Should doctor assistanted suicide be legal?

[IHL]

This topic is before the Supreme Court. I'm curious how people on this site feel about his topic. I'll withhold sharing my opinion for a few days.

[Bumblebee]

Yes, I do believe it should be legal. One of the reasons I believe this is because of my mother. Doctors didn't give her more than a year to live. She even asked the doctors to assist her to die.

In that year, I had to watch my mother go to skin and bones, not to mention the pain and suffering she went through. I know back then I agreed with the doctors not to help her die, but that was purely selfish on my part. I wanted to keep her as long as I could.

I was very close to my mother and it was the worst year of my life just watching my mother deterorating. She tried to kill herself once during that time.

She was always wishing she would die now, not in a year with all that suffering. I know that it was against her religion, but until you're in her place, don't knock it.

I read an article once, and you would be surprised at how many elderly people save their sleeping pills with lots of booze in their closets just in case they can't bear it anymore.

[IHL]

Ok, I can't wait. You are exactly correct BB. And it sounds like I wrote that myself. I went through an almost identical situation. To be fair, my mother never expressed a desire to die or to kill herself, but if she had wanted to, she should have been allowed to.

Until you go through it yourself, it is easy to stand and judge and bring religion into it. This is not about religion. If you want religion to run your life, fine. But don't let your religion run mine.

I completely agree with you and I'm guessing most people here will disagree with us.

[Android]

I can't judge because I have never been in that situation before, until I have I have no opinion.


Dito.

Also, we Oregonians voted on this already. Back then (I believe it was Janet Reno) Decided to let all the Doctors know that they would be prosecuted if they did assist in any suicides. Now its coming around again. Do you believe that once the state of Oregon voted, or any state for this matter, shouldn't this be over with? What good is your vote if the feds step in and decide not to count it? We went through the same thing with legalized marijuana too. The feds keep stepping in on these and I'm not completely clear on how this legal matter keeps getting pushed around. These are actually questions and not just smart ass comments, like usuall:) Anyone?

[All American Kid]

First let me groan about this being another violation of states rights. It is the states to set the standards of licensed practices. With that said I will not cop out without stating an opinion. I know a lot more about the dieing process than I care to share. I know about seeing long drawn out deaths that are painful. I feel that if that person should want the process to be helped out that should be an option being the person is in capable mind to make such decisions.

I’m not however comfortable with a death date go get hooked up to a carbon monoxide machine and ending your life. Christopher Reeves spoke about how he wanted his life to end then at the end he was happy and lived out the rest of his life fulfilled. I don’t want sudden, emotional decisions that are so final be so accessible. I didn’t comment too much on the Shaivo case and don’t intend to resurrect that argument but I believe that the right decision was made in that instance. I also believe that it would be beneficial to have a hospice practice that helps and aids in the death process. --AAK

[IHL]

I don't agree. If you can't make the decision for yourself, or haven't already come the to conclusion and documented it legally, then no one else has the right to make that choice for you. I'm not talking about those on life support. Nothing has changed there. I'm talking about people who are of sound mind, who know they are going to die a slow painful death with no hope of recovery, should have the right to allow for their own death.

When you think about it, what is so different here. I already have the ability. I could easily go into my closet, pull out one of my guns and blow my head off. I could save up a bunch of pills and wash them down with a pint a booze. I could drive me car into tree. The point here is that all of the above ways mean putting someone else in a horrible position to have to deal with me afterwards. I wouldn't want my loved ones finding my headless body in the living room or having to identify my mangled body from a wrecked car. If I know I have cancer and will be dead in 6 months and I know that the way I die is going to be slow, painful, and expensive, what is the point. My mind is fine. Let me decide. PERIOD.

Christopher Reeves is not a good example. Sure, he had a raw deal, but there was nothing indicating his imminent demise. He did not have a terminal disease. He aren't talking about being able to walk into a clinic after a bad day at the track and asking the doctor to give you a shot of the blue juice. We are talking about very specific sets of conditions that would allow for this.

This is open and shut to me. It is my life. It is not a life of someone else so it doesn't relate to the death penalty. It's not about the unborn, so the abortion analogy doesn't work either.

