SNIP Switzerland has just legalized a new way to die by assisted suicide. The country’s medical review board has just given authorization for use of the Sarco Suicide Pod, which is a 3-D-printed portable coffin-like capsule with windows that can be transported to a tranquil place for a person’s final moments of life. The pod can be activated from inside and can give the person intending to die various options for where they want to be for their final moments. “The machine can be towed anywhere for the death,” he said. “It can be in an idyllic outdoor setting or in the premises of an assisted-suicide organization, for example.” ENDSNIP https://www.yahoo.com/news/switzerland-approves-assisted-suicide-capsule-140255771.html Wow... this is an interesting concept, and only available from an advanced society, meaning it will never make it in 3rd world countries, like Zambia ... or the United States... Has anybody ever seen the movie Soylent Green?? Sounds sort of like how Edward G Robinson went out.... watching peaceful videos and getting smells pumped in that made him happy as he died. Frankly, if death is as guaranteed and quick as advertised, we should order a few for US states that want to ****ing shoot people again... now THAT's an advanced society...(/s) I cannot by forum rules post the entire procedure, but it seems pretty well thought out... give it a read.... Anybody see any problem with these procedures? Or the concept?
Also, since this thing can be towed anywhere (in theory), where would you want to go to die?? What would you want to be the last thing you saw in your time on earth? I'm thinking I'd like to have a picture of my family on one side, but the capsule would be on the 8th green at Pebble Beach, late afternoon... (players can get a free drop if the capsule is in their line)
I think once a person becomes terminal and they decide they would rather end their pain, it should be their choice. A few years back my roommate was working with a patient who could not longer empty their own bowels and became backed up. His body became septic after that and was poisoning him. Because of this the hospital removed his feeding tube. It then turned into a waiting game to see what would happen first, starving to death or succumbing to the toxins. Euthanization was not an option for him because someone else felt their own morality was more important then this person ending their suffering. It's cruel and disgusting.
"Because someone else felt their own morality was more important than this person ending their suffering. it's cruel and disgusting." This, all of this. If someone's life is truly at an end, or if they really don't want to live here anymore, forcing them to do so because of our own perceived notions of life is the hallmark of arrogance and hubris, and like you said its disgusting.
Go for it. It's your choice. I have no problem with anyone who wants to choose the self-checkout option...
Even I avoided the obvious jokes there, and that was no easy feat for me... For the record, I was thinking of going with the "Ted Cruz personally tested model" myself... a posthumous testimonial from beautiful Cancun.. Hell, just tell him it's a new style suntanning booth.... he wouldn't know any better... Just get in and press START, Ted....
Read the sad post made 1 minute after yours.... Nature seems to get a little confused towards the end.... It may want us to live, but it makes it extremely difficult at times...
I think the same options should be avail for humans as our pets when we are faced with terminal illness that is going to be painful
I'm not suggesting we try to trick anyone into it, but it might be a good idea to pair the deployment with a vigorous public service campaign, reminding them how much they personally are going to contribute to global warming over the course of the next year. Let them really understand how their lifestyle is killing the planet. You could put a positive spin on it too, maybe make it a little game, by having them enter their age and show them how much carbon they'd avoid polluting Mother Earth with over the rest of their life if they'd just avail themselves of the facility. Or maybe a nice daily reminder that they'll always be privileged oppressors on account of their skin color, and that the right thing to do would be to stop hoarding opportunity and free up some space for some poor, oppressed BIPOC.
Um, actually it is in the hospital's best financial interest to prolong that life as long as possible. My father-in-law was irate when the hospital saved him from his heart attack. That did not stop them from getting paid or the nursing home from getting paid for the extra 7 months of hell he had to endure due to the their revival of him - to the tune of around $100,000. We should be making these kinds of decisions based on the financial health of the medical institutions, not the physical health of the patients.... amirite?
Imagine thinking U.S. is a third world country. As far as the topic goes, Ill have to ponder on this awhile.
More cheerleading for death panels. Got it. So, here's a real conflict in your logic and posting here. You've advocated medical requirements that prolong life, and in the same breath advocate for life's end and potentials for it. You seem to be unaware of this internal conflict.
Do you even know what you are talking about anymore??? I advocate for somebody to make the choice to end their life, with a few simple safeguards beforehand... the rest is you either misattributing to me something somebody else said or misunderstanding what I said. Can't really help you in either regard...
They probably wouldn't sell to the US prison system. However a system like that would be pretty easy to make domestically. Incidentally the reason states are going back to firing squads is because leftists trying to subvert the will of the people made obtaining the drugs very difficult.
they should not be, all medical decisions should be made by the patient, not the government in fact, one should be able to choose an unlicensed doctor in their neighborhood if they wish and get whatever medication they want doctors should give advice and medical procedures, not be the arm of government enforcement for drugs I also did not support the government forcing a child to get chemo against the child and parents wishes - I have had chemo, not an easy choice and I still wonder if I should not have done it
It's not a conflict to advocate for medical advancements and allowing a patient the right to choose. Their's no reason someone should have to slowly and painfully die just so someone else can feel good about themselves.
Not at all, free choice. It comes down to this: Can the quality of your life be saved, maintained or improved? If yes, go for it. If I'd be alive but a prune of myself, I'd rather choose death. Has nothing to do with faux morality, and has everything to do with quality of life for a human being.