject at the new forum. Registration is free and easy.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Discuss Euthanasia with New Forum

Blogs are nice. They allow people, like me, to express our views. But they are somewhat limiting in that they don't allow much flexibility for discussion of those views. The general concept of a blog is: it is my blog, and what I say is what the blog is about. If you don't agree, go read someone else's blog.

That's fine as far as it goes, but except for limited 'Comment' capabilities you don't get much of a chance to express your views and opinions. And there is even less chance of someone expressing their opinion about your opinion of my opinion.

In other words, blogs are great one sided opinion pieces.

An internet forum however, offers the opportunity for everyone to express their opinions and to express their opinion about everyone else's opinions. The Greeks developed the concept of the forum as a method for free people to freely express their ideas. It is is this open discussion of diverse opinions that leads to progress and growth.

I know where I stand on the issue of Euthanasia. I express my opinions frequently on this blog, on my other Euthanasia Blog, and on my website, Euthanasia Clinic

Now I have begun a Euthanasia Forum for you to express your opinions. It is free. It is open to all respectful and thoughtful people with an opinion on the subject. It is private. It is a place for you to tell the world what you think about Euthanasia, death, life, religion, society, family, loved ones, and anything else that you think is important for someone else to know.

The forum is at http://www.EuthanasiaClinic.com/phpBB2/

It is free. It is simple to use. It is private. Go there now and tell the world what you think... Or reply to what someone else has already said.

Enjoy.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Constitutional Right to Die

In an opinion piece written by Ronald Sokol and published Mar 21, 2007 in the International Herald Tribune the constitutional right to die with dignity is advocated.

Using the recent trial of the French doctor and nurse who administered poison to a 65 year old woman who was suffering a cruel, debilitating, and undignified death from pancreatic cancer as a springboard Mr Sokol argues that the right to die will soon become as well entrenched in constitutional 'rights' as the freedom of press and religion are today. Mr. Sokol explains that as more people get older, and medical science extends their life, and suffering, more people will demand the 'right' to a peaceful and painless death.

My web site, EuthanasiaClinic.com, has been using statistics from the Center for Decease Control to show exactly the same thing.

In America the number of people aged over 65 years will increase from about 38 million in 2005 to about 56 million in 2020. If we continue to rely on the current standard tests for determining when a person should be 'allowed' to die then many people will begin to make their own choices of the time, place, and manner of death. It will either be that or they will have to rely on the good will of others to make those choices for them.

In the case of the French woman mentioned above, she had gotten to the point where she 'suffered from fever, trembling, incontinence, nausea, pain and an intestinal blockage causing vomiting of fecal matter' before she was allowed to die. Why is it we have to get to this point before others will let us die?

I am not sure that I agree with Mr. Sokol when he states, 'Within the next half century, perhaps much sooner, the right to choose to die with dignity will be as widely recognized as the right to free speech or to exercise one's religion.', but I certainly do applaud his vision. There are far too many ideologues standing in the way of a person being able to take control of their own life to the extent that they can choose the time, place, and manner of their own death. But as the number of people shown to be suffering needlessly increases dramatically, and the number of court cases against loved ones and physicians grows an awareness will creep into the social consciousness that something needs to be done.

I suggest a rational first step.

There is at least one method which any person can now use to end their own life. It does not require the intervention of anyone else, including a physician. It allows for a peaceful and painless death. It's effect is the same as falling asleep and not waking up. It is the death that most of us hope to have, but which modern medical science is increasingly denying us.

A Compassionate Law would allow the loved ones of a person, who is still cognitively and physically able to end their own life, to be in attendance at the death without concern of legal prosecution. While it does not address the very real needs of those who are beyond the point of being able to administer the means of their own death, it does help those who are still physically and mentally capable by allowing them to have at their bedside their loved ones.

Requiring a person to die alone should not be a punishment for choosing to end one's suffering.

