health care

Woman Who Handed Father Morphine Charged With "Aiding Suicide"

|

Pennsylvania woman Barbara Mancini may be charged in the death of her terminally ill, 93-year-old father. The second-degree felony charge of "Aiding Suicide" carries a maximum ten-year sentence.

Mancini denies the charges and is fighting the case with the help of advocacy group Compassion and Choices, but the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that a hospice nurse on the scene told police captain Steve Durkin that Mancini handed her father a lethal dose of morphine with the intent to end his life:

The nurse said Mancini, who also is a nurse, gave her father the morphine "at his request so that he could end his own suffering," Durkin wrote.

When an ambulance arrived, Mancini told paramedics that her father was dying and did not want further treatment, but the police captain overruled her.

Mancini's father was later revived at the hospital only to die four days later after doctors gave him even more morphine to ease his pain.

The incident highlights many of the thorny questions surrounding right-to-die medical issues. When, if ever, is it OK to administer medication in a dosage that will likely end a life? Without prior written consent, how do you prove that this is what the deceased wanted? How, on the other hand, does the state prove in a case like this that death was the intended outcome? Where does palliative care end and "assisted suicide" begin? 

These are important questions that states such as Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana have already begun to deal with rather effectively by establishing various legal frameworks within which to work. States that outright ban "assisted suicide" (or "aid in dying," as advocates prefer to call it) tend to chill legitimate discussion between doctors and patients, leaving a large legal grey area that sometimes results in strange cases such as this one.

Watch the Reason TV video below for an explanation of how aid-in-dying legislation works in some states and for an inside look at Montana's legal battle over the right to hasten a prolonged and agonizing death.

NEXT: Facing Pimping Charges, Dominique Strauss-Kahn Says He's Over Politics

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nice. So, the state doesn’t think the guy should have the right to end his own suffering, but they apparently don’t have a problem with reviving him so he can experience death more than once.

    1. There was a chance he might have gotten better, gone back to work, and paid more taxes. I mean, yeah it was a small chance, but are they supposed to just ignore it?

      1. Come on, if he’s that close to death, the cost of reviving him has to far outweigh the amount of taxes he’s likely to pay.

        1. It’s the principle of the thing.

      2. Damaging government property is a very serious offense, nicole.

      3. Yeah, there was still some small chance, even at 93, that the great benevolent gubmint could have squeezed a few more dimes out of him. Therefore, she is guilty, by default.

      4. Of course he wasn’t going to go back to work at 93. But he was statistically likely to vote Dem in the next election.

        1. Or for the Republican that acts the most like a Dem.

      5. Maybe they were really thinking about the fact that now they can stick the daughter with the medical bill and collect all of those taxes on top of the estate tax! It’s a win-win, right?

    2. And now that he’s dead he can’t do this:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MSrAwfagG4

      So as a society we’re missing out. Make the bitch pay!

  2. Hard cases make bad law…the system has every incentive to cut costs by offing oldsters whose care is very expensive…remove the legal and ethical constraints and old folks will be pressured to “volunteer” for suicide.

    As to what to do in cases of severe suffering, I won’t profess to be an expert, but I know there are painkillers, which could get better as time goes on, and there’s the withdrawal of extraordinary measures, so long as you don’t define food and drink as extraordinary.

    Not saying I lack compassion for the hard cases, but the death lobby is going to use these hard cases as an entering wedge to “help” lots of old and sick people shuffle off this mortal coil.

    1. Now, from a sentencing perspective, someone who purports to do a mercy killing, without having an evident mercenary motive, is not as dangerous to the public as a regular killer, so should probably be given some leniency at sentencing.

      1. By “someone” I mean a relative, not (God help us) a doctor or nurse.

      2. Even though she did nothing wrong, this woman must be punished in case other people do bad things in the future!

        1. I didn’t say she did nothing wrong, simply that she’s less dangerous to the public than (say) some guy who makes a potentially-deadly assault on a Neighborhood Watch volunteer.

          Yes, letting her off Scot-free will be a precedent for the doctor or nurse who kills off elderly patients “because I couldn’t stand their (expensive) suffering.”

          1. In this thread, so-called libertarians embrace paternalism.

            “We have to infringe on your rights because you might abuse them.”

            1. I think someone who helps her sick father kill herself *has* abused her rights. I simply said she’s not as dangerous to the public as a guy who shoots a man in Reno just to watch him die. If she’s not going to be killing other people, that’s a factor in favor of leniency, especially in light of the temptations she faced.

              But one of the *reasons* her acts are wrong is the slippery slope – absent a slippery slope, there would be better arguments in favor of her activities – but not slam-dunk arguments.

