Assisted Suicide

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by sibeer, Jun 16, 2012.

  1. sibeer

    sibeer MajorGeek

    What do you guys think of this?
    My own take on this, I think it should be a choice, but there certainly needs to be controls. In a given situation it might be something I would opt for, in reality, if it came to that point I would probably think differently.

    Link
     
  2. hitest

    hitest Staff Sergeant

    sibeer,

    I also think that people should have the option to end it all. I think there would need to be many checks and balances in a legal assisted suicide program. I would not want to have a terrible illness and be incapacitated. As you say when one is faced with mortality who knows how you would choose?
     
  3. LauraR

    LauraR MajorGeeks Super-Duper Administrator Staff Member

    I believe if someone is terminal, they should definitely be able to end it. A lot of people are in a lot of pain that aren't legally able which I think is horrible considering the options out there.

    I do not believe people who are depressed should be given the option, though. They should get help, not end their life.
     
  4. gman863

    gman863 MajorGeek

    I fully support the option of suicide in the case of a terminal illness. Unfortunately, in the US, the Catholic Church and other conservative religious groups are fighting it tooth and nail (So much for the separation of church and state. If the Pope doesn't want to off himself it's his choice; however I'm incensed over the fact Mr. Pointy Hat and his followers feel they can impose their beliefs on everyone. :tas).

    This being said, I agree that doctor-assisted suicide should have strict checks and balances in place.

    There is also the option of do-it-yourself suicide.

    At the risk of sounding morbid, people have been killing themselves since the beginning of time without assistance. While suicide prevention should be in place to help those with treatable issues (bipolar depression, etc.) recover, someone with a terminal illness should have the option to undertake the final "do-it-yourself" project without guilt or shame.

    Although I haven't done this (and have no need to), I suspect if you Google "How to commit suicide", you'll literally come up with 1,000+ ways to die. What pills work the best (I suspect Cyanide, since this is what was used in the Jonestown "Kool-Aid" mass cult suicide in the 1970s). Whether natural gas or carbon monoxide works better. You get the idea.

    Although this is a sad topic to discuss, it amounts to the 800 pound gorilla in the room of terminal illness everyone is ignoring.

    My stepmother died a few weeks ago naturally under home hospice care (Alzheimer's) - her choice, and I respect it. If or when I get to a similar point in my life, I want the right not to suffer in the final stages of terminal illness
     
  5. LauraR

    LauraR MajorGeeks Super-Duper Administrator Staff Member

    lol...while I agree on principle, I don't think it's just the Catholics who believe this. In the US, if that was the case, it would have been passed through a long time ago as Catholics are in the minority in the US (only 24% of Americans describe themselves as such according to: http://religions.pewforum.org/reports)

    I do agree, however, that this is a religious belief and the majority of Americans are affiliated with some religion.

    I also find it interesting that with the advanced medical capabilities compared to that of when the Bible was written (which was absolutely nil), the argument for Not using medical means to peacefully end a life coincides with that of keeping someone alive and suffering via medical means.
     
  6. gman863

    gman863 MajorGeek

    Laura,

    I am not singling out just the Catholic Church. This is why I stated, "...the Catholic Church and other conservative religious groups are fighting it tooth and nail."

    The attempt to force specific religious beliefs on everyone via the legal system is a practice many groups attempt to do, both in the US and other countries.
     
  7. LauraR

    LauraR MajorGeeks Super-Duper Administrator Staff Member

    I know, gman.;) Just making the point that it's not just the Catholics as they are, in the US anyway, a minority religion. (I'm not Catholic, btw)
     
  8. dyamond

    dyamond Imelda Marcos of Majorgeeks

    You do understand that when Thomas Jefferson wrote about the separation of church and state, he was inferring that the STATE stay out of the church's business not vice versa? I'm just tired of people (please don't take this personally) throwing that phrase around so cavalierly when the church does something people don't agree with (not that I agree with much the Catholic church does anyway but that's besides another topic all together).