This only covers some of the cases that will come up with a rapidly aging society but it does make an effort towards achieving a rational view of self determination and shows a willingness by society to allow compassion for the dying at a time when they are in their greatest need for displays of love and affection from those around them.


Saturday, March 17, 2007

Euthanasia Hate

Over at a forum for people who live in Cambodia, care about Cambodia, or just want a place to vent, I have been vilified by one of the users because of my stand for Euthanasia. (You can click on the title ofthis blog to see the original post.)

To quote:

"Roger Graham (a,k,a, TOLA), fuck off, you murdering, chicken-hearted cunt! And in as level a tone as possible, I advise you to consider yourself lucky that Kim W- didn't have a brother or father like me, because the earth wouldn't be able to hide you from my justice after what you did to her and then lie about it! I am surprised the Admin even allows you on this forum after your highly conspicuous fiasco in Kompot and the dumber than rocks police that could have had you on a murder rap if they had wanted to.

You have absolutely no right to even joke or chum around or give the impression that you are one of the mates in this forum, you worm! You are a despicable piece of trash that murdered an innocent, clinically depressed woman, who came to you for help, and instead of immediately contacting her family and getting her the crisis counseling she needed you counseled her to kill herself.

So fuck off and go away somewhere so I am not reminded of your despicable existence. "

The poster is obviously well aware of my stand on Euthanasia and has chosen to equate it to murder. And, having taken that high ground, he then goes on to suggest that he would murder me.

It is this kind of dichotomy that continues to baffle me. My stand is fairly obvious and straight forward. You should be able to choose the time, place, and manner of your own death. Those in opposition will bring forth ghosts, phantoms, straw-men, and spectres in order to demonstrate substance to support their arguments that you should not have this choice.

I can not argue against that kind of intransigence.

So I do not. If you think that you should have the right to make your own choices in determining your own life, then I encourage you to do so. Stop listening to those who claim to have a higher knowledge. It is your life, take charge of it and refuse to allow someone else to control it.

See EuthanasiaClinic.com for more information about how to take your own life when you have chosen the time is right for you.


Thursday, March 8, 2007

French Doctors Request Euthanasia

The French newspaper 'Nouvel Observateur', (English language link), carries a petition from over 2,000 French physicians advocating for a normalization of Euthanasia laws.

In a statement published in the paper the doctors declare that they have assisted in the active Euthanasia of patients, 'Because disease was certain to defeat medical procedures, because in spite of treatment, physical and psychological suffering had rendered the life of a patient intolerable, we medical staff, have consciously helped patients to die with decency'.

They ask that the French laws be changed to reflect the laws in neighboring countries of Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands in which active Euthanasia is legal.

'Some forms of pain resist," it quoted Catherine D., a rural doctor, as saying. "If you have to end them by inducing death, I'll do it, even if I don't like it," she said. "Out of respect for the person, who becomes, for a few hours, a person in their own right and not a medical object."

This bears repeating: 'Out of respect for the person, who becomes, for a few hours, a person in their own right and not a medical object'.

Bravo.

See my website for more about Euthanasia. http://www.EuthanasiaClinic.com

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Euthanasia - The Solution to Everything

I believe a person should be allowed to choose the time, place, and manner of their own death. I take this a bit further than most others in that I put no restraints on the reasons that a person may have for making this choice.

That means that if a person wants to choose to end their own life because they see the state of the world as being beyond redemption, and their own place in it as being untenable, then they are certainly free, in my opinion, to end their own life.

I try to point out to people that they have this option. That it is available for them to choose. and that I, for one, will not judge them for it. Further I try to make it possible for people to find the information they may need to fulfill their desire of ending their own life peacefully and painlessly.

I do not charge anything for this service. I do not involve myself in the implementation of this service. I am simply the messenger.

As I get further involved in thinking of euthanasia I personally see it as a fundamental solution to many troubles. Not, as you may initially think, a quick end to a personal and temporary problem, but as a universal solution to global problems. Here's why...

