# What's the thinking on Voluntary Euthanasia?



## Diwundrin (Sep 13, 2013)

No, I'm not contemplating it.
Seeing that rights are the topic of the moment what about the right to die at the time and manner of our choosing?
Is it contentious in the States?
It's taboo in politics here, they all turn pale and change the subject.

We have a 'Dr Death', Phillip Nitschke who does his best despite being hounded by the law to enable the terminally ill to access the best option, Nembutal, online from China and Mexico through seminars. 
 Nembutal is totally banned here.  Jail and up to 825,000 bucks fine just for having it in the medicine cabinet. 
A terminal cancer patient is technically legally deemed to be a worse threat to society than an importer of a barrel of heroin.  

Why?  How is drinking Drano okay but accessing a substance to ensure a perfectly peaceful death isn't?? 
Why do they consider it a favour to society to make people suffer unnecessarily?
Even those politicians in favour of legalizing it won't push the issue. 

[Please don't link this to the 'right to life' abortion argument, that involves those without a say and has different connotations and no relevance to this, and I'm not getting into that.]

 Voluntary Euthanasia is a subject that involves adults competent to make their own decision and of all the 'rights' we demand that one seems to me to be one most worth standing up for.  It is probably THE most personal and individual 'right' we should have and it is the very one that we are deprived of.

Why does the religious bias of the few take precedence over the majority in a Democracy?  No one's suggesting that it be mandatory.  If they don't approve they can go as hard as they like but they have no 'right' to force others to do likewise.

Just wondering if it's something that gets much airing over there, or even if it's legal.  Our better doctors do their best to ease the passing of those in pain but can only use morphine etc which isn't as efficient and only used in extremis.  Not everyone wants to get to that stage.

What's the thinking?


----------



## TICA (Sep 13, 2013)

Sounds like Canada is much like Australia in many ways.  Our politicians shy away from the subject too and we have had many documentary/news shows discussing this very topic.  One woman this year took her case to the Supreme Court and the ruling was confusing at best.  Seems like the Courts don't want to be the deciding factor on this issue.   She did win her case but died before they issued the decision to send it back to Parliment for further discussion.

When someone goes to the hospital here with any type of life threatening illness, they automatically ask if they want life support measures taken.  If you say no, then they pump you full of pain meds until you pass away.

For me, I want to make that choice to end my life under controlled circumstances rather than suffer and die in a stuper.  That would also depends on the nature of the condition that I had, but if I had no chance of recovery and knew the condition would be painful, I'd end my life with the support of my loved ones.

I'm healthy so not contemplating that now, but holy moly, it is my life and my choice.


----------



## SifuPhil (Sep 13, 2013)

We have no present Federal laws concerning euthanasia. 4 States (Vermont, Montana, Washington and Oregon) have legal physician-assisted suicide. (Coincidentally, the latter two are also the only present legal marijuana states ...)

The _other_ 46 states consider it illegal.

That should tell you the prevailing attitude here.


----------



## MercyL (Sep 13, 2013)

For years, a fellow named Dr. Kevorkian traveled the USA providing assisted suicides using a machine similar to that used to execute death row inmates. The government finally found a way to convict him and threw him in prison for several years. Once he left prison he pretty much disappeared. 

The perverse need to keep suffering humans alive baffles me, at times, just as antiabortionists baffle me. Should an adult not approve of assisted suicide, they are free to avoid having one. 

One objection to assisted suicide rests in fears of families pressuring elderly members to commit suicide to avoid huge hospital bills or to gain access to small fortunes. Another objection focuses on racial issues, with minorities fearing legalized suicide being used to speed up the creeping genocide currently executed by both governmental and private prison systems.

Of all the fears, the fear of death itself drives many to demand we not talk about it, and that we do nothing to embrace it.

I believe it should be legal, as long as the decision is left squarely on the person ready to die to end their suffering.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 13, 2013)

I believe that the person suffering with a terminal illness should have that choice.


----------



## That Guy (Sep 13, 2013)

It's too easy to make jokes about Youth In Asia.  For me, this is such a complicated subject.  It is illegal to commit suicide and we try to save those despondent folks who are literally at the end of their rope.  Yet, death with dignity is something else altogether.  I pretty much agree with MercyL in that the decision must be left squarely on the people suffering, but I'm concerned about their mental state at that time and those around them encouraging the end for whatever reasons.  I say now, no matter how cavalierly, that I choose to go naturally when my time comes.  Of course, I reserve the right to bite the bitter pill and not the bullet if things get too rough . . .


----------



## Sid (Sep 13, 2013)

"What's the thinking?"    
       We went throught that sometime ago in The US, it seems to have blown over for now. 
        As far as I know we have no laws against it.
        Maybe that is the way it should be?


----------



## Diwundrin (Sep 13, 2013)

> _Of course, I reserve the right to bite the bitter pill and not the bullet if things get too rough . . ._


_
_
That's all it comes down to TG.  It's not meant to apply to any but those with no hope of any improvement or quality of life and good reason to need to be 'out' of it.  

It needn't be complicated by the spectre of mercy killing etc.  Terminal illness is pretty plainly obvious and depression or martydom wouldn't qualify.  

The problem is that at present you don't have that 'right' to reserve.


----------



## Sid (Sep 13, 2013)

MercyL, as I recall  many of the autopsies gave evidence some of his "patients" did not suffer from incurreable disease and some were shown to be people with a history of problems with depression.


----------



## Sid (Sep 13, 2013)

"It's not meant to apply to any but those with no hope of any improvement or quality of life and good reason to need to be 'out' of it."   What is good reason to be 'out' of it,who makes that descion?

       Here we have the right to "pull the plug" and life support is removed. Something I am looking into is a living will that spells out while I am of sound mind and body (if that is possible for me) I chose what level to pull the plug or to not hook it up in the first place. That keeps it simpler for my loved ones they do not have to make that descion. I think it is referred to as "dying with dignity."
     Do you have this opportunity?


----------



## MercyL (Sep 13, 2013)

Sid said:


> MercyL, as I recall  many of the autopsies gave evidence some of his "patients" did not suffer from incurreable disease and some were shown to be people with a history of problems with depression.



I never heard how Kevorkian was finally imprisoned, only that he was, but.....

IF someone's suffering is so difficult, _*for them*_, that they cannot continue, the presence or absence of an incurable disease should not limit their choices. After all, the common cold is incurable, but it normally running its course in about 2 weeks. People with deep seated depression are suffering just as much, if not more, than the terminal cancer patient, as depression can be almost invisible.

This is why I believe the choice must be left to the patient, without others pushing them in either direction. Of course, my opinion does not cover all situations because I cannot possibly think of all situations.


----------



## GDAD (Sep 13, 2013)

Thanks PHIL: when I'm about to go, I'll migrate to Washington. Can't think of anything better than a couple of legal Joints then pull the plug!!!!kay:


----------



## terra (Sep 13, 2013)

My son aged 43, took his own life in May this year.  Most would say it was a selfish thing to do and whilst I don't agree with his decision to do so, I respect his decision and in some ways, I believe that it was an extremely brave thing to do.

Sorry to digress a tad from the subject of Euthanasia but it's kinda in the same ballpark.... the choice to end ones life at a time of their choosing.


----------



## Diwundrin (Sep 13, 2013)

MercyL said:


> I never heard how Kevorkian was finally imprisoned, only that he was, but.....
> 
> IF someone's suffering is so difficult, _*for them*_, that they cannot continue, the presence or absence of an incurable disease should not limit their choices. After all, the common cold is incurable, but it normally running its course in about 2 weeks. People with deep seated depression are suffering just as much, if not more, than the terminal cancer patient, as depression can be almost invisible.
> 
> This is why I believe the choice must be left to the patient, without others pushing them in either direction. Of course, my opinion does not cover all situations because I cannot possibly think of all situations.



All of the above.  I agree that those who want out through depression will find a way, and from experience I'd prefer that they have the option to do it cleanly and quietly than jump under a train and traumatise everyone in the vicinity. 

 But that aspect is beside the point, and derails the discussion, as always,  of the logic of making Nembutal available to the terminally ill.


It's the exercise of power over other people's *options* that bugs me about this most.  
The hypocrisy of it is breathtaking!

