NationStates Jolt Archive

Im curious how my fellow ns peeps think on assisted suicide for the terminally ill?

Banning suicide is the purest form of absurdity. I can't stand these "compassionate" people who force people to live against their will. It shows a complete lack of respect for other people and freedom.

I think its very very important that we let young people know that suicide is not the best solution to their problems. If your old, living in pain and have no hope of getting out of it, then I think its a good option to have.

Legalized euthanasia...

Well... you can't ban suicide, that is impossible unless you have a camera and a emergency medical team for every person. You shouldn't institutionalize it either. Doctors who take an oath to "do no harm" and then break it can not be trusted.

I remember when I was in high school and Oregon was debating this. Well, we debated the issue in my government class. I admit there are some emotional aguements over the issue, but I firmly believe that everybody in that situation has tremendous value. I am not talking prolonging life by artificial means. If a person is only being kept alive by a machine and they wish to go off the machine, that is their choice.

Well... you can't ban suicide, that is impossible unless you have a camera and a emergency medical team for every person. You shouldn't institutionalize it either. Doctors who take an oath to "do no harm" and then break it can not be trusted.
Fine. I'll do it, for a fee.

I remember when I was in high school and Oregon was debating this. Well, we debated the issue in my government class. I admit there are some emotional aguements over the issue, but I firmly believe that everybody in that situation has tremendous value. I am not talking prolonging life by artificial means. If a person is only being kept alive by a machine and they wish to go off the machine, that is their choice.
MYOB. The golden rule. These people don't want your interference. Leave them alone.

Legalized euthanasia...Well... you can't ban suicide, that is impossible unless you have a camera and a emergency medical team for every person. You shouldn't institutionalize it either. Doctors who take an oath to "do no harm" and then break it can not be trusted.

Some could argue that doctors are saving a life from constant pain and living for someone else's will. When do you draw the line where someone else's belief takes precedence over your own? Should someone else dictate how much pain you live with in your final days?

I remember when I was in high school and Oregon was debating this. Well, we debated the issue in my government class. I admit there are some emotional aguements over the issue, but I firmly believe that everybody in that situation has tremendous value. I am not talking prolonging life by artificial means. If a person is only being kept alive by a machine and they wish to go off the machine, that is their choice.

Do you personally believe states should have the right to make its own laws as they do, when not of a National Security nature?
What if the person is only being kept alive because of the medications and or someone else's belief? No flame here I am completly trying to understand.

Doctors who take an oath to "do no harm" and then break it can not be trusted.

Forcing someone to continue living in pain sounds pretty harmful to me.

Im curious how my fellow ns peeps think on assisted suicide for the terminally ill?
In the Netherlands we already have legalized euthanasia. I'm all for it.

Dignity?!?

What a waste! If you want to die, cool. But dignity? It's not like you're gonna be around to enjoy it. I think that if you want to die, you should leave the 'How' to someone else. Might as well let them have some fun.

I'd probably tie weights to people's legs and drop em in quicksand. Such a pleasant way to go. :)

In the Netherlands we already have legalized euthanasia. I'm all for it.
We do?

Well i say yes and no...

you have a life.. when you are wounded you go to a doctor and he does whatever he/she (calling it a he now) can to save your life.. there would be no point in doctors if they didnt try and save your life.. rember what the greek scripture says which ever doctor has to sign? "i will do everything in my power to save my patient" doctors cannot allow someone to "give up", that's against their philosaphy and for the patient its the equivilent to suicide... rember this..

But yet.. i belive that in some cases it should be legal.. like what vets practice actually.. when an animal is sick,terminally il,l and is suffering terribly so therefore is not expected to last long.. the vets put it to rest.. that is how i belive it should be done with patients (exept patients have a say of course). let us for example, say if the patient has Aids and is also terminally ill with cancer and the pain won't go away.. the patient would not be far from a painfull death.. i want the patient to discuss the situation with his doctors and they help decide what is best for that particular patient, no force should be inposed by the doctors..

i want to avoid the "oh i feel crap plz kill me".. "oh i got a tummy bug i feel terrible i want to die!", "arg it hurts i have (easliy treated) cancer please kill me) .. this way i want to avoid silly mistaked and the mentally unstable from doing the unthinkable

We do?
Yes. For several years now.

I choose other;
Passive Euthanasia is mean you unplug or don't do surgery that migh tkeep them alive. Disease or injury kills patient

Active Euthanasia mean you give and administer directly into patint. Doctor kills patient.

