Euthanasia

[wegit]

Okay just watching the news about a man and woman who'd commited Euthanasia. They woman was diagnosed with stomach cancer with no chance of surviving so they enter a suicide pact.

The guys slits his wifes wrists and then cuts his own but doesn't die.

They put him on remand in HMP and after three months the judge released him with a suspended sentance.

The question is this: Should they leagalise euthanasia where there is NO doubt that the cancer is terminal or should ppl be left alive to suffer?

I know for a fact that I would want to keep my dignaty and not die a wasted mess in front of my kids.

[Dougie]

Too right!Watched my mother die of a brain tumour,bloody heart-breaking.We do it for animals so why not humans?I don't want to be kept alive in screaming agony.

[Rabid1]

Euthanasia should be a personnal choice while i am able i can choose to end my life at any time. if i loose the use of my body then that choice is taken away from me surely this is descrimination.
Euthanasia should be open to all should they want it.

[Friar Tuck]

I think that a person should be allowed to die with dignity, and the method of which way to go should be that person's own choice. Should that person require assisitance, then it would have to be someone very special to take on that task.

Maybe there would be another branch of medicine ,whereby a person would have to undergo training and adopt a hypocratic oath so that the sufferer would be able to pass on without further pain or suffering.

Personally, if I had a choice, I would like to be shagged to death!

[Jonnyfp]

I see this duscussion on Chaos at the mo..

Always an emotive subject this, but like they say on cc you would'nt let an animal suffer so why allow a loved one to.

[dracken1]

by ft
Personally, if I had a choice, I would like to be shagged to death

you sure?
:D :eek:

[Mrs Reject]

I'm a nurse and can't believe that people are still allowed to die horribly the same as they did when I started 20 years ago! I've got so depressed lately having to witness long slow lingering deaths, one man told me he'd like me to finish his dad off but I couldn't obviously.
Once I had to look after someone who had necrotizing fasciitis (flesh eating disease). They started off whole and ended up just a stinking hole ridden torso, it took me 2 hours every day to do the dressings and I still dream about it 15 years later, you wouldn't let an animal suffer that way!
When it's my cats time I shall have them put down at home quickly so they don't have to suffer and I only hope someone will be allowed to do the same for me.

[defarter]

I like the idea of choice and we should all be allowed to choose, what worrys me though is who makes the choice for those who cannot do so for them selfs, ie like some one who is in a coma.

[Mrs Reject]

Probably the person who stands to inherit their worldly goods!

[Friar Tuck]

by ft


you sure?
:D :eek:
Yep! and she's got to be bloody fit!

[Friar Tuck]

I like the idea of choice and we should all be allowed to choose, what worrys me though is who makes the choice for those who cannot do so for them selfs, ie like some one who is in a coma.
I think in a case like this it would have to be settled by a court.

People have been known to come out of a coma years later, and have explained that they have been able to hear and understand what has been going on around them but have been unable to communicate to anyone.

[Miss Demeanour]

well then... as per usual, any press discussion usually confuses several discrete issues, that turns this into a whole emotive mess.

1) First of all, there is 'physician assisted suicide'. It's been in the press a few times last year, as people have been flown to Sweden, to be assisted to die. If you want to go, and you can establish you are making aan un-pressured decision whilst of being of sound mind, then it should be legal. A person can do away with themself legally these days, so there's no reason why they cannot enlist a member of the medical profession to help them do so.

2) Withdrawing nourishment/medication - this already happens - it basically lets nature take it's course - however with regard to nourishment, it's effectively starving a person to death. It happens, but is ethically dubious if someone continues to thrive despite withdrawal.

3) Medication administered in the knowledge that it will shorten life - it already happens - usually an opiate administered to make a person comfortable, knowing that it is likely to shorten life - it's similar to 1), however with a different motive, and often a different drug. Fine, if that's what a person wants (which it usually is, owing to the pain).

4) Turning life support off - usually only happens when brain stem death and/or PVS (permanent vegetative state) is established. Although on very rare occasions people have been known to come back from apparent PVS. If all you're doing it keeping a corpse running, then turning a machine off is not euthanasia. DNR (Do not rescucitate) requests sort of fall in this bracket.

