Canadian doctors move to include euthanasia as appropriate care

Published on July 16th, 2009

With great caution, the Quebec College of Physicians is prepared to cross the line on the controversial debate over euthanasia and propose that it be included “as part of the appropriate care in certain particular circumstances.”

After examining the issue for three years, the College’s task force on ethics concluded that Quebec society has evolved to the point where it could tolerate euthanasia in specific circumstances. The task force’s recommendation will likely be part of a “reflection” document the College will release next fall, hoping that a public debate on the issue will pressure the federal government to eventually amend the criminal code.

“We are being very cautious in our approach,” said the College’s secretary, Yves Robert. “Avoiding the debate contributes to the general hypocrisy around this issue. To say that it doesn’t happen because it is illegal is completely stupid. … We have to stop hiding our head in the sand,” Dr. Robert said.

Anyone out there think Americans will stop hiding their heads in the sand?

It is common knowledge that physicians often have no choice but to constantly increase medication such as morphine to alleviate the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients.

Sometimes, the pain is so unbearable that the amount of painkillers or analgesics used to control it can be fatal. And this, according to the Quebec College of Physicians, can be viewed as a form of euthanasia.

“The question here is to decide whether a drop in dosage or an increase in dosage constitutes a criminal act,” Dr. Robert said. “We may go as far as to recommend that in certain cases, where the pain is unbearable, the amount of analgesic required could correspond to a form of euthanasia.”

The College wants to avoid a divisive confrontation between those who are for or against euthanasia, saying such a debate would solve nothing. Instead, the debate should be about the doctor’s role in accompanying a terminally ill patient toward the inevitability of death, offering as much dignity and medical assistance as possible. “There’s not a politician or a lawyer that can tell me what that entails,” Dr. Robert said.

Self-conscious people make decisions like this all the time. The only crime is that they are often forced to reflect upon the moment without being able to consult a doctor.

66 users responded in " Canadian doctors move to include euthanasia as appropriate care "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 jbenson2 said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:19 am

Euthanasia

Universal Health Care’s solution to long medical wait lines.

# 2 newrepublican said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:30 am

Republican solution to poor people.

# 3 Named said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:35 am

#1 jbenson2

Pre-existing condition

Private health care’s solution to medical delivery

# 4 jbenson2 said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:40 am

#3 Named

Universal Health Care

Obama’s solution to financial annihilation

# 5 bobbo, growing older every day said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:44 am

old people have a duty to die and get out of the way. Idiotic to spend $$$ on terminally ill people without hope of any improvement in condition==creating and spending money only on a longer slower death often times while unconscious. Makes no sense EVEN if the money were available. When money is not available, it shows an inability to face reality and make hard yet considered decisions.

At a minimum, government should at least get out of the way of old terminal people who seek euthanasia. Waisting Money, denying care to others, interfering in private doctor/patients relationships, drawing out the dying process, increasing agony, denying reality, lying to relatives.

Yes, there are ways to save money and increase quality care in healthcare. We can start by not being fascists about it.

# 6 Steve S said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:56 am

#1 and #2,
Nice glib answers to a very personal issue.
Obviously you have never had to stand by and watch your mother moan in agony for four weeks as a brain tumor slowly and excruciatingly took her life.

Frankly unless you have had to go through something like this, I don’t think your opinion should be counted.

# 7 Widgethead said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:56 am

[IMG]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/Thacrudd/demotivational/suicide-booth-suicide-booth-futuram.jpg[/IMG]

Coming soon to a street corner near you.

# 8 Sea Lawyer said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:57 am

#5, bobbo, I wouldn’t call it a “duty” per se, but it is the whole point of reproducing that we can’t live forever.

In a related note – it should be unsurprising that the better we are at keeping ourselves alive, regardless of how shitty we treat our bodies in the process, it only guarantees that the long-term medical costs for maintenance will keep increasing.

# 9 Rob said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:57 am

bobbo — Well said my friend.

# 10 breeai said, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:58 am

Anyone else think that government should have no business approving or denying these kinds of issues?

Why is it lefties had integrity the roe v wade standard would apply. too bad they’re as incompetent and arrogant as the right wingers.

