Physician-assisted dying discussion

[billymills]

I think the system in the first post sounds pretty decent. I could argue a bit about minor details (15 days seems extremely long), but all the key parts are there (multiple diagnoses, multiple confrontations, etc).

It should strictly apply to bed-ridden cases, as other people have cheaper, more fun ways to kill themselves anyway.

It should always be available if wanted, but not given out freely (or 'advertised' as an option).

 

[Morm]

I'd rather my family member was alive but high on morphene than dead.

YOU would rather. You follow a preachy post about murder being the same as suicide and selfishness with this? On high morphene usually they are so far gone that they are both stoned and constantly suffering...but what YOU want is what matters, right?


Billy, good points except that 15 days is specifically long enough to make SURE it's what the person wants. If you go 15 days while wanting to die and are sure of it at the end...then yeah, push the plunger.

 

[His Eminence Lord Poppington II]

Fickle topic, there's the whole right state of mind getting tangled with 'informed decision'. If in proper mental health then the decision is entirely theirs, and I suppose the 15 day waiting period helps prevent transitory, rash sentiments of suicide. Main problem is how mentally ill one is and whether or not they can make an 'informed decision' or require therapy and whatnot.

 

[Chubbs]

Preventing a selfish act is only selfish if you are acting in your own interests. Putting in the time and resources to help someone who is depressed is far less selfish than killing yourself.

There is of course the argument that says all humans are selfish and only help others to feel good about themselves, therefore making your statement fairly redundant as helping someone not be depressed anymore is just you being selfish trying to use them to feel like a better person. Don't really agree with all of that but I felt the need to put that out there.

 

[Morm]

Of fucking course everyone is selfish but there are degrees. Feeling good about helping someone else makes the premise of a selfless act ridiculous. However stealing the only money an orphan has and then feeling good about it while celebrating, with said money, over several pints is FAR more selfish than feeling good about teaching third world people about sex ed in a program that has been shown statistically to lower unmanageable pregnancies and STD's.

Mitigating selfishness is good for the communal efforts of humanity and therefore lessening selfishness (and ironically feeling good about doing so) is paramount.

 

[MrIndigo]

One argument I've made about euthanasia before is that if you make euthanasia illegal but suicide legal then you have in effect set up a discriminatory mechanism - Only those people who are healthy and capable of taking their own life can do so. Those who are too disabled or weak to do it themselves are banned from getting the result they want.

 

[His Eminence Lord Poppington II]

One argument I've made about euthanasia before is that if you make euthanasia illegal but suicide legal then you have in effect set up a discriminatory mechanism - Only those people who are healthy and capable of taking their own life can do so. Those who are too disabled or weak to do it themselves are banned from getting the result they want.

Well, I'd say that's a fairly reductionist deduction if it were to actually become a law, it's probably one of the most obvious loopholes and would be sussed out if it were, in the unlikely event, to be passed.

But hey, stuff has been passed that hasn't made much sense before, personally, if you're in good mental health and are terminally ill or if you just want to off yourself for a personally valid reason then do so. It's when someone is mentally unfit to make a decision and are having suicidal thoughts is when it becomes icky.

 

[Colonel M]

Suicide is murder. It's unfair for family members, doctors, and all those involved. If the person has the ability to communicate then they are not sick enough/in enough pain to deserve euthanasia/physician-assisted death.

Though isn't holding a person's life against their will also "unfair" to the individual? A person can still talk and be in excruciating pain. Try it yourself if you want: kick yourself in the balls and talk. You can still talk, right? People suffer worse pain than that and can still freely talk. A person held alive against their will merely puts the family in jeopardy with monetary costs and "wastes time" with doctors.

Yes, depressant suicides can often be considered a greedy thing to do, but in most cases that is "easier to treat". Medication and therapy can get you through depression. It won't likely get you through Stage IV Cancer.

Still, killing people without consent is not something that should happen in any humane society.

I'd rather my family member was alive but high on morphene than dead.