    I don't think this will be a popular post but I think any suicide, assisted or not, is rather selfish. Who are you (not you, personally, just generalizing) to play God? Who's to say your pain is greater then the pain of those losing you? where do you draw the line? If they are living with a terminal illness, I feel incredibly sorry for them but why not live out your days as happy as possible with your friends/loved ones? Who's to say they won't come out with a cure with what ever the person might have but ended it before finding out?

    Our nature is self preservation, we want to live! In almost any situation we encounter, our main goal is to stay alive. What changes? Suicide is a permanent solution to a (more than likely) temporary problem. People need help, acceptance, love NO MATTER WHAT. Not fear, sadness, or death. This is just my humble opinion.
     
  9. Fred_G

    Fred_G Heat packin' geek

    Interesting topic. I find I agree with post 3 and 8. And I am a Conservative who does not believe in forcing my religious views on others. ;)
     
  10. Fred_G

    Fred_G Heat packin' geek

    You do know the Pope is not an American citizen. And who is Mr. Pointy hat?
     
  11. gman863

    gman863 MajorGeek

    If someone is in immense pain from the advanced stages of a terminal illness, it should be their decision (and their decision alone) if they want to die naturally or commit suicide. It isn't selfish or "playing God"; nor is it "happy" for either the individual or friends and relatives to deal with the final stages before death.

    No offense, but the "finding a cure" argument for someone who is in the final stages of a terminal illness is a cruel and silly statement. New drugs and medical treatments (even experimental ones) are aimed at people with early to moderate stages of a disease and take years to gain FDA approval. The topic of assisted suicide deals with people who (at best) have only weeks or a few months before natural death occurs.
     
  12. dyamond

    dyamond Imelda Marcos of Majorgeeks

    Actually that's the definition of "playing God" and yes, it IS selfish.

    Oh yes, pardon me, it is silly to think that scientists find cures for illnesses! If anyone happens to be diagnosed well then they should give up all hope and off themselves because why hope? its not like we have advances in medical societies or anything. rolleyes

    I just read a story of a man, the only man, to be cured of HIV. He had HIV, leukemia, pneumonia and a blood infection and the doctors said he had very short time to live (a week, if I recall the article correctly) did he give up? no. Instead, the doctor came up with a cure (gasp, you mean that can really happen? no, of course not it's silly rolleyes) and cured him of everything. He goes on to say he's been a lab rat for a number of years due to his outstanding recovery. So, how cruel is my statement now?
     
  13. the mekanic

    the mekanic Major Mekanical Geek

    I do not agree.
     
  14. dyamond

    dyamond Imelda Marcos of Majorgeeks

    You don't have to agree for it to be true (it is) but do you care to elaborate why you don't agree?
     
  15. Fred_G

    Fred_G Heat packin' geek

    I am with Dyamond here. It is legal for the churches to give money to influence candidates, but the gubment can't tell the preacher what to tell his congregation.

    My understanding is that it was to prevent a state required religion. If I am wrong, please help me out.
     
  16. Spad

    Spad MajorGeek

    100%, dead on correct. All separation of church and state was intended to mean was the State (i.e. the Federal government) cannot establish a "State" religion or tell anyone what, who, or how to worship . . . or to worship a deity at all. It does not mean that citizens cannot set up a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn, or that a church bible study group can't rent out a school room, or that - like some idiot government official said recently - families burying their fallen kin in military cemeteries are not allowed to say "God" or "Jesus" during a funeral (I always wondered what an apoplectic fit would feel like - I found out when I read of that stupidity. rolleyes).

    As far as the question of assisted suicides goes . . . I'm of the mind that if someone is terminal and in great pain, then it should allowed . . . but only after accredited medical professionals sign off on it. But never forget there is a slippery slope at our feet when we make such decisions. It has been shown time and again in history when one facet of the sanctity of life is sacrificed for a "valid" cause, other facets follow - for lesser cause and diminishing validity.
     
