Discussions
Assisted Suicide? Yes or No? Initiave 1000: Death with Dignity
Posted by DocNicole • 10/03/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: assisted suicide, death wtih dignity?, initiative 1000
I am working on an article in support of Washington state's new Initiative 1000 "Death with Dignity".
You can read a newspaper article about it here:
sammamishreview.com/2008/07/30/review-editorial-7
If you were given a prognosis of six months or less...would you choose assisted suicide?
Why/Why not?
If you choose "NOT" does it really matter to you what other people choose for themselves?
After working four years in nursing home care and nine years in the medical field...I just think everyone should be given the choice, and hope to see this pass.
User Comments
-
That is a very tough question to answer when you are not in the situation - and have no idea what the conditions are - how much pain you will be in, etc...
I will say this much - I would respect the wishes of friends or family members whatever their choice would be, and I would hope they would do the same for me.
I agree with having the option for assisted suicide.-
Hi Anok- I don't think it is the best option for everyone, but for the sixty some odd people that chose it in Oregon last year, it probably was a huge blessing for their family. Watching a loved one deteriorate before your eyes is extremely painful, and we want to be remembered as full of life and light. At least I know I do. There are enough legal parameters in effect with this proposed law that it stops family members with ill intentions from "offing" you...lol so I think it really is a law that should be passed.
-
Oh I support it - 100%. I was simply commenting on how difficult it is to answer this type of question when you are not in the situation...
But think about this - family members who are given power of attorney and/or are the only next of kin to make decisions about loved one's lives face a similar choice everyday.
Do we pull the plug now? -
@DocNicole
Here are useful links when it comes to understanding what people like Sue Rodriguez went through attempting to have the law make changes for people like herself
www.cbc.ca/fifth/givedeathahand/timeline.html
www.cbc.ca/news/background/assistedsuicide/
www.religioustolerance.org/euthcan.htm
I supported Sue Rodriguez 100% in her attempt to have the Canadian law changed for people like her. -
@ Anok...that is my only concern with it as well...but since you have to have a non-family member (that isn't on your will) approve your end of life wishes as well as two doctor signatures...I think it helps alleviate the room for ethical error on this topic. and p.s. I was agreeing with you too
@TT-thanks for the links I will check this out. I hope Canada gets this legalized. Even if it helps just one person...it makes a world of difference for that family. -
Yup, legalities will have to be drafted very well - other than that - let's allow people to die without pain, if they so choose to.
-
Hear! Hear!
-
Exactly Anok. If we care so much about our pets...why don't we care so much about our elderly? I just don't get it. I understand the legal hesitations, but the average person is designed to die in two weeks and the consequence of medication use is keeping humans alive that just shouldn't be anymore. It isn't real LIFE when you can't talk, walk, eat, or get out of bed.
-
-
If I were in the final stages of some disease, and in unbearable, irreversible pain with no chance of even temporary relief, and if my bucket list is empty (
), then yes, let me go already. What I'd have would barely be deserved to be called a life.-
Me too! After watching my grandmother wither away from Alzheimers over the past year, I decided that if I ever am diagnosed with Alzheimers that I will just take one last mountain biking trip up to Whistler...without a helmet. Woo hoooooooo! j/k but, seriously it is just absolutely heart wrenching for the family.
-
Yeah. And like you said, I'd like to be remembered as someone full of life, rather than a frail shadow of what I once was.
-
-
i would not but i have nothing against it because if passive euthenesia is legit which it pretty much is albeit controversial than i think with pain and quality of life issues why not? in counter point i think if we go against all euthenisia then probably this would be defacto out of the question-
Everyone hates the thought of it, but there are certain circumstances where I think medically this is the best option for individuals and families. Especially with cancer. Many people decide to fight cancer with everything that they can...and often it is the chemo/radiation that destroys their health irreparably. When this happens, and it is realized that the treatment is not going to be effective for this terminal patient, assisted suicide may be the better option to alleviate pain and suffering.
-
-
Let's say I had a disease and my time was already down to the last days, After I said my peace why not. Why put myself and others thru the suffering?
"Soylent Green is people! We've got to stop them somehow!" -
Assisted suicide is an oxymoron.-
Erm, actually, no it's not. it's only an oxymoron if the two parts are inherently opposite, or contradictory.
Suicide: 1.the intentional taking of one's own life.
Assistance: the act of assisting; help; aid; support.
Assisted suicide: a situation in which a physician provides the means of death for a gravely ill patient but the patient takes the final step; also called doctor-assisted suicide, assisted suicide -
Maybe you’re right!
