Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / March 2005
Assisted-suicide patient "dies", wakes up, then dies for good
|
|
Thread rating:  |
uhoh - 05 Mar 2005 00:41 GMT Man survives doctor-assisted suicide attempt
PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A terminally ill cancer patient who tried to end his life with drugs prescribed under Oregon's assisted-suicide law awoke three days later, alert and talkative, his wife said.
David Prueitt, who had lung cancer, took what was believed to be a fatal dose of a barbiturate prescribed by his doctor in January. He fell into a coma within minutes, but woke up three days later, said his wife Lynda Romig Prueitt.
Prueitt's wife told The Oregonian newspaper that he asked, "Why am I not dead?"
Prueitt, 42, lived for two more weeks before dying of natural causes at his Estacada home, about 35 miles southeast of Portland.
The state Department of Human Services will turn the case over to the Board of Medical Examiners or state Board of Pharmacy to determine if the procedure or drugs were faulty, said Dr. Katrina Hedberg, assistant state epidemiologist.
Complications with doctor-assisted suicides are rare. In 2001, a patient took 37 hours to die after ingesting a lethal dose, and in 2003, a patient took 48 hours to die. Neither regained consciousness.
Since the law took effect in 1997, more than 170 people in Oregon have used it to end their lives. The law is meant for only extremely sick people -- those with incurable diseases who two doctors agree have six months or less to live and are of sound mind.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that states have the right to decide whether to allow doctor-assisted suicides, but it announced last month it will review the law again following an appeal by the Bush administration.
The Man from Smegma - 05 Mar 2005 07:45 GMT >Man survives doctor-assisted suicide attempt > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >last month it will review the law again following an appeal by the >Bush administration. This is why we should have open, reliable standards for lethal doses.
J - 05 Mar 2005 07:54 GMT > Man survives doctor-assisted suicide attempt > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > last month it will review the law again following an appeal by the > Bush administration. obviously a troll. Look at the email address and the groups crossposted to. If you're going to reply, remove the other groups. If you see a reply you don't like, think twice before replying and watch what newsgroups your reply is going to.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002197134_webwake04.html After going through the process of requesting a doctor-assisted suicide, Prueitt received a prescription for 100 capsules of Seconal, a type of barbiturate.
On Jan. 30, Prueitt swallowed the drug overdose, which had been mixed with applesauce and water. Also in the home were his wife, her mother, a friend and two volunteers from Compassion in Dying of Oregon.
Prueitt, weakened by the disease, could barely raise the mug to his lips, his wife said. Within six minutes of swallowing the drug, he fell into a coma, she said.
After waking up three days later, he remained alert and talkative, occasionally asking for water and cigarettes, she said. <end quote> That subject's not in the FAQ
But suicide is. http://www.cancersupporters.com/asc/part2.html
Do cancer patients ever get suicidal thoughts?
The statistics on suicide show that the suicide rate for white men increases with age, and that white men over 65 are about 4 or 5 times more likely to commit suicide than older white women. Illness, loss of wife or other life partner, family and financial difficulties, alcoholism, and comparable difficulties intensify a man's urges toward wanting out.
An article Suicide and Cancer in Late Life (Vol. 41, No 12, December 1990) published in the journal Hospital and Community Psychiatry concerned suicide among older men who were, or suspected that they were, in advanced stages of cancer. The article's authors are Yeates Conwell, M.D., Eric D. Caine, M.D., and Kurt Olsen, Ph.D. Drs. Conwell and Caine hold professorships and Dr. Olsen holds an assistant professorship at prestigious academic or health care institutions. The article's Abstract, in full, states: In a controlled psychological autopsy study of suicide in late life, eight cases in which the victim's belief that he had cancer played a major role in the decision to end his life, were examined. All victims were men. The majority had major affective disorders, but none had been seen in mental health care settings. Other common characteristics were an active relationship with a primary physician, numerous losses, prior experience with cancer or debilitating disease, and a rigid, self-sufficient personality. The cases illustrate the complex determinants of suicidal behavior in the elderly and suggest preventive strategies.
