Like some donkey in a rush for a decent shit, Bill Muehlenberg comes rushing in on euthanasia and delivers us an article “Clear Thinking on Euthansia” in which he muddles his way through how we should let nature take it’s course when people are dying.
This push is often done in the name of compassion. But it is a strange kind of compassion which says that the way to relieve suffering is to kill the sufferer. With so many advances in palliative care and the treatment of pain, it really is quite unnecessary to argue for the legalised killing of patients, even if well-intentioned.
Umm… you think it’s more compassionate to let someone suffer unnecessarily?  You really think that they keep uping pain relief for patients because the pain relief actually works?
Dying from a disease like cancer is slow painful and shitful1.  Sure the drugs work, but the doses need to be increased to a point where the patient suffers significant side effects, becomes confused and finally the medication stops working meaning that something stronger must be used that will probably render them unconscious.  What a way to end your days, wasting away to nothing, losing your bladder control, drowning in your own fluids. Not knowing your family, forgetting how great your life was, generally being unaware of the world around you. Great.
Bill babes, in his compassion, thinks this is ok.  He thinks that it’s compassionate to make people suffer unnecessarily.
It needs to be pointed out from the outset that euthanasia is not about halting futile treatment. Nor is it about the alleviation of suffering (this is known as palliative care). Euthanasia is an act that directly and intentionally causes a person’s death.
You fuckstick Bill. Â Euthanasia is exactly about halting futile treatment. Â It is about alleviating suffering. Â And yes, it is about causing someone’s death. Voluntary euthanasia is about letting someone decide when it’s time to go. Â Nobody is asking anyone to kill anyone but themselves.
As one ethicist states, there is a “crucial difference between taking a life intentionally and allowing a death naturally. The first is homicide, and the second is a natural deathâ€.
You mean spirited arsewipe Mauler. Â You still can’t see that anyone is taking a life that isn’t theirs to take. Â The person who has the life wants to stop having it. Â You can call it suicide, you can call it assisted suicide, or you can call it voluntary euthanasia. Â It’s not murder and it’s not homicide – you know – homicide, best described as the killing of a human being by another human being. Â Murder is generally the unlawful killing of another person – that’s unlawful killing Bill Bonkers. Â Homicide is when you kill someone else. Â Voluntary euthanasia is about the individual taking their own life. Â Got that?
Billy the Nutberg then goes on to talk about how withholding treatment isn’t the same as euthanasia. Â It’s ok for a person to decide to end treatment, they then will die a very slow and painful death as they starve, collapse and die from organs shutting down.
No civilised society can permit the legalised killing of its own citizens, even if done in the name of compassion.
Oh bullshit Silly Billy Cronkers.  A truly civil society would understand that we are talking about voluntary euthanasia, it would understand the need for people to die at a time of their choosing, not of the doctors, not of their family and not of stupid superstitious wankers who spend their lives trying to dictate to others how they should live it and most importantly how they should die.
Your right to die as painfully as you want is your right, but it’s time you and your sort finally come to grips with the notion that you have no right to inflict your stupid god and your stupid rules on the rest of our civilised society.
The term, fuck off and die, comes to mind.
- Â I should point out that I know of several people who are on the slow road to death. Â It’s not pleasant, and I wish it wasn’t happening ↩