NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading up on this organization after a conversation with an old friend. I don't know how many of you are familiar with it, but it provides assisted suicide to people who travel to Switzerland.

Naturally, there are complete medical histories given, interviews, and of course, eventually the deaths carried out. What I did not realize, and I pulled this from Google searching, is that you do not have to be terminally ill to receive this service. If you are not dying, but have a disability that causes "undue suffering" (Translated version of that page) (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.dignitas.ch/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDignitas.ch%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG). According to some of the other websites, this includes mental suffering.

I am in full support of this. Maybe I'm late in noticing (which is distinctly likely), but finally I see an organization out there that will give people the dignity we grant to the common dog. I give these people props for the guts it takes to stand up to the norm and grant people the dignity they deserve. If I ever could defeat the christian right on this issue, I'd try to get a similar law passed in the US.

</soapbox>

Yes, there will be a poll.

I chose "if they can show a very compelling reason". Anyone who wants to kill themselves should be able to, but I don't think everyone should get assistance on a whim. If someone wants to die but doesn't have a very compelling reason other than "life sucks", they can try and commit suicide on their own. If they fail and end up a quadriplegic, then they've got a compelling story.

I chose "if they can show a very compelling reason". Anyone who wants to kill themselves should be able to, but I don't think everyone should get assistance on a whim. If someone wants to die but doesn't have a very compelling reason other than "life sucks", they can try and commit suicide on their own. If they fail and end up a quadriplegic, then they've got a compelling story.

Well, before I respond, perhaps we should broach the subject what you consider a compelling reason. Being a quadriplegic apparently qualifies, so does it have to be a physical disability, or is a long lasting mental one sufficient (to you)?

I wonder how clinically maladaptive its considered to be "mentally unable" to commit suicide.

You'd just have to be really stupid. Or "autistic", to use a medical term.

Autistic =/= stupid. And you should be flogged for saying so.

Well, before I respond, perhaps we should broach the subject what you consider a compelling reason. Being a quadriplegic apparently qualifies, so does it have to be a physical disability, or is a long lasting mental one sufficient (to you)?

I think there are mental disabilities and disorders that might qualify as a "compelling reason", but assessing the severity of mental illnesses is difficult. Alzheimer's (providing the afflicted person was cogent long enough to seek help, of course) is one I can definitely see, but something like clinical depression can be much more difficult to assess. I suppose I say this because I have dysthymia (chronic depression that requires lifelong medication) and have had diagnosed episodes of clinical depression. Over the course of my disorder/disease/illness/whatever I've thought about killing myself MANY times, and even attempted it once. I changed my mind and went to the health center after learning that the overdose I'd taken would not result in a quick, painless death, but instead stretch out for an agonizing 2-3 days while I went into liver failure. Had a painless, sleeping death been available to me, I would definitely not be alive... and at least more than 50% of the time I'm glad I am.

I didn't mean to ramble on, it's just a difficult thing to sort out, especially when mental states can change so frequently and dramatically.

Autism as it's described by the medical community doesn't actually exist. There is nothing mentally wrong with autistic people other than the fact that they are idiots.

Kindly take your ignorant flamebaiting somewhere else, troll.

No, thank you. I'm quite happy here for the moment.

Well, at least you admit to being a troll. That's progress.

I didn't mean to ramble on, it's just a difficult thing to sort out, especially when mental states can change so frequently and dramatically.

In some persons they do. However, in others they persist - often times for many years. Would you allow them to have assistance or no?

After all, their only complaint may be that "life sucks."

However, for them, perhaps it does.

I think there are mental disabilities and disorders that might qualify as a "compelling reason", but assessing the severity of mental illnesses is difficult. Alzheimer's (providing the afflicted person was cogent long enough to seek help, of course) is one I can definitely see, but something like clinical depression can be much more difficult to assess.
I'd tentatively suggest that if a condition (mental or physical) is dramatically reducing someone's quality of life, and that condition is not going to go away, then I see no reason to deny assisted suicide; with all the appropriate caveats about cogency, safeguards, etc.

A vague answer, I know.

...it's just a difficult thing to sort out, especially when mental states can change so frequently and dramatically.
Most certainly.

In some persons they do. However, in others they persist - often times for many years. Would you allow them to have assistance or no?

After all, their only complaint may be that "life sucks."

However, for them, perhaps it does.

