# How to Die in Oregon



## Ozarkgal (Jan 10, 2014)

I know dying is not a fun subject and the closer we are spinning toward it, the less some are inclined to talk about it.  I guess everyone has their idea of how they want the end to be, based on personal and religious beliefs.  Most people I have talked to about this say they would rather end it on a reasonably good note, than to suffer and be put through medical procedures that have the same outcome shortly anyway.  I'm one of those people.

This afternoon I watched a HBO documentary called _*"How to Die in Oregon"*_.  Oregon passed a law making it legal for people that are facing an end of life medical situations to obtain drugs necessary to end it when they are ready.  The drugs are picked up at the pharmacy, and are taken in the privacy of one's home with prior end of life counseling.

They had several cases studies of people in different situations that opted to end their lives with dignity.  I was very moved by the freedom and relief these people felt in being able to prepare for the end and decide when the time was right for them. 

This law doesn't just randomly let people commit suicide. In fact, it is not termed suicide, but death with dignity.  It must be approved and certified by a doctor, and filed with the state.   

Washington state has since passed a similar law allowing it's residents that freedom, thanks to a man on his deathbed that did not have that option and made his wife promise to work to get the law passed.  She promised him, and followed through to success in getting the law passed.

I may have to move back to Oregon if I am diagnosed with a terminal illness..I want to be able to have that control and choice. 

I am interested to know what your personal thoughts on this are, if you care to share.
You can watch the documentary on Netflix or rent it on YouTube and possibly Amazon. 

 Here is a trailer:


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 10, 2014)

It's still a dog's breakfast of selfish religious beliefs mixed with ever more complex legal twisters of 'what ifs?'  down here.
Everybody is waiting to get it 100% right when it can never be that.  Meanwhile others suffer anguish while they diddle about with their petty pedantic arguments.  

We're always being promised 'a conscience vote' in Parliarment but that doesn't happen.  Personally I don't see the benefit of being held by law to the conscience of any politician who ever lived! We voted them in to run the country not our minds!
 I want an open public Referendum on it.  

But they won't do that, firstly because the Pollies are frightened of putting some of their self righteous religious constituents offside because they know it will be voted in with a landslide,  and secondly because they haven't a clue on how to word the damned thing!  

It's even further away now as the new PM is a dyed in the wool, ex/failed priest, Roman Catholic and we know which way his conscience is gonna go and that he'll influence the 'conscience' of anyone in his Party who wants to keep their job. 

I don't personally know anyone who is adamantly opposed to Euthanasia.  Some have mixed feelings but still agree that it should be up to the individual to decide for themselves.  Even Catholics, but shhhhh, don't tell the priest. 



We have our version of Jack Kavorkian (or whatever) here but every time he gets something set up in a State the Feds close him down.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 10, 2014)

If I am suffering with a terminal illness, I would like to be able to end my life peacefully, and on my own terms.  I always thought that the  Dr. Kevorkian method was a good idea for some.  I have a book on my shelf called Final Exit, that my mother in law had bought for herself when she was older and in pain from various illnesses, arthritis, etc.  She never had to use the methods in that book to take her own life, thankfully she passed peacefully in her sleep of natural causes. 

 I think everyone should have the right to end their lives when they no longer want to endure the pain or expense of a serious illness in their old age.  I don't think I would travel to Oregon, and involve the government or doctors in the process though...but it is very good that people who want that kind of assistance be granted it.  Something like that should be available in all the states.


----------



## Ozarkgal (Jan 10, 2014)

> Something like that should be available in all the states.



So right SB..this is a cause I could get behind!




> I don't think I would travel to Oregon, and involve the government or doctors in the process though.



You know I am not normally for government involvement in peoples lives, but in this case the process seemed fairly simple and having it somewhat assisted leaves little room for error and there is not the stigma of a flat out suicide, done alone and in the shadows.  The family members are able to be present with no fear of prosecution for aiding a death.


----------



## Old Hipster (Jan 10, 2014)

I'm all for death with dignity, or whatever you want to call it. I've watched far too many relatives die horrible deaths from a terminal disease. And one grandpa killed himself with a .357 in the back yard. That's not a good way to go either.

We treat our animals with more compassion than we do people.


----------



## Ozarkgal (Jan 10, 2014)

OH: 





> We treat our animals with more compassion than we do people.



That's for sure.  As I was watching this show, I started putting myself in these peoples positions and really realized the suffering they were going through trying to live through the pain every day, as well as the pain the relatives were having, watching it and caring for them.  I wouldn't want that to happen to a dog I loved, let alone a relative, or myself for that matter.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 10, 2014)

In Ancient Greece and Rome, voluntary suicide by opening a vein, often after a dinner attended by friends, was not uncommon.


> *Suicide in Graeco-Roman Society*
> 
> Contrary to views in the Judaeo-Christian world, Graeco-Roman attitudes toward suicide held that it could be acceptable under certain circumstances. While some condemned it, such as the Pythagoreans, suicide most often occurred when one’s honor was irretrievably lost, and the individual confronted great public shame. It could also be associated with political protest, if one refused submission to tyrannical authorities. On the other hand, as an answer to petty misfortunes, suicide was frowned upon as a cowardly and disgraceful act.
> 
> ...



There is no law in Australia against suicide, only assisted suicide. Some resistance to making it legal to assist someone to die probably stems from the worry that in some cases people may be pressured into accepting death because they have become a burden or because they have money that is being consumed by their illness. Voluntary is one thing, mandatory is something else. The line between them may become rather blurry. If you open your own vein there is no doubt.


----------



## Old Hipster (Jan 10, 2014)

Ozarkgal said:


> OH:
> 
> That's for sure.  As I was watching this show, I started putting myself in these peoples positions and really realized the suffering they were going through trying to live through the pain every day, as well as the pain the relatives were having, watching it and caring for them.  I wouldn't want that to happen to a dog I loved, let alone a relative, or myself for that matter.


I watched my Dad, one Grandma, an Aunt, an Uncle and my stepdad all die of cancer. And it was unbearable for all parties involved. My Grandma thankfully died of heart failure, in an ambulance on the way to the hospital, before the cancer completely ravaged her body. The others all suffered a grim and painful death. 

