dwight | Seven Days | Vermont's Independent Voice

Member since Jan 28, 2015



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Last Rights: A Putney Woman Becomes the Third Vermonter to End Her Life Using New Law

In la-la land, suicide is not suicide unless you say it is. However, in the real world and the Merriam-Webster dictionary, suicide is defined as... "the act of killing yourself because you do not want to continue living", OR "... performing a deliberate act resulting in the voluntary death of the person who does it". I remember attending a right to die lecture in St. Albans several years ago. The pro-death speaker from Oregon indicated that after the individual died from the "lethal" overdose, the cause of death placed on the death certificate was whatever medical condition the individual was suffering from prior to killing him or herself. This in itself is plainly a lie, as I clearly pointed out to the speaker who was obviously in denial. Unless we are living in George Orwell's society of 1984, any attempt to redefine suicide in order to suit one's ideological agenda is hypocritical and very dangerous. So-called "death with dignity" IS suicide. Any individual's death certificate who chooses it should state just that... death by suicide. It IS what it IS. Too often politically correct ideologues try to redefine the truth to further their agenda or get the public to swallow it. If an individual chooses to take his/her own life, then he/she should have the courage and honesty to insist the real cause of death be placed on their death certificate. Moreover. deliberately involving the medical profession and pharmacists is totally unnecessary in today's drug-infested culture. To say doctors and pharmacists must be involved is sucking these people into one's desperate situation unnecessarily. Doctors and pharmacists are charged with saving lives, not taking lives. Let's not erode the sacred trust the public places in these professionals.

6 likes, 69 dislikes
Posted by dwight on 01/29/2015 at 6:16 PM

Re: “Last Rights: A Putney Woman Becomes the Third Vermonter to End Her Life Using New Law

Wow! Apparently anyone in Vermont who opposes euthanasia is not well liked on this website. If one does not paint a flowery message embracing suicide, then they are not part of the liberal socialist crowd who has moved in and taken over the state. Why the hostility to life? I've lived here in Vermont the entire 67 years of my life. In the last half century I've witnessed firsthand the socialist-democrat agenda taking over the state and taking us down the road to servitude and self-destruction. While I have compassion for anyone suffering from a terminal illness like Ms Lake, my empathy stops when individuals use the situation to sell death to other unfortunate humans. Involving the medical profession and pharmacists in this lunacy is more than just a little psychotic. Not many years ago, our illustrious attorney general allowed a doctor to go free without charge after deliberately euthanizing his patient with Norcuron, a drug never used in end-of-life care. I believe he should have been charged with premeditated murder: Everyone knows this was a “trial balloon” to gauge public reaction to the killing. But the attorney general and his political party is in charge and favors euthanasia (as well as abortion) so we all knew the direction they would take, in spite of any objection from their constituents. Now we have “euthanasia lite” and full-blown euthanasia has its ugly foot in the door. Just when that monster will rear its ugly head is anyone’s guess, but nothing the looney socialist-democrats do surprises me any more. As people have observed about Obamacare supporters and their death panels: Don't get sick... You won't to regret it.

6 likes, 50 dislikes
Posted by dwight on 01/29/2015 at 10:17 AM

Re: “Last Rights: A Putney Woman Becomes the Third Vermonter to End Her Life Using New Law

How do we keep euthanasia cuddly enough for the readers of Seven Days? Hum Kumbaya while the next individual dies from an alleged overdose? What if things don't go smoothly with the next poor soul? What if the individual lives in spite of everything and cannot self administer another dose? Will the doctor, family member or someone else take it upon themself to end the life of the patient, violating the law? If so, who would know? What if the patient survives and faces severe physical problems from complications of the medication? Will the patient sue the doctor, pharmacist, or others involved? I know I would. Any clear thinking individual must question why the people who drafted and passed this daffy law without any thought of the consequences are so smitten with glorifying and accelerating death. It has been said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It appears that many so-called Vermonters fall into that category. They have learned absolutely nothing from the past. Countries that have embraced euthanasia in any form have always expanded the killing not only to include people who desire to die from a terminal illness, but also to those who want to die for frivolous reasons such as such as being unhappy with their life or situation. The reality is that euthanasia is always expanded to be more inclusive, not less. What begins as feigned compassion ends up as full blown genocide. To quote Hitler’s Euthanasia Decree of 1939: "the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.". Ask any Jew how that turned out. Sieg Heil.

11 likes, 36 dislikes
Posted by dwight on 01/28/2015 at 4:28 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Keep up with us Seven Days a week!

Sign up for our fun and informative

All content © 2018 Da Capo Publishing, Inc. 255 So. Champlain St. Ste. 5, Burlington, VT 05401
Website powered by Foundation