And as I said, they should have the right to end it if they don't want to continue living. But I don't see quite why such people would need assistance committing suicide. In my experience, depressed people who want to die do.

After all, their only complaint may be that "life sucks."

However, for them, perhaps it does.
We need to make the distinction, I feel, between 'life sucks' and 'life is not worth living'.

And as I said, they should have the right to end it if they don't want to continue living. But I don't see quite why such people would need assistance committing suicide. In my experience, depressed people who want to die do.

Well, there is the possibility that the intended decedent wishes to lessen the trauma suffered by family and friends. I suppose announcing your end and planning it, though it may be sad for loved ones, is one hell of a lot less shocking than discovering a far messier completed suicide without warning.

There are people who find your statements to be inflammatory and I quite agree. Blanket statements - otherwise known as "flames" - like this are a sure fire way to prevent you from being welcome on the NationStates forums. Here, take a 3 day ban and cool off for a while.

Autism as it's described by the medical community doesn't actually exist. There is nothing mentally wrong with autistic people other than the fact that they are idiots.

You'd just have to be really stupid. Or "autistic", to use a medical term.

We need to make the distinction, I feel, between 'life sucks' and 'life is not worth living'.

And also clarify that "life is not worth living most of the time". Which, again, can be difficult. I have known several people with bi-polar disorder, including my father. With such a disorder, life can swing from "fantastic" to "unbearable" and back again within a matter of days. That swing doesn't in any way diminish how unbearable life is during a low point in the cycle, and one could certainly argue that bi-polar disorder--both the highs and lows--dramatically reduces one's quality of life. Yet a person who comes in on Monday ready to end it all could quite conceivably be in a very different state of mind on Friday. What responsibility does an assisted suicide program have in that case?

Iggy Batteries loaded.

Readyyyyy, FIRE.

Ah, the sweet sound of unpretentious silence.

Well, there is the possibility that the intended decedent wishes to lessen the trauma suffered by family and friends. I suppose announcing your end and planning it, though it may be sad for loved ones, is one hell of a lot less shocking than discovering a far messier completed suicide without warning.

True. My aunt went out with a messy bang after decades of depression. It was pretty traumatic for her family. Then again, I don't think announcing her intentions ahead of time would have lessened it too much, although it would have saved my uncle a hefty cleaning bill.

There are people who find your statements to be inflammatory and I quite agree. Blanket statements - otherwise known as "flames" - like this are a sure fire way to prevent you from being welcome on the NationStates forums. Here, take a 3 day ban and cool off for a while.

Spaciba.

There are people who find your statements to be inflammatory and I quite agree. Blanket statements - otherwise known as "flames" - like this are a sure fire way to prevent you from being welcome on the NationStates forums. Here, take a 3 day ban and cool off for a while.

Thank you.

Yet a person who comes in on Monday ready to end it all could quite conceivably be in a very different state of mind on Friday. What responsibility does an assisted suicide program have in that case?
I'm highly dubioius of the idea of assisting someone as mentally unstable as the above to kill themselves.

If it works for Switzerland, that's fine, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea everywhere. The danger of abuse is the reason to be careful.

If it works for Switzerland, that's fine, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea everywhere.
Eh?

And as I said, they should have the right to end it if they don't want to continue living. But I don't see quite why such people would need assistance committing suicide. In my experience, depressed people who want to die do.

I think for many that what you said about the possibility of immeasurable pain during the act stays their hand, and forces them to suffer longer under slightly-less pain than they would by taking themselves out.

If these people had a painless way to go, they would take it, and not look back for a second.

Just because they're suffering less than they could be does not take away from the suffering they are still experiencing.

Eh?

Huh?

There are people who find your statements to be inflammatory and I quite agree. Blanket statements - otherwise known as "flames" - like this are a sure fire way to prevent you from being welcome on the NationStates forums. Here, take a 3 day ban and cool off for a while.

Your first ban.

First times can be so different...sometimes, the first time is with the slightly chubby sister of your best friend in the back seat of an 89 Hyundai Excel in the parking lot of a Cure concert.

Sometimes, the first time is with a 43 year old prostitute in Nye County, paid for with $140 that you got from your truck driving uncle who honestly thinks he helped you off to a good start.

But you, Kryo. Your first ban was like you were sitting in a cafe near a hostel in Prague, and a stunning fashion model was being mugged by a local thug, and without thinking, you walked up and threw 150 mL of refreshment in his face, at 95 degrees Celsius. He scampered off, and the girl decided you needed a reward for your gallantry. She invited you back to her room at the Hotel Aria, and when you tried to explain that you couldn't take money, she just laughed and began...

