Assisted Suicide

[Pho3nix]

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

I believe so, yes.

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.

That's a nice thought. Sadly though, I really don't think a severely depressed person finds the will to live simply because others didn't have the chance to live.

[Endorenna]

Depends on the situation, IMO. I'll remain neutral.

[Q]

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.

Who are we to judge the people who would disagree with this view; the people who believe that life is basically pointless?

[Rev7]

....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?

Gotcha. My parents believe that euthanasia should be illegal, but I think that it just matters on the circumstances, and we talk about these kind of things around the dinner table. There is, and will always be, that religious side of me to say no, it is not right, don't take your life, life is precious. Indeed life is precious, but in no way can I tell someone to do something or not, neither am I in the position to make a law for it or against it. But I really don't know where to solidly stand on this.

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)

Alright then. Thanks for the help Ender!

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.

 

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.

+10 I am leaning more towards what you agree with. Good post.

Who are we to judge the people who would disagree with this view; the people who believe that life is basically pointless?

Even though this wasn't directed towards me, I wouldn't be judging them. I merely disagree with them. Just because I don't agree with something that (lets just figuratively say you), that doesn't mean that I am judging you.

 

Life has a point--> to be lived

[EnderWiggin]

Indeed life is precious, but in no way can I tell someone to do something or not, neither am I in the position to make a law for it or against it.

 

Exactly. That's my sentiment on it, for sure.

Alright then. Thanks for the help Ender!

 

Anytime.

 

_EW_

[Q]

Life has a point--> to be lived

And I agree with this statement. I was merely pointing out that there are those who don't.

[vanir]

My personal opinion is that euthanasia, abortion and homosexuality do not relate to the law in any greater sense than regulation in the strictest sense of health and safety (in the case of homosexuality subject only to common decency laws irrespective of sexuality, such as public copulation).

 

I believe direct legislation is passed on these topics either by religious conservatives or those wishing to pander to religious conservatives. These are some of the greatest railroading of justice we have in the world today and surprise, surprise they are obviously entirely political in nature. This is why you separate governing and legislative bodies.

 

Ethics, morality, whatever you want to call it, the very substance of faith is the personal choice. There is no value unless you came by nature.

 

J7-Anglican or Catholic and very confused , I got that loud and clear. EW, which denomination? (you did open the table by finding it relevent, it's not off topic).

[Salzella]

There are more votes for 'yes' than I expected actually. My word. Not many votes for 'Yoda' though. hmm...

[jonathan7]

J7-Anglican or Catholic and very confused

 

I'm not confused; I know exactly what I think Nor am I Anglican or Catholic - I just happen to have an IQ of 147, and to of read an awful lot of Philosophy, (as well as theology and science) because of which my opinions on 'liberty and freedoms' come from John Stuart Mill. I don't find Jesus forcing himself on anyone in the Gospels; hence my points above, I'd appretiate not attempting to analyse me as even the professionals epically fail (I broke the last official personality test I did).

[Vaelastraz]

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?

Only if it's a direct democracy.. which the UK is not.

[Arcesious]

Here's my opinion:

 

If an animal or human is suffering with a serious problem that cannot be cured or fixed, yes. If it is a human who is depressed or in some sort of bad mental state who wishes to commit suicide, no. People who are depressed or mentally ill need to get help.

 

For the most part, no. But if a person is in a permanent coma or in extreme untreatable pain/an incurable disease that causes extreme misery, yes. If its a disease that is tolerable, no suicide, if its a condition physical or mental that is tolerable or even minutely treatable, then no suicide.

 

Just IMO.

[EnderWiggin]

J7-Anglican or Catholic and very confused , I got that loud and clear. EW, which denomination? (you did open the table by finding it relevent, it's not off topic).

Lutheran, in fact

Only if it's a direct democracy.. which the UK is not.

 

Doesn't mean the law shouldn't be passed for that reason Just means it won't be passed for that reason.

 

If it is a human who is depressed or in some sort of bad mental state who wishes to commit suicide, no. People who are depressed or mentally ill need to get help.