As long as someone else, say a government or a church, tells you, and you believe, that you can not or should not end your own life then you are under their control in this most basic of freedoms. Giving up that freedom makes it easier for 'them' to convince you to give up other freedoms until finally you become a slave to their agenda.

In America corporations rule. It is in their interests to keep an employee alive and consuming as long as possible thereby creating markets for goods which might otherwise have no need to be made. Governments encourage this enslavement so that their citizens remain employed or at least controllable by those who do employ them. Churches enslave people...I'm not sure why. Power? Probably.

So, if euthanasia were an accepted practice, a person could choose to end their enslavement quickly and easily and, most importantly, without concern for the harm it might bring to them or their family in the future. Loss of income, poverty, jail, banishment.

Additionally, euthanasia would provide a means for everyone, not just the rich and politically connected, to enrich their family on their death instead of impoverishing them by staying alive.

Now, one must live their life to the fullest extent possible. This will ultimately lead to draining resources and ensuring the future enslavement of their family by making sure that they must remain employed in order to survive. Families do not benefit from supporting a person on life support for 15 years. Only the medical and insurance industries profit from this. (Please note, I do not advocate euthanasia for financial reasons alone, but that is, and should be considered as, one of the valid reasons for considering it.)

Others would still be free to not choose euthanasia. I have no problem with that. Some are meant to be slaves. Freedom to choose should apply to all. Even if by exercising their freedom to choose, in the negative, they in effect choose to remain enslaved.

So, in summary. if a person could end their life without recrimination then the need to stay alive and be employed would end. The need to consume would end. The rape of the planet would not be necessary in order to keep 'improving' the quality of life.

Life is pretty good without two boats gathering dust in the driveway and a two hour commute, for both parents, to a hated job. So why do we think this is an improvement? Answer: because we have been trained to think this way and we have no other way out from it. If we do not do better than the Jones' then we will have fallen behind and our family will suffer for it.

Euthanasia provides another option.

It isn't for everyone, but it should be made available for everyone to choose.

_________________
A Euthanasia Clinic would provide a place in which a Compassionate Law could be implemented.

http://www.EuthanasiaClinic.com

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Who's Going to Stop You?

Imagine a person who rationally decides to end their life. Perhaps due to physical infirmity or pain. If they were chronically depresssed and lonely, one might argue that they shouldn't be allowed to take their own life;

Take their own life? Who's to stop them?

Jail them! Lock them in chains forever! Guess what? They are going to die anyway!!!

Anyway, back to our story:

Imagine this rational person, who for reasons of their own, decide that they wish to take control of their life and end it when they choose. Now imagine, they, like you, suffer from periods of highs and lows.

An irrational person might choose to end their life when it is most bleak, but a rational person will know that following any low there will ultimately be a high and they will wait until they are able to 'rationally' consider their choice to take their own life.

What can a person be suffering that is so great that at time they might generally consider to be one of their best, they choose to end their life? And who are we to make any kind of judgement on them for this decision?

It is difficult for me to accept that we have done so little, in terms of social evolution, to become something other than worms.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Euthanasia Censorship by Google

Here is a time line of Googles attempts to stifle - censor - search results for a Pro Euthanasia web site, Euthanasia Clinic.com.


Oct, 2006 - Google Refuses Access

Google denies EuthanasiaClinic.com access to their Adwords campaign.

However, after discussing this denial of service with Google I was satisfied that they had decided to deny all Euthanasia site advertising. I was wrong...


Nov, 2006 - Google Removes EuthanasiaClinic.com from their search engine

The EuthanasiaClinic.com web site was listed in the Google search engine in October of 2006 and was number 3 on the first page of a search for 'Euthanasia Clinic', but after communicating my concerns over the commercial censorship of my web site to Google Adwords ...