Physical illness is a commonly cited risk factor for suicide, especially in late life. Of the physical illnesses associated with suicidal behavior, cancer stands out. It has been estimated that malignant neoplasm was present 20 times more often in suicide victims than expected in the general population, and studying suicide and accident victims over age 50, found cancer was significantly more common among those who took their own lives.
In addition, large-scale epidemiological studies have found cancer patients to be at significantly higher risk for suicide than the general population. Cancer has a special psychological significance in our culture, where it is associated with pain, suffering, and death.
Suicide has crossed my mind, what should I do?
You're experiencing a tremendous amount of stress and pain, and may have never learned to manage the emotions associated with both. Suicide may seem like your only escape from mounting pressure, although it's not. Doing (or attempting) suicide, however, doesn't really address the underlying causes of your pain, whatever they may be.
That's often the case with people who attempt suicide or engage in self-injurious behavior. But there are other options available, and I recommend you seek them out as soon as possible.
The most important thing is to start seeing a therapist, if you haven't already, and be completely honest with him or her about what's going on with you. If you can find a therapist experienced in treating people with cancer, all the better.
If money is a problem, you can seek out a community mental health center or other agency offering reduced-fee services. J.
Nom dePlume - 05 Mar 2005 08:03 GMT If an assisted suicide fails, can the patient sue for malpractice?
 Signature Nom dePlume, Ph.D
Why, yes, in fact, I am a rocket scientist.
Guide to Medications for Mental Illness: http://www.geocities.com/nomdeplume1000 =====
> Man survives doctor-assisted suicide attempt > > PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A terminally ill cancer patient who tried to > end his life with drugs prescribed under Oregon's assisted-suicide law > awoke three days later, alert and talkative, his wife said. CyberDroog - 05 Mar 2005 10:26 GMT >If an assisted suicide fails, can the patient sue for malpractice? And will doctors who have too high a rate of patient survival lose their licenses?
 Signature They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
Taedium Vitae - 05 Mar 2005 12:08 GMT This was just the example that pro-lifers needed! (Pro-lifers are now using this example as an argument against assisted suicide. Nah, they cannot infer that barbiturates OD should be substituted by guillotine).
PRo-choicers say the man did not swallow all the pills.
Still, there are some things that i don't udnerstand. What the story suggests, is that the sleeping pills reached his brain and probably the man breathed very slowly and his heartbeat was very slow when the Seconal's influence was at the climax. (Don't forget that barbiturates affect the WHOLE brain). Then the barbiturates gradually left the blood and reached the urine. Still, the man might have died from renal failure (he did not get pissed for three days). And still he did not die...Strange
> Man springrain - 05 Mar 2005 14:47 GMT "it will review the law again following an appeal by the Bush administration. "
Bush strikes again. For a free country we seemed to be less and less free.
CyberDroog - 05 Mar 2005 14:59 GMT >"it will review the law again following an appeal by the >Bush administration. " > >Bush strikes again. For a free country we seemed to be less and less >free. Oh yeah... you can always gauge fascist governments by their unwillingness to legalize suicide.
 Signature PREHISTORIC, adj. Belonging to an early period and a museum. Antedating the art and practice of perpetuating falsehood.
- Ambrose Bierce
Ready - 05 Mar 2005 16:00 GMT Stories like this make me nervous. At least it worked for 170 people. That's a less than 1% failure rate so the odds are with you that the lethal dose will kill you. Plus, like some are saying, maybe he didn't take enough. Odd story, but hopefully my overdose will go better than this poor guy's.
rmk@toad.rmkhome.com - 07 Mar 2005 06:21 GMT In talk.bizarre Ready <worldsux2003@yahoo.com> wrote:
:Stories like this make me nervous. At least it worked for 170 people. :That's a less than 1% failure rate so the odds are with you that the :lethal dose will kill you. Plus, like some are saying, maybe he didn't :take enough. Odd story, but hopefully my overdose will go better than :this poor guy's. Plus they should have been prepared for just such an eventuality. Thet should have all been primed to convince him that he was indeed dead.
 Signature Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.com <http://www.rmkhome.com/> <http://rkba.rmkhome.com/>
springrain - 07 Mar 2005 14:02 GMT "Thet should have all been primed to convince him that he was indeed dead. "
I can see where it could be a real problem if everyone knows someone is dead but the person himself. I reminds me of some of the Laruall Hamilton books, anyone else read her?