That's how good your first ban was.

EDIT: I should clarify, I referring to this being the first time Kryo, as a mod, has handed out a ban. That's what I'm analoginizicating to.

Huh?
Are you saying that assisted suicid could be a good thing in Switzerland, but not a good thing elsewhere?

Are you saying that assisted suicid could be a good thing in Switzerland, but not a good thing elsewhere?

I'm saying that if they are able to manage it without abuse, if it works for them, then that's good, but other places might not.

I'm saying that if they are able to manage it without abuse, if it works for them, then that's good, but other places might not.
Ahah.

If someone wants to die but doesn't have a very compelling reason other than "life sucks", they can try and commit suicide on their own.

Would "life sucks, and I have been saying that consistently for 5 years now, never changing that opinion and now think it has sucked enough" be sufficient ?

Aside: I prefer them not trying to commit suicide by their lonesome. It tends to leave bodies in inconvenient places, scaring kiddies and such - or at least inconvenience a cleaning lady. Let the organisation help.

I think the goal is preventing people from committing suicide, not legalizing it. Now, personally, I feel that there should be suicide provisions for the terminally ill as well as relaxation of rules regarding the prescription of medicines undergoing clinical trials since either way they're going to die and we should at least make it as painless as possible or take the risk of side effects if there's a chance of success.

But assisted suicide for mental problems? That is something that is not generally permissible because those problems should always be treated first and only if they absolutely can't be treated or reasonably managed should it be an option. Unlike a terminal illness where the person is hopefully fully aware of their situation and making a decision with a sound mind, a mental illness makes it impossible for them to truly consent and so should not be permitted except in extreme cases.

I think the goal is preventing people from committing suicide, not legalizing it.

Possibly. Then again, what is this obsession people have with the idea that "life is worth living and anyone who disagrees must be a nutter" ?
Why must we all "love" life ? Are diversity and differing viewpoints not a good thing[tm] ?

Possibly. Then again, what is this obsession people have with the idea that "life is worth living and anyone who disagrees must be a nutter" ?

Why must we all "love" life ? Are diversity and differing viewpoints not a good thing[tm] ?

Considering the intense emotional pain and suffering a death, especially a suicide, will inflict on those close to the person it's something we always need to weigh carefully to make sure it's the right decision. Plus, it's irrevocable; once someone's dead, they're dead, and it's not like we can do anything to reverse that decision once it's been carried out. If we screwed up and killed someone whose decision to commit suicide was motivated by emotional suffering and undiagnosed mental problems they could not control on their own, what does that make us? Mercy killing isn't always right, especially now when our knowledge of the mind and the techniques used to treat its problems are getting ever better.

It's the finality of death that makes it so important that we preserve life; if a person contemplating suicide is truly doing it for reasons that have nothing to do with mental or emotional problems, then they should be allowed to commit suicide but otherwise their judgment is completely compromised and we can't allow that kind of final decision to be made without a sound mind.

Your first ban.

First times can be so different...sometimes, the first time is with the slightly chubby sister of your best friend in the back seat of an 89 Hyundai Excel in the parking lot of a Cure concert.

Sometimes, the first time is with a 43 year old prostitute in Nye County, paid for with $140 that you got from your truck driving uncle who honestly thinks he helped you off to a good start.

But you, Kryo. Your first ban was like you were sitting in a cafe near a hostel in Prague, and a stunning fashion model was being mugged by a local thug, and without thinking, you walked up and threw 150 mL of refreshment in his face, at 95 degrees Celsius. He scampered off, and the girl decided you needed a reward for your gallantry. She invited you back to her room at the Hotel Aria, and when you tried to explain that you couldn't take money, she just laughed and began...

That's how good your first ban was.

EDIT: I should clarify, I referring to this being the first time Kryo, as a mod, has handed out a ban. That's what I'm analoginizicating to.

Baldy, you make my little Baldy stand at attention. Bless you for your return.

Baldy, you make my little Baldy stand at attention. Bless you for your return.

My only regret is that there are some threads going on now that could have become spectacularly popcorn worthy if you-know-who were to bring their theories on cognitive conditions up in...

