Assisted Suicide

[jonathan7]

Much has been in the British media this week about the topic of assisted suicide, do you think it should or shouldn't be allowed?

 

Example; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5337761.ece

 

Please don't make me regret creating this topic - j7

[Achilles]

Yes, it should absolutely be allowed.

 

If an animal is suffering and can't be helped, the "humane" thing to do is help it die a quicker death. If an human is suffering and can't be helped, the "ethical" thing to do is prolong the suffering as long as possible. Logical disconnect?

[Bee Hoon]

Good topic!

 

My feelings on this has always been ambivalent--on one hand, there is church dogma dictating that suicide is a fast track to hell and that life is sacred (which I still think it is). On the other hand, is it really right to be the one to dictate how a person should live the remainder of his/her life?

 

And the fact remains that it does boil down to a question of quality of life. For example, how happy can you be if you're bedridden? It's painful to watch, and presumably even worse to experience. How many people would like to lie inert, fed through a tube, diapered, being bathed by someone else?

 

As with all things, there is also the potential for abuse--I vaguely recall pressure from relatives being cited as an example. I recall that the answer to that was to smother it in regulations, e.g. counseling by a few independent psychologists/psychiatrists, being offered palliative care, etc.

 

Yet, in the end, my reluctant conclusion is that I would support it--if only because I fear the day when I will not be given this freedom to choose.

[Astor]

I think it should be allowed, only so long as it is the person's choice (although, I guess it wouldn't be suicide then).

 

I for one wouldn't like to live like that, with no hope of cure, or treatment, just to waste away, and having to rely on others for basic things (hygiene, food, etc).

[mimartin]

Most of my life I’ve been adamantly opposed to any type of suicide. I’ve always felt that life is the most precious thing and should not be squandered. However, as I have gotten older my view has changed. I still believe life is precious, but I have come to understand that the quality of life is just as important as the quantity of life.

 

I watched my father and stepmother waste away due to the ravages of cancer. I’m watching my stepfather slowly waste away with bone cancer now. While I find their battle noble and an inspiration to all, it is heart sickening to me to watch people I love and who have had the greatest influence on my life slowly become a shell of their former self. I watch my father go from a 230 lbs man that I thought was indestructible to a man I could pick up and carry with very little effort on my part.

 

My father battled colon cancer for the better part of 10 years. It spread from the colon to the lungs and finally to the brain. He submitted to the treatments even though at times they seemed worse than the disease. Finally after the cancer spread the fourth time to the brain he refused treatment. It was a decision which at the time I disagreed with, but since it was his decision I did not voice my displeasure with that decision. They gave him 7 months to live.

 

He lived 8 hours away from me, but I went to visit twice a month. We went hunting, fishing and camping every other weekend for those 7 months. For the first time in my life I got to know my dad. He ended up living 11 months.

 

The last two months are very difficult remembering, my last visit was Christmas. I arrived Christmas morning about 10 am. He had been complaining about the noise the ceiling fan had been making, so that is what I gave him for Christmas. I put it up, under his watchful eye. When I finished he told me to get a shotgun that I had killed my first deer with. I was afraid what his next request would be, but what he said even shocked me more. He told me to put it in my car. That was the moment I knew this would be my last visit with my father. He slipped in a coma that night and died 2:37 am the next morning. I set and watch him struggle for his last breath.

 

After witnessing someone I love suffer before finally succumbing to their illness I have changed my view of assisted suicide. While I still cherish life and would really have a difficult time ending another person’s life, I don’t really know any longer if that is more difficult than watching them suffer. I hope none of us are ever put in that position.

[jrrtoken]

It should absolutely be allowed, but there should be a few qualifications. First, the "suicidee" should have a legal document showing consent. Second, the suicidee must be determined by a practicing doctor that he/she will eventually die within a certain time period, I.E., a physically healthy person cannot be allowed to be euthanized just due to his/her own will.

