# How do we feel about legal assisted suicide



## AZ Jim (Mar 25, 2015)

I happen to think it's a persons right to, when confronted with a hopelessly terminal illness take their own life.  My decision is not complicated by religious dogma.


*News from The Associated Press*



*hosted.ap.org*/dynamic/stories/U/US_RIGHT_TO_DIE_CALIFORNIA
By JUDY LIN               
  Mar 25, 4:19 PM EDT


Posthumous Brittany Maynard video supports aid-in-dying bill 
  By JUDY LIN 
Associated Press     SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- In a video recorded 19 days before Brittany  Maynard took life-ending drugs, she tells California lawmakers that no  one should have to leave home to legally kill themselves under the care  of a doctor.
 "Unfortunately, California law  prevented me from getting the end-of-life option I deserved," she said  in the recording released Wednesday, hours ahead of the first state  Senate committee hearing on the issue.
 The  29-year-old San Francisco Bay Area woman had terminal brain cancer and  moved with her family to Oregon before killing herself last year.
 Her  death drew widespread attention and recharged legislative efforts in  California and elsewhere to make it legal for terminally ill patients to  kill themselves with drugs.
 "No one should  have to leave their home and community for peace of mind, to escape  suffering, and to plan for a gentle death," Maynard said In the video.
 The  bill being considered in California is expected to face a strong  challenge led by medical and religious groups. Opponents see huge  consequences for allowing doctors to prescribe fatal drugs.
 Among  the opponents are other terminally ill patients such as Kara Tippetts, a  38-year-old Colorado mother of four, who wrote an open letter to  Maynard in October urging her not to end her life.
 Tippetts wrote that suffering can be "the place where true beauty can be known." She died this month of breast cancer.
 Advocates  for aid-in-dying laws say legislators in at least 17 states have  introduced similar measures this year. However, proposals in at least  four states have already stalled for the year and many have not yet  received a hearing.
 Past proposals have foundered in statehouses amid emotionally charged debates and strong opposition.
 Some  medical groups say prescribing life-ending medication violates a  doctor's oath to do no harm, while some advocates for people with  disabilities fear some sick patients would feel pressured to end their  lives to avoid being a financial burden.
 In  the video recorded by the right-to-die advocacy group Compassion &  Choices before legislation was introduced in California, Maynard said  she explored palliative care as an alternative to life-ending drugs but  found that option terrifying.
 "I may be minimally conscious, still suffering and unable to move or speak," she said.
 Palliative care refers to specialized medical treatment to manage stress and pain from serious illnesses.
 Maynard's  husband, Dan Diaz, who introduced the video at the hearing, said he  respects those who disagree with him and his wife, but aid-in-dying  should be an option for all Californians.
 "Even  the staunchest of opponents might say, `Well, I may not use it, but I  would certainly want the option,'" Diaz said as he choked back tears.
 The  practice is legal in five states, including Oregon, where Maynard moved  before she took her life Nov. 1. The other states are Montana, New  Mexico, Vermont and Washington.
 California advocates have said they would consider taking the issue to voters if it fails in the Legislature.
 Before her death, Maynard made her case public with online videos that were viewed tens of millions of times.
 Maynard's mother, Deborah Ziegler, also appeared in Sacramento in support of SB128.
 The  proposal by Sens. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, and Lois Wolk, D-Davis, would  allow terminally ill patients to kill themselves in California with  drugs and dosages recommended by a doctor.


----------



## Ameriscot (Mar 25, 2015)

I agree that it should be legal if a person has no quality of life, they should be allowed to choose their time of death.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 25, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> I agree that it should be legal if a person has no quality of life, they should be allowed to choose their time of death.



To not allow it, is cruel due to the less rapid and effective methods many choose in desperation.  And what of those poor souls who fail in the effort and suffer more than before.


----------



## Ameriscot (Mar 25, 2015)

Yes it is cruel not to allow it.  As far as I know if I needed to I would have to go to Switzerland.  People have to take their loved ones there and it's a struggle for them.


----------



## Josiah (Mar 25, 2015)

I have actively supported death with dignity advocacy groups for more than 25 years. I have a copy of Derek Humphry's book Final Exit (with recent updates) on my bookshelf. Ironically my wife who also supported the idea of assisted suicide can no longer be a candidate because she is no longer able to make anything approaching a rational judgement about herself. Assisted suicide is very problematical for many older seniors because even minor senility precludes the strict criterion for informed judgement that Oregon and other states that permit assisted suicide rightly demand.


----------



## hollydolly (Mar 25, 2015)

I am completely Pro Assisted dying, I just feel it's the most appalling disregard of choice for a human being to be disallowed to end their own suffering with the help of someone else if they are living in insufferable pain and in the darkest months or years of their lives 

However assisted dying and assisted suicide are 2 different things in law...

The Uk has no assisted suicide nor assisted dying law..which is a disgrace in my own personal opinion

There are about 4 or 5 states in the  USA who now have  an assisted dying law, and the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland has an assisted suicide law. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitas_(assisted_dying_organisation)

http://time.com/3551560/brittany-maynard-right-to-die-laws/


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 25, 2015)

I'm for assisted suicide, it should be legal in every state.


----------



## pchrise (Mar 25, 2015)

How does this fit in with pain management, does that change things? and does all types of terminal illness count?


----------



## Falcon (Mar 25, 2015)

I'm all for it. Alternate measures sometimes get pretty messy.


----------



## Glinda (Mar 25, 2015)

I agree that assisted suicide should be an option for everyone.  The current movie "Still Alice" touches on the subject of suicide. IMO, the saddest aspect of the question is what about those people whose enjoyment of life has slipped away (such as the Alice character in the movie) but they no longer have the capacity to make such a decision?  I'm not necessarily talking about people on life support.


----------



## Pappy (Mar 25, 2015)

Absolutly for it. It should be legal. Closes thing to it is a Living Will but doesn't go far enough.


