wink-_-wink 1 Posted October 8, 2014 So I read this rather heart breaking story today about a woman with a brain tumor. Long story short, she has about 6 months to live and is in constant pain. She relocated so that she would be eligible for an end your own life thru medical means program. (Apparently only legal in 5 states). So basically this lady was given a pill that when she decideds she can't stand the pain anymore she can say her final goodbyes and basically kill herself peacefully. Now I know this community is all about personal rights so I am curious as to other peoples thoughts on this. Personally I think that if you no longer want to live that this is a phenominal way to end life. The requirements are something like you have to have a terminal illness and have less than 6 months to live. The ladies tumor was eating her mind so she wanted to be able to go when she decided. I can not imagine the horror yet peace given to her family and the emotional roller coaster she is on. I think this is a pretty good idea to allow people the choice. Link to the story written by her: http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinion/maynard-assisted-suicide-cancer-dignity/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted October 8, 2014 I'd do the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Respect2A 0 Posted October 8, 2014 It can't be as easy as a pill or the mess we have going on with the lethal injections lately wouldn't be happening. If you wanna die you should be allowed to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
locochinoloco 0 Posted October 8, 2014 Freedom of choice should be respected.... I would have done the same... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
67gtonut 847 Posted October 8, 2014 Totally agree..... my life...... I should be able to choose.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fishnut 2,358 Posted October 8, 2014 I completely agree and would do the same thing in her shoes. But id want a cooler way to go instead of a pill. Maybe I could rent a Ferrari, Drive as fast as I can to the Grand Canyon, amassing a bunch of speeding tickets along the way, and when I arrive launch off the edge as fast as the car will go. Or strap on a suicide vest and find some IS/ Taliban guys to give them a taste of their own medicine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted October 8, 2014 It can't be as easy as a pill or the mess we have going on with the lethal injections lately wouldn't be happening. If you wanna die you should be allowed to. A cyanide pill or a deep whiff of the stuff would surely do the trick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Respect2A 0 Posted October 8, 2014 A cyanide pill or a deep whiff of the stuff would surely do the trick. Well when they use the gas chamber they use cyanide gas but it's a lot of it. If it's that easy with one pill than why not use it instead of the other methods that are being used. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shane45 807 Posted October 8, 2014 Look up the flick "How to Die in Oregon" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krdshrk 3,872 Posted October 8, 2014 I agree with her decision. Why prolong your life if you know you're only going to be in pain and suffering greatly? This is the ethical way of going about it - it's not committing suicide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted October 8, 2014 Well when they use the gas chamber they use cyanide gas but it's a lot of it. If it's that easy with one pill than why not use it instead of the other methods that are being used. I suspect that injection is considered more humane and has a certain medical authoritativeness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gunguy1960 2 Posted October 8, 2014 The problem with this is these programs start to include more and more types of illnesses and soon someone other than the patient is making the decisions and its done in the name of saving money, ironically by the same people who love spending other peoples money. Recent cases include the spouse wanting to die with the love one who had the medical condition as well as twins who wanted to go together. Its a big can of worms started by well meaning people with good intentions, like the founders of communism. Lets stick to tall bridges folks, ok? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheLugNutZ 21 Posted October 8, 2014 Not not ok. What you are describing is different. People other than the person dying wanting to go as well. Thats not the same thing. Why should someone on their death bed have to go jump off a bridge to end it? Seriously? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krdshrk 3,872 Posted October 8, 2014 Also - jumping off a bridge/building/etc, in front of a train/car/truck/bus/etc, is all a horrible way to go - not only will you (maybe) off yourself, you're going to inconvenience, upset, potentially injure, etc. other people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
acaixguard 37 Posted October 8, 2014 There is a medical order called Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), in which a patient confers with his/her doctor and decides on not having CPR done in the event of cardiac arrest. I don't see how this is too different. I too am for patient choice here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oneshot 45 Posted October 8, 2014 i would make the same choice. It's better then by any other means that may leave you disfigured and your family having to remember you like that. The burden and heartbreak of keeping someone alive who is going to die is one of the worst things a family can go through. I watched it happen way to many times in my life and pray to God i go fast and pretty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millsan1 3 Posted October 8, 2014 As others have said, totally agree. I do not agree that you should have to be terminal, etc. This really feeds into the notion that we are all special snowflakes and the world would be so much worse without our unique and wonderful presence. Our lives are a blink. If you decide yours should be half a blink, so be it. I am not your judge and neither should anyone else be. The notion of protecting