# 11 bobbo, wondering where this could go said, on July 16th, 2009 at 8:06 am

#8–SL==we are on dangerous ground. Arguing definitions “on point.” I agree “duty” is too strong a concept under today’s perceptions. It will however remain sound social and personal philosophy, even if a stretch goal.

#9–Rob==thanks. Any statement/idea can be wordsmithed. Usually takes more words and more time though. Just trying to make the record before the thread dies. (sic!)

#10–breeai==are you breetail as well or whatever the other spelling is? Breetail posts uniformily intelligently in opposition to the nonsense you just threwup.===”Anyone else think that government should have no business approving or denying these kinds of issues?”==how can the government pay for terminal care and not be in the business of approving or denying the care? Explain Yourself. By default, no response will show you spot your error.

# 12 A Son said, on July 16th, 2009 at 8:16 am

#6 Steve – well said. In fact there’s nothing else to say.

# 13 Phydeau said, on July 16th, 2009 at 8:22 am

I’ve read a statistic for quite a few years now that says 50% of the healthcare money spent in a person’s entire life is spent in the last six months of their life, as doctors try more and more expensive treatments to save ever more frail people, i.e. hip replacements for 80 year olds, etc.

Think of it, we could cut our health care costs by 50% if everyone died six months earlier than they do now. I know, it’s not that clear cut. But still.

People’s bodies wear out, and they die. If we could accept that, and accept that we really are mortal, maybe we wouldn’t have people clinging to life so desperately at the end.

Personally, if I ever find out I have a terminal illness, or something worse like Alzheimer’s that leaves a healthy body and an empty mind, I’m going to end it myself on my own terms.

# 14 dusanmal said, on July 16th, 2009 at 8:24 am

@#5, 8: So, let’s bring back old Serbian custom: duty of the eldest child at the time at which elderly parent can’t contribute to the family as much as he/she consumes is to bake a bread, bring elderly parent, bread and big axe deep into the woods, sit down the parent, place bread on his/her head and chomp it down with the axe…

Insanity aside… Allowing euthanasia as a treatment for those who chose it provides a slippery slope to the condition above: euthanasia as a forced treatment to save resources. I hope we are well away from those dark ages. Particularly in the society where suicide is NOT criminal.

# 15 Mr. Fusion said, on July 16th, 2009 at 8:25 am

#12, A son,

Agreed.

# 16 bobbo, slipping on the slippery slope said, on July 16th, 2009 at 8:28 am

#14–dismal==stupid argument. There is no flat terrain. Every spot is on several slopes. Slopes leading up and down, left and right, curved, backwards, no where. Silly to think identifying one of many possible consequences is adding anything to a conversation much less providing a conclusion.

Is there nothing in your terrain that would be a slippery slope towards protecting individuals from a tyranical government? No hide and carry gun permits into the ICU?

Slippy Slope. haw haw.

# 17 GigG said, on July 16th, 2009 at 8:29 am

bobbo, since there little doubt that you will too die some day and there is nothing to end our suffering while you continue to live feel free to end it ASAP.

# 18 right said, on July 16th, 2009 at 8:31 am

We shouldn’t have to worry about “youth in asia” as they’ll live long enough.
It’s the old people who should have a choice (a legal one) on how they want to live or die.

# 19 Mr. Fusion said, on July 16th, 2009 at 8:32 am

#1, benson the a**wipe,

I too have sat with people, including my own kin, as they suffered, waiting for death to come. That they were terminal was never the issue. That they had to suffer is. That a person must lay there in pain, confused as the bodies toxins take over, losing whatever dignity they had is so very wrong.

Asswipes like you think this is an issue of mass genocide by the government. No, but that issue is already with us as insurance companies continually cut off funds to pay for treatment. Many lives could have been saved and gone on to be productive in society if they had not been denied care when required during the early stage of illness.

Instead we listen to people like you trying to warn us this is what the government will do. Not only are you wrong about a already existing condition of our health care, but the Democrats want to eliminate that. Your selfish, sick bastard side shows.

# 20 bobbo, bending to the ad hominem said, on July 16th, 2009 at 8:33 am

#17–Gig==nothing to add heh? Glad you still muster the energy to be only insulting and nothing more. But I encourage you to actually add something substantive to the discussion. You must be anti-euthanasia then? Lets waste money on futile care? Lets force terminal people to suffer their measured share? I recall you are in the fundamentalist group? Posting like it anyway unless you provide something more.