Some of the same people in politics and the general population who demand the right to own a gun they can blow their own and other's brains out with, fight to stop someone else having the right to buy a bottle of Nembutal because "it might be used illegally".... WHAAAAT ??  



To put it bluntly, to ban Nembutal but not guns, or trains, simply doesn't make sense to me.

Suicide can't be banned!  All the law does is make people bent on it do it in more messy and crueller fashion.

A healthy depressive can stroll easily to the train station and jump.  
A physically wrecked, terminally ill person in extreme pain CAN'T!

Their rights are totally ignored in order that the few depressed enough to want to end it have to go to the effort of walking to the station.  That's just not fair or logical.

Sure it gets complicated if we want to pursue every 'what if'. 
 But why does discussion by those in power always pursue those endless hypotheticals?  

To avoid making a simple decision to trust that 'they' are not the only ones with a brain capable of making it's own decisions and living or dying with that decision? 
  Do they think everyone else is a moron?
That they are the only ones who have a 'right' to decide on who lives and who dies? .... and HOW?  Really? 

Do they, and by extension we, as we elected them, really have the audacity to believe that what we consider right for ourselves must necessarily be right for *everybody* else?  That our view of life's value must apply to others who don't see theirs as anything but a burden?

There will always be collateral damage accompanying any legislation for just about anything.  Someone may burn to death or drown in a car because they couldn't get out of the seat belt.  Do we then ban seat belts??

This whole euthanasia thing bogs down every time in the what ifs.  We need to cut the Gordian Knot and make it legal for Nembutal to be issued to those with terminal illness *at their own request *regardless of the possible what ifs.  There are already laws that cover those.

If it falls into the wrong hands, so be it.  If it's used by someone not eligible then that's on them, not on the law or the pharmacist.
We don't prosecute train drivers for hitting suicides either.

If it's used on a person by someone other than who was intended to use it on themselves than that's murder.   Pure and simple. We already have laws against that.

If someone is manipulated to take it 'for the good of the family' then perhaps we should consider that the person may view their early demise as being the one last best thing they can do for that family, deserving or not.  
To them it may seem a gift to give, a burden to lift from their loved ones.  If they want to bestow that last gift  then they should be able to do so.  It shouldn't be for us to judge the ethics of it, the 'family' have to live with that guilt, if there is any, not us. 
 We need to get over the illusion that we personally are the World's Nanny.

Sh*t happens, no law will ever be perfect, no 'right' will ever be perfect, no human will either. 
 All we need hope for, and expect,  from legalizing VOLUNTARY euthanasia is that we, personally, will have the right to make a decision on how and when we die.  Not when and how others do.  That's not our problem.

Think about this, the favourite reply to gun arguments is "it's not guns that kill people, people kill people."

How is Nembutal any different to a gun?  It doesn't choose who it kills, people choose to use it.

Shouldn't that right be one worth fighting for too?  Or is only old ones on  Constitutional, or Biblical scraps of paper that count?

Who banned *voluntary* euthanasia?  .... and why?  If it was on religious grounds then doesn't that fly in the face of   Separation of Church and State ?  In that case we don't need to pass laws approving euthanasia, we need to rescind the laws banning it.

/end rant.

I'm bouyed to note that most here think along those lines already.  I just felt like having a rant anyway 'cos I'm like that.  Sorry.


----------



## terra (Sep 13, 2013)

Well spoken Di....

This is certainly a topic that will never have a clear cut outcome because every case is different and everyone has a different view.


----------



## SifuPhil (Sep 13, 2013)

GDAD said:


> Thanks PHIL: when I'm about to go, I'll migrate to Washington. Can't think of anything better than a couple of legal Joints then pull the plug!!!!kay:



Right?

If it wasn't so bloody nasty weather-wise up there I'd move in a flash. I guess that same weather might be a large part of the decision for both laws ...


----------



## nan (Sep 13, 2013)

I feel I should have the right to choose when I die if I am suffering  with a terminal illness that I can no longer tolerate.


----------



## Bee (Sep 14, 2013)

???? another argument for euthanasia...or...not.

*Babies don’t need to die like this’: The argument for child euthanasia 

*Mementos of Ella-Louise’s short life fill a cosy corner of the Van Roy household. There are tiny footprints in messy paint; framed photographs of the baby girl with a proud older brother; paper butterflies representing the beauty and fragility of Ella-Louise’s 10 months with her family.
But this mantelpiece display of warmth and love is not all Ella-Louise’s mother wants people to see. As Belgian politicians debate a proposal to amend the country’s euthanasia laws to include children, Linda Van Roy also wants to share her child’s final days. “I’ll show you how my daughter was and what she became – you will see why I want to speak up,” she says, opening a book of photographs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...he-argument-for-child-euthanasia-8815627.html


At the moment I have no personal views on euthanasia, just thought this article might be interesting to some members.


----------



## Diwundrin (Sep 14, 2013)

> Such vague parameters concern some doctors, who point to cases in  which Belgium’s existing euthanasia laws have arguably been applied  incorrectly. While Belgians overwhelmingly support the current  euthanasia laws, some cases have provoked debate. Last year, Marc and  Eddy Verbessem – twin brothers in their early 40s – requested euthanasia  because they were both deaf and were slowly going blind. Although  neither had a terminal illness, their request was granted.
> “Euthanasia  has been applied to patients with chronic depression or with the first  signs of blindness or Alzheimer’s disease – these patients are not  treated any more, they just receive a lethal injection, says Dr  Beuselinck.


If it's gotten out of hand in Belgium then it's up to them to prosecute,  hard.  It isn't the legislation that went wrong, it was people's  interpretation of it.  Although, to me, those  cases stated seemed only to be exercising the individual's rights to not conform to the values of whoever is complaining about it.  If the life they were faced with wasn't worth living to them then who has the right to force them to live it?


It's unutterably sad that a child should endure a death so horrific.  That her parents were forced to watch helplessly is cruel beyond comprehension.

Voluntary Euthanasia is a decision that should come down to the individual conscience.  All we need to have is the legal right to decide according to our individual values.

But 2nd party euthanasia can be a whole different can of worms, as in the case of it involving children. 
 Personally, in that case I would offer that child, in those circumstances,  the same consideration, for the same reason, that I can legally offer it to a dying dog or wingless fly.  I'd feel it a duty to spare it misery.

 That will be seen to some as a cowardly view to spare myself the  anguish of other's travails, or as a fascist heartless attitude  depending on their own particular stance.  
I see it as sparing someone or thing anguish, nothing more nor less.  Again, it's an individual viewpoint.

That the occasional case doesn't 'qualify' is a small price to pay.  For  every one that 'may'  survive with treatment, whether they want to or  not, 1000's wouldn't.  The  many shouldn't be expected to suffer on the  off-chance of a bad outcome for the  very few.  Good people are killed  by random accidents every day, no law required for that, that's life.

A qualified board to approve application for euthanasia *on a case by case basis* seems a reasonable answer to me.  If it gets overwhelmed to the extent of unnecessary delay then authorize more panels.  
No one should have to suffer needlessly long,  and families shouldn't  have to argue among themselves according to their individual views or to  watch a love one die in suffering.




> Religious groups, meanwhile, argue that doctors should  not have the power over life and death. “To say no to euthanasia is to  recognise and take care of this inner sanctuary that makes a human being  a human being,” a former hospital chaplain wrote on the Belgian  website, euthanasiestop.be.



I refuse to accept the argument that humans are 'divine' and should come under different rules.  I see all lifeforms as just lifeforms, deserving of the same respectful treatment in life and death where ever possible. 

I find it beyond logic to presume that the child was actually choosing  to live like that or that she had some inkling of the higher ethical  values of a divinely ordained reason for her suffering.  What on earth  could she have done to deserve that?



How can it be legal to starve someone like that poor child to death,  but not to offer them a peaceful painless descent into sleep and oblivion?  How can that make sense to anyone?  Beats me.


----------



## Old Hipster (Sep 14, 2013)

SifuPhil said:


> Right?
> 
> If it wasn't so bloody nasty weather-wise up there I'd move in a flash. I guess that same weather might be a large part of the decision for both laws ...


Washington state here. I'll tell a secret, the weather is great here, we just keep telling everybody how much it rains to keep people away.
But now since we can smoke weed legally and have the right to die with dignity, well everybody wants a piece of the action.