  17. BILLMCC66

    BILLMCC66 Bionic Belgian

    Here in Belgium doctor assisted euthanasia is legal but there are very stringent checks done beforehand.
    My father in law was 94 years old and terminally sick,he was in immense pain and his heart was not pumping blood to his extremities which meant his hands and lower legs were black.
    After him asking for some time to be allowed to pass the doctor spoke to my wife and discussed the possibilities of euthanasia and after a long period of thought she agreed.
    What they do here is not an injection to end life but an induced coma where they stop food and water until the patient passes away.
    I am not sure how hard i would cling to this mortal coil but i think we should be allowed to decide that the time has come to end the suffering.
     
  18. Fred_G

    Fred_G Heat packin' geek

    "From a religious point of view, this is wrong, with no excuses."

    I think that would depend on your religion. As there are a lot of different ones. I do agree thoughts may change as we get older.
     
  19. Nedlamar

    Nedlamar MajorGeek

    Can that same argument not be made for sustaining life artificially?
    Who are we to say that a life is worth sustaining via drugs and machines?

    Personally I think the idea of not ending a life that no longer has any form of quality just so family and friends don't feel sad when the one laying in a bed unable to move, speak, eat or do any of the things we take for granted just wants to rest is against human rights in the biggest way.

    Also having watched a loved one in suffering I personally think the pain I felt for the sake of that loved one was worse than the relief of their release.

    Sorry Dyamond but IMO you have it the wrong way round, keeping someone alive in suffering just so you feel better is far more selfish than a person just wanting life to let go.

    A man with throat cancer, cannot walk, eat, pee, converse, barely breath, pulls his IV out daily because he wants nature to take it's course..... so they strap him down so he will not pull the tube out anymore..... lets simplify...... Man in pain, dying, kept alive and suffering by force.
    There's a word for that in times of war... Torture.
     
  20. BILLMCC66

    BILLMCC66 Bionic Belgian

    You tread a very fine line Ned but i have to agree with most of what you say.
    Keeping someone alive artificially is just the same as helping them pass, you are playing God.
     
  21. dyamond

    dyamond Imelda Marcos of Majorgeeks

    Oh Ned, you are more than welcome to disagree with me but you can not tell me my opinion is wrong. You can tell me my facts are wrong but never my opinion, unless you wanna start a fight :strong :-D

    I don't agree with keeping people alive by artificial means. You are still playing God. If they cannot breathe, naturally, on their own and will a constant vegetable then what right do you have to prolong their life? Where is the line drawn? Or people with incurable diseases? Only people with life altering diseases? What is the defining line to say "ok, it's fine for me to help you kill yourself but not that guy"?

    When I used the word "you", I don't mean you personally.
     
  22. Sgt. Tibbs

    Sgt. Tibbs Ultra Geek

    Speaking from the point of view of someone who is currently watching my father suffer through the end stages of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's...I can't think of a single person in my family who would consider it selfish or cruel for him to end it. We might even help, if it were legally allowable.

    It obviously depends on the people involved, the disease involved, and a whole host of other reasons which make this the absolutely most personal and devastating choice someone could make. But honestly, after watching my father yesterday, it would be OK with me if I were to receive a phone call today telling me he'd decided to be done.

    Would I be upset? Absolutely. Would I cry and curse and bemoan the unfairness of it all? Absolutely. But I would be upset and crying about the loss of the man he was, not the twisted caricature of himself he has been forced to become over the course of his illness. And I can't imagine my opinion changing as it progresses further.

    In fact, when my dad was first diagnosed with the Parkinson's about 12 years ago, he told us then his plan was to wait until it got too bad, then he would go out in the woods and shoot himself in the head. We were horrified. But see...he'd done his research. He KNEW was he was in for. But then about 18 months ago he was also diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Apparently, the odds of living two years after diagnosis with both diseases is not good. Now, he still would like to end himself, but now he can't do it. He can't even sit down or stand up without help, or go to the bathroom without a keeper. He, and all of the rest of us, would jump at the chance of assisted suicide. We would all be there for the end with him, and let him go. On HIS terms, not the diseases'.
     