Doctor Assisted: Doctor gives Patient pills to kill self.

Doctor Assisted is closest tyo Active Euthanasia. Its not Legal Suicide, its assisted suicide.
We have laws against Assisted ones.

In the Netherlands we already have legalized euthanasia. I'm all for it.
The problem the law in the Netherlands. The Doctors break protocol and thus the law. You have to report it when you preform it. And many other details. Guess how many doctors there actually do it? 25% follow protocol.
Tell me that 75% disregard is a good indicator that it works great.
I get this from my Social Ethics book.

If you don't want further treatment that is passive Voluntary Euthanasia.

If someone else choose you don't get it, then it is Unvoluntary Passive Euthanasia.

If you are being kept alive by machines you are not dead. Legally unles you have whole brain death you are living.

Coma VS PVS(Persistent Vegatative State)
Coma: Unconscious and asleep. Brain stem dunctioning poorly so lives less long as PVS.

PVS: Unconscious but awake. gag reflex good, breaths normal(no artificial machine needed), Cannot feel pain,
Lost all Cerebral cortex but retained good brain stem function.
Reason lost consciousness: rate of oxygen used by cerebral cortex is much higher than that of the brain stem, so that these cells die much more quickly if deprived of oxygen for some time.

Neither PVS or Coma is criteria for Whole Brain Death.

Living will: Absolutely definitely allowed.

Assisted suicide: Allowable in cases of currently uncurable diseases which will cause a slow and painful death. However, this should only be done after the patient has undergone an evaluation to determine if the patient has *personally* made this decision and is competent to do so.

No one but the patient themselves should be able to make the decision for assisted suicide. If the issue is simply whether or not to "pull the plug," the next of kin (not the governor of the state) should be the one to make that decision.

No, I think everyone should die with all the indignity they can muster. Life owes us a few more years, no? "Rage! Rage against the dying of the light."

But to address the topic, everyone should have the right to choose how and when they depart from this world. Life is not a "gift", it is a parameter. Every life-form should be able to exert what control it can over the parameters that shape its life.

Hmm, I wonder.

|
V

I'm all for it, granted the person knows all his options. This includes treatments and life with or without them, procedures, life without them, even vague hopes that rarely pan out. This isn't to give them the will to live or anything, but to make absolutely sure that they know what they are doing, what it could do to their family given they have one, and what other options they may have. I also don't think the doctors have the right to put their personal morals and ethics in the way of someone's right to his life. If the patient decides he wants to die, set it up and let the patient push the button.

Personally, I think everyone over 21 should be required to fill out a living will every few years to file with hospital records. It ensures that the patient's will is carried out, regardless of consiousness or mental state. If the patient doesn't want to be brought back to life after a heart attack, so be it. It will also ensure that the lawyers and doctors know who the next of kin is, or rather, who the patient wants to make decisions for him be it family or friend.

The problem the law in the Netherlands. The Doctors break protocol and thus the law. You have to report it when you preform it.

No. You don't have to report it when you perform it. You have to report it when a patient says they want euthanasia. The DA then investigates the request. And you can only perform it after you get their approval. Otherwise it's still considerd murder. And I don't know who wrights that book of yours. But I haven't heard about doctors breaking the law. And I live here. If doctors would have broken this law it would have been all over the news.

It sounds like the law in the netherlands is very close to the law in Oregon. In order for the person to go through with it they must have more than just one doctors opinion stating they have at best less than 6 months of life expectancy left also the fact that these people are in constant pain and have been for quite sometime.

"Even the most ardent opponents of Oregon’s law admit that for 5% of terminally ill people even the best pain care will not alleviate their suffering."

The following paragraph has to do more with medi-juana that is prescribed to these patients for pain, not the assisted suicide. And is why I think (apparently our courts do also) in such personal matters it needs to be left to the coherant patient that can still make decisions (and feel the paint they are feeling) and the doctor or doctors prescribing the medications.

"The sad truth is that the actions of the DEA means that even the 95% of terminally ill people who could have their pain managed adequately, risk not getting good pain care because doctors will fear DEA investigation."