              1. helps her sick father kill *himself.*

              2. What about the father’s rights? Shouldn’t he be able to have the morphine if that is what he wants?

                1. “Shouldn’t he be able to have the morphine if that is what he wants?”

                  Well, in this case I don’t see where they had a full judicial hearing to establish the father’s wishes – even assuming he has a “right” to off himself. I see the daughter (perhaps in complete good faith) taking the matter into her own hands.

                  Show me a case where a court, after hearing the evidence, is convinced that a person wants to kill himself/herself, not being subject to any undue pressure, and having been informed about the options relating to treatment and palliative care, and then come back to me about whether (s)he has a right to suicide. Such a case has not exactly been presented here.

                  1. even assuming he has a “right” to off himself.

                    He owns (well, owned) his own body. This includes ending the life of that body at the time of his choosing.

                    The people who prosecute cases like this are effectively saying, “No, you don’t own your own body.” What thoroughly evil people.

                  2. Well, in this case I don’t see where they had a full judicial hearing to establish the father’s wishes – even assuming he has a “right” to off himself.

                    Why wouldn’t you have the right to kill yourself? I honestly don’t know where your argument against the right to suicide is coming from. If you have any right over your own body, then you should clearly have the right to end your own life.

                2. Not sure, we need to consult with someone wiser than us peons to find out. Let’s ask Bloomberg, he should know.

              3. I think someone who helps her sick father kill herself *has* abused her rights.

                How so?

                But one of the *reasons* her acts are wrong is the slippery slope

                Yeah, let’s punish her for something she might hypothetically do. Nothing illiberal about that!

              4. I think someone who helps her sick father kill herself *has* abused her rights.

                I honestly don’t see how.

                I’m not sure you can abuse your own rights, so I’m looking around here for whose rights were violated by this.

                About the only person whose rights could have been violated would be her father, but I can’t see how helping a capable adult carry out his own wishes for himself violates his rights.

                1. I also have a hard time with the idea that you don’t have the right to kill yourself. Again, if you kill yourself, whose rights are you violating?

                  1. “if you kill yourself, whose rights are you violating?”

                    First, I’m not a pure libertarian, and I don’t believe in a right to suicide. Maybe my attitude has some connection to my “fundamentalist” beliefs, or maybe it’s linked to the fact that my brother believed in, and acted on his belief in, suicide. Analyze my motives all you want (And I don’t think that laws alone would have stopped my brother, so I’m not going all Chris Christie on you and trying to manipulate your emotions).

                    But even if we *do* stipulate a right to suicide, there ought to be a judicial process to establish that the would-be suicidal person isn’t simply responding to pressure from relatives and putative heirs – “really, Grandpa, you’re imposing on us with all this expensive treatment – if you go on like this, we won’t inherit anything – I mean, we love you!”

                    At least have a court assure itself that the person seeking to off himself hasn’t been forced or manipulated into the decision, and that it’s an *informed* decision based on an objective assessment of his situation.

                    1. and I don’t believe in a right to suicide.

                      Is the fact that I find this statement appalling a sign that I’m too far gone?

                    2. Also, EvH, if you don’t own yourself, who does?

                    3. We’re not going to agree, but I am pleased to note that I have the common-law tradition behind me. Yes, even the much-mocked common-law crime of attempted suicide.

                    4. Meh, you’ll get around to realizing that you own yourself someday; it was a very depressing day for me, but worth it.

                    5. We’re not going to agree, but I am pleased to note that I have the common-law tradition behind me.

                      Then the law, sir, is an ass.

                    6. We’re not going to agree, but I am pleased to note that I have the common-law tradition behind me. Yes, even the much-mocked common-law crime of attempted suicide.

                      So the common law is horribly off base on the issue of suicide and euthanasia. Solid appeal to authority you’ve got there, Ed.

                    7. religious puritan detected

                  2. Again, if you kill yourself, whose rights are you violating?

                    The government doesn’t like the competition.

                  3. I agree that people should have the right to kill themselves for any reason they see fit – and old age and suffering seems good enough.

                    However…how do we know that’s what happened here? How do we know she was attempting to follow his wishes?

                    I don’t know about 2nd degree murder charges, but I don’t think the default should be to believe the person who killed the other that everything they say is correct.

                    Assuming they have medical records and the old man stated his wishes to others – then maybe… but for this, I’d want to see something in writing or like DR K – a video taped confessional type thing…

                    I mean we don’t really know much here do we? What if, he was ok with the pain, and expected to live 10 more years, but in doing so would have no inheritance to leave?

                    So in general – I agree he owns his body and if that means anything, it means he can kill if it he wishes.

                    I also agree that he may ask relatives for help and if I were asked, I may help as well (I won’t know unless asked and hopefully will not be). Even if I couldn’t help, I don’t think those that do help should face jail time much less murder charges.