----------



## Cookie (Mar 25, 2015)

I am in favor of decriminalizing it.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 25, 2015)

pchrise said:


> How does this fit in with pain management, does that change things? and does all types of terminal illness count?



Sounds like you feel one should employ "pain management" (heavy drugs to keep you out of it), so this drugged up and very sick person should linger until he/she is "called".  I do not.


----------



## Josiah (Mar 25, 2015)

Glinda said:


> I agree that assisted suicide should be an option for everyone.  The current movie "Still Alice" touches on the subject of suicide. IMO, the saddest aspect of the question is what about those people whose enjoyment of life has slipped away (such as the Alice character in the movie) but they no longer have the capacity to make such a decision?  I'm not necessarily talking about people on life support.



What sometimes happens in the case of extreme suffering is an understanding doctor or other health professional will act humanly but entirely illegally to hasten death. In other cases a spouse tormented by seeing his/her partner suffer causes the death in some inelegant and undignified way.


----------



## Falcon (Mar 25, 2015)

That's just what I said Josh.  Could get messy.


----------



## pchrise (Mar 25, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Sounds like you feel one should employ "pain management" (heavy drugs to keep you out of it), so this drugged up and very sick person should linger until he/she is "called".  I do not.



Not at all, just saying the system is againts choice on a basic level as it stands now.


----------



## Georgia Lady (Mar 25, 2015)

I would want legal assisted suicide if I was in a painful terminal situation.  My Aunt asked for her feeding tube to be removed so she would die.  She was 87 years old, bedridden and in pain and in a Nursing Home.  It almost killed her Daughter and Son to watch her die.  She would have been better off to have a lethal injection.


----------



## ndynt (Mar 25, 2015)

I feel it should be a personal choice, just like abortion.


----------



## DoItMyself (Mar 25, 2015)

I have no problem with death with dignity.  I prefer not to call it suicide because of the stigma attached to suicide.
I think everyone has a right and responsibility to control their own life, and if there comes a point that quality of life is so poor, and death is going to be a long, drawn out affair, they have a right to choose to end their life.
I think there should be some checks and balances-someone with a terminal illness should be allowed assistance to die with dignity rather than suffer a protracted, painful, expensive illness.  I don't believe that someone who isn't ill or isn't suffering should be allowed assistance to end their life.
My wife and I have often talked about the subject-if I'm at a point where I'm a burden I will control my destiny.  I won't allow myself to languish in a hospital or tucked away in a nursing home.  If there is a medical way to do it I'll take it.  If not, it's easy enough to make it look accidental.


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 25, 2015)

How do I feel, I feel sad someone is in so much pain they want to die.  I would want to I'm sure in that much pain.  What do I think?  I think that if women can decide what goes on in their own body, and abort a child (fetus, whatever you choose to call "it") then folks should be able to commit suicide without getting put in jail.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 25, 2015)

What do I feel? 

My feelings are that I hope that no-one in my family ever feels the need to take their own life, just as I hope that no young woman in my family ever has to consider aborting the baby in her womb. That they might have to is to me an appalling thought.

Having said that, I have sat beside a number of my old relatives during their dying days. None of them asked for release, nor to hurry the process. Each clung to life with a tenacious spirit. I wondered why they didn't just let go but I concluded that they were just not ready yet. I'm a little afraid that assisted suicide asked for by a patient might gradually morph into a decision by families or medical staff to euthanize an elderly patient 'for their own good' whether they are ready or not..

For myself, I prefer to die naturally, in my own time, and without a suicide pill, unless I face something akin to being burnt at the stake. In that case I would welcome an early release. Then I would welcome a 'kindly bullet', but only after the wood was well alight.  

By dying naturally I mean without pointless medical intervention. At my age, that means without being hooked up to life support or subjected to useless chemotherapy etc. It does not mean that I would reject pain relief and palliative treatments.

Personally I would never ask anyone to kill me because while I would then be out of my misery, the deliverer of the coup de grace might be psychologically scarred for life. I'm not afraid of death but more importantly I'm not afraid of the process that is dying. I hope to face both with courage and fortitude when my time comes.

I fully realise that others feel differently.

I also realise that my above metaphors are a bit confused but I am talking hypothetically because I'm not on that particular path just yet. When I'm actually there I'm know my feelings a lot more clearly.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 25, 2015)

Having just watched a relative die from  cancer and who, of course, had to ride it out till the bitter end, and it WAS an awful end, I am even more in favor of assisted dying (in her case, the "wood was already alight" for quite a while and there was zero hope).  She not only lost her life to the cancer, she lost her dignity, her privacy, her great grace and her pride.  Had she been able to choose to leave before the last ravages, I'm sure she would have done so.

And as to "suicide" -- I do not believe you could have called suicide in a case like hers -- it was the cancer that killed her, whether she bore it till the end or whether she had had a merciful end to her suffering.  

Some may believe there is some sort of beauty or grace or some kind of redemption in great suffering -- I wonder how many of those who believe that have truly watched it happen.  In Karin's case, there was no beauty,  no grace, nothing but seemingly endless pain and humiliation for her as she screamed and choked and gasped her way to the end.  And yes she had good hospice care and pain meds, but they didn't take it all away.  (I am not faulting the hospice care -- they did all they were allowed to do.)

We end our pets' suffering humanely -- why can't we apply that same humanity to ourselves?


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 25, 2015)

Canada's Supreme Court recently voted to allow assisted suicide under rigid competency guidlnes. I believe the law takes effect In about a year. I am very pleased to know that I will be able to die with dignity when my time comes. It is ridiculous that our animals often enjoy a far more humane and peaceful passing than we humans are permitted to experience. There is nothing ennobling about suffering.


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 26, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> What do I feel?
> 
> My feelings are that I hope that no-one in my family ever feels the need to take their own life, just as I hope that no young woman in my family ever has to consider aborting the baby in her womb. That they might have to is to me an appalling thought.
> 
> ...