Considering the intense emotional pain and suffering a death, especially a suicide, will inflict on those close to the person it's something we always need to weigh carefully to make sure it's the right decision. Plus, it's irrevocable; once someone's dead, they're dead, and it's not like we can do anything to reverse that decision once it's been carried out. If we screwed up and killed someone whose decision to commit suicide was motivated by emotional suffering and undiagnosed mental problems they could not control on their own, what does that make us? Mercy killing isn't always right, especially now when our knowledge of the mind and the techniques used to treat its problems are getting ever better.

It's the finality of death that makes it so important that we preserve life; if a person contemplating suicide is truly doing it for reasons that have nothing to do with mental or emotional problems, then they should be allowed to commit suicide but otherwise their judgment is completely compromised and we can't allow that kind of final decision to be made without a sound mind.

The counter argument is, of course, fuck everyone else. If person X wants to top themselves, what right does the faceless collective have to oppose their own claim to their own life?

Is that not something we own, ourselves?

The counter argument is, of course, fuck everyone else. If person X wants to top themselves, what right does the faceless collective have to oppose their own claim to their own life?

Is that not something we own, ourselves?

It is, and it isn't.
I personally think that the decision on wether to live or to die should be entirely an idividual one, but deciding to die out of one's own free will is at the same time the most egoistic thing a person can ever do. Ignoring the emotional bonds to friends and family and ignoring the mental anguish such a decision will impart on them is just being dishonest and one-sided.

I do think that places like Dignitas have a reason for existence, and that reason is that we as a society went too far in upholding the principle that life is sacred. My mother is a nurse working in old people's homes, and some of the stories she has told over the years are quite horrific. The one I remember most clearly is the one about a lady in her 80s, who had suffered 2 strokes and was completely paralyzed from the head down. She had lain in bed, day in, day out, for the last 5 years, and begged the nurses and her doctor to please, please, please let her finally die. She refused to eat or drink, my mother said, so they were legally obliged to feed her with a stomach tube.
My mother said it tore her heart to see this lady crying and suffering and wanting to die every single day, but if they had done anything to help her, it would have been their heads on the line for murder. She said that any (terminally) sick animal gets the dignity of being put down andput out of it's misery, yet if you're human you can be forced to suffer for years, maybe even decades.

On the other hand, I also know very well the stories of greedy relatives who can't wait until the old biddy kicks the bucket so they can get their hands on her belongings. And I know very well how much of a burden old people can be made to feel.
There is some genuine concern by legal authorities that any legislation allowing assisted suicide can and will be abused. It's a very tricky situation indeed.

Autism as it's described by the medical community doesn't actually exist. There is nothing mentally wrong with autistic people other than the fact that they are idiots.Autists != Scientologists.

I'd tentatively suggest that if a condition (mental or physical) is dramatically reducing someone's quality of life, and that condition is not going to go away, then I see no reason to deny assisted suicide; with all the appropriate caveats about cogency, safeguards, etc.

A vague answer, I know.
I quite like that answer. Because my problem is you're always going to have some people who think life is worth living with a certain condition and others who do not. I was thinking it wouldn't really be a good idea to have specific rules about who qualifies for assisted suicide. eg. "Oh, you're a quadrapledgic, you life obviously isn't worth living -- we can help you die if you want".

Making the definition specifically relative to that person's mental state seems more acceptable in my eyes. It's not that someone is disabled, it's that they couldn't cope with their disability or mental illness.

Anyone who wants one should be allowed to have it. If someone for whatever reason thinks that the best is over, why make that person hold on?

Anyone who wants one should be allowed to have it. If someone for whatever reason thinks that the best is over, why make that person hold on?

For one, to make sure it's really the person in question who wants to die, and to exclude the possibility of them being influenced by friends or family...

valentsia, there could be high functioning or mildly autistic people on this forum. Not all autistic people are retarded. you just don't know. i don't know all the names and even if i did it would be illegal to tell. it's just that there are lots of people here and it is statistically possible.

Making the definition specifically relative to that person's mental state seems more acceptable in my eyes. It's not that someone is disabled, it's that they couldn't cope with their disability or mental illness.
I fully agree; something like this has got to be treated on a case-by-case basis.

Autists != Scientologists.

valentsia, there could be high functioning or mildly autistic people on this forum. Not all autistic people are retarded. you just don't know. i don't know all the names and even if i did it would be illegal to tell. it's just that there are lots of people here and it is statistically possible.

Thread readers?

