MolecularMan14

sounds good to me!

See if you can't fit me in somewhere...my description is in the other thread

I'll let u pick a part out for me, I like to see what other people think

[edit] damn, got done by one of those rhetorical questions again didnt i

hate it when that happens

lol, "Psychic Source" and "First Three minutes free".

Cool! this click's for you

Where are these google things? Are they "Customer Support Portal" and "Bulletin Board Corp."?

Name- Alex

Age-14

Profession-Microbiology (and sharpshooting on the weekends)

taking sides?-Dont care if Im a good or bad character

Appearance- 6'2", brown hair, blue eyes, and Im all about upper body strength

Gender- male

Nationality- German

Quirks-...I can make a joke out of just about anything...; I often work with ballistics (making the stuff that comes out the barrels ); I get to play with several rifles, pistols; and of course...get to make some nice stuff in the lab! (cough...chemistry would come in handy..cough cough...)

Other stuff- I might make a good assassin... <:-/

(I've only read the first post, so I dont know what all the other characters will be... fit me in somewhere)

lol, i do what I can

6/(1-(5/7))

This structure and format is very similar to what they already have in switzerland' date='is that were you got this list from ...Switzerland by the way has the highest PAS in the world.

My own personal opinion is we need no change in the law.To safeguard members of the public PAS should remain a criminal offense.The doctor-patient relationship in a severe terminaly ill scenario,is a private and unique one.It is for the people concerned and wether the doctor chooses to ease the suffering of his patient is a very upsetting and private act.Remaining a criminal offence will desuade and hopefully catch any mad doctors bumping off people willy-nilly.Harold shipman springs to mind,im sure he helped a few really ill patients however whatever clinical illness he suffered from gave him free reign to murder people.

If it is ever de-criminalised im certain no matter what guidlines are in place they will always be ways around it and falsification.You have to realise the moral code and duty these people swear to uphold when we place ourselves in there care.What would be their moral guidence when their board of directors at the local hospital trust says "oh we cannot afford such and such drugs just put them out of their misery...besides we need the bed" !!![/quote']

 

First off, no, I used an online debate resource center for a class debate on PAS. So, onto your other arguements-

Peter Rogatz, Greenhaven Press, 2003

It is argued that permitting physician-assisted suicide would undermine the sense of trust that patients have in their doctors. This is curious reasoning; patients are not lying in bed wondering if their physicians are going to kill them--and permitting assisted suicide shouldn't create such fears, since the act of administering a fatal dose would be solely within the control of the patient. Rather than undermining a patient's trust, I would expect the legalization of physician-assisted suicide to enhance that trust. I have spoken with a great many people who feel that they would like to be able to trust their physicians to provide such help in the event of unrelieved suffering--and making that possible would give such patients a greater sense of security.

 

Kenneth Cauthen (who happens to be a Baptist Minister), Greenhaven Press 2000

there are times when we need to rethink received wisdom by subjecting our principles, codes, and traditions to a fresh exposure to real life experience. Sometimes ideals that are designed to protect and enhance life may actually degrade life and be the source of unnecessary suffering

 

James D. Torr, Greenhaven Press 1999

Slippery slope arguments against euthanasia hold that if voluntary, physician-assisted suicide is allowed in certain cases, it will inevitably be allowed in cases that are not as clear-cut, and eventually there will be an unstoppable army of euthanasia-happy doctors running the nation's hospitals. Once terminally ill patients are allowed access to assisted suicide, the argument goes, no amount of vigilance can prevent the ensuing bloodshed. Women, the disabled, the poor, the elderly, and any number of minority groups will become victims of forced euthanasia, or so Americans are told.

If this scenario sounds alarmist, that's because it is. Slippery slope arguments are designed to play on people's fears. But where is the evidence that such nightmarish scenarios are unavoidable? Why must euthanasia for those who want to die inevitably lead to euthanasia for those who do not if there is a clear law that requires the patient to request it multiple times and in the presence of witnesses? How can euthanasia for the terminally ill be transformed into euthanasia for people who are not dying if the law clearly requires such a diagnosis from a doctor?