[Wadi66]

Nope. I guess my vote is the lone "no" vote.
Most of you know me to be a religous person, but I'm not bringing religion into this. Rather it is my utter contempt for the medical profession. They know their medicine doesn't "cure" anything so they simply address the symptoms. You folks are aware aren't you that a cure for cancer DOES exist. A cure for Aids DOES exist. But the medical community won't tell you that. There are more people working in the cancer industry than there are who actually have cancer.

With all due respect to those who have witnessed suffering, rather than place your expectations in the hands of those who are only slightly better educated than you, start looking for solutions to help the one you love.

Been there, done that.

[All American Kid]

Yes the comparison to Reeves is not totally pertinent, but the idea I’m trying to get to is that his prognosis was not good for that injury; death would inevitably be a result. At any point in time he did have the legal power to say okay pull the vent and let whatever happens happen. But he chose not to and found a peace or purpose in his last day well yes quite a few last days since the accident but nevertheless did well with limitations.

So go to the cancer patient that has a poor prognosis. Sure they can’t just say pull the tube and the question is that could we afford them the same options as the ventilator dependent patient by offering assisted suicide. Now thinking about it, what one may seem they want at the moment may not be what they actually would want in the long run. So I do not see how they could make an informed decision about assisted suicide or not. What I am in favor of is that when the process has reached such a time where death is eminent, that the caretaker would be allowed to put management of pain above all else if the person in care should choose that course of action. This way there is a standard of treatment that can be measurable.

Of course if Oregon wants this, it is their standard they want and far be it for me to stick my nose in their business. --AAK

[Guns R Cool]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Catholics believe that if you kill yourself you go straight to Hell.

[Topiary Lady]

I've never understood how people can be in favor of putting a beloved pet 'to sleep' when it is ill and suffering and call it an act of kindness, but will not accept offering this same option to a human being at the end of their life. Don't anyone bother telling me about the difference between a human and an animal either. I get all that.

Live long enough and we'll all witness a loved ones suffering. My husbands sister was ill and completly bed ridden for over a year. She used to beg me to kill her when I would visit. It was not just the physical suffering, but also the indignity of laying in a bed wearing a diaper and drooling all over ones self knowing that death would not come quick enough. I would want to die too in that position.

A dignified death for a human being that requests this at the end of their life should be available. Set aside the emotional and financial burden to loved ones. This is about the ultimate act of love and letting someone pass on to a better place instead of forcing them to suffer on.

Don't be so down on Dr's Wadi. There are some good ones out there who really do care about the individual needs of patients. They might be hard to come by, but they do exhist.

[Guns R Cool]

Nope. I guess my vote is the lone "no" vote.
Most of you know me to be a religous person, but I'm not bringing religion into this. Rather it is my utter contempt for the medical profession. They know their medicine doesn't "cure" anything so they simply address the symptoms. You folks are aware aren't you that a cure for cancer DOES exist. A cure for Aids DOES exist. But the medical community won't tell you that. There are more people working in the cancer industry than there are who actually have cancer.

With all due respect to those who have witnessed suffering, rather than place your expectations in the hands of those who are only slightly better educated than you, start looking for solutions to help the one you love.

Been there, done that.

You want to offer proof that there are cures for cancer and AIDS?

[Wadi66]

Guns, #1 cancer cells grow and thrive in an acidic environment (your body) #2 Cancer cells can not survive in an oxygen rich environment #3 ALL infected cells explode and die at frequencies substantionally less than is required to kill healthy cells. The latter technology was first discovered around the 1930's by Dr. Rife http://rife.org/I have known 2 people with AIDS whose condition went into remission (a medical technical term) after rebuilding and balancing their body's chemistry. One took an herbal combination, the other supplements.

[IHL]

MC, you are mixing things here. There already provisions for the sort of thing you are talking about. Legal documents can be set up that give another person the power you are talking about regarding caring for a loved one. I was that person for my mother. If it had come to it, I had the power to 'pull the plug' and it was her wish I do so. Thankfully, it never came to that.

She also had a "DNR" request. This is a legal order to "Do not resuscitate", which means no artificial means to support her life. This included breathing machines, heart lung machines and even CPR. Is this so different from letting someone die? That is essentially what a DNR order is. Even if CPR could have saved her, the order clearly states that medical professionals were not to perform CPR on her. It was her choice. She made these choices before her final days when she had plenty of time to think them over. Most people already have those decisions made.