On November 9, 2006 I discovered that the index page for EuthanasiaClinic.com had been removed from the Google Search engine thereby making EuthanasiaClinic.com impossible to find with any Google search.

The Results of a Google Search for a specific Web Site Nov 9, 2006

Your search - http://www.euthanasiaclinic.com - did not match any documents.

From Google Webmaster Tools, Nov 9, 2006

No pages from your site are currently included in Google's index.

I can only conclude that a specific effort was made to remove this web site from the Google search engine sometime after October of 2006, when I filed my complaint against their prohibition of my web site's Adwords campaign.

An Internet search company chooses which topics it will list. Not only in what order they will be listed, but whether they will be listed at all.

While Google may say that they have a right to set standards for advertising with Google Adwords, to remove a sites index page from their search engine is censorship. If allowed for EuthanasiaClinic.com then Google in effect takes on the role of internet censor for all web sites. This corporate censorship is more harmful than government censorship since it occurs without oversight or regulation.

EuthanasiaClinic.com is a web site that may offer a controversial point of view that may be in opposition to the religious or social standards of those in charge at Google, but it is a web site that deserves exposure as it discusses an issue that directly effects every person now living on the planet Earth.


Dec, 2006 - Google Threatens to Cancel My Sponsored Links Account

This, quoted from an email received, (Dec 14, 2006), from Google after I had informed them that they were sponsoring some Euthanasia web sites while denying access to mine:

Please know that if you submit these ads again, we will be
unable to run any of your AdWords ads in the future.

For your account to remain active in the future, please make the
following changes to your ad text/site content:

Please remove all reference to sensitive content. (n.b.
Euthanasia!)

Additionally, please do not open any new AdWords accounts. If you do,
your newly opened accounts will be suspended upon registration and your
account fee will not be refunded.


Feb, 2007: Google you're killing me.

Google, after threatening to close my account for trying to gain recognition for this site through their paid advertising program because they wanted to avoid 'any' Euthanasia advertising, and after removing my web site from their search engine without explanation or recourse, has begun again to post some Euthanasia web sites in their paid advertising links program.

Feb 11, 2007:
A search for 'euthanasia' disclosed these sponsored links on the first, second, and third page.

Of course if I tried again to gain recognition with the Google links program, as these sites have done, I would be banned permanently. Threats made to me don't seem to have been made to one of the sites which is apparently associated with the Catholic church, although I had specifically pointed this site out to Google as one example of a euthanasia site which they were allowing to use Adwords while prohibiting mine. It was at that point that I was threatened with being permanently banned.

On the Internet you are what you find... and Google is trying damned hard to make sure you don't find EuthanasiaClinic.com

As shown on the search results page for 'euthanasia' Feb 11, 2007:

Sponsored Links

[I took out the actual links figuring Google is doing enough for them that they do not need my help as well]

Monday, February 5, 2007

Euthanasia and the Slippery Slope

I see that Switzerland, according to the bits and pieces I have seen will allow euthanasia for the mentally ill. This, according to the blogs I have seen, is the much feared 'slippery slope' that we will inevitably slide down once euthansia is allowed anywhere for anybody.

And,
Pope Benedict Sunday renewed his appeal to Catholics to reject abortion and euthanasia saying life was God-given and could not be cut short under "the guise of human compassion."

So, according to these reports, we are on that slippery slope that God doesn't want us to take.

Now let me see if I get this correct.

God is compassionate. God has given us free will.

But we are not to use our free will to show our compassion?

Interesting God you people have created for yourselves.

Keep him. I've got another.

See my website, EuthanasiaClinic.com, for an alternative opinion.