"Terminal sedation and dehydration is a legal way to end your life in all 50 states. In this scenario, the patient stops eating and drinking. The doctor provides sedation so that the patient does not feel the effects of starvation and dehydration. The process can take up to two weeks and there is no consciousness due to the excessive sedation. The prescriptions used under Oregon’s law usually render the patient asleep within a few minutes and death usually comes within a few hours, if not sooner. You decide which is more humane."
"The Controlled Substances Act is a federal law, which governs the trafficking of illegal substances like cocaine, and ensures that narcotics are used for legal medicinal purposes and not diverted for other use. Oregon’s Death with Dignity law allows for the legal use of controlled substances and therefore the CSA does not apply. Further, it is the states, not the federal government that determines what is legitimate medical practice. Oregonians determined through two elections and several federal court cases that death with dignity is a legitimate medical purpose, meaning that as long as physicians operate under the law, they are protected."

"The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to Oregon’s law, thus allowing the law to go into effect on October 27, 1997. In two cases argued earlier that year, the court found no federal right to physician-aid-in-dying but encouraged an “earnest and profound debate” about the issue. Furthermore, the Court determined that the issue was more appropriately decided by the individual states. Oregon has made its decision."

http://www.dwd.org/fss/facts.asp

It sounds like the law in the netherlands is very close to the law in Oregon. In order for the person to go through with it they must have more than just one doctors opinion stating they have at best less than 6 months of life expectancy left also the fact that these people are in constant pain and have been for quite sometime.

"Even the most ardent opponents of Oregon’s law admit that for 5% of terminally ill people even the best pain care will not alleviate their suffering."

The following paragraph has to do more with medi-juana that is prescribed to these patients for pain, not the assisted suicide. And is why I think (apparently our courts do also) in such personal matters it needs to be left to the coherant patient that can still make decisions (and feel the paint they are feeling) and the doctor or doctors prescribing the medications.

"The sad truth is that the actions of the DEA means that even the 95% of terminally ill people who could have their pain managed adequately, risk not getting good pain care because doctors will fear DEA investigation."

"Terminal sedation and dehydration is a legal way to end your life in all 50 states. In this scenario, the patient stops eating and drinking. The doctor provides sedation so that the patient does not feel the effects of starvation and dehydration. The process can take up to two weeks and there is no consciousness due to the excessive sedation. The prescriptions used under Oregon’s law usually render the patient asleep within a few minutes and death usually comes within a few hours, if not sooner. You decide which is more humane."

http://www.dwd.org/fss/facts.asp
DEA? The Drug Enforcement Administration?

DEA? The Drug Enforcement Administration?

Yep they still threaten the doctors here in Oregon for prescribing medi-juana to qualified patients. Actually they still threaten doctors in all 9 (might be 11 now?) states that have medi-juana laws. Of course the courts have ruled numerous times and on each instance that the government has no right to interfere with legitimate medical practices backed with science.

In Oregon our death with dignity laws and medical marijuana laws are very closely related. The group that got the measures to the voters are of the same.

No. You don't have to report it when you perform it. You have to report it when a patient says they want euthanasia. The DA then investigates the request. And you can only perform it after you get their approval. Otherwise it's still considerd murder. And I don't know who wrights that book of yours. But I haven't heard about doctors breaking the law. And I live here. If doctors would have broken this law it would have been all over the news.
I checked my book I was wrong about seriousness, its less. Still Slippery slope...
Quote book:
The Dutch courts have said that there are means for relief for suffering, even though the patient refuses it, this is not grounds for euthanasia. In 17 percent of cases, it was administered anyway. There have been difficulties in getting physicians to consult with another physician who is independent and who will actually come to see the patient. Between 15 and 20 percent of physicians refuse to report their cases under any circumstances. Appoximately one-quarter of physicians said that they had "terminated the lives of their patients without explicit request" from the patients themselves and others said they also were also likely to do so.
The number of all deaths from ethanasia in Holland are cited as 4, 813 (3.7 of all deaths) in 1990 and 6, 368 (4.7%) in 1995. In Holland, it is also the case that health care is a universal right, whereas it is not in United States. This may be a problematic in the United States in cases where physicians with HMOs are given bonuses for keeping costs down. Thus in Holland, there is less reason for people to request euthanasia because they do not have access to adequate health care. Another interesting fact is the suicide fact in Holland has decreased since Euthanasia has been available.

End quote.

So there are abuses dude. They broke the law and the law says so.

