Physician-assisted suicide. Should it be a choice that individuals have a right to make?

[lumberjack_jeff]

If so, does it devalue the argument to express the hope that it is a rare choice?

In other words, should Physician-assisted suicide be simple, legal and rare?

[Posteritatis]

1. Yes and no, respectively. (nt)

[movonne]

57. you are not free if you do not have freedom of your

own body..if you want to die so be it...

[Posteritatis]

61. Hence my answer. (nt)

[Hoyt]

2. Certainly those with little hope of a decent life should have the right.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. If we choose who then it's a privilege not a right. n/t

[treestar]

4. No. that one really bothers me.

If a person is physically able to kill themselves but can't, then that says something. They should get treatment for depression.

[LeftishBrit]

17. The whole point is for people who AREN'T physically able to kill themselves

One consequence of the present laws is that some people with progressive diseases may decide to commit suicide when they still have some reasonable-quality life ahead of them, because if they wait until life becomes unbearable, they may no longer be able to perform the act.

[treestar]

23. I was thinking of a couple of Dutch cases from awhile back

Reading about them, I was really uncomfortable - true the people were in bad shape, but they could have something to live for and others have with similar handicaps.

Those not physically able perhaps could sign something while still of sound mind. I'm still uncomfortable with the whole thing - and with the people who carry out the killing (kind of like executioners, it is legal and moral but who can do it?)

It sure is a depression subject, and depression can always be a factor.

[oldhippie]

32. So you would deprive them of their choice ....

.... because YOU would not be comfortable with it?

Since YOU think they "could have something to live for" you would not let them have THEIR choice?

Sounds familiar.

[treestar]

69. I'm questioning their choice

and uncomfortable about people who are a bit too quick to accept it as such.

[oldhippie]

84. OK, fair point. Would you be .....

... as uncomfortable with the acceptance of the person's choice for other medical procedures, and require some oversight before accepting it?

[NoOneMan]

85. A woman who finds out she accidentally got pregnant and has financial issues...

May be very stressed and easy to perceive as "not thinking clear". Should the state question her choice about abortion?


If choice is something that can be questioned and judged (by the state), is it really a choice anymore?

[RKP5637]

64. Please see my post #63. n/t

[DesertFlower]

52. exactly. nt

[lunatica]

5. Did you forget the sarcasm smilie?

Because why would anyone want assisted suicide if they're healthy?

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. Should the choice be between the individual and his or her doctor?

Or is it voters job to define who, when and how the "right" can be exercised?

I'm turning the "safe, legal and rare undermines the right to an abortion" argument around to examine it.

I think that it is perfectly legitimate to defend an individual's right to self determination while hoping that they aren't faced with the choice. Or even knowing that they wouldn't make the same choice.

[lunatica]

9. There has to be some kind of oversight to make sure the patient truly wants to die

But it should be legal to do so. Hoping they don't ever need to make that choice is unrealistic. Having a psychiatric panel of doctors examine the person to make sure there is no help for them would be important. You shouldn't just grant someone the right to assisted suicide if their quality of life can be improved considerably.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. You're using the word "right" in a very ambiguous way.

It boils down to this; Is it their choice or yours?

Is it legitimate to support a right to choose something that you would not choose for yourself?

[lunatica]

24. They have the right to their choice.

For example, I chose not to have an abortion but another woman has to make her own choice and should have that right. I have no say in what she chooses.

[oldhippie]

33. Then I would have to ask, .....

..... why do you say a panel of psychiatric doctors should make that choice for a person that has chosen suicide? Why should they have the power to determine what is "right" for that person, anymore than anyone else deciding to have an abortion? Why, exactly, does it require "oversight?" Do women need that oversight also?

[NoOneMan]

86. Maybe you could force them to see an ultrasound of their brain before they could go ahead

[lunatica]

97. Maybe you would gladly allow a depressed person to go ahead and get killed without

anyone bothering to ask why.

[NoOneMan]

99. I think you missed my sarcasm

[bettyellen]

26. if you were advocating for extending this right to more states, would you think it wise to

do so by saying you wanted it to be rare? How would that be effective advocacy?
If you wanted it to be readily available to those who need it nationwide- say so. Words matter.