We treat our pets with more compassion and dignity than we are allowed to do for our fellow man. Hospice is a joke, you just lay there doped up on Morphine slowly starving to death. Not a way I want to go. I have personally witnessed this with 3 close relatives and it is horrific. I never knew exactly what Hospice was until I saw it in action. It is just a doped up death watch.
I know the patient and the family needs help in this trying devastating time. But a peaceful assisted suicide seems like the way to go.


----------



## Sid (Sep 14, 2013)

"What's the thinking on Voluntary Euthanasia?"
       I question there is such a thing.
       Euthanasia as I understand it is selective killing (Murder?)  How can that be voluntary?  

       I will agree that many times too much effort is put into prolonging life. But that is not my life in question I have no say.
       I think the question is to choose is to make efforts to prolong life or not.  
       I support the patients choice to accept or refuse efforts to prolong life.         
       I have a problem with "assisting" death.


----------



## SifuPhil (Sep 14, 2013)

Sid said:


> ... I have a problem with "assisting" death.



Do you have the same problem with assisting life - drugs, operations, etc.? Keeping people biologically alive while they are mentally dead?

Life and death _are_ equal, are they not? Why not show the same respect to one as to the other?


----------



## Jillaroo (Sep 14, 2013)

_ I would hope that if i was in a lot of pain from a terminal illness or i am brain damaged from an accident that my family will choose to let me pass, and i have told them so, it should be up to the individual if they wish to die or the parents._


----------



## Diwundrin (Sep 14, 2013)

SifuPhil said:


> Do you have the same problem with assisting life - drugs, operations, etc.? Keeping people biologically alive while they are mentally dead?
> 
> Life and death _are_ equal, are they not? Why not show the same respect to one as to the other?



Bingo!  

If we take the ethical stance of non interference or assistance with the dying process to it's extremities then we would never put a band-aid on a cut and could totally dispense with the entire medical profession.

The religiously or just ethically righteous who are so appalled by the thought of easing dying have no compunction in going against 'nature' or 'god's will' in prolonging life beyond reasonable expectation.  They want their cake and eat it too.  My decisions aren't going to affect their entry qualifications to heaven so what business is it of theirs how and when I want to end it?

Sid you can't be serious in confusing 'voluntary euthanasia' with 'selective killing'... murder??  C'mon! Really??

Those who have no wish to be associated in any way with 'assistance' are not expected to be involved at all so I find that a rather selfish stance to take.  
 No one's personal principles should  be forcibly imposed on  those of different opinion where it doesn't  affect anyone except the individual person.  It's not meant as a blanket  rule for society in general, just a right to be accessed by individuals  with need to exercise it.  
Why is the state of mind of anyone not sharing a belief in  sanctity of life at all costs brought into question and over-ridden as being inferior to and therefore not worth the same rights of easy death as the pet dog?  


Voluntary means exactly that.  A personal decision affecting no one but the individual involved.  
There would be no need for 'assistance' in the vast majority of cases because it doesn't take a lot of effort to swig a dose of Nembutal.  

No one even need 'assist' by picking it up at the pharmacy, it can be ordered online and delivered to the door.  If some people would just let us get it past the cops.
:aargh:


----------



## Diwundrin (Sep 14, 2013)

Jillaroo said:


> _ I would hope that if i was in a lot of pain from a terminal illness or i am brain damaged from an accident that my family will choose to let me pass, and i have told them so, it should be up to the individual if they wish to die or the parents._



I've had a DNR, health guardianship document written up with the solicitor and left accessible to those I've granted the powers to implement it.  No decisions but mine were necessary.  Just telling the family still leaves them with the hard decisions.

I had to come to terms with Mum's decisions at her end.  Euthanasia never entered the question in her case, it was simply her body breaking down due sheer old age and pneumonia.  It was the question of easing her exit with too much morphine that was the decision I had to take.  But I ruled that out as she was determined to live every second of life for as long as she could hang on to it and made that quite plain.  Her decision ultimately.

I never understood why, as she was in great pain from arthritis and crushed bones in her spine and every cough was agony.  She  had no chance of recovery, her organs were shutting down,  but I would never for an instant have considered taking steps to over-ride her wishes and hasten her end. To me that really would have been 'murder' and unthinkable.

 It was only after two weeks of hell,  when she lapsed into incoherence, was no longer strong enough to cough and was literally choking on phlegm that medication was increased to ease her passing in unspoken agreement with an understanding doctor. 

There was great sadness, but no regrets associated with her dying. Her decision was given priority for as long as she had comprehension of her circumstances.  Her life was 'hers' as long as* she wanted.*  As much as I wished she had asked for an end to it she didn't and that was respected.

 People are different and that needs to be acknlowledged and respected.  I'm nowhere near as brave as her, and didn't share her beliefs.  Life isn't as precious to me, so it's the easy way out if the situation arises for me thanks.  Quality over quantity.


----------



## Sid (Sep 15, 2013)

When I tried to reply  and answer each question it all appeared as a quote from Phil . That is why it shows as edited so I'll try this.

    Phil, I have no problem with supporting life with operations and drugs. If the patient has a hope for a better quality of life and choses to go that route.

     I do have a problem with life suport If the patients is brain dead or mentally dead as you put it.

     I do not think life and death are equal.

     I believe that as long as the spark of life is there,a chance however slim exist.

     I read of a case one time of a man and wife found shot to death. Letters written by both of them inicated that she being terminaly ill she begged him to shoot her. He did and then shot himself.

     I will say, I do not think that was the way to go.  I do not judge them, I can understand why they did. Having said that I CAN NOT say with any certainty that if in the same situation I will not do that.


----------



## SifuPhil (Sep 15, 2013)

Sid said:


> As long as that spark of life is there, there is hope regardless of how bad it looks.



If I were a zealously religious person, a poet or an incurable romantic I would agree with you. 

Unfortunately I've been present with family, friends and total strangers too many times when although there was a spark, there WAS no hope.

Medically speaking there IS a point of no return - we as emotionally-involved beings just don't like to acknowledge that.




> I have a problem snuffing out that spark.



You say that _now_. I certainly don't wish this upon you, but if the time ever comes when you are in exquisite agony with every breath you take you might feel differently. Again, it ties into making decisions for others that are rightfully _theirs_ to make. We do not - CAN not - know their pain limits, so why should _we_ have the right to dictate when they have been exceeded?


----------



## Sid (Sep 15, 2013)

SifuPhil said:


> If I were a zealously religious person, a poet or an incurable romantic I would agree with you.
> 
> Unfortunately I've been present with family, friends and total strangers too many times when although there was a spark, there WAS no hope.
> 
> ...



     Phil,  As a "zealously religious person" I agree in pulling the plug at the medical point of no return I just have a problem with ME doing something to bring it to an end.  That is not to say I won't ask for something or someone to do so or that I will not do so if a loved one asks.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 15, 2013)

Diwundrin said:


> I had to come to terms with Mum's decisions at her end.  Euthanasia never entered the question in her case, it was simply her body breaking down due sheer old age and pneumonia.  It was the question of easing her exit with too much morphine that was the decision I had to take.  But I ruled that out as she was determined to live every second of life for as long as she could hang on to it and made that quite plain.  Her decision ultimately.
> 
> I never understood why, as she was in great pain from arthritis and crushed bones in her spine and every cough was agony.  She  had no chance of recovery, her organs were shutting down,  but I would never for an instant have considered taking steps to over-ride her wishes and hasten her end. To me that really would have been 'murder' and unthinkable.
> 
> ...



My condolences for the loss of your mother Di, she was a fighter to the end, and it was good of you to be there for love and support. :love_heart:  My mother went into the hospital with a diabetic stroke that ended in coma.  The doctors said that she had brain stem damage, and even if she came out of the coma, which they doubted, she'd be a vegetable.  The had an insulin IV in one of her arms, and a glucose IV in the other.  She was breathing, but panting like a dog.

My sister and I considered that we may eventually have to pull the plug for her, as she no longer had any quality of life.  That night we got a phone call from the hospital, telling us that she had passed.  We rushed down there to say our goodbyes and prayers for her.  My hubby and I both have living wills now.  We have a one week limit on keeping up alive with mechanical assistance.  If I'm in a bad way in the hospital, I have no problem with my husband ordering a DNR.  I would definitely consider assisted suicide if I desired it for medical reasons.