5) Involuntary euthanasia - actively putting people down, which is NOT any of the above. This is a very dodgy area, that's very open to abuse. Rather scary thought.

The problem lies when you're trying to distinguish the circumstances. Whilst people are keen on being able to go when the time comes, and preferably have a say in the matter, this isn't always the case. And while pointlessly prolonging suffering is patently wrong, when does it become wrong to end another person's life in their own best interests?

I personally think that physician assisted suicide should be legalised, under strict circumstances. However making a decision on someone else's (involuntary) behalf is at the moment best served by the mechanisms we have already.

We often make decisions about animals, as they aren't capable of making decisions for themselves.

[Jonnyfp]

We often make decisions about animals, as they aren't capable of making decisions for themselves.


Neither can the very elderly, very ill or very young chuck.
Physician aided definetly. it can be regulated and proffesional then and hopefully less mistakes made.

[Miss Demeanour]

Neither can the very elderly, very ill or very young chuck.
.


yeeeeessss.... hence

'However making a decision on someone else's (involuntary) behalf is at the moment best served by the mechanisms we have already.'

[Jonnyfp]

yeeeeessss.... hence

'However making a decision on someone else's (involuntary) behalf is at the moment best served by the mechanisms we have already.'


says who? :confused:

RE rest of thread...lol

I realise your probably typing as i edit but do you know this is the same debate in 2 forums? :o

[Miss Demeanour]

says who? :confused:

RE rest of thread...lol

I realise your probably typing as i edit but do you know this is the same debate in 2 forums? :o

Yup, but I didn't contribute to the other one.

[Jonnyfp]

Arguably neither did i.. :D

[Miss Demeanour]

says who? :confused:



And 'Says me'. Because IMHO, and IM and long standing interest in medical ethics, there is no better, fair or more ethical solution than what we have right now.

[Jonnyfp]

I just can't see it chuck, i'm not trying to be difficult but its often the families that know the score.

[Miss Demeanour]

I just can't see it chuck, i'm not trying to be difficult but its often the families that know the score.

OK, I'll simplify the point.

1) Under which circumstances would you advocate 'putting people down' (to use the animal analogy)without their consent? What criteria/threshold would you use? How would it be done?

2) How does that differ to the work of many hospices?

[Jonnyfp]

I would 'put people out there misery' if they had a terminal illness as would any decent family member...why is that so bad to you?

[Fran]

We euthenise animals because it's the "humane" thing to do but we can't be humane to humans?Obviously it would have to be well sorted out before it could be legal but I think it's what most people would want if they found themselves in that position,with nothing but pain & certain death ahead of them.

[Miss Demeanour]

I would 'put people out there misery' if they had a terminal illness as would any decent family member...why is that so bad to you?

It's not - in principle.

it is, in some circumstances, practiced already by the medical profession - it's accepted practice to administer drugs to improve someone's comfort, knowing that as a result it would shorten life (often to the extent that death is a certainty). (see original post).

And withdrawing treatment/medication is also accepted practice. (See also additional post).

In short, if someone was suffering a terminal disease, not able to communicate and their medication is prolonging their life and therefore their suffering, it is, under certain circumstances, withdrawn to allow nature take it's course.

So far, so good - the above already happens. If a person is not suffering a terminal disease and is not suffering, there is no need for a change in the legislation.

What I do not advocate is the non-medical intervention in someone's life. It would otherwise provide a defence to murder, it would be open to abuse by families because although Granny with moderate altzheimers is quite happy in her own world, not otherwise ill or suffering, they can't afford the care without selling her house, so then it's Granny's time to go.

Therefore I support the legalisation of PAS. I am also quite happy with the current system of withdrawing medication/nutrition or admistering life-shortening drugs, as there isn't yet a better objective system that's not abuseable.

[Jonnyfp]

Therefore I support the legalisation of PAS. I am also quite happy with the current system of withdrawing medication/nutrition or admistering life-shortening drugs, as there isn't yet a better objective system that's not abuseable

I agree with that, it could be abused.
But..