                    However for this specific case – I’d prefer many more facts than we have before I’d readily agree that the pending charges are BS.

                    1. -I don’t know about 2nd degree murder charges, but I don’t think the default should be to believe the person who killed the other that everything they say is correct.

                      Were you the prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case?

                    2. He was formally in hospice care. Assuming that transition was done legally, he had consented to stopping treatment and was expecting to die soon, not live in pain for another decade.

                2. but I can’t see how helping a capable adult carry out his own wishes for himself violates his rights.

                  That’s because it violate’s the government’s right to your body!

                  /Cass Sunstein

            2. This is the exact same reason liberals oppose Stand Your Ground laws.

              1. “This is the exact same reason liberals oppose Stand Your Ground laws.”

                Wait, what? Sorry, maybe I’m just dumb, but I’m not sure what the basis for your comparison is.

                1. Because it might enable somebody to get away with murder.

                  Yes, letting her off Scot-free will be a precedent for the doctor or nurse who kills off elderly patients “because I couldn’t stand their (expensive) suffering.”

                  1. Equating the right to defend yourself from deadly attack with the “right” to off yourself is the very point in dispute, so to make the comparison valid, you’ll have to establish your pro-right-to-suicide arguments.

                    1. You, and no one else, own you. This gives you the right to defend yourself from people who want to do things to you that you don’t want but also gives you full rights to decide to do to yourself the things you want.

                      Your argument is entirely a ‘slippery slope’ argument of the kind much beloved by the utilitarian right and left. ‘Sure, this thing being debated might be a matter of individual liberty, but if we concede on it then in the future X calamity will follow, so we must restrict liberty at this point at this time!’

                2. I believe he’s saying the Left doesn’t believe in the principle of self-ownership.

            3. Hey, I didn’t agree with EvH on that.
              The idea of “precedent” itself I find to be complete bullshit.

              1. This slope is *extremely* slippery, as experience has shown in the Netherlands and (according to the discussion above) in the UK. Not to mention [Godwin edit].

                1. What slope is that? Owning my body?

                  Do you believe Morphine should be legal and unregulated, as I do?

                  1. “Do you believe Morphine should be legal and unregulated, as I do?”

                    Yes, just like guns. And just like guns, if you misuse morphine to kill someone, you should be legally accountable. Say I hand a gun to someone who has expressed a wish to kill himself, with the specific intent that he carry out his wish. Then I’m facilitating suicide. Likewise with morphine. I would no more ban morphine than ban guns.

                    1. If I can’t dispose of my property as I see fit, without actually causing any harm in the act of transferring the property, then do I really own it?

                    2. That takes us back to the definition of “harm.”

                    3. I’m not responsible for anyone’s actions but my own.

                    4. This!

          2. I think that doctors tend to benefit from expensive suffering, so there’s not much of an incentive there.

            1. Do you think that in our brave new world of medicine, doctors will be making the final decisions? That it’s physicians alone who will make the judgment calls about how to save expenses, and how to cut off revenue-losing lives?

              1. Again, that is a distinct issue. The fact that our medical system is heading in a bad direction is not good reason to deny people what seems to me to be a fundamental right.

            2. I think that doctors tend to benefit from expensive suffering,

              Depends on what kind of coverage the sufferer has.

              1. That’s true. You work for a hospital, don’t you? Do you see a lot of medicaid and uninsured patients getting killed off?

                1. Not at all. If anything, they are under represented in hospice and palliative care.

    2. -1 ice floe

    3. They won’t be pressured to volunteer – they’ll simply *be* volunteered.

      Check out the way the “Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient” is being implemented by the NHS.

      1. NHS trusts are being offered financial incentives to put patients on it.

      2. Thank you – here’s Wikipedia on the controversy:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..ontroversy

      3. Socialized medicine is one thing, people having the right to decide their own demise is another. Interestingly, they are based on opposing values.

    4. Preventing people from ending their lives if that is what they want is wrong. So it pressuring people to end their lives. Two separate issues. Sorta like gay marriage and public accommodation laws.

      1. Ooh, snap!

        Yet in both controversies, there seems to be a connection between the things you don’t think are connected.

        1. Everything is connected in some way. Sure they are connected. That doesn’t mean they aren’t (or should be) separate issues of law.

          1. Just as handing out SSM licenses has a demonstrable connection to the holders of these licenses harassing private businesses, so the issuing of suicide licenses to old people undergoing expensive medical treatment will have a demonstrable connection to said people being coerced into “exercising their right to suicide.”

            1. This logic if applied generally is certainly not libertarian.

              If people are not given financial assistance when they are needy they will be ‘pressured’ to take work that is dangerous, or immoral, or what have you. If you ‘remove legal and ethical constraints’ on organ donation then people will be ‘pressured’ to donate their organs. Etc.