I have no doubt Dame, that if this is ok, then onto the next thing to be ok or politically correct, or it's a New Age, so now this is all ok.  It's pretty much that way now, if it feels good do it, if you think it's right it is.  I don't believe in a lot of this NEW stuff that isn't new at all.  It's been here for at least a couple thousand years.

I agree with all of it though(your post, and understand exactly what you are saying), if someone is in pain, give them meds (morphine etc.).  The actual "law" being changed.  It used to be abortion to save a woman from dying (save the mother first, although I know there are mothers that would rather die and have their child live).  Now abortions are a fix for promiscuity, and oopsee, I forgot my rubber.  No worries.  When does life begin?  That's up to each person's interpretation of the information available.  You can attack me for being abortion-phobic, but I had 2 in my 20s, it was the thing to do, I was ignorant as hell, I still get tears when I talk about it.  If only I'd known then.  I would love to help other girls/women, if they want it.  Mine, which seems to be the usual, is not the popular view.  Ask me if I care.


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 26, 2015)

I can understand yours and Butterflies views, I just don't think I'll be thinking much about dignity when it's time for me to go.  I don't even worry about my dignity while being spread-eagle with some doc probing every orifice of my body with his rubber glove.

By the way, I'm firing my doctor, which doesn't mean if I "need" one for what they are good at, like setting broken bones, I won't go to emergency.  Again, another unpopular idea.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 26, 2015)

Now that abortion has entered the subject, I'll clarify my feeling on it.  I believe a woman has every right to terminate a first trimester pregnancy ( later if it endangers the mothers life or there is another medical reason).  I am not bound by religion to feel differently.  Religion binds in so many anti-human ways.  Catholics used to go to "hell" for a divorce whether they were the petitioner or not.  I don't know if that's still part of their dogma or not.  I had a cousin who died at birth, had "original sin" and could not be buried in the family plot in a catholic cemetery. My point is religion is at the base of so many social issues that it confuses the rational thought process of many.


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 26, 2015)

there's a lot wrong with religion, and I already agree that there are times when abortion is necessary.  I also believe there is a lot wrong with the "opposite" ways of "believing" or "non-religion" It's for each man and woman to decide and live with.  I won't argue because if I believe in something, I know it doesn't make it truth.  Simply going to express my opinion.  My opinions can change when I read others thoughts/opinions.  I appreciate the way you stated yours, not rude, condescending, or judgmental.  

PS I love that signature photo.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 26, 2015)

Thank you.


----------



## Debby (Mar 26, 2015)

pchrise said:


> How does this fit in with pain management, does that change things? and does all types of terminal illness count?




Canada's Supreme Court just eliminated the ban on assisted suicide or I prefer, assisted dying laws here and now our government is going to have to come up with legislation that will match our courts decision.  

I think that for some people, palliative care (pain management) is appropriate and our country should be making more efforts to provide that option and making it readily accessible across the provinces.  However, there are some disease processes I've heard (and QS or any other doctor/nurse here could verify this) where pain management is extremely difficult to insure and so some folks do suffer horribly at the end.  Assisted dying is the answer to their plight and should be an option that is available to everyone who is able to make that decision.   Or in the case of Alzheimers, where the prognosis is the same for everyone, we should be able to decide just how we exit.  Of course some folks will chose one and some will chose the other but we need to have the option don't you think?


----------



## Debby (Mar 26, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> Having just watched a relative die from  cancer and who, of course, had to ride it out till the bitter end, and it WAS an awful end, I am even more in favor of assisted dying (in her case, the "wood was already alight" for quite a while and there was zero hope).  She not only lost her life to the cancer, she lost her dignity, her privacy, her great grace and her pride.  Had she been able to choose to leave before the last ravages, I'm sure she would have done so.
> 
> And as to "suicide" -- I do not believe you could have called suicide in a case like hers -- it was the cancer that killed her, whether she bore it till the end or whether she had had a merciful end to her suffering.
> 
> ...





Sounds like a terrible end for your relative and it must have been awful to for you and everyone else to go through with her.  Sure sorry it was like that for her.  Your last sentence, my thoughts exactly.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 26, 2015)

Thank you Debby.  She was my niece and was barely 41 when she died.   By the time they discovered her cancer, it had already spread everywhere and it was too late.  I've seen others die, but her death really rattled me.   I wish she could have been spared the bitter end -- particularly her last two weeks.


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 27, 2015)

Well, I had to raise the abortion issue, but I realize how totally different that is.  Also, with abortion, I think of the child's rights, who is there to protect their rights.  But there's the argument of when does life start. 

But with this, I do believe a person has the right to manage their own body, just as I am into doctoring myself because the "doctors" have failed miserably.  I'm going to die just like everyone else, but I have a right to alternative remedies for instance, but my insurance doesn't think so.  I'm saying that if someone wants to die they should be able to do that.  I don't know that I could stand by and watch someone suffer, and turn them down if they asked me to help them in that way  It's such a horrible situation, unimaginable for me, I watched my mom die of emphysema, but it seemed so peaceful.  Every situation is different I suppose

I still go with Dame though because as laws are changed, new lifestyles, just things that would never be accepted, are acceptable, I get concerned about what exactly the future holds.  There is nothing new in that.  Things change, that's the only thing certain.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 27, 2015)

A point that seems to be ignored in all of this is the emotional fallout. Women who suffer a miscarriage or still birth carry that pain for the rest of their lives, even though their babies never drew breath. So do women who, for the sake of their child's future, surrendered their babies for adoption. The emotional pain of an abortion, though suppressed, is also long lasting. This is the reason why, while I agree that abortion should be legal, I said that I hope that none of mine should ever have to contemplate one.

Similarly with assisted suicide. When someone ends their life voluntarily, as is suicide, there is enormous impact on surviving relatives, especially the children. It predisposes the next generation to ending their own lives when things get rough. My husband attempted suicide once while depressed but survived. Both of our children were deeply shocked and our son was also close to suicide after his marriage broke down. Fortunately both are happy and well today.