You'd just have to be really stupid. Or "autistic", to use a medical term.

I'm autistic, am I stupid? Please, autisim has dick all to do with intelligence and everything to do with how the autistic brain functions. Dont blindly accept what L.Ron says.

Suicide, let alone the assisted kind is such a touchy subject. I do think that if someone wants to die, let him/her do it. I think that if you're terminally ill and the suffering's too much, it's better do die when you choose in the form that best suits you. I went for anyone should be allowed to option.

But... could I think in this way if say, my mother, was terminally ill and wanted to get assisted suicide from a place like Dignitas? Would I comply if my best friend wanted to do away with his life because his partner left him or something the like? I don't know. The thoughts are conflicting. Are these compelling reasons to kill oneself?

It's the finality of death that makes it so important that we preserve life; if a person contemplating suicide is truly doing it for reasons that have nothing to do with mental or emotional problems, then they should be allowed to commit suicide but otherwise their judgment is completely compromised and we can't allow that kind of final decision to be made without a sound mind.

Would you accept a system with a "wait, reflect & finish up time" for people without clear pressing reasons ?

Suppose you wish to die with dignity because "you feel like it". Fair enough. You register that at Dignitas, and then the clock starts ticking. Your name is placed on a list, which certain organisations can see. Banks and insurance companies for instance - so that you will be unable to quickly borrow $ 100.000 to be paid back over 30 years. Or perhaps the list can even be public - which would help to aid the people who just want some more attention.

Say the period is a year. During this time you are supposed to "finish up" and reflect if you really wish to go through with it. Somewhere before time runs out - say after 9 months in the year example- you will have to reaffirm your choice at Dignitas and show evidence that you are now debt free, have provided for dependents to the best of your ability and so on. A few more reaffirmations in the short time following that check, and voila - death after sufficient pondering.

This can also be made to serve as a barrier against those greedy relatives trying to convince grandpa to die and cough up the inheritance.

But... could I think in this way if say, my mother, was terminally ill and wanted to get assisted suicide from a place like Dignitas? Would I comply if my best friend wanted to do away with his life because his partner left him or something the like? I don't know. The thoughts are conflicting. Are these compelling reasons to kill oneself?

They might be. I agree with a waiting period The Alma Mater proposed - a year is too long, though. If you make them wait a year, they'll just take matters into their own hands (if able), and leave a big mess everywhere.

I have to be practical - if we hold out a waiting period of two months, most people that are suicidal will wait two months. In addition, this will give them time to get their affairs in order and complete the necessary government paperwork.

A two month waiting period gives the patient time to reflect, and possibly change his mind, but is not so long as to seem like an eternal wait to most people.

Also, to add to your thought Alma, if these people are generally healthy, there is no reason not to require compulsory organ donation from the patient. This will also assist in covering expenses associated with the suicide. The two months gives the doctors time to run tests to see if the organs are suitable, and there is no reason why the patient cannot be put under, needed organs removed, and either the person will die as a result or the removal or they can then be euthanized. This gives the doctors optimal time to pass these organs on to someone else.

I'm slightly grisly, but efficient. ;)

Personally, I've always been pro-assisted suicide - if it's for medical reasons. I live in the UK, and there are both ethical and economic reasons for bringing a similar scheme to that used by Dignitas.

There are those with degenerative diseases (MS, MND, or Parkinson's, for instance) who would jump (figuratively, of course, but I couldn't word that better) at the chance of being able to choose their time to die. It gives them a chance to put their affairs in order, set about writing a will, saying a proper goodbye to families, etc.

Also, those who choose this route would save the NHS a lot of money in treatment and hospital costs in their final months.

I do, however, stress that this should always be the patient's own choice, and that the patient should be of sound body and mind.

http://www.ukcoinpics.co.uk/dec/02/2_92r.jpg

Personally, I've always been pro-assisted suicide - if it's for medical reasons. I live in the UK, and there are both ethical and economic reasons for bringing a similar scheme to that used by Dignitas.

There are those with degenerative diseases (MS, MND, or Parkinson's, for instance) who would jump (figuratively, of course, but I couldn't word that better) at the chance of being able to choose their time to die. It gives them a chance to put their affairs in order, set about writing a will, saying a proper goodbye to families, etc.

Also, those who choose this route would save the NHS a lot of money in treatment and hospital costs in their final months.

I do, however, stress that this should always be the patient's own choice, and that the patient should be of sound body and mind.