At present i know that the people around at the mo could be trusted to follow my instructions. I can't vouch for that in 50 years. the fuggas will prolly be after my vast wealth.

The government could set up a paper/guideline whatever on this...the solution is common sense legislation could easily be set in place. But this is such a charged topic that Blair just does'nt have the balls to set it in motion.

In principle its right in morals its right, in paperwork it does'nt exist yet.
And if the paperwork is'nt there its open to abuse.
That just makes the present system useless and a mockery.
Which would be small comfort to those in need of mercy at this moment in time.

[Miss Demeanour]

I agree with that, it could be abused.
But..

At present i know that the people around at the mo could be trusted to follow my instructions. I can't vouch for that in 50 years. the fuggas will prolly be after my vast wealth.

The government could set up a paper/guideline whatever on this...the solution is common sense legislation could easily be set in place. But this is such a charged topic that Blair just does'nt have the balls to set it in motion.

In principle its right in morals its right, in paperwork it does'nt exist yet.
And if the paperwork is'nt there its open to abuse.
That just makes the present system useless and a mockery.

The problem is, you may be able to vouch for the people around you, but if you can't communicate that to the people vetting the people around you, how are *they* to know that you trust them?

does that make sense?

in order for the system to work, a third person (say, a doctor, magistrate, etc) has to assess the validity of the decision to put you down, and the right of those people to make that decision for you.

They just havn't found a practical, objective and effective way of doing it yet.

[dracken1]

by johnny fp
At present i know that the people around at the mo could be trusted to follow my instructions. I can't vouch for that in 50 years. the fuggas will prolly be after my vast wealth.

where on earth did you get the insane idea you'll last another 50 years from :D :D :D :(

[Jonnyfp]

The problem is, you may be able to vouch for the people around you, but if you can't communicate that to the people vetting the people around you, how are *they* to know that you trust them?

does that make sense?

in order for the system to work, a third person (say, a doctor, magistrate, etc) has to assess the validity of the decision to put you down, and the right of those people to make that decision for you.

They just havn't found a practical, objective and effective way of doing it yet.


So at the moment the only option folk have is a prison sentence..
Well paperwork or not if a friend of mine was in this situation being eaten alive by cancer or whatever and was in unabatable pain..i'd pull the plug and do time.
I think its time it was sorted, i'd be banged up but i'd know i'd done the right thing.
I give it 5 years, the government will see it as a vote winner and there'll be a proper system in place...which i find utterly sick.

[Jonnyfp]

by johnny fp


where on earth did you get the insane idea you'll last another 50 years from :D :D :D :(


Optimism...lol

[Miss Demeanour]

So at the moment the only option folk have is a prison sentence..


Not entirely... allow me to repeat myself again...

2) Withdrawing nourishment/medication - this already happens - it basically lets nature take it's course - however with regard to nourishment, it's effectively starving a person to death. It happens, but is ethically dubious if someone continues to thrive despite withdrawal.

3) Medication administered in the knowledge that it will shorten life - it already happens - usually an opiate administered to make a person comfortable, knowing that it is likely to shorten life - it's similar to 1), however with a different motive, and often a different drug. Fine, if that's what a person wants (which it usually is, owing to the pain).

and...

I give it 5 years, the government will see it as a vote winner and there'll be a proper system in place...which i find utterly sick.


that's democracy for ya...

if an inadequate system were to be put in place so then people's plugs were being pulled for money or for fun, the govt would be the first people blamed.

[Jonnyfp]

Not entirely... allow me to repeat myself again...

2) Withdrawing nourishment/medication - this already happens - it basically lets nature take it's course - however with regard to nourishment, it's effectively starving a person to death. It happens, but is ethically dubious if someone continues to thrive despite withdrawal.

3) Medication administered in the knowledge that it will shorten life - it already happens - usually an opiate administered to make a person comfortable, knowing that it is likely to shorten life - it's similar to 1), however with a different motive, and often a different drug. Fine, if that's what a person wants (which it usually is, owing to the pain).

and...


that's democracy for ya...

if an inadequate system were to be put in place so then people's plugs were being pulled for money or for fun, the govt would be the first people blamed.

