So, at what degraded quality of life should a doctor be able to kill me? How about the logger who amputated his own leg? He isn't going to be able to enjoy the same quality of life that he did previously (no offense to any amputees out there - I know that a high quality of life is still possible, but no question he won't be able to do everything he could previously); is that sufficient reason to allow a doctor to kill someone? Who is going to set that limit? What about a brain injury that leaves my wife functionally retarded - can I convince a doctor to kill her? Maybe if I teach her to ask him to?



I hope that I would be strong enough to face those issues. If I wasn't, is it appropriately a doctor's job to end my life?

"So, at what degraded quality of life should a doctor be able to kill me?"

The doctor is not killing...
The doctor assists you because YOU have decided that the quality of your life is not how you want to live.

YOU decide that you want to end your life.

I think there is a difference between refusing treatment i.e. foregoing taking an action to extend your life versus taking action to end your life.

just my opinion, fwiw.

So there would be no ethical guidelines? A doctor could "assist" in my suicide just because I wanted to die, without any real reason? Is depression a good enough reason?

Seems to be a good enough reason for people to commit suicide without assistance.

Are you arguing quality of life or depression? The cause of the depression is the quality of life.

What would you consider a real reason to want to die?

It has never been the doctors choice, only the patient's.

What would you as a patient want in the situation?

This is my thought too...Tom, you keep bringing it around to depression.

I am trying to look at quality of life, or lack of it.

The SCOTUS ruled in 1997 "Washington vs. Glucksberg" that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. The following cut and paste is from the thread I had initiated back in mid-March 2007concerning euthanasia. Note closely that the SCOTUS decision drew a reference to the Dutch Study "Remmelink Report" which detailed thousands of cases of physician-initiated suicide where there was no credible evidence that a suicide was requested and/or necessary. It is this slippery slope that makes the very concept of physician-assisted suicide so dangerous:


In addition, the following citations can be perused by those with the patience to do so:

1. Henk Jochemsen and John Keown, "Voluntary Euthanasia Under Control? Further Empirical Evidence from the Netherlands," Journal of Medical Ethics 25(1999), p16.
This citation showed that 59% of euthanasia and assisted suicide cases are not reported, concluding that euthanasia in the Netherlands is "beyond effective control".

2. Royal Dutch Medical Association, Vision of Euthanasia, 1986, p.14 ----This citation refers to pediatric oncologists who provided a "self-help" for ending life program for adolescents since the 1980's, in which poisionous doses of drugs are prescribed for minors with terminal illness. Moreover, children who want physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia may be able to receive it without parental consent.

3. J. Remmelink, et al., Medical Decisions About the End of Life, vol.2, p.58, Table 7.2 ----> Among other things, this citation refers to the fact that Dutch doctors, each year (during 1980's and 1990's) kill about 1000 people who have not asked to be euthanized, [/color]because the doctors' values dictate that their deaths should be hastened[/b]. Accoding to the 1991 Dutch Government Study known as the Remmelink Report, an additional 4,941 patients who had not asked to die were killed by doctors in 1990 by means of massive morphine overdose, with death, not palliation, as the intended result. In all, [b][color:#FF0000]approximately 6,000 patients were wrongfully euthanized by Dutch doctors. The United States Supreme Court considered that statistic significant enough to reference it in the court's 1997 decision that there is not a constitutional right to assisted suicide. Washington vs. Glucksberg, 117 S. Ct. 2258 (1997)

So? Just because people are killing themselves already, we need to make it easier?



I believe there are lots of real reasons that people want to die. I am arguing against the idea that the medical profession ought to be involved in that process. Generally, that argument begins with the idea that someone is dying painfully, or without dignity, or has a "low quality of life". My question is, in this soylent green world were the government is going to sanction medical professionals to "assist" in suicide, will they be authorized to do so in any situation, or will we at least require there to be a reason. If so, what reasons is bbsgrant ok with? How "bad" does someone's quality of life have to be before he's ok with a doctor ending someone's life?



