Promoting the Culture of Death: Children being taught how to die

That is one hell of a funny website.
It even has the soccer player who claims he is the messiah and says everyone must were turquiose
Feuer, do you expect anyone to take anything on there seriously?

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That is one hell of a funny website.
It even has the soccer player who claims he is the messiah and says everyone must were turquiose
Feuer, do you expect anyone to take anything on there seriously?

Soccer players who are Messiahs?
Haven't seen that one on there.
In respect to the article posted, i posted it as a discussion point.
The source maybe a little alternative, for want of a better word, granted.
However, questions are being asked. Some of the content of the article is i might add a little distasteful and i was slow to pick up on it, however the premise is still the same: posing the question
Pro or anti?
I thought that it did make some relevant points, none moreso than:

Hard on the heels of this s...f movie came the sickening news that a video featuring notorious assisted suicide campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke, in which he demonstrates how to help people kill themselves, is being shown to schoolchildren in British classrooms.

Not really appropriate.

Nitschke, nicknamed ---8216;Dr Death---8217; ---8212; whose DIY suicide manual provides instructions on how to kill yourself with plastic bags, carbon monoxide, cyanide, morphine and other poisons ---8212; is shown in the film demonstrating his machine that delivers lethal injections and giving workshops on his ghastly trade.

Again, not appropriate.

Of course, it is impossible not to sympathise with individuals who seek to end their own lives in this way. We can all identify with the terror of being trapped inside a useless body, of losing control, of the pain and indignity of a horrible terminal disease. If it were simply a case of having the right to die, however, the issuewould be pretty simple. After all, suicide is legal. But assisted suicide is deeply problematic.

I agree there, nothing wrong with this statement.

And what on earth are teachers thinking of in exposing schoolchildren to Philip Nitschke, who in any normal moral universe would be considered utterly beyond the pale?

Indeed, what are they thinking?

The ---8216;right to die---8217; has an appealing ring to it, but apply the Beachy Head test. If, hypothetically, you saw someone in a wheelchair about to throw himself off Beachy Head, would you stand and applaud, maybe even give the wheelchair a helpful push ---8212; or would you rush forward to stop him?

Good analogy, no?

We must resist it and reaffirm life, true compassion and our common humanity.

Hear hear!
It is a hard-line article with questions being asked in a more blunt way perhaps than a lot of articles written about this topic.
Because it is more blunt or straight to the point and asks perhaps some uncomfortable questions, is this the reason that we should shy away from asking ourselves the exact same questions?
Just because the article is addressing the topic matter differently or in a way that may seem a little too straight to the point, is that any reason to dismiss it and laugh it off as garbage?
It's all about the wording it seems, because there are countless online articles, addressing exactly the same topic and the same Dr Death, P Nitshkie and his so-called methods.
And here is the link to the story of school kids, 14 year-olds no less, being shown the Suicide film by our very own P Nitschke:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...year-olds.html

Why the heck are we advocating this?

I thought that it did make some relevant points, none moreso than:

None moreso than the fact that this "being taught to children" actually means it is included as one small item in one small module of on particular subject which those students have chosen to specialise in.
So it is a small film clip giving a pro euthenasia point in a film about the different stances on euthenasia which is shown to those students who chose to take a course on philosophy as part of their leaving exams.
Would you be happier if an education in philosophy only contained views from one angle?

Can you see the problem yet?
You are taking your starting position from a loony site which based its article on a daily mail article.
the daily mail would be bad enough but a crazy rehash of a daily mail scare story is really beyond any semblance of credibility.

14 year-olds no less, being shown the Suicide film by our very own P Nitschke:

Really?
At what point of the academic cycle is this particular module of the philosophy course given to pupils who have chosen that subject?

Why the heck are we advocating this?

Why the heck are you getting annoyed over an issue that is pure panic mongering sensationalism?

[Feuer Frei!]