So a person with late-stage Alzheimer's couldn't get the help they needed? Even if they ask in a moment of clarity? Alzheimer's is a terminal disease.

Also, how many people who are of "sound mind and body" are going to ask for help killing themselves?

Also, how many people who are of "sound mind and body" are going to ask for help killing themselves?

That's a tricky question, since many people would probably argue that if you want to commit suicide it is a sign that you are not of sound mind.

Would you accept a system with a "wait, reflect & finish up time" for people without clear pressing reasons ?

Suppose you wish to die with dignity because "you feel like it". Fair enough. You register that at Dignitas, and then the clock starts ticking. Your name is placed on a list, which certain organisations can see. Banks and insurance companies for instance - so that you will be unable to quickly borrow $ 100.000 to be paid back over 30 years. Or perhaps the list can even be public - which would help to aid the people who just want some more attention.

Say the period is a year. During this time you are supposed to "finish up" and reflect if you really wish to go through with it. Somewhere before time runs out - say after 9 months in the year example- you will have to reaffirm your choice at Dignitas and show evidence that you are now debt free, have provided for dependents to the best of your ability and so on. A few more reaffirmations in the short time following that check, and voila - death after sufficient pondering.

This can also be made to serve as a barrier against those greedy relatives trying to convince grandpa to die and cough up the inheritance.

I think that would work. Just like with abortion, there should be a period where real counseling (not just religious agit-prop, although the person should have access to whatever spiritual advisors they would want) and mental health services are available to the person to make sure they are truly ready for that kind of decision. Their family and friends would have time for input and discussion, and should they still want to do so they would be able to get their affairs in order before death.

This is a far more respectful, open, and effective way of dealing with the issue that would do wonders to prevent suicides while allowing those for whom it is the most moral and merciful action to take it.

Thread readers?what??

what??

The issue was brought up, refuted and even Modded. I was merely wondering if either of you had bothered to read beyond the post that started it all before you reacted. I have my answer.

I think that would work. Just like with abortion, there should be a period where real counseling (not just religious agit-prop, although the person should have access to whatever spiritual advisors they would want) and mental health services are available to the person to make sure they are truly ready for that kind of decision.

Surely you're not proposing a "waiting period" for a time-sensitive issue like abortion?

Surely you're not proposing a "waiting period" for a time-sensitive issue like abortion?

In a marginal sense, maybe a few days to a week at most, and only if there are good reasons to do so. Like assisted suicide, abortion is irrevocable and there needs to be a degree of surety that they are making the right decision. There is also no reason why people should not have access to honest post-abortion counseling as well.

In a marginal sense, maybe a few days to a week at most, and only if there are good reasons to do so. Like assisted suicide, abortion is irrevocable and there needs to be a degree of surety that they are making the right decision. There is also no reason why people should not have access to honest post-abortion counseling as well.

I would agree with a waiting period for abortion. Should be a waiting period for a lot of things in my opinion. Marriage should be regulated federally with a waiting period, Assisted Suicide where legal, Joining the military and could think of a dozen others.

I have a terminal condition, and probably have 10-15 years at the current state of medical knowledge. 20 if I'm lucky.

I wouldn't want to take the assissted suicide route for myself for a variety of personal medical and ethical reasons.

But I wouldn't necessarily want to deny it to everyone else just because I object to it for myself.

The issue was brought up, refuted and even Modded. I was merely wondering if either of you had bothered to read beyond the post that started it all before you reacted. I have my answer.What issue? That Scientologists (or former ones) are the idiots, but not the autists?

What issue? That Scientologists (or former ones) are the idiots, but not the autists?

The whole Val flamebait about autism equaling stupidity. Nevermind. You've already answered my question.

The whole Val flamebait about autism equaling stupidity. Nevermind. You've already answered my question.Scientologists deny the existence of mental diseases and they think that people with such diseases are either just pretending or are just dumb. The fact of the matter is thoiugh that the Scientologists themselves are those with the mental problems.
Val is a former Scientologist and his theories about aliens living inside the moon hint at what kind of mental set-up he has.

Scientologists deny the existence of mental diseases and they think that people with such diseases are either just pretending or are just dumb. The fact of the matter is thoiugh that the Scientologists themselves are those with the mental problems.
Val is a former Scientologist and his theories about aliens living inside the moon hint at what kind of mental set-up he has.

I.

Know.

That.

Because.