The removal of medication me dear may shorten life, but would also increase pain...in this case cancer victims are better off at the vets.
Dogs are treated better than that,

And are you saying that the government are in the business of putting inadequate measures in place? then put an adequate system place instead thats there job innit?...if its inadequate then they deserve the blame.

[Miss Demeanour]

The removal of medication me dear may shorten life, but would also increase pain...in this case cancer victims are better off at the vets.
Dogs are treated better than that,

Oh come on... It wouldn't be PAIN REDUCING medication that would be withdrawn. it's usually pain medication that's increased to shorten a person's life.

[Jonnyfp]

The removal of medication me dear may shorten life, but would also increase pain...in this case cancer victims are better off at the vets.
Dogs are treated better than that,

And are you saying that the government are in the business of putting inadequate measures in place? then put an adequate system place instead thats there job innit?...if its inadequate then they deserve the blame.

What of paragraph 2...editted btw you won't have seen it.

[Jonnyfp]

Oh come on... It wouldn't be PAIN REDUCING medication that would be withdrawn. it's usually pain medication that's increased to shorten a person's life.

also editted i see...

Fair one, then theres obviously no problem here is there?

clearly the present system is flawed. why has stuff like this made news? Ending it when someone is no longer happy to live and is in pain despite being given pain reduction has to be the way...and should be legal. by choice of the patient.

[technoboiler]

Oh come on... It wouldn't be PAIN REDUCING medication that would be withdrawn. it's usually pain medication that's increased to shorten a person's life.
yep thats right miss,,,,thats what we asked for for my gran,,,,93 yrs old when she died,,,,but we didnt want them keeping her alive,,just out of pain,,,they tend to increase morphine jonny,,,,they did this for my mam and for my gran
they do not decrease pain meds ...only drips etc

[Jonnyfp]

also editted i see...

Fair one, then theres obviously no problem here is there?

clearly the present system is flawed. why has stuff like this made news? Ending it when someone is no longer happy to live and is in pain despite being given pain reduction has to be the way...and should be legal. by choice of the patient.


So where do you draw the line? at what point does morphine cease to be effective? Should we still adhere to the present system?

[Doro]

I think sometimes doctors do everything they can to prolong life, no matter what the quality is

when I worked in hosp i remember the doctors discussing a case where a guy jumped off a bridge, he was gone when the paramedics got there, they brought him back to life then took him to A&E where he doctors had to leave him to die again because his injuries were so bad he could not have lived.....Q. why did the paramedics resuscitate him when it was obvious he wouldn't survive? (the injuries were obvious and serious enough so that their own common sense should have told them)

and what about premature babies? a very emotive subject (more so than the elderly or infirm methinks) - probably more is done in these cases for the parents' sakes than the baby's - why? because they have the technology? are they not prolonging the parents' agony by keeping a baby alive when it will eventually succumb to nature's course?

more to it than adults who are suffering.......


btw if my quality of life was so poor that I was confined to a bed and dependant on others to feed, wash and toilet me, then yep, I'd want the chance to go my own way, even more so if pain was a factor

but only if I knew there was no chance of improvement.

[Doro]

as for morphine, it doesn't always take away the pain and some folk still die in agony, they told my brother-in-law's father (who had pancreatic cancer which is untreatable) that he couldn't have more morphine as it would kill him...!!

ffs the poor guy only had a few weeks left (which they knew), what harm was increasing his pain relief gonna do again? oh yeah, kill a dying man, jeez

[Jonnyfp]

Personal experience beats all none involved logic, TB has first hand knoledge.

I only know how i'd want my end to be.

[Miss Demeanour]

What of paragraph 2...editted btw you won't have seen it.