----------



## Sid (Sep 15, 2013)

Diwundrin said:


> Bingo!
> 
> If we take the ethical stance of non interference or assistance with the dying process to it's extremities then we would never put a band-aid on a cut and could totally dispense with the entire medical profession.
> 
> ...



        Diwundrin,    As a "religiously or just ethically righteous" person, I believe I have already made the point I agree with pulling the plug and ending life support if that is the patients will. Is that prolonging life beyond reasonable expectation? Yes, my thoughts are influenced by my religious beliefs.  I have simply stated them and have not tried to force them on anybody.
         As for    'voluntary euthanasia'  yes that was a serious question. I believe what you are talking about is the taking of on'es life. This may come as a shock to you but I understand why someone would. Not to many years ago I begin to have suicidal thoughts. Because of my personel beliefs I felt I better do something about it.


----------



## SifuPhil (Sep 15, 2013)

Sid said:


> Phil,  As a "zealously religious person" I agree in pulling the plug at the medical point of no return I just have a problem with ME doing something to bring it to an end.  That is not to say I won't ask for something or someone to do so or that I will not do so if a loved one asks.



That makes perfect sense, Sid. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I'm sure I wrote about it somewhere else on this forum before, but rather than spend hours looking for it I'll just mention again that I was directly involved in helping my older brother achieve release from unbearable pain. We had had a "pact" among we three brothers that if one were to be "beyond hope" (a judgement call, I know, but we each had our own guidelines) the other(s) would do _whatever_ they could to ease their pain. 

I know it goes against many religious strictures and against many laws, but the way we always saw it was that the _person_ and their wishes came first. 

So yes, I had to actively participate in the ending of a life, and I don't regret it for a moment. 

... but that's just me.


----------



## Sid (Sep 15, 2013)

SifuPhil said:


> That makes perfect sense, Sid. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
> 
> I'm sure I wrote about it somewhere else on this forum before, but rather than spend hours looking for it I'll just mention again that I was directly involved in helping my older brother achieve release from unbearable pain. We had had a "pact" among we three brothers that if one were to be "beyond hope" (a judgement call, I know, but we each had our own guidelines) the other(s) would do _whatever_ they could to ease their pain.
> 
> ...



  Fortunate for me Phil I have yet to be put in that situation.  I am sure you did not take it lightly.


----------



## SifuPhil (Sep 15, 2013)

Sid said:


> Fortunate for me Phil I have yet to be put in that situation.  I am sure you did not take it lightly.



I think the taking of a human life, for _whatever_ reason, always changes a person. I'm not so sure about the mentally infirm, though ... I don't know what they think or feel about the process. 

Of course, a lot of police departments and the entire FBI would like to know that as well.


----------



## Jambi (Sep 15, 2013)

Diwundrin said:


> 1) Why?  How is drinking Drano okay but accessing a substance to ensure a perfectly peaceful death isn't??
> 
> 2) Why do they consider it a favour to society to make people suffer unnecessarily?
> 
> ...



1) Because the authorities will decide for you what is in your best interest.

2) You are owned by the government, you are their property.

3) Funny how people choke and gag when someone forces something objectionable down their throat, but they breathe quite easily when they force something down someone elses throat. Kinda hypocritical, huh?

4) They have some right or superiority over others.


----------



## Sid (Sep 15, 2013)

SifuPhil said:


> I think the taking of a human life, for _whatever_ reason, always changes a person. I'm not so sure about the mentally infirm, though ... I don't know what they think or feel about the process.
> 
> Of course, a lot of police departments and the entire FBI would like to know that as well.



            I agree Phil.


----------



## Katybug (Sep 15, 2013)

SeaBreeze said:


> I believe that the person suffering with a terminal illness should have that choice.



*Totally agree with you, Seabreeze.
*


----------



## terra (Sep 15, 2013)

I take my hat off to you Phil.....


----------



## GDAD (Sep 20, 2013)

Love this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4BEY1lZDyg


----------



## Jillaroo (Sep 20, 2013)

_Surprising how many signed the petition_


----------



## Diwundrin (Sep 20, 2013)

That's downright chilling Gdad!  I'm not sure if I'm more appalled that they didn't know what Mandatory meant, or that some of them did and signed anyway!


----------



## rkunsaw (Sep 20, 2013)

My first thought was that euthanasia should be voluntary but then I can think of a number of people I would like to make the decision for.


----------



## Diwundrin (Sep 20, 2013)

Can't we all !


----------



## That Guy (Sep 20, 2013)

You WILL volunteer!


----------



## TICA (Sep 25, 2013)

Thought I'd send this link of a dying Doctor from Canada who speaks about this very topic on a very personal level.  The video is 7 minutes long but well worth the time to watch.   I won't get into his background as it is all in the written text that goes with the video, but he was very well respected and obviously still had a solid thought process.  You'll also see where our Government has said it will not open the debate of Dr. assisted suicide.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3jgSkxV1rw


----------



## MercyL (Sep 25, 2013)

TICA said:


> Thought I'd send this link of a dying Doctor from Canada who speaks about this very topic on a very personal level.  The video is 7 minutes long but well worth the time to watch.   I won't get into his background as it is all in the written text that goes with the video, but he was very well respected and obviously still had a solid thought process.  You'll also see where our Government has said it will not open the debate of Dr. assisted suicide.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3jgSkxV1rw



His talk about the symptoms of his tumor touches me. I think about the possibility of losing many of those same body functions if the arthritis just below the base of my skull asserts itself, if a sudden stop - while riding in a car shifts everything, or if more pressure develops during one of the times when I turn my head and hear that cracking sound. 

 

I hope I am fortunate and everything stays put, but I am a realist.

It would be nice if a lab developed some sort of medical duck tape.

Thanks for posting this. I know some people who need to see it.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 25, 2013)

Mercy, I hope your arthritis doesn't bring on something so severe...wishing you the best. :love_heart:


----------



## MercyL (Sep 25, 2013)

SeaBreeze said:


> Mercy, I hope your arthritis doesn't bring on something so severe...wishing you the best. :love_heart:


Aw thanks.

It's something I am aware of. There is no way to train arthritic osteophytes to grow in a different direction.

Actually, I'd like to train mine to jump through hoops and land in my knees or hips instead. I'd much rather have one of those joints replaced!


----------



## GDAD (Sep 25, 2013)

My mates wife just passed away last Saturday. We have known each other for 54 years, I was their best man at their wedding.
Pat had been ill with breast Cancer which finally attacked her brain. After seeing her during the last two month deteriorate &
suffer so much>>> I think a person should have the right to say when to go. Whenever we visited her in Hospital I would hold
her hand and she would say"Please ask them, to let me go"!....At last she is at peace!!!


----------



## Jillaroo (Sep 25, 2013)

_So sorry to hear about your mate Gdad, she should have had the right to say i wish to die and her wishes granted, i watched my Father die a slow death from cancer and to have had the power to end all pain for him would have been a god send_


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 25, 2013)

Sorry for the loss of your friend's wife GDAD, may she rest peacefully. :rose: My sister suffered also before passing from cancer (or the chemo and radiation), I don't want to be kept alive like that either.  Jillaroo, my condolences for the loss of your father.


----------



## MercyL (Sep 26, 2013)

Jillaroo said:


> _ I would hope that if i was in a lot of pain from a terminal illness or i am brain damaged from an accident that my family will choose to let me pass, and i have told them so, it should be up to the individual if they wish to die or the parents._



There has always been tension, within the medical community, between those believing pain management with opioid medications should be limited to cancer pain and those who accept that writhing pain exists in the absence of cancer. I seriously doubt those who would deny effective pain management in the absence of cancer have ever experienced intractable pain.

With that in m ind, the decision triggering assisted suicide or euthanasia should not be limited to "terminal illness". Conditions featuring chronic pain are often not illness based, but injury or deformity based. The decisions made by those suffering, and not onlookers, physicians, or clergy, should be honored before all others.

Someone with severe unmanageable pain should be able to end their own suffering, regardless of the pain's source.


