Ohio Man’s Shooting of Ailing Wife Raises Questions About ‘Mercy Killings’

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Jakal26

 

Complain about my post, then, and let the staff decide whether or not I am in violation of the site terms and conditions.

In most civilized countries, a man would find it rather difficult to get hold of a gun and shoot his wife with it. In America, it's easy, so these things tend to happen. America is also a country with a long and unpleasant history of citizens taking the law into their own hands, and this is one more example of such an action. Another American going for his moment of tabloid killing-spree glory, and terrifying a roomful of intensive-care patients in the process.

The Aug. 4 shooting, coming just weeks after a gunman killed 12 people in Colorado, sent panic through the hospital ward that another rampage was under way. “I hear screaming out there,” a breathless nurse told an operator in a call to 911. “I don’t know what’s going on.”

What is 'off topic' is your suggestion that this incident has anything at all to do with the euthanasia debate.

edit on 24/8/12 by Astyanax because: to add quote from OP article.

This is really not about guns, as usually the means of euthanizing is through lethal dose of morphine....not that you would have known that or anything.

reply to post by Evil_Santa

You're disgusting. You're trying to derail a thread on the ethics of taking another person's life to end their suffering from a terminal illness, by bringing up gun control.

Enough with the appeals to sentiment and right-wing self-righteousness. The thread title clearly proposes that this vicious piece of tabloid tomfoolery raises questions about euthanasia. It does nothing of the kind.

Nothing new is being brought to that debate by the fact that some prole decided to shoot his dying wife in the head, or wherever it was he shot her. He and she are just two more two items on the butcher's bill America pays to let its citizens keep on deluding themselves that they are somehow 'freer' than the rest of humanity.

My point, Mr. Claus, is that this incident has no implications for the euthanasia debate. And that observation is, I think you will agree, entirely on topic.

Get out of this thread.

After you, big feller. By the way, your avatar suggests an unhealthy immersion in media images of guns and violence. Are you, I am moved to wonder, American?

reply to post by Astyanax

My point, Mr. Claus, is that this incident has no implications for the euthanasia debate.

I think it has. There is even "mercy killing" mentioned in the title, why is that? The situation implies a possible mercy killing.

If anything, this incident has no implications for gun control.

reply to post by Maslo

I think it has. There is even "mercy killing" mentioned in the title, why is that?

Hi, Maslo. Long time no see. What exactly would be these implications you think it has, then?

reply to post by Jakal26


I only read the first few answers and read enough to be angry. What is wrong with people? How in your screwed up morals do you figure it is wrong to let somebody go when they are living in agony? How is it considered the proper and merciful thing to put your dog or horse down when he is in insufferable pain, but not a human? Why do we humans have to suffer these horrible indignities? I tell you it is not right.

This person committed no crime, but instead has to live with himself every day for the rest of his life wondering if he acted responsibly or not. We humans are a screwed up bunch to think about punishing someone in these circumstances. The act would be hard enough.

Euthanasia should be on the shelves at walmart. With all the overpopulation and over-inflated medical costs we are suffering today, I can't believe this is an issue. I believe if a person is of sound mind, they should be able to decide for themselves what they want to do. Nobody else has a hand in it IMHO. Media attention would be the last thing on a man's mind in such a moment. What a petty accusation. You should be ashamed of yourself.

In no way do I advocate suicide, but there is times when quality of life is so much to the negative that there is no recourse, or there should be no recourse maybe I should say, and that person had ought to be able to just opt out of this pain and agony and go rest. It just isn't right to force anyone to suffer, anymore than it is right to force a dog to suffer. Just how I feel on the matter...

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Maslo

 

I think it has. There is even "mercy killing" mentioned in the title, why is that?

Hi, Maslo. Long time no see. What exactly would be these implications you think it has, then?

It implies that instead of shooting his wife as a mercy killing, there should be a legal alternative of euthanasia. Isnt that obvious?

reply to post by Maslo

It implies that instead of shooting his wife as a mercy killing, there should be a legal alternative of euthanasia. Isnt that obvious?

Not to me. Do you change the laws merely because somebody shoots his wife dead and causes chaos in a hospital ward? Is that how the legislative process is supposed to work in America?

I repeat: this incident has absolutely no implications for the debate over euthanasia. It brings no new perspectives, insights or considerations to the table. It is just sensationalistic media fodder.

reply to post by Astyanax


First off - attacking a poster based on the content of their avatar, might seem like a good idea in your mind, but in reality you're just making a lot of assumptions about a picture someone likes.