Medication does more than relieve pain - paragraph 2 refers to medication that may be being used to keep a patient alive. There are many more drugs in the world that have far greater function than pain relief. (eg ones that act on the circulatory system, the heart, functions on other organs.) withdrawl of these is not necessarily painful, but if it is, then pain relief would be increased.

the pain relief drugs, such as morphine, are often given in doses that are known to relieve pain, but shorten the patient's life as, for example they make breathing more inefficient and therefore the person may not make it through the night. Common hospice practice.

I'm not repeating myself in these points any further mate. I can lend you a good medical ethics textbook.

Secondly, I did not suggest the goverment is in the practice of putting in an inadequate sytem. They have not put one in place because it would currently be inadequate. which is the sensible option. If you can't establish a proper system yet, don't establish one at all (yet).

Any new medical procedure or policy has medical, social, legal and ethical ramifications, and to not balance out all four would be negligent. Therefore the decision or the policy must not be led by emotion, but rational thought.

[Doro]

TB has first hand knowledge.




me too




btw jonny I corrected yer spelling ;)

[Jonnyfp]

But its not often laws are based on rationality is it.

[Jonnyfp]

Personal experience beats all none involved logic, TB has first hand knoledge.

I only know how i'd want my end to be.


cheers for that doro, it seems my logic is flawed not the law...
Having not been there logic is all i have, the law just does'nt make sense here, i'm basing all my beliefs on what ifs and stuff, prolly just best if i leave it alone now and come fresh in the morning when i'm more open to it,

[Miss Demeanour]

previous post edited as I prematurely submitted...

But its not often laws are based on rationality is it.

what is rational to one person, is not to another. As I said elsewhere this evening, Justice is a subjective concept, and law is an attempt at an objective expression of that concept. No legal system is acceptable to all - you accept the bits you don't like or agree with, as they come part and parcel with the bits that you do agree with (or at least, the parts that are essential to living in this society.)

I don't like every section of my employment contract, but I accept it because I need the job. However If I felt that badly about it, I would seek another job. You buy into societal rules wholesale, whether you agree withsome if them or not.

No one system of law is going to be agreeable, acceptable, or make sense to everyone.

[bill?]

I saw the title and hoped blair was having a go

[technoboiler]

lol,,,i thought it was about that band who sang give a little respect,,,u know,,,the poofs ;)

[dracken1]

tis funny really.
murder can suddenly become legal by the use of three letters "war" now you can kill that person who if you'd killed 3 minutes earlier could have got you life in prison.

life is cheap, we all see examples of that. blair wants to keep in with bush, so boys and girls off you go to iraqh! i'll stay here and plan my next move.

fit healthy young people with thier whole lives ahead of them, killed. and for what?
but lying in hospital slowly dying, the quality of life snuffed out. and they will do loads to keep you alive, not that "alive" would be the word i'd use. :(

[BikerGran]

It seems to me that it's not the system that is wrong, but the way the system is used.

We are often told that "there's no need for anyone to die in agony nowadays, there is so much more that can be done for pain relief"

Ok, that may be so - but so many of us have experience of relatives or friends who DO suffer like that Why? If there is no need for it to happen?

My husband has prostate cancer, he's had various treatments but they can't get rid of it, only hold it back. Currently, he's on medication and he's fine, you'd never know there was anything wrong. But two years ago he was told "People in your position have been known to live as long as 13 years". In other words, it will get him in the end. And if he needs help to put an end to it, I will help, whatever the consequences. How could I do it for my cat and not for my husband?

[geordiedevil]

Medication does more than relieve pain - paragraph 2 refers to medication that may be being used to keep a patient alive. There are many more drugs in the world that have far greater function than pain relief. (eg ones that act on the circulatory system, the heart, functions on other organs.) withdrawl of these is not necessarily painful, but if it is, then pain relief would be increased.

the pain relief drugs, such as morphine, are often given in doses that are known to relieve pain, but shorten the patient's life as, for example they make breathing more inefficient and therefore the person may not make it through the night. Common hospice practice.

I'm not repeating myself in these points any further mate. I can lend you a good medical ethics textbook.

Secondly, I did not suggest the goverment is in the practice of putting in an inadequate sytem. They have not put one in place because it would currently be inadequate. which is the sensible option. If you can't establish a proper system yet, don't establish one at all (yet).

