cleon42 at SPAMyahoo.com
Tue Apr 17 05:48:43 MDT 2001
--- Marta Russell <ap888 at lafn.org> wrote:
> > Perhaps instead of reading "many accounts," you
> > try reading the law in question, which has quite a
> > of accountability; consulting with another doctor
> > merely the lowest level.
> You haven't read the Remlink Report which shows
> solid evidence of
> abuse in the years that assisted suicide was court
> sanctioned but not
> a "law." It won't be much different now since its
> pretty much the
> same routine. Over 25,000 people were killed
25,000, eh? That's a little suspicious. I can't find
the report online, however, but I can't find that
number in any documents about the Remmelink Report.
The New England Journal of Medicine says that
"However, in an additional 1000 deaths (0.8 percent),
the patient was not competent when euthanasia was
performed -- a clear violation of the guidelines (the
Dutch do not even use the term 'euthanasia' for this
practice, reserving it for strictly voluntary cases)."
It continues later: "According to the Remmelink study,
over half had earlier expressed an interest in
euthanasia, while competent, and most were moribund at
the time euthanasia was performed. This information,
however, was drawn from interviews with doctors, not
necessarily an accurate source in such cases, for
I want to stress something here; "while not competent"
#1) does NOT mean "against their will," and #2) yes,
this is still illegal.
> > And this would be relevant because...?
> He can spot a bit of bourgeois shit when he sees it.
Well, that convinces me. If he thinks it, I should
> Since when did Marxists develop such a belief in
> what bourgeois state
> laws say -- I mean as if the laws are enforced ?
Well, then, what's the point in opposing it? If it
doesn't matter what the law says, then you're opposing
it merely for the sake of opposing it.
The article contained some assertions (mixed liberally
with "woe are the Dutch" hyperbole and emotional
appeals that would make Goebbels retch) about the law
which are simply not backed up by the facts. Now, if
it doesn't matter what the law says, why did you post
an article which was obviously bullshit?
> Secondly, if you read what disabled people (THE
> PEOPLE!) have to say
> you might learn something.
Once again we're back to "if ___ thinks it, you should
too." In logic circles (am I allowed to refer to logic
here?), it's called the "fallacy of appealing to
In any case, there are disabled groups that are pro
and against, so your point here is rather moot anyway.
Adam Levenstein cleon42 at yahoo.com
AK-47: $350. Ammunition: $60. Camoflauge outfit: $55.
The looks on your co-workers' faces: Priceless.
Some things you just can't buy. For everything else, there's MasterCard.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
More information about the Marxism