Well, at least you agree with me on the rest of it then.
You managed to only 'pick me up' on one point.
Being taught Euthenasia, voluntary that is, in schools, because those students have elected to study Philosophy.
The parts that i have a problem with is the supposed work shop of this clown's methods, showcasing the different tools at one's disposal to assist in someone's easing out of this world.
Another issue i have with this video and it's showcasing by the so-called intelligent Teachers is that it gives this guy more air time.
As if we haven't had enough of this person already.

So, if you need to study Philosophy, and Euthanasia, voluntary is a part of that, and you need to explore the necessary conditions for someone to be a candidate for voluntary euthanasia and outline the moral cases put forward by those in favour of legalising voluntary euthanasia, then there are other training materials that can achieve this.
Is it necessary to showcase the tools availabale to students and to showcase the machine at work?
Voluntary Euthanasia is unneccessary.
Nor can we ever have enough evidence for us to be justified in believing that a dying person's request for dying is fully competent, genuinly voluntary and soforth.
If society allows voluntary euthanasia, it is my belief that this will send us towards the allowing of other forms of euthanasia.
Including non-voluntary euthanasia.
The line between those two is clearly defined by principles.
I won't get carried away by my own, strong beliefs about what i think of Nitschke or voluntary euthanasia.
However what i will say is that the title of my thread is a concern to me.
The content of this supposed training video or lecture material is dubious and is a poor choice of material.
Teaching someone how to die is teaching a student/child how to put their own spin on wether it's right or wrong to kill someone or not, well....
As for the site being a loony site, hmm, i may call it alternative, nonetheless, loony?
Nah, far from it.
You call it loony because you don't like it? Or the points raised are not to your liking? Or the ways that they are raised are not to your liking?
It matters not.

Well, at least you agree with me on the rest of it then.

Not at all.

You managed to only 'pick me up' on one point.

Not at all, I only bothered to pick you up on the most obvious one which was bull, which as luck would have it appeared as the one you seemed most upset about.

As for the site being a loony site, hmm, i may call it alternative, nonetheless, loony?
Nah, far from it.

Sorry, if you think a Coventry City FC goalkeeper claiming to be the messiah isn't loony then ....
Hey it even has reptilians, contrails and secret government mind control through the music of the beatles.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

if you think a Coventry City FC goalkeeper claiming to be the messiah isn't loony

Coventry City, there you have it.
Like i said, didn't see that one, nor would i read it, letalone post it as a discussion point.
You'll find a lot of sites that have some amount of garbage on it, hell, even the good ones.
About the agreeing with me and picking me up on only one point, tongue in cheek, i figured you didn't agree with me, or the article.

[Skybird]

Every human being has the natural right to deicde all by itself whether it wants to live on or wants to die. If the latter, society, religions, lawmakers, doctors have no moral or ethical or religious or philosophical or medical right whatever to deny them the realisation of that wish under situational conditions that respect the individual's dignity.

People close to such an individual may wish to make surte that the individual indeed has the wish to die, and that it is not just "appelative suicide" or a decision born from a momentary emotional state of depression. High age, with all the negtraive side-effects that come with that, or constant pains or a serious disease, are situations where no human has the right to hinder suich a patient for example by force to die. I think it is an ethical and moral and humane imperative that we also help a "candidate" to end his life in a a way that is painless, nonviolent and appeals to basic demands of human dignity.

Just walk the geriatric station of a hospital, especially a mental asylum, and you can easily see how worse the price for "life at all cost" can become.

Everybody tempted to do it now, save ypour time to throw Nazi stuff and claims of my eunasthasia program at me. That'S not what I said, and the above described is not what the term eunasthasia means. Also, keep relgious commands out of this. Your religious confessions are YOUR personal business only, not that of the other. You have no right to impose your views upon him, at his cost and to add to his suffering. You are free to not like what he wants and does. Maybe you also do not like green tea. Don'T drink it then, drink somethign else, stay away from green tea then.