Of course the reverse is just as bad, how many of us feel like we are the ones who are dead and no one else notices? Or cares?
washer of kegs - 06 Mar 2005 09:50 GMT > Man survives doctor-assisted suicide attempt > > PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A terminally ill cancer patient who tried to > end his life with drugs prescribed under Oregon's assisted-suicide law > awoke three days later, alert and talkative, his wife said. What I do not understand is just where was he for three days? Most places stick you in the cold room until they can slice and dice to verify you were terminally ill. If he was still kicking, it sounds like no doctor had declared him dead as I assume your average first responder would be able to tell he still had some life in him. did she plan to keep him around till he started to stink or something. This whole story smells.
Alan B. Mac Farlane - 07 Mar 2005 14:58 GMT all this guy had to do - was be sent to Abu Garab Drill Team and he would have died very quickly - and with lots of pain however ... but it would be a sure thing ... well attended and lots of witnesses ...
on the other hand - go kill someone and get caught - the kill krazy kristians will hang, shoot, poison or electrocute him ...
hey - if home capital punishment death dont work sometimes - then in prison it also misses the mark sometimes ... a convict gets to be killed at least twice with electricity - shooting, hanging, drugs ...
we need more liberal hate crimes - so that liberal haters who kill liberals will really be scared and not kill them anymore ... a death penalty with teeth in it ... so that people will know they will get killed when they say so ..
Is this a great country or what ...
sumbuddie on da watchtower
:)
> Man survives doctor-assisted suicide attempt > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > last month it will review the law again following an appeal by the > Bush administration. springrain - 07 Mar 2005 15:11 GMT "Is this a great country or what ... "
And how about the number of people who oppose abortion but support the death penalty? Isn't that just kind of retoractive abortion? They are just as dead but have hurt who knows how many people first.
CyberDroog - 07 Mar 2005 15:44 GMT >And how about the number of people who oppose abortion but support the >death penalty? Isn't that just kind of retoractive abortion? They are >just as dead but have hurt who knows how many people first. That view makes some sense. Most people don't feel that a baby is the womb is guilty of capital crimes. Hell, they were probably never even suspects.
It is the people who support abortion and oppose the death penalty who have some real issues.
 Signature Move tax day to the day before election day. And for good measure, abolish withholding. Imagine if people trudged to the polls the day after sending fat checks to the IRS. That might bring the incumbents down a notch.
- Sheldon Richman, Future of Freedom Foundation
Rhiannon - 08 Mar 2005 19:11 GMT > >And how about the number of people who oppose abortion but support the > >death penalty? Isn't that just kind of retoractive abortion? They are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It is the people who support abortion and oppose the death penalty who have > some real issues. Funny, in my mind anyone who supports killing anyone else has some real issues.
rhianon@sympatico.ca
CyberDroog - 08 Mar 2005 19:09 GMT >> >And how about the number of people who oppose abortion but support the >> >death penalty? Isn't that just kind of retoractive abortion? They are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Funny, in my mind anyone who supports killing anyone else has some real >issues. Being opposed to killing for any reason is logically consistent also.
 Signature He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
- Thomas Paine
KK - 08 Mar 2005 20:41 GMT > Being opposed to killing for any reason is logically consistent also. Even to stop one person from killing many others?
CyberDroog - 08 Mar 2005 21:28 GMT >> Being opposed to killing for any reason is logically consistent also. > >Even to stop one person from killing many others? The reason doesn't matter. Being opposed to killing, period, is logically consistent. That doesn't necessarily mean it is correct.
 Signature If there is something to gain and nothing to lose by asking, by all means ask!
- W. Clement Stone
Rhiannon - 08 Mar 2005 22:13 GMT > > Being opposed to killing for any reason is logically consistent also. > > Even to stop one person from killing many others? Two words - Life sentence.
-- rhianon@sympatico.ca
Alan Harding - 09 Mar 2005 20:24 GMT >> > Being opposed to killing for any reason is logically consistent also. >> >> Even to stop one person from killing many others? > >Two words - Life sentence. First you have to stop them.