----------



## Jillaroo (Sep 26, 2013)

_Many years ago i met a lovely man who had been in a terrible accident and he was severely disabled in all ways, he had his good days and when he had the bad days they were shocking, he used to sit in the coffee shop and i would chat to him, most people avoided him which i was shocked at, but he enjoyed my chats with him and he admitted to me that he wished he had died as his quality of life was next to zero. 
                                               He was only 23 when he was in the car accident and when i met him he was 32 and life had been so very hard for him, he struggled each day to just do the every day things that we take for granted, i often think about him and wonder if he is still alive or if he got his wish to pass over and be free of his disabilities, i hope he did._


----------



## basefare (Sep 26, 2013)

I have a living will and that 's all the thinking I've done on the subject. In fact, I'm finding this discussion kind of depressing. Tell them I had a cold and had to leave.


----------



## TICA (Sep 27, 2013)

It doesn't have to be depressing basefare.   Death is a part of life and something that needs to be spoken about.  I've had my share of death this year to the point that I'm ready for 2013 to take a hike and let's move right into 2014.
Although I'm deeply saddened by the the death of friends and family, it has opened up the subject and now we all know what we want to happen we pass away.  I also have a living will but it is those left behind that don't know if you want a service, minister etc.  I've made it known that I want a BBQ, beer and wine included and that is all.  No person giving a sermon who didn't even know me.  
 I think the subject of euthanasia needs to be discussed and talked about - the Doctor in the video I posted was a very brave man in my opinion and did that just to ensure that the talking would begin in the hope that those left behind wouldn't have to go through what he did.   We make choices every single day that affect our lives, why can't we make choices that affect our death?


----------



## Old Hipster (Sep 27, 2013)

That joke video about the petition for voluntary euthanasia..it was extremely disturbing and really drives home the feeling I have that we are a nation of, well this comment sums it up brilliantly!!

"ladies and gents: the reason why all the world thinks﻿ that america is a bunch of retarded idiots."

By the time most people get to the ages of us are on this forum, we have enough end of life horror stories to fill many books. All I know is when I hear about some old person who went to bed and never woke up, I think of how lucky that person was.

Reminds me of a Jack Handey quote;

When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.


----------



## Diwundrin (Sep 27, 2013)

You're right TICA, it is about those around us as much as ourselves.  We should be able to choose without placing any burden on them to choose for us.


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 27, 2013)

MercyL said:


> There has always been tension, within the medical community, between those believing pain management with opioid medications should be limited to cancer pain and those who accept that writhing pain exists in the absence of cancer. I seriously doubt those who would deny effective pain management in the absence of cancer have ever experienced intractable pain.
> 
> With that in m ind, the decision triggering assisted suicide or euthanasia should not be limited to "terminal illness". Conditions featuring chronic pain are often not illness based, but injury or deformity based. The decisions made by those suffering, and not onlookers, physicians, or clergy, should be honored before all others.
> 
> Someone with severe unmanageable pain should be able to end their own suffering, regardless of the pain's source.



I agree, MercyL.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 27, 2013)

We both have living wills, both want simple cremation, and no formal funeral whatsoever.


----------



## That Guy (Sep 27, 2013)

SeaBreeze said:


> We both have living wills, both want simple cremation, and no formal funeral whatsoever.



Both my folks were cremated and their ashes scattered from planes over Monterey Bay.  I would like to have a gravesite to visit but figure when I'm riding waves, even though they were anti-surf, they're with me...


----------



## GDAD (Sep 27, 2013)

My Friends wife Pat is to be cremated on Tuesday at 10am. All her famiy & friends will be wearing bright colors to celebrate her wonderful life.
She has four Children, 8 grandchildren. When she was working she helped & housed down & out people, ex-criminals who were being released
from Jail. She found them jobs, homes, helped them get re-educated......We well give her the send off she deserves, we well laugh & cry.
 PAT YOU WILL BE MISSED.


----------



## Jillaroo (Sep 27, 2013)

_I have told my daughters i don't want a funeral just a private cremation , then send my ashes by express post down to where my late husband is buried and put in with him_


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 27, 2013)

Tasmania looks like being the first Australian state to make voluntary euthanasia legal.
It will only be available for permanent residents of that state.
The federal government has no power to block it if it passes the Tasmanian parliament.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...-a-referendum-on-voluntary-euthanasia/4984048

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-26/tasmanian-mps-consider-euthanasia-bill/4981808


----------



## Diwundrin (Sep 27, 2013)

From what I've heard about life in Tassie lately just living there is a form of slow euthanasia anyway.  

 (kidding, but it was too good a line to pass up, and close enough. 

)

Good for them, that's one way of boosting their real estate sales.  Might be easier for some than getting to Switzerland.  Anyone see that ep on the ABC recently of that poor bloke who's been saving for years to get to there?
He's only in his thirties and could live another thirty but has severe physical and extremely painful problems that prevent him living a normal life and he's just simply had enough and knows it will get steadily worse from here on.  
I think he's a wimp for not just taking a short-cut off a high place, but then that's what voluntary euthansasia is about, the option to choose an easier way out.


----------



## dbeyat45 (Sep 27, 2013)

> From what I've heard about life in Tassie lately just living there is a form of slow euthanasia anyway.


Funny you should say that.  A friend recently returned from a holiday in Tasmania, loved the scenery, said the infrastructure was chronic.  Many years of Labor/Green government.  Sigh.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 28, 2013)

It will take a progressive government to change legislation to allow for voluntary euthanasia.
We don't have many of those.

I wonder whether TA's reach will extend as far as the Tasmanian Liberal Party.
Will he be able to block a conscience vote?


----------



## Diwundrin (Sep 28, 2013)

You can bet your boots he'll try.

Not sure he can do much about it though, it's a State thing I think.  They overturned it in the NT on a technicality,  because it was  a Territory, not a State.  Hard to say how Tassie will go.  Good luck to them with it though.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 28, 2013)

If Tasmania was a Coalition state he could threaten to withdraw some funding perhaps but that won't work on a coalition in opposition. 
Whether it is a conscience vote by all parties would depend of the state party leaders themselves.
I know little about them.


----------



## snaarl (Sep 30, 2013)

*As long as there will be no one left who will be dependent on government, I don't see why government should have any interest in suicide at all.*


----------



## Diwundrin (Sep 30, 2013)

snaarl said:


> *As long as there will be no one left who will be dependent on government, I don't see why government should have any interest in suicide at all.*



I could never figure that out either, it seems to be a 'conscience/religious' carry over.  But if there's, as we're led to believe, a separation of Church and State then what we think and what we do to ourselves without harm to others is simply not in their brief.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 30, 2013)

Suicide is not illegal but assisting someone to suicide is a crime under current legislation.

In religious terms, self murder is a sin because it is a rejection of the gift of life and the giving and taking of life is considered to be God's choice alone. It is not a sin to sacrifice one's life for the sake of another. "Greater love hath no man...etc"


----------



## Diwundrin (Oct 1, 2013)

But but but, Warri,  that bit, that.... "taking of life is considered to be God's choice alone."....   how come we don't even blink at keeping someone alive whom  God is doing his level best to harvest then??    Huh?  Why is stopping him killing us okay but stopping him keeping us alive  a sin??

When did we get to be bossin' God around like that?


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 1, 2013)

Diwundrin, there are some who would agree with your proposition but not many. 

In past times people would have seen life as a gift and applauded those who sought to preserve it by feeding the hungry and healing the sick. Because Jesus was a healer then the medical profession has been exalted in Christian societies but other societies also elevate healers and shamans (often the same profession). 

It is only in recent times that physicians have had the technology to prolong or initiate life by artificial means. The ethical and theological questions are still being thrashed out.

As for me, I do accept sensible medical interventions - I take medication to control BP and cholesterol because I'm not a Christian Scientist - but I have resolved that I will decline certain other extraordinary interventions such as heart transplants and cancer therapies to extend my life by a few months. Just because I might choose to decline treatment does not mean that someone younger, with dependants and more to give to society, should have to make the same decision. 

I won't accept termination either, at least I don't think I will speaking in the present but that might change. I'm happy with pain relief and good palliative care.

In the end 'sin' is a very personal and flexible concept.


----------



## Diwundrin (Oct 1, 2013)

So is logic sometimes.


----------



## snaarl (Oct 1, 2013)

Just thinking... a person who says someone who wants to commit suicide is just depressed?  There is no thing as JUST depressed.  Sometimes suicide really IS the only way out.  Personal choice, I'd say.