I personally kn ow that under certain cinditions I have accepted suicide for myself as an option I consider in such circumstances. I also always carry a paper in my wallet that explains under which circumstances and in case I am unable to articulate myself anymore, I do not wish a continuation of any medical treatement, but want them to let me die.

The only thing that can be demanded about all this, is this simple call: do not take it lightly. Neither the making of the decision for suicide yourself, nor your easiness by which you maybe are tempted to criticise the other who defends suicide as an option while you are against it for principal or religious reasons.

People do not ask you whether or not they may get born. They also must not ask you for permission to die. In the end, we all are just guests, and our stay is limited. Some arrive, some leave, all day long. That'S how it goes.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Everybody tempted to do it now, save ypour time to throw Nazi stuff and claims of my eunasthasia program at me. That'S not what I said, and the above described is not what the term eunasthasia means. Also, keep relgious commands out of this. Your religious confessions are YOUR personal business only, not that of the other. You have no right to impose your views upon him, at his cost and to add to his suffering. You are free to not like what he wants and does. Maybe you also do not like green tea. Don'T drink it then, drink somethign else, stay away from green tea then.

Who is this directed at Sky?

About the agreeing with me and picking me up on only one point, tongue in cheek, i figured you didn't agree with me, or the article.

What was there to possibly agree with? the article is pure bull and your position is based on plain misrepresentation.

Everybody tempted to do it now, save ypour time to throw Nazi stuff and claims of my eunasthasia program at me.

Hey I only throw the nazi stuff at Sky when he is repeating chapter and verse of the hate filled 1930s propoganda

[Bakkels]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Good analogy, no?

No. It's a childish, simplified comparison, it's saying that helping someone end their life who isn't able to do that himself is the same as killing a handicapped person you never met before.
If someone were to kill himself like that, you try to stop him. Because you don't know their reasons and their story. If someone willingly chooses to end their life, and isn't able to do so himself, a doctor should help him with that.
If you live in a country where the law makes this impossible, than it's not surprising that there will be organizations that, by giving instructions to people on how to end their lives, attempt to give them their right on the choice of life or death back. imo that's a good thing.

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

If society allows voluntary euthanasia, it is my belief that this will send us towards the allowing of other forms of euthanasia. Including non-voluntary euthanasia.

Yes, because after all, we're all just waiting for killing someone to become legal! That just makes absolutely no sense at all.

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

It is a hard-line article with questions being asked in a more blunt way perhaps than a lot of articles written about this topic.
Because it is more blunt or straight to the point and asks perhaps some uncomfortable questions, is this the reason that we should shy away from asking ourselves the exact same questions?
Just because the article is addressing the topic matter differently or in a way that may seem a little too straight to the point, is that any reason to dismiss it and laugh it off as garbage?

Don't really care for the tone there. You're suggesting we're afraid of adressing these questions? Not at all.
But you're almost in admiration of how blunt and ballsy this article is. I have no problem with someone being blunt about a subject. This article however is not just blunt, it is shrewdly linking euthanasia with killing over and over again. THAT is why I can't take it seriously.

Of course there are problems arising with euthanasia. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't allow it at all. For example, to avoid people taking advantage of others, you could only allow (assisted) euthanasia if the person in question wrote up a will before falling ill. And there are a lot of these issues that should be well thought about by lawmakers. But they should be thought about from an objective stance, leaving religion completely out of the matter.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

Don't really care for the tone there. You're suggesting we're afraid of adressing these questions? Not at all.
But you're almost in admiration of how blunt and ballsy this article is. I have no problem with someone being blunt about a subject. This article however is not just blunt, it is shrewdly linking euthanasia with killing over and over again. THAT is why I can't take it seriously