someone from themselves is alien to me. We are each, ultimately, only responsible to and for ourselves. But I am in the minority in that thought process. Ah well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brucin 918 Posted October 8, 2014 Her life her choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigBlueQ 7 Posted October 8, 2014 As a Catholic I was raised to believe that suicide is forbidden, and I know that no matter how bad life gets you down you keep on pushing through. But as a human I have seen close friends and family go through terrible illnesses, only to die long, painful deaths, from such horrible illnesses as ALS (37 year old wife of my best friend, and my daughter's namesake) to both of my grandfathers from cancer. That's just skimming the surface. I am for patients' choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted October 8, 2014 I agree with most here, and with the article writer. It's a choice one would have to discuss with their loved ones, of course. Some of them might not be ready to "let go." One has to stand firm and tell them... "my life... my choice." I agree it should be for confirmed "terminal illnesses," but should be the patient's final decision (in consultation with their doctors) and action (i.e. the "pills" can't be administered by any means other than "self-intake..."), but I also believe it should be permitted well in advance of the patient becoming "incapacitated" and not being able to do it themselves. If they wait too long, then too bad. No one else should be allowed to administer on behalf of the patient. But the "bureaucracy" should also not be permitted to delay the process either, thus preventing the patient from doing this. In a world when people fight hard for the right to be in "control of one's life/person," it's totally unfair to deny the person the right to be "in control" of when it ends, and be made to suffer all the way to that end. Interesting that there are now 5 states that permit this. At the time I watched that "How to Die in Oregon" video, it was only Oregon and Washington State, and you had to be "primary domiciled" there for some time before they permitted it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gunguy1960 2 Posted October 9, 2014 Doctors have recently been granted a billing code to have a talk with older people on easing out of this world, and these experts say these conversations should start in the teen years so people get used to the idea. The government and the insurance companies will be more than happy to push you into pulling that plug. Heck lets form panels of experts who decide, lets call them life panels, doesnt that sound upbeat? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted October 9, 2014 Doctors have recently been granted a billing code to have a talk with older people on easing out of this world, and these experts say these conversations should start in the teen years so people get used to the idea. The government and the insurance companies will be more than happy to push you into pulling that plug. Heck lets form panels of experts who decide, lets call them life panels, doesnt that sound upbeat? It should *never* be a financial decision from any perspective, even the patient. It should be strictly a matter of the patient's quality of life and the avoidance of end stage suffering and incapacitation. And only after a confirmed diagnosis of a terminal illness with life expectancy of 6mos. or less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arbelest 29 Posted October 9, 2014 I'm for patient rights in situations like this as well. I would rather go on my own terms then have a slow, painful death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Candyman87 10 Posted October 9, 2014 I'm all for choice. Forcing her to live through it until the disease wins is absolutely inhumane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted October 9, 2014 I'm for self determination. I don't get why there is so much intervention in suicide. As for medically assisted suicide, now you are actually talking about creating a form of justifiable homicide IMO. I think there is a solid argument to be made for a humane end. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Underdog 1,593 Posted October 9, 2014 This is a strange topic. The rights of the individual should be considered highly, but I'll play devil's advocate. Why have an arbitrary time and condtition (6 mos. And terminal)? And how could you be so sure that it is 6 and not say eight months? How do you keep the State with its things like "end of life" counseling out of the mix, and with the thought generated that one might be a burden and such? And, how easy would it be to make a true homicide appear to be a medically-induced suicide? And, even in a state where it is not legal, one can, say over a period of eight years, drink oneself to death. And what about terminally ill children? Or perhaps offering it to those "terminally" scheduled or serving a life sentence in prison. And many believe that say severe depression is a treatable illness. Or what if a cure for your terminal disease can be found right after your decision? It seems like this would opening up a whole other can of worms. If you were already coined with a terminal illness with I would assume at least one second or fifth opinion, then would jive with being able to receive one's life insurance benefits based on terminal sentence. Many are taught to value life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WP22 1,558 Posted October 9, 2014 As others have said, totally agree. I do not agree that you should have to be terminal, etc. This really feeds into the notion that we are all special snowflakes and the world would be so much worse without our unique and wonderful presence. Our lives are a blink. If you decide yours should be half a blink, so be it. I am not your judge and neither should anyone else be. The notion of protecting someone from themselves is alien to me. We are each, ultimately, only responsible to and for ourselves. But I am in the minority in that thought process. Ah well. This. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted October 9, 2014 This is a strange topic. The rights of the individual should be considered highly, but I'll play devil's advocate. Why have an arbitrary time and condtition (6 mos. And terminal)? I wouldn't call a terminal illness/condition "arbitrary." You now know your death is eminent. You know there is no hope for recovery or improvement (per your MD consults). You also know (or reasonably suspect) that the last few days/weeks, etc. will be full of pain and suffering, if not loss of consciousness or incapacitation. Yes, we are taught to value life. But we're also taught to value "quality of life." And when what's left of one's life is a living Hell, why require them to suffer through it? It is that person's life, not ours. We should allow that person, who has been in control of their life for all that time, under these circumstances, at least one last act of control... to control how/when it ends, before they irrevocably lose control, and are made to suffer that living Hell. I said "6 mos. or less" because that's what I'm used to, statistically, in re: people being formally diagnosed with a terminal illness with no chance of recovery. But it could be any length of time. I guess the real question should be, "how much time before one becomes bedridden, incapacitated incoherent, or unconscious, and can no longer live a reasonable quality of life or make decisions for one's self?" It should be permitted just before that point, and with enough time to get one's affairs in order. How do you keep the State with its things like "end of life" counseling out of the mix, and with the thought generated that one might be a burden and such? How do you keep the State out of anything? If they're going to get into it, they're going "all in." Best way possible I would think is to try and set up a "self-policing" sort of thing, and demonstrate that it can work without govt. intervention. And, how easy would it be to make a true homicide appear to be a medically-induced suicide? IDK. But anything other than the patient themselves obtaining the prescription, purchasing and receiving the drugs, and self-ingesting them, would seem to be much more on the "homicide" spectrum of things. Everything should be witnessed by an atty. with no family ties to ensure there is no foul play. And what about terminally ill children? If they're old enough to think/communicate clearly, and to understand all that's going on, then they're old enough to make a decision for themselves. Of course, when those wishes conflict with parents' wishes is when we have issues. I guess that means involving more doctors and lawyers and, perhaps, the courts. I know.... I know... "the State." But at least it's the justice system and not the "legislative/regulatory." If the child isn't old enough to understand, then it's going to be the parents vs. the doctors/hospital staff. I'd have to lean towards the parents in that case, but I can see the hospital (or some other relative/friend) attempting to have a "child advocate" appointed by the courts. Messy.... Or perhaps offering it to those "terminally" scheduled or serving a life sentence in prison. I doubt the state would ever permit that, unless the person actually is suffering from a terminal illness as described. Look at all the sanitary precautions they take at an execution (sterile needles, alcohol swabs, etc.). Look at the "suicide watches" they have for the condemned beforehand. One cannot "cheat the State." The "termination of life" in that context, has to be done per the law. And many believe that say severe depression is a treatable illness. I wouldn't consider severe depression an "authorized" terminal illness. I'm talking about things that affect the body physically and will result in "natural, physiological" death. Yes, severe depression is treatable, and, by itself, would not result in a "physiological" death, unless someone could, somehow, manipulate a chemical imbalance in the brain. But then again, to manipulate the brain's chemistry for that purpose is to commit suicide anyway. That said, "neurological" disorders (Alzheimer's, etc). might be a bit problematic, as the person can linger for quite some time without physical pain and suffering, but not be able to make decisions for themselves. Or what if a cure for your terminal disease can be found right after your decision? Unfortunately, what's done is done. One makes the best risk/benefit calculation at the time. Is the amount of suffering/incapacitation the patient would endure worth the wait for this cure? I would think that if the patient is truly terminal and on very short time, that cure won't be quick enough. Otherwise, I'd think the doctors etc. would know about it, already, in time to factor it in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted October 9, 2014 If somebody wants to off themselves I don't see how the government should stop them. As for doctors helping them, I think there is a very good reason that they have a Hippocratic Oath and should not be actively participating in killing people. You would think we would have enough experience to understand the level of mass horror and death that results, but I guess now that we have government healthcare we can give it another shot. It is the 2000s after all, we have established there is no need for things such as morality. It's all relative as long as you don't hurt me and you and I do what the government tells us to do with sincerity and devotion every day when we wake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Handyman 5,682 Posted October 9, 2014 If people want to end their life, that should be their business and there should be means for them to do it without outside help. Get a drycleaning bag, a tank of nitrogen and waft off gently to sleep. No need to involve the medical industry. Perhaps the biggest concern with widespread legalized suicide is that some people - perhaps many people - will eventually be coerced into considering it. You can be 100% certain that there will be conversations taking place that sound like, "You know granny, your quality of life seems pretty low and you are becoming a bit of a burden. Maybe it is time that you think about offing yourself?" As the other side says, "If it saves even one life..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites