http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands

Euthanasia in the Netherlands is regulated by the "Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act" from 2002. It states that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are not punishable if the attending physician acts in accordance with criteria of due care.[1] These criteria concern the patient's request, the patient's suffering (unbearable and hopeless), the information provided to the patient, the presence of reasonable alternatives, consultation of another physician and the applied method of ending life.[1] To demonstrate their compliance, the Act requires physicians to report euthanasia to a review committee.[1]

In other words; nothing wrong, no "please don't kill me" bracelets or involuntary euthanasia. This is nothing else but fcking moronic stupidity on Santorum's part.

Their lack of knowledge about other cultures and countries alone scares me

To be fair, very few Europeans know much about American culture. They know the caricatured version they get from our television filtered through their own culture's perception of us. We have dozens of distinct cultures, and our politicians need to understand THOSE first.

To be fair, very few Europeans know much about American culture. They know the caricatured version they get from our television filtered through their own culture's perception of us. We have dozens of distinct cultures, and our politicians need to understand THOSE first.

And Newt Gingrich wants poor children to work as child laborers.

I wonder why anyone takes the US elections serious anymore. Ignoring all the other things about the US politics, the candidates are outright insane, fit for naught but a freak show.

And Newt Gingrich wants poor children to work as child laborers.

I wonder why anyone takes the US elections serious anymore. Ignoring all the other things about the US politics, the candidates are outright insane, fit for naught but a freak show.

To be fair, very few Europeans know much about American culture. They know the caricatured version they get from our television . . .

I want to know why nobody ever calls them out on this crap. If this happened over here the media would have a field day and more than likely said fool would not only end his election but also have to say sorry to the offended country.

My take on this:


My parents are evangelical Christians (i'm 33, for reference). Over Christmas, my mother repeatedly asked what I think of Santorum.

In their minds it is very simple; does he share my faith? If so he MUST be the right choice.

What really scares me is that they agree with his bigotry and racism! Of course they would never admit that's what it truly is.


They've gone bat-****-insane, and I am not sure what to do about it.

Pray for them

Republicans have really gone off the deep end for this election year...

I want to know why nobody ever calls them out on this crap. If this happened over here the media would have a field day and more than likely said fool would not only end his election but also have to say sorry to the offended country.

My take on this:


My parents are evangelical Christians (i'm 33, for reference). Over Christmas, my mother repeatedly asked what I think of Santorum.

In their minds it is very simple; does he share my faith? If so he MUST be the right choice.

What really scares me is that they agree with his bigotry and racism! Of course they would never admit that's what it truly is.


They've gone bat-****-insane, and I am not sure what to do about it.

The left media in the US will get around to it sooner or later. Currently they are too busy with other silly nonsense that has come out of Santorum's frothy mouth.

P.S. Google "Santorum"

In America freedom means to never have to apologize or take responsibility for ones actions

Totally feels like this from the outside...

The fact that the GOP has gone absolutely over-the-top batpoo crazy shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Let's recap the last four years..

1) They decided to put winning the presidency above absolutely everything, including inconvenient things like actually running the country or bothering to be honest when it got in the way of being right.

2) They decided that all the moderates weren't real republicans and proceeded to purge as many of them as they could

3) The Tea Party, which started out as astroturf and morphed into a terrifyingly real amalgamation of every hick stereotype there is.

4) Big talk show hosts and Fox News took over the party from the people who were actually supposed to be running it, and they seem to be as interested in keeping their base in as milkable a frenzy as possible as actually winning elections.

I expect the GOP will eventually move back to the middle - the Tea Party is fading away already and even the most crazy right-winger would be hard-pressed not to recognize the current primary circus for what it is. But not this election - Romney might have a chance but even so his own party is making him move so far to the right Obama will just be able to play Romney's own soundbites this summer for campaign ads.

But really, this should have happened years ago when the republican congress and tea party members started screwing things up and being unwilling to even begin to compromise.

Why compromise one's principles? If you feel that XYZ is the right thing, then why should you sacrifice any of it?

Compromise is a word pulled out and often used as a tactic to whine about not getting something. "You're so unreasonable, just compromise, just give me a little of my liberty destroying policy, I promise I won't ask for more, until next time when I whine about compromise again."

Compromise is the grease on the slope to tyranny.

This is why your countries infrastructure is falling apart.

and they can't blame anybody but themselves.


but then again, it's the same for my country and any country that is struggling against debt crisis.

This is why your countries infrastructure is falling apart.

My countries infrastructure is coming apart because arsewipes keep on setting themselves on fire trying to steal power cables from rail lines and substations

IMHO, Republicans jumped the shark of moral pettiness with their attempt to impeach Bill Clinton.

