The right to die..

VaughanJB said:
Human beings are not dogs. Or cats. You seem to have missed out on thousands of years or evolution, societal practices, beliefs, and concepts such as the spirit and the soul. We recognize that dogs are not human, and they are not afforded the same rights as humans. This argument is a total non-starter, imo. Well, at least until Planet of the Apes becomes a thing. Then we're going to really think about state sanctioned suicide for them too.
Click to expand...


I disagree.

I think the argument that we would not let pets suffer at end of life is very relevant when trying to justify why we make people suffer

Dogs do not have the same rights in that the owner has to choose for them - people ca n choose for themselves.

At least they can where this is available.
 

VaughanJB said:
I understand the issue. Assisted Dying, it seems to me, is about protecting those left behind, and not much else. As you say, you help someone die with it, and you're guilty of a crime. With Assisted Dying, you're not. Nothing really changes very much for the actual individual involved, as your case with Adam illustrates. If someone wants to end their life, they will find a way, with or without the law being in place.

But really, that's not the issue. I think there is a difference between explaining your point of view, and being defensive. One can defend their position without being all-out defensive. In the latter instance, counter points of view are just dismissed and brushed off, which doesn't work in a true discussion.

As I've said, nowhere have I said I'm against Assisted Dying. I have tried to explore different points of view, because I'm interested in the level of thinking that has gone on to this. I've also stated that state sanctioned suicide is problematic and should be of concern to all. Knowing the world we live in, I think it is fanciful to imagine no-one can, or will, be coerced into following the wrong path. I just think we should be mindful of it.

It doesn't get any more important than the loss of life.
Click to expand...
I think that's a pretty cynical view point Vaughan. Assisted dying is primarily and only about helping the person who is sick to end their suffering sooner so they aren't doomed to experience ongoing pain and misery for an indeterminate length of time.

We had a friend who developed bladder cancer, had surgery, chemo, had a bag installed and the bag leaked and he got infection after infection from it. He was in constant pain and it was terminal but had no idea when his release would come. He decided that he couldn't take it anymore and he was helped to die. This was not suicide. Words used for anything, matter. Suicide is when someone with a healthy body, decides to kill themselves. Assisted dying is when someone who's body is dying, gets help to hurry it along.

And now, that's it for me. I've explained my perspective and why I think like I do on it, long enough.
 
January said:
I disagree.

I think the argument that we would not let pets suffer at end of life is very relevant when trying to justify why we make people suffer

Dogs do not have the same rights in that the owner has to choose for them - people ca n choose for themselves.

At least they can where this is available.
Click to expand...

But we can choose right now, without any law. It's called suicide, and sadly people do choose that route for themselves. Sometimes they're rational in that, and sometimes not.

A dog cannot choose. A dog cannot tell you what it's thinking or feeling. We put out trust in a veterinarian to tell us. Either way, we can never speak to a dog to see how it feels, or what it prefers. It's simply not how society views the role of pets. I can't equate that with knowing a human being. Hell, even dogs don't know what's going on with them. We let them go reluctantly, based on the best advice we can get.

Humans are far more complex, and their relationships are deeper. A human has intellect, and human has a sense of consciousness a dog can't imagine.

As I've said, from what I can make out, Assisted Suicide is more about those left behind. We can all end our lives. But we can't be helped by doctors or family because they would likely suffer legal consequences. So the Assisted Suicide thing is about protecting them from legal consequences.
 

Debrah N. said:
I think that's a pretty cynical view point Vaughan. Assisted dying is primarily and only about helping the person who is sick to end their suffering sooner so they aren't doomed to experience ongoing pain and misery for an indeterminate length of time.

We had a friend who developed bladder cancer, had surgery, chemo, had a bag installed and the bag leaked and he got infection after infection from it. He was in constant pain and it was terminal but had no idea when his release would come. He decided that he couldn't take it anymore and he was helped to die. This was not suicide. Words used for anything, matter. Suicide is when someone with a healthy body, decides to kill themselves. Assisted dying is when someone who's body is dying, gets help to hurry it along.

And now, that's it for me. I've explained my perspective and why I think like I do on it, long enough.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I truly am.

The issue here is the finality. It isn't the obvious cases that are the issue, it's the not obvious ones. We can tell a story of someone in terrible circumstances, but then we could tell a story of someone borderline - especially when it comes to Assisted Suicide for mental health problems. I think we should value life enough to say, but tomorrow...... meaning, we fight on, and we don't give up. New treatments come up, new ideas are tried.

With Assisted Suicide for the mentally ill, the body isn't dying. That's the difference.

I had an aunt who suffered for Alzheimer's. She lay in a bed, in a fetal position, for the best part of two years before passing. It was horrendous. It took a toll on her, obviously, but also for everyone who loved her. There was nothing that could be done, and nothing that would reverse the situation or improve the prognosis. When she finally passed, it was something of a relief. So I get it. There are terrible cases. But I think we should tread very very carefully when making suicide an accepted path.
 