I think a lot about death, too much I am sure.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 10, 2014)

Ozarkgal said:


> You know I am not normally for government involvement in peoples lives, but in this case the process seemed fairly simple and having it somewhat assisted leaves little room for error and there is not the stigma of a flat out suicide, done alone and in the shadows.  The family members are able to be present with no fear of prosecution for aiding a death.



I have to watch at least the trailer, I can't right now on this computer.  You have some good points there OG.  I know that if I did intend to take my own life, I would definitely make my intentions clear with a suicide note, etc., so nobody would be accused of killing me or assisting in my death.  Would be great if this was available in my state for sure, that would make the decision easier, as I do think it's a good idea.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 10, 2014)

I've also had relatives whither away and die a painful death with cancer...don't want that for myself.  I always said that I wished I would die quick from a heart attack, or in my sleep.  Said that even when I was young. 

 Old Hipster, I think a lot of us think more about death as we age.  We hear of people we know, including celebrities we grew up watching or listening to pass on.  I often think of how I would feel if my husband died before I do.  We are very close, and don't have many other people in our lives or children, I would be devastated. I think it's good to ponder it at times, as it's a reality for us all to face.  Better than blocking it out of your mind, and being hit with the reality when it happens.

 My heart goes out to all the folks here on this forum who've lost a spouse or a child...I can't imagine the heartbreak they endure.  Having said that, if my husband was slowly dying from a serious illness and wanted to end his life, it would be nice to have something like what they're doing in Oregon available.  As much as I love him, I wouldn't want him to suffer if he was tired of the pain, and ready to go.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 11, 2014)

We seem to forget that people find themselves in circumstances where they simply can't, physically, do it for themselves.  
Those are the people I think of in regards to euthanasia, the rest of us can stagger under trains and buses or whatever, but the quadriplegics who've had enough, the ones weakened by cancer or other causes who can't raise a coffee cup, need assistance to accomplish their wishes and that's where the obstacles lie.

The law holds their families or trusted physicians to ransom. 

*If a person's testimony, sworn on a Bible or not, is good enough in a court of law to be taken as proof of guilt to convict someone facing a death sentence for murder, then how come it's not good enough to be taken as proof that the person has made a decision to die themselves??
*
Where is the logic in that?

As to coercion or pressure by others, so what?  That is still no one's business but the person's making the decision or the police if it's that blatant. 
 If they feel that they are indeed a burden and they choose to relieve their family of that then it is still their choice isn't it? 
Perhaps that person feels that freeing their family of their suffering is the last and greatest gift they can bestow on their loved ones. 
 Does anyone look at it that way?  
How exactly is that such a bad thing?

If they had run into a burning building to save their family and died in the attempt they'd be heroes.  So why is choosing to die in bed to save their family what can only be wasted expense that threatens their futures, and the needless anguish involved, be considered anything less than heroic too?  

Why are their families punished for helping them end the suffering all round??  I don't recall a family jailed for getting caught in a fire that someone died saving them from, does anyone?

 I repeat, coercion or not, burning buildings or not,  it is still their decision to go in or out or not.  
But how many will off themselves just please somebody they hate and know wants them dead anyway?  
 Damned if I'd hurry it along to make 'em happy, would you?

Sometimes too, people simply get tired of life because it isn't worth the effort any longer.  It's not even depression, just enough. They're content with having lived their lives.  Done all they wanted, don't want to do it again, know it's never going to get any better, bored with it all and tired of the view from the bed they're confined to.  If they want out who are we to stop them leaving the 'party' just because they don't have something deemed terminal and aren't physically suffering pain?  They still have mouths, we can do them the honour of respecting their wishes surely.

(Yes Warri, all the legal eagles and phychiatrists signing off and the correct paperwork must ensue, of course.)


A parting shot for the spiritually conscience stricken ....

For every inspirational example we see on TV of the heroic 'recovery' and adaptations that some people have made to overcome their disabilities there are thousands who haven't.  We don't see the ones sobbing quietly, in dismal nursing homes, the failures, trapped within their own useless bodies, bored to insanity and simply wishing they were gone.  Not everyone has either the mental or physical capabilities to achieve what the very few can.  They too deserve a say in their own futures.

For every one of those 'miracles' of the brain dead waking up, and the 'terminal' cancer victims recovering there are millions who don't.  Why should the millions suffer on the off chance that a miracle might occur to the very, very, few?
  Think instead of the mental abyss they and their families must be enduring when it doesn't.

[/rant]


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 11, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> We seem to forget that people find themselves in circumstances where they simply can't, physically, do it for themselves.
> Those are the people I think of in regards to euthanasia, the rest of us can stagger under trains and buses or whatever, but the quadriplegics who've had enough, the ones weakened by cancer or other causes who can't raise a coffee cup, need assistance to accomplish their wishes and that's where the obstacles lie.
> 
> The law holds their families or trusted physicians to ransom.
> ...


I don't want to be euthanized but I've already contemplated very seriously which treatments I will accept or refuse in the event of certain end of life conditions I may find myself in. Hubby and I have had discussions on the subject. One day I will make a living will. If I leave it too late then I will rely on my children to decide for me. Within the law.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 11, 2014)

I cannot see psychiatrists signing off on this process, at least not as presented. They cannot even agree on the inclusion of one disorder or another in the DSM - how are they going to agree with self-termination? 

I agree with Warri that there are enough dastardly family members who can persuade Mom or Dad to open a vein that you can't exclude the possibility. Heck, there are many ways to disguise homicide as suicide, and unless the local _gendarmerie_ is of CSI quality it isn't going to be caught.

I believe in self-termination at any time for any reason, given of course the exclusions of children and teens. One of the few things we have left that we can control in life is the manner of our death, either passively through a living will / DNR order or through active means such as gun or pill. 

I also agree with OG that any form of government involvement is going to muck up the apparatus.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 11, 2014)

If you don't include children and teens then the mercy argument is invalidated.
Is their suffering not as valid as that of adults?


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 11, 2014)

> I cannot see psychiatrists signing off on this process, at least not as presented.



They don't have to sign off on the process, just assess sanity, and intent.  They get up in courts and make judgement calls, they can do it at bedsides.

Geeeze, that kids one is a toughy.  Not one I'd like to decide but I have no kids and only those involved could make that call.