[CommanderQ]

I would think such a procedure would have good intentions, but I'm probably against the idea. Good intentions like this can often be driven in the wrong direction. Who determines the euthanization? Yes, there could be a patients consent, but what if they're not in their right mind? Doctors could take this into their own hands and ultimately play god with people's lives, and decided whether or not the person's life is meant to end or continue. I'm probably against it, though, I like to study history, and in history, mankind has often made decisions like this, that were not often the best. I know that the Nazis did something similar, if not the same, all under the justification of "a life not worth living." When I believe in fact, that life is worth living, and you may be bedridden and in pain, but you make the most of it, you to rise above the crisis, and persevere. Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, I would think life is worth living, even in pain, sometimes that pain makes everything else more worthwhile. My opinion...

[jonathan7]

I would think such a procedure would have good intentions, but I'm probably against the idea. Good intentions like this can often be driven in the wrong direction. Who determines the euthanization? Yes, there could be a patients consent, but what if they're not in their right mind? Doctors could take this into their own hands and ultimately play god with people's lives, and decided whether or not the person's life is meant to end or continue. I'm probably against it, though, I like to study history, and in history, mankind has often made decisions like this, that were not often the best. I know that the Nazis did something similar, if not the same, all under the justification of "a life not worth living." When I believe in fact, that life is worth living, and you may be bedridden and in pain, but you make the most of it, you to rise above the crisis, and persevere.

 

You seem to have entirely missed the point of the topic; if someone is terminally ill and in a considerable amount of pain (either physical or mental) - should they have the right to assisted suicide?

 

That is a very different proposition to the Nazi programmes of the 1930's which was just murder; while there is a slippery slope, I get the feeling, perhaps you didn't quite understand the question?

 

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, I would think life is worth living, even in pain, sometimes that pain makes everything else more worthwhile. My opinion...

 

But should your opinion effect others? You may want to live, but having not been there, how do you really know?

[CommanderQ]

You seem to have entirely missed the point of the topic; if someone is terminally ill and in a considerable amount of pain (either physical or mental) - should they have the right to assisted suicide?

 

That is a very different proposition to the Nazi programmes of the 1930's which was just murder; while there is a slippery slope, I get the feeling, perhaps you didn't quite understand the question?

 

I thought this thread was on voicing your opinions on the subject, I thought I did that.

 

Well, if I did not properly understand the subject, I will try to get back on track.

 

I do not know for sure, but if the decision were forced upon me, I might say no, due to my opinions and beliefs. The right may work for the people, but still, one should not abandon life so easily, even while in pain. It is a very slippery slope as you said, it wouldn't be good if doctor's were allowed to practice such a thing freely, it would be very dangerous, and echoing of the 1930s of the Third Reich. When someone is in a great amount of pain and suffering, that is when people will fall back on the life not worth living motif. The Nazis did the same thing, and not just because they wanted to murder someone, they did it often to save time, and they justified it with those sayings. This isn't all that different, if you don't mind me saying. I'd be very much against it, once again due to my beliefs and opinions. The choice could be open, yes, but if the person wanted the pain to end, why end everything? Is it so worth suicide to destroy everything that you loved or loves you, and abandon everything that is good? Making a person continue in life may be the best way to go, because through it, they may find the true quality of life. My opinion on the matter, though, would have to be no, though I'm going to remain nuetral on the matter for now.

[jonathan7]

I thought this thread was on voicing your opinions on the subject, I thought I did that.

 

Well, if I did not properly understand the subject, I will try to get back on track.

 

Okies, crossed wires perhaps, though I don't think what is being suggested is much like the Nazi example you are using, here's the difference;

 

In the proposed legislation, if someone is terminally ill and in a lot of pain and they want to die, they should have the right to choose.

 

What the Nazi's did was against people's will kill them - do you see the difference? One is a choice for the ill person, the other is forcing death upon an individual.

 

This isn't all that different, if you don't mind me saying. I'd be very much against it, once again due to my beliefs and opinions. The choice could be open, yes, but if the person wanted the pain to end, why end everything? Is it so worth suicide to destroy everything that you loved or loves you, and abandon everything that is good?