VaughanJB said:
I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I truly am.

The issue here is the finality. It isn't the obvious cases that are the issue, it's the not obvious ones. We can tell a story of someone in terrible circumstances, but then we could tell a story of someone borderline - especially when it comes to Assisted Suicide for mental health problems. I think we should value life enough to say, but tomorrow...... meaning, we fight on, and we don't give up. New treatments come up, new ideas are tried.

With Assisted Suicide for the mentally ill, the body isn't dying. That's the difference.

I had an aunt who suffered for Alzheimer's. She lay in a bed, in a fetal position, for the best part of two years before passing. It was horrendous. It took a toll on her, obviously, but also for everyone who loved her. There was nothing that could be done, and nothing that would reverse the situation or improve the prognosis. When she finally passed, it was something of a relief. So I get it. There are terrible cases. But I think we should tread very very carefully when making suicide an accepted path.
Click to expand...
One last thing because that is a change that Canada was working on until last year, things like Alzheimer's and Adam's situation. People who had been diagnosed with Alzheimers were part of the group pushing for change there because they didn't want to be that person lying there for years. They wanted to be able to have it in writing that when they reached a certain point in their disease, (like when they no longer recognized family) that they could be given the meds even though at that point they were unable to, with clarity of mind, assent to the procedure. They wanted to be assisted with dying because that end is inevitable even though it would likely take years while their brain turned to Swiss cheese.

And making that decision with both their own and yes, the situation for their families in mind, isn't a bad thing. But unfortunately the Bill wasn't passed and that will have to come up again and maybe then some of those naysayers will have someone they love, lying in a fetal position for years and then they'll have a different opinion of the situation.
 
Debrah N. said:
One last thing because that is a change that Canada was working on until last year, things like Alzheimer's and Adam's situation. People who had been diagnosed with Alzheimers were part of the group pushing for change there because they didn't want to be that person lying there for years. They wanted to be able to have it in writing that when they reached a certain point in their disease, (like when they no longer recognized family) that they could be given the meds even though at that point they were unable to, with clarity of mind, assent to the procedure. They wanted to be assisted with dying because that end is inevitable even though it would likely take years while their brain turned to Swiss cheese.

And making that decision with both their own and yes, the situation for their families in mind, isn't a bad thing. But unfortunately the Bill wasn't passed and that will have to come up again and maybe then some of those naysayers will have someone they love, lying in a fetal position for years and then they'll have a different opinion of the situation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think "do not resuscitate" is still a thing. My aunt wasn't able to speak, and she couldn't make a choice (obviously). I don't know what she was feeling, thinking, experiencing. I just saw her fading, slowly. Without the drugs and feeding, she would have gone sooner.

On the other hand, I know a family friend had a different situation. Basically, both parents were in long term relationships. The man died of emphysema. It's a terrible thing, you essentially sit and watch someone slowly drown. But the wife? When the husband passed, she took to her bed. She hardly ever got out of it. A few years later, she too was gone. But she died, I guess, of a broken heart. She just gave up. Is that a candidate for Assisted Suicide? Jeez, tough.

ps: Apologies for replying to you when you say you don't want to post anymore!
 
pps: I take medication for regulating blood pressure. If I took all of my monthly dose in one go, I'd overdose and die. Which is an illustration of just how easy it is to end things if one is so inclined. I've not checked how it interacts with other things I'm on.
 
VaughanJB said:
Yeah, I think "do not resuscitate" is still a thing. My aunt wasn't able to speak, and she couldn't make a choice (obviously). I don't know what she was feeling, thinking, experiencing. I just saw her fading, slowly. Without the drugs and feeding, she would have gone sooner.

On the other hand, I know a family friend had a different situation. Basically, both parents were in long term relationships. The man died of emphysema. It's a terrible thing, you essentially sit and watch someone slowly drown. But the wife? When the husband passed, she took to her bed. She hardly ever got out of it. A few years later, she too was gone. But she died, I guess, of a broken heart. She just gave up. Is that a candidate for Assisted Suicide? Jeez, tough.

ps: Apologies for replying to you when you say you don't want to post anymore!
Click to expand...
End of life is very hard for most people I think. Missing those who pass on and some are scared of passing.....
 
VaughanJB said:
But we can choose right now, without any law. It's called suicide, and sadly people do choose that route for themselves. Sometimes they're rational in that, and sometimes not.
Click to expand...


But that's the whole point - no, we all can't.

People choosing VAD have end stage terminal illnesses - they are weak, frail, disabled. they can't easily end their life in a safe painless way.
 
January said:
But that's the whole point - no, we all can't.

People choosing VAD have end stage terminal illnesses - they are weak, frail, disabled. they can't easily end their life in a safe painless way.
Click to expand...
Yes, we know that, January. We must leave that to the best skills of the doctor, that is what he is for. And nature never gives us more pain than we can bear.
There is little justice or kindness in this world. If there were, tigers would eat oatmeal, all the girls would be pretty, and the boys champions, we would have Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and fewer taxes. I can go on.
We must try to be brave, there are hard times coming, but that's only if we're lucky.
 
davey said:
Yes but don't they say that when the death is well managed with sufficient drugs that pain can be removed?
Click to expand...