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. Which is better advocacy?

"Set aside your personal feelings. A woman should be able to make this difficult choice without interference from people who aren't in her shoes."

or

"Fuck rare. It should be ubiquitous. Women who are in control of their own bodies should, as a matter of principle, choose abortion because it's none of anyone else's business"

The latter is kind of odd, in a way. When does advocacy for abortion (not just choice) become "interference from people who aren't in her shoes"?

[PeaceNikki]

37. So, you approve of the sweeping restrictions that have been placed on abortion and access to it over

the past 25 years? I guess you think women should just STFU, be glad that "soft support" like yours keeps it legal at all, and allow that to continue?

No? Ok, then stop and understand how bringing the frequency at which it occurs into the conversation contributes to this. Saying it should be rare legitimizes efforts to restrict access to abortion.

Prior to 1989, laws interfering with a woman’s right to abortion were ruled unconstitutional. The shift in the composition of the Court under the Reagan and Bush I administrations led to the 1989 and 1992 Webster and Casey Supreme Court decisions establishing a threshold of “undue burden” for the constitutionality of state-based restrictions. Under this new legal regime, states can demonstrate a preference against abortion through the implementation of waiting periods, parental involvement, mandatory information, and scripted provider speech requirements; since 1994, almost every state has done so. These laws vary in their construction and studying the effects of these laws is difficult but suggests that additional barriers to abortion disproportionately affect traditionally vulnerable populations. For example, the most severe waiting periods require two in-person visits to the clinic with a prescribed time between visits. In a world where many women lack paid sick leave and childcare, access to a provider in their community, and affordable transportation/lodging, a two-visit requirement may be insurmountable to some women.

Maybe you go around using the term "rare" in context of other medical issues, but society certainly doesn't. Not like this. And, if it were coupled with massive sweeping restrictions on other medical procedures and attacks from the religious right, I could buy into that theory.

I feel it's incredibly important to discuss how our language forms our societal beliefs and vice versa.

[cui bono]

39. Great and informative post.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. No. I'm suggesting that we might expect more of them if "fuck rare" becomes a rallying cry.

If there wasn't already an inextricable moral dimension to the issue we wouldn't be having this discussion.

My path to "pro choice" was that it isn't my decision to make. It is between the patient and her doctor.

[PeaceNikki]

41. for the fifteenth time, just stop repeating the mantra.

The platform for the party to which I (and presumably you) has. And we've won two presidential elections since. Get with the times. You don't have to include the frequency in the discussion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Appeals to morality.

Choice is available in this country because advocates have effectively articulated the moral idea that people should be left alone to make their own choices.

Those appeals (i.e. "safe, legal and rare&quot worked because they acknowledge the perceptions of other relevant moral considerations.

[PeaceNikki]

46. ok, I understand. you don't give a shit that it's harmful.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. I disagree that it is more harmful than the alternative proposed. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

48. the alternative of dropping discussion of the frequency like the party platform has?

That's ridiculous.

[bettyellen]

71. what is wrong with safe, legal and available? the issue is the ridiculous restrictions that make it

impossible, and the dearth of services that would provide contraception in many states. That is the issue we are fighting right now, why not say so?

[DesertFlower]

56. maybe they feel like that just don't want to go on.

[WinkyDink]

7. What do you think end-of-life morphine drips are?

[TexasBushwhacker]

55. It's called palliative sedation n/t

[LittleBlue]

8. Yes, definitely, except for simple

I like a process to ensure the applicant is in a right state of mind, without wanting suicide to be an automatic judgment of insanity.

And yeah, I'd hope it's rare. Situations like that are sad.

[SheilaT]

10. Absolutely. To the first question.

If someone else out there wants to spend the last months or even years of their life in excruciating pain, of attached to lots of machines, that's their choice. Me? I hope I remain quite healthy up to the end, but if I don't, I want to have the choice about when and how I depart this life.