The tone? I'm not suggesting anything. I don't believe in talking in riddles.
The flavor of the replies made so far, in particular by Tribesman seems to indicate that the article is BS.
Now so far i haven't had one reply to state exactly why this article is BS.
1 reply was that it was all about linking to killings, made by you.
Well, correct me if i'm wrong but, isn't that what euthanasia is?
Giving someone the consent to kill.
Assisting someone to die=killing someone.
Voluntary or not.
Blunt as can be.
Now, as for people's stance on pro or anti, well, we are going to disagree aren't we?
And that is why i posted this.
To invite discussion about the topic at hand.
Not to go off on a tangent about wether i posted this because i think it is ballsy and i am apparently glorifying the article because it is written with some gusto.
Glorifying? No.
Liking it? Yes.
Why? Because i am pro life.
That is my belief. I respect other's belief in this matter as well. If we can't have a civil discussion about this topic then that's a shame. Being attacked or confronted about the nature of why i posted this article is somewhat disappointing.
And making reference to religion? I never ever brought religion into this. So, moot.
I am happy to discuss the pros and cons of euthanasia, but i find it's a waste of time to discuss my supposed tone in the last paragraph you linked.
Ok, i have posted the article, you and a few others don't like it, that's fine, i respect that. No dramas. You don't need to like it. Like so many other articles written about subject matter, you are never going to agree fully with one, i know i don't. Heck, i don't fully agree with the article i posted.
But, it resonates with me.
On your challenge of it not making sense about the legalities of euthanasia, ponder this, Premeditated murder is illegal. Euthanasia is premeditated murder. Therefore, euthanasia is as illegal as premeditated murder.
Now, it's late here, i'm happy to retort in more detail, to your concerns/disagreements if needed, that can be arranged tomorrow.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Why? Because i am pro life.

But are you also pro the right for anyone to choose if they want to live? If not, why?
So far we haven't heard any of your own arguments.

[tater]

I though this was gonna be about Palestinian TV kid's shows taching kids to be martyrs.

If people want to bump themselves off, that's their own business. Not sure if I think docs should be allowed to help. My gut says no. There are already way more suicides in the US than murders, it's not like killing oneself is hard to figure out.

[AVGWarhawk]

it's not like killing oneself is hard to figure out.

My pop always said, "If people knew how easy it was to kill themselves they would not live they way they do."

The issue with assisted suicide is that, in those jurisdictions where it is legal, only the means are provided, the actual act is entirely in the hands of the person committing suicide. The subject can back out at any time before the ultimate button push or triggering whatever means is being used. It is not homicide if you do the deed yourself.

Ironically, suicide is often the final act in gaining control of ones life; the ability to exit the world at the time and place and using the method of ones choice may seem huge to some.

At some point there is every possibility that my life will no longer be worth living due to certain health issues that are irrelevant here. I really like the idea that I can die by my own hand in the presence of my lovely wife before the man that she married is reduced to a mere shell. Far better to depart in a hospital or clinic, with all the "T's" crossed and "I's" dotted and surrounded by loved ones than taking the old Remington 870 into the deep woods with an magnum Special SSG up the spout; to be found perhaps months later by emergency personnel or volunteer searchers. As an active member of the latter group, I have helped recover enough human remains from successful wilderness suicides to know that I would really prefer to avoid inflicting that experiance on others. Other methods often messy or unpleasent also involve innocent bystanders or unwilling participants, first responders, police, firemen etc. With assisted suicide there should be nobody directly involved that does not want to be there.

Suicide may generally be considered a selfish act but assisted suicide in controlled conditions with reasonable legal and medical checks and balances can do much to assuage the grief of the survivors. Ultimately they are the ones who matter since once one has determined that suicide is the answer, all the interventions in the world won't prevent the act from being carried out.

I have already signed off my DNR and organ donor documentation. We all have to go sometime, and there might just be circumstances where it could be comforting to have a say in the where and when.

The article that the OP posted is heavy with unspoken religion but once god and churches are removed from the equation, the moral objections to assisted suicide tend to fall away.