Friday, February 2, 2007

Apoptosis - It's natural

It's Natural (Thanks to Wikipedia for this):

In biology, apoptosis (from the Greek words apo = from and ptosis = falling, commonly pronounced ap-a-tow'-sis is one of the main types of programmed cell death (PCD). As such, it is a process of deliberate life relinquishment by an unwanted cell in a multicellular organism. In contrast to necrosis, which is a form of cell death that results from acute cellular injury, apoptosis is carried out in an ordered process that generally confers advantages during an organism's life cycle. For example, the differentiation of human fingers in a developing embryo requires the cells between the fingers to initiate apoptosis so that the fingers can separate. The way the apoptotic process is executed facilitates the safe disposal of cell corpses and fragments.

In the natural world even single cells know that all life ends in death. There is a mechanism, inherent in the cell itself, to enable a cell to self-destruct with the least loss and the greatest gain to the community. It is natural for organisms to die.

The greatest good with the least harm which confers advantages to society. Sounds like a pretty good plan to me. Now if only humans, in their infinite wisdom and concert with god, could be so wise.


A Compassionate Law and a Euthanasia Clinic

Currently, a person can not be sure whether they will be charged with a crime if they choose to be with a loved one at the end. Making those who were the most loving and caring suffer for a death by choice is cruel and needlessly barbaric.

Suicide is not illegal.

A person who is about to die should not have to be concerned with the possible legal problems their death might cause a loved one who wishes only to be with them at the time of their greatest need. A Compassionate Law would create a legal framework around which a process could be developed which would allow a person to be in close physical contact with the dying at the time of death, as long as they do not actively participate in the death process itself, and be assured that they would not be subject to persecution afterwards.

One way of ensuring compliance with a Compassionate Law would be to establish Euthanasia Clinics. These would be places, regulated by the state, where people could come together in the final hours to give solace and comfort. A well regulated Euthanasia Clinic would provide a place where a Compassionate Law could be implemented.


Tuesday, January 30, 2007

There are those who feel that life is invaluable and no price can be placed on it. I agree. There is no price that can be placed on a life, but there is also no value in a life that one no longer wishes to live.

The value of a life is not something that someone else places on it, but is that which the one who is living it applies to it. If that value has slipped below whatever threshold is accptable for a person, then claiming that life is precious is less than meaningless for them. Their life is not precious. It may in fact be unbearable and they may well have reached a point where they would gladly give anything to be rid of it.

A story, from Australia, points this out. The intent is to condemn the American model of corporate insurance. And with this I agree. Unfortunately, it happens to be a valid model.

People are getting older. The mechanisms of keeping them alive longer, even indefinately, are at hand. Someone will have to start making the decisions about who lives and who dies. If those decisions are not made in advance, then it will be up to the doctors, lawyers, and insurance companies to decide whose life still has value.

Start thinking now about your death. It will happen. Do not burden your loved one's with the onerous decisions that you should have made in advance. make sure your wishes are well known, understood, and documented. Find a sympathetic soul, or organization, that is willing to assist you in carrying out those wishes.

Here is a Euthanasia Blog

A Euthanasia Clinic would provide a place where a Compassionate Law could be implemented

See the Euthanasia website for more information and details

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Euthanasia - The fiscal perspective

Here is an interesting link describing Dr Philip Nitschke book, 'Killing Me Softly', and the perceived philosophy of it's authors.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4068

Euthanasia itself has been and remains a taboo subject for many people. To have that forbidden subject raised in the same breath with money, family planning, and fiscal policy may be a bit more than most people can take. None-the-less, death comes to us all and to try and ignore it in the hopes that it will just go away is senseless. Better to face the reality of life and plan for it's ultimate end.

A discussion of Euthanasia, self deliverance, and end of life choices is a more rational approach than to live a life full of fear of dying. With knowledge comes power. While we can not defeat death we can defeat the fear of death and dying with informed discussion and rational planning for the inevitable day that we will all face.

For an alternative to end of life choices see this web site

EuthanasiaClinic.com

It offers an approach that could be implemented now, without the concern of physician assistance or religious interference. But, it does require political will and that is something that seems to be sorely lacking in the world today.