Any new medical procedure or policy has medical, social, legal and ethical ramifications, and to not balance out all four would be negligent. Therefore the decision or the policy must not be led by emotion, but rational thought.


Its so easy to quote from text books............personal opinions and experiences, ie.......having someone close ....very close to you go through a painfull TERMINAL illness.......things change ..........a few of us have been through this.................have you?????

[Dougie]

Its so easy to quote from text books............personal opinions and experiences, ie.......having someone close ....very close to you go through a painfull TERMINAL illness.......things change ..........a few of us have been through this.................have you?????
Well said and nicely put.

[Miss Demeanour]

Its so easy to quote from text books............personal opinions and experiences, ie.......having someone close ....very close to you go through a painfull TERMINAL illness.......things change ..........a few of us have been through this.................have you?????

That is, quite frankly, none of your fcuking business. And no, I'm not just quoting from textbooks.

Look. Many issues are very emotive, and whilst we can all throw our arms up in disgust and whinge about everything going, but sometimes I take the devil's advocate approach and look at the issues behind the facts. Just because I refust to jump on any 'ain't the world cr@p' bandwagon, doesn't mean I don't care.

That is my right. And sometimes it is just as important.

if you don't like it, don't read it.

[Friar Tuck]

Hence, any choice for euthanasia must be the choice of the individual, backed up by a Living Will or Expression of Wish letter lodged with a Solicitor.

People carry Donor Cards, so why not carry an Expression of Wish card? so if you are in an accident, you can opt not to be resuscitated or if your injuries/illness is that bad the medical profession can honour your wishes without retribution or confusion.

In the event of Dementia or accident without an Expression of Wish, then the case should be automatically referred to some sort of body that can make a dispassionate decision based on medical condition and family wishes.

Euthanasia is a very emotive subject indeed!

[Miss Demeanour]

Hence, any choice for euthanasia must be the choice of the individual, backed up by a Living Will or Expression of Wish letter lodged with a Solicitor.

People carry Donor Cards, so why not carry an Expression of Wish card? so if you are in an accident, you can opt not to be resuscitated or if your injuries/illness is that bad the medical profession can honour your wishes without retribution or confusion.

In the event of Dementia or accident without an Expression of Wish, then the case should be automatically referred to some sort of body that can make a dispassionate decision based on medical condition and family wishes.

Euthanasia is a very emotive subject indeed!

Quite right. but as it appears I'm not allowed an opinion anymore I shall make no further comment.

[Friar Tuck]

Quite right. but as it appears I'm not allowed an opinion anymore I shall make no further comment.
Oh Blimey, don't go throwing your rattle out of the pram! everyone is allowed an opinion here. Why does everyone start taking it personally when the going gets a bit rough?

It's a forum and any subject is open to debate. I wish peeps would realise this those opinions are those expressed by the individual concerned and everyone respect that without getting personal or taking umbrage!

*I still want to be shagged to death by a very fit woman!*

[gollum]

Quite right. but as it appears I'm not allowed an opinion anymore I shall make no further comment.

And thats a shame because having an opinon and the freedom to express it is what living in a democracy is all about !

[blackhack]

Whats this thread all about ???

Ive read six pages so far and still havent read anything about youth in asia ???

[dracken1]

well i wasn't going to mention this but.
i have in my possesion an ancient book, written in a very old form of welsh. i've spent years translating it. to find it is a book of life. with names of people and when they will die and how.
i'm sure its genuine as i bought it off ebay :)

johhny fp your names here, and it says your going a week on wednesday,
cause... outer mongolian galloping knob rot.

friar, you get your wish and are shagged to death, but if i read this correctly you are to be the horse, not the jockey.

taxidave is going to live for another 300 years, which does'nt supprise me. as it explains why there are so many midlanders about ;)

[Jonnyfp]

Oh well in that case... :D

[TaxiDave]

*I still want to be shagged to death by a very fit woman!*



Not only are there not any "fit" women stupid enough, but even the pig ugly ones are refusing to shag you FT, and we've even checked with the Welsh ones.

