Suppose I want to die. My doctor says he won’t do it, either out of ethical standards or becuase he believes I’m not that far gone. Do I sue him for not upholding a law which supports my right to die? Do I have my family shop for a doctor who will do it? What is my insurance companies responsiblities?

Can you give an iron clad definiton that the law could be based around? And once you do establish the law-doesn’t that create an unnatural border-exceptions exist, but now a law is in place to prevent a doctor from treating me as he sees fit-if I don’t meet the ironclad definiton, does that mean I’m stuck?

Creating a law which addresses end of life, suggests it isn’t being addressed right now…it also has the potential to be twisted. Imagine an insurance company refusing to pay for long term coma patients, because euthansia is cheaper.

there is no way you can legistlate or organize it. The dems want it like it is a plan and procedure. Can’t wait to see the lawsuits that come out of that. Guess what? most doctors oppose it as well…but it happens, without laws. This portrayal of republicans coming between families is so far from reality. I can assure you that if you have a loved one under decent medical care, the issue will be dealt with gingerly, but properly-in the current fashion.

did kevorkian even have his license? I don’t consider him a doctor, and I definitely don’t think he was acting as one. It is why he is in jail. Other doctors testified against him, and if you were on the jury, you would have found that he did not behave as a doctor.

http://bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/chapter2.html
“The federal government makes significant public resources available to biomedical researchers each year—over $20 billion in fiscal year 2003 alone”

20 billion for all research. of which stem cell research receives funding. The problem is not getting stem cells, but making sure they become the tissue they are supposed to become. Even if the government were to move half of all funding into stem cells, it would impact the actual investment into the research by less than 1%.

“The question is whether it ought to be legal for cancer sufferers.”

Actually the question is whether it should be legal, period. The answer is yes, but I don’t see the dems any closer to it than the republicans. I see Kinky Friedman has it on his platform-it would pull 20% of the texas vote.

1) “To my knowledge I have not heard of a case where a doctor has been sued for assisting in ending a patients life.” Tell that to Jack Kevorkian.

2) The Republican position on stem cell research — or at least George Bush’s position — is that it is so abominable that he cast his first veto in his Presidency to impede it:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/index.html

1) From the 2004 Republican platform: “we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.” The fact that “suicide is against the law for everyone” is not relevant. The question is whether, under certain circumstances, euthanasia and assisted suicide ought to be legalized. Oregon passed an assisted suicide law, which John Ashcroft tried to stop by threatening prosecution of doctors took an active role. (So much for states’ rights — as with Bush v. Gore, we’ve learned by now that states rights are fine for conservatives until the states do things which they don’t like). Ashcroft was overruled by a Supreme Court decision earlier this year.

http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf#search=%22republican%20party%20platform%22

2) If gay couples married someone of the opposite sex, then they wouldn’t be gay couples.

3) Also from the party platform: we believe that “legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman.” No talk of civil unions here.

4) Re “Marijuana use is against the law for everyone not just cancer patients:” this also is not relevant. The question is whether it ought to be legal for cancer sufferers. Although California legalized medical marijuana in 1996, the DEA is arresting people who distribute it. (Again, so much for states’ rights.) And while it may not be a big deal to you, I am sure that it is a very big deal to someone whose pain could be alleviated were it not for the administration’s insistence that it knows best.

5) The sentence “the government should not be in the business of killing embryos and taking one persons life away in the hope of improving the life of another particularly when there are numerous other treatments available” has two errors. First, an embryo is not a person. Secondly, there are not other treatments available. The reason for stem cell research is to find treatments for diseases which are currently not curable.

So now tell me what liberties I am taking with the truth?