              It seems like you are trying to square some social conservative beliefs with libertarianism. You could easier square a circle.

              1. square some social conservative beliefs

                You have aptly called the belief of the Peanut Gallery here.

                They are basically conservative. They don’t give a fuck about liberty.

                That is why they hate me. I call their stupid bullshit out.

                1. There certainly are some people here who seem more conservative than libertarian, but if you notice in this very thread the majority of people seem to disagree with Eduard, so that undercuts your claim considerably.

                2. Oh, thank God you’ve arrived – I’m tired of being the only punching bag on this forum.

                  I can assure you, as someone who maybe knows a little bit about social conservatism, that most of the people here are *not* social conservatives. It would require considerable moron-icity to believe such an absurd claim.

                  1. (the above directed at PB)

                3. You have aptly called the belief of the Peanut Gallery here.

                  They are basically conservative. They don’t give a fuck about liberty.

                  That is why they hate me. I call their stupid bullshit out.

                  Obvious troll is obvious.

                  1. Yet people still talk to it.

                    I was once one of those people who couldn’t stop talking to PB. But I have recognized the error of my ways, and tried to make amends.

                    1. “I was once one of those people who couldn’t stop talking to PB. But I have recognized the error of my ways,”

                      I’ll go to confession, Irish.

                4. Palin’s Buttplug| 7.31.13 @ 7:56PM |#
                  “That is why they hate me”

                  No, shreek, we hate you because your a lying pile of shit.

                5. PBP – you are too funny. There’s one self-proclaimed conservative who is viewing these set of facts from a fundamentalist point of view – most known regulars are disagreeing strongly.

                  & then you drop by and act as if he’s preaching to the choir… even after almost everyone disagreed with the conservative.

                  Too funny

            2. “Just as handing out SSM licenses has a demonstrable connection to the holders of these licenses harassing private businesses”

              So, your solution is to decline equal protection so that some private businesses won’t be harassed?
              There’s a baby in that bathwater!

      2. Reminiscent of how the GOP converged to use federal power to attempt to “save” Terry Schiavo from herself.

        1. “”save” Terry Schiavo from herself.”

          This should be in the dictionary next to the definition of “question-begging.” The very issue in dispute in the Schiavo case involved what she wanted. She had no living will, and one might think that a person who doesn’t actually draw up a living will stipulating the circumstances in which she wants to die has left a reasonable doubt as to her wishes. Florida law apparently thinks differently. But don’t pretend that you have some special power to divine the wishes of someone who left no instructions whatsoever as to what to do if she was in a coma.

          1. So then leave it up to her husband.

            But it was the panty-waist GOP who could not handle reason. To them it was “up to Jeebus” on how Terry’s pitiful life ended.

            Well, I don’t believe in VooDoo like conservatives do and neither does the law.

            Her husband owned the call.

            1. “Her husband owned the call.”

              You’ve defined the problem, not solved it.

              Florida law is not self-evidently the Platonic ideal of what law ought to be. I don’t think that every state would give credence to an adulterous husband about whether his betrayed wife would want to die, especially when she hasn’t left a living will and her parents contest the very idea that she would want to off herself.

              (Not to Michael Schiavo’s lawyers – I’m not denying that Michael is a totally pure and disinterested person telling the truth about his wife’s wishes, simply that, as a matter of judicial proof, courts ought to have a strong presumption against his claims)

              1. Yes, there certainly is ambiguity in the law and survivor wishes, no doubt.

                But in the end Terry was already dead. You can’t explain that to conservatives.

              2. -I don’t think that every state would give credence to an adulterous husband about whether his betrayed wife would want to die

                When had he committed adultery?

                1. Well, just going by what Michael Schiavo said in an interview with Larry King…

                  “KING: True, you have a girlfriend?

                  “[Michael] SCHIAVO: Yes. And I am very fortunate…

                  “KING: Does it hurt the situation, do you think, as the way the public might look at you?

                  “SCHIAVO: From their side, I’m sure. But you know something? I’m fortunate to have two women in my life that I love very much….

                  “KING: She mentioned a child. You don’t have a child do you?

                  “SCHIAVO: Yes, I do.

                  “KING: With your girlfriend?

                  “SCHIAVO: Yes.”

                  I’m going way out on a limb here and guessing that if Michael Schiavo and his girlfriend produced a child, there was some adultery involved.

                  1. linky:

                    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA…..kl.00.html

                    1. OK, EvH, in the technical sense the husband did commit adultery.

                      So what?

                      Marriage is a constraint on freedom. Terry had no ownership rights to her husband’s future sperm.

                    2. I love words like “technical” and “technically.” It implies that the adultery was simply some minor and inadvertent oopsie like filling out TPS Report Form 546 rather than TPS Report Form 547.