That said, I'm about as far left as it goes on the political spectrum, but go ahead and believe that I'm "right - wing" if it helps you justify the need to get into a gun control debate.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Maslo

 

It implies that instead of shooting his wife as a mercy killing, there should be a legal alternative of euthanasia. Isnt that obvious?

Not to me. Do you change the laws merely because somebody shoots his wife dead and causes chaos in a hospital ward? Is that how the legislative process is supposed to work in America?

I repeat: this incident has absolutely no implications for the debate over euthanasia. It brings no new perspectives, insights or considerations to the table. It is just sensationalistic media fodder.

edit on 24/8/12 by Astyanax because: of sensationalistic fodder.

Yes - in America we'll enact laws based on recent events, and while not everyone in the population agrees with the laws that are being enacted, or the events that took place to prompt the legislative process; it is a process of cause and effect.

The recent events are re-opening the debate on if euthanasia should be legal for terminally ill individuals. It's tragic that the event took place in a hospital in-front of other patients. However if there were laws in-place to allow individuals the right to choose when to end their existence - if they meet the requirements - then we could have avoided the entire conflict.

reply to post by Astyanax

Not to me. Do you change the laws merely because somebody shoots his wife dead and causes chaos in a hospital ward? Is that how the legislative process is supposed to work in America?

Yes, thats how its supposed to work - if there are incidents which show current legislation is problematic or inadequate, it should prompt the discussion about changing it. This is one of such incidents, which shows people are forced to resort to drastic measures that cause chaos, because they are denied the option to legal euthanasia.

There is absolutely no evidence that the motivation for this killing was "going for the moment of tabloid killing-spree glory", "copycat killing", "gun culture" etc.. The motivation was to end the suffering of his wife - euthanasia.

reply to post by Maslo

if there are incidents which show current legislation is problematic or inadequate, it should prompt the discussion about changing it. This is one of such incidents, which shows people are forced to resort to drastic measures that cause chaos, because they are denied the option to legal euthanasia.

Some nutter running amok in a hospital becomes a poster boy for participatory democracy?

Only on (the new, improved) Above Top Secret.

reply to post by Evil_Santa

Impressive post. I apologize for my error; so it was left, rather than right wing.

The recent events are re-opening the debate on if euthanasia should be legal for terminally ill individuals.

Did the debate on euthaasia for terminally ill individuals ever close? It hardly needed reopening as far as I can see. As someone who's pro-euthanasia myself (in fact, I think they should let anybody have it who wants it, subject of course to veto by certain interested parties, such as spouses and creditors), I haven't noticed any closure or suppresssion; quite the opposite, if anything. Of course, your mileage may vary.

I haven't really seen much of anything on this thread except venting – quite a lot of it at me. That's all right, but – come on – what debate about euthanasia? So far as I can see, it has had a 100% approval rating from posters on this thread, so where's the debate?

You say I'm trying to turn this into a gun control debate. No, I am making a subtler point than that; I may just as well have said that Americans have more cameras than are good for them.

The point is that, in America, a tabloid culture – easily visible even from my distant perspective – has grown up in which a lot of American frontier myths about guns and freedom* have got mixed in with a toxic media octopus that makes its money by pandering to what is basest in humanity, celebrating what people were formerly (and rightly) ashamed of, and creating a culture in which dramatic, violent, disruptive and often murderous gestures are seen as the sovereign means of getting attention, of imposing one's will and personality upon the world.

Anyone who habitually watches television can supply examples; they include such diverse phenomena as American Idol, women who take fertility drugs to have quintuplets and get on television, and last but not least, Al-Qaeda. and its ilk.

This culture of spoilt, overgrown children forcing their will upon the world by throwing tantrums has Fanny Adams to do with how democracy is supposed to work, in the United States or anyone else. Think it over and you will almost certainly find that you agree with me.

Yes, yes, I know all about your Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

I won't really respond to what you have said in previous comments...Yeah, I read it but won't respond to it.

It hardly needed reopening as far as I can see.

I don't hardly remember asking you...If that is the way you feel then why bother being involved in the thread?

I haven't really seen much of anything on this thread except venting – quite a lot of it at me. That's all right, but – come on – what debate about euthanasia? So far as I can see, it has had a 100% approval rating from posters on this thread, so where's the debate?

Ummm. This was posted in the "social issues" forum. It was up for debate, sure....but it seems there is quite a bit of general consensus....what is your point. Oh yeah, it isn't "brand new" information so you aren't interested...that is why you spent last night posting in this thread. Forgive me, next time I will U2U you before I start a thread and ask you if you approve or if you think it is relevant. :/

You say I'm trying to turn this into a gun control debate. No, I am making a subtler point than that; I may just as well have said that Americans have more cameras than are good for them.