 

Luckily the legislature would not include those who have psychological symptoms, see what I posted re: the Death With Dignity Act, post 22.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

I'm against this because it violates the oath doctors take to "Do no harm." Killing someone is not only doing harm, it's killing the patient.

[EnderWiggin]

I'm against this because it violates the oath doctors take to "Do no harm." Killing someone is not only doing harm, it's killing the patient.

 

Two Problems:

 

1. Not all doctors take the oath (at least in the US) anymore.

 

2. I'd argue that letting a dying person live through cancer against their will would in fact be doing harm - much more harm than ending their suffering.

 

_EW_

[mimartin]

2. I'd argue that letting a dying person live through cancer against their will would in fact be doing harm - much more harm than ending their suffering.

QFT!

 

However, from past observations of family members dying of cancer, I see EnderWiggin’s comment as the truth and not any type of argument.

[Astor]

Also, who says it has to be a Doctor that is the person who would assist such a thing?

[GarfieldJL]

1. Not all doctors take the oath (at least in the US) anymore.

 

Which is quite frankly quite sad.

 

2. I'd argue that letting a dying person live through cancer against their will would in fact be doing harm - much more harm than ending their suffering.

 

You do realize that people have been told that their cancer was terminal and they actually managed to beat the cancer and live.

[jrrtoken]

You do realize that people have been told that their cancer was terminal and they actually managed to beat the cancer and live.

Yeah, and there's several terms for that including "misdiagnosis", "strange coincidence", or if you're more faithful, a "miracle".

[GarfieldJL]

Yeah, and there's several terms for that including "misdiagnosis", "strange coincidence", or if you're more faithful, a "miracle".

 

It can be any of the above, but a strange coincidence is sometimes the signs of a miracle.

[EnderWiggin]

Which is quite frankly quite sad.

 

Whether or not it's sad is irrelevant. The fact stands, and is directly contradictory to your argument. Good day.

 

You do realize that people have been told that their cancer was terminal and they actually managed to beat the cancer and live.

 

 

So we should make everyone suffer in pain for the 0.0001% chance of being one of cases who come back from terminal cancer?

 

_EW_

[vanir]

I'm not confused; I know exactly what I think Nor am I Anglican or Catholic - I just happen to have an IQ of 147, and to of read an awful lot of Philosophy, (as well as theology and science) because of which my opinions on 'liberty and freedoms' come from John Stuart Mill. I don't find Jesus forcing himself on anyone in the Gospels; hence my points above, I'd appretiate not attempting to analyse me as even the professionals epically fail (I broke the last official personality test I did).

 

Omg, I've gone cross-eyed at the very suggestion of analyzing you, J7

 

Lutheran, in fact

No wonder. You remind me of that uncle I liked having around, but was always nervous about having around just the same

[Jae Onasi]

Working in hospitals for a number of years now, I've seen enough people die that I can't recall how many I've seen anymore, and likely far more than most of you here will ever see. I held my grandmother's hand while she took her last few breaths. I've watched children terminally ill from brain cancer and leukemia pass away. I've seen people with terminal emphysema who didn't have any air movement in their lungs even with a ventilator pushing air in die (want to cure your urge for smoking? Watch someone with emphysema die). I've seen people who were on the road to recovery from heart attacks or strokes take a sudden turn for the worse and die within a couple hours or even a couple minutes.

 

There are some things that I've learned.

1. People die. All of us will die, some sooner, some later. That may sound trite on the surface, but for those of you who are young and have never experienced death, it's something for you to think about. We have made great medical strides, but we can't save everyone from everything, nor should we try once it becomes clear that someone's body can no longer function to sustain life.

 

2. Some deaths are very fast, some are agonizingly slow, most happen within a few days of whatever health condition is the mortal one--heart failure, pneumonia, infection, etc. My godfather had terminal lymphoma, but had quite a good quality of life until the last 48 hours when he developed pneumonia and couldn't fight it off. My grandmother developed a massive infection from a leg injury, and due to her age just couldn't fight it off, even with the aggressive drug therapy and wound treatment. She died a few days after that as well. Most of the people who I saw die in the hospital had been admitted only a few days, and sometimes only a few hours, prior to their deaths. While a number of people do linger a long time with cancer (ever-improving treatments being both a blessing and a curse in this case), we have for the most part decent treatments to keep pain under control, which for many would be the chief reason for wanting to die.