I think in most cases they would ask for their family's consent, or keep it secret toward their grave to ease the pain of family members (so the doctor to lie about him / her "dying in their sleep"). Though your final statement raises an interesting question: would you rather have a person have a similar condition to morm's aunt be kept alive, possibly against her own will, than doing her and even her family a favor by *erhem* assisted suicide? I know that if one of my family members was suffering and they wanted to go through an assisted suicide (and obviously excluding depression here), I would support their cause.

On that note, I think you do bring up a good point, and I just thought of another. First:

Strange as it sounds, the ones who should die are the ones that can't give consent, as their life quality is actually zero

and then one I thought on the fly: what about individuals that are under 18? Shouldn't they also be allowed to receive this treatment? Probably under the child and parent's consent of course.

 

[Charmander#4]

Note that the patient can opt out at any time during this process if he or she chooses.

Any time, you say?

So if I decide not to do it after getting the injection and I die anyways, my family can sue the physician, right?

Well, it beats life insurance.

 

[dtrain]

(Sorry if I'm repeating anything already said, just wanted to say my views :)) I'm actually doing a court case for this in class atm. However I'm arguing against it (my personal view is actually the opposite however =x) From my research there are already 3 states that allows the right to die with the help of a Physicians assistant and that there was already a Supreme court case on this (Washington V Glucksberg) Gonna be tough arguing for something I don't believe in lol

 

[Colonel M]

Any time, you say?

So if I decide not to do it after getting the injection and I die anyways, my family can sue the physician, right?

Well, it beats life insurance.

Please do us all a favor and quit being a retard.

Thank you.

 

[His Eminence Lord Poppington II]

Any time, you say?

So if I decide not to do it after getting the injection and I die anyways, my family can sue the physician, right?

Well, it beats life insurance.

Because we all know that when it comes to death and familial loss money is all that matters in the end. And being an asshole.

 

[Charmander#4]

Because we all know that when it comes to death and familial loss money is all that matters in the end. And being an asshole.

Well, of course.

I mean, if it was me, they should set everything in motion in order to save me. But a family member? When you see one of those, I just picture a money bag with a dollar sign on it, along with a sign that says "Kick me!".

I have... Issues.

 

[BKC]

I have... Issues.

We can see that.

Anyways what I wanted to say has already been said; it should be up to the patient whether they want to die or not. I remember doing a project on euthanasia back in sixth grade and I've always thought that if someone wants to die and can't do it themselves, they should be helped.

 

[comatthew6]

Fuck I forgot all about this topic and I did a presentation about it on health...and I think I said "no" to Lanturn's original question. I think that there are other options (like morphine) that will reduce the pain and the patient will not have to die.

 

[Charmander#4]

We can see that.

Oh, come on, don't take yourself so seriously. :D

 

[Miscellaneous]

I think it's amazing that "democratic" societies have discussions over this. Freedom at its heart is to have the most control over your life, whether or not that includes ending it. Saying someone cannot choose to end their life is itself a form of oppression.

Furthermore, there are very few people who can empathise with people in this situation. I'm sure most people haven't experienced true and extended pain. If there is a point when life becomes a misery it does not seem so bad to let it go. There are so many people who have this huge phobia of death and prolonged periods of mourning for those who have died and it's unnecessary because honestly, it is life and not death you should be living.

The only potential problem would come between defining the difference and acceptable circumstances between suicide and murder, and any exploits of the rules they come up with. But morally I don't see any argument against ending someone's pain upon request.

 

[His Eminence Lord Poppington II]

Oh, come on, don't take yourself so seriously. :D

Then perhaps you should start tarking Colonel_M's advice, your earlier post seems to make yourself lean even further into this unfortunate demographic.

Edit: trolling, rather.

 

[FlareBlitz]

precisely. he believes that he should impose his will on people rather than letting them run their own lives.

assuming that most people actually will be grateful that you drugged them against their will, it doesn't matter. there will be at least one person who will be extremely ticked off that their rights have been thrown out the window for the good of the majority. if you're in the minority, democracy is worse than tyranny.

Assuming we're talking about medicating clinically depressed patients here, the idea of "will" is very hazy. A depressed individual may not want to seek treatment and may instead choose to end his or her own life, but that decision doesn't qualify under the banner of "informed consent"; much like how we don't let 13 year olds sign up for the army, decisions made by individuals whose capacity for making said decisions is compromised due to medical illness may be overruled by that person's family or physician, and the state should have mechanisms for recognizing that. It's not about what's good the majority at all - it's about what's good for the individual.