The second one is not relevant, and is an obvious attempt to play on an abortion meme. Who does this, how often it occurs, shouldn't be a matter of public debate. Because the "rare" part might lead to states deciding that collectively women in their state can have a total of no more than some set number of abortions a year. I can see the legislative debate now: "This is how we make it safe, legal, and rare. We'll allow a total of no more than x number of abortions here. See how great we are? See how we're keeping abortion safe, legal and rare?"

These are PERSONAL decisions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. I evaluate arguments by turning them around.

I hope the analogy is open and obvious.

The question I'm asking; is it legitimate to support the right of someone to choose (even if you would choose differently), and simultaneously hope that they are rarely placed in that position?

[PeaceNikki]

18. It's kind of bullshit because it's hypothetical.

Abortion has been a legal medical procedure for 40+ years.

So I will answer this question after physician assisted suicides are legal for 40 years and have undergone 25 years of attacks.

[BigDemVoter]

13. IMHO it should be a choice one should be able to make.

Whether it's rare or not is quite frankly beside the point. That would depend on how many people NEED it.

[LWolf]

14. Yes.

No.

Rare...maybe. I'm okay with leaving the language there for the squeamish, whether or not "rare" is the reality. I just want everyone to have easy, affordable access to abortion, to birth control, or to Physician-assisted suicide, should that be their choice.

It surprises me that I'm supposed to, according to many, think that the ACA is a giant step forward in delivering health CARE, when it's all about insurance and doesn't really make actual care affordable, but I'm supposed to be outraged at the word "rare" when it comes to medical procedures that push people's buttons.

Apparently, small steps are okay for some things, but not for others. Or compromise is good when you agree with it, and bad when you don't. Or something.

[LeftyMom]

15. Another day, another anti-woman thread.

God, you're boring.

[NoOneMan]

87. Why is this thread anti-woman?

I don't get that. Please explain.

[LeftyMom]

95. Go read the OP's lame analogy to abortion.

Wait, you like lame abortion analogies. Can't help you.

[NoOneMan]

96. Yeah, I just asked you to back up the accusation with an explanation

Analogy or not, why is it anti-woman?

[Gormy Cuss]

16. Yes and yes.

Last edited Sun Nov 10, 2013, 04:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Physician-assisted suicide should be legal with well defined guidelines. The frequency of it happening is irrelevant. To express the conditions for it as "simple, legal, and rare imposes a moral standard that is unnecessary. Legal definition of when it is an individual's right is all that is needed.

[Auntie Bush]

30. +1000

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. We're seeing the PR limitations of that approach in this very thread.

People are very conflicted about who should choose assisted suicide and when and why.

How do you think support for assisted suicide clinics would be affected if those clinics were to advertise their "entirely-legal" services based on how simple, quick and fulfilling the procedure is?

Like it or not, effective advocacy for anything in the public policy realm must acknowledge moral standards.

[Gormy Cuss]

49. Actually, we don't need to frame it in terms of a minority's moral standard for others.

If we have legal standards as we have for abortion, the only frame necessary is a person's right to choose. The neighbor's personal opposition to interfering with God's plan is trumped by the individual's right to choose whether to sustain life under certain circumstances.

[TBF]

19. I think under certain circumstances -

especially in a case like ALS. With Lou Gehrig's (ALS) a person might have fine cognitive capability but unable to move. If there is a directive in place for them to have a life-ending plan given certain circumstances I think that should be granted.

[alphafemale]

20. What is assisted suicide?

I would certainly think an expressed wish to NOT have a tube forced down the throat or be on a ventilator is just ....death.

You would really force someone to be on a ventilator so the corpse can be there for your pleasure?

[Vashta Nerada]

21. Physician-assisted suicide has nothing to do with abortions.

[DesertFlower]

59. i agree. nt

[libodem]

22. Absolutely

And if the individual is incapacitated and suffering and can't voice it, I would hope a family member could help make the right decision.

I've seen a lot as a nurse in a long term care facility. The worst case is having the spouse, have diminished mental capacity, keep a stroke victim alive with a feeding tube and round, the clock care, so the companion has a purpose in life. I've seen lots of times when it is in the patients best interest to pass peacefully but once that feeding tube is in place, it then becomes unethical to halt the tube feeding.