 

3. Death in the US, and I suspect in a lot of 'modern' countries, is very sanitized. We rarely see people actually die, and I think a lot of Americans have almost an irrational fear of death. We don't want any part of it--don't want to see it, don't want to be near someone dying, don't even want to talk about it. We hide our kids from seeing their elder relatives dying so that they aren't 'traumatized'. However, it's as major a life event as a birth, and while it's tremendously sad to lose someone close to us, it's still an important life event not only for that person but for their loved ones and friends. It should not be hidden away. Death and the process of dying is an integral part of our humanity, and we need to embrace it and give it dignity and respect instead of shunning it. Part of our American rush to pass assisted suicide laws in the US is because we want nothing to do with death and we want it over as quickly as possible.

 

4. Assisted suicide is not the same as putting suffering animals down. I put my favorite cat ever to sleep in June because putting him through a major stay in an animal hospital for an extra month or two of life with kidney failure when he clearly was in pain would have been cruel to him. We would have been keeping him alive for us to his detriment and without any say on his part. However, he was not a rational, thinking being with complex interpersonal relationships and life experiences. He had a pretty darn good life for a cat, but it pretty much consisted of eating, drinking, using the litterbox (insisting it was clean of course), lounging in the sun, and sitting in my lap whenever possible to get scritched under his chin. However, this is not the same kind of rich life that humans experience, even dying humans, or even toddlers dying from leukemia who haven't lived a very long life. Equating the experience of our pet dog or cat to the experiences of humans is an insult to humans, frankly.

 

5. We need to be looking for ever-better ways to manage pain and other uncomfortable experiences that may happen during the dying process to maximize people's quality of life even in their last few hours or days. We have a lot of good medications to deal with pain, but as always there's room for improvement.

 

6. We use a lot of medications and devices in the hospitals in order to sustain life artificially. Many times discontinuing the treatments keeping someone alive artificially allows death to happen without the need to actually use a killing agent. My mother-in-law was on a respirator and on a medication called dopamine to keep her blood pressure artificially at a more normal level. When it was clear that her infection was so severe that she wasn't going to survive more than 24 hours or so, we made the call to discontinue the dopamine and let her blood pressure fall naturally until she passed away peacefully.

 

7. After the Schiavo case, it's clear we need better laws on advanced directives, and we need to use advanced directives a lot more often. If you don't want to be kept alive artificially with feeding tubes and such long term, then you need to let your family know that, and get an advanced directive signed as soon as you're of legal age to do so.

 

8. I could not willingly participate in an assisted suicide, or knowingly allow someone to commit suicide without taking action, because it violates the oath I took to 'first do no harm', and the commandment not to kill.

 

9. We haven't begun to completely think out the ramifications of assisted suicide, as the Barbara Wagner case clearly shows. It takes a cold heart to say 'we're not going to cover your medical treatments, so here, take this drug to kill yourself so you quit costing the state money.' The people who end up needing palliative care are more often than not elderly with few if any resources, and thus reliant on the federal Medicare and state-administered Medicaid programs. I see this having a potential for widespread abuse by states so that they don't have to pay the high costs of endstage disease treatment. I also see this as wide open for abuse by family members arguing over who should Grandma give her prized Chia-pet collecton to when she dies. We need to look at this and its ramifications to boot. I'm extremely uncomfortable with any assisted suicide laws because of this last point.

[EnderWiggin]

No wonder. You remind me of that uncle I liked having around, but was always nervous about having around just the same

Wow, that's extremely rude.

 

Judge me by my religion, that's great.

 

8. I could not willingly participate in an assisted suicide, or knowingly allow someone to commit suicide without taking action, because it violates the oath I took to 'first do no harm', and the commandment not to kill.

 

You would not be killing anyone... and we've already discussed the 'do no harm' point.

 

_EW_

[mur'phon]

Good points Jae just some things I'd like to comment on.

 

While a number of people do linger a long time with cancer (ever-improving treatments being both a blessing and a curse in this case), we have for the most part decent treatments to keep pain under control, which for many would be the chief reason for wanting to die.