[dracken1]

Not only are there not any "fit" women stupid enough, but even the pig ugly ones are refusing to shag you FT, and we've even checked with the Welsh ones.

yea....what!!!! :eek: :eek: :D

[wegit]

Quite right. but as it appears I'm not allowed an opinion anymore I shall make no further comment.
Everybody's input/opinion is valid either from life experience, hear say or quoted from a text book.

[Doro]

That is, quite frankly, none of your fcuking business.

I don't think GD was being nosy, it seemed more of a rhetorical question


it's not like you to be so nasty Miss D. :eek:

no-one implied you weren't allowed an opinion

I'm sure no harm was meant

can we all be friends now please, and keep this as a debate and not turn it into a slanging match?

I say 'debate' when I know fine well that once taxi dave and fayji start it'll degenerate into a farce *snigger* :)

[Miss Demeanour]

Its so easy to quote from text books............personal opinions and experiences, ie.......having someone close ....very close to you go through a painfull TERMINAL illness.......things change ..........a few of us have been through this.................have you?????

Rhetorical?

it appears that I am being asked that as on this occasion I took a slightly more distanced view (in my discussion with Jonny, I hasten to add), that I don't care.

Just because I don't plaster my deeply personal experiences over the net but I contribute in my own way, and on this occasion looked at it from a different angle (which surely is what debate is all about), I get my compassion questioned, which quite frankly is more than any of you know.

So, no, you're right, it's not like me to tell someone to mind their own business, but I will when I get quite upset and offended by what someone who doesn't know me is implying.

[Doro]

a debate doesn't exist unless there is an opposing view, and it is human nature to try and get others to see things from your own viewpoint, hence things can get heated, I just didn't want anything to become too nasty, and although GD was being sarcastic, I don't think she was being nasty. I certainly don't think anyone was saying your opinions were not valid. So, are we all fluffy again yet? :)

(hmmm so much for our image as bad-ass bikers lol, this is the forum of fluffiness!)

[defarter]

(hmmm so much for our image as bad-ass bikers lol, this is the forum of fluffiness!)



Nothing like a bit of fluff :D :D


I,ll go back outside to me shed :o

[Bosun]

ok i havent experienced really any reaons for this, but i have heard of "living wills" where if in such a case would be allowed o die with dignity... sounds good to me as would not wish to go without knowledge of pain etc....

[Jonnyfp]

Rhetorical?

it appears that I am being asked that as on this occasion I took a slightly more distanced view (in my discussion with Jonny, I hasten to add), that I don't care.

Just because I don't plaster my deeply personal experiences over the net but I contribute in my own way, and on this occasion looked at it from a different angle (which surely is what debate is all about), I get my compassion questioned, which quite frankly is more than any of you know.

So, no, you're right, it's not like me to tell someone to mind their own business, but I will when I get quite upset and offended by what someone who doesn't know me is implying.

We debated well no you explained lol..
Bless ya Miss, i certainly don't mean offence during debate, and to be honest i've never ever detected offence from Miss during this one or any others, well there was one but i asked for that,,lol

[technoboiler]

Rhetorical?


Just because I don't plaster my deeply personal experiences over the net





mentioning that my mother died of leukeamia is not, in my oppinion 'plastering' my personal experiances....

I do take offence at that statement miss D, maybe you should think about how you put things,,,

[Miss Demeanour]

mentioning that my mother died of leukeamia is not, in my oppinion 'plastering' my personal experiances....

I do take offence at that statement miss D, maybe you should think about how you put things,,,

none intended.

You are free to speak of your personal experiences, as I am free not to.

However because I choose not to, it does not detract from what I'm trying to say, as was implied.

[Friar Tuck]

Not only are there not any "fit" women stupid enough, but even the pig ugly ones are refusing to shag you FT, and we've even checked with the Welsh ones.
Oh well! Stick me in a bin bag, and put me out on Monday when the bin men come! To collect the rubbish that is!

*phew think i got away with that!*

[xjtriker666]

DeFFO YES......an b allowed to practice on sex offenders an rapists..