[Thirties Child]

34. Yes!

You said it so well. My concern has been for someone with dementia, for whatever reason, someone who has had a full life, someone who, while the mind was intact, said they did not want to live if the body outlives the mind. As the law stands now, a relative would be accused of murder if they helped the patient achieve what s/he wants.

This is very personal for me. I may eventually be faced with someone very close to me in that situation.

[dawg]

25. ...

[William769]

27. Yes.

[on point]

28. Absolutely yes. This is as personal choice as it gets.

We are willing to put animals out of their suffering but insist humans have to suffer because we have stone stupidstitions interfering in our lives?

[morningfog]

29. Is this really about abortion and a woman's right to choose?

[elehhhhna]

31. PAS should only be a backup to failed contraception

for deserving people

or something

[enlightenment]

35. I think it should be safe and legal.

"Rare" should not enter into the calculation.

It is a decision best made by the individual and their doctor.

[Shrike47]

42. We have legal physician-assisted suicide in Oregon. It is fairly rare, a few dozen a year.

It seems to me that the choice is entirely up to the person.

[DesertFlower]

60. i saw a documentary about it. i think it

was oregon. the doctor gave the person the drugs, but they had to mix it up and administer it to themselves.

[TexasBushwhacker]

62. It's my understanding that it's a comfort to people knowing they have a choice

I watched an HBO documentary called "How To Die In Oregon" and they showed the whole process.

[PasadenaTrudy]

74. Yet another good reason

for me to move to OR someday. The cooler weather and lower cost of living are main ones.

[liberal_at_heart]

43. Yes and yes. It should be legal, and safe. It should be rare in the sense that seeking medical

care to prevent terminal illnesses should make it rare. Just like using birth control should make abortion rare.

[NightWatcher]

44. My body, my business, none of your damn business so piss off

Apply this wherever and to whomever you like.

Suicide; check
Lady parts business: check
Marijuana: check

[Loudly]

50. It can't be a right if a physician can't be compelled to assist.

But certainly if there are physicians willing to do so, it should not be considered criminal conduct.

I would also advocate that any incarcerated person should have the right to a length of rope and access to a sturdy overhanging pipe or beam.

[ellenfl]

51. yes, n/a and no. eom

[NaturalHigh]

53. Of course it should be.

[DesertFlower]

54. yes. i'm a member of compassion and choices

(formerly the Hemlock Society).

[bemildred]

58. "Simple, legal, and nobody else's business", is what it should be.

The very notion that anybody has a right to make you stay here against your will is authoritarian to the core.

[RKP5637]

67. Well said! +++ 1,000,000 +++ n/t

[bemildred]

68. Thank you. My question for them is: "Who the fuck are you to butt in?"

What is your agenda? How do you make money off of other peoples suffering?

[RKP5637]

75. For some, I think it's the authoritarian aspect. We seem to have a lot of people that

want to control other people in anyway they can. And some wrap religion and morality into that ... disgusting! ... wanting to control, control, control ...

[bemildred]

78. I think some worry it will be misused to somehow kill people who don't want to die.

Or trick them, or something. But murder is already quite illegal, that is not the issue. The issue is whether one can get the means of painless death and use them oneself, under proper guidance.

My brother died of liver cancer in 2009, I rode it down with him, and I busted my butt to get him into hospice in time. My three other brothers were there too, talking to him hours before he passed. He was tough. I remember him saying "Yeah, let's do it" when the Doctor asked about hospice a couple days before that.

Anyway, hi.

[RKP5637]

80. ...

[RKP5637]

63. IMO Physician-assisted suicide be simple, legal and common for medical reasons. Some of

my family have died horrific deaths from cancer. Making one suffer to the end IMO is cruel and unusual punishment. I often wonder WTF I will have to go through in agony when my time comes. Some people die peacefully, for others it is a tragically painful process.

In my case when one of my sisters had almost died from internal bleeding from the cancer a physician came on duty one night and ordered transfusions to cover his ass! She lingered on two more weeks in horrific pain. We, are often an extremely barbaric society. IMO it's my fucken body and I should have the option to doing with it as I want!