  23. Sgt. Tibbs

    Sgt. Tibbs Ultra Geek

    And here I was trying NOT to be emotional. :-o
     
  24. sibeer

    sibeer MajorGeek

    I should clarify something. In Canada suicide is not illegal. Everyone has that choice. The idea of the new "law"is to give the choice to those who are too physically incapacitated to end their lives. You have the right to end your life, therefore you have the right to get assistance from the medical field. I think calling suicide a selfish act is a bit harsh considering the majority of suicides are commited by people who aren't thinking rationally and really needed help.
    The stress on terminal patients and their families is huge, and the suffering can go on and on indefinately, so I also don't see this as selfish either. What I do see as selfish is denying someone an end to their suffering bcause you have a different opinion.

    This is correct. However it's a couple of hundred years old and I think today's "interpretation" swings both ways.
    "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. [...] I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me."
    John F. Kennedy.

    The state has interfered at times since Jefferson, most notably the poligamy issue with the Mormons.

    dyamond, I think the conflict here is keeping someone artifically breathing may buy time for a cure or recovery to occur, which is something you touched on. However, there are a lot of patients in this situation that shouldn't be.
     
  25. Fred_G

    Fred_G Heat packin' geek

    "This is correct. However it's a couple of hundred years old and I think today's "interpretation" swings both ways.
    "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. [...] I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me."
    John F. Kennedy.

    The state has interfered at times since Jefferson, most notably the poligamy issue with the Mormons."

    Can you expand on the other times they have interfered? You talk about a document over 200 years old, then quote someone from the 1960's. Is a bit confusing to me.
     
  26. sibeer

    sibeer MajorGeek

     
  27. the mekanic

    the mekanic Major Mekanical Geek

    Jefferson stated: "...thus building a wall between a wall of separation between Church, and State."

    Seems to me, a wall stops traffic in both directions. We're discussing a time in History when there was a successful rebellion against a mortal man who was deluded enough to believe he was "God" on the throne.

    When a "wall" is built, it doesn't allow passage one way, but not the other.
     
  28. dyamond

    dyamond Imelda Marcos of Majorgeeks

    If you read the entire contents of his letter, you will see it's how I stated it to be in my original post. I know it seems like the opposite because that's how it's twisted to be in this day and age but that was not how he intended it to be.
     
  29. the mekanic

    the mekanic Major Mekanical Geek

    I did read your post, and I have read the letter. It was brief, but I stand by my reading of it. A "wall" is impassable in either direction. He also states that: ...religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God... . In other words, it has no place in Government like it did in merry 'ol England "across the pond". Good King George was the equivalent of "God" on the throne, and the Church was ears deep in the rule of England. That is the LAST thing on Earth they wanted a repeat of. For reference, Religion IS an opinion.

    For reference, Thomas Jefferson is my alma mater.

    The letter word for word is as follows:

    To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

    Gentlemen


    The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

    Th Jefferson
    Jan. 1. 1802.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2012
  30. dyamond

    dyamond Imelda Marcos of Majorgeeks

    You do understand that it was a metaphorical wall, right? and that people usually build walls to keep people out not to keep them in, but since we can't seem to agree, let's just agree to disagree. ;)
     
  31. the mekanic

    the mekanic Major Mekanical Geek

    A wall is to keep things out, and hemmed in at the same time "metaphorical" or not. It is no different than it's actual, physical, real world counterpart. There is no either/or metaphorical or otherwise. Trust me, I've not only met Roger Waters, he's a really down to earth guy. I'll guess you're a devout Catholic.

    And, OK.
     
  32. dyamond

    dyamond Imelda Marcos of Majorgeeks

    Oh boy, wouldn't that be great. I feel most of the time that I'm just picking the lesser of the two evils.

    Don't get me wrong, I love doctors, I think they are grand. It takes a lot of dedication to make it through all that schooling! My whole "playing God" part was (anyone) taking it upon themselves to decide who lives or dies but I don't shun doctors or think they are "Playing God" when they heal people.

    roflmao You couldn't be more wrong.