 

If it is ever de-criminalised im certain no matter what guidlines are in place they will always be ways around it and falsification.

From the criteria listed in my previous post' date=' please provide a way through an unseen loophole, just to better the process. Illegal actions take place now, so in debate terms, you arguement is non-unique.

 

"oh we cannot afford such and such drugs just put them out of their misery...besides we need the bed"

...cold and callous...why would the hospitals have the ability to dispose of patients without their concent...as seen in the criteria above- specifically #3, #4, and #6

 

I dont mean to shoot anyone down, but I feel that these are some of the most important arguments.

bill nigh the science guy

Got a chance to meet him, such a PIMP!

lol, strange that when my aunt had terrible lyme's, to the point where she was conscious about 3 hours a day, they infected her with malaria,and now she's perfectly fine!

Peter Rogatz, Greenhaven Press, 2003

The slippery slope argument discounts the real harm of failing to respond to the pleas of real people and considers only the potential harm that might be done to others at some future time and place. As in the case of other slippery slopes, theoretical future harm can be mitigated by establishing appropriate criteria that would have to be met before a patient could receive assistance.

1. The patient must have an incurable condition causing severe, unrelenting suffering.

2. The patient must understand his or her condition and prognosis, which must be verified by an independent second opinion.

3. All reasonable palliative measures must have been presented to and considered by the patient.

4. The patient must clearly and repeatedly request assistance in dying.

5. A psychiatric consultation must be held to establish if the patient is suffering from a treatable depression.

6. The prescribing physician, absent a close preexisting relationship (which would be ideal) must get to know the patient well enough to understand the reasons for her or his request.

7. No physician should be expected to violate his or her own basic values. A physician who is unwilling to assist the patient should facilitate transfer to another physician who would be prepared to do so.

8. All of the foregoing must be clearly documented.

...not all its cracked up to be. (especially when you dont have control over it... )

anyway man, congratulations, and good luck to you! I hope it goes far!

the German, havnt we done this before?!

good point, there would be a biological limitation in terms of what our bodies could handle. I think the question is difficult, mainly becuase we know so little about the brain; I think that the limitation stated by ecoli would be one of the few, but if it were overcome in some bizarre twist, that would be rather nice

I don't want to go to school either

does anyone

...aaaaalllright...

I know there's been a time when you wanted something you know you couldnt control...like say a snow day, or a school closing for some bizarre reason...well Im here to ask for a good oldfashioned school closing tomorrow!

Anyone else care to contribute?

Obviously you naturally talk fast and debate may have helped too' date=' because in debate you have to be very clear and articulate so it must really exercise the brain-vocal pathways.

[/quote']

Actually, Im not much of a fast talker in person, but debate is another story. True, articulation is key, and speed is a must if you want to finish answering all the other arguements, and finally get onto some offense I would suggest debate for anyone political (most debaters are hardcore liberal- Im an exception) and make better arguements, especially against some friends who would like to talk politics

thanks for the update. Good luck in the debates!

Thanks man

update!!! (debate helped with this one now)

nine times to twenty and I got to 6 when time ran out

Amen brotha'!~

well, actually, I would love to study more advanced things, however, the teachers around here dont like anything but themselves. They tend to believe that their's is the only class that really matters, and thus, they'll be the only ones giving homework for that night...hmmmm

Becuase of the teaching ego, we are forced into a curriculum...say, science...while we are totally advanced from the rest of the class in something like microbiology, when we are forced to learn something like...geology! Dont get me wrong...I love all types of sciences, however, since I am not profoundly interested in geology, I tended to not be all too interested.

What i suggest is making a highschool system for all those kids who KNOW what they're good at, and know that they can make a living at it...say microbiology...and then have courses based around that (almost like college)

I know its rather radical, but whatever...a kid can dream

I always just assumed that because of the never-ending route, it would be a good interpretation of infinity. I wouldnt think that they would take the #8 into consideration. But you never know

Parents (both scientists) and incompetent teachers...ugh

...it seems Ive been knocked back to a molecule, and almost 100 of my posts are missing...strange... but whatever