The problem with this issue is in the nuance. Any interference in a suicide, especially the act of making it easier, may increase (or decrease) the chances of the event occurring. Suicide is inexorably linked with depression. Providing any assistance that can turn suicidal thoughts into action, action which might not otherwise have occurred, contradicts my definition of suicide. When multiple parties decide to end life it is not suicide, it's something more.
I’am not against ending life when it is appropriate, but I see difficulty in setting the rules. -
Multiple people don't make the decision. One person does.
And depression wouldn't qualify, legally speaking, as a valid reason for assisted suicide.
You are essentially saying the equivalent of:
An assisted goal in a hockey game is not really a goal, becasue it was assisted.
Let me reiterate what suicide is - the decision and follow through to take one's own life, by choice.
To have someone hand you the pills, or put in the IV does not negate the patient's wish, and subsequent legal follow through to end their own life, by choice. -
I suppose the nuance is lost in the semantics.
Suicide is the process of ending one’s life and in this instance, we are simply talking about accelerating the process of death in extreme cases. The life is ending, we simply shorten the process. I suggest ‘assisted death’ is or ‘assisted dying’ more accurately describes the process, sort of an extension of “assisted living” for long-term care. These labels have more dignity than tying the issue to the process of suicide, which is the termination of a viable life. Suicide is a desperate act by someone eager to stop their personal pain, real or imagined, and more usually imagined. It is performed without consideration to those who care for the victim and once touch by this issue in personal experience the difference is unmistakeable. If one encountered a victim of suicide, assistance would be the process of saving that person’s life not ending it. Generally, people rescued from suicide and given treatment, regret the act and go on to lead normal or reasonably normal lives.
This is a difficult issue and the caring and loving decision taken to end a life early deserves the dignity of a sensitive label and is in no way related to the ‘conventional’ act of suicide.
I don't think we disagree on the basic issue. -
Well, actually, not fer nuthin' but any assistance in dying is not considered "death" legally speaking.
And we are talking about legalities.
You have, suicide, assisted suicide, murder, homicide, negligent homicide etc and so forth.
I understand what you're trying to say - but legally speaking, the decision to take one' sown life is suicide, regardless of the reason - real or perceived. The law makes no distinction. -
Again, look in the nuance not in the semantics.
-
I understand what you are saying - and I do think that fundamentally we agree - but with regards to laws (not just opinions) nuance has no place here.
But it's still not an oxymoron
-
-
Before my Mom died I would have been on the fence. The only thing I ever heard my Mom say that she wanted was to die peacefully in her sleep like her Mom did.
Instead, she died very slowly, weak from chemotherapy, full of cancer and broken from a fall. The doctors had given up and so did she. It takes a long time for the body to die even when it has no choice. She slowly drowned on her own fluids while laying in a hospital bed.
Therefore, I say yes.-
I watched two loved ones go like that. It's awful....
-
I hear you there my grandad took two years to die from lung cancer and my 80 year old grandma was made sick during those 2 years. -
I was young and I was strong. I fought for my life and I won it back against the odds. If I had been old, weak and hospitalized I would have died a very slow, very painful death. That's what made up my mind on this issue and it also made up my husband's mind too. It's also when we made a pact to assist one another to die with dignity.
-
I think the whole debate hinges on respect really, it's the respect of life versus a respect for a person to live a "good" pain free life. Until you are in that situation or have a loved one in that situation it is a hard call to make.
This is why I think it is really up to the person in the situation to make that choice or if that person is not able, the family with the consent and advice of at least 2 doctors to make that choice. -
@aningeniousname
We are on the same page. It truly is about respect and it's quality of life issue to be made by the person, or by the family in consultation with a panel of 2-3 doctors. My dad was mentally competant. He was in pain. He was terminal and he had a "no resuscitation order" put on his chart. He spoke to all of us children and told us to keep the religious wing of our family in the dark and far away from him. He refused all food and water and his "no resuscitation" order was respected by the doctors and nurses and family. He would have preferred to have had a doctor assisted death but that was not possible under the law. I want to see that law changed for terminally ill people. -
Yeah I hear you there TT, let's stop letting our animals die like people and our people die like animals. My grandma asked for the same thing and there was quite a battle between my mum and her sisters at the time, until my mum's dad saw sense and gave the Dr the permission not to revive.
-
Well said. I loved my dad so much and it was so hard to see him go like that. We never ever let a single dying animal, domestic or wild suffer the way he did.