Suicide is murder. It's unfair for family members, doctors, and all those involved. If the person has the ability to communicate then they are not sick enough/in enough pain to deserve euthanasia/physician-assisted death.

Suicide is not murder. Suicide is suicide. The very definition of "murder" is contingent upon lethal violence being inflicted on an unwilling party. The only way suicide would qualify here is if the person committing suicide was not capable of giving informed consent, which is why there is a process outlined in this legislation to ensure that they can.

 

[masterful]

Suicide is murder. It's unfair for family members, doctors, and all those involved. If the person has the ability to communicate then they are not sick enough/in enough pain to deserve euthanasia/physician-assisted death.

Strange as it sounds, the ones who should die are the ones that can't give consent, as their life quality is actually zero, whereas if you are in massive amounts of pain you can still communicate with others (although that most likely requires large doses of possibly addictive painkillers.) Still, killing people without consent is not something that should happen in any humane society.

I'd rather my family member was alive but high on morphene than dead.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU WANT! It should not be anyone's decision but the person himslef/herself. That you would deprive someone over the right to end their life comfortably is unbelievably selfish and cruel, and it's not like you could truly prevent someone from killing themselves, as you can't just strap him down for the rest of his life. All in all, there is no reason your loved ones should not get the chance to at least end their life comfortably and peacefully, and to take that away from them is the epitome of wrong. What the hell gives anyone the right to determine what is "right" for someone else? As long as they are mentally competent, a person knows more than anyone what is right for him or her. To assume that you know what is right for somebody else more than they are is incredibly conceited.

 

[Zacchaeus]

I had a class debate on euthenasia (passive and active) and from all the information presented in there, the side that supported euthenasia had much better reasoning and standpoints

But by looking at page 3 this is now more like a Charmander#4 versus thread

 

[Colonel M]

Suicide is not murder. Suicide is suicide. The very definition of "murder" is contingent upon lethal violence being inflicted on an unwilling party. The only way suicide would qualify here is if the person committing suicide was not capable of giving informed consent, which is why there is a process outlined in this legislation to ensure that they can.

I think what he meant to say was more along the lines of suicide being "arrogant".

 

[masterful]

I think what he meant to say was more along the lines of suicide being "arrogant".

Think about it from the perspective of a relative. Is it not FAR more arrogant to assume your wishes are so much more important than your loved one's that you should have first say in whether s/he lives or dies? That level of arrogance is so far beyond all else. Also, one can wish to be euthanized not just for selfish reasons, at the expense of their loved ones, but perhaps in hopes that one could lessen the pain their loved ones would feel once the end comes

 

[bombiron]

if another person takes pleasure in an activity that you see as harmful (be it suicide, cutting, or making out with a tailpipe) then that is because they are doing what they want to do. there is nothing wrong with that person. they are minding their own business, and you should be minding yours.

if your best friend was going to commit suicide would you even try to talk him out of it? or would you just say oh hey its none of my buisness. ive been at the point when only a friends reassurance kept me from killing myself and im glad i did not. its quite disturbing to me that your sick creed would keep you from doing anything to save the life of another

 

[Colonel M]

Think about it from the perspective of a relative. Is it not FAR more arrogant to assume your wishes are so much more important than your loved one's that you should have first say in whether s/he lives or dies? That level of arrogance is so far beyond all else. Also, one can wish to be euthanized not just for selfish reasons, at the expense of their loved ones, but perhaps in hopes that one could lessen the pain their loved ones would feel once the end comes

In the scenario such as Lanturn proposed, yes, it is arrogant of the family member withholding a person's life with someone who wishes to die (with the exception of children).

In the case of suicide (as in due to depression), that is fairly arrogant. It also can have negative repercussions pending on how the person commits suicide. I mean more than "close family relatives" in a sense. A man my father used to work with attempted to swerve into another car's lane. The dude survived. The driver in the other car? He didn't.

It's just an example.