But I take your point, and YES I agree. I also plan to off myself should I become terminal and need expensive care. I feel the duty and hope to rise to the occasion. But what if I get Alzheimers or religion? What help for me then?

# 21 BytesU said, on July 16th, 2009 at 8:44 am

I had a similar situation as #6 and thankfully the doctor and nurse was compassionate enough to allow ‘comfort’ when all other options and treatments had run out.

# 22 brm said, on July 16th, 2009 at 9:14 am

Cue the ‘everyone is interdependent!’ arguments in favor of making this ‘treatment’ mandatory, especially once we get gov’t health care.

# 23 Bob3000 said, on July 16th, 2009 at 9:28 am

Did you people even read the entire article?

# 24 Mr. Fusion said, on July 16th, 2009 at 9:30 am

#20, Bobbo, the enlightened one,

But what if I get Alzheimers or religion? What help for me then?

Aaahhh, yes, a very serious, most costly ailment and the most dreaded mental illness found. How much society would improve if we could remove both scourges.

# 25 Mr. Fusion said, on July 16th, 2009 at 9:34 am

#22, brm,

And another one that only read the headline.

Also, you must have grown up in a foster home and could not care less if your (or any one’s) parents suffered through a long terminal illness. You must really hate yourself to wish the suffering and loss of dignity on others.

# 26 MikeN said, on July 16th, 2009 at 9:47 am

When you have a health system with budget problems, euthanasia becomes more attractive.

# 27 Misanthropic Scott said, on July 16th, 2009 at 10:34 am

“Canadian doctors move to include euthanasia as appropriate care” … proving yet again how much more human their system is than ours.

Anyone who has ever explained to a child that “we had to put the dog/cat to sleep; s/he was suffering” is either lying to their children or providing better care to their pets than the provide for their parents.

IMNSHO, it is the latter.

# 28 Misanthropic Scott said, on July 16th, 2009 at 10:35 am

(Oops, of course I meant humane, not human.)

# 29 Misanthropic Scott said, on July 16th, 2009 at 10:42 am

#s 6, 19,

I have also seen worse than death and think that people should have a right to die with dignity.

You may be missing a key point here though. In the U.S. healthcare is a for-profit industry. The idea is to pump air through the meat that was once a human being until the money runs out, regardless of suffering, regardless of whether the “person” in question even has enough brain left to feel suffering, just keep pumping the air and providing horrifically expensive care until the money runs out. Then and only then may we finally pull the plug.

We really value human life in this once-great non-nation, don’t we?

Or, was that, we value life, as long as the life has money left and has not been either correctly or incorrectly convicted of a crime or has been ordered to yet another tour of duty or has a name that may sound just a tad like that of a known or barely suspected terrorist or ….. ?

# 30 Sea Lawyer said, on July 16th, 2009 at 10:43 am

#27, people who insist on keeping their family member (or pets) alive past when they should, usually are doing so for their own selfish reasons, and not out of the concern for the other.

# 31 Phydeau said, on July 16th, 2009 at 10:56 am

http://thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23719250-details/BBC+conductor+Sir+Edward+Downes+and+wife+commit+suicide/article.do

Interesting article about a couple who committed suicide because of advanced age and ill health…

And I agree with #29 Scott — lots of money to be made on terminally ill people.

# 32 Don Quixote said, on July 16th, 2009 at 11:02 am

Hooray. .. I might move to Canada after all.
I do not want to lay around hurting and in sever pain to satisfy some f**king stupid bastards damnable superstitious beliefs. .. Don’t waste your money on my damn health care when I can no longer wipe my own ass. .. Let me be put out of my misery with as much compassion as my vet gave my old dog. .. This is the most despicable part of all religions and their need to control others. .. I’m 74 years old and hopefully will be shown some consideration when my time comes in the not to distant future.

# 33 deowll said, on July 16th, 2009 at 11:05 am

If I’m checking out I want all the pain killer I need and if I die faster I don’t care.

Of course #1 has a point. You can save a lot of money by helping the dying to check out sooner.

# 34 LDA said, on July 16th, 2009 at 11:16 am

#12 A son

Agree.