Assisted suicide, where someone provides the means to end life to a terminally ill patient, can go wrong. We had a brief moment when it was legal in the Northern Territory and people flocked there to die. One high profile case turned out to be a misdiagnosis. The autopsy revealed that she did not have cancer at all. Her condition was treatable.

My own mother, aged 91 and suffering from a form of dementia, simply decided one day that she would not eat or drink any more. She was not depressed. In fact she was quite elated; singing and energised. At that time I had the responsibility of giving instructions to the nursing staff about how to handle the situation. I had to put it in writing. I wrote that she was to be offered food but not force fed. I also instructed that should she suffer a heart attack or stroke she was not to be resuscitated. In effect, I signed her death warrant and over the following week she slowly faded away. I sat with her for most of that week and everyone who cared about her came to the bedside to say goodbye. My daughter, who is a nurse, made sure that she had the best palliative care available and she did not suffer at all. She simply shrank before our eyes. Her death was peaceful.

The impact of what I had done hit me between the eyes when I received her death certificate. Cause of death - "dementia, dehydration". It was the dehydration that stabbed at my heart even though I knew that I had done what I thought was the best for her. 

I don't regard my mother's case as either euthanasia or assisted suicide. To me it was a case of letting nature take its course at the end of a long life, in much the same sense that turning off life support for someone who is brain dead is not euthanasia. However, both situations take their toll on the person making the decision. Voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide leave scars too. Before deciding that this is what you want, ask yourselves who is going to be damaged by that decision.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 27, 2015)

I still say there is a HUGE difference between "suicide" and assistance in dying when one is suffering from a terminal illness and looks forward to a godawful death.  

Dame Warrigal, you did the right thing in allowing your mother to pass as she wanted to.  What would you or she have gained if she had been forced to go on as she was when she did not want to??  She was at the end and she knew it and had chosen her own path.  You would never had agreed to what she wanted if she had not suggested it.  

My own mother (whom I still miss to this day) years ago decided to stop chemotherapy and had a DNR order entered in her file.  I certainly didn't oppose her decision -- it was hers to make.  With palliative care, she ultimately died peacefully.  Perhaps continued treatment could have won her a bit more time, but she was interested in quality rather than quantity of life.  She made her own decision for herself, as did your mother.  I'm glad you had the courage to abide by your mother's wishes.    You didn't sign her death warrant, the disease did that, and your mother chose her own way out.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 27, 2015)

Butterfly, I endorse your decisions and am glad to hear that your mother died peacefully. My husband and I have discussed at what point  we would refuse chemo should either of us develop cancer. I would prefer palliative care and a better sense of well being than chase a small extension of time via chemo that is not working.



> She was at the end and she knew it and had chosen her own path.  You would never had agreed to what she wanted if she had not suggested it.



It wasn't that simple, Butterfly. Mum had dementia and had practically given up talking. She was not particularly unwell but after a fall when she broke her leg, she refused to walk any more, although she was able to stand. When she decided to stop eating she did not voice her decision in any coherent way. I was called to the home because she was behaving strangely. She was singing exultantly like some crazy opera diva and waving her hands about. Mum did not sing, could not sing.

When she saw me she made direct eye contact and said "No more," several times while making a gesture with her hands. one hand on top of the other while making firm downwards motions. Then she resumed singing.

Intuitively I sensed that she was saying that she was willing to go, even eager to go. She had always believed that the beloved dead arrive to escort you from life to something else and I felt that she had had some kind of vision that excited her. In spite of her dementia she was not prone to hallucinations up to that point.

So, what do you do about a demented old lady who is acting crazy, possibly halucinating and refusing food? She had never talked about death much except to say that she didn't want to know that she was dying when the time came. Mum was feisty and I knew that she would fight any efforts at force feeding which is why I forbad it. I did ask that she continue to be offered food and drink but all she would accept was a few sips of water with honey and lemon to freshen her mouth. Once I tried to trick her with a spoonful of soup but she rejected it immediately and I again got the "no more" instruction and the hand gesture, which confirmed to me that I had interpreted it correctly at the outset.

I know that I did the right thing and I certainly didn't do it without talking to my sister and other family members. We were all in agreement.

That situation is very different to this hypothetical one - When Mum broke her leg she was unable to have it fixed for nine days because she was on blood thinning medication. Nine days in hospital for an old woman with dementia and a broken leg is very hard. Had someone suggested to me that the best course of action was to give her morphine and allow her to die, with or without something to accelerate the process, would I have been justified in consenting? I think not, yet I do fear this as a logical extension of voluntary euthanasia. Once the most extreme pain is eliminated, why not progress to removing current but lesser pain and then possible future pain in the very elderly?

Mum was always pretty stoic but some other old ladies cried out and wept every time a nurse attended to them. Their cries were hard to listen to but do they really mean that life has become unbearable, or just that particular moment ? Is it possible that in the future these decisions will ultimately be decided on economic grounds rather than humanitarian ones? I hope not.


----------



## Ameriscot (Mar 28, 2015)

My mom was ill with one thing or another for 40 years. Autoimmune disease, cancers, stroke, liver damage due to medication, etc. Very poor quality of life in her last ten years. It amazed doctors that she lived as long as she did and said she had a very strong constitution. She was bedridden her last few years with my dad and a home help taking care of her. I think she just decided it was time to die as she had been keeping herself alive by sheer will for my dad. She died of pneumonia at 71. It was a relief to know she wasn't suffering any more. I doubt she would have considered assisted suicide but I would have understood if she did.


----------



## Debby (Mar 28, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Butterfly, I endorse your decisions and am glad to hear that your mother died peacefully. My husband and I have discussed at what point  we would refuse chemo should either o.............Mum was always pretty stoic but some other old ladies cried out and wept every time a nurse attended to them. Their cries were hard to listen to but do they really mean that life has become unbearable, or just that particular moment ? Is it possible that in the future these decisions will ultimately be decided on economic grounds rather than humanitarian ones? I hope not.




