Assisted Suicide

[annieap]

Beginning in October, "the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the nation's only assisted suicide law, taking up the Bush administration's appeal to stop doctors from helping terminally ill patients die more quickly."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&e=4&u=/ap/20050222/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_assisted_suicide


On October 27, 1997 physician-assisted suicide became a legal medical option for terminally ill patients in Oregon. The Oregon Death with Dignity act was first passed by voters in 1994, however injunctions delayed immediate implementing of the Act. At least 170 physician assisted suicides have taken place since the Act went into effect.

The Bush Administration wants to stop assisted suicides. What are your thoughts? Should a terminally ill patient with less than six months to live be allowed to opt for assisted suicide?
I'll post my thoughts a bit later.

[Jeremy]

You don't have a choice of how and when you come into the world, but you certainly have a choice of when you leave, whether it's a law or not.

That being said, assisted suicides is not only a dignity question but a humanity question. Assisted suicides are a lot like lethal injection where the person simply falls asleep with little to no pain, versus the alternative of spending weeks or months ravaged by pain until the body simply gives up.

Republicans on this issue seem to be schizophrenic to me. They seem to believe life is a holy sanctity and oppose abortion and assisted suicide, while at the same time they believe that 12 people in a jury can decide if someone should die in the death penalty. In my eyes it seems that as long as the choice factor is left to governing officials they are happy, but what kind of sanctity is that?

[kcredden]

I feel strongly that the goverment should keep their hairy paws out of our lives, in certain areas. a) abortion, b) assisted sucicides and other areas too numerious to mention.

I won't get into any abortion arguement here, since that isn't part of the thread. But in some cases, assisted sucides should be allowed. But it'd should be under very specific circumstances.

There is one case in FL about a women who is in a progressive vegatiative state. But they've been dragging her case though the courts for 15 years. Should she be allowed to die? This sort of case I couldn't pin down, for what does SHE want? She can't say, so I can't say if she should be put down or not.

However, one who's in complete control of his facilities, but is in extreme pain, and dying anyway; say from cancer, or another thing, should be allowed to say "I want to die, without pain, and suffering"

After seeing my uncle go from a robust man who walked several miles every day, even though he was T2, to an invalid. Unable to sit up, in constent pain, and all he could do, for three months is stare out the window...Yes, I've started to support this right. There should be a form to be signed, or something like a 'DNR' that is made in advance of course. Protect the hospital, nursing home, staff and such. But there should be a law allowing this

For a country that prides themselves so civilized, and advanced, I wonder why it is countries like Holland have these laws on the books already, as well as other laws that benifit the person?

[mark]

...............I'm against it. We all know the gov't messes up just about everything they get their "paws" on & this law would be no different. The main reason I'm against it is............it "cheapens" life.

In today's society, life is cheaper everyday as it is. This is another way to hasten it along faster. Suppose you allowed this to be legal. I know a fellow I attend church with that was given 6 mos. to live.

That was 18 mos. ago & he's still hanging on. Suppose some doctor gave him the "authorization" to commit assisted suicide then. He would miss his wife, kids & living the past 12 mos. Bummer.

Here's another way of approaching it. Let's say it becomes legal for a moment. The posts I've read is about patients that are on their "death beds". Suppose a very talented pianist looses her hands in a auto accident & is devastated. She wants to commit legal suicide. Who decides this one??

My point is....

Once a law is enacted, it is rarely followed the way it was originally written. They are always challenged & changed eventually.....usually for the worse.

If I'm sick & Jack Kevorkian knocks on my door, I'll run him off!! ........see ya Mark

[moose44]

Mark, my feelings are totally opposite of yours. I wouldn't consider ending my own life as a terminally ill, otherwise mentally competent, human being as opting out and "cheapening" the legacy I left behind. I feel that every mentally competent ( as evaluated by a professional) human being has the right to decide for themselves when enough is enough. In my case, I would choose it as much for my family as I would for myself. Let my legacy be remembered for how I lived, not the circumstances by which I died. I would probably work for Jack Kevorkian.........

[kcredden]

Mark, you have some good points there. Some of your points, is what I use in debate with myself on this subject, and why I can only support this partly. (I think I said that somewhat in my last post.)

One debate is what I call it the 'Dr. McCoy's father debate' In ST5, he was confronted with his father dying of soemthing, and the guilt of letting him go, when they found the cure for it, a year later. (or such.) Wouldn't that really be incredibly painful to do that? I know I'm still in pain from putting my dog down in September of last year. Imagine what it'd be like, if now they found the cure? Think of the family who had their loved one let go, and very soon afterwards, there's a cure for it.