Another sister was sent home with incurable cancer and a bag of Oxycontin to take as needed until she died from the cancer.

[PeaceNikki]

65. I'm so very sorry that you and your loved ones went through that.

And you make a strong case for removing the potential judgment involved with calling for the frequency of any needed medical "rare" by the general public.

[RKP5637]

66. Thank you! If people experienced this to the end with a loved one, I think they

would conclude physician-assisted death is a another form of medical treatment.

My cat and I have been extremely close for years, he had developed incurable cancer at a late age. He knew he was very sick and his vet said within time serious pain would begin.

I talked to my cat, he was OK with it and it was extremely peaceful for him, although I cried like a baby, I knew in the big picture it was best. I've never understood why anyone would want to see a loved one, or anyone, die a horribly painful death with absolutely no chance for recovery. Often, it seems they are the one uncomfortable with it all, not the terminally ill individual.

[LisaLynne]

72. Not many agree with me, but ...

I've watched human and animal loved ones die of cancer (and other terminal conditions) and it always strikes me as so sad that we are able to give our pets dignified and painless deaths but we have to watch our human loved ones suffer.

[RKP5637]

79. That is what I was thinking as I petted and kissed my cat in my arms as we helped

him along. He and I were extremely close for years. I don't understand why humans must endure pain and suffering. It makes absolutely no sense. Yet, many people die each day, for whatever reason, but it's taboo to help one suffering. Often, each day brings many WTF's to me. In many ways it's a very bizarre world.

[LisaLynne]

89. It truly is.

[treestar]

70. It should never be simple - there should always be a thorough vetting of that being what the person

really wants. Especially if the condition is not fatal.

Also I had thought they treated for the pain.

[RKP5637]

77. Sometimes the pain is so severe medication starts to fail. Way back I used to work in

a hospital shock therapy group ... for one example, we had a very aged lady come in repeatedly for shock therapy for depression. The individual had arthritis so bad she was wrapped in a pretzel shape unable to move and was so racked with pain. She said she wanted to die ... so, they treated her for depression. It was incurable, she had no future, was in her eighties, racked with pain from head to foot. I don't know what eventually happened, I moved on in my education to another state.

[bigwillq]

73. It should be legal

End of story.

[idwiyo]

76. Legal and as often as needed.

[NoOneMan]

81. I see zero reason for it to be rare

Keeping people alive at the end of their life vastly constrains health care resources (thereby bottlenecking other services) and greatly prolongs pain. Alas, it is a choice, but I wish we were a society that encouraged people to die on their own terms, in their own way.

[Bonobo]

82. I'm hoping the baby boomers will figure this out. nt

[Starry Messenger]

83. I don't know why it isn't more common, actually.

My only personal caveat would be concern that under our free market (though slightly less so now) medical system, it might get used indiscriminately against those deemed unfit or too poor to exist.

Otherwise, I think it is humane and don't think "rarity" is a thing to hope for, since we all die one way or another eventually.

[NoOneMan]

88. The rub would be what would doctors charge Medicare for that service?

And how many of them would game it just to pull in the dough. Sigh. Fuck humans

[Starry Messenger]

90. Don't know, I haven't had health coverage since the year 2001.

[NoOneMan]

91. Sorry to hear

I went without it from about then until I left the states a few years ago. Are you going to get a sick obamalicious ACA plan now?

[Starry Messenger]

92. Since I am now 43 and have tons of cancer and heart disease in my family history

I am glad to be able to sign up via the CA exchanges for now and not be refused coverage, yes.

My union has passed a resolution to work for single payer in our state, and I will be working this angle vigorously.

I do not have the desirable skills required for emigration, but I'm glad it worked out for you.

[NoOneMan]

93. Thanks for fighting the good fight there

I'd love to see more people working for real health insurance, but I'm glad you get something at least in the meantime.

[Th1onein]

94. Yes, individuals should have that right.

But I don't think it should be under the auspices of a physician, necessarily. Rare? I don't think it's even an appropriate question.

[Ruby the Liberal]

98. Yes. nt