----------



## Bee (Oct 2, 2013)

A Belgian man has chosen to die by euthanasia, after his sex change operation turned him into “a monster”.
Nathan Verhelst, 44, was administered legal euthanasia on Monday afternoon, on the grounds of “unbearable psychological suffering”, by the same doctor who euthanized two deaf twins last year.
Shortly before he died, he told Belgium'sHet Laatse Nieuws: “I was ready to celebrate my new birth. But when I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...fter-failed-sex-change-operation-8851872.html


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 2, 2013)

He should get a Darwin Award.


----------



## Bee (Oct 2, 2013)

Why????


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 2, 2013)

I don't really know Bee, but having seen the photo I think he made a very poor choice to terminate his life.
After having seen other people who had the strength to face life after losing three of their four limbs I feel he still had a lot to live for.
It might not have been easy but few worthwhile things ever are. For the majority life is a struggle at some stage  but with the passage of time things may get better. That's the definition of hope, I suppose.

One of the things that is not often discussed is the effect suicide has on other family members. Children with parents who kill themselves are more likely to be attempt and succeed in taking their own lives later on. I remember a family where the mother shot herself under the house (she was mentally unwell) and next year on her anniversary one of her sons walked in front of a train. He was not mentally unwell but was undoubtedly still grieving. He was studying medicine at university. What a waste !


----------



## Bee (Oct 2, 2013)

But we don't know what his real mental state was at the time especially what he may have gone through before he had a sex change and then to think he looked like a monster afterwards, obviously pushed him over the edge.

We have to remember that some people are much stronger than others to deal with whatever life throws at them.

Many years ago I had an aunt that committed suicide for reasons best known to herself, her family grieved the same as any other death, it didn't make them want to follow the same way.


----------



## SifuPhil (Oct 2, 2013)

Once again, in all seriousness I don't see the problem.

WHY are we fighting against people taking their own lives when this planet is _already_ stretched beyond its ability to support the *7 billion* souls wandering around. Isn't 7 billion enough? Why not make room for the survivors, the strong, by allowing the weak to self-terminate?

Are we trying to break some kind of intergalactic record for phone-booth jamming? 

Religious convictions aside (because I'm not gonna' get into _that_), Nature has plainly shown that the Way to be emulated is Survival of the Fittest. Sure, we humans are _so_ clever - we've leveled the playing field with our brains. But brains alone don't cut it, as can be seen with just a brief glimpse of the daily news headlines. 

It's the 80/20 Rule, but implemented in an inefficient way - we're wasting 80% of our time, money and effort for the weakest 20%. Try finding a similar example in Nature. 

It's like with this government shut-down - I was looking at a list of "furloughed" employees last night and noted that the WIC program that provides low-income women, infants and children with food and formula has been shut down. My thought was, what are those women going to do NOW? They had kids when they knew they couldn't support them, I'm pretty sure they had access to birth-control, but now that the hand-outs have dried up they're up the creek. So who's to blame? 

Weakness.


----------



## Diwundrin (Oct 2, 2013)

Well that saved me a bit of writing. Thanks Phil.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 2, 2013)

How easy is it for low income women to get access  to effective birth control and/or safe terminations?

What should they do, if after they have their children, their income takes a dive through misadventure, death of a partner or desertion ? 
Dump the kids at the nearest orphanage?

That's what used to happen.
Or they went on the game.


----------



## Jillaroo (Oct 2, 2013)

_I feel if you wish to end your life you should be able to, no-one should be able to dictate to you how you live or die.It was his choice to die why should we question and try to analyse his mental state, we didn't know him and obviously the Doctor if he thought there was a problem would have stopped it.
                   My uncle comitted suicide years ago and the rest of the family have been fine, they didn't have suicidal thoughts themselves. 
                           After my Husband died in an accident i lined up a few trees to run into with my car but i couldn't do that to my daughters, they were grieving enough.
            Phil i agree with your last post._


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 2, 2013)

Concerning the Belgian man, I've found something else that sheds a new light.
I now think that it is very sad that he felt the way he did.
There's always more to a story than we read in the papers.



> Explaining his decision hours before his death, Mr Verhelst said he was "the  girl that nobody wanted".
> 
> He told _Het Laatste Nieuws_ newspaper: "While my brothers were  celebrated, I got a storage room above the garage as a bedroom. 'If only you had  been a boy', my mother complained. I was tolerated, nothing more."
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/sex-change-man-chooses-euthanasia-20131002-2urik.html#ixzz2gYzhVbU5



And then there is the mother



> On Monday,* Nathan, born Nancy, Verhelst, 44, was killed by lethal injection after requesting euthanasia on the grounds of "unbearable psychological suffering" because surgery to turn her into a man had resulted in "a monster"*.
> Today, his unnamed mother confirmed Mr Verhelst's comments, made in an interview just before his death, that he had been an unwanted child and admitted she had not yet read his letter to her explaining why he asked to die.
> 
> "When I saw 'Nancy' for the first time, my dream was shattered. She was so ugly. I had a phantom birth. Her death does not bother me," she told* Het Laatste Nieuws* newspaper.
> ...


----------



## Jillaroo (Oct 2, 2013)

_I had read that in the SMH Warrigal_


----------



## SifuPhil (Oct 2, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> How easy is it for low income women to get access  to effective birth control and/or safe terminations?



In these parts, low-income women can get FREE birth control. Failing even that, their partner(s) could always be magnanimous and spring a couple of bucks for a few condoms.



> What should they do, if after they have their children, their income takes a dive through misadventure, death of a partner or desertion ?
> Dump the kids at the nearest orphanage?



Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance

I don't know about anyone else but those are just a _few_ of the possible scenarios I had envisioned before I ever even got within a mile of the Baby Factory. I had savings ... I had insurance ... I had relatives ready to step in and assist ... I had a pre-nup. layful: 

When I was running around the country in my late teens / early 20's, I can assure you that I never made a single "Oopsie!", because I paid attention in junior-high sex-ed class instead of goofing off and thinking the State would always cover-up my mistakes.

It's called being a responsible, mature human being.

... so NYAH, NYAH, NYAH, NYAH, NYAH! :love_heart:



> That's what used to happen.
> Or they went on the game.



As I've always said, there should be stringent testing and certification requirements for gun ownership, driving a vehicle and having children.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 2, 2013)

> In these parts, low-income women can get FREE birth control. Failing even that, their partner(s) could always be magnanimous and spring a couple of bucks for a few condoms.


What kind of birth control ? Condoms are not reliable, neither are some male partners. Is the contraceptive pill (or implants) available at very low cost? What about safe medical terminations? Are these affordable for the very poor ? The ones who will need assistance to feed their children ?

We get the impression that affordable health care is rather rationed in the US.


----------



## SifuPhil (Oct 2, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> What kind of birth control ? Condoms are not reliable, neither are some male partners. Is the contraceptive pill (or implants) available at very low cost? What about safe medical terminations? Are these affordable for the very poor ? The ones who will need assistance to feed their children ?



Condoms are, according to the best sources I can find, 98% effective. That eliminates a LOT of unwanted pregnancies.

The Pill, diaphragms, etc. ARE available at greatly reduced prices through various social welfare agencies, at least in this area. 

Now I admit that I don't know about terminations - that's outside my knowledge circle. I get the impression that it would not be an easy thing to find. 

If you pre-plan (pills, condoms, abstinence, etc.) then you're going to eliminate almost all the problems associated with procuring a termination. Again, even if these items were NOT readily available for poor people, don't you think that a poor person should think a little bit more before they start procreating like rabbits? Or does the whole religion thing prove to be too hard a dictum to ignore?

(Darn! I SAID I wasn't going to mention it, but when you combine low-income and having babies it's kind of hard to ignore)



> We get the impression that affordable health care is rather rationed in the US.



That's admittedly a huge topic, but like most things it seems the poorer you are the more benefits you can latch onto. It's the so-called working-class schmucks that are screwed every which way from Friday - excuse my French - the ones that are working but not making a living wage. If you report income then you are considered self-sufficient and able to take care of your medical bills no matter HOW much of a fantasy that is, whereas if you don't work at all you're seen as someone that has to be made a ward of the State and cared for from cradle to grave.

Oh, DON'T get me going!


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 2, 2013)

I think you overestimate the effectiveness of condoms. 
The failure rate is 18 or more pregnancies per woman per year. 
Implants are less than 1% per year.
Contraceptive pills are 6% failure rate and diaphragms are 12%.

