78 replies to this topic

[Kaddict]

And the first part of what you said is what I was leaning toward... I mean, the selfish part of me wants to spend my final days with my kids and stuff, but I don't want them to see me like that, none of us would enjoy it that much, and if it costs me almost $200 just to see a PCP, I can't imagine what it would cost if I had a brain tumor or something crazy like that. Probably more than I'd make in my lifetime. I would be pleased that I taught my family well if I were in a coma and they took me off life support to save money. I'd rather it go to people or causes that would enjoy it and could use it better than I could.

Totally agree. Quality of life has to be considered. Living for an extra 6 months? Sounds great. Living for an extra 6 months in an ICU, not being able to do things you want to and it costing your family/the government $500k? Not so much...

[NeoVix]

I am 100% behind euthanasia. I think of it this way, if an able bodied ill person has the option of killing themselves, then why on earth should someone who can't physically do it have to live in pain for years and years rather than having the option of ending it all.

 

Also people should have the option of ending it all peacefully, rather than having to swallow a bunch of pills and vomit for hours before dying, or slitting your wrists, or leaving your body hanging somewhere for some poor person to find. By this I do not mean everyone should have the option of assisted suicide. But termanilly ill people who have no chance (or very slim chance) of getting better and such...

Edited by Vicky87, 26 April 2015 - 06:21 AM.

[Kaddict]

I am 100% behind euthanasia. I think of it this way, if an able bodied ill person has the option of killing themselves, then why on earth should someone who can't physically do it have to live in pain for years and years rather than having the option of ending it all.

 

Also people should have the option of ending it all peacefully, rather than having to swallow a bunch of pills and vomit for hours before dying, or slitting your wrists, or leaving your body hanging somewhere for some poor person to find. By this I do not mean everyone should have the option of assisted suicide. But termanilly ill people who have no chance (or very slim chance) of getting better and such...

 that is a tricky line though. Aren't we all dying? Where is the line? Also, it may be hard to say that a doctor helping someone commit suicide is "doing no harm."

[redlion]

that is a tricky line though. Aren't we all dying? Where is the line? Also, it may be hard to say that a doctor helping someone commit suicide is "doing no harm."

Yes we're all dying. There is no line. People are entitled to their own decisions regarding their body. Fundamental liberty.

Let me clear your mind about the doctor. The doctor is not violating medical ethics. Doctors are often faced with the prospect of causing harm no matter what they do, whether by action or inaction. Often it is the choice between a lesser and a greater harm. Hippocrates didn't say never kill, he said do no harm. If we take the absolutism out, and replace it with a sliding scale of harm, perhaps a short death would be less harmful than a prolonged agonizing death. Death is the last embrace of all life - how could that be harm, if one wishes to greet it willingly?

[Nymh]

I am 100% behind euthanasia. I think of it this way, if an able bodied ill person has the option of killing themselves, then why on earth should someone who can't physically do it have to live in pain for years and years rather than having the option of ending it all.

 

Also people should have the option of ending it all peacefully, rather than having to swallow a bunch of pills and vomit for hours before dying, or slitting your wrists, or leaving your body hanging somewhere for some poor person to find. By this I do not mean everyone should have the option of assisted suicide. But termanilly ill people who have no chance (or very slim chance) of getting better and such...

 

The difference is requiring the assistance of another person to end your life.  That's the muddy legal area that most doctors are unwilling to wade into.  An able-bodied person has the ability to take their own life in a variety of ways.  A non-ambulatory person is much more limited or completely helpless.  

 

I'm not sure how insurance companies would handle physician-assisted death, either.  I know it's legal in a few states (Washington, Oregon, Vermont and part of New Mexico) so I'm interested to see how insurance companies in those states address this issue or if it's just a completely non-covered service.  I'd be interested if anyone in those states can give some insight on what their particular health insurance says about it.

 

 that is a tricky line though. Aren't we all dying? Where is the line? Also, it may be hard to say that a doctor helping someone commit suicide is "doing no harm."