 Signature The opinions given above may be mine. They might also just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
Rhiannon - 10 Mar 2005 01:42 GMT > >> > Being opposed to killing for any reason is logically consistent also. > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > First you have to stop them. Unless KK meant literally tackling some guy on the street with a gun and wrestling him to the ground before shooting him with his own weapon - and the fact that we were discussing the death penalty - I had to assume that the *one person* in question had in fact been stopped, apprehended, and convicted prior to receiving the death penalty.
-- rhianon@sympatico.ca
A_Lizard - 10 Mar 2005 04:10 GMT [snip]
The sole virtue of the death penalty is that there is no scientific evidence of repeat offenders among people who have received it.
A.Lizard
 Signature "Are you so dependent on alcohol that when you have a sore
throat, you shove it up your a.s instead?" -- Miz Daisy Cutter
Rhiannon - 10 Mar 2005 05:37 GMT > The sole virtue of the death penalty is that there is no scientific > evidence of repeat offenders among people who have received it. > > A.Lizard *virtue of the death penalty* is an oxymoron.
rhianon@sympatico.ca
CyberDroog - 10 Mar 2005 13:56 GMT >The sole virtue of the death penalty is that there is no scientific >evidence of repeat offenders among people who have received it. The downside is that there is evidence of innocent people having received it. Theoretically I'm all for the death penalty - that is the actual perpetrator of a capital crime being put to death. But if you make a mistake and convict an innocent person, then *you* are the murderer.
 Signature CONVENT, n. A place of retirement for woman who wish for leisure to meditate upon the vice of idleness.
- Ambrose Bierce
Alan Harding - 11 Mar 2005 07:31 GMT >>The sole virtue of the death penalty is that there is no scientific >>evidence of repeat offenders among people who have received it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >perpetrator of a capital crime being put to death. But if you make a >mistake and convict an innocent person, then *you* are the murderer. But there are always some cases of people being wrongly convicted of murder. When they're still alive, it's not so bad, but there's not much you can do for someone you find is innocent when you've killed them.
The last man hanged in England was in police custody when the murder took place. It was correct law, but he was probably only charged because the shooter was too young to hang. The outcry got capital punishment temporarily banned. It was only later permanently banned.
 Signature The opinions given above may be mine. They might also just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
CyberDroog - 11 Mar 2005 19:38 GMT >>>The sole virtue of the death penalty is that there is no scientific >>>evidence of repeat offenders among people who have received it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >murder. When they're still alive, it's not so bad, but there's not much >you can do for someone you find is innocent when you've killed them. Isn't that what I said? Maybe it's just me, but it seems like I am on a different wavelength than you Brits lately...
As I see it, the death penalty is too flawed for practical use. None of us have perfect knowledge so mistakes can be made, and of course they are permanent - leaving the judge and jury guilty of murder.
It is also too expensive. Our natural inclination is to reduce errors as much as possible by providing every route of appeal, even mandatory appeals. The expense of all of that extra legal wrangling far outweighs the cost of incarcerating a person for life. Especially since death row is a more expensive form of incarceration in the first place.
 Signature The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.
- H.L. Mencken
Alan Harding - 11 Mar 2005 22:43 GMT >>>>The sole virtue of the death penalty is that there is no scientific >>>>evidence of repeat offenders among people who have received it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Isn't that what I said? No.
 Signature The opinions given above may be mine. They might also just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
CyberDroog - 12 Mar 2005 16:54 GMT >>>>>The sole virtue of the death penalty is that there is no scientific >>>>>evidence of repeat offenders among people who have received it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >No. You might want to read it again.
 Signature FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
- Ambrose Bierce
Alan Harding - 12 Mar 2005 19:40 GMT >>>>>>The sole virtue of the death penalty is that there is no scientific >>>>>>evidence of repeat offenders among people who have received it. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >You might want to read it again. You still didn't say it.
 Signature The opinions given above may be mine. They might also just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
CyberDroog - 13 Mar 2005 18:46 GMT >>>>>>The downside is that there is evidence of innocent people having received >>>>>>it. Theoretically I'm all for the death penalty - that is the actual [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >You still didn't say it. Ah, I didn't specifically say that you can't bring someone back? Now who is being too literal? :)
 Signature Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.