We're getting back into that 'what ifs' territory again and that just goes round and round.  The biggest stumbling block is getting it past the professional 'counseller' /psychiatrists/psychologist types who want all the credibility for their profound knowledge but won't take any responsibility for their judgements.  They're all more intent on covering their arses than worrying about the well being of their 'clients.'

Yes there will be mistakes.  Yes there will be murders gotten away with, but there are already.  Happens all the time.  Perfectly healthy people get murdered too.  Sometimes we have to accept that there may be collateral damage to go with the benefits.  
That happens all the time too.  Every time some early parolee cuts another throat it's down to the 'winning' of prisoner's rights. 

 Rights of any kind don't come free.  We just have to put more thought into which ones are worth the associated risks.

Get over trying to keep the World so damned pretty.  It isn't Disneyland out there no matter much sparkle and PC bullsh*t we paint it with.
We are never going to get everything right for everyone.  Democracy is about doing what's  best for the majority, or at least it used to be.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 11, 2014)

> Democracy is about doing what's  best for the majority, or at least it used to be.


No individual rights then?
I thought the principle was that your rights stop at the point where they infringe on my rights.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 11, 2014)

And my right to step off the twig impinges on your rights how again??


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 11, 2014)

It doesn't unless I end up as some sort of collateral damage. Feel free to suicide anytime without legal sanction.

I suppose deep down my concern is about a shift in community attitudes that might accept that some lives are worth more than others. After voluntary euthanasia becomes acceptable would it not be easier to rationalise routine euthanasia for the old, the infirm, the disabled and the insane ? Civilisation is still a wafer thin layer stretched over a primitive core. Killing to be kind might become a convenient way out of any number of social problems. Convince me that this can't/won't happen and I will shift my position. Until then, I would prefer more effort go into better palliative care and better pain management.


----------



## Old Hipster (Jan 11, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> I've also had relatives whither away and die a painful death with cancer...don't want that for myself.  I always said that I wished I would die quick from a heart attack, or in my sleep.  Said that even when I was young.
> 
> Old Hipster, I think a lot of us think more about death as we age.  We hear of people we know, including celebrities we grew up watching or listening to pass on.  I often think of how I would feel if my husband died before I do.  We are very close, and don't have many other people in our lives or children, I would be devastated. I think it's good to ponder it at times, as it's a reality for us all to face.  Better than blocking it out of your mind, and being hit with the reality when it happens.
> 
> My heart goes out to all the folks here on this forum who've lost a spouse or a child...I can't imagine the heartbreak they endure.  Having said that, if my husband was slowly dying from a serious illness and wanted to end his life, it would be nice to have something like what they're doing in Oregon available.  As much as I love him, I wouldn't want him to suffer if he was tired of the pain, and ready to go.


I agree losing a child or a spouse has to be devastating. 

Never having children I've dodged that problem and my husband and I are like you guys, when one of us goes it will be very hard for the remaining spouse. We do everything together.

Our best friends in the world, the wife, all three of her children died and sometimes I don't know how the woman ever coped through all of it.

We all just want to live a long life and then go to bed one night and never wake up, I have known quite a few people who have gone that way, so there is some hope! A few years  ago one of my husband's brothers went to bed early not feeling well and that was it, the lucky bastard!

My other grandpa, my grandma dropped him off at the front door to the medical clinic and went and parked the car and by the time she got into the building my grandpa was laying dead on the floor. Not a very good advertisement for the clinic. I was about 13, I'll never forget that, I went with my dad to go get grandma and walked in and grandpa was still on the floor, at least with a sheet over him.

Whenever I hear about an old person who just died suddenly, I always think how lucky they were! Hopefully this doesn't happen until well into their 80's or even 90's!


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 11, 2014)

Warrigal said:


> It doesn't unless I end up as some sort of collateral damage. Feel free to suicide anytime without legal sanction.
> 
> I suppose deep down my concern is about a shift in community attitudes that might accept that some lives are worth more than others. After voluntary euthanasia becomes acceptable would it not be easier to rationalise routine euthanasia for the old, the infirm, the disabled and the insane ? Civilisation is still a wafer thin layer stretched over a primitive core. Killing to be kind might become a convenient way out of any number of social problems. Convince me that this can't/won't happen and I will shift my position. Until then, I would prefer more effort go into better palliative care and better pain management.



Warri. We are discussing *VOLUNTARY* euthanasia at the *personal request* of a sane individual.  Stop flapping around the point with the what ifs that are really just exercises in hypothetical jousts.  

No one has to decide who is worthy to live or not except the person making the request.  

If those other doomsday visions of Logan's Run are a problem then separate the categories of euthanasia. 
 One size doesn't have to fit all.  
Just as there are different degrees of murder charges, there could easily be different degrees of euthanasia responsibilities to be authorised.  

Is that really so hard to sort out?


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 11, 2014)

I am all for the option of being allowed to end my life if it has become physically unbearable....I too saw my husband suffer in pain from cancer and although Hospice was great in the end with giving pain meds even those didn't help.

it took him a whole day of groaning and moaning to die, he was out of it but you could tell he was in pain....towards the end I think hospice gave him an extra shot of something thanfully but that day is embedded in my memory.

I do not want to go thru that.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 11, 2014)

> Warri. We are discussing *VOLUNTARY* euthanasia at the *personal request* of a sane individual.  Stop flapping around the point with the what ifs that are really just exercises in hypothetical jousts.


We may discuss whatever we like. It's the legislation and how it is applied that matters.
How trusting are you ?
On other matters, not so much, but on this one apparently, totally trusting. Uncharacteristic of you, IMO.

The trouble I see with voluntary euthanasia at the personal request of a sane individual is that family members of someone who does not fit those criteria, but who is nonetheless suffering, will not be satisfied with the exclusion. As always, the devil will be in the detail, and I'm not speaking theologically.


----------



## Old Hipster (Jan 11, 2014)

CeeCee said:


> I am all for the option of being allowed to end my life if it has become physically unbearable....I too saw my husband suffer in pain from cancer and although Hospice was great in the end with giving pain meds even those didn't help.
> 
> it took him a whole day of groaning and moaning to die, he was out of it but you could tell he was in pain....towards the end I think hospice gave him an extra shot of something thanfully but that day is embedded in my memory.
> 
> I do not want to go thru that.