Was so shamelessly self-serving and partisan that it was embarrassing to see. It completely killed the spirit that a POTUS should be better than the other guy, and opened the can of worms where Presidents don't win elections, rather the other guy loses them.

How so?

Why compromise one's principles? If you feel that XYZ is the right thing, then why should you sacrifice any of it?

Nothing ever gets done.

Part of that is because the federal government, USA anyway, has taken power from the states and local municipalities..

Hint for the clueless: the same kind of disagreement still exists at the state and local levels. It doesn't matter what level of government you're at, you either compromise or you don't do your job.

So this is where the Tea Party supporters are getting the idea that any kind of health care would mean the government would start putting down older people?

There is no job requirement to "comprimise" for a legislator.

Look up Tom Daschle and terms like "evidence-based care." and "comparative effectiveness" if you want to know the origin of that "death panel" bit.

Well for what its worth, he is right about Holland, i have a very good friend of many years from Holland, she recently told me her grandfather was basically put down

No, but you DO have jobs like "pass a budget each year so the police department doesn't have to shut down", and you aren't going to be able to do that job if you aren't willing to compromise. As much as idiot conservatives think that ideological purity is the most important thing in a politician, it's a really bad way of getting anything done.

So yes, we SHOULD consider whether the current approach of "do everything possible" is really a productive one, or just a waste of limited resources that would be better spent on patients which actually have a non-trivial chance of recovery. We SHOULD consider various end-of-life options, including the ability for a person to choose to die peacefully, and offer unbiased information and advice about the full range of options.

The only way to turn this into "death panels" is if you're either an ignorant moron, or a conservative politician who knows that ignorant morons are very good at getting people elected.

Would this be the same sort of budget that has not been passed in the Senate for three years, going on its forth? You know, the Senate, that body of 100 that only needs a 51 vote majority to pass a budget, a majority held by the same party for that entire duration ... that kind of budget?

As for what is important to a politician, the most important thing to most politicians is getting reelected. If your constituents want X and you compromise for Y, that politician might loose his job, that's what politicians care about.

You your self admit the 'need' as you see it. You say, "We should ...". Who is we? It's not our choice. It is the choice of the individual. So long as those choices do not infringe upon my life, liberty and property, who are "we" to make that choice?

Republicans have really gone off the deep end for this election year...

Man, we're all gonna be at a loss for things to argue about once Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional at the end of the year.

And this is a case of government not working.

Let me make this nice and simple.

You are elected representing people who want X,Y,Z.

I am elected representing people who want A,B,C.

Now, we can either agree to, say, do both X and A, giving both groups some of what they want, or you can refuse to compromise and get nothing at all. The only reason this works at all is because there is a huge block of idiot conservatives who care more about not letting their "enemies" get anything than they care about actually getting constructive things done. And guess what: everyone who isn't a tea party moron is getting sick of it.

Hint for the clueless: everything doctors do is regulated by the government. That's why when you go to a hospital you're far more likely to get good treatment than you are to get an incompetent doctor that will kill you with his stupid ideas.

And of course none of this changes the fact that everyone who talks about "death panels" is either a gullible moron, or blatantly lying to get elected by gullible morons. The only people advocating "death panels" are imaginary strawmen created by conservatives to make a political point.

Out of curiosity what makes the PPACA bill unconstitutional? I don't know much about the finer points of the US constitution.

The US government has no business being involved in health care at all. If private property and contracts were respected, instead of the government attempting to regulate everything, then a quack doctor would get his ass sued off in less time that it can take to write a prescription for high velocity lead enemas.

snipped for length.

The Solicitor General is before the Supreme Court arguing the mandate that forces people to buy health insurance is a tax when his boss Obama and other officials like the White House's own budget director have testified to Congress that it is a penalizing fine. And it is clearly a fine - arguing that it is a tax was an act of desperation to begin with.

The government can tax you for simply living and breathing and being a citizen of the United States. But they can't fine you for not purchasing a service. The only way they get away with it on car insurance is because driving has never been recognized as a right - it is a licensed privilege. If you don't drive, you don't have to have it. But the mandate applies to everyone by way of them simply living - and that's why they're arguing it's a tax.

All the accounting for Obamacare unravels once the individual mandate is tossed out. If you can't force people to pay for health insurance, insurance companies won't have the money to accept people with pre-existing conditions.

This is the problem with Obama -- and his supporters' -- way of thinking. Everything has to be controlled from the top in impossibly complex schemes. It's never going to work as planned and too much of the scheme is interdependant.