                      Yeah, he inadvertently lived with his girlfriend and had a child – oopsie!

          2. Don’t feed it.

            1. You don’t believe in Voodoo, do you Scrufee?

              Should it be up to a dead Jew when you die if you are a vegetable?

              A dead Jew that will never speak again?

              That, in a nutshell, is what conservatives believe.

              1. They’re right – I shouldn’t have fed you.

              2. This is why so many think you a troll. No sane person thinks this kind of answer is interested in actual conversation.

                1. My comment directly above is directed at Palin’s B*ttplug and not Eduard who, though I vehemently disagree with, has presented his ideas civilly, intelligently and in a true spirit of honest discourse.

                  1. Bo Cara – here is my respectful reply to van Haalen:

                    Yes, there certainly is ambiguity in the law and survivor wishes, no doubt.

                    But in the end Terry was already dead. You can’t explain that to conservatives.

                    You read my flippant reply to Scrufee no doubt – he got what he deserved for his “Don’t feed it” bullshit.

                    See the difference?

                    1. I see, my error, though in other comments to Eduard above you’ve used a similar inflammatory tone (referring to ‘Jeebus’ and ‘VooDoo’)

                    2. “in the end Terry was already dead.”

                      Sorry, PB, that is downright creepy. If she were dead, there would be no need to withdraw her feeding tube, because…dead people don’t eat and drink.

                    3. Well EvH, I respect your demarcation on “life” but I just don’t have the same rigid POV of it.

                      When all quality of life is gone – you are dead if your body lives on anyway.

                    4. Well, if you’re eating and drinking you’re alive, even if your other functions are impaired.

                      (And I was *so* tempted to replace “eating and drinking” with “posting on the Internet,” but see, I restrained myself)

                    5. Eduard van Haalen| 7.31.13 @ 10:06PM |#
                      “Well, if you’re eating and drinking you’re alive,”

                      Simply receiving liquid nourishment is not ‘eating’, but I’ll grant that processing the nourishment into maintaining cell functions could be qualified as ‘living’.
                      You’d have a hard time arguing that as anything like a human life. If you want to claim that fungal infections are to be ‘protected’, go right ahead; they’re ‘alive’.

                    6. dead people don’t eat and drink.

                      Terry Shiavo wasn’t eating or drinking. If you’d handed her a glass of water she wouldn’t have taken a sip. She was forcibly being mechanically kept biologically functioning, with the exception of the entire part of her brain responsible for cognition and sentience. Let’s not pretend like she had a collapsed lung and they pulled off the respirator and let her die. The woman was brain dead. In the absence of a will, her husband got to make the call (that state made that decision by default through the sanctified and holy institution of civil marriage; awesome ain’t it?). The entire case, from a legal standpoint, was boilerplate.

    5. -remove the legal and ethical constraints and old folks will be pressured to “volunteer” for suicide

      If you used this logic in every area you would no longer be a libertarian.

      1. I *never was* a libertarian. I hang out with you guys because I think the pendulum has swung too far in the statist direction. But as I told the libertarians I associate with, if they ever got elected to office, I’d be in opposition.

        I am not one of Burke’s “political geometricians” who insulate themselves from real life and formulate rules about how human beings *ought* to be. Libertarians profess to be against such deliberate ignorance of human nature. No matter how geometrically neat it may seem to affirm the “right” of an 85-year-old man to “voluntarily” and “without pressure” choose suicide, the realities of the world in which we live will operate so that actual 85-year-olds lying on their hospital beds, with doctors and relatives telling them it’s time for them to go, will not conform to the heroic-individualism model of political geometry.

        1. The idea that ‘the realities of the world’ often work to deprive people of any meaningful ability to consent to things is probably the greatest spur to statism that exists. And your argument is worse: it is that this grant of liberty might lead to a situation where such realities and pressures exist.

          1. “The idea that ‘the realities of the world’ often work to deprive people of any meaningful ability to consent to things”

            You may have noticed that I didn’t make such a global claim; I am making obvervations about very old, very sick people lying prone in hospital beds where they’re being pressured to just die already. I happen to think that you can be worried about this situation without claiming that nobody in any situation can properly consent to anything ever.

            And note that the statist takeover of the medical system forms part of the context for this discussion, whether we like it or not.

            1. But this is general for statism. When it comes to the minimum wage or organ donation or gun rights we are told to think of the very poor, the desperate, the mentally ill, and most of all: the children. We’re supposed to make general policy based on these extreme cases.