I'm so sorry your husband died CeeCee. 

It's basic cruel and unusual punishment. I have been around for that too, and aunt and an uncle, both died at home with the "help" of Hospice, my god, did they suffer and linger it was beyond grim and nobody should have to go out like that if they don't want to and who would! 

When you are wracked with pain and being slowly eaten away by cancer, well no thanks, that's not for me.

I run to death and death meets me as fast. And all my pleasures are like yesterday.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 11, 2014)

Warrigal said:


> The trouble I see with voluntary euthanasia at the personal request of a sane individual is that family members of someone who does not fit those criteria, but who is nonetheless suffering, will not be satisfied with the exclusion. As always, the devil will be in the detail, and I'm not speaking theologically.



Just as with children there are going to be (or should be) varying interpretations of any law passed for self-termination. 

If an adult, sane person is making the request what right would the family have in contesting it? Greed and personal interest, which should in no way out-rule the sane individual's request. We _are_ theoretically the owners of our own bodies.

The only problem I see in that scenario would be waiting for the psych eval and the legal process to run their courses, by the end of which you would possibly no longer be considered "sane". Contrary to what Di believes I still think that the biggest stumbling block will be with the psychologists, at least until the religious figures step up to the plate and weigh in with their ideas. 

That will _really_ gum up the works.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 11, 2014)

How are stumbling block phychologists contrary to what I said?  They'll dither around with the psychobabble of it to cover their arses as usual.
No argument there.

Too tired to go back over it and check...  I'm off duty as of now.  Night all.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 11, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> How are stumbling block phychologists contrary to what I said?  They'll dither around with the psychobabble of it to cover their arses as usual.
> No argument there.



I believe you had said:



> They don't have to sign off on the process, just assess sanity, and  intent.  They get up in courts and make judgement calls, they can do it  at bedsides.



The way I was taught, "just" assessing sanity is a minefield of an endeavor with constantly-shifting criteria. Intent I think is usually left up to the legal eagles. 

In any case it's hardly a bedside pronouncement, at least for now. Who knows what the future will bring?


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 11, 2014)

unfortunately with the right to die, time is a very important issue and if the courts or govt drag out the process it just won't work.

i can unserstand a short period of time that is necessary to make sure about everything but anything longer than say a month is too long as some will die naturally in pain within a yr.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 11, 2014)

If you are already declared "terminal" by drs. Then what is wrong with just speeding up the process IF that is what you want.

Bty the time my husband was declared terminal he had already suffered at least a yr in unbearable pain.


----------



## Ozarkgal (Jan 11, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> I cannot see psychiatrists signing off on this process, at least not as presented. They cannot even agree on the inclusion of one disorder or another in the DSM - how are they going to agree with self-termination?
> 
> I agree with Warri that there are enough dastardly family members who can persuade Mom or Dad to open a vein that you can't exclude the possibility. Heck, there are many ways to disguise homicide as suicide, and unless the local _gendarmerie_ is of CSI quality it isn't going to be caught.
> 
> ...



There was nothing in the documentary concerning psychiatric intervention or approval in the process, psychiatrists were not even mentioned. The paperwork as I understood it from the film was prepared by the attending physician, and it seemed a relatively simple process.  Also, the counseling was done by an agency formed to interview the patient in home and make sure they understood the process and was willingly entering into it. It was not a psychiatric evaluation.  A person from the agency was present at the end to mix and hand the drug to the patient, explaining to them what to expect from the drug and verifying with them that they understood what the result would be.
IMO having the option to peacefully end one's pain surrounded by family is much more humane and less traumatic for the patient and loved ones than stepping under a bus or putting a gun to the head.  Sans the law, who's to say that a patient taking one's own life on their own wasn't mentally coerced by someone?  If someone is bent on homicide, it can be done with or without the law.

Warrigal: 





> I don't want to be euthanized but I've already contemplated very seriously which treatments I will accept or refuse in the event of certain end of life conditions I may find myself in. Hubby and I have had discussions on the subject. One day I will make a living will. If I leave it too late then I will rely on my children to decide for me. Within the law.



Warri, under your beliefs you have the right to meet your end in the way that seems right for you.  But there are some that would choose to have the option to end the pain, with compassionate assistance, under the their own terms and under the law.  

Speaking of having remissions, a woman who was one of the main focal points had liver cancer.  After much pain and surgery and nothing more to be done, she decided to prepare for the end.  She took the steps and obtained the drugs and set a date for three months in the future, her determined life expectancy, but had the drugs on hand in case she didn't make it.  Within these three months she went into a remission phase and lasted about another nine months until the end.  She knew during this time period that it was a temporary reprieve and had a lot of peace of mind during this period in being able to complete her list of things she wanted to do before she went.  She peacefully went just before Christmas with her family surrounding her at home, on her own terms, under the law.  

Would you deny her this lawful option, or make her put a bullet in her own head or suffer with unbearable pain for another week?

I really urge everyone to watch this film to understand the real impact of what these people have gone through with pain and suffering and how the law has been a godsend to them.


----------



## Ozarkgal (Jan 11, 2014)

CeeCee, I am sorry for what you and your husband went through.  It's must be so difficult to lose your husband in such a heart wrenching way.


----------



## Judi.D (Jan 11, 2014)

I believe in voluntary euthanasia, I watched too many people during my life die horrible deaths. They shoot horses don't they. We choose to euthanize our beloved pets at the point where we know their is no longer any quality of life. How can we do less for people. I am not afraid of death, but I am afraid of dying. 

Warri how wonderful that you do not think that a large part of the world's population already feel that their life is more important than others. We see the results of that fact everyday throughout the world. Will there be collateral damage of course there will be. All we can hope for and  is it won't be us or someone we love and care about.

Di they are not just hypothetical jousts or doomsday visions of Logan's Run. I believe they are real problems that will need to be worked through.

Will government involvement F*** it up, of course it will it always does. We simply have to work through those problems too like we always do. It is the only system we have, incompetent as it may be. 

I have a dear friend who I trust 100% to help me if needed. She also knows that she can trust me 100%. I already have a living will and she is the person to make any decisions. I do not want to put my family through making these decisions, or trust some of them to. If it gets to the point I want to end my life, I know she will help me. She has done it before. You have no idea the peace of mind this gives me.