 

Are these not decisions the individual should be allowed to make? In one of the cases, the parents helped their son commit suicide even though they didn't want him to, as it was his wish. Personally, whatever my own religious inclinations, I think that this is a family decision.

 

Making a person continue in life may be the best way to go, because through it, they may find the true quality of life.

 

How, if your in pain and going to die, what quality of life do you have?

 

My opinion on the matter, though, would have to be no, though I'm going to remain nuetral on the matter for now.

 

Fair enough

[Chevron 7 locke]

I feel that It should be allowed. if someone wants to kill themself but they can't do it by themselves, then they should be allowed to have help in doing so

[Rathoris]

it's not suicide.... . Euthanasia is the word your looking for. And i'm glad to live in a country were it's legal. Obviously there should be strict control but it should be an option for people in extreme situations. imho anyway...

[True_Avery]

My grandfather told us all that he would like us to assist him in his death if he were to ever have to be kept alive by machines due to his age, illness, etc. He had a fear of the whole concept of being kept alive no matter what by the hospital. Luckily, it never came to that as he died in his sleep, but it opened my eyes to a few things.

 

I'm not obligated by any moral code other than my own, and while I somewhat think that life is "precious", I also understand the hypocrisy that we hold for it. If I feel I should be able to do it, then I wont be a hypocrite by dening it to others, thus why I am in support of things like Abortion, Assisted "Suicide" by Doctor, etc.

 

Being completely helpless, trapped in my body possibly to the point of not even being able to move is my greatest fear. I have told my family that if I am ever in a situation where I am just a vegetable, injured beyond saving, being literally kept alive permanently by a hospital bed, etc that I'd like to be refused treatment instead of sitting a prison for the rest of my life.

 

If others wish the same, then I wont stop them.

[Pho3nix]

Yes, it should absolutely be allowed.

 

If an animal is suffering and can't be helped, the "humane" thing to do is help it die a quicker death. If an human is suffering and can't be helped, the "ethical" thing to do is prolong the suffering as long as possible. Logical disconnect?

QFT.

 

We should have the right to decide what we do with our lives.

...When I believe in fact, that life is worth living, and you may be bedridden and in pain, but you make the most of it, you to rise above the crisis, and persevere. Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, I would think life is worth living, even in pain, sometimes that pain makes everything else more worthwhile.

 

That's easy for you to say. I don't think any of us who haven't lived through a sickness can imagine what it's really like.

[Rev7]

This is a really hard, for me at least. I absolutely despise suicide, but if the person is in pain and wants to die who am I to stop him/her? The same thing is done with animals, but we are talking about humans, though technically we are animals. Really complicated.

 

One question though, say that you are in a hospice and your family wants to pull the plug on you, for legit reasons, isn't that similar to assisted suicide? Yes I know that there probably wouldn't be consent, but is this similar? (Hope I am clear enough...)

[jrrtoken]

This is a really hard, for me at least. I absolutely despise suicide,

That's why we've coined a friendlier term: euthanasia!

One question though, say that you are in a hospice and your family wants to pull the plug on you, for legit reasons, isn't that similar to assisted suicide? Yes I know that there probably wouldn't be consent, but is this similar? (Hope I am clear enough...)

It depends on whether or not the person is greatly suffering, either physically or mentally. If one of those factors are met, and if it is in the patient's best interests, then I'd consider assisted suicide to be acceptable, in that scenario.

[SW01]

A very, very awkward question...

 

Personally, I am a little dubious about a defence of euthanasia. Not because of any particular religious or moral ground, but because it is open to abuse if it is simply applied.

 

If there were conditions applied, it would be more acceptable. I am all for self-determination, but the last thing I want to see is a new situation that evil people can use for their own ends, as in, the outright murder of a person that happens to be seriously ill, then raising a defence of euthanasia.