-
@TT "He refused all food and water and his "no resuscitation" order was respected by the doctors and nurses and family. He would have preferred to have had a doctor assisted death but that was not possible under the law. I want to see that law changed for terminally ill people."
That's exactly what happened to my Gramma Violet after her stroke. Her husband lingered in a nursing home for 12 years after his stroke and she was horrified at the prospect that she would too. This is a woman who got up every morning and chopped her own kindling for the wood-burning furnace in the cellar...at age 89! When she was hospitalized with a stroke she refused food and water and had a Living Will in place thar prohibited life support or resuscitation. She died in Oregon but, sadly, the assisted suicide law was not in place at that time. -
That is what happened with both of my family memebrs.
-
When I turn 80 I am going to have "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" tattoed on my chest in big bold letters. I simply don't want there to be any questions about it.
My spirit is far to dynamic to be caged by a dying dysfunctional corpse with a heart that happens to keep beating.
-
-
controversy, i love it. hopefully this thread doesn't get banned or messed up by religious idiot. im interested in what people have to say about this-
That's whats funny about the U.S. We're supposed to be a country free to their own religious views but some religions that benefit from this will force their views on everyone.
I say as long as it does no harm to society there is no harm in this.
Really, What harm is there in wanting a sweet release when your only option is to sit there and continue to suffer. We wouldn't let a horse or a dog live in a state where recovery isn't an option but we don't want our sick to have the same thing.
"So what, Now we're gonna be killed like horses without a choice because we have a broken leg?" ~ Random Idiot Thought
No....... -
lol
-
MPD, when you say "random idiot thought", is your random idiot perhaps our current President, who signed the bill into law that allows Texas medical providers to withhold care if they don't think it's worth it, even if the patient is alive, conscious and begging for treatment? -
Whoops hope I am not the religious idiot that just poo poo'd my religious upbring. Didn't know there were rules around here.
-
-
Honestly we have too many people in the world as it is, if someone wants to off themselves because they are sick and need some help they should be able to go into any hospital and ask for the assistance they need.
Death is a foregone conclusion for all of us, the government telling us we can't hasten it is just one more way they attempt to control people's bodies, a job they have no business doing.-
I agree Brad. Not only are there too many people but the sick who are on their last days kinda waste the very few resources hospitals have like doctors.
For every minute that the doctor was helping someone who no longer had any hope there could of been a healthier person checked up on so they can have the proper help to live let's say a decade of good health rather than helping a dying person live a week of pure hell. -
I agree with that. Plus the cost to our health care system to keep someone alive in the hospital that can no longer care for them self, get up, move around, talk...eat...really it is a quality of life thing in my opinion, but financially it just makes no sense either. When your body is done...it's time to go.
-
-
Talking about resources and time spent to keep someone alive who might as well not be reminded me of Terri Schiavo. How much money, doctors, time and national attention was wasted on her? Tons. Now wouldn't you say that even a fraction of these things spent on some other needy people would of been better used? You might but as said above, Some people see it differently.
I say screw it, If I'm gonna suffer or be a veggie for months or years you might as well end it now. Give my organs to someone who needs them and the money you would of spent to help prevent someone from getting sick.
I wish more people would think like me but they dont. Oh well, What we gonna do?-
Elegantly said MPDZombie. Well said. -
That is an excellent example. When that was on the news my family and I all looked around at each other and decided that everyone needed to be perfectly clear that we did not agree that was life, and that we ALL wanted the plug pulled. I think family members that are holding on to the remains of a family member need to seriously consider their own motivations. An inability to accept the inevitable and move on with the natural processes of life and death is what needs to be addressed. I have seen countless elderly people suffer because other people will not willing to "let nana go"...
-
-
I watched my Father, Friend, Mother-in-Law and my Mother suffer the agonies and undignified, slow painful death of cancer and dementia. It doesn't bear thinking about. It was tortuous for the families to watch and wait. Wasting away is not quality life. A person should be allowed a voice in ending their anguish. I am all for it.
We help along our pets to take the pain away and allow them to die peacefully. Why then may we not do the same for our own flesh and blood?-
Amen. I would never allow for my family to watch me wither away. Legal or not. I have way too much consideration for the feelings of others. This aspect of the dying process is typically what most terminally ill patients fear.
-
Nicole, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I find it interesting that your "consideration for the feelings of others" seems to run to making a decision for them. If you choose to opt out for yourself, that's one thing, but to make the decision because you think it will be easier on the people around you might be depriving them of some important final moments--and might put a tremendous burden of guilt on those left to feel like you made the choice you did because of them.