The bottom line is death with dignity should be an guaranteed right. It is simply right. They shoot horses don't they.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 11, 2014)

CeeCee, my sympathy for the loss of your hubby ((hugs)).


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 11, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> CeeCee, my sympathy for the loss of your hubby ((hugs)).



thank you SeaBreeze, it's been almost 10 yrs. but some of the memories are very much etched in my mind, especially his last year of life and that is what makes me an advocate for the right to end your life when it becomes unbearable.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 11, 2014)

Ozarkgal said:


> There was nothing in the documentary concerning psychiatric intervention or approval in the process, psychiatrists were not even mentioned. The paperwork as I understood it from the film was prepared by the attending physician, and it seemed a relatively simple process.  Also, the counseling was done by an agency formed to interview the patient in home and make sure they understood the process and was willingly entering into it. It was not a psychiatric evaluation.  A person from the agency was present at the end to mix and hand the drug to the patient, explaining to them what to expect from the drug and verifying with them that they understood what the result would be.



Hey, don't blame me - I'm just vamping on a response originally from Di involving "legal eagles and psychologist signing off" on the process. 

But that brings up an important point - how is a medical doctor qualified to make a judgement call on a psychiatric matter, unless it's an obviously medical problem?

He isn't. Yet every medical condition has an attending psychiatric component, which can sometimes outweigh the physiological components.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 11, 2014)

how does terminal cancer have an attending psychiatric component?


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 11, 2014)

CeeCee said:


> how does terminal cancer have an attending psychiatric component?



You don't think the moment that you get that diagnosis that you undergo a radical mental shift?


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 11, 2014)

yes you do but you are still going to die so what I didn't understand was how that would change anything in the right to die.

i am just saying that in the case of a terminally diagnosed patient...the medical drs say so would be enough.


----------



## That Guy (Jan 11, 2014)

"Let me live my life the way I want to." -- Jimi


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 11, 2014)

I think everyone responds to a terminal diagnosis according to their own strengths and weaknesses. One patient may spend their remaining time calmly putting their affairs in order, filling their bucket list and generally enjoying the enhanced view of life they've suddenly acquired. 

Others may despair and go into a deep depression.

A purely medical opinion on self-termination would not be affected by these radical extremes of thought. They would go only on the fact that the patient was medically terminal and, from what I can gather, give their pronouncement in terms of days, weeks, months or years. That action alone will define how the psychologically weaker patients respond and they often spend their remaining days marking off the calendar, instead of living their lives to the best of their capabilities.

Just when they need to be the most mentally clear is when the doctor dooms them to depression. 

No one should know when they're going to die, even if some remarkable new machine came along that predicted with 100% accuracy. We aren't meant to know the time or manner of our death, because then instead of living we will just be waiting to die. That doctors give a ball-park figure is, to my way of thinking, a sin, but no more so than the person who demands an exact date.


----------



## Ozarkgal (Jan 11, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Hey, don't blame me - I'm just vamping on a response originally from Di involving "legal eagles and psychologist signing off" on the process.
> 
> But that brings up an important point - how is a medical doctor qualified to make a judgement call on a psychiatric matter, unless it's an obviously medical problem?
> 
> ...



No blame for anything...just explaining the process as I understood it from the film.

I guess the legislature has deemed  the doctor attending a terminal patient is qualified to determine the prognosis and usual life expectancy for the stage they're in.  I think it is based on more quality of end of life than a psychiatric issue.  Remember, we are talking about physically terminally ill patients.

I assume that being a terminal patient or a patient with no quality of life left due to severe uncorrectable medical problems qualifies as an "obvious medical condition".  No doubt that being in pain can cause attending psychological problems...hell, I'm a walking textbook probably. 

I have no doubt that a psychiatrist or psychologist can find psychological issues  with anyone, that weighs on decisions a person makes, ill or not.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 11, 2014)

Understood. I'm just saying that a medical doctor is not trained to recognize the psychological aspects of terminal illness. 

And, remember that we're discussing only one possible scenario for assisted death, the most egregious one. What of the depressives, what of the people that lose a limb, AIDS patients ... there is an entire spectrum of qualifications that needs to be addressed before passing any type of all-encompassing legislation.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 11, 2014)

In the case of my husband, he was a very positive person...believed he would win his fight with cancer and he would have loved to fulfill his bucket list but because he was bedridden and all those tubes and pain...he couldn't...all he could do was watch TV.
6months before he died somehow we made it to Illinois for my sons wedding but it was pure torture...he actually stayed in bed at the Hotel we were at.

Boohoo...this is one of those memories that does make me sad!


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 11, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Understood. I'm just saying that a medical doctor is not trained to recognize the psychological aspects of terminal illness.
> 
> And, remember that we're discussing only one possible scenario for assisted death, the most egregious one. What of the depressives, what of the people that lose a limb, AIDS patients ... there is an entire spectrum of qualifications that needs to be addressed before passing any type of all-encompassing legislation.



Even so sifuPhil...I am a firm believer in its your body and you can do what you want with it and that's the bottom line.

Those that have mental issues...wether there is a law or not will most likely try suicide themselves anyway.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 11, 2014)

Ahhh, don't cry...at least he made it to the wedding. Remember the good times; if only I practised what I preached.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 11, 2014)

thanks Vivjen...didn't think it would get to me after 10 yrs, but on occasion it still does.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 11, 2014)

Of course it does....


----------



## Ozarkgal (Jan 11, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Understood. I'm just saying that a medical doctor is not trained to recognize the psychological aspects of terminal illness.
> 
> And, remember that we're discussing only one possible scenario for assisted death, the most egregious one. What of the depressives, what of the people that lose a limb, AIDS patients ... there is an entire spectrum of qualifications that needs to be addressed before passing any type of all-encompassing legislation.



I have not read the entire Death with Dignity legislation in Oregon or Washington.  Without studying the law, I can't assume to address what checks and balances are in effect, and don't really care.  The fact that people have this alternative available to them is good enough for me.  If there is something in the law that proves to be harmful, it will be challenged.



