• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PatrickWanek

  • Member Type
  • Birthday 09/30/1992

Personal Information

  • What Community Would You Like To Host?

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. PatrickWanek

    Terri Schiavo is not a rare but certainly uncommon example that is perfect to bring up for me, seeing as I was in the same position with my birth mother after she was rendered comatose from her suicide attempt, but then revived by the doctors through her power of attorney. This is not her first attempt, and obviously reviving her back to life caused her MORE suffering, not less. Through her suffering and brain damage, we now suffer every time we respond to this lonely, but psychotic and warped human being. She is unable to work, and she threatened my little sister with a weapon before leaving her homeless on the streets, and the lies that she has orchestrated have cost other people their jobs and their relationships. Preventing these people from having what they want doesn't stop suffering because it stops a death... to the contrary their suffering spills out onto their family members, neighbors, and community. A very common situation mentioned on this forum [ ] refers to the proposed right of the terminally unemployed to get a euthanasia. I think it makes perfect sense for the terminally unemployed to get a euthanasia if the amount of welfare or social services they DO qualify for causes them to live in a prolonged and entrapped state of suffering without the ability to gain further satisfaction from the world. Of course, no country yet grants terminal unemployment as a qualification for euthanasia. Forcing these people to carry this burden empowers the conservative right wing across the planet and props up a casino economy that leaves people worse than when they started. Letting these people get a euthanasia BECAUSE of the economy will make it difficult to let conservatives force the rest of us to play a competitive game for our lives instead of working together to lift everyone up (if they choose to participate.) Of course, euthanasia is a subset of suicide, but most suicides are decided and completed in a manner of minutes to hours. That's not allowed in euthanasia. Euthanasia has more in common with rare suicides suggested by suicide forums through various inert gases administered through a self-constructed mask & tubes apparatus. It is far more difficult to commit an impulsive suicide when a person has to acquire a tank of pure inert gas than it is to leave the car on in an enclosed environment, jump off a building, walk onto the interstate, point an airsoft gun at a cop, overdose on pills, consume storebought cleaning chemicals, or to go to a gun-fair and purchase a firearm with no background check whatsoever. All of these degrading and traumatic events are chosen because we have too much pride to let these people have a humane option. You reference exposure to psychotropic compounds, but this actually happens in the instance of exposure to certain elements NATURALLY (lead, mercury, antimony, radium, argon, krypton, helium, nitrogen, arsenic, polonium, botulinum, carbon monoxide, asbestos, thermonuclear radiation, etc.) and used to be a consequence of work conditions (mines, factories) in decades past. Regardless of the fact that these circumstances are preventable, I'm still not sure if that is an argument against allowing a person with such an exposure to pursue relief through the method of their choice. It's not like a permission slip signed by two doctors is going to change ANYTHING I just said. After all, it's not like making drugs illegal does anything whatsoever to prevent drug abuse. Quite the opposite in fact. Whether you call it suicide or euthanasia, and make it illegal or not, it's going to happen. The only thing restriction does (like with abortion) is make the process messy and degrading. When it comes to blackmailing a person into suicide, this is a rare and specific psychological crime far more difficult to execute than an overt murder. Its also not a true suicide-euthanasia, but a homicide, and the criminal who is blackmailing someone into suicide is the ACTUAL threat that must be stopped, where the legitimate conditions in which euthanasia is sought out cannot be prevented through interference and due diligence by police, federal authorities, or private investigators. I like what you said about the justice system and I'd like to know from their perspective if police would appreciate dealing with the root of the problem (the blackmailer) than deal with the end result (public suicides.) Simply put, a person who is being blackmailed doesn't want to die... so the homicide-through-euthanasia will never occur if the person doing the blackmailing can be stopped. Perhaps religious terrorists blow themselves up because their organizations have convinced them that its the only way for God to forgive them for their homosexuality. Would it really be effective to make terrorism illegal? Not a chance! No such law would effectively deter a doomed person. It would be much more effective to convince these individuals that their emotional religion is bullshit, there's nothing wrong with them and that they don't have to do this; there's a place for them to go where their choice will be respected. This is where the effort should be made instead of creating a much larger national disaster through the war on drugs, the war on abortion, or the war on suicide... all of which are restricted (in America) by a body of voters who don't deserve to make that decision for other Americans. Too often that vote comes from a "yuck-factor" knee-jerk reaction and not the far larger and overwhelming body of statistical evidence suggesting that urgent care hospitalizations, preventable deaths, crime rates, and economic problems drop when it is legalized. It also doesn't matter that rates increase upon legalization. Publicly dangerous methods always drop in frequency because the safer alternative creates a bottleneck through an efficient, cleaner method. When people go to a professional to get the solution they want, they actually have a chance to encounter the mental health care they otherwise would have avoided when headed straight to the suicide method of choice. More people take advantage of suicide hotlines on their way to a euthanasia clinic than on their way to buy a gun. (Ex: Although the rates of cannabis usage increased in Colorado in the short term upon legalization, ALL smoking has been reduced in the long term as cannabis education has risen.)
  2. PatrickWanek