-
-
Yeah, I'd probably opt for an assisted suicide if I were in a hopeless situation.-
Me too.
-
-
Yes.
Spare your family from witnessing your slow and painful death.-
Why not? Unless they are just after your giant inheritance.
-
-
I'm kinda suprised that no one has really come out with a reason why no one should be allowed..... I'd really like to see an argument that doesn't end with something as limited as "Well God doesn't want it that way". I find alot of things in this country are run by people with special intrests for only their own group rather than the issue all around. And the ones who don't go that way, Well they just don't get as much funding. Simple as that. This issue tends to be no different.
Good thing there are people pushing back though. I'd hate to live the last days of my life in pure pain because someone thinks like this.
"Some will argue that can only be God’s choice."
Isn't this forcing religion on me? So much for freedom of religion and the Separation of church and state-
My argument would be that, like most other things in our society, there is a huge potential for corruption of the principle--and one that's dangerous for people who are in a helpless and vulnerable position. While Nicole points out some provisions designed to protect against this, the reality is that it's not that hard to get a "neutral" party to do what one wants that party to do, and it's not that hard to have psychological sway over someone who is weak and sick already.
The mentality that would make this dangerous is already reflected in things like the Texas futile care statute and in views like the one expressed by MPD here--that we're "wasting" resources on people who are eventually going to die anyway. That slides very quickly in the direction of something that's far more about money, expediency and strain on OTHER people than about helping the person himself achieve peace. -
But you also have people who arn't about the money but rather that someone else gets cared for. If this is the case it's not about saving money but rather putting it to use to extend a life rather than extend a sickness.
Anyway, I agree that it can be taken advantage of by people with their own intrests but if set up where a person can make this choice ahead of time when their mental health is still intact then I see no reason why it's such a bad thing. -
Tiffany, there are already situations where the sick can be badly taken advantage of - such as coercing them to sign over all of their worldly possessions, coercing them to sign (or not sign) DNRs, making the decision to prolong or end their life when they are unable to do so (coma patients, for example) or simply not giving them, or allowing them proper care when illnesses are treatable, or survivable.
I think that with proper legal parameters such as requiring a signature from the patient directly (or by the power of attorney if the patient is beyond the point of ability to make any decisions), and outlining what kind of situations legally justify the use of assisted suicide, plus sign off's by doctors, you wouldn't have any more abuse occur than you would normally.
Let's face it, if a family member wants to take advantage of the sick person, they will do so, regardless of when or how that person dies in teh hospital. -
Those are some good arguments for the other side. My concern would also be in the case of Alzheimer's disease. My grandmother was always very happy, even when she didn't know us anymore. Even when she could no longer get out of bed. At what point would we just announce to her...guess what grandma- we are giving you some pills and saying bye bye to you today. It is tough when people are no longer of sound mind. Now, the cancer patient that is of sound mind but deteriorating body is of course going to have an easier time making these decisions. But, when the patient is no longer aware of anyone...or anything in there surroundings, it makes it that much tougher to complete the wishes of assisted suicide.
If I don't go on one final downhill mountain biking ride without a helmet someday if I were ever diagnosed with Alzheimers, I would probably tell my family that as soon as I was no longer able to take care of myself...that is when it was time to go...
-
-
Yes, definitely.
Again, this is an individualised decision. Other people'e beliefs or religeon shall not interfere with one's autonomy.
Even Christian God respects free will.-
Right, especially in America. This is a melting pot where all religious beliefs should be respected. Birth-death-life...all of it.
-
And "free will" consists of one of two choices (according to Christian doctrine)....Heaven or Hell.
So much for "free will"....
-
-
What amazes me about this issue are the two generalities it breaks down to:
Christian perspective; The sanctity of life must be upheld, with no exceptions, from conception to death.
Atheist perspective: Life can be terminated when required to alleviate the suffering of all parties.
Considering Christians have somewhere to go after death and atheists have the worms to look forward to are these not the wrong way around!
Or maybe atheists are going to hell after all and just don’t know it!-
interesting observation.
-
Yup thats pretty much the main two prespectives for sure.
Sadly I'm not an Atheist or Christian. As for Hell, I believe hell is ones self being. If I spend my last years suffering then when I die chances are that is going to be part of my hell.