I don't want to turn this into a debate of right or wrong, mental and psychological and homicidal issues.  I was moved by the film, and believe me it is no small thing to wretch emotion out of me.  I only asked that readers try to watch the film and form their own opinion on the legislation.  I am interested in what the members feel is right for them, not what they feel is right for someone else.  I respect everyone's feelings on how they want to go should they be faced with a painful end of life dilemma.  If assisted euthanasia is not for you, why would you wish to prevent someone else from being able to make the decision for their own life.  

We're not talking about Obummercare and Medicare where everyone in the country is forced into a legislative boondoggle, but a rather choice everyone has individually, that will ultimately affect no one, other than themselves.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 11, 2014)

Exactly Ozarkgal!!


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 11, 2014)

Ozarkgal said:


> If there is something in the law that proves to be harmful, it will be challenged.



That hasn't always worked out so well in the past 238 years ...



> I am interested in what the members feel is right for them, not what they feel is right for someone else.



But you'll never get laws passed on individual desires - there are always going to be those that don't agree with any law passed. The whole idea of a Democracy (even though we're not one but claim to be) is that everyone is voicing their opinions, and part of having an opinion is deciding what is good for the majority. 



> We're not talking about Obummercare and Medicare where everyone in the country is forced into a legislative boondoggle, but a rather choice everyone has individually, that will ultimately affect no one, other than themselves.



But if that were indeed the case here then we wouldn't need any law on the matter at all. We already have the right to pursue happiness, which could be interpreted as being the right to choose our death.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 11, 2014)

> Di they are not just hypothetical jousts or doomsday visions of Logan's  Run. I believe they are real problems that will need to be worked  through.



Warri and Jackie:
They are merely hypotheticals if you continually lump all possible scenarios together.  Why do we need do that?

If someone is terminal, in pain and requests euthanasia that seems pretty clear cut to me.  That could be classed as 'Category One.'  
They want out. Their reasons if not obvious then are at least their own business. End of section. No further correspondence necessary.  Give 'em their papers and let them get on with it, at their leisure and with dignity!

These are the people we need to take care of first, you can fuss and fight and argue the details of the rest who don't qualify later.
You people wouldn't sit about watching a dying, suffering animal writhe while you endlessly discussed the finer points of whether it was sane enough to welcome death.  Or would you?  Seems it's okay to do that to people so I have to wonder a little.

I say again:  I fail to see why one size must fit all in terms of Euthanasia qualifications.

If these Category One people can have a reasonably sensible conversation with a doctor and shrink then that alone should be enough to get approval that they aren't raving nutters or manic depressives.  And to be blunt,  what if they were?  Their circumstances alone would explain that wouldn't it?


 Hell an intelligent conversation is more than it takes for us to  get drivers and marriage licences and those decisions have  dire  consequences for a wrong move.  Imagine how many divorce lawyers would  be poor if we all had to get stamped sane before we married?  
How many pedestrians would be around if IQs and hormone levels were tested for all drivers?  How sane are road ragers?? 
 But they get licences don't they?  They have rights, they are allowed  to decide for themselves whether they choose to marry or drive. 
The suffering apparently don't get a say in anything.
Why is their escape from their predicament prevented by their attitude to it??  Are  they to be punished for having a mental breakdown over it?  Do only  heroes qualify for a dignified end?  Just how 'fair' do you wanna get with  this?

 This 'sanity' argument reeks of Catch 22 to me.  ..paraphrased "If you.aren't afraid of war you won't apply to get out of the Army because you're obviously  insane.  If you do apply then that proves you are sane and can't get out of the Army"  Or, if the pain is tolerable you don't need euthanasia but if it's bad enough to drive you crazy then you can't have it because you're 'insane'.  That how it works??

  Ethics in extremis can be a two edged sword and should be handled with plain common sense not just with highminded philosophy to salve our own consciences.  

Palliative care does NOT work well for *all.*  I have first hand knowledge  of this from a recent departure who was still in pain on almost triple the dosage that would kill most people on palliative care due to a long history of taking ever  stronger pain killers for another ailment. 
 She was to all intents  immune to palliative care drugs. 
A four hour dose barely lasted 20 minutes.    She went the really hard way. Although due to the stress, quicker than  most.   But that was her choice, she didn't request 'help' due to  religious reasons.  That was HER CHOICE which was duly respected.  
The medical staff were  afraid to administer higher doses anyway as it would have been devilish  hard to explain in a court of law as it was.

I've also spoken long and often at Singleton with  palliative care staff over coffees,  who admitted that it's not often the seemingly great answer that it's touted to be. Sometimes, but mostly not.  Some of them joked that they'll jump under a bus if their time comes.  How much confidence does that give you in it??

Okay back to the fray.  What particular doomsday scenarios can you throw up preventing .. 1.Terminal. 2. Coherent. 3 Personally requesting suffers from being given authority to end it by their own choice?

Let's see if we can get Category One up and running at least.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 11, 2014)

*SifuPhil's Euthanasia Worksheet (SPEW)*

*Category 1*
[h=3]Pain Testing[/h] 


*Sub-Section A: Pain Assessment*


*Paragraph 1: Pain Assessment Scales*


Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
Verbal Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS)
Verbal Descriptor Scale (VDS)
Brief Pain Inventory
Alder Hey Triage Pain Score [SUP][/SUP]
Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS)[SUP][/SUP]
Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)[SUP][/SUP]
Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators (CNPI)[SUP][/SUP]
Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT)[SUP][/SUP]
COMFORT scale[SUP][/SUP]
Dallas Pain Questionnaire [SUP][/SUP]
Descriptor differential scale (DDS)[SUP][/SUP]
Dolorimeter Pain Index (DPI)[SUP][/SUP]
Edmonton Symptom Assessment System
Faces Pain Scale - Revised (FPS-R)
Face Legs Activity Cry Consolability scale
Lequesne Algofunctional Index
Original index (1987)[SUP][/SUP]
1991 revision[SUP][/SUP]
1997 revision[SUP][/SUP]

McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ)
Neck Pain and Disability Scale –NPAD[SUP][/SUP]
Numerical 11 point box (BS-11)[SUP][/SUP]
Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11)[SUP][/SUP]
OSWESTRY Index
Palliative Care Outcome Scale (PCOS)[SUP][/SUP]
Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire [SUP][/SUP]
Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS)[SUP][/SUP]
Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale[SUP][/SUP]
Visual analog scale (VAS)[SUP][/SUP]