One thing more to say, the family or patient must decide.

# 35 fw said, on July 16th, 2009 at 11:31 am

“Anyone out there think Americans will stop hiding their heads in the sand?”
Nope.

# 36 homehive said, on July 16th, 2009 at 11:35 am

People have very short memories. When the now largely-ignored Hippocratic Oath was first developed, it was NOT to ensure excellent service for the patients. It was to make sure the ENRAGED FAMILY of the patient didn’t take revenge on the physician for terrible medical practices. When these Canadian Quacks begin providing euthanasia as as “appropriate care”, they are going to find that the patient’s family will provide the doctor his “appropiate fee; that is, TWO BULLETS IN THE BACK OF HIS OR HER HEAD. These aging 60’s are determined to produce a dystopia straight from their drug-soaked dreams.

# 37 killer duck said, on July 16th, 2009 at 11:57 am

Anyone who has been to a nursing home and see then “people” that are kept alive just to milk insurance money would realize euthanasia is often the best alternative. I don’t want to be a 95 year old body, that spends 99% of my day asleep, is fed via liquid and has no recollection of my family or my life.

# 38 Phydeau said, on July 16th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Another interesting link somewhat related to this, on rationing health care. Actually, it’s about rationing health care in a more obvious fashion. It makes the point that we ration health care already, just in a less obvious fashion.

NYT requires a free login though.

http://nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?em

# 39 Sea Lawyer said, on July 16th, 2009 at 12:10 pm

#38, Phydeau, everything that is subject to scarcity gets rationed, through one mechanism or another.

# 40 Rick's Cafe said, on July 16th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

#2
Ya got is sooooo backwards.
The longer you live, the more money those mean nasty Republicans can take from you.

It’s the Democrats who are killing you at both ends of the life line.

# 41 billabong said, on July 16th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Get over it!! I hope someone pulls the plug on me when its time.

# 42 brm said, on July 16th, 2009 at 12:43 pm

#25:

“Also, you must have grown up in a foster home and could not care less if your (or any one’s) parents suffered through a long terminal illness. You must really hate yourself to wish the suffering and loss of dignity on others.”

blah blah blah

No. Most of my family want their plug pulled, myself included, but a couple do not. Their wish, even though I don’t understand it, is to live on machines, hoping for a cure.

I’m worried about a situation where euthanasia is forced.

# 43 Rick's Cafe said, on July 16th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

#40
All kidding aside, it’s not a R/D issue so much as a -Get the government out of my life so I can live and die as I see fit issue-

A doctor trying to avoid medical malpractice or a government bureaucrat budgeting for hospital procedures is not motivated by the patients best interests – which defeats the purpose of “care”.

# 44 Misanthropic Scott said, on July 16th, 2009 at 1:05 pm

#38 – Phydeau,

That is a great article. I was just reading it and was about to post it here and on cagematch. Since you’ve beaten me to it by a bit, why not post it over there as well? Just pick a board and start a new topic.

http://cagematch.dvorak.org/index.php

# 45 bobbo, appreciating a good link said, on July 16th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

Yes, Phydeau great link. I love the logic the author fully presents near the end of the piece. Makes the posturing and lies of our Political Overlords even more unbearable.

VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE.

# 46 qb said, on July 16th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

I’m amazed (especially from the right) how everyone is arguing health care plans. Ethics, morality, choice, personal freedom? No comments on that?

Steve S and Don Quixote seem like the only exceptions. Many of us have experienced cases where morphine just isn’t strong enough anymore and they only have days or maybe a couple of weeks of a horrible life left. Go argue your health care position with your parent or spouse when that time comes and see how it goes.

# 47 GF said, on July 16th, 2009 at 3:07 pm

Wow, really, we’ve given up on curing people and increasing real quality of life. What a dis-utopia we live in.

# 48 Somebody said, on July 16th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

If we get that here, I suppose you would have to pay cash in advance.

# 49 Glenn E. said, on July 16th, 2009 at 5:31 pm

If America were really serious about keeping people from taking their own lives. Then it would totally ban tobacco products. Limit the sales of alcohol. And be a hell of a lot more diligent about food and drug safety. But apparently, it’s only “illegal” for people to kill themselves. Not illegal for big profitable industries to kill people, with their products. And certainly not illegal for hospitals to “accidently” kill patients by the hundreds, every year, via numerous preventable errors. Which wouldn’t happen, if they spent some of their profits to prevent. But choose to kick off yourself, and the legal beagles arrive.