- Mark Twain
Alan Harding - 10 Mar 2005 08:00 GMT >> >> > Being opposed to killing for any reason is logically consistent also. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the *one person* in question had in fact been stopped, apprehended, and >convicted prior to receiving the death penalty. I assumed he was at the top of a tower, with a sniper rifle and ammunition.
 Signature The opinions given above may be mine. They might also just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
Alan Harding - 09 Mar 2005 07:57 GMT >> >And how about the number of people who oppose abortion but support the >> >death penalty? Isn't that just kind of retoractive abortion? They are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Funny, in my mind anyone who supports killing anyone else has some real >issues. The armed services, the police and public executioners included?
 Signature The opinions given above may be mine. They might also just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
Rhiannon - 10 Mar 2005 06:00 GMT > In message <ZXlXd.12717$fW4.422606@news20.bellglobal.com>, Rhiannon
> >Funny, in my mind anyone who supports killing anyone else has some real > >issues. > > The armed services, the police and public executioners included? Armed services - mixed feelings. Some wars are necessary. Some wars are WRONG. Police - no. Public executioners? As in the guy who pulls the switch or administers the lethal injection? Yes. I don't support the death penalty. But who knows the mind of God? In the end perhaps all three will be answerable offences.
-- rhianon@sympatico.ca
springrain - 10 Mar 2005 14:41 GMT "> >Funny, in my mind anyone who supports killing anyone else has some real
> >issues. " Funny, I think anyone who can't understand the need in some cases has lead a sheltered life.
I think life has value, I don't even eat meat. But like rabid dogs, some people are forever threats to anyone they come in contact with and too mentally damaged to be of any good to anyone, including themselves. We would destroy a sick animal like that an call it putting them out of their misery. To have a person who has tortured and killed people for fun, live long healthy lives watching TV and pretty much screwing round offends me. That he is doing it on tax dollars that could be feeding hungry kids makes it worse. They get better health care than 30 % of the honest population.
Plus, what about the other inmates they often kill, and the guards paid to watch them that are in constant fear for their lives?
You are right, who knows the mind of God? He said "Thou shall not kill' and advocated stoning for sins, even less severe. My favorite is disrespecting your parents. So maybe we are acting on his part.
Rhiannon - 14 Mar 2005 06:30 GMT  Signature X-No-Archive: Yes
> "> >Funny, in my mind anyone who supports killing anyone else has some > real > > >issues. " > > Funny, I think anyone who can't understand the need in some cases has > lead a sheltered life. Please. Spare me. I'm probably older than your underwear.
> I think life has value, I don't even eat meat. But like rabid dogs, > some people are forever threats to anyone they come in contact with and > too mentally damaged to be of any good to anyone, including themselves. > We would destroy a sick animal like that an call it putting them out of > their misery.
> To have a person who has tortured and killed people for fun, live > long healthy lives watching TV and pretty much screwing round offends [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > disrespecting your parents. > So maybe we are acting on his part. Right. Thou shall not kill. Thanks for making my point for me.
rhianon@sympatico.ca
Alan Harding - 14 Mar 2005 08:02 GMT >Right. Thou shall not kill. Thanks for making my point for me. Except in socially approved circumstances.
 Signature The opinions given above may be mine. They might also just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
Rhiannon - 14 Mar 2005 16:17 GMT  Signature rhianon@sympatico.ca
> > >Right. Thou shall not kill. Thanks for making my point for me. > > Except in socially approved circumstances. What? Like in here? <g>
 Signature rhianon@sympatico.ca
> > The opinions given above may be mine. They might also > just be what I feel like saying right now, okay? Alan Harding - 14 Mar 2005 22:02 GMT >> >Right. Thou shall not kill. Thanks for making my point for me. >> >> Except in socially approved circumstances. > >What? Like in here? <g> I was thinking Real Life [tm]. Such as self-defence, war and law enforcement. Suicide isn't really approved of in the West, but it's not illegal either. And that's only humans. 'Thou shalt not kill' is a very punctured command, more 'You may kill, except where prohibited by local custom.'