 

I think that the following should be conditional: at least two doctors (at a more senior level), familiar with the case, should have to sign off to the fact that recovery is next to impossible. The person in question should make a statement to the effect that s/he wishes to die, witnessed, again, by at least two people - say a family member and a solicitor. Then and only then should the defence be available, where there can be little doubt as to its authenticity.

[Litofsky]

Personally/morally/ethically, I've got no problem with "Assisted Suicide," so long as the proper forms have been completed, and such (for some reasons, I foresee many issues resulting with the paperwork/actual suicide), the person being interviewed alone included (no outside influences would help, as opposed to being with someone else during the final documentation).

 

If a person is suffering, or simply doesn't want to be on this planet anymore, I've got no problem if they remove themselves in a peaceful/orderly manner.

 

Of course, many 'false suicides' might occur, such as a person being killed when they didn't wish to go through with it in the end, someone's murder being covered up as an 'assisted suicide,' and more. The question remains, as it always has, 'Will the benefits outweigh the risks?' In order to ensure that the benefits do outweigh the risks, a large amount of regulation and oversight would be necessary, in my opinion. (note: oversight should not preclude someone from doing what they wish with their life)

 

Only a slightly similar topic: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21279/21279-h/21279-h.htm

[EnderWiggin]

I'm going to enjoy this: I wrote a term paper on it in an ethics class so I've already done a bit of research

 

I would think such a procedure would have good intentions, but I'm probably against the idea. Good intentions like this can often be driven in the wrong direction. Who determines the euthanization? Yes, there could be a patients consent, but what if they're not in their right mind? Doctors could take this into their own hands and ultimately play god with people's lives, and decided whether or not the person's life is meant to end or continue.

 

For answers to all your questions and more: see the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.

 

The fact that it's not being abused and it's working currently should indicate that it can be properly regulated. Your slippery slope argument fails

 

BTW, Washington State passed an initiative that legalized it this past election.

 

I know that the Nazis did something similar, if not the same, all under the justification of "a life not worth living." When I believe in fact, that life is worth living, and you may be bedridden and in pain, but you make the most of it, you to rise above the crisis, and persevere. Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, I would think life is worth living, even in pain, sometimes that pain makes everything else more worthwhile. My opinion...

Goodwin's Law, well done. Actually, it's nothing like what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s-1940s. A few other countries (Belgium and Switzerland come to mind) also have working assisted suicide programs, and AFAIK Quebec will be soon following.

 

Also, I'd like to remind you that you can "think life is worth living, even in pain" but until you're dying slowly of cancer over 9 months with chemo/radiation treatments poisoning your body while the cancer causes it to shut down you can't judge.

 

You seem to have entirely missed the point of the topic; if someone is terminally ill and in a considerable amount of pain (either physical or mental) - should they have the right to assisted suicide?

 

That is a very different proposition to the Nazi programmes of the 1930's which was just murder; while there is a slippery slope, I get the feeling, perhaps you didn't quite understand the question?

 

 

 

But should your opinion effect others? You may want to live, but having not been there, how do you really know?

 

Of course, all that I just said is in agreement with J7's well-written post. Thanks Jon

 

This is a really hard, for me at least. I absolutely despise suicide, but if the person is in pain and wants to die who am I to stop him/her? The same thing is done with animals, but we are talking about humans, though technically we are animals. Really complicated.

 

....You don't seem to be making a point here Do you agree with the idea that euthanasia should be legal? is morally/ethically ok?

One question though, say that you are in a hospice and your family wants to pull the plug on you, for legit reasons, isn't that similar to assisted suicide? Yes I know that there probably wouldn't be consent, but is this similar? (Hope I am clear enough...)

You're on life support and you're in a vegetative state? Your family pulls the plug because that's what you wanted?

 

See passive euthanasia. Not actually assisted suicide but yes, similar. In that case, you're just withholding something vital (id est food)

 

Personally/morally/ethically, I've got no problem with "Assisted Suicide," so long as the proper forms have been completed, and such (for some reasons, I foresee many issues resulting with the paperwork/actual suicide), the person being interviewed alone included (no outside influences would help, as opposed to being with someone else during the final documentation).