If someone wants to leave this world, and has a pretty legitimate medical reason for why they would (like unbeatable pain). Why the hell should the government and legal system care so much to prevent them? It’s not like millions of people are suddenly going to sign up for euthanasia. The great majority of people what to keep living, just as long as they can. I don’t see allowing assisted suicide as a slippery-slope kind of problem. I’d be more concerned about people who want to bare children in their 60s, 70s, and 80s. Or even having more than five at a time, at any age. For the sake of the childrens’ health. But they’re not stopping Octo-moms from cranking up their uteruses for the new world’s record. They’re just concerned that patients, with a terminal illness, and lots of suffering, may choose not to support the health care industry to their last dying breath. Are hospitals and doctors that disparate for insurance dollars, in the US, that they’d rather keep patients on life support for as long as possible. I think length of care is being rewarded, far more than quality of life.

# 50 Lou said, on July 16th, 2009 at 6:26 pm

Long overdue.
Just watch out for the cross huggers.

# 51 MikeN said, on July 16th, 2009 at 9:35 pm

Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singe, who supports killing babies, on health-care reform. An excerpt:

Why We Must Ration Health Care

You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?

If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasn’t going to be good. But suppose it’s not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man — and everyone else like him — with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someone’s life? If there is any point at which you say, “No, an extra six months isn’t worth that much,” then you think that health care should be rationed.

# 52 Mr. Fusion said, on July 16th, 2009 at 10:30 pm

#51, Lyin’ Mike,

Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singe, who supports killing babies, on health-care reform.

I’ve read a bit about Dr. Singe and have yet to come across anything where he advocates or supports “killing babies”. Maybe you could enlighten us to some documentation to support your slander.

# 53 Mr. Fusion said, on July 16th, 2009 at 10:44 pm

#52, To self,

Eff word! I followed Lyin’ Mike’s spelling. It is Professor Singer. My mistake.

# 54 Phydeau said, on July 17th, 2009 at 5:45 am

#51 MikeN, so what’s your point? Do you agree or disagree with what Pete Singer says? Do you believe in rationing healthcare, as described in the article?

# 55 Greg Allen said, on July 17th, 2009 at 7:52 am

Doctors killing people creeps the hell out of me.

It’s antithetical to their profession. It’s like those psychologists who aided in torturing people in Guantanamo. Or it’s like librarians who actively censor books.

Should chiropractors be breaking people’s backs? Should epidemiologists be spreading anthrax? Should priests be morally corrupting people? (OK, that happens but it’s wrong.)

There are some things doctors should not do — and killing is at the top of the list.

# 56 Misanthropic Scott said, on July 17th, 2009 at 8:16 am

#49 – Glenn E.,

You’ve got some excellent points there. We should also try to remember that the number one cause of death is birth. Birth literally causes 100% of all deaths in the U.S. and abroad.

An old comedian whose routine I’ve only heard second-hand said something like:

Sometimes I think it would be better never to have been born. But, who among us is so lucky? One in a million, perhaps.

# 57 Rich said, on July 17th, 2009 at 8:47 am

Euthanasia is alive and well in America. I saw it once. They applied something to her lips to “help her sleep.” Soon after her breathing slowed and stopped. You can bet that happens alot.

# 58 MikeN said, on July 17th, 2009 at 9:20 am

Mr Confusion, yes your inability to read and comprehend doesn’t surprise me.

# 59 MikeN said, on July 17th, 2009 at 9:26 am

Try reading Peter Singer’s writings, specifically the chapter subheading

JUSTIFYING INFANTICIDE AND NON-VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA

# 60 Misanthropic Scott said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:55 am

MikeN,

I believe a link was requested. I do not see one in your post. When you want to make a point, it helps to make it easy for the reader to get to exactly what you are talking about without having to wade through thousands of search results. From my own blog, I can tell you that most people won’t even click the link if you post it.

No one is going to do your searches for you.