So there is no situation in which you would want the law to require the doctor to say, "No, you're not in a sufficiently dire situation for me to give you the injection"?

I don't think it should be governed by law, just like a woman's right to choose. Nobody's business but mine, thank you very much.

Exactly DQ -

You cannot tell a person what to do with their body.

On the assisted suicide argument, I don't refer to cases of depression, but rather to terminal illness or dire quality of life because of a debilitating disease.

A person has the right to choose whether they want to live or die.
That is not something you can legislate.

Actually, we have legislated on the matter. Now, practically speaking, enforcing laws prohibiting suicide (old-fashioned, self-inflicted) are impossible. But, it's a way for society to say that suicide is a bad thing. Enforcing laws against someone "helping" you off yourself? Much easier. It's not a question of telling someone what to do with their body. It's a question of telling someone what they can't do with someone else's.

It's really quite shocking (not surprising, but shocking) how devalued life is in this culture - it's nobody's business but yours whether you off yourself or not? Really?

Yes really, and why does your society think that suicide is a bad thing. "Cause the Bible tells you so"?

Because, Maria, life is better than death - it's as simple as that. It's why we cry at funerals and are happy at the birth of a child. It's why we create medicines and fear disease and invent airbags. It's why we punish murderers.

Although, obviously, some people are so thoroughly bizzare as to deny all this.

And, by the way, why don't you tell your son it's none of his business whether mommy kills herself? What a screwed up worldview this culture of death provides.

Am I lost here? Last I knew we were not talking about general suicide or even doctor's deciding who should die. We were talking about assisted suicide as being humane and dignified for termminal patients with no quality of life.

Sure, life is better than death when life is livable. But how great is that life when it consists of lying in bed 24/7, being spoon fed or intraveniously fed. Being unaware of your surroundings, having no control over your faculties. Isn't this what we talk about when the funeral finally arrives? That the person is in a better place now? Do we not talk about how they suffered for the past xx years?

So, if we can happily say they have gone to a better place and left their decrepit body behind, why shouldn't we allow the patient the choice to end things in a dignified manner? A way to avoid the pity from family and friends.

So, you agree that there are some situations where assisted suicide should be prohibited?

No, we are saying there are certain circumstances where it should be a viable, last choice, dignified end of life option.

I do agree that assisted suicide should not be more than a last resort for people who have no quality of life and choose to end their days as dignified as possible.

I never said I was going to off myself. I think it would be tragic to end my life when I have such a good one.

What I am saying is, and I am sure my son would agree (when he is old enough to understand), if I were suffering (emotionally or physically) and wanted to die by my own hand, or with the help of someone else, it is my choice to do so.

That doesn't follow - if it's only viable in certain circumstances, then there are some situations where it should be prohibited, right? I mean, if a teenage kid wants Kevorkian to inject him because he has acne - should that be a legal act by the doctor?



Ok, good. Now, at what point are you ok with a doctor killing someone - how about the logger who amputated his own leg? Is that reason enough - permanent disability?



I never said that you were, either - I said that you ought to let him know that it's all about you, and it's none of his business whether you committ suicide or not.



I agree that you can make that choice. I believe that there ought to be severe legal consequences for anyone who chooses to "assist" you.

well, if they are doing it anyway, why not make the decision dignified? if they are going to do it anyway, perhaps you should support banning guns, belts, ropes, razors, etc.

I thought they were supposed to teach logic in law school. If I don't support physician-"assisted" suicide, I have to support bans on any item that might be used to commit non-physician-"assisted" suicide? How does that follow?

That makes as much sense as saying that because Maria supports Doctor Death, she also has to oppose seat belts.

Try again, Ronno.

j, "because people are killing themselves anyway"...

what does logic tell you about this?

You certainly are not helping to say that you are one for a logical debate when you continue to throw out a argument like this, especially when no one is even debating something so illogical in the first place. I do not believe that anyone here has advocated for a free for all as you continue to suggest.

Me thinks Tom agrees with assisted suicide in certain situations, especially if he was the one in the situation.

Me also thinks that Tom will be damned though if he will admit to it here.