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.
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.
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'
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.
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.
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.
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.