By the way, the individual mandate was originally supported by Republicans long before Obama ever got into politics but was dropped for this very reason. It might sound like you're making people be responsible, but it's impossible to defend constitutionally.

But there are ways to legally penalize people who aren't insured and who refuse to pay. That is a theft of service and it's perfectly reasonable for the government to regulate that.

Create a low cost insurance pool that is not mandated but that affords legal protection from seizure of property to pay for your services so long as you participate. The nasty secret is people can afford health insurance. They simply don't want to buy it. They want internet on their phones, cable TV, and spinners on their wheels instead.

Further, stop allowing illegals to waltz into emergency rooms and steal service. Report and deport those who do.

This is simply enforcing existing laws. Beyond that, allow insurers to compete across state lines and set up loser-pays in malpractice lawsuits and you would have a pretty nice bit of reform based on the free market and personal responsibility instead of the government micromanagement of Obamacare.

Not trying to make this into a political thing, even though it concerns one of the US president candidates, but do people in the US really believe this sort of nonsense?

Good. The less those people can accomplish, they less they harm they will do.

All those numbers you mentioned are all blurted out by Christian bible thumpers and and people who seem to have a vested interest in the numbers being "scary". Google each and everyone of them and you find that they are exactly as i stated.

I live in the Netherlands, I regularly have to deal with older folks including my mother who has had an incurable disease for years (she's 78) and I can tell you what you describe is all bogus.

The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent.

Most of those quotes come from polarised lobby groups and represent their biases though, taking info from either side of the debate doesn't help much. The info would be much better coming from independent research. (if there is any)

The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent. A follow-up survey found that the main reason for not consulting patients was that they had dementia or were otherwise not competent.


Dr Henk Jochensen, of the Lindeboom Institute, and Dr John Keown, of Queens' College, Cambridge carried out the study. They conclude: "The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked. Dutch claims of effective regulation ring hollow."

Another study appearing in the journal shows that the legal assessments of cases reported to the public prosecution service in the Netherlands vary considerably. Cases are reported to determine whether a doctor will be prosecuted for murder. The study was carried out by Dr Jacqueline Cuperus-Bosma, of Vrije University in the Netherlands. The paper concluded that there is a need for clear protocols.

I bolded the relevant part for you. This was independant research. Understandably - people against Euthenasia rallied around it.

And I suppose they also gave the case by case reason as to why the doctors made their choice?

Does it matter if they did? You would just make another excuse for it anyways.

Does it matter if they did? You would just make another excuse for it anyways.

Victims of incompetence or malpractice being able to file lawsuits isn't enough, there are issues like someone dying and having no next of kin and the fact that sometimes money cannot really compensate but those are secondary to the main reason. Industry regulation, in any industry doesn't simply provide consequences for when things go wrong it also attempts to stop things from going wrong in the first place. Victims suing only provides consequence and deterrent, when peoples quality of life or even their lives are at stake that's not enough there needs to be as many ways to ensure patient safety as possible.

You do have a point about regulation being a mess, I am from the UK so I have personal experience of US health care but I would imagine its regulations are the same as most places and is inefficient, outdated, over complicated and in many cases simply not fit for purpose. But that doesn't mean it should be abandoned, just that it needs more work and possibly more investment.

Yes it would. The numbers mentioned would more than likely fit in with most if not all cases where the "victim" was on life support and nothing more could be done. Taking numbers without knowing the facts behind them is the scurge of all science.

It does as that is the whole point, each and everyone of them is some religious group or similar. The guy that wrote a book on it also wrote a book on how evil abortion is. ie, they have a vested interest in it.

Reality is very simple, I live in Holland and deal with elder folks a whole lot. No amount of pressure group "studies" can counter the simple factual truth of it not happening as they state.

Nah, the travesty against science is demonstrated in your post. abject ignorance of a study because you simply do not like the conclusions.

I question any conclusions when I do not have access to all of the facts behind it. What you are doing is posting up a single small scale study then attacking people who question it because of the lack of information behind it including someone who have first hand experience. This is a fine example of bad science. You seem to be exactly the sort of person who belives the rubbish that comes out of that mans mouth.

Actually the exact opposite is happening.

lol

Ok, this is just precious. I love it.

I present evidence from a peer reviewed, published scientific study as being superior to anecdotal evidence from an anonymous poster on an internet spaceship forum and I am the one against science?

LOL

Thanks for the laffs.

lol

Ok, this is just precious. I love it.

I present evidence from a peer reviewed, published scientific study as being superior to anecdotal evidence from an anonymous poster on an internet spaceship forum and I am the one against science?

LOL

Thanks for the laffs.