 

I imagine that the people this would cover are those who require a high amount of support to continue living.

[redlion]

The difference is requiring the assistance of another person to end your life.  That's the muddy legal area that most doctors are unwilling to wade into.  An able-bodied person has the ability to take their own life in a variety of ways.  A non-ambulatory person is much more limited or completely helpless.  
 
I'm not sure how insurance companies would handle physician-assisted death, either.  I know it's legal in a few states (Washington, Oregon, Vermont and part of New Mexico) so I'm interested to see how insurance companies in those states address this issue or if it's just a completely non-covered service.  I'd be interested if anyone in those states can give some insight on what their particular health insurance says about it.
 
 
I imagine that the people this would cover are those who require a high amount of support to continue living.

I would think, going from the case Kord posted a few pages up, that insurance agencies would be eager to get terminal patients off their roles, if they are even covered at all. If you didn't have insurance when you got cancer, it'd be damn hard to get it afterward.

[pancakemachine]

I have no issue with it as long as they can make the choice for themselves. As far as religious views go some of america's great founding fathers once said we shall not mix religion with the state. also not to mention the USA was founder to avoid religious persecution which in other words makes us hypocrites for making laws around religion   

[Kaddict]

Yes we're all dying. There is no line. People are entitled to their own decisions regarding their body. Fundamental liberty.

Let me clear your mind about the doctor. The doctor is not violating medical ethics. Doctors are often faced with the prospect of causing harm no matter what they do, whether by action or inaction. Often it is the choice between a lesser and a greater harm. Hippocrates didn't say never kill, he said do no harm. If we take the absolutism out, and replace it with a sliding scale of harm, perhaps a short death would be less harmful than a prolonged agonizing death. Death is the last embrace of all life - how could that be harm, if one wishes to greet it willingly?

There is a murky line though. Does depression suck? Yes. Should doctors help depressed people kill themselves? No. At what point can a doctor or a judge say that death was the lesser harm? I wouldn't want to be involved with it cuz that doc is gonna get sued. If people win lawsuits for spilling hot freaking coffee on their lap, then you can bet your princess panties that they will win a suit regard anything going on here (death wasn't quick/humane enough, death wasn't warranted etc). I don't feel that it is always wrong for a doc to assist in suicide, I just feel there is gonna be a litigation fuster for a long time and after it gets decided.

[pancakemachine]

There is a murky line though. Does depression suck? Yes. Should doctors help depressed people kill themselves? No. At what point can a doctor or a judge say that death was the lesser harm? I wouldn't want to be involved with it cuz that doc is gonna get sued. If people win lawsuits for spilling hot freaking coffee on their lap, then you can bet your princess panties that they will win a suit regard anything going on here (death wasn't quick/humane enough, death wasn't warranted etc). I don't feel that it is always wrong for a doc to assist in suicide, I just feel there is gonna be a litigation fuster for a long time and after it gets decided.

Well if they have a terminal illness it would be a lesser harm. If they truly want to also I'm pretty sure with how things are today there would be contracts involved and pretty much the doc would win the lawsuit at least a smart one would cases like the spilled coffee one are very rarely won

[redlion]

There is a murky line though. Does depression suck? Yes. Should doctors help depressed people kill themselves? No. At what point can a doctor or a judge say that death was the lesser harm? I wouldn't want to be involved with it cuz that doc is gonna get sued. If people win lawsuits for spilling hot freaking coffee on their lap, then you can bet your princess panties that they will win a suit regard anything going on here (death wasn't quick/humane enough, death wasn't warranted etc). I don't feel that it is always wrong for a doc to assist in suicide, I just feel there is gonna be a litigation fuster for a long time and after it gets decided.

You miss my point. A person needs not a reason to end their life. It doesn't matter if they're terminal, depressed, or healthy. The reason is inconsequential. The freedom to act is, however, consequential.

The sanctity of life is a religious notion. Don't foist that nonsense on me.