It sounds like your mom made it pretty clear on what she wanted and I'm sorry for your pain as you watched her go.  That being said, I think most jurisdictions who have laws that permit assisted dying have numerous hurdles and legalities that must be attended to and foremost among them is that the sick/terminal patient must be able to assent or even take the meds themselves in the drive to prevent abuses.  The 'assent' requirement would be for those with the kinds of diseases that might make it impossible for them to actively participate.  Like ALS which paralyses and suffocates the sufferer.  Then a doctor would need to help, or maybe a loved one who has been taught how to give and injection maybe or help them to drink something.....

I have no doubt that if I was that old and nurses attending to my needs (because I wasn't able to) actually caused me to cry out in pain, that I would rather not have to look forward to the next time they hurt/treated me and would want release.  And if in the midst of my pain, I'm thinking about the economic or even 'healing' benefits that would accrue to my family if I were allowed to go, then I think that's okay.  I do agree that anyones continued living or their death shouldn't be judged based on finances by anyone else.  And that's why they are writing the laws the way they are.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 28, 2015)

I do not believe that anyone else should make the decision *for* the dying to shorten their life.  BUT, if the dying person can competently state their decision, then I do not see the problem with physician assisted dying -- not to be confused with, in my mother's case, refusing further treatment, which is not assisted dying.


----------



## Josiah (Apr 11, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> I do not believe that anyone else should make the decision *for* the dying to shorten their life.  BUT, if the dying person can competently state their decision, then I do not see the problem with physician assisted dying -- not to be confused with, in my mother's case, refusing further treatment, which is not assisted dying.



I can well imagine circumstances where it is entirely appropriate for a family member with medical power of attorney to make the decision that a suffering person should not have to endure life any longer. There is or course the Terri Schiavo sort of circumstances where the patient is essentially brain dead. But consider a case where the patient is conscious but so cognitively impaired as to be unable to comprehend much more than that he or she is in miserable discomfort, I can even consider for myself, telling my son if I'm in serous pain and have no quality of life, you make the decision and don't make me linger. The second example I cited above is certainly not that uncommon. Sure there are cases where the patient is fully rational and understands the situation and can make the decision for themselves, but more often than not and particularly in the case or the elderly the patient doesn't have the intellectual capability anymore. The humane thing then is to do what you think is best. You make the decision for the family dog when the time has come. You should do the same for your spouse. I'm sure this sounds very cavalier and perhaps I am wrong in always assuming entirely humane motives on the part of person with medical power of attorney. Still the patient in many of the situations I visualize is essentially helpless and suffering, I would like to think there was a way to help them.


----------



## koala (Apr 11, 2015)

Shipper said:


> I have long felt that there should be booths (similar to the old telephone booths) available in every 5 square mile area of a community for the purpose of terminating your life. If you look in the mirror one morning and realize that you are just taking up space on this earth with no particular redeeming value, you should have the right to "off" yourself. You could dial a number and receive a code that was only good for that day (give you time to change your mind); then go to a booth and input the code three separate times correctly (to insure that you were sober), and be electrically cremated. The booth would have some type of vacuum system to remove the ashes and be ready for the next customer. It would be relatively simple to add a money slot to make the booths self-supporting. Seems workable to me-what think you?



Shipper I feel you have been watching too many movies. 
This will never happen as there are too many in this world that would use it even when nothing is wrong or in the state of drugs/alcohol or the aftermath of both. That would bring with it a lot of additional problems should somebody wish to dispose of another.
The same as when a family member wishes to finish the life of a person just to be financially rewarded.
Euthanasia is not only a very personal decision but a very difficult problem to get into law. Not just because religious input, government members, input but all of the associated legal hoops to jump through. It is not a simple thing to do.


----------



## Josiah (Apr 11, 2015)

koala said:


> Shipper I feel you have been watching too many movies.
> This will never happen as there are too many in this world that would use it even when nothing is wrong or in the state of drugs/alcohol or the aftermath of both. That would bring with it a lot of additional problems should somebody wish to dispose of another.
> The same as when a family member wishes to finish the life of a person just to be financially rewarded.
> Euthanasia is not only a very personal decision but a very difficult problem to get into law. Not just because religious input, government members, input but all of the associated legal hoops to jump through. It is not a simple thing to do.



I know you're right about the legal hoops to jump through, however, I've been led to believe that these strictures are not quite so binding in the case of elderly patients.


----------



## Butterfly (Apr 11, 2015)

Josiah said:


> I can well imagine circumstances where it is entirely appropriate for a family member with medical power of attorney to make the decision that a suffering person should not have to endure life any longer. There is or course the Terri Schiavo sort of circumstances where the patient is essentially brain dead. But consider a case where the patient is conscious but so cognitively impaired as to be unable to comprehend much more than that he or she is in miserable discomfort, I can even consider for myself, telling my son if I'm in serous pain and have no quality of life, you make the decision and don't make me linger. The second example I cited above is certainly not that uncommon. Sure there are cases where the patient is fully rational and understands the situation and can make the decision for themselves, but more often than not and particularly in the case or the elderly the patient doesn't have the intellectual capability anymore. The humane thing then is to do what you think is best. You make the decision for the family dog when the time has come. You should do the same for your spouse. I'm sure this sounds very cavalier and perhaps I am wrong in always assuming entirely humane motives on the part of person with medical power of attorney. Still the patient in many of the situations I visualize is essentially helpless and suffering, I would like to think there was a way to help them.



Many times this is unfortunately true.  STILL, I believe allowing others to make the decision foro the dying person can lead to the so-called "slippery slope" of getting rid of an unwanted family member for whatever nefarious reason ("let's off grandpa before he can change his Will").  I DO, however believe, that a competent adult should be allowed to give the right to decide over to a specific family member or friend or physician in advance, via a formal legal instrument duly witnessed, notarized, etc. ( the same way a Will or a Medical Power of Attorney is handled) so that when the time comes that the person is _in extremis_ and no longer competent the designated person could make the decision.