 

If a person is suffering, or simply doesn't want to be on this planet anymore, I've got no problem if they remove themselves in a peaceful/orderly manner.

 

Of course, many 'false suicides' might occur, such as a person being killed when they didn't wish to go through with it in the end, someone's murder being covered up as an 'assisted suicide,' and more. The question remains, as it always has, 'Will the benefits outweigh the risks?' In order to ensure that the benefits do outweigh the risks, a large amount of regulation and oversight would be necessary, in my opinion. (note: oversight should not preclude someone from doing what they wish with their life)

 

Only a slightly similar topic: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21279/21279-h/21279-h.htm

 

Of course regulation and oversight would be necessary.

 

Good points nonetheless.

 

_EW_

[jonathan7]

Goodwin's Law, well done.

 

The UK the only European country not to have some form of Eugenics program in the 1930's-1940's, many countries were sterilising the mentally infirm and disabled, fortunately in the UK it never happened. How I harken back for the days when we were a half decent country. Eugenics, however is very different to assisted suicide - the Nazis were doing the former, which forces things on people.

 

Of course, all that I just said is in agreement with J7's well-written post. Thanks Jon

 

Thanks.

 

There are some interesting points with regards Assisted Suicide, Gordon Brown claims to reject it on the grounds people could be pressured into it - however because the UK has the NHS (universal healthcare), the problem of treatment costs is not relevant, so I think this argument fails. However I think this could be a relevant concerns in countries where relatives may have to end up taking the health care costs of a loved one.

 

As I'm sure many of you know I am a Christian, several interesting questions arise.

a) Should my personal convictions affect others? For me no; you will find no-where in the Bible do non-Christians have to live under Christian "law". Also as Christianity is a minority in the UK, how much of a say should they have over the lives of others? Who am I to force another individual as to how they should live or end their life?

b) Further more medical care has complicated the matter as often these people had they been alive in their state even 50 years ago would not have made it - they are artificially kept alive. My dad is a GP, and while he will not give abortion's he does struggle with this, as he has seen various degenerative diseases and quite frankly some of them involve drowning in your own bodily juices; not a pretty picture.

c) However the interesting thing is that in the UK 85% of doctors would refuse to perform assisted suicide - does this cause a problem, and also who are the most qualified people to speak on this topic?

d) In terms of the people the overwhelming swing in the UK seems to be changing the law to allow assisted suicide. If democracy represents the will of the people, should it not be passed?

 

Where do I stand on this? Let individuals and their families decide.

[CommanderQ]

I think what I would fear from such a program would be if Doctor's began to take matters into their own hands. I wouldn't want them to have the authority to take my life without my consent {makes going to the doctor even worse}. Which is why, as others have posted, that rules and boundaries should be set. Many have already have posted on the boundaries, it wouldn't help if Docs started killing off large numbers of patients, which is why I'd probably agree on the consent laws. If the option is there, families and patients should have a consent and choice, and not be have that prevented that from them. Technically a repeat on what others have posted here, though. I still don't really agree on an assisted suicide, though, but if it should be allowed internationally, the choice should be given. Oh, and thanks E_W for the input on my posts.

[EnderWiggin]

There are some interesting points with regards Assisted Suicide, Gordon Brown claims to reject it on the grounds people could be pressured into it - however because the UK has the NHS (universal healthcare), the problem of treatment costs is not relevant, so I think this argument fails. However I think this could be a relevant concerns in countries where relatives may have to end up taking the health care costs of a loved one.

 

Good point. While there are those in the US who perhaps could not afford to keep their relatives alive and in pain, it might be better for the family financially to agree to assisted suicide. However, even if it is the case, the person should, and likely will still weigh all the options and choose what they feel is the best course of action for their personal circumstances.

 

If the US refuses to pass Universal Healthcare >:| that's what will have to happen.

