Assisted Suicide - Discuss
Looks like another case for the legalization of assisted suicide is going to the Supreme Court.
CTV News - B.C. woman to challenge assisted-suicide laws
Having witnessed several of my family members die from terminal illnesses, I am on the pro-side of this debate provided safeguards are put in place to prevent coersion / murder. I have had this dicussion with my wife and my parents and we are on the same page. When the outcome is inevitable death, we want to leave this world on our own terms.
We as a society value human life for the sake of human life (i.e. brain activity).
I know God will come up in this debate, "We should not interfere with God's will.", but we are actually aleady interfering with "God's" will when we place people on medial devices to prolong life and when all hope is lost, then the "God" card comes out to prevent death..
I truly hope this appeal to the Supreme Court is successful cause we treat our pets better than we treat the dying.
Discuss.
CTV News - B.C. woman to challenge assisted-suicide laws
Having witnessed several of my family members die from terminal illnesses, I am on the pro-side of this debate provided safeguards are put in place to prevent coersion / murder. I have had this dicussion with my wife and my parents and we are on the same page. When the outcome is inevitable death, we want to leave this world on our own terms.
We as a society value human life for the sake of human life (i.e. brain activity).
I know God will come up in this debate, "We should not interfere with God's will.", but we are actually aleady interfering with "God's" will when we place people on medial devices to prolong life and when all hope is lost, then the "God" card comes out to prevent death..
I truly hope this appeal to the Supreme Court is successful cause we treat our pets better than we treat the dying.
Discuss.
Comments
* Without a doubt, my worst "discussion" evah.
On a serious note, whether Doctors and hospitals will admit it or not, it has been going on for a long time. Just not legally. I know, personally, of three people that were given more Morphine for the pain than was necessary and they drifted off peacefully.
And I agree, it needs to be a joint decision between the family and Doctors when and if the time comes and it needs to be made legal.
Its not going to be easy though as being alive and the quality of that life differ greatly in definition
Technological singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
or the outlandish:
Old Man's War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, have to temper this with my wife. I don't think cryopreservation still pays out the insurance? I can't spend so much of our hard earned money on the admittedly slim hope of a future cure, there's more than me to think of now.
As someone who doesn't really buy the God / afterlife kinda bag, when it boils down to it, the most important thing anyone has is their life. Once you lose that, there is nothing left of you but memories. I don't think there's a heaven, I don't think there's reincarnation, I think these are structures built up just so people can imagine themselves to be special and not just a happy result of random amino acids mixing together.
Having said that, I am actually pro-euthanasia. Everyone deserves to dictate how their life goes, as long as they aren't attempting to dictate anyone else's ("Invictus" comes to mind). If your life is at a point where you wish to relinquish it, well, that's your call.
Now compuease brings up a good point - what hurdles should be in place to prevent an inappropriate case. Clearly, psychological testing to determine a person's mental state and capacity, but then where do we set the bar? Do the developmentally delayed get to make that decision? Someone with a history of manic depression?
Mark
LOL!! YES PLEASE!
I agree with the OP. Yes, I'm for it.
Agreed, top to bottom.
It would be interesting to see how the legislation was discussed, debated, passed in countries where this process is actually allowed. They would have had to jump through the moral, legal, etc. hurdles we would have to go through as well.
And yes, the legal hurdles involving estate law, mental health issues, insurance, etc. would be absolutely overwhelming. But, it's been done before.
umm...about this... ^^'
sorry comp. forgot you were comfortable with your diapers.
If assisted suicide becomes the law of the land, how do we protect Doctors who, by the oath they take, are sworn to "First, do no harm". Not all Doctors will be as willing as the ones implicated in DJ's earler post.
Also, the only people who truly need assistance, in my mind, would be those whos situation altered so radically and quickly that they did not have time to take care of the issue themselves (ie an accident that causes a persistant vegetative state). People with MS, or ALS have the capability to end their lives well before they require the assistance of someone to do so. Why wait until you need to put that burden on someone else.