----------



## Butterfly (Apr 11, 2015)

Josiah said:


> I know you're right about the legal hoops to jump through, however, I've been led to believe that these strictures are not quite so binding in the case of elderly patients.



At least here, the situation is no different, regardless whether a person is young or old, which is as it should be.  

As I said above, I think a person should be able to convey their right to decide to another person, BEFORE they become incompetent.  I would like to be able to allow my son to decide, along with my physicians, that it was time to mercifully let me go.

In my state, however, we don't yet have the right to make that decision even for ourselves, but it's in the works.  We have a case on appeal that would strike down our law against assisted dying.


----------



## Josiah (Apr 11, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> Many times this is unfortunately true.  STILL, I believe allowing others to make the decision foro the dying person can lead to the so-called "slippery slope" of getting rid of an unwanted family member for whatever nefarious reason ("let's off grandpa before he can change his Will").  I DO, however believe, that a competent adult should be allowed to give the right to decide over to a specific family member or friend or physician in advance, via a formal legal instrument duly witnessed, notarized, etc. ( the same way a Will or a Medical Power of Attorney is handled) so that when the time comes that the person is _in extremis_ and no longer competent the designated person could make the decision.



You are certainly right about slippery slope situations and nefarious relatives with less than humane motives. I'm quite naive coming from a very small, but trustworthy family. As you may know my personal situation includes caring about and caring for my wife who suffers from severe cognitive impairment and has been in a skilled nursing facility for nearly a year now. Fortunately she does not suffer unduly either physically or emotionally but should this situation change significantly I would be faced with interpreting her advance directives.


----------



## Underock1 (Apr 12, 2015)

Josiah said:


> I have actively supported death with dignity advocacy groups for more than 25 years. I have a copy of Derek Humphry's book Final Exit (with recent updates) on my bookshelf. Ironically my wife who also supported the idea of assisted suicide can no longer be a candidate because she is no longer able to make anything approaching a rational judgement about herself. Assisted suicide is very problematical for many older seniors because even minor senility precludes the strict criterion for informed judgement that Oregon and other states that permit assisted suicide rightly demand.



We were "fortunate" Josiah. My wife was on dialysis when her condition became hopeless. She had dementia by then but had an advanced directive. All we had to do was agree to stop dialysis. She passed easily and without knowing within a few days.
We should all have that right, as well as to make the decision for others if they have left us a directive to do so.
The hallmark of the torturer is to prolong the agonies of dying for as long as possible. We are horrified when we hear stories about those people. Yet we force our physicians into the role as they try to maintain life in the pain racked bodies of patients
beyond hope. Its not right!


----------



## Underock1 (Apr 12, 2015)

I'm looking at all of the opinions on here, and thinking of all of the people I have talked to on the subject. With the exception of one relative who objected for religious reasons, they _all _agree that we should be in control of our own death. So why can't we get the law changed? I don't get it. Now that my wife has passed, I would be delighted to have a button that I could push when ready. I also don't understand why it has to be such an elaborate procedure. Every time we have an operation they put us out with anesthesia. Totally painless. Why can't they just give us enough more to send us on our way?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 13, 2015)

Yep, it should be our right to check out at an appropriate time...


----------



## koala (Apr 13, 2015)

Underock1 said:


> I'm looking at all of the opinions on here, and thinking of all of the people I have talked to on the subject. With the exception of one relative who objected for religious reasons, they _all _agree that we should be in control of our own death. So why can't we get the law changed? I don't get it. Now that my wife has passed, I would be delighted to have a button that I could push when ready. I also don't understand why it has to be such an elaborate procedure. Every time we have an operation they put us out with anesthesia. Totally painless. Why can't they just give us enough more to send us on our way?



Simple............Because there are more against than fore


----------



## AZ Jim (Apr 13, 2015)

koala said:


> Simple............Because there are more against than fore




Not so simple.  Do you know that for a fact?


----------



## Underock1 (Apr 13, 2015)

koala said:


> Simple............Because there are more against than fore



Maybe so, but I have only met one. I know that I never had a chance to vote on it.


----------



## Shalimar (Apr 13, 2015)

As the laws around assisted suicide prepare to change in Canada, I wonder if it will be possible for Americans  to access this service? I certainly hope so.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Apr 13, 2015)

Good friend's mother-in-law is 87 and terminal.  She can no longer eat and can barely get liquid down.  Morphine diet.  Family of two daughters and one son have to split time to stay with her.  The experience has completely uprooted the lives of three families.  The lady would prefer to be "assisted" in a painless death.  Can't, because it's against the law.  So... how much longer will this go on?  They gave her 2 weeks, almost 2 months ago.  

Three years ago, we had a good friend breathing her last.  Her husband was also ill and having difficulty remaining with her in hospice.  No family except some nieces and nephews, many miles away, who were just waiting for both to die so they could split the spoils.  My wife and I sat with the lady, so her husband could get some rest at home.
She had a pacemaker.  The doctor said that all one had to do was lay a magnet on her chest and it would stop the pacemaker.  He couldn't, legally.  Her husband did not want "killing" his wife on his conscience.  So, she suffered almost a week longer than she should have had to.

My Mother fought cancer for a little over 10 years.  The last 6 months, she begged.  Instead, we had to watch her almost drinking morphine... not knowing anyone due to the drugged state... until she finally passed.

In the hugely evangelical State, we will never have any chance of relief through doctor assisted death.


----------



## Underock1 (Apr 13, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Good friend's mother-in-law is 87 and terminal.  She can no longer eat and can barely get liquid down.  Morphine diet.  Family of two daughters and one son have to split time to stay with her.  The experience has completely uprooted the lives of three families.  The lady would prefer to be "assisted" in a painless death.  Can't, because it's against the law.  So... how much longer will this go on?  They gave her 2 weeks, almost 2 months ago.
> 
> Three years ago, we had a good friend breathing her last.  Her husband was also ill and having difficulty remaining with her in hospice.  No family except some nieces and nephews, many miles away, who were just waiting for both to die so they could split the spoils.  My wife and I sat with the lady, so her husband could get some rest at home.
> She had a pacemaker.  The doctor said that all one had to do was lay a magnet on her chest and it would stop the pacemaker.  He couldn't, legally.  Her husband did not want "killing" his wife on his conscience.  So, she suffered almost a week longer than she should have had to.
> ...