[pancakemachine]

You miss my point. A person needs not a reason to end their life. It doesn't matter if they're terminal, depressed, or healthy. The reason is inconsequential. The freedom to act is, however, consequential.

The sanctity of life is a religious notion. Don't foist that nonsense on me.

I agree but then disagree with what you stated. it is a persons life and should be their choice, but I disagree that it should be used for anything other then a terminal illness not just my moral views but politically and the mass majority of people wouldn't want people committing suicide 24/7 but if given the right reason many people wouldn't find it so heinous. 

[redlion]

How is it anyone's business? Do you think a ton of people would suddenly commit suicide if it were legal? Do you really think a legal impediment is going to stop anyone committing suicide in the first place?

[Swar]

People don't not(?) commit suicide because of the law lol

[pancakemachine]

How is it anyone's business? Do you think a ton of people would suddenly commit suicide if it were legal? Do you really think a legal impediment is going to stop anyone committing suicide in the first place?

well most people don't have the guts to pull the trigger but since it would be in someone else's hands it would be much easier with most depression cases counseling can prevent suicide and now if we allowed it for all cases then someone who is depressed could go to the doctor and not have to end it themselves 

[redlion]

Why do you view suicide as a bad thing? Why does it need to be prevented? Life ends all the time non-voluntarily. Why should someone who wants to do it themselves or with a little help be maligned?

[Frizzle]

The state has a legal and moral obligation to keep people safe and well. Whilst terminal assistance seems a positive step forwards, doling out cyanide tablets to everyone sad person seems destructive to the realms of society.

[pancakemachine]

Why do you view suicide as a bad thing? Why does it need to be prevented? Life ends all the time non-voluntarily. Why should someone who wants to do it themselves or with a little help be maligned?

Mainly because with a little counseling that opinion could change like frizzle said the state has a legal obligation to keep everyone safe and if you going to die then thats not safe now forcing someone to live with a terminal illness on the other hand could be considered cruel and unusual so it is just in that case in my opinion

[IceNine]

Other places with euthanasia, like the Netherlands, have specific conditions that must be fulfilled before someone's request for assisted suicide can be granted. They basically require that the patient's motivation isn't because of psychological illness like depression and look at the patient's suffering and prognosis and confirm that there isn't a chance that they'll get better. Under conditions like those, I think that people should definitely have the option for euthanasia/assisted suicide. 

[Kaddict]

You miss my point. A person needs not a reason to end their life. It doesn't matter if they're terminal, depressed, or healthy. The reason is inconsequential. The freedom to act is, however, consequential.

The sanctity of life is a religious notion. Don't foist that nonsense on me.

I think you missed my point. We aren't talking suicide, we are talking physician assisted suicide. A doctor's job is healing. what is it, 1/3 of American will have depression at some point? What should a doctor do, say "here, let me inject you with some friggen potassium, you will be dead and no depressed." I am not bringing religion into this, unless you were referring to someone else. But that gets messy for so many reasons. A doctor could become a serial killer and just say "well, they wanted me to kill them because they had x medical problem." When there is a very real possibility to heal someone, why would you allow the doctor to instead kill them? If the person wants to commit suicide and they are able to do so themselves, they should do it own their own. 

[NapisaurusRex]

So the obvious solution is to do it without doctor involvement, in dirty back alleys, with coat hangers.

[redlion]

I think you missed my point. We aren't talking suicide, we are talking physician assisted suicide. A doctor's job is healing. what is it, 1/3 of American will have depression at some point? What should a doctor do, say "here, let me inject you with some friggen potassium, you will be dead and no depressed." I am not bringing religion into this, unless you were referring to someone else. But that gets messy for so many reasons. A doctor could become a serial killer and just say "well, they wanted me to kill them because they had x medical problem." When there is a very real possibility to heal someone, why would you allow the doctor to instead kill them? If the person wants to commit suicide and they are able to do so themselves, they should do it own their own.

No, a doctor's job is to relieve suffering. Sometimes that relief takes the form of death. If we use your definition of the medical profession, no doctor could ever ethically take money from an AIDS patient. No one is ever 'healed' of AIDS.

Regarding the depression, fine. Doctors can have their own standards for who they want to help with this particular suffering. But like IceNine said, countries with legalized euthanasia have regulations so that the extreme conclusion you're reaching won't happen.

And yeah, I personally think that if I wanted to kill myself, I'd probably do it myself. But I respect the idea that some old person might want to die in their sleep from a painless cyanide or potassium injection, administered by a professional so it isn't fucked up and botched in some way. .

The state has a legal and moral obligation to keep people safe and well. Whilst terminal assistance seems a positive step forwards, doling out cyanide tablets to everyone sad person seems destructive to the realms of society.

Because that's what will happen. Cyanide pills mailed to every taxpayer.

[Kaddict]

No, a doctor's job is to relieve suffering. Sometimes that relief takes the form of death. If we use your definition of the medical profession, no doctor could ever ethically take money from an AIDS patient. No one is ever 'healed' of AIDS.

Regarding the depression, fine. Doctors can have their own standards for who they want to help with this particular suffering. But like IceNine said, countries with legalized euthanasia have regulations so that the extreme conclusion you're reaching won't happen.

And yeah, I personally think that if I wanted to kill myself, I'd probably do it myself. But I respect the idea that some old person might want to die in their sleep from a painless cyanide or potassium injection, administered by a professional so it isn't fucked up and botched in some way. .
Because that's what will happen. Cyanide pills mailed to every taxpayer.

First, healing is different than curing. With AIDS, docs do the only thing they can do. Treat symptoms and prevent spread and prevent infection of sicknesses that would kill the immunocompromised. The point I was making is that there is a murky line. It isn't just "md assisted suicide should always/never be allowed" like you were implying earlier. It is murky as hell. Quality of life, health, happiness etc exists on a spectrum, thus there is inevitably a line. 

[FelisNoctua]

Wow. What a murky, and passionate, topic. Let me try to be succinct.

I am for assisted suicide, right to death, and other phrases/jargon that means "While I am now in my right mind, I no longer wish to live and experience this pain/dementia/disability that leads me to feel my quality of life is so low that even ice cream cannot solve it." While I wish and hope that people with full mental faculties and a future (physical disabilities, depression) would seek counseling for a good long time (amorphous time frame) before choosing such a path, I can understand why a person would want to end their life. Being an atheist, I worry that people might believe a "better life" awaits them and choose to die sooner than if they did not believe that option, but as a biologist I think the instinct to live (fear of death) keeps the numbers on both side of that messy divide pretty even. 

 

That totally was not succinct. Right to death: yes. Assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness, dementia, yes. Assisted suicide in cases of depression, loss, physical disability, I don't want to take their choice away from them, but I want them to be strongly counseled to try therapy first. 

 

The idea that it is or would be or could be "illegal" to commit suicide is preposterous. Whom exactly does one fine in that case? The legality of the situation means little. The "what would happen to them" has already been processes, digested, discarded. NOT being a psychologist I would still argue they believe their families would be better off. I don't want that to be a factor in their decision, but that takes counseling. I believe if faced with a painful life-altering/ending disease I might choose to end my life. But, only after I could no longer enjoy ice cream. I'm not being flippant either. There have been some dark days, when the fact that I could have a Blizzard, has been that absurd reason to not do anything stupid. To each their own.

[Emily]

http://www.npr.org/s...n-dying-measure

 

Colorado has joined the handful of states that allow terminally ill patients to end their lives with medicine prescribed by a doctor.

 

Voters passed Proposition 106 by a 65 percent to 35 percent margin.

 

The fight pitted those who think the terminally ill should have the choice to end their lives if they choose to do so against those who think it's morally wrong and that people might be pressured into ending their lives.

[smashie90]

I don't think people should tell others what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. If I had a disease that would kill me just let me get it over with. i don't want people to remember me for being sick I want them to remember the good times. Good for her for having the courage to do this.