              1. If a libertarian policy *demonstrably* hurts the poor, etc., then I might consider some non-libertarian ideas. But in practice, looking at your examples, the public interest tends to go with liberty. Eg, minimum wages freeze out the poor, taking away people’s guns tends to disarm the poor, etc. That’s why I often end up on your side. But if in a particular circumstance I can be convinced that pure, undiluted libertarianism is against the public interest, then I’m for the public interest.

                1. Then you should be interested in this:

                  -An independent study published in the October 2007 issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics reports there was “no evidence of heightened risk for the elderly, women, the uninsured, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses including depression, or racial or ethnic minorities, compared with background populations.”

                  From Wikipedia entry on Oregon Ballot Measure 16

                  1. Well, if I manage to get a copy of that study I may give a detailed reply to you.

                    I would, of course, be interested in the methodology of a study of what in the US at least is a fairly new policy. If they’re going by the example of the Netherlands (the most-publicized example of a country with a more-or-less official assisted suicide policy) I’ve heard enough people raising red flags that I’m skeptical about the Dutch (despite my faux-Dutch handle).

            2. You may have noticed that I didn’t make such a global claim; I am making observations about very old, very sick people lying prone in hospital beds where they’re being pressured to just die already.

              When I start a charity to fund cryonic suspension of such patients will you send a few bucks my way?

  3. Morphine goes a lot further when it is injected.Oral morphine is a waste.

    1. Injected morphine is the greatest feeling ever.

      I can definitely see how people might get addicted to Heroin.

      1. Indeed.

        This makes me wonder why my grandmother was in hospice care in Kansas and was able to tell the doctors she “was tired of suffering”. Apparently they gave her a large dose of morphine and let her go.

        The family was involved so maybe that’s why everything was okay?

        1. It’s a common practice that is not acknowledged for legal reasons. The hospice nurse in this case was probably offended because the daughter went around her.

      2. No shit. I’ve had it about 4 times (injected). You could have pulled me around the hospital by my wanker and I wouldn’t have cared.

        1. I had a self-administered drip (you could hit yourself up with a dose of morphine every 15 or twenty minutes) after having my heel reconstructed. On the last day I was going to have it, I decided to have some fun and maxed it out for a few hours. By the end I was so awesomely high that I felt like I was sinking into the bed.

  4. “Mancini’s father was later revived at the hospital only to die four days later after doctors gave him even more morphine to ease his pain.”

    If the prosecutor doesn’t have the good sense not to prosecute, then let’s hope one of the jurors has the sense to be adamant about the defendant not being guilty.

    1. Nah, he’ll probably just charge the doctor too.

  5. Remember, citizen, it’s not your life, you are merely renting it from the Government.

    1. Awesome, SF’d that link: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.c…..re-crisis/

    2. Banks won’t pay their property taxes on foreclosed and abandoned homes.

      1. Friend of mine in San Diego did pretty decent in a side business with a friend where they contracted with banks to take care of abandoned/foreclosed properties, ie: landscaping, minor repairs, etc. Kept vandalism down and kept value up.

      2. Why should they? Their buddy in the white house has it covered for them with some more tax payer money.

    3. “Yup, that’s nothing at all like redistributing wealth.”

      anon, they chose the poster-deadbeats well.
      One has lived in her house 50 years and it $200K upside down.
      One bought the house for $144K in 1999, it’s now worth $199K, but for some reason, the ‘owner’ can’t make the payments.
      No comments required…

  6. Soros has fought for all libertarian causes and prominent among those causes is the right to euthanasia.

    Open Society, bitches!

    1. Shut up, Shriek.

    2. You better Zyklon-Believe it!

    3. I have a skeptical about that. Doesn’t Soros always donate to statist causes?

      When is the last time that he donated to the LP? Or a Libertarian candidate?

      Is he the mysterious one who bailed out the kid who was jailed for talking trash on a game website?

      Links, please.

      1. Well, Soros has supported several libertarian causes with billions of his dollars.

        Namely, the anti-statist Rose, Orange, and Velvet Revolutions in Europe.

        Also he donates millions to pro-drug, pro-euthanasia, pro-immigration causes. He also fought fascism in the USA with his donations to defeat the GOP in 2004-08.

        1. Yeah, he really helped defeat fascism by helping Obama get elected. That’s why there’s no more foreign wars now, no spying on innocent citizens now, no more WOD, no more militarizing of our police now, no killing innocent people around the world with drones.

          Wow, I was so wrong about that guy.

          1. So, once again, I’m giving you the chance to prove you’re a serious person. I don’t know why. But, provide some links where Soros has supported American Libertarians? Show me some links where he has called out Obama over his total disregard for the rule of law and the lives of people around the world? I’m waiting.

            1. WASHINGTON ? George Soros ? the money manager and financier of left-wing causes ? turns out to be a fan of Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian economist whose Road to Serfdom, warning of the perils of central planning, has been a bestseller amid President Obama’s expansion of government.