The other thing about the pianist is something I would put in a law, if I was writing it up. I would specifically state something like the person would have be on their deathbed or such before this could be allowed. The pianist would have alternate means of support, such as teaching, writing, etc. Heck, add M*A*S*H's episode to this, where they could learn to play with just one hand. The point is, life isn't over in this case.

Finally as for Kevorkian, this is where we agree 100%. If he came to my door, he'd be facing a rear shot full of rock salt from a shotgun! I'm not going easy into the night, that's for sure. [hehehs] I'll just make sure I run him off in Mark's direction ;)

[Phat Lou]

Why do we need a law preventing this? If you want to end your own life to prevent further agony so be it.
It really doesn't matter what any of us think on this subject anyway. This could be the most personal decision one could make regarding their own life. If I were faced with this predicament the last thing I would want is a tube and other people's morals crammed down my throat.

[Jeremy]

I would like to correct a misunderstanding in kcredden's posts (sorry kc :)). I noticed that in both your posts you made references to other people deciding when to relieve someone of their suffering, the Florida woman in the first post and the son deciding about his father's death in the second post. In an assisted suicide, the person themselves would make the decision. If the person is incapacitated, in a coma for example or on life support, it would be a different issue than suicide. The question of whether families have the right to decide if they should pull the plug and take someone off life support is quite different than someone saying themselves I am ready to go now, please help me do this with humanity.

I think the law is important because it removes the criminality of those who assist. In a typical assisted suicide scenario the patient is video taped stating clearly that they wish to die. A physician sets up tubes that release toxins into their system (just like in lethal injection). The patient is given a release mechanism that only they can push to start the injection. The entire thing is video taped to show that the patient themselves is doing the injection.

Now currently, the physician would be arrested and charged with some degree of murder. A law would not decide whether people should take their own lives, but it would remove the culpability of the physician who simply provided the means and not the actual life taking. I think a law like that is important.

[Jeremy]

Assisted suicides have nothing to do with DNRs. They are two different things. I just wanted to say that again before the topic gets on DNRs. :)

[annieap]

At present time, Oregon is the only state that has legalized physician assisted suicide. The medication is NOT injected. Patients receive a prescription for an oral dosage of a barbiturate and there is no videotaping.

[Jeremy]

The lethal injection and videotaping for possible legal relief was in the articles I read. Of course it did say that these doctors were doing it illegally. I would rather support that system, where a physician is present and could oversee the process, than a pill that could be misused, not work, or be taken by another person by accident. All the more reason the courts should remove the stigmatism and allow trained physicians to develop better techniques.

[annieap]

Oh ok...you are talking about euthanasia. I have read several articles on that topic as well and in all cases, as you stated earlier, the administering of the meds is done by the patient and the entire process is videotaped while a physician is standing by. The entire process is illegal but does happen.
I am opposed to both concepts, however, I agree that with lethal injection in the presence of a physician fewer mishaps would occur vs. the oral dosage that is described in Oregon's Death With Dignity Act.

[Jeremy]

I don't know who thought up the oral dosage idea but it seems to me to be fraught with potential problems. When the whole thing is videotaped and attended to by a physician it removes any doubt of who did the actual killing. When you have a pill, and there is no record of the event, who knows whether it was a suicide at all? What if he or she had second thoughts at the last moment and wanted to back out but a family member shoved the pill down the patients throat anyway, for the inheritance or something? Just a prescription would not be enough records to confirm the actual circumstances behind the event. Dumb idea when it is done this way, there's no checks and balances. I wouldn't support a law like that and I am entirely for assisted suicides.

[Eddie]

I think only God should make the choice of life and death. God gives life and he takes it away.
It's tough to think of ourselves or a loved one suffering, but I think God has a plan for each of us, and if that's part of his plan, then so be it. There's a reason for everything, and maybe that's God's way of testing us?

[Jeremy]

Maybe God allowed the person to find the doctor to help them commit the suicide so that they wouldn't suffer. It's just as feasible to think that as it is that God wanted the person to die in agonizing pain. Maybe God does have the final say in when someone dies, and that assisted suicide is just an illusion of choice and that it was always in His plan for the person to die that way. God works in mysterious ways after all ;)

[Chuck]

When we are 15 we cannot begin to under stand what 30 years really is. We just know that 30 years exists.

When w are 40 we can then appreciate what 30 years is. We pretend to understand forever or infinity nut we really have clue.

We make every attempt to understand God's will but we can't because we are trapped behind the walls of the flesh.

We make laws to govern victim less crimes quoting the word of God as our justification.

I don't pretend to know God's will, design or master plan. I can only make choices in my own life by my understanding of his word. His word tells me not to judge when I don't understand that it will be his job.

My opinion is that assisted suicide not be regulated. Each person has the tools to make a choice and that falls to God to judge. That would include the doctors that profit and assist with the task.