By the way, Am I the only one that finds it funny that if you disagree with any Christian viewpoints like in this case, You get labeled as an Atheist. With so many ways one has to go and it's been dumbed down to either you're on the Good Side or on the Dark Side. Kinda sad. -
@zombie " if you disagree with any Christian viewpoints like in this case, You get labeled as an Atheist."
And there is something bad/wrong with being labelled an atheist? -
Well the problem with the Christian perspective (I was raised and punished by Lutheranism my entire childhood) is that it is based on the premise of fear of death...and thus offers the promise of eternal life after death. What I don't understand is if the motivation to be christian is to die and go to heaven...if it really is all that and a bag of chips, why would you want to prolong the inevitable?
Also, I sincerely believe that only Christian Scientist type of ideals would legitimately have the right to argue that medicine should not be used to interfere with ones lifespan...
The people in this sector however probably don't need protection from the Death with Dignity law because they already are not using medications that are unnecessarily prolonging life. The average elderly person is designed to die in two weeks. I would be happy to fulfill my two weeks of suffering, but if it looked like it was going to be six months...forget it.
I would never wish that upon my family or my worst enemy.
Never.
-
-
Jack Kavorkian is the animal the courts made him out to be, yes assisted suicide...would I help someone depends on the situation, my mom is on her second bout of cancer, she was stage 4 breast cancer and beat it into remission...now liver cancer stage 1 if she asked me now would I ...no if she was stage 4 again in severe pain and SHE was ready to give up and go home as she puts it,,,yes I would-
If you aren't opposed to assisted suicide and Jack Kevorkian helped people who wanted to die to do so, why do you say he is an animal? That doesn't make sense to me.
-
Some people argue that his method was less than humane.
-
sorry to hear about your mother dear. That is very courageous for you to be there for her during this time. I would hate to think of having to assist anyone in my family with suicide in a chronic illness situation...but that is just part of being human. You have to do what you have to do.
-
should have said he's NOT the animal ---typo
-
-
I would not choose it ONLY bc I believe it to be wrong, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone else.-
Why do you believe it to be wrong...just out of curiosity. I welcome all opinions on this and am interested to hear the other side of the story.
My philosophy of medicine is that our disease are our teachers. That we "take on" suffering as a learning process. So I can see how that philosophy would see ending one's life to avoid prolonged suffering would make sense.
However, at some point I feel like we have to look at the suffering of the individual in comparison to the suffering of their family.
-
-
I personally do not believe I would choose to do it
because Doctor's have been soo wrong in diagnosis like these many times before.
Many people have lived when Doctors gave them a few months to live.
It can be used for pure evil reasons or to collect fortunes or ethnic cleansing.
Also some days I feel good about life and other times I don't
and then I feel good all over again.
To me it really depends on my state of mind at the time and my moods can change constantly,
also you can learn to program your mind to suit a certain mood and keep it there.
As far as religion and if it's morally wrong, I don't want to bring that into it
as I really don't see what that has to do with my personal choice.
To answer your question I would have to be in really bad shape to make that choice,
if I am still bearly able to physically make that choice and if I am in too bad a shape to physically make that decision, my immediate family members would decide for me as they know me well enough over tbe years to make a decent decision on my behalf.
If they decide to kill me off for what's in my closet, bank account and other worldly possessions,
I would rather have all my material possessions given to my family anyways than to see it sold off
and given to the State or Government.
Having the State or Government come and pull my plug when they don't know me from a hole in the wall and have never met me in person, that is not a choice I would want as I don't trust them period.
Everyone should make arraignments to take care of these questions and make these decisions
and have it in writing before the State and Government come in and decide for you.
Make your own personal choices and make them clear.
Do you want to accept blood transfusions or not?...stuff like that-
And NO if other people choose to commit assisted suicide
and are of somewhat sound mind, that is there business and their decision, not mine. -
Absolutely Jeunelle and I respect your opinion and right to choose what you want for yourself. Thanks for leaving your comment.
-
-
If Missouri doesn't cover the spread tonight I might want someone to knock me off.-
I'll volunteer.
*Smootch* -
You are a true friend Dr. K
-
I know. You can worship me later.
( ) -
I already have a shrine...
-
-
It is easy to have an opinion when you don't have to face the decision however personally for me because of my line of work as a Medium and what I have experienced assisted suicide would not be an option I would choose -
My body, my choice.-
Exactly what ran through my mind when I first opened this thread.
-
-
It's nobody else's business whether I live or die. The right to die is a fundamental right without approval from government as long as in doing so you don't endanger or harm anyone else.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