    Darn, I should asked you wanted to bet on it, I could have made some money. :-D
     
  33. the mekanic

    the mekanic Major Mekanical Geek


    Well, I'm Agnostic. Maybe you'll find that hilarious too...

    :foolish
     
  34. dyamond

    dyamond Imelda Marcos of Majorgeeks

    No, not really but that smiley is pretty funny :-D
     
  35. Nedlamar

    Nedlamar MajorGeek

    Ok firstly, I never said you were "Wrong" I said in my opinion you have it the wrong way round. It's an opinion, it can't be wrong either way ;)
    That's me trying to avoid a fight with you because I get shoes thrown at me enough as it is :-D

    And the defining line should be fairly clear in most cases, I would never agree with someone who simply doesn't want to live anymore because of money or a bad knee. As I said, once the quality of life is gone and will not be coming back 100%, THEN the Doc assist comes into play, I have always felt this way.

    Seems you and I confused what the other was saying because reading your reply suggests you pretty much agree with the basis of what I said and vise versa.

    Basically, if something CANNOT be cured and quality of life is gone, then Nature should be allowed to take it's course.

    @Bill... Of course I tread a fine line... it's me, Ned... that's what I do :-D
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2012
  36. Nedlamar

    Nedlamar MajorGeek

    Stephen Hawkins I think (lol) would agree his quality of life is not completely gone, he still has the means of communication, laughter, family etc.
    A freind of mine suffers from a very similar ailment, has since birth, only has the use of 4 fingers and his mouth and eyes, but he enjoys things, he's not in so much pain all he thinks about is ending it, he wonders what he is going to do tomorrow... he doesn't wish tomorrow never comes.
    And niether (to my knowledge) are dying in pain and suffering. So both still have a certain amount of quality of life.

    I'm talking about when there is none, when the person will never laugh again and never enjoy anything again because the pain or illness prevents them from that, only sadness and pain left is no quality of life.

    @Sgt.Tibbs... I can't express how I feel about your post, the only thing I can think to say is I hope for the best of what can be for all of you. My heart goes out to you all.
     
  37. LauraR

    LauraR MajorGeeks Super-Duper Administrator Staff Member

    I'm pretty sure this this thread is specifically about assisted 'suicide'....not murder. ;) I'm also fairly certain Steven Hawking doesn't want to be offed. :p

    From what I've seen, most believe it should be the person's right in a situation where they are terminal and in pain, that they should be able to end their own life with the help of modern medicine...the same way it keeps people alive in extreme situations. I don't think anyone is proposing to make the decision for them...or if they did, I missed it.
     
  38. dyamond

    dyamond Imelda Marcos of Majorgeeks

    Wait, your opinion is that my opinion isn't wrong but I "have it" (my opinion) wrong but it's your opinion so it can't be wrong? It's no wonder you get shoes thrown at you all the time :duck :-D

    With a topic as sensitive and emotional as this is, it's really hard sometimes to express what you are feeling though the internet. Trying not to come across sounding condescending or unfeeling or overly emotional is rather tough and which is why I try to use smilies the to show that emotion because it's really easy to get hurt feelings unintendedly. Even though I think that everyone in this thread as expressed themselves rather eloquently, there still chances that things can get misconstrued (like what you posted above, Ned). I think we were in the same mind too.
     
  39. BILLMCC66

    BILLMCC66 Bionic Belgian

    This is a very emotive subject and as i wrote in post #18 we have had a family member request the doctor to end the pain and suffering for him as with Sgt Tibbs is is a decision that no one can anticipate until you are faced with the situation.
    Not long after my accident when i was in a striker frame (see photo) I had times when i wanted to let go but now i have sort of recovered i am glad it was not an option at that time.
    Due to the advances of orthopedic surgery i am once again functional (almost :cool)

    There are time in all our lives the we get depressed but we recover and that is the point of the need to meet a very strict criteria before assisting someone to pass.