[Eddie]

Jeremy,
I believe God created the earth and everything in it. Man took what was here and created things such as guns. However, because God created the minerals used to form the metal, dosen't mean he wanted us to use the gun to kill with....
I think your comment is the easy way out. That's like saying that God placed Sadam in Iraq, therefor everything he did was acceptable in Gods eyes. I don't think so Jeremy. A lot of the choices we face in life are test that God gives us. I think he allows the options to exist as part of our test. It's tough to think of anyone facing the choice we're debating, but compaired to an eternity in ****, which is where I believe anyone who commits suicide will go, a year or two of sufering is not close.

[Jeremy]

Eddie, I totally understand how you and others may feel that way and I don't want to change your mind at all concerning your religious convictions about suicide and even assisted suicide for the relief of suffering. There is nothing more personal than this topic and it goes to the heart everyone's beliefs about life and death and their meanings. I don't even think there ever will be a law permitting it because most people just don't want to go there. I'm just coming from the point of view that it is a personal choice that each of these people will make on their own, and I take the pragmatic view that if they are going to do it, at least let's put some practices in place to make easier for them and those who wish to assist them.

I don't think it should be illegal for someone to assist another in doing it for pity's sake. That would take it out of the realm of personal convictions and place religious ideals as public mandates.

In my earlier post I was offering an alternative by saying that if there is a God, maybe He or She set's these things up. Not everything bad in the world is man-made after all. Take for example the Tsunami. Any insurance agent would call that an act of God.

Really I believe that all things spiritual, including God and the meaning of life, are by definition outside the scope of mental reasoning. There is no way you can mentally wrap your brain around spirit because, after all, your brain is material and it can't see or even describe spirit without putting it in material terms. A good metaphor of what I am talking about is if I asked you to describe the spirit of an apple. You may say that the apple is sweet, or that the apple is red, or that it is juicy. But all of those things are are just adjectives that represent the apple. They have nothing to do with the actual spirit of the apple, or a direct apprehension of the apple, because you can't directly experience the spirit of an apple without the buffers of descriptors, it's all an interpretation of the apple. There's always something blocking you from direct apprehension of spirit because we are human beings and by definition lesser than spirit.

That's why I usually favor laws without religion. When you really get down to it, what I said about God setting things up for the person to end their own suffering, it really is just as plausible as the mental concept that He is testing these people. To me religion is our way of trying to grasp something that can't be grasped, and that's no basis for lawmaking.

[tkcomer]

I’ve got to agree with Jeremy on this. Religion should not play a part in this law. My mom, as brain damaged as she was, would not consent to suicide. Her belief would not allow that. She suffered to the very end, telling people that she was just waiting to die. And it was the way she wanted it to be. But that is no excuse to pass a law based on her beliefs. Other people do not feel this way and their wishes should be respected too. This is a very difficult decision and the government should just butt out. Some people want to live every day until the very end, no matter how bad they are suffering. Good for them. But some people want to just let go. It’s their choice. We should just stay out of their personal decisions.

[Eddie]

Jeremy,
You and TK raise some good points, so let's put the religious debate aside and simply look at the legal side of this issue. Where would we draw the line? Let's use the case, and this is just for the sake of debate. Lets say we have a 30 year old lady, she's been in an accident, and cannot speak her mind, kind of in a vegatative state. She's been this way for 6 months. Her husband, who for whatever reason decides he's ready to move on, should he be allowed to decide her fate? Lets put ourselves in a very tough situation for a moment. Lets say that same 30 year old is now our daughter or sister, who has been in that same vegitative state for just 5 days. How would we feel if that same guy got to make the choice if she lives or dies? To me, that's part of the risk we get into with this kind of law.
I'm not as much against the person who has long term cancer or another disease being assisted to die. I agree with TK it is a personal issue, and it's not our place to judge. That's between them and God. It's really when other people are allowed to make that decision for them that I have the problem.

[annieap]

With physican assisted suicide, ONLY the patient can decide to use this option. No one else can make that decision. The patient must also meet certain criteria such as being of sound mind and having two physicans diagnose them as terminal with six months or less to live.

[Jeremy]

With physican assisted suicide, ONLY the patient can decide to use this option. No one else can make that decision. The patient must also meet certain criteria such as being of sound mind and having two physicans diagnose them as terminal with six months or less to live.

What she said seems a good enough line. I would add that the decision be documented with paper work and audio/visual records. And that whatever mechanism is used is actually triggered by the person. That rules out all vegetative cases.

[tkcomer]

On the vegetative state. Modern medicine put those people there. All would have died if left on their own. Turning off the machine is not assisted suicide. It’s letting nature take it’s course or God calling them home. Science can keep a brainless body going a long time.