              That was the message from Mr. Soros’s remarks here this afternoon at a Cato Institute forum.

              Mr. Soros described his own views, emphasizing “fallibility” and “reflexivity,” as “in accordance with Hayek’s ideas.” He said that in the late 1940s, as a student at the London School of Economics, he had come out “on Hayek’s side” against socialism, “scientism,” and central planning.

              Mr. Soros said he’d been “influenced” by Hayek. “He has had a big influence on my thinking,” Mr. Soros said, going on to describe government regulation as “a necessary evil.”

              “If you can avoid the regulation, you should,” Mr. Soros said, explaining that regulation tended to be bureaucratic, arbitrary, and influenced by special interests, and therefore more imperfect than markets.

              Cato.

              http://www.futureofcapitalism……-hayek-fan

              1. FAIL! That is extremely fucking lame.

                I said show me something that Soros has said or done, that supports Libertarian causes.

                Where was he when the Amash amendment went down by a narrow margin? What did he have to say about that? Is he going to contribute to Rand Pauls campaign in 2016? What Libertarian congressional candidates is he going to donate to in 2014?

                1. Capitalism is a libertarian cause – at least the last time I looked.

                  Soros is Hungarian by birth and that region has had huge anti-Communist struggles which Soros has supported with billions of US Dollars.

                  1. Free markets is a Libertarian cause, not cronyism.

                    From Wikipedia:

                    Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, $2.5 million to MoveOn.org, and $20 million[55] to America Coming Together. These groups worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election.

                    Those are all leftist and statist organizations through and through.

                    Soros don’t even know what the fuck a Libertarian is.

                    I already knew about him supporting legal weed. I’m not impressed with someone getting one issue right. It’s probably for all the wrong reasons.

                    1. Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, $2.5 million to MoveOn.org, and $20 million[55] to America Coming Together. These groups worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election.

                      But he said he likes Karl Popper! Clearly he’s a classical liberal, despite all of the statist groups he has provided funding for!

                  2. Ok..get to the part where Soros destroyed the economy of several Southeast Asian nations causing untold misery for a decade and a half.

                    1. Heroic Mulatto| 7.31.13 @ 8:54PM |#
                      “Ok..get to the part where Soros destroyed the economy of several Southeast Asian nations causing untold misery for a decade and a half.”

                      Not going for this.
                      Soros simply looked at the holes in the ‘managed economies’ and took the arbitrage on the damage.
                      The damage was caused by the ‘management’, not the trading on such foolishness.

                    2. Regardless of how Soros’ made his money, like many rich on the left he is not a capitalist. As a matter of fact, he has pushed for legislation which would deny US citizens the ability to make certain currency trades – the same type of trading that netted (according to reports – it was private money so not listed directly) Soros 3 billion.

                      How? He bet heavy that either the pound or the euro – I forget which – would fall.

                      Then he worked to get legislation passed which would stop anyone from being able to “bet” on the downside of anything.

                      I don’t know what you would call this – but certainly it’s not “capitalism” to get rich through analysis and investments in the currency market then to attempt to prevent anyone else from doing the same through force of law.

                    3. “I don’t know what you would call this – but certainly it’s not “capitalism””

                      I’d call it “rent seeking”, and I do not defend the person.
                      My comment was specific regarding the accusation that he was somehow at fault for the governments’ actions in SE Asia.

                2. He contributed considerable amounts to Propositions in California to legalize marijuana and for assisted suicide. Again, see his Wikipedia entry.

                  1. He contributed considerable amounts to Propositions in California to legalize marijuana and for assisted suicide. Again, see his Wikipedia entry.

                    So to sum up you will be controlled by your betters but you will be free to get wasted and to end it all when you can’t take it anymore.

                    Freedom.

                3. So you never heard of the Open Society Inst. and its Lindesmith Center? Just one of the biggest drug- and sex-law reform organiz’ns going. And how he was the bete noir behind the med mj (and med-everything in Ariz.) initiatives?

      2. He’s actually correct here (though true to experience leaving out some important things). Soros has indeed contributed to drug legalization and right to die causes (see his Wikipedia entry). Of course he’s also at times donated to considerably statist organizations as well.

        1. Example of his donations to “statist” organizations?

          Soros donated millions to defeat Bush fascism – a form of statism.

          1. Yeah, he donated to the Libertarian candidate, Obama, right?

            1. Soros is a rationalist or atheist (like I am). We consider rabid Wahabbi Christianity to be the biggest threat to freedom in the USA.

              Basically the GOP and Dems are a single point difference on tax rates.

              35% or 36%? Oh fucking Hell!

              Who cares?