    That's a general, simplistic, "extremely" lazy comment and it isn't addressing much. 3rd Reich? Extreme (fallacious) comparison. Feel free to care or quote some evidence. Just because you're comfortable enough to ignore a point of view doesn't make that point of view extreme... it just means you have the privilege of existing below that pain threshold. How is it ethical to restrict it? You're still ignoring the suffering of the people whom this subject actually pertains to. If you can't understand my opinion, try reading it. You could even ask a question.
  3. PatrickWanek

    Actually, I said euthanasia. YOU put the word suicide in my mouth... and that's a mischaracterization since euthanasia is assisted and suicide is not... Suicide, when assisted illegally, is probably called homicide or manslaughter, and that's an entirely different subject than rationally deciding you would like to leave Earth. I'm not sure why both you and Selena derailed this topic and took it to murder. That would be as off-topic as me asking if your extreme jump to the topic of murder was prompted by my skin tone or physical features. I mean, what? Speculation at best. When it comes to "any reason"... you must be hearing what you want to hear, because that's also a mischaracterization of what I have said. I realize this is an emotional topic and perhaps I should delete this thread since its getting so many of you wound up to the point that you refuse to read and acknowledge my premise. To repeat what I said more clearly and succinctly; I believe that it is not a doctor, a lawyer, a politician, a voter, a dictator, or a family member's job to decide what hopelessly sick or injured means to the person considering a euthanasia. Simply put; it is not your job, your right, your privilege, or your prerogative to decide for what reason a person gets permission to have a euthanasia. Besides perhaps Belgium, countries with legal euthanasia (and all the U.S. states) actually have legal discrimination based on physical, emotional, and mental ability as prerequisites for who is euthanasia-eligible, which (in my logical opinion) is a bizarre, extremely delicate and absolutely unacceptable thing to discriminate about. It should be unconstitutional for there to exist "special reasons" to get a euthanasia. What if someone experiences a form of suffering even Teal Swan could never fathom, but there is no "special reason" to address the kind of 'disability' it creates? In our current system, if some "educated" graduate of the system with a piece of paper calling them 'doctor' decides that you aren't "disabled" enough to receive assistance in a humane exit, then "keep suffering" is the solution you have left us with. Someone can't just use fear to make the claim that a new Hitler is going to use this to cause some imagined genocide. You must address the individuals who seek a euthanasia but are declined and sentenced to a life of suffering by a comfortable, emotionally detached physician. If you do not address this issue directly, you are in danger of arguing a red herring, or in the case of Selena Martell, an ad hominem attack via comparison fallacy (since it is a false equivalence to compare [genetics based] mass murder to mass suicide, individual suicide, or even more unrelated; self-determined (physician-assisted) euthanasia,) thereby characterizing the opinions contrary to Selena's as genocidal. If Selena is really going to put that little effort into discussing the suffering of others, who even cares or benefits from what Selena thinks? Since you are actually putting effort and consideration into this delicate subject, I'd love for you to reread what I've said a little more carefully so you can see that I'm on the side of the patient and have no desire to give a doctor or a family member power over the life of another, but simply expect that doctor to do their job with the power the patient not only vests in them as their care provider, but ultimately already holds themselves.
  4. PatrickWanek

    Hysterically comparing me to Hitler might actually matter if your previous posts on this forum weren't so unstable. That's an example of ad hominem via false equivalence fallacy, and its pure theatrics. Restricting euthanasia to the gold medalists of the 'suffering Olympics' is the true cruelty; and your short, inhumane post shows how self-absorbed you really are. Caring about other people looks like letting them have relief for their suffering in the manner that is most rational, and prolonging suffering based on pathological appeals and fear is not only inadequate logic, it demonstrates your lack of character and compassion for these individuals.
  5. PatrickWanek

    Interesting response to the other person. By unrestricted, I still agree to the modern definition that euthanasia SHOULD be for "hopelessly sick or injured individuals" however my question arises from the idea that a doctor, family member, or a voting/democratic/republic society gets to decide who is injured and who is not. Some men claim that women want to be raped. The effect of speech like this is that it takes away the weight of the woman's authentic victim status and classifies her as "uninjured" by the rape. This can occur in many different forms and it results in people not receiving medication, treatment, or justice in hundreds of distinct cases. This is the same problem I see in euthanasia and with such a massive online community of individuals who do not qualify for euthanasia in some countries but still seek out suicide methods, I think it creates a very messy situation. Whether "wanting" to have a euthanasia in the mind of the people is valid or not, it doesn't change the political, emotional, financial, and social impacts of messy suicides, public suicides, and homicide-suicide / mass-murder/suicide. My opinion is that regardless of what a healthcare practitioner believes about a person's pain, that person should never be restricted from having a euthanasia. OF COURSE you can try and talk them out of it, or slow their decision down by giving them alternatives, but to say "NO, you aren't suffering because you don't have ___legal-criteria___".. yeah that ain't working. Female COMPLETED suicide is on the rise at an alarming rate and men's rates aren't dropping either. Time to get our heads out of the clouds and let these people make adult decisions in dignified conditions.
  6. PatrickWanek

    Unrestricted Euthanasia Why hasn't any country in the world decided to open euthanasia to all people? Please let us know what your stance is on euthanasia, and how you think this impacts our interpersonal relationships. I think its better in the long term if we release resistance.
  7. PatrickWanek

    Yey oppression olympics
  8. We are all on the spectrum
  9. PatrickWanek