SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has published a report including the number of individuals known to have taken their lives under California's end of life bill. The law requires the CDPH to provide annual reports about the effects of the law. 111 people have died after taking prescribed aid-in-dying drugs from June 9th, 2016 to December 31st, 2016 (subsequent reports will cover full calendar years):
The law — which allows terminally ill adults to obtain life-ending drugs from their doctors — took effect on June 9, 2016. Between then and the end of the year, 191 people received prescriptions under the act and 111 people died after taking prescribed aid-in-dying drugs, according to a report released Tuesday by the California Department of Public Health.
In that time period, a total of 258 people began the end-of-life process under the law, which requires patients to make two verbal requests to their doctors at least 15 days apart.
Previously: California Legislature Approves Bill Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide - UK Reject Similar Law
California to Permit Assisted Suicide Starting June 9th, Could Raise Smoking Age to 21
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @01:35PM (19 children)
You know, the guy who had his girlfriend shoot him with a .50AE Desert Eagle while he was holding a book.
He died under the "right to be stupid" law ... LOL !!!
What's that you say, there is no such law ?
Oh yes there is : anyone is allowed to breed and that means the law upholds the right to be stupid.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday June 30 2017, @02:25PM (7 children)
I was thinking of submitting that but meh.
Let's hope girlfriend has a good lawyer.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday June 30 2017, @03:04PM (2 children)
You meatbags could use some more fantas^W sociopath sauce.
It's the perfect crime. Propose a stupid game, kill SO, have none other than youtube "prove" it was an accident.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday June 30 2017, @04:03PM
It was just a prank, bro.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Friday June 30 2017, @04:04PM
It was the "victim" who proposed the stunt, not the girlfriend. She will likely end up on charges of manslaughter.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @04:38PM (3 children)
Why? She deserves to go to prison for that. At bare minimum this demonstrates that she didn't test the stunt ahead of time. At an absolute bare minimum she should have shot the book without anybody behind it just to see if it would penetrate at the distance she was going to shoot from.
Mind you, that's still incredibly reckless, but in this case it probably would have saved his life.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Friday June 30 2017, @05:37PM
-- http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-woman-accused-of-fatally-shooting-boyfriend-in-fame-seeking-video-prank/431313063/ [startribune.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Friday June 30 2017, @06:21PM
She deserves to have her guilt or innocence determined by a judge or jury.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @07:25PM
why, if the dipshit volunteered? it's his right to risk his life. she should get off scot free
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @02:36PM (10 children)
I hope that book was a bible. One less religious retard.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Bot on Friday June 30 2017, @03:06PM (9 children)
Atheism is a religion, you bigot.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Friday June 30 2017, @03:21PM (8 children)
Just like not collecting stamps is a hobby?
(Score: 4, Touché) by sjames on Friday June 30 2017, @04:17PM (6 children)
If you devote enough time and energy into telling other people not to collect stamps, that could be considered a hobby.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 30 2017, @05:32PM
This atheist has devoted zero time telling people to not believe in fairy tales. Glad to know my atheism isn't a religion.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @06:27PM (3 children)
The "telling other people" part could be considered a hobby, but not the lack of stamp collecting.
Religion is a complex term and hard to define. I'd say that religions need to have some accepted belief structured around the sacred and supernatural.
Without the supernatural, they would be philosophies. Without the sacred, they would only be superstitions.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities.
Atheists can be religious, superstitious, and/or follow a particular philosophy.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Friday June 30 2017, @09:24PM (1 child)
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities.
I would call a lack of belief agnosticism. Atheism, I'd say, is the belief that there's no supernatural.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic [dictionary.com]
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnosticism?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic [dictionary.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Monday July 03 2017, @08:38AM
Atheism and Agnosticism come in strong and weak forms.
Weak atheism: There is no (evidence for) god.
Strong atheism: There can be no god in a consistent reality.
Weak agnosticism: We don't understand the nature of god(s)
Strong agnosticism: The nature of god(s) is beyond understanding.
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Friday June 30 2017, @10:28PM
What if something is considered sacred, but is not supernatural? Is that still a superstition? There a number of newer groups calling their views a religion that find the sacred in what is just natural.
And you're right about atheists can be religious, just like Buddhists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @09:12PM
Veganism: hobby or religion?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday July 02 2017, @05:13AM
Thank you for the canned response.
"Not collecting stamps" is completely defined. The act of collecting can be applied. True or false metadata can be assigned to anybody. Are you not collecting stamps? yes/no. It is a hobby? yes/no. QED.
Now: A=A+3, what is the value of A?
Atheists say they know and it's 3, because implicitly assigning a default 0 to A is the "most rational" thing to do. You destroy the very man made logic you proclaim to live by. In truth, Undefined concept is undefined.
"God does not exist" is an assertion made in the domain of a transcendent concept, which God is defined as. You can make such an assertion, just as I can say "I always lie" or "the smell of purple is center". Grammatically correct, but obviously no truth value can be derived.
First, because you should say meta-exist. Existing is defined for immanent concepts. OK let's sub. God does not meta-exist. What value can you give to such a phrase? true/false? What does exist mean? To exist means to be directly or indirectly or potentially experienced, or for a narrower def, to have a vector in time-space describing your rough position. So, let us translate this concept to meta, the domain of God. Is there time-space there? obviously no, unless you proclaim a new matrioska doll religion where the creator of space and time operate in a different space and time too. Which proves my point. So no time space there. How the fuck do you define existence then? by being experienced? ok by whom? unless you proclaim a new matrioska doll religion where the creator has itself an observer Which proves my point.
So, keep believing A=3 if you want, see if I care.
Account abandoned.