    Having said all that no one knows how much pain is too much and we each have a different tolerance so we have to have the final say in such a situation.
     

    Attached Files:

  40. COMPUABLE

    COMPUABLE First Sergeant

    Evidentially, England supposedly has absolutely no problems whatsoever with practicing euthanasia on a regular basis.

    In yesterday's dailymail.co.uk; a professor claims "England's National Health Service (also known as NHS) doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds" (at the rate of 130,000 elderly patients every year).

    To Read More: Click Here

    Good Luck! -- COMP​
     
  41. dyamond

    dyamond Imelda Marcos of Majorgeeks

    Aw thanks! I'm glad I make sense to someone, I don't always make sense to myself though :-D

    I think you do a pretty swell job at it yourself. I can always understand where you are coming from. :)
     
  42. Fred_G

    Fred_G Heat packin' geek

    I think the person in the chair would be the one to decide that Gloozit.
     
  43. LauraR

    LauraR MajorGeeks Super-Duper Administrator Staff Member

    gloozit, I'm not sure, but I'm interpreting you as talking about something different. You are talking about (or at least including the cases) someone incapacitated and their family making the decision for them. Most people...the ones who have wills anyway...have 'living wills' where they give their own wishes as far as keeping them alive. Mine, personally, happens to be I do not want to be kept alive if I am in a state where I have no hope of recovery.

    At least in my view, this is about assisted 'suicide' which is the person who is in the terminal state (ie, last stages of cancer or some other terminal illness) stating that they wish for the doctors to help them end their own lives...not someone else deciding it for them. There are many in this country (US) who are in the final stages of disease who are capable of cognizant thought. That, at least, is what I'm talking about.
     
  44. Sgt. Tibbs

    Sgt. Tibbs Ultra Geek

    Assisted suicide is exactly that...medical assistance for the ill person to commit suicide in what will hopefully be a less painful and traumatic manner than they could manage on their own.

    Deciding to remove someone from life support when they have not previously made their wishes clear is an entirely other kettle of fish.
     
  45. the mekanic

    the mekanic Major Mekanical Geek

    mister tibbs. I'm not touching that with a 10 foot pole ellipsis
     
  46. LauraR

    LauraR MajorGeeks Super-Duper Administrator Staff Member

    That would be 'Ms' Tibbs. ;)
     
  47. Sgt. Tibbs

    Sgt. Tibbs Ultra Geek

    That it is. ;) I'm just baffled as to why that statement would require caution. :confused
     
  48. Fred_G

    Fred_G Heat packin' geek

    Let me elaborate. The person 'in the chair' so to speak, would be the one with the disability. Like Hawkins, who seems to doing well.
     
  49. Fred_G

    Fred_G Heat packin' geek

    And let me further state that I see both sides of this. I have not made up my mind on what I think is the 'right' way to deal with it.

    Interesting discussion.
     
  50. Sgt. Tibbs

    Sgt. Tibbs Ultra Geek

    As far as I'm concerned, there is no "right" answer. What would be great for my dad would NEVER, and I cannot stress that enough, NEVER work for my mom. My feeling on this (and I'm not saying it should be yours or anyone else's) is that it needs to be an option. With rules. And strict supervision. But available for those who really want it and are medically justified in doing so.

    I just realized how that sounds. It would not, in fact, be "great". :hammer But you know what I was getting at, right? *sigh*
     

MajorGeeks.Com Menu

Downloads All In One Tweaks \ Android \ Anti-Malware \ Anti-Virus \ Appearance \ Backup \ Browsers \ CD\DVD\Blu-Ray \ Covert Ops \ Drive Utilities \ Drivers \ Graphics \ Internet Tools \ Multimedia \ Networking \ Office Tools \ PC Games \ System Tools \ Mac/Apple/Ipad Downloads

Other News: Top Downloads \ News (Tech) \ Off Base (Other Websites News) \ Way Off Base (Offbeat Stories and Pics)

Social: Facebook \ YouTube \ Twitter \ Tumblr \ Pintrest \ RSS Feeds