              1. We consider rabid Wahabbi Christianity to be the biggest threat to freedom in the USA.

                Then the only difference between the 2 of you is that he is a billionaire bigot and idiot and you aren’t a billionaire.

                That statement is so fucking laughable that I’m done here.

                1. So you are a Wahhabi Christian then.

                  Sorry, but this site is dedicated to “Free Minds”.

              2. Soros is a rationalist or atheist (like I am). We consider rabid Wahabbi Christianity to be the biggest threat to freedom in the USA.

                So he set up a self-professed Christian who spent 20+ years attending church every week in the white house? He must be nearly as dumb a cunt as you are…

          2. The Center for American Progress has quite a few statist positions, Soros is a main contributor.

            1. There is no real debate going on here. I tried, but, see this:

              We consider rabid Wahabbi Christianity to be the biggest threat to freedom in the USA.

              It’s clearly not possible to reason with someone who makes such delusional comments as that.

              1. Really? The GOP is shutting down birth control clinics and demanding mandatory vaginal ultrasounds for unwilling women.

                Grow up, man. We need to rid ourselves of the American Taliban now.

                1. Wahabbi Christian and American Taliban? Seriously you can’t find an example of rabid and violent Christianity anywhere in history? Wahabbism and the Taliban are particular historical movements. Conflating American Christians being dickish about birth control with the Taliban spraying acid in the faces of women who dare to go to school trivializes how awful the Taliban’s actions are.

                  Please read Orwell’s Politics and the English Language a few times.

                    1. There’s a fun fact I’ll be filing away.

                    2. Yeah, among the Abrahamic faiths, Christianity is the outlier. Judaism teaches that life begins at the 40th day of the fetus’s development, and that’s not even from the core texts but from rabbinical judgements on Talumdic law.

                      Christianity shares its views with the Dharmic religions in that it agrees with both Buddhism and Hinduism that life begins at conception.

                  1. Don’t talk to it. In the best case scenario it is completely insane and mentally ill. In that case, you’re essentially goading a homeless man that is screaming at a light post.

                    The worst case scenario is that it is something far worse: a sockpuppet. In that case, you are feeding it.

                    It grows stronger from your hatred, Jesse. That’s how sockpuppets feed.

                    1. “jessi” has never confronted me here – you Irish lickspittle.

                      The D’s and R’s fight each other on small fringes – a point on the top tax rate for example.

                    2. It isn’t hatred. It’s just the part of me that thought he was going to be a school teacher bubbling up.

                  2. Please read Orwell’s Politics and the English Language a few times.

                    He did. But typical of his ilk, he confused he for a how-to manual.

                2. American Taliban

                  you are just too funny – really you need to stop – I cannot quit laughing at the over-the-top ridiculous fantasies you continue to assert.

                  Soros = capitalist

                  Reason has nothing but fundamentalist conservatives.

                  The US is close to a theocracy because conservative politicians want to use the same regulatory structure that liberal politicians have used for years to “make things safer”.

                  too funny

        2. BCE,
          How about ‘Soros isn’t a complete sleaze bag’ and leave it at that?

          1. It’s funny that shrike hates the jesus so bad that he’ll side up with nazis to fight the wassabi peas, or whatever.

            1. Shreek has daddy problems. I wish he’d try to find therapy somewhere other than here.

            2. NAZI’s? Fuck you. I hate all right-wingers.

              1. “NAZI’s? Fuck you. I hate all right-wingers.

                “As we have already seen, the New Plan, which effectively regulated the access of each and every German firm to raw materials, created a substantial new bureaucracy, which controlled the vital functions of a large slice of German industry”
                Pg 106, “The Wages of Destruction”, Adam Tooze, Viking 2007.
                Yep, really right wing!

              2. Nazis were left wingers. WWII in Europe was internecine fight with their commie and socialist brothers

            3. I hate Marxists too (left wing).

              FYI.

              1. So you’re kind of a man without a country then.

  7. You know, I could have solved this problem. She could have given me the morphine. Then I could have dumped most of it in my beer, and been none the worse for the wear, except a better beer buzz. Then I would have shared a little with the old man, but only enough to give him some temporary happiness, not enough to kill him.

    So see, we have learned a lesson here. From now on, if you have morphine to give away, call Hyperion, my services are free.

    1. Get a hypodermic and learn to hit a vein.
      It’s not hard. Dumb chick phlebotomists and retarded junkies can do it.

  8. I wonder why people try to kill themselves with morphine. It seems like it might be a little unpleasant, and it might fail. N2 seems like a better bet.

  9. Add another one to the “that shouldn’t be illegal” file.

  10. Am I the only one who at 1st read “Father Morphine” in the headline as referring to a priest? And that the woman had “handed” or “handled” him?

  11. Sometimes man, you jsut have to roll with it.

    http://www.Anon-Top.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.