# 61 Mr, Fusion said, on July 17th, 2009 at 11:48 am

#59, Lyin’ Mike,

So in other words, you can’t present anything that states Singer is in favor of killing babies. I understand you must have read all his books and articles and know all of his speeches by heart. So please, point out the book and the page so I too will know if he is a baby killer.

# 62 Misanthropic Scott said, on July 17th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

MikeN,

I read Peter Singer’s views on euthanasia for babies who have no hope of a life without suffering and for whom the parents would rather put the child out of his/her misery.

Exactly how do you see such an action as worse than putting any other terminally ill patient out of their misery?

I think your statement made it sound as if Peter Singer supports arbitrary infanticide when in fact he is merely discussing a highly controversial issue of how to deal with the wishes of parents in extremely difficult situations.

What would you do when a parent says that their child is in obvious pain and is obviously suffering in such a way that the parent believes that they themselves would not want to experience such suffering?

Would you force people of any age to suffer needlessly? If so, I call you the monster, not Peter Singer.

Oh, and for those of us who wish to read the viewpoint in full, here is an actual link to a segment of Peter Singer’s 1993 book. I hope that most of us will be smart enough, unlike MikeN, to recognize that the man is not advocating killing healthy infants.

http://tinyurl.com/kr4b38

Next time you want to claim someone to be a monster Mike, search for your own damn URL.

For my part, I will state that you either have never seen anyone in a seriously bad state of suffering, or, you are a monster who would torture one’s own friends and family by needlessly prolonging their suffering.

# 63 MikeN said, on July 17th, 2009 at 1:12 pm

>I believe a link was requested. I do not see one in your post. When you want to make a point, it helps to make it easy for the reader to get to exactly what you are talking about without having to wade through thousands of search results.

That’s ordinarily true, but Fusion’s past history of demanding links has shown an inability to comprehend things, and to continue to deny what is in the links, so I didn’t bother.

# 64 Misanthropic Scott said, on July 17th, 2009 at 2:36 pm

MikeN,

So, what you are saying is that because you chose links that failed to make your point to someone who is not already of like mind with you, you refuse to actually attempt to make points from now going forward?

Might I suggest you just quit blogging then?

Generally, you will not convince people who are not already open to your opinions no matter what you do. The fun is in trying and in spreading better information. Maybe at least you will sew doubt in the minds of those who disagree with you. Maybe not.

The best you can do is continue to try.

Barring that, there is no point to your continuing to pollute this blog with your lame ideas.

Gee, I’m being condescending …

Perhaps it’s because on this thread you attempted to make Peter Singer seem as if he’s barbecuing babies in his backyard when in fact he is attempting to reduce human suffering while you are trying to increase it.

Maybe you already knew this. Maybe this is why you refused to post a link that you find damning to your own point when people read it in its entirety. Maybe you just don’t have the attention span to read more than the header to the section in the book. Maybe you never even read that but just read some other asshole’s ill-informed opinion on some other blog.

All I really know is that you apparently attempted and failed to make a point in the past so have now resorted to just posting total bullshit in hopes that someone will actually believe you know what you’re talking about. Perhaps someone will, but not someone well-read and intelligent … like Mr. Fusion.

# 65 Mr, Fusion said, on July 17th, 2009 at 6:17 pm

Lyin’ Mike,

Further to the well crafted post by Scott,

You bluffed and were called on it. I was ready to accept there was something by Singer I was unfamiliar with. Which is why I gave you the opportunity to clarify something that contradicted my impression of Singer.

It is because you have tried this same tactic so many times in the past I give you the moniker I do. I keep hoping that you might learn that you should know what you are posting but you never seem to get the hint.

The greatest gift men like Singer give the world isn’t some argument on abortion or rationing health care. It is the ability to pose questions that make us think. And how to think is the greatest gift my favorite teachers gave me. Your mileage may differ.

# 66 Misanthropic Scott said, on July 17th, 2009 at 7:16 pm

Mr Fusion,

The greatest gift men like Singer give the world isn’t some argument on abortion or rationing health care. It is the ability to pose questions that make us think.

Those of us who can think that is.

MikeN, feel like giving it a try? I don’t recommend it, honestly. Thinking about the world can be pretty depressing. You may want to avoid it.

Ignorance is bliss.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!