Wadi, I'll have to disagree with you on this one. I think TL sums it up well with the pet euthanasia example. How many times do we hear 'put it out of it's misery' and how humane it is to stop the animal from suffering. Yet under exactly the same conditions we will literally force someone, and their loved ones, from performing the same humane treatment to a person. It has no logic - it is all just based on emotion.

Again, we are talking about very specific conditions here.


Well yeah but if you are of sound mind typically you can find a way to kill yourself.
Exactly my point. I can already do it. I already have that power, until the time when I need it most. When I may be too weak or too supervised to carry out my own wishes. I should probably leave it at that. This one is a no-brainer for me. To force a terminally ill person to live in a horrible state is inhuman.

[Wadi66]

IHL, I understand your position. I don't however consider DNR or withholding CPR as assisting in suicide. Rather, to my mind, its allowing nature to take its course. To me, assisted suicide takes the form of injections or whatever, to speed the onset of death.

Unlike you, we did have to activate my mother's DNR.

[shotdrops286]

If a person wants to die i say let them. We can then have more beds in the hospital and therefore provoid people wh owant to live with medical treatment.

[Wadi66]

MC, did you check out the site I furnished? As for the catch. Heck yes there is a catch. The catch is money. If you're healthy, Dr's don't make as much, neither do the pharmacutical companies. You didn't actually think they were interested in healing you did you? Check out natural healing. There is more out there than you can shake a stick at. Maybe if I have time tonight I can get some more links.

Edit: The President of the American Medical Assoc. wanted to buy the patent from Dr Rife. Rife wouldn't sell it (he knew it would be round filed), the AMA Pres. sued him and drove him into bankruptcy. But the technology survived.

[Madcowhunter]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Catholics believe that if you kill yourself you go straight to Hell.

Technically, you are not killing yourself. The doctor is.

[Icer]

Yes, as long as I get to choose who dies. sheBAMMMMM

[Dagummit]

Wadi, I'll vote no with you. I haven't seen it myself (someone dying like that) but it still boils down to taking someone innocent's life. I see it as murder...now please don't start bashing me everyone, that is just how I feel about it.

[Dagummit]

IHL, I understand your position. I don't however consider DNR or withholding CPR as assisting in suicide. Rather, to my mind, its allowing nature to take its course. To me, assisted suicide takes the form of injections or whatever, to speed the onset of death.

Unlike you, we did have to activate my mother's DNR.

I also feel that DNR's are wrong as well, if a person can be recusitated (sp?), then it should the duty of the doctor or person performing the emrgency treatment to do all that is possible to save that person's life.

[RLord4268]

I don't agree. If you can't make the decision for yourself, or haven't already come the to conclusion and documented it legally, then no one else has the right to make that choice for you.


I agree completely. I dont know if bringing the doctors into it though would be a good idea. The terry schiavo case for example, there was no real documneted evidence that she told the husband she wanted to be taken off of life support. And she was not brain dead. The Husband jsut decided that it was time to end her life. It's like damn euthanasia, why dont we just kill all the mentaly retarded too. Zieg Heil!. Sorry, Ranting a bit. I just dont trust someones will to die (or not) in the hands of a doctor.

[tronpants]

I'm gonna have to give the thumbs down on this one. I've seen my aunt die of cancer and my grandfather die in a hospital bed, and although they were in great pain, their deaths were natural. If the country allows this to pass, what's next? It would be a shame to see an America where killing became OK. I can just see this leading to a steady decline in the value of life.

Life is much too precious to waste, even if that life is "below standards."

[Yankee Doodle]

I agree so strongly one one particular point IHL makes: that this is not about religion.

There is dignity desired by the well-governed in life as much as there should be dignity for the well-governed in death.

Dignity is a virtue which we rightfully seek along any part of our journey through life and, likewise/including, death.

[LiberalsAreBabyKillers!]

I don't because it creates an atmosphere that will eventually allow a bunch of other questionable this to be leagalized.

[LiberalsAreBabyKillers!]

Technically, you are not killing yourself. The doctor is.


OH BULLSHIT that's just a ====ing technicality!