*Specialized Tests*
Disease-Specific Pain Scale: DSPI = (ΣX · Y) · 100 where X is the highest pain level on a 0–10 scale and Y is the percentage  of this pain level in the group. The DSPI is different from the simple  numeric 0–10 scale in that it is measured for a group of patients with a  specific diagnosis whereas the numeric 0–10 pain scale is administered  individually.
Pediatric Pain Questionnaire (PPQ)[SUP][/SUP] for measuring pain in children
Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) for measuring pain in premature infants
Schmidt Sting Pain Index[SUP][/SUP] and Starr sting pain scale both for insect stings
Colorado Behavioral Numerical Pain Scale (for sedated patients)
AUSCAN: Disease-Specific, to assess hand osteoarthritis outcomes.
WOMAC : Disease-Specific, to assess knee osteoarthritis outcomes.
Osteoarthritis Research Society International-Outcome Measures in  Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OARSI-OMERACT) Initiative, New OA  Pain Measure: Disease-Specific, Osteoarthritis Pain




Now, then ... let's make a decision on the very first part of determining pain levels ... which test to administer ...


----------



## Casper (Jan 11, 2014)

_*Di....I'm with you completely on this....totally agree....
:iagree:*_


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 11, 2014)

_And as usual Di in her wisdom has written a great explanation and i agree with her as well_


----------



## Ozarkgal (Jan 11, 2014)

> SifuPhil said:
> 
> 
> > That hasn't always worked out so well in the past 238 years ...
> ...


----------



## drifter (Jan 11, 2014)

Wherever I am, I want to die in my sleep, painless and unknowing.


----------



## Ozarkgal (Jan 11, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> *SifuPhil's Euthanasia Worksheet (SPEW)*
> 
> *Category 1*
> *Pain Testing*
> ...



Phil, are you using this apparent textbook content just for the sake of an argument, that no one unless they were a qualified medical doctor or studying to be one could possibly understand, or is this what is really and actually involved in moving forward with a decision to have assisted death in a right to state? 

 I don't hear you saying why you are so adamantly against an individual being able to have this as an option, other than possible mental issues and exploitation.


----------



## Ozarkgal (Jan 11, 2014)

drifter said:


> Wherever I am, I want to die in my sleep, painless and unknowing.




Right on Drifter, that's what we all hope for.  That's like winning the lottery of life!


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 12, 2014)

Phil, appreciate the work but....  Why exactly is all that necessary?   Isn't it all just fancy legalities promulgated by people who make a living out of  their complexities?  

Why is that one decision in life so much  more complex and focused upon than other equally life ending decisions we make?   Like driving into walls and base jumping?
Why is that responsibility  for action taken away from suffering individuals only,  by people it doesn't affect in any way whatever?
When did a person have to prove they are sane to anybody to jump off a bridge?
The bus driver who dropped them off at the nearest stop isn't charged with assisting their suicide.
The bridge builder isn't either.
The jump was that individual's decision and it isn't even illegal.
... and it doesn't matter what was going on in their head because it was obviously bad enough to make them jump.
Their decision.
We can try and talk 'em down if it makes us feel better about ourselves, but* unless we can (not 'might' can) fix what ails them* I don't see that we have the right to stop them by force.

Does  it come down to "oh, too weak to climb the bridge rail eh?  Tough,  you'll just have to lie there and suffer in agony then won't you?"

"We really sorry,  we can't do a thing about the suffering,  but we're quite content to sit here  and pretend sympathy while we watch and discuss the finer ethical details among ourselves,  because we have a really severe  self preservation fear of getting into trouble with gods and lawyers  over the technicality of giving you a hand to climb over the rail."


When  can we ever let go of trying to control everyone and everything and let  people bear their own responsibilities for their decisions?
Why do we get so bloody precious about this and ignore other potentially harmful 'rights' that are killing people too?  

What  are we thinking?  Really.  Do we care about their suffering, or just  about our own smug clear consciences and winning points over trivial legal intricacies?    Who's benefit is all the argument  really for?  Them? I don't think so. 

 It's about what 'might' happen to  someone who 'might' exist in a possible scenario in the future that  'might' be illegal or at least, gasp, unethical, and which we 'might'  feel responsible,  or distantly guilty for. 

 Like that never happens already!  No one ever smothered Grandma for the inheritance? Never?  Would that only happen if Voluntary Euthanasia was legalized.?
We'd better not legalize bank robbing then because that won't happen without a law enacted okaying it either.
Apparently, according to the obsessively ethical,  everyone is a latent bank robber, or murderer,  just waiting for the nod to do it.

People won't become homicidal maniacs busily culling their relatives because a law legalizing the voluntary form of euthanasia is passed.  People remain who they are and the overwhelming majority are good people trying to do the best they can for those they care for.

I've heard it argued that legalizing Weed is okay because people who don't want to smoke it won't take it up just because it's legal.  And that most wont become addicted to it because it's not in their nature. Probably true.

Why doesn't that same theory of human nature apply to Euthansasia laws?  What insidious danger lies there that doesn't lie in many laws and rights?  Bad people do bad things right?  Isn't that how it goes?  Why are good people denied their rights because of that?


I thought I was pretty cynical, but not as much as those who suspect that  anguished relatives are' likely to suddenly take the notion to snuff their loved ones for their own  financial or emotional gain as soon as there's a loophole that 'might let  them get away with it.  Wow, now that is really being cynical.  

The  only difference between us is that you apparently believe you have some  kind of tenuous control over people's behavior
 with ethical laws, when I accepted  long ago that we will always live with a fair ratio of arseholes among  us no matter what the law is.  
Get over it.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 12, 2014)

Ozarkgal said:


> Phil, are you using this apparent textbook content just for the sake of an argument, that no one unless they were a qualified medical doctor or studying to be one could possibly understand, or is this what is really and actually involved in moving forward with a decision to have assisted death in a right to state?



Legal decisions such as this one don't come about by having tea and crumpets one sunny afternoon, then unanimously agreeing to a new law. The crafting of such an emotionally-laden piece of legislature is, I am pretty sure, a very complex affair, and I see this list as being just a part of the decision-making process that would be carried out by a conscientious law-maker.



> I don't hear you saying why you are so adamantly against an individual being able to have this as an option, other than possible mental issues and exploitation.