 

I used to live in the same house as a cancer doc, and while she said it was possible most of the time to keep the pain under controll, she has still had to watch a lot of people die painfully over several days, while being forced to continue treating them, knowing full well she'd only prolong their suffering. Personally, I have a hard time finding reasons why we should deny such people the choice.

 

7. After the Schiavo case, it's clear we need better laws on advanced directives, and we need to use advanced directives a lot more often. If you don't want to be kept alive artificially with feeding tubes and such long term, then you need to let your family know that, and get an advanced directive signed as soon as you're of legal age to do so.

 

Agreed, and become and organ donor while you're at it, you never know pherhaps the you'll be on tubes before your organs vaste away:)

 

8. I could not willingly participate in an assisted suicide, or knowingly allow someone to commit suicide without taking action, because it violates the oath I took to 'first do no harm', and the commandment not to kill.

 

The cancer doc I spoke of is not a christian, and find herself in a rather nasty posittion due to the oath. On one hand, she harms by keeping people in pain alive, on the other she would harm if she assisted a suicide. By placing doctors in such a dificult position, it forces the doctors to consider rather carefully, and so work as a check on needless suicides.

 

Point 9 is my main concern regarding legalizing assisted suicide.

[mimartin]

2. Some deaths are very fast, some are agonizingly slow, most happen within a few days of whatever health condition is the mortal one--heart failure, pneumonia, infection, etc….Most of the people who I saw die in the hospital had been admitted only a few days, and sometimes only a few hours, prior to their deaths. While a number of people do linger a long time with cancer (ever-improving treatments being both a blessing and a curse in this case), we have for the most part decent treatments to keep pain under control, which for many would be the chief reason for wanting to die. [/Quote] While I have in no way seen the number of deaths you have seen I have been unfortunate enough to witness 6. Three were very fast due to a train/car accident. I held the hand of two Catholic Priest while my friend comforted another Priest in the front seat, the forth occupant (the driver was dead on impact). I was seventeen, their deaths even though the scene was horrific was very peaceful. I tried to stop the blood loss, but there was just too much damage. Finally all I could do was hold their hands while lying that everything was going to be alright. Those deaths were fast and even though I know it had to be agonizingly painful neither Priest seem to show much pain or fear.

 

The other three deaths were long agonizingly slow processes. However, I believe this is because all three had a goal. My father wanted to live to see another Christmas. My stepmother and uncle were to see another birthday. All three made their goals and died shortly after.

 

While pain medication is a blessing, not everyone can or will take it in a dosage that will stop the pain. My father refused to take any until the last few weeks of his life. I can only guess, because I never asked him why, but I usually refuse it to because I do not like being robbed of my senses. I’ve broken a leg, severely sprang ankles and dislocated shoulders without using pain medicine. However, this year a kidney stone made me beg for either a shot or a baseball bat to the head.

 

 

3. Death in the US, and I suspect in a lot of 'modern' countries, is very sanitized...

I think this all depends on the family. In my imitate family (on both sides) we believe in the comfort of the dying loved one first, even over our own needs. All three of the deaths I’ve witnessed of family members have been in their own homes. Once we know there is nothing more that can be done medically we follow our loved ones wishes and those three wanted to go home. Even beyond those three we do not allow our loved ones to die alone with strangers. A family member has been with my all my grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles when they have died except in the case were a cousin that drowned in an auto accident and an aunt died on the operating table. Even as a child I was not sheltered from my grandmother’s illness (cancer). It would have been difficult seeing how I lived in the same household. I was taught death was a fact of life and my grandmother always said “don’t ever put flowers on my grave. Give me my flowers while I’m alive.” I’m told that is what my grandfather use to say and that is how my family lives and dies.

 

Even at an early age I remember attending the funnels of uncles that passed away. I was taught that you did this out of respect for the deceased, but more importantly it was done to support the living.

 

I don’t believe any of the three family members I witnessed die would have request assisted suicide because they all had goals, but especially in my father’s case, I could see how someone could. He went three months unable to eat anything beyond choking down an Ensue or two a day. I would not blame anyone for wanting to end their suffering in that condition with no hope of any improvement.