 Signature The opinions given above may be mine. They might also just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
Alan B. Mac Farlane - 10 Mar 2005 17:13 GMT > And how about the number of people who oppose abortion but support the > death penalty? they are kill krazy kristians ...
pass the koolaid ...
its a wonderfull jonestown day in Jesusland ...
swift boat veterans have the best intelligence ...
and know what to do ...
sumbuddie going to hell with the EVIL SANTA for this ...
enjoy the company ...
not like those sick puppies in Heaven ...
:) Mike Radcliffe - 08 Mar 2005 02:58 GMT > PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A terminally ill cancer patient who tried to > end his life with drugs prescribed under Oregon's assisted-suicide law > awoke three days later, alert and talkative, Which just goes to show that when the time is right we will all go, not a minute sooner, not a minute later. MIKE
CyberDroog - 08 Mar 2005 12:06 GMT >> PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A terminally ill cancer patient who tried to >> end his life with drugs prescribed under Oregon's assisted-suicide law >> awoke three days later, alert and talkative, > >Which just goes to show that when the time is right we will all go, not a >minute sooner, not a minute later. Ummm, yeah... death just so often happens to coincide with something that causes it.
 Signature You don't have to buy from anyone. You don't have to work at any particular job. You don't have to participate in any given relationship. You can choose.
- Harry Browne
Mike Radcliffe - 08 Mar 2005 18:03 GMT >>> PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A terminally ill cancer patient who tried to >>> end his life with drugs prescribed under Oregon's assisted-suicide law [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Ummm, yeah... death just so often happens to coincide with something that > causes it. But even when we think we can control it something like this happens to prove us wrong MIKE
CyberDroog - 08 Mar 2005 19:04 GMT >>>> PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A terminally ill cancer patient who tried to >>>> end his life with drugs prescribed under Oregon's assisted-suicide law [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >But even when we think we can control it something like this happens to >prove us wrong I don't see what it proves. It's like saying that a person who shoots themselves and survives is proof that some aspect of fate has more control, while overlooking the fact that they used a BB gun.
 Signature EGOTIST, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
- Ambrose Bierce
Ivan Marsh - 08 Mar 2005 19:21 GMT >>>>> PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A terminally ill cancer patient who tried to >>>>> end his life with drugs prescribed under Oregon's assisted-suicide law [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > themselves and survives is proof that some aspect of fate has more control, > while overlooking the fact that they used a BB gun. That's not fate, it's physics.
 Signature Life is short, but wide. -KV
CyberDroog - 08 Mar 2005 20:09 GMT >>>> Ummm, yeah... death just so often happens to coincide with something that >>>> causes it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >That's not fate, it's physics. That's what I meant. Likewise, if the report of the man in question not having taken all of the barbs given to him is true, then that is the obviously the cause of the problem.
Botched or half-hearted suicide attempts are in no way proof that the time of our demise is carved in stone and we can't change it.
 Signature SELF-EVIDENT, adj. Evident to one's self and to nobody else.
- Ambrose Bierce
Mike Radcliffe - 09 Mar 2005 01:50 GMT >>> I don't see what it proves. It's like saying that a person who shoots >>> themselves and survives is proof that some aspect of fate has more [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Botched or half-hearted suicide attempts are in no way proof that the time > of our demise is carved in stone and we can't change it. It may not be carved in stone but neither is it totally in our control. Life has no guarantees and neither does the time of death..whatever we may wish. MIKE
CyberDroog - 09 Mar 2005 12:58 GMT >> Botched or half-hearted suicide attempts are in no way proof that the time >> of our demise is carved in stone and we can't change it. >> >It may not be carved in stone but neither is it totally in our control. Life >has no guarantees and neither does the time of death..whatever we may wish. Nothing is totally in your control. Every guy that has walked into the bathroom on one of "those" mornings and pissed into the toilet and wastebasket simultaneously knows that... But many things are primarily a matter of choice. That is, your choice has an objective effect even though you still have to deal with blind chance and the choices of others.