As I'm sure many of you know I am a Christian, several interesting questions arise.

a) Should my personal convictions affect others? For me no; you will find no-where in the Bible do non-Christians have to live under Christian "law". Also as Christianity is a minority in the UK, how much of a say should they have over the lives of others? Who am I to force another individual as to how they should live or end their life?

Agree, I'm a Christian too. However, this should not and does not affect the legality of the action. If those of us who are Christians don't want to use the option, fine. But allow those who don't disagree with it to choose it if necessary. (Same reasoning I use for gay marriage).

b) Further more medical care has complicated the matter as often these people had they been alive in their state even 50 years ago would not have made it - they are artificially kept alive. My dad is a GP, and while he will not give abortion's he does struggle with this, as he has seen various degenerative diseases and quite frankly some of them involve drowning in your own bodily juices; not a pretty picture.

 

Again, a good point. The fact that we're already using "unnatural" means (and don't 'naturalistic fallacy' me, I'm not committing one) to keep people alive means that we must reexamine our views of "unnatural" death.

c) However the interesting thing is that in the UK 85% of doctors would refuse to perform assisted suicide - does this cause a problem, and also who are the most qualified people to speak on this topic?

I wonder why so many UK doctors feel this way?

Because it's illegal? Or because they disagree with it?

d) In terms of the people the overwhelming swing in the UK seems to be changing the law to allow assisted suicide. If democracy represents the will of the people, should it not be passed?

 

IMHO, certainly. As long as it can be kept so only euthanasia that is in the spirit of the law is carried out, I say let the option exist.

 

Where do I stand on this? Let individuals and their families decide.

 

Amen.

 

_EW_

 

EDIT::

I think what I would fear from such a program would be if Doctor's began to take matters into their own hands. I wouldn't want them to have the authority to take my life without my consent {makes going to the doctor even worse}. Which is why, as others have posted, that rules and boundaries should be set. Many have already have posted on the boundaries, it wouldn't help if Docs started killing off large numbers of patients, which is why I'd probably agree on the consent laws. If the option is there, families and patients should have a consent and choice, and not be have that prevented that from them. Technically a repeat on what others have posted here, though. I still don't really agree on an assisted suicide, though, but if it should be allowed internationally, the choice should be given. Oh, and thanks E_W for the input on my posts.

 

I understand your sentiment, but because it's so well handled, I think we have nothing to fear.

 

Further:

The Law

 

Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed by a physician with a terminal illness that will kill them within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life. Use of the law is voluntary and the patient must initiate the request. Any physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider opposed on moral grounds does not have to participate.

 

The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, one of whom cannot be related to the patient, be entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, be the patient's physician, or be employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to not suffer from a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time. Should either physician have concerns about the patient’s ability to make an informed decision, or feel the patient’s request may be motivated by depression or coercion, the patient must be referred for a psychological evaluation.

[Q]

A person should have the right to terminate their life regardless of health. It is theirs, after all, is it not?

[zelda 41]

This is an awkward question for me.

 

I think maybe if a person is dying of a terminal illness and/or are in great pain, then yes, assisted suicide should be allowed under those circinstances.

 

I remember I had to watch my sister's fiancee's mom die of lung cancer. For six months, I would go to her home, cook, and clean for her, as she layed dying in a pained sickness. Her son was begging for her to stop fighting. He didn't want her to die, he loved her; she was just in so much pain, it was heartbreaking to see. After the end of May, she finally died peacefully in her sleep. In some ways, it was relieving. But still depressing.

 

A person shouldn't have to endure that kind of pain for over six months. If they choose, they should be allowed the choice to die painlessly than live strained for months, in constant pain.

 

 

A person should have the right to terminate their life regardless of health. It is theirs, after all, is it not?

 

But, if that person has nothing wrong with them, they should respect their life and live it. For the people who didn't have that chance.

[Emperor Devon]

But, if that person has nothing wrong with them, they should respect their life and live it. For the people who didn't have that chance.

 

yeah i'm sure that's going to make someone who's terminally ill feel way better 'hey this guy could kill himself but hasn't cause he wants to live his life for you oh and btw you're still dying hahaha'