I am not sure what point you are making here - if pain can be relieved and the person can be comfortable and have reasonable quality of life at the end stage of a terminal illness - then they are unlikely to apply for VAD

VAD is an option for when those things are not the case.

hasnt been a political divide here between any sides of politics over this.
 
January said:
But that's the whole point - no, we all can't.

People choosing VAD have end stage terminal illnesses - they are weak, frail, disabled. they can't easily end their life in a safe painless way.
Click to expand...
Yes, we know that, January. We must leave that to the best skills of the doctor, that is what he is for. And nature never gives us more pain than we can bear.
There is little justice or kindness in this world. If there were, tigers would eat oatmeal, all the girls would be pretty, and the boys champions, we would have Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and fewer taxes. I can go on.
We must try to be brave, there are hard times coming, but that's only if we're lucky.

well if you know that people at the end stage of terminal illnesses cannot always d o this by themself, why were you saying we dont need VAD, people can just do it themselves. ???

and the skills of Doctors have limits - they cannot always relieve pain or give good quality of life - and unfortunately sometimes nature does give peopel more pain than is bearable and disease situations where there is no quality of life.
We dont have to try to be brave - it is good there is a safe legal option for people to leave this life when they are past that stage.

the sentence about Father Christmas and justice and kindness doesnt make sense - I'm glad laws have changed here to make VAD a kind and just option for people i n that situation.
 
January said:
I am not sure what point you are making here - if pain can be relieved and the person can be comfortable and have reasonable quality of life at the end stage of a terminal illness - then they are unlikely to apply for VAD

VAD is an option for when those things are not the case.

hasnt been a political divide here between any sides of politics over this.
Click to expand...
With the aid of today's drugs, EVERYONE can be made comfortable, even to the point of induced coma and, of course, beyond, as you advocate. I would not care for the job of going beyond, but the enlightened elites are happy to help.
 
January said:
Yes, we know that, January.
We must try to be brave, there are hard times coming, but that's only if we're lucky.

well if you know that people at the end stage of terminal illnesses cannot always d o this by themself, why were you saying we dont need VAD, people can just do it themselves. ???
Click to expand...
I've never said we don't need it, why must you put words in my mouth. I said we don't want it. Because murder is not something we allow, and the state calling it something else will not change that. Why do you think we don't allow murder? Don't you understand how precious life is?
 
gruntlabor said:
I've never said we don't need it, why must you put words in my mouth. I said we don't want it. Because murder is not something we allow, and the state calling it something else will not change that. Why do you think we don't allow murder? Don't you understand how precious life is?
Click to expand...
Whoa, murder is the unlawful, premeditated killing of one human being by another. Assisted dying is a few steps removed from murder, a life close to the end of its natural life is nowhere near as precious as that of someone part way through through the natural progression of birth to death.
'We don't want it', don't put those words in my mouth. When I'm done in this mortal world, it's game over for me.
 
Rakaia said:
... a life close to the end of its natural life is nowhere near as precious as that of someone part way through through the natural progression of birth to death.
'We don't want it', don't put those words in my mouth ...
Click to expand...
Who is to say which life is precious, and which is not? You may be willing to do that, but not me, I guarantee you.
But thank you, you are quite right, Rakaia, to correct me in my error in the definition of murder. I apologize. I should have said 'the taking of human life is not something we allow ...', and so on.
And by, 'We don't want it', I was, of course, referring to myself, and others like me who revere life, and the mouse in my pocket.
 
On the face of it, I understand why a person who is terminally ill would want to choose the right to die rather than to prolong what may be a slow and painful death but, it is not something I would support. My view which is, in part, influenced by the Liverpool Care Pathway ("LCP") which I think was the reality of having the right to die.

The LCP was initially developed to care for terminal ill cancer patients during their final days, it was then exended to include all patients deemed to be dying. In theory, the idea seemed helpful; end of life hospice care but in a hospital setting. The reality though was that "dying" included the withdrawal of water and food and the sedation of some patients which meant they could no longer communicate with hospital staff or family members.


I realise that there is great support for the right to die and, if it were ever to become a reality, I hope that it would always remain a choice but, I don't believe it would.
 
gruntlabor said:
Who is to say which life is precious, and which is not? You may be willing to do that, but not me, I guarantee you.
Click to expand...


No not me either. I am not willing to state that for anyone but myself

and the terminally ill patient can say that for themself - that living in the condition they are in is not precious for them - and they have the right to choose to stop living at that point.
 
Trish said:
I realise that there is great support for the right to die and, if it were ever to become a reality, I hope that it would always remain a choice but, I don't believe it would...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

In Australia, where it has become a reality, for a few years now, - there are checks and controls in place and it absolutely is the choice of the patient alone.
 


Back
Top