But its all part of God's plan, and He loves us. Right? ..Right??


----------



## Warrigal (Apr 13, 2015)

The real question would be, where does the medical profession stand on this issue?


----------



## koala (Apr 13, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> The real question would be, where does the medical profession stand on this issue?



Warrigal.........what about their *Hippocratic Oath*.Does this stop them from taking any part in the matter ??

I would think so !!!!!


----------



## Shalimar (Apr 13, 2015)

In Canada many physicians feel it does more harm to leave terminal patients to suffer needlessly, I concur. No one should be forced to die in agony. It is barbaric. It should be a matter of personal choice.


----------



## Butterfly (Apr 13, 2015)

koala said:


> Warrigal.........what about their *Hippocratic Oath*.Does this stop them from taking any part in the matter ??
> 
> I would think so !!!!!



I think it depends on how you look at it.  Their big thing is  "First, do no harm."  My question is, where is the harm, or the greater harm?  Assuming the patient is  hopelessly terminal and suffering greatly, is the greater "harm" in ending that suffering which precedes the inevitable death?  Or is the greater harm in allowing that patient to suffer on and on through the final ravages of disease which end in the inevitable death?   Mind, we are not talking about discomfort here, nor are we talking about patients who have a legitimate hope of survival -- we are talking about patients in extreme unrelenting pain that can no longer be relieved, along with the other godawful things that go along with it -- continual vomiting, diarrhea, struggling for breath, as the systems shut down, hallucinations, flailing about,  etc., and the concomitant suffering of the family as they watch their loved one go through it.  I just watched my niece go through all this, including the indescribable last few days, which were like something out of Dante's Inferno.   For myself, I would gladly jump in front of an oncoming train rather than suffer as she did.  

There was no hope for her -- even if the cancer could have been stopped in its tracks, she could not have continued to live with her damaged organs.  Where is "First, do no harm" in insisting she go through every bitter minute of final suffering?


----------



## Butterfly (Apr 13, 2015)

koala said:


> Simple............Because there are more against than fore



In my experience, there are more FOR these measures than against.  Besides which, such legislation would not REQUIRE assisted dying, but merely allow it to be a personal decision made by the patient, as it is in Oregon.  The problem is certain loud right wingers who want to cram their beliefs down the throats of others, for whatever reasons.


----------



## Shalimar (Apr 13, 2015)

Another reason, in my opinion, why the separation of church and state is so important.


----------



## koala (Apr 13, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> The real question would be, where does the medical profession stand on this issue?


dw 
[h=3]Medical ethics[/h] [h=4]Hippocratic Oath[/h] Physician-assisted suicide is contrary to the original Hippocratic Oath of 400 B.C.E., stating "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel".[SUP][/SUP][SUP][/SUP][SUP][/SUP]The original oath however has been modified many times and, contrary to  popular belief, is not required by most modern medical schools,[SUP][/SUP] although some have adopted modern versions that suit many in the profession in the 21st century.

 [h=4]The Declaration of Geneva[/h] The Declaration of Geneva is a revision of the Hippocratic Oath, first drafted in 1948 by the World Medical Association in response to euthanasia, eugenics and other medical crimes performed in Nazi Germany. It contains, "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life."



 [h=4]The International Code of Medical Ethics[/h] The International Code of Medical Ethics,  last revised in 2006, includes "A physician shall always bear in mind  the obligation to respect human life" in the section "Duties of  physicians to patients".[SUP][/SUP]


----------



## Warrigal (Apr 14, 2015)

koala said:


> Warrigal.........what about their *Hippocratic Oath*.Does this stop them from taking any part in the matter ??
> 
> I would think so !!!!!



The Hippocratic Oath is not Holy Writ. It originally forbad a physician to assist a women to procure an abortion.
Helping someone to die more easily could easily pass through the "first, do no harm" filter.

But how do members of the medical profession regard it, because without their general support it won't happen unless we are willing to allow veterinarians to do the deed.


----------



## Underock1 (Apr 14, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> In my experience, there are more FOR these measures than against.  Besides which, such legislation would not REQUIRE assisted dying, but merely allow it to be a personal decision made by the patient, as it is in Oregon.  The problem is certain loud right wingers who want to cram their beliefs down the throats of others, for whatever reasons.



Their beliefs _are _their reasons.


----------



## Butterfly (Apr 14, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> The Hippocratic Oath is not Holy Writ. It originally forbad a physician to assist a women to procure an abortion.
> Helping someone to die more easily could easily pass through the "first, do no harm" filter.
> 
> But how do members of the medical profession regard it, because without their general support it won't happen unless we are willing to allow veterinarians to do the deed.



In Oregon, I believe the physician prescribed the drugs, the patient fills the prescription and keeps it on hand to use when they wish.  The physician does not directly participate in giving the drugs to the patient.


----------



## Underock1 (Apr 14, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> In Oregon, I believe the physician prescribed the drugs, the patient fills the prescription and keeps it on hand to use when they wish.  The physician does not directly participate in giving the drugs to the patient.



I would love to have something like that at hand, but that sounds awfully dangerous. Couldn't those drugs be used to kill anyone? There must be some kind of safeguards.


----------



## Jackie22 (Apr 14, 2015)

I watched my Dad die a slow death with cancer, at the very last he was given much morphine, I think it is an unspoken thing that the doctors help the patient to die a peacefully and pain free death, I know I was very grateful.