I apologize for this somewhat rambling post. I will conclude with the following:
I think the government should START by decriminalizing Assisted Suicide. I think they should also change Insurance regulations to reflect same. But, just as I do not want the Government telling me how to live, I do not want them telling anyone how they can die. If a person wants to kill themselves, regardless of motive, they can find a way. If that person's motive is to avoid the ravages of a terminal illness, I see no reason why they cannot make arrangements to take that step on their own, without involving a second party. I think a process for the "sudden" cases should be instituted (Wills, Powers of Attorney would all come into play here).
Just my thoughts . . . bit scrambled today.
And this is exactly why we don't have assisted suicide. Just because you don't like the way your quality of life is, (Quadrupalegic, Amputee, old age) doesn't mean we should allow you or help you kill yourself. There are many people that contribute greatly to our society in those states of being.
I would not want to be the person having to draft this legislation.
? so those that are contributing can keep living if they want. why do i have to? i didn't say you HAD to kill someone.
And this post illustrates why I think decriminalization of Suicide should be the starting block for this discussion. The Libertarian in me dislikes Government intrusion into the the everyday lives of it's citizens. Who decides? What qualifies them?
That's what bridges are for.
The very term, "assisted" suicide, means that someone has to kill someone else. So, by involving Government, you will eventually end up with a situation where person "A" is demanding that person "B" kill them, because they have the Right to Die. I do not want the Government having the authority to put that burden on those who are trained to preserve life.
i signed my "if any of the following list of shit happens to me please, for the love of god, shoot me in the friggin' head" document beforehand, so there shouldn't be any problems.
It is not just about what you want at that point . . . it cannot be, when another person is involved.
No one should be forced to, but I can see a time when you would be able sign a contract with a 3rd party which would the be legally binding on them at the time of your choosing.
How ironic would it be that I try to kill myself to prevent having to live in a vegitative or diminished state only to fuck that up by taking the wrong does of the wrong thing and end up in a vegitative or diminished state?
I have to say though, having experienced the loss of two very important people as a result of suicide (each of them had substance and/or mental issues), I cannot say I would agree to assisted suicide for "merely" emotionally distraught/depressed: I couldn't imagine they would want to die if they were to get appropriate treatment for their emotional condition. In other words, if you want to die because you're depressed but seek treatment for that depression and are helped out of it, would you still want to die? Likely not.
I think what you're describing is a lot different than euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia is when you give meds or interventions with the intention of causing death. Physician-assisted suicide is providing patients with meds/interventions with the understanding that the patient intends to use them to commit suicide. Both of these practices are illegal in Canada right now.
Using morphine to provide the patient some comfort (relieving pain/breathlessness) while allowing the natural course of the disease to progress doesn't really fit into either of those categories. Sure, some of the comfort measures that are taken increase the risk of death through respiratory depression, etc., but, as long as the intention of using the medication is comfort as opposed to causing death, it's both a legal and ethical practice.
Just out of curiosity, what gave you the impression that they were given more morphine than was necessary?
First off, sorry to hear of your losses. It's always tough to watch someone's health gradually deteriorate from a terminal illness.
Just in regards to that last quoted paragraph, being placed on medical devices for life-sustaining purposes (ie. ventilators, artificial nutrition) is a patient choice. If you make your wishes known, either by voicing your opinion (if you're able to), through a substitute decision maker, or through a previously prepared medical directive explaining your wishes, you won't be subjected to life-sustaining procedures you don't want. However, if someone comes into the hospital non-responsive without a medical directive, it'll be assumed that the patient would want every measure done to sustain life.
Withholding and/or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments are both patient choices and deemed ethical and legal in Canada. The illegal action is actively providing treatments with the intention of killing the patient.
In certain middle east religion...and samuri code for example suicide can be honourable and one of the highest tributes or whatever....
"Schuklenk said the basis for the recommendation was centred on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Acknowledging a common criticism that changing the laws surrounding assisted suicide could lead to fragile individuals being euthanized without proper consent and abuse of vulnerable patients, the report, titled End-of-Life Decision Making, said models from countries where assisted suicide is permitted shows those fears are not warranted."