I.

Have.

Read.

The.

Thread.

I was wondering why YOU didn't, as is evidenced by your need to comment on Val's flamebait long after it was debunked and Mod-addressed.

So a person with late-stage Alzheimer's couldn't get the help they needed? Even if they ask in a moment of clarity? Alzheimer's is a terminal disease.

Those who have late-stage Alzheimers at point of the law coming into effect would miss out on this help, yes. Alzheimer's, however, is a reasonably slowly debilitating disease, and there would be plenty of time for most diagnosed with it to make arrangements.

Also, how many people who are of "sound mind and body" are going to ask for help killing themselves?

Oops, that was a typo. Should have read "sound mind".

I.Know.That.Because.I.Have.Read.The.Thread.

I was wondering why YOU didn't, as is evidenced by your need to comment on Val's flamebait long after it was debunked and Mod-addressed.I never read more than the first (newest) page in a thread.

I never read more than the first (newest) page in a thread.

*facepalm*

Then you have no leg to stand on when someone points out that your point was already made, and that you're late to the party.

I never read more than the first (newest) page in a thread.
It's strongly recommended that if you're going to contribute to a thread that you read more than the first and/or newest pages of the thread before responding.

I have a terminal condition, and probably have 10-15 years at the current state of medical knowledge. 20 if I'm lucky.

I wouldn't want to take the assissted suicide route for myself for a variety of personal medical and ethical reasons.

But I wouldn't necessarily want to deny it to everyone else just because I object to it for myself.

On a random note, they diagnosed Stephen Hawking with an illness, and the doctors said he'd only live for another 2 or 3 years. That was in the mid-60's, and since he's still alive, keep in mind that you may be around for a lot more than 10-15 years!

On a random note, they diagnosed Stephen Hawking with an illness, and the doctors said he'd only live for another 2 or 3 years. That was in the mid-60's, and since he's still alive, keep in mind that you may be around for a lot more than 10-15 years!

You understand that those exceptions to the statistics are exceptions, yes? That those estimates are based on the majority of results?

So - one guy outlasting his projected date isn't a particularly strong argument.

I think there are mental disabilities and disorders that might qualify as a "compelling reason", but assessing the severity of mental illnesses is difficult. Alzheimer's (providing the afflicted person was cogent long enough to seek help, of course) is one I can definitely see, but something like clinical depression can be much more difficult to assess. I suppose I say this because I have dysthymia (chronic depression that requires lifelong medication) and have had diagnosed episodes of clinical depression. Over the course of my disorder/disease/illness/whatever I've thought about killing myself MANY times, and even attempted it once. I changed my mind and went to the health center after learning that the overdose I'd taken would not result in a quick, painless death, but instead stretch out for an agonizing 2-3 days while I went into liver failure. Had a painless, sleeping death been available to me, I would definitely not be alive... and at least more than 50% of the time I'm glad I am.

I didn't mean to ramble on, it's just a difficult thing to sort out, especially when mental states can change so frequently and dramatically.

I absolutely agree that those with terminal illnesses should be able to seek assisted suicide if they are mentally able to do so (ie. fully aware and competent).

I think mental conditions would be more tricky, though. If someone has clinical depression that is causing them to be suicidal, is their mental state altered enough that we can say they aren't mentally able to make the decision on their own? Would we have to wait until they were out of a state of depression before we could allow them to seek assisted suicide? And, if we did, would they still want it?

You understand that those exceptions to the statistics are exceptions, yes? That those estimates are based on the majority of results?

So - one guy outlasting his projected date isn't a particularly strong argument.

Exactly. A prognosis is an average of everyone with the same or similar conditions as the person they're talking to. If they say one year, some in the overall pool will live twenty. Some will not see the end of that week.

Exactly. A prognosis is an average of everyone with the same or similar conditions as the person they're talking to. If they say one year, some in the overall pool will live twenty. Some will not see the end of that week.

I imagine they factor in aspects particular to the patient as well, such as other conditions, overall health, smoking, whether they've been mainlining crystal meth behind a trailer for 11 years...

The end result is just a swag, anyway.

No. Just no. Not now, not ever.

I voted no because future is uncertain.

Though, I do accept a special case for babies born with serious cranial birth defects....well, until we can grow a new brain that is.

-SNIP-

Out of topic but, Kryo, your avatar is tripping me out!:D

No. Just no. Not now, not ever.
Why not, if you please?