Even permanent sterilisation has a small failure rate.

In a population as large as yours there will be a lot of unplanned pregnancies, even when contraceptives are available and affordable.
Then there are all the women who are deserted and left with small children. Not all of them can rely on relatives.

By the way, you'll love this - the site I found the contraceptive effectiveness info on ( http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm ) has this at the top


> Due to the lapse in government funding, only web sites supporting excepted functions will be updated  unless otherwise funded.  As a result, the information on this website may not be up to date, the transactions  submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until  appropriations are enacted.
> 
> Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at  http://www.usa.gov.


It also has hints on how to ensure maximum effectiveness of the chosen contraceptive method, some of these could be disrupted right now due to the shutdown eg "Get repeat injections on time" and "Take a pill each day". 

The shut down may set of a minor baby boom before it is over.


----------



## SifuPhil (Oct 2, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> I think you overestimate the effectiveness of condoms.
> The failure rate is 18 or more pregnancies per woman per year.



I'm hoping you mean per _100_ women per year, otherwise they wouldn't have time to cook anything. 

I'm sorry - I know that number comes from the High Holy CDC but they've been shown to have made MANY mistakes in their stats. 18% is FAR, FAR above what any other creditable source will claim, so as the outlier I doubt CDC's numbers. Besides, try following their content attribution: they quote 2 separate but related divisions of the CDC itself.

That would be like when Union Carbide came out with their "study" that claimed MIC (Methylisocyanate) wasn't all that dangerous, just before the largest industrial accident in history claimed thousands of lives in Bhopal, India. I saw the study and am sure of the timing because I had just started working for them shortly before that happened. 

So you'll understand that I don't particularly put a lot of trust into in-bred stats. Most every other family planning agency, doctor's office or social welfare agency will claim my number of 2%. 



> Implants are less than 1% per year.
> Contraceptive pills are 6% failure rate and diaphragms are 12%.
> Even permanent sterilisation has a small failure rate.



The same with these stats. Granted nothing except total abstinence is 100%, but CDC takes the same delight in scaring the populace as I take in scaring little kids at Halloween. 



> In a population as large as yours there will be a lot of unplanned pregnancies, even when contraceptives are available and affordable.
> Then there are all the women who are deserted and left with small children. Not all of them can rely on relatives.



The problem, as the CDC sources state, is mainly confined to young, uneducated women, so as always the solution to the problem is better education. But don't hold your breath. 



> By the way, you'll love this - the site I found the contraceptive effectiveness info on ( http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm ) has this at the top
> 
> It also has hints on how to ensure maximum effectiveness of the chosen contraceptive method, some of these could be disrupted right now due to the shutdown eg "Get repeat injections on time" and "Take a pill each day".
> 
> The shut down may set of a minor baby boom before it is over.



Yes, I saw that! That notice has popped up overnight on many of the government websites. I never thought it would lead to a baby pandemic, but it's a distinct possibility. 

And here I thought the only thing to fear was blackouts ... layful:


----------



## Jambi (Oct 2, 2013)

This is such an amazing thread. It contains all the proper arguments, structured with logic and wisdom, based on the unalienable rights of an individual...................














.......................to defend their life with a gun.

 However, most of the posters in this thread who are so animate about their right to choose their own life course are anti-gun. Makes me wonder if they really think for themselves or they are brainwashed collectivists chanting a message they receive.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 2, 2013)

Sifuphil said:
			
		

> I'm hoping you mean per _100_ women per year, otherwise they wouldn't have time to cook anything.



That must be what you mean by an "oopsie". A thousand apologies for my error.

I think the disparity between your figure for condoms and the one I quoted is the difference between 'perfect use' and 'typical use'. There are all sorts of extraneous factors that limit the effectiveness of any particular method.


----------



## Bee (Oct 2, 2013)

I am not quite sure what you are getting at Jambi, but I have never posted about guns either anti or pro, I don't consider what the U.S.does as far as gun control is concerned is anything to do with me therefore I would never get into a debate about it.


----------



## Jambi (Oct 2, 2013)

Bee said:


> I am not quite sure what you are getting at Jambi, but I have never posted about guns either anti or pro, I don't consider what the U.S.does as far as gun control is concerned is anything to do with me therefore I would never get into a debate about it.




Which is why I said 'most' and not 'all'. :sentimental:


----------



## TICA (Oct 2, 2013)

Jambi said:


> However, most of the posters in this thread who are so animate about their right to choose their own life course are anti-gun. Makes me wonder if they really think for themselves or they are brainwashed collectivists chanting a message they receive.



I'm not sure I understand your point, as I don't see how the two topics are even remotely related.  

And..... gotta tell ya, I don't think calling anyone a brainwashed collectivist is helping prove your point one way or the other.  I may not agree with what you post, however I don't label you or "wonder" how or why you have certain opinions.    The debates are informative in my humble opinion and I for one, don't want anyone to feel they can't post because you or someone else are going to start calling them names or insinuate they don't have a brain to think for themselves.


----------



## Bee (Oct 2, 2013)

Jambi said:


> Which is why I said 'most' and not 'all'. :sentimental:



Apologies for the misunderstanding.


----------



## Jambi (Oct 2, 2013)

TICA said:


> I'm not sure I understand your point, as I don't see how the two topics are even remotely related.
> .


 
Exactly the point I was trying to make, thank you.


----------



## basefare (Oct 2, 2013)

I think I thought this was a discussion on Euthanasia, not guns. I get mixed up easily. I haven't thought much about this subject. If put to a vote, I wouldn't vote for it, if somebody used it because a loved one was suffering and at the end of his or her rope, I wouldn't punish anyone. On guns, I got my first .22 cal rifle when I was twelve. The last gun I owned I got rid of earlier this year, in May, I think. It was a .410 sawed off, five shot pump, a nice little gun to have around the house. You might say I had it for home protection(people on drugs will do most anything for a fix). But I moved from Texas to Oklahoma and any sawed off shotgun is illegal in Oklahoma. I gave the gun to my brother in law. I don't mind people owning guns. I never was a hunter but many people do and some show off their pride.


----------



## snaarl (Oct 2, 2013)

I believe that if a person wants to die, they should be allowed to.  Their life, their choice, no matter what anyone else thinks of their reasoning.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 2, 2013)

There is a big moral and ethical chasm between letting someone die of natural causes and actually killing them off. Somewhere in the middle is killing oneself or being indifferent to someone who is clearly about to commit suicide. If a person was about to jump off a bridge what would be your reaction ? I doubt that anyone's first thought would be "O well, it is their right to die so I'll just walk on by".


----------



## SifuPhil (Oct 2, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> There is a big moral and ethical chasm between letting someone die of natural causes and actually killing them off. Somewhere in the middle is killing oneself or being indifferent to someone who is clearly about to commit suicide. If a person was about to jump off a bridge what would be your reaction ? I doubt that anyone's first thought would be "O well, it is their right to die so I'll just walk on by".



Have you ever heard the stories about how a would-be rescuer is the one that dies instead of the suicidal person? Or they take them with them when they jump?

In lifesaving class I learned that a drowning person will often grab at whatever is handy to stay afloat, even if it means the person trying to save them is pulled down with them. Substitute "depressed" or "suicidal" for "drowning" and I think it's the same thing.

So although my first natural instinct might be to run to the aid of the suicidal person, my training kicks in and I think twice before I act.

Saving someone's life might be the wrong thing to do as well. They might be feeling remorseful because they just abused 20 children and killed 14 relatives - do you _really_ want to save someone like that, especially if it means risking your _own_ life? I wouldn't.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 2, 2013)

My husband, when depressed, took an overdose in an attempt at suicide.
I called an ambulance.

Did I trample on his right to die?
He's never reproached me and nor have our children.

He hasn't made another attempt either although at the time I resigned myself to my probable inability 
to stop him a second time if he really wanted to die.


----------



## SifuPhil (Oct 2, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> My husband, when depressed, took an overdose in an attempt at suicide.
> I called an ambulance.
> 
> Did I trample on his right to die?
> ...



That's a bit different - you _know_ him, you're related to him, you understand his demons. I meant a complete stranger. 

It's also a different scenario envisioning suicide when you have dependents. Although it obviously didn't stop your husband from trying I would think your relationship was at least a consideration. 