----------



## caregiverrelief (Apr 14, 2015)

As an RN, there are times that life is prolonged, use to extra measures- such as feed tubes, defibrillation, ventilators etc. There should also be a way, that a person, that has pain, or a terminal illness should be able to die with dignity. Seniors are taking matters into their own hands. Sadly, there is a huge growth in the completion of suicide in those over 80! Yes, there are actually terms used "rational suicide" - here is an article here- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/opinion/sunday/prophylactic-suicide.html?_r=0


----------



## drifter (Apr 14, 2015)

I feel sure there are times when assisted suicide would be merciful but the potential for abuse is great and that is worrisome to me.


----------



## koala (Apr 14, 2015)

drifter said:


> I feel sure there are times when assisted suicide would be merciful but the potential for abuse is great and that is worrisome to me.



Drifter that is one of the main reasons why it is not being passed by world governments.


----------



## Lon (Apr 14, 2015)

I support it.


----------



## charlotta (Apr 14, 2015)

Josiah, this is what I most fear.  That dementia will prevent me from being able to commit suicide for myself. I have instructed my family in making sure I can be given something to 
insure that I don't linger.  I am not sure I have one that will carry through my desire.  My Mom was in a state that she could not do this for herself.  She lingered for 14 yrs like this.  Finally her system started breaking down and we called in hospice.  She lingered with us for about 7 days.  I was lucky enough to have her out of the nursing home and with me for those days.


----------



## Butterfly (Apr 14, 2015)

Underock1 said:


> I would love to have something like that at hand, but that sounds awfully dangerous. Couldn't those drugs be used to kill anyone? There must be some kind of safeguards.



I don't know a whole lot of end-stage terminally ill cancer patients who are homicidal.  This is like the argument that patients shouldn't be prescribed too much morphine because they might become addicted.  Yeah, they'll become addicted, but they are DYING!  SO???

There are a lot of safeguards in place -- you can't just walk into a doctor's office and say I want meds to kill myself.  You have to have a terminal diagnosis and go through assosrted hoops (second opinion), waiting time to get meds, etc. before you can get the meds.


----------



## Underock1 (Apr 14, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> I don't know a whole lot of end-stage terminally ill cancer patients who are homicidal.  This is like the argument that patients shouldn't be prescribed too much morphine because they might become addicted.  Yeah, they'll become addicted, but they are DYING!  SO???
> 
> There are a lot of safeguards in place -- you can't just walk into a doctor's office and say I want meds to kill myself.  You have to have a terminal diagnosis and go through assosrted hoops (second opinion), waiting time to get meds, etc. before you can get the meds.



I hear you. I wasn't thinking about the patients, but the fact that once they have the drug it might be easily stolen. 
I assure you, I am all for having it. I wish I had it handy myself.


----------



## truespock (Apr 18, 2015)

Don't get crazy and come rushing to Oregon for their Death with Dignity legislation, guys.  Read this first.

In the late autumn of 2008, after a particularly grueling summer of heavy yard work, my beloved wife of 25 years came up with a fairly severe hernia.  I put her in the hospital to have it repaired and they told us after the surgery that she had stage four cancer "from her neck to her knees" stemming from an untreated lump in her breast that never managed to break the surface.  It was, by this time, a terminal diagnosis; one which had been inexplicably 'missed' through a faithful series of mammograms.  Upon learning of her fate, she made the instant decision to opt out of the inevitable long, agonizing decline and I reluctantly agreed with her.

But the doctors had other plans.  They hemmed and hawed and stalled, eventually convincing her to let them "try a few things" first.  What followed was ten soul-crushing months of pointless chemotherapy, radiation and surgeries, leaving her a sodden, pain-wracked lump who pleaded with me to just let her die every single day.  But without the doctor's consent, my hands were tied.  They were indifferent to her suffering, as I'm certain that I put several of their kids through college with these useless and debilitating 'treatments'.

By the time the cancer had spread to her liver and she began bleeding internally, they finally threw up their hands and released her to the euthanasia program, giving her two weeks to live at the outside anyway.  Unfortunately, it takes SIX weeks to initiate the program from the time of the doctor's authorization.  I brought her home where she promptly lapsed into a coma and finally died ten days later.  Her last words were unintelligible to me but, knowing her as I did, I imagine that left the stage mocking the wonderful freedom that we Oregonians supposedly have with our Death with Dignity law.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Apr 18, 2015)

That's a terrible story Truespock, my sister and brother in law went through those costly painful treatments, only to die from cancer in the end.  That doctor didn't care about your wife, his goal was to encourage as many "treatments" and write as many prescriptions before he lost a patient, who was only a faceless number I'm sure. Money takes priority over human compassion too many times.  I didn't think it would be that difficult in Oregon to have your wishes granted.  My heart goes out to you, sincere condolences for you loss. :rose:


----------



## Shalimar (Apr 18, 2015)

I am so sorry  Truespock, both for your loss, and the terrible ordeal suffered by both you and your wife. Such callousness by members of the 'healing professionals'$ is truly appalling. :love_heart:


----------



## Underock1 (Apr 18, 2015)

I feel for you, Truespock, and even more for Josiah, who is still suffering through this horror with his wife. I only had two months of it. My wife was pretty good until the last couple of weeks. I don't know that its all about the buck though. We live in NJ. We have always found everyone in the medical profession to be very caring and compassionate. The doctors not as much as the nurses, aides, and technicians. What I do think, is that the doctors take advantage of having a body available to try things out on. They will run every test that they can and try every procedure you allow them to. I really think its more about the learning experience for them than the buck. They seem to forget that they are dealing with the lives of an entire family, see the patient as a kind of lab rat.


----------



## Butterfly (Apr 19, 2015)

The things my poor niece went through were absolutely hellish -- and the physicians had known pretty much since the cancer was discovered that it was inevitably terminal..  They kept offering her one more thing -- I know she could have said "no more," but she wanted to live.  I feel they offered her false hope and greatly prolonged her suffering.  There should be a balance between quantity and quality of life, and she had absolutely NO quality of life the last weeks of her life.


----------