I checked my book I was wrong about seriousness, its less. Still Slippery slope...
Quote book:
The Dutch courts have said that there are means for relief for suffering, even though the patient refuses it, this is not grounds for euthanasia. In 17 percent of cases, it was administered anyway. There have been difficulties in getting physicians to consult with another physician who is independent and who will actually come to see the patient. Between 15 and 20 percent of physicians refuse to report their cases under any circumstances. Appoximately one-quarter of physicians said that they had "terminated the lives of their patients without explicit request" from the patients themselves and others said they also were also likely to do so.
The number of all deaths from ethanasia in Holland are cited as 4, 813 (3.7 of all deaths) in 1990 and 6, 368 (4.7%) in 1995. In Holland, it is also the case that health care is a universal right, whereas it is not in United States. This may be a problematic in the United States in cases where physicians with HMOs are given bonuses for keeping costs down. Thus in Holland, there is less reason for people to request euthanasia because they do not have access to adequate health care. Another interesting fact is the suicide fact in Holland has decreased since Euthanasia has been available.

End quote.

So there are abuses dude. They broke the law and the law says so.
Those cases, dude, where like you said in the 1990's. The law was implemented in 2001. Because of things like this. Doctors could be prosecuted for breaking the law even if they acted with the concent of the patient. The euthanasia law was created to end this. Get a more up to date copy.

Those cases, dude, where like you said in the 1990's. The law was implemented in 2001. Because of things like this. Doctors could be prosecuted for breaking the law even if they acted with the concent of the patient. The euthanasia law was created to end this. Get a more up to date copy.
Nope, the law in 2001 was for Active Euthanasia.
I'm taking about how the protocol for Active came out in at most 1993 and was informally accepted.

Oregon uses Doctor Assisted.


Just because the law was made doesn't mean it will change the practice. But again College books can't get anymore up to daye till 2005 on subject because that will be every 5 years as the trend is.

we all know that terminal patients are helped to die quite often. the question is should it be LEGAL

it has to be up to the patient and only the patient, not family members. decided well before they get near the end and rescindable whenever the patient decides.

psychological councilling should be given in case the person has a short term treatable depression. but the coucillor should have no say over it.

a patient has to be given the best quality of life possible. including big time opiates for the pain. who cares if a dying person gets hooked?

if a person who is dying anyway wants to go NOW instead of lingering in pain or a drug induced haze, i say it should be legal. dying sucks, no need to make it worse.

we all know that terminal patients are helped to die quite often. the question is should it be LEGAL

it has to be up to the patient and only the patient, not family members. decided well before they get near the end and rescindable whenever the patient decides.

psychological councilling should be given in case the person has a short term treatable depression. but the coucillor should have no say over it.

a patient has to be given the best quality of life possible. including big time opiates for the pain. who cares if a dying person gets hooked?

if a person who is dying anyway wants to go NOW instead of lingering in pain or a drug induced haze, i say it should be legal. dying sucks, no need to make it worse.

So are you for Passive, active, or doctor assisted you aren't being clear...

we all know that terminal patients are helped to die quite often. the question is should it be LEGAL it has to be up to the patient and only the patient, not family members. decided well before they get near the end and rescindable whenever the patient decides. psychological councilling should be given in case the person has a short term treatable depression. but the coucillor should have no say over it. a patient has to be given the best quality of life possible. including big time opiates for the pain. who cares if a dying person gets hooked? if a person who is dying anyway wants to go NOW instead of lingering in pain or a drug induced haze, i say it should be legal. dying sucks, no need to make it worse.

Could not of said it better myself

So are you for Passive, active, or doctor assisted you aren't being clear...

yeah i had to let the husband send out an email so i cut it off there.


well i guess im for all of it.
when you are teminally ill you are effectively held captive by the medical system. you have no easy way to do yourself in. it should be legal for a doctor to kill you under the circumstances previously stated.

feel the paint they are feeling

I should of caught my own mistakes lol, I like the feel of paint but not pain!

I am in support of a living will. For instance, one family member of mine has expressed a strong feeling that they do not want to be kept alive by machines--and I think this person should have that right.

I am not sure about assisted suicide, though. Something about that just doesn't sit right with me. I don't know about anybody else, but I don't think I could ever do that to myself.

I am in support of a living will. For instance, one family member of mine has expressed a strong feeling that they do not want to be kept alive by machines--and I think this person should have that right.
I am not sure about assisted suicide, though. Something about that just doesn't sit right with me. I don't know about anybody else, but I don't think I could ever do that to myself.

Thats the point, is that since you could never do that to yourselve you would never have to. If someone could do it for themselves then they have that option to. Obviously if they wanted to they could always walk up to ace hardware and run thier neck across a table saw or jump off some bridge or building or so on... its about being humane more than letting someone splatter thier brains all over the sidewalk my tax dollars paid to put into place and to clean the brain up off of.