You did the right thing, and I would have done the same.


----------



## Diwundrin (Oct 2, 2013)

> If a person was about to jump off a bridge what would be your reaction ?  I doubt that anyone's first thought would be "O well, it is their right  to die so I'll just walk on by".



Honest answer Warri??  Yes, that would be exactly my first reaction.  The first thing that would cross my mind is that it is none of my business.  But I'm a bit odd like that, and I'm aware that most 'reactions' haven't evolved much since we were just another creature surviving in the jungle, so that first millisecond reaction would indeed be that one.  

But I have acquired just enough veneer of civilization for conscience to remind me that maybe I should at least ask if they'd thought hard about it.  But I'd ask from a distance.

I must have once had an exemplary teacher because I distinctly remember, as a youngster in primary school, a series of lessons on 'rescuing people'.  We were told to crawl in a fire to stay under the smoke. and not to tug or roll people who may have spinal injuries etc.

 It was stressed, quite forcibly,   that the best way to rescue the drowning was to use something, anything, a shirt, a long stick etc for them to grab.  Something that separated the rescuer from the victim as we were warned of exactly what Phil just outlined.  That a drowning person will climb on top of you and drown you instead without even thinking about it.  They will not share your logical thinking processes nor appreciate your good intent.  

I share Phil's opinion that the publicly suicidal aren't ticking right and do to a point equate with the drowning. 
The ones who've already decided on the course of action just take a running jump over the railing.  The ones who choose to balance on it until someone like you comes along to 'rescue' them are looking for either an excuse to go on living or an audience for their exit.

But we digress !!!  This thread is about legally sanctioned *Voluntary Euthanasia.*  Not suicide per se.

Voluntary euthanasia isn't nearly as exciting as jumping off bridges.  It is about the people who aren't capable of getting to the bridge still having a right to end it with a smidgeon of dignity and in a peaceful, painless, trauma free manner.

 Their decision is reached over time and by far more logical thought processes than made by someone who jumps off a bridge, or under a train with a shopping bag in each hand because they had a bad day.

That we wander off the point of this topic into the realm of the bizarre 'what if's' is indicative that it's a subject most don't want to concentrate on.  We continually paste our own personal values onto other people's right to make a decision according to theirs.  To me that is the ultimate arrogance!

If the legislation condoned it, and it was made an easier option to implement by the sufferer,  then other people's 'reactions,' beliefs and complicity needn't enter the question at all.    A legal form could absolve any named, consenting,  individual assisting the person from any legal culpability.  Too simple??

The only question we need to consider, and express opinions on,  is if other people have the right to decide their own fate, according to their own values and opinion, regardless of it's relevance to our own.

We need to get past what's right for us, personally.  It's not all about us and our choices and decisions,  it's about extending the permission to others to make a decision for themselves.  Is it really all that hard to do?


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 2, 2013)

It's easy to argue in hypotheticals but each case is a complex mix of issues.
While I am giving personal examples I might reveal that I put in writing instructions that allowed my mother to die by her own will.

She was 91 years old, fairly advanced into dementia but neither sad nor depressed. Her favourite mood was mild outrage over one of the carer's hair colour or the mutterings of another resident. I was called one day to come to the nursing home because "something was happening". 

She was refusing to eat or drink and she was singing exultantly like an animated opera singer. When she saw me she made a very clear gesture with her hands that was in consonance with her words. With a smile, and looking directly into my eyes, she said, "No more". Her intention was unmistakable and I gave orders that she was not to be force fed but by all means try to persuade her to take food. As I said, I had to put it in writing and when later I received her death certificate it gave the cause of death as "senile dementia and dehydration". The last bit was squarely on my conscience and it rocked me a little. Actually if I am honest it was a psychic shock but I have no regrets.

In that last week of her life she did not suffer due to excellent palliative care and everyone who loved her had time to visit her to see her for the last time. I had the privilege of walking with her on that last leg of life's journey. Death came to greet her as a friend. In my personal opinion, we should not fear death, nor the process of dying, nearly as much as we do. Nor should we shrink from life, even when it is hard.

Having said that, I don't think we should judge others for the choices they make and I regret my initial reaction to the story that started this thread.


----------



## Diwundrin (Oct 2, 2013)

Warri.

That's the point really, there are as many stories as there are people and we needn't make the subject more complex by comparing and judging their worth as excuses for our views.   That can go on ad infinitum and meanwhile some poor soul is suffering unnecessarily because of the fear of implicating a loved one in 'assisting' their release.

That's a real 'humanitarian' issue to consider.


----------



## snaarl (Oct 2, 2013)

Family has a vested interest in whether a family member dies or not, voluntary euthanasia or suicide.  If this person was a complete stranger to me I would not presume to interfere.
When my mother was in a nursing home, she signed a DNR (Do Not Resusitate) but the doctor asked me anyway. I didn't stand in the way.  I will do the same thing if needed and expect my wish to be respected by my own daughter.


----------



## SifuPhil (Oct 3, 2013)

snaarl said:


> Family has a vested interest in whether a family member dies or not, voluntary euthanasia or suicide ...



They do and they do not.

Certainly they have an interest in it, but do they have a right to say yea or nay? Depends upon the fitness of the family member, right? Ultimately I am the only person who has a right to decide whether to live or to die, but that's given a sound mind. If the mind is going then yes, next of kin get involved. That's why they have all these comparatively new DNRs and living wills. It's moving in the right direction but very slowly.

We often hold onto things not because we _care_ for them so much as we fear _losing_ them. It's a big difference in perception. We have trouble letting go.


----------



## snaarl (Oct 3, 2013)

*SifuPhil, I totally agree with you! You expressed it better than I could.*


----------



## Ivanchuk (Oct 18, 2013)

SeaBreeze said:


> I believe that the person suffering with a terminal illness should have that choice.


I agree.


----------



## Pinky (Apr 5, 2016)

I believe strongly that a person who is suffering from a terminal illness should have the right to legal euthanasia. I've watched too many relatives suffer needlessly.

Author Terry Pratchett made a video on assisted dying, after being diagnosed with Alzheimer's. He passed naturally, at home, in March 2015.

Sorry, the video that posted was a music vid I posted last night. I thought Vimeo and Daily Motion vids would post here. Anway, it's in the link in my subsequent post.


----------



## Pinky (Apr 5, 2016)

I believe strongly that a person who is suffering from a terminal illness should have the right to legal euthanasia. I've watched too many relatives suffer needlessly.

Author Terry Pratchett made a video on assisted dying, after being diagnosed with Alzheimer's. He passed naturally, at home, in March 2015.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xnu340_terry-pratchett-choosing-to-die_shortfilms


----------



## fureverywhere (Apr 5, 2016)

I also might suggest it shouldn't have to be only for a terminal disorder. Obviously there's a difference between curable depression and something far darker. But I feel somebody who has been evaluated and treatment has failed should have the option. I'm thinking David Foster Wallace and Robin Williams...they could have had more dignity and less pain than hanging themselves.


----------



## Pinky (Apr 5, 2016)

fureverywhere said:


> I also might suggest it shouldn't have to be only for a terminal disorder. Obviously there's a difference between curable depression and something far darker. But I feel somebody who has been evaluated and treatment has failed should have the option. I'm thinking David Foster Wallace and Robin Williams...they could have had more dignity and less pain than hanging themselves.



I am absolutely with you on that one, though we may be in the minority on that one.


----------



## Butterfly (Apr 6, 2016)

Sid said:


> "What's the thinking?"
> We went throught that sometime ago in The US, it seems to have blown over for now.
> As far as I know we have no laws against it.
> Maybe that is the way it should be?



In truth, assisted suicide is illegal in MOST states in the US.  It's still a very hot topic, and rightly so.


----------



## Butterfly (Apr 6, 2016)

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said!!!


----------



## Warrigal (Apr 6, 2016)

My husband battled depression and anxiety for ten years and attempted suicide once. He failed and is still alive today.
He did not have my permission to kill himself and has since left his depression behind.

We have discussed refusing certain treatments in future including resuscitation and chemotherapy but that IMO is not voluntary suicide.
I intend to die as naturally as possible with the very best palliative care on offer.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 6, 2016)

I am a born coward but I would try to check out with the "right" diagnosis...


----------