Sure, you could have...but you didn't, now did you? No, instead you had to inject your gun control rhetoric and then when you get called out on it you make a million excuses....it's alright...make excuses. I see right through it (and so do others)...I'll keep my guns, it doesn't matter to me what you have to say about it. People like you have been rehashing that garbage for so long it isn't even funny. I don't even care anymore. Gun control will happen when it is allowed to happen and here in "my world" it will NEVER happen....My guns will NOT be taken....if they are I will already be in a body bag. Some of us respect ourselves and love our families enough to be smart enough to see through the garbage you gun control junkies spout. It may very well one day come to pass in america....won't matter to me. I won't be here to see that, if that is the case. I will fight it with every breath in me.....after that, I can do no more and if I die, people like you can scream victory all you want....inflate your ego, that is fine with me. I don't need your approval.

The point is that, in America, a tabloid culture – easily visible even from my distant perspective – has grown up in which a lot of American frontier myths about guns and freedom* have got mixed in with a toxic media octopus that makes its money by pandering to what is basest in humanity, celebrating what people were formerly (and rightly) ashamed of, and creating a culture in which dramatic, violent, disruptive and often murderous gestures are seen as the sovereign means of getting attention, of imposing one's will and personality upon the world.

Anyone who habitually watches television can supply examples; they include such diverse phenomena as American Idol, women who take fertility drugs to have quintuplets and get on television, and last but not least, Al-Qaeda. and its ilk.

This culture of spoilt, overgrown children forcing their will upon the world by throwing tantrums has Fanny Adams to do with how democracy is supposed to work, in the United States or anyone else. Think it over and you will almost certainly find that you agree with me.

This garbage right here.....while I agree with some points you make about the slaves or "sheep" or whatever you want to call them.....The complacent ones. They exist in many countries. This is nothing more than thinly veiled hate speech........(go ahead, make your excuses and tell me how I am wrong...I am sure you will)
I have nothing more to say about that.

Yes, yes, I know all about your Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

Yes, yes.....more bs. Quit trying to hide your motives. You sought to control this thread with your garbage from the beginning. Just because you "elaborate" some points you made doesn't mean you weren't pushing that agenda around. Some of us know how it works with your type. I see right through you. I could honestly care less if even a single other person agrees with me...I see through it and am fairly certain others will/would as well.

Troll on my man....got to give you credit. You aren't bad at it. That doesn't mean I don't see through it!

This culture of spoilt

Oh, and while I am at it...screw it, I don't normally do this but since you want to play word nazi over a typo....It is SPOILED...not "spoilt".....
I suppose that "in your haste" to post that, you forgot and missed that one, huh?

reply to post by Jakal26

Originally posted by Jakal26
I don't hardly remember asking you.

Originally posted by Jakal26
So what do you say ATS? What is your take on so-called "mercy killings"?

Remember now?

You had to inject your gun control rhetoric..

Ah yes, my 'rhetoric'. One sentence. Tell me, do you spray bullets as thoughtlessly as you spray words?

...and then when you get called out on it you make a million excuses.

My views on guns are clearly expressed in dozens of other ATS threads. Since you insist on turning your own thread into a gun control debate, I will repeat them here. Apart from those who have a practical use for them, such as hunters, soldiers and bank robbers, the appeal of firearms is to immature, insecure, dangerous people. They should not be allowed to have them.

In a properly functioning society, there is no need for private citizens to own firearms. You want to know why? Just listen to yourself...

My guns will NOT be taken....if they are I will already be in a body bag... I will fight it with every breath in me.....if I die, people like you can scream victory all you want....inflate your ego, that is fine with me. I don't need your approval.

This kind of raving perfectly illustrates what I mean. How sad to see someone so afflicted. You have been colonized by America's culture of violence.

Oh, and while I am at it...screw it, I don't normally do this but since you want to play word nazi over a typo....It is SPOILED...not "spoilt".....
I suppose that "in your haste" to post that, you forgot and missed that one, huh?

Spoilt

By the way, I live on the other side of the world, so your night is my day.

reply to post by Astyanax

Remember now?

No, I still don't remember asking you if I could create a thread. I ask for opinions, whether those opinions are ones that agree with my sentiment or whether they disagree.

Apart from those who have a practical use for them, such as hunters

Ahhh, well...I guess I can keep my guns. According to you I have a "practical use", it is exactly what you said, hunting! So that's cool with me, we can stick with your opinion there.

In a properly functioning society, there is no need for private citizens to own firearms

Yeah, a "properly functioning society"......well, I hate to let you in on this little secret here, but society is in no way "properly functioning" and it has nothing to do with guns. If you can't see that it is your problem.
I am amazed by your trust in government given your anti-government rhetoric.

This kind of raving perfectly illustrates what I mean. How sad to see someone so afflicted. You have been colonized by America's culture of violence.

Ummm. No. And given that I have never committed a single act of violence with a gun or when it wasn't for the purpose of self-defense, your statement makes no sense and is nothing more than assumption. You seem very good at that. Assumptions. Your ego is inflated my man.....get over yourself!

You know what I have been afflicted by? The fact that my government is out of control and acting like the freaking Fourth Reich....the fact that I know history and I know what happens when out of control, sadistic bastards have free reign because citizens are unarmed.
I am afflicted by a lack of trust in those who ruined this country (the globalists)
I am afflicted by a lack of trust in the guy down the street who bought his gun on the black market even when he was a convicted felon. (I know this for a FACT....I can get guns regardless....don't assume you know me. I have spent my life living in and around the "darker" elements of society...I KNOW how they operate and how easy it is to acquire weapons, regardless of some government telling them they can't have them...If you think otherwise you are delusional! Plain and freaking simple!

Fact is...I don't trust the police...they have screwed me before.
Fact is...I know some americans, who are brainwashed by violent media and yeah, they are dangerous and a threat and are whiny...and etc etc etc. Doesn't mean I lump ALL americans into that category....you do so out of ignorance (and essentially trolling....that is all)

the appeal of firearms is to immature, insecure, dangerous people

That is simply the most ignorant and immature statement I have ever heard...You need to do some research before you make such broad accusations. I guess that because you read it you would know huh? I guess since you live on the other side of the globe you would know wouldn't you? Oh, wait, I forgot....you are using your supreme skill of observation (from the outside mind you) to see......truly ignorant insight that I have no idea why I am responding to.....but hell, it is 2:15 in the morning and I am half-asleep....why not, I'm tired of actually doing something tonight.

Spoilt

HA....I might give you that one. But that wasn't really the point now was it...Oh well. I don't really need to apologize or act as if I wasn't incorrect there.

Fact is, it is you who is incorrect on many account...Fact is it is you who basically destroyed this thread with your bs. But hey, it isn't like I cared anyways. Notice my post count over there. I don't post here often and I am not looking for stars, flags, or your damn approval. That is FACT.....

Like I said, I see through your thinly veiled hate speech and your subtle agenda pushing. No big deal to me.
Keep on with it...be my guest.
Like I said, I asked for a few opinions on the matter. I got my answer...the rest doesn't matter to me.
It is the self-righteous type like yourself who think that unless you post it, it isn't relevant...that others can't ask simple questions...and that you have to be....well, like you are.

I guess ATS is only for YOU to decide anything about...
I guess only YOU have anything relevant to say...

Nice...
Oh, and a side note here....completely off topic...but I spent some times looking through your profile and some of your comments elsewhere......yeah, seems MANY "get it"....they see right through you as well.

You know, I don't give a damn about stars and flags and yata yata...all that garbage.
But when I read your words and see that you basically have the same amount of "stars" as you do posts (and no it isn't identical, I realize this)...yeah, that says it as well.
But yeah, you'll just say that is because you are telling the "truth" others don't want to hear or can't accept..that isn't it at all.

reply to post by Astyanax

Apart from those who have a practical use for them, such as hunters, soldiers and bank robbers, the appeal of firearms is to immature, insecure, dangerous people. They should not be allowed to have them.

This is pretty stupid. I dont even own a gun, because I live in an area with basically zero violent crime, but if it was not the case, I would seriously consider purchasing one. Because when seconds count, police are only minutes away. Gun is the ultimate equalizer, anything less (knife, pepper spray, baseball bat..) puts you at risk of being overpowered by more powerful or agile aggressor. Its not true that guns can appeal only to "immature, insecure, dangerous people".

Taser is probably the only non-lethal weapon that comes close to gun in this regard.

In a properly functioning society, there is no need for private citizens to own firearms.

In an ideal world, lots of things would not be needed. Sadly we dont live in one.

We put down our beloved pets to prevent them from suffering, yet we are less humane to our human family. That's always struck me as odd.

But here is something many do not know. With good hospice care, they often apply the heavy dose of morphine that takes the patient out. That is how my sister passed away. No doubt she could have lived a few more days, but she was loaded up with morphine anywhere to keep her as pain free as possible. With the heavy dosage, she slipped the bounds of this world peacefully, with many of her family, including me, beside her. It was a good way to go.