I am NOT against it. I am against the _government_ setting out laws and rules that govern my say over my _own_ life. My body and soul are mine - no one else has a right to tell me what to do with them.



Diwundrin said:


> Phil, appreciate the work but....  Why exactly is all that necessary?   Isn't it all just fancy legalities promulgated by people who make a living out of  their complexities?



Yes, it is, exactly, and that's the law-making process.



> Why is that one decision in life so much  more complex and focused upon than other equally life ending decisions we make?   Like driving into walls and base jumping?



I once ran into a wall that left a big bump on my forehead that is still there to this day. I assure you there was precious little decision-making involved in the process. 

I've also base-jumped (on a very small scale, in my youth) and while the pros and cons WERE weighed a bit more carefully, it was still not on the same scale as inducing my own death. 



> Why is that responsibility  for action taken away from suffering individuals only,  by people it doesn't affect in any way whatever?



Because of the need of others to exert their control.



> When did a person have to prove they are sane to anybody to jump off a bridge?



They don't - unless they are unsuccessful, in which case society deems them as dangerous and "not quite right" and locks them up "for their own good".



> The bus driver who dropped them off at the nearest stop isn't charged with assisting their suicide.



Technically, if he KNEW they were going to jump he could be legally involved.



> The bridge builder isn't either.



It's called "professional malfeasance" - if they did not include sufficient safeguards in the design and construction then they too could be held liable.



> The jump was that individual's decision and it isn't even illegal.
> ... and it doesn't matter what was going on in their head because it was obviously bad enough to make them jump.



First, they were probably trespassing. 

Second, in this country it IS illegal to attempt suicide (with the exceptions of course of the areas being discussed here). 

Third, it DOES matter what was going on in their heads, and that's why it would be important to ascertain their psychological state - because it DOES matter whether they were jumping because they had terminal cancer, or because their pet turtle just died from an overdose of those nifty little turtle-food flakes. 

In the first case, most people could empathize. In the second, they might have been making an emotional, irrational decision, one from which there is usually no return and which in the eyes of most others would be a waste of the most precious gift we have. 




> Their decision.
> We can try and talk 'em down if it makes us feel better about ourselves, but* unless we can (not 'might' can) fix what ails them* I don't see that we have the right to stop them by force.



And we DO have the ability to "fix" them, whether it's just a good friend talking them back down to sensibility or a course of professional therapy. Of course, this applies to the turtle-episode survivor, not the terminal cancer patient. So once again we have the need to categorize the causes of the suicide attempt, in order that we know whether or not intervention is truly warranted.



> Does  it come down to "oh, too weak to climb the bridge rail eh?  Tough,  you'll just have to lie there and suffer in agony then won't you?"
> 
> "We really sorry,  we can't do a thing about the suffering,  but we're quite content to sit here  and pretend sympathy while we watch and discuss the finer ethical details among ourselves,  because we have a really severe  self preservation fear of getting into trouble with gods and lawyers  over the technicality of giving you a hand to climb over the rail."



Again you're focusing on the Alpha cases, which are in reality only a minority of suicide attempts. Much more often you're going to encounter the turtle-people. Theirs is the real gray-area, not something as cut-and-dried as terminal disease cases.



> When  can we ever let go of trying to control everyone and everything and let  people bear their own responsibilities for their decisions?
> Why do we get so bloody precious about this and ignore other potentially harmful 'rights' that are killing people too?



As I mentioned previously, I believe it the desire to exert one's will over others. That's a disease that is epidemic among politicians and do-gooders.



> What  are we thinking?  Really.  Do we care about their suffering, or just  about our own smug clear consciences and winning points over trivial legal intricacies?    Who's benefit is all the argument  really for?  Them? I don't think so.
> 
> It's about what 'might' happen to  someone who 'might' exist in a possible scenario in the future that  'might' be illegal or at least, gasp, unethical, and which we 'might'  feel responsible,  or distantly guilty for.
> 
> Like that never happens already!  No one ever smothered Grandma for the inheritance? Never?  Would that only happen if Voluntary Euthanasia was legalized.?



I totally agree.



> We'd better not legalize bank robbing then because that won't happen without a law enacted okaying it either.
> Apparently, according to the obsessively ethical,  everyone is a latent bank robber, or murderer,  just waiting for the nod to do it.



I've often said that the line that separates the model citizen from the true psycho is tissue-thin, and requires only the smallest of catalysts.



> People won't become homicidal maniacs busily culling their relatives because a law legalizing the voluntary form of euthanasia is passed.  People remain who they are and the overwhelming majority are good people trying to do the best they can for those they care for.



We don't know that for sure - we will only know it after the law is passed, by which time it will be too late and the entire law-making process will have to gear up again, wasting yet more years.



> I've heard it argued that legalizing Weed is okay because people who don't want to smoke it won't take it up just because it's legal.  And that most wont become addicted to it because it's not in their nature. Probably true.



The first part is true, as has been seen with alcohol and cigarettes.

The second part is false, mainly because marijuana is not an addictive substance.



> Why doesn't that same theory of human nature apply to Euthansasia laws?  What insidious danger lies there that doesn't lie in many laws and rights?  Bad people do bad things right?  Isn't that how it goes?  Why are good people denied their rights because of that?



Perhaps it's because it's such an emotionally-charged issue. Birth and death are certainly the two biggest events in a person's life, so I think it only proper that due consideration and deliberation be taken before enacting laws concerning them. 




> I thought I was pretty cynical, but not as much as those who suspect that  anguished relatives are' likely to suddenly take the notion to snuff their loved ones for their own  financial or emotional gain as soon as there's a loophole that 'might let  them get away with it.  Wow, now that is really being cynical.



That isn't being cynical - that's being a student of human nature. Relatives have snuffed relatives for a few bucks - hell, one guy killed his own son over a turkey leg at Thanksgiving! - so I don't think it outside the realm of possibility that someone is going to bend this law to their own purposes.



> The  only difference between us is that you apparently believe you have some  kind of tenuous control over people's behavior
> with ethical laws, when I accepted  long ago that we will always live with a fair ratio of arseholes among  us no matter what the law is.
> Get over it.



You are SO, so wrong on that ... look up "Anarchist" in the dictionary - you'll see my picture.


----------