The time of death is a variable. So far it appears that no one will escape it completely. But how you behave has a great influence on when it happens. If that were not the case you could play the part of a superhero - jumping off of buildings, running into fires, etc - with the knowledge that height and heat can't hurt you unless it is your time.
Actually the only reason you are under the impression that when you die isn't under your control is because it is a special circumstance. If you attempt to kill yourself, and get only to a certain point, you won't be conscious and, therefore, not capable of choosing to finish. Alternatively, you might be in a straight jacket and, although conscious, not physically capable of finishing the job.
 Signature There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
- Robert Heinlein
Alan Harding - 10 Mar 2005 08:06 GMT >>>>> PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A terminally ill cancer patient who tried to >>>>> end his life with drugs prescribed under Oregon's assisted-suicide law [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >themselves and survives is proof that some aspect of fate has more control, >while overlooking the fact that they used a BB gun. Back in the mists of time, we had someone on asd who'd shot himself in the head with a rifle - not BB. No, he hadn't missed. Sometimes the Fates are against you.
 Signature The opinions given above may be mine. They might also just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
CyberDroog - 10 Mar 2005 19:16 GMT >>I don't see what it proves. It's like saying that a person who shoots >>themselves and survives is proof that some aspect of fate has more control, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the head with a rifle - not BB. No, he hadn't missed. Sometimes the >Fates are against you. It isn't the fates. At least not in any literal sense. It's just blind chance. Shooting yourself in the head isn't as straightforward as it seems. It seems common to underestimate just how much damage most of the brain can take. The classic example of such an attempt is placing a handgun at the temple, which actually presents the best chance of survival - even if it is in a vegetative state.
The best target would be the brain stem, without which no other part of the brain really matters. The best route seems to be through the mouth. But there is a perspective problem. It's not all that easy to gauge the path of the bullet with the muzzle of the gun in your mouth. A rifle presents the added problem of having to reach down to the trigger (assuming the barrel is of a legal length.) The final problem is the hesitation twitch - the tendency of people to jerk the gun away at the moment they pull the trigger.
Let's face it - killing yourself is not an easy task. The number of people who really want to die is relatively low. Most just want to escape, and they see death as the best way, but they are still fundamentally opposed to dying. What they wish most is that they didn't feel the need to.
It's all prone to error. Sometime back someone here mentioned a man who shot himself in the head with a 12 gauge and survived after blowing his face off. That is an obvious aiming problem. Either the muzzle was pointed too far upwards, or he jerked the gun away as he pulled the trigger.
Lastly, there is the problem of noise. Guns going off are prone to attracting attention. Medical technology being what it is, many people can survive horrific head injuries if they are promptly transported to a hospital. My grandfather survived a rifle bullet through the head during the second battle of the Marne in WWI (it entered under his jaw on the right and exited the top left portion of his head. Straight through the brain.) Just ponder how much trauma medicine has advanced since then.
Doing something for the first time and getting it wrong is not fate.
 Signature ACCUSE, v.t. To affirm another's guilt or unworth; most commonly as a justification of ourselves for having wronged him.
- Ambrose Bierce
Alan Harding - 11 Mar 2005 23:02 GMT >>>I don't see what it proves. It's like saying that a person who shoots >>>themselves and survives is proof that some aspect of fate has more control, [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >Doing something for the first time and getting it wrong is not fate. Have you ever considered that not everyone is so narrow-mindedly literal as you are?
 Signature The opinions given above may be mine. They might also just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
CyberDroog - 12 Mar 2005 16:55 GMT >>Doing something for the first time and getting it wrong is not fate. > >Have you ever considered that not everyone is so narrow-mindedly literal >as you are? No. But I have considered how ignorantly superstitious many people are. ;)
 Signature There are indeed a great many more things in life than money; and it is money that gives us access to most of them.
- Terry Eagleton
Alan Harding - 12 Mar 2005 19:41 GMT >>>Doing something for the first time and getting it wrong is not fate. >> >>Have you ever considered that not everyone is so narrow-mindedly literal >>as you are? > >No. But I have considered how ignorantly superstitious many people are. ;) One of your redeeming features. And the cats.
 Signature The opinions given above may be mine. They might also just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
|
|
|