This whole thing is incredibly sad. If this is truly a mercy killing, which it seems to be, I hope he is let off. I would think that the pain of losing a person you love and the knowledge and memory that because of current laws, you were the one to end their suffering would be a life sentence in and of itself.

If my Husband ever became terminally ill and asked me to do what he physically couldn't, I would not deny him - consequences be damned.

Originally posted by pajoly
We put down our beloved pets to prevent them from suffering, yet we are less humane to our human family. That's always struck me as odd.

But here is something many do not know. With good hospice care, they often apply the heavy dose of morphine that takes the patient out. That is how my sister passed away. No doubt she could have lived a few more days, but she was loaded up with morphine anywhere to keep her as pain free as possible. With the heavy dosage, she slipped the bounds of this world peacefully, with many of her family, including me, beside her. It was a good way to go.

And this is what this thread should be about - compassion and a real desire to help someone with their suffering

reply to post by Jakal26

It takes a real MAN to do what he did....

You have no idea what this one line did to my stomach

A real man would have discussed the situation with her doctors and family - then figured out the best way to handle his wife's suffering

It's a little surprising to me that your kind of real man didn't just blow her away when she collapsed on the floor of their home - because your kind of real man just wanted it to be over. He wasn't really thinking about what would be best for his wife

I'll cut him a little slack for not being in his right mind - watching someone you love suffer can do that to you. If that's really what this is all about that is

Not wanting to deal with her suffering is another possibility

They charged him with murder for a reason - it wasn't a random, arbitrary decision

You want a real discussion on compassion and euthanasia? I'll tell you what - his 'Old Yeller' approach to his wife's situation doesn't wash - it was the act of a desperate, selfish man

Tell me - would it be OK if we all just entered someone's hospital room and shot them in the head whenever we as individuals decided their lives weren't worth living?

I believe in euthanasia. I don't believe this qualifies

There's more to this situation than meets the eye

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

It's a little surprising to me that your kind of real man didn't just blow her away when she collapsed on the floor of their home - because your kind of real man just wanted it to be over. He wasn't really thinking about what would be best for his wife

That is a bit presumptuous......so you are sure they hadn't discussed this before? They were married for 45 years!
You don't think in that time they may have discussed this?
Why would he have done it right away when he surely couldn't have known what was wrong with her just because she collapsed in the floor.....The article states she was the "healthier" of the two.....don't you think maybe he thought it could be something minor at first?

They charged him with murder for a reason - it wasn't a random, arbitrary decision

Ummm...in other cases like these where the one who committed the "mercy killing" walked away, they were still initially charged....that is how it works. His being charged doesn't equate his guilt.

his 'Old Yeller' approach to his wife's situation doesn't wash - it was the act of a desperate, selfish man

Possibly....but then again, here you are making assumptions about things you would have no clue about. Like I said, they very well may have discussed this in the past. The evidence we do have, which is that they did in fact have "living wills" points to the notion that they had discussed this in the past.
I know I have talked about it with my wife (as I did with my first wife, who was later killed)
Currently...I have been with my wife now for almost 3 years. We have discussed such issues many times in the past and I have told her to do whatever it takes to "put me down" if I am in a similar position.

Tell me - would it be OK if we all just entered someone's hospital room and shot them in the head whenever we as individuals decided their lives weren't worth living?

That is a straw man argument and you know it. "Us as individuals" and this guy and his wife being married for 45 YEARS is in no way the same....you know that!

I believe in euthanasia. I don't believe this qualifies

Well, I am glad we are on the same page about euthanasia....seems most here are.

There's more to this situation than meets the eye

Possibly. I am not saying there isn't...but the evidence we have here doesn't point to that at all.
I'll even give you the fact that maybe the guy was in a sort of delusional state of mind and acted in haste. I won't say he didn't as I wouldn't know. It is possible. People kill spouses, look for reasons, do things after YEARS of marriage...etc etc.....every single day, sure......I just don't think that is the case here.
If he was going to "kill her to get it over with" so he could move on or whatever else he wanted to do he wouldn't have tried to shoot his self (IF that happened...I won't confirm either way, I wouldn't know and we won't know until the facts come out in a court of law)

I'll even give you the fact that my "a real man" statement might have been a bit over the top.....I'll concede to that.
It was a bit of a knee-jerk emotional reaction, given I have "been there done that" with a loved one.....not once but twice. I guess my own experience clouded my judgment a bit. Yeah, I'll give you that much