Dr. Death

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN3123182820070601?feedType=RSS


So how does everyone feel about the comments Dr. Death has made about assisted suicide and the fact that he would do it again?

I say amen!!! Why is that we treat our dying pets with more dignity than our dying relatives?

I think that if anyone is surprised that he said he would do it again, they need to wake up. Of course he is going to do it again. right, wrong, or indifferent, it's what he believes in.

i'd say it's more that individuals can't treat themselves to the same dignity that they afforded their dying pets.

I agree 100%!

I felt he was wrongfully imprisoned in the first place. If people are suffering, they should be able to choose. Why should the gov't have any say in whether or not someone wants assistance in taking their life?

the bible says (obliquely) that it is wrong.

Let's put it this way...
I have an Uncle who's body is failing him. Decades of kidney dialysis has eaten away at his body.
If he decides to stop the treatment, he will die. He knows that will happen. BUT he has the right to make THAT decision.

How is that different from assisted suicide?

there is a small difference technically but not philosophically imo.

But there is separation of church and state

oh snap!

My grandfather had a living will, he choose not to stay on machines that could save hime from dying. It was HIS choice and I see nothing wrong with it, hard to watch someone starve to death but again his choice

i was wondering how long it would take to bring God/the bible into this discussion.

There is?? I thought that was done away with as unconstitutional in the last few years??

Ok...but that's the bible and yes, people that follow the bible wouldnt take their own lives. The bible does not decide whether assisted suicide should be a crime so I dont really understand your point.....

He was being sarcastic, QB, hence the "obliquely"...

Oh - hold up....Could this be solved by Obama/Clinton 08?

I know Ron folks...
He's being sarcastic...

That is just the argument you'll get from the Theocrats who believe assisted suicide is wrong...

of course there is.

really? what is the motivation for people who oppose doctor-assisted suicide? an entire side of the argument is grounded in the bible/God.

because people who feel that way want to make it so those in that position can even decide for themselves.

QB, you beat me to it...

Years ago, my FIL had a massive stroke, no brain wave activity at all, machine was breathing for him. Doctors said we could leave him on that, possibly for years, and expect less than a .00000001% chance of recovery, basically in a state of suspended animation. Family made the decision to turn off the machine (which the hospital required us to do, they would not turn it off). He passed within minutes. Let me tell you, not a fun decision, not a fun time in our lives, but we did what we thought was correct.

Now, I know there is a difference between us making the decision for him (he clearly couldn't) and someone who is terminal making their own decision and receiving assistance from the doctor. ZBut my take is if you are legally of sound mind, you should be able to make this decision, if certain medical requirements are met (non-treatable disease, etc).

i didn't say whether i agreed or not. i'm remaining switzerland in this discussion. i was just commenting on how long it took to bring in god.

switzerland is SO five minutes ago. vermont is the new switzerland.

http://www.vtcommons.org/

Ron, if people who opposed assisted suicide based their belief on a Platonic (as in Greek philospher Plato) that all life has value and should be preserved at all cost, would you hold that belief in the same contempt?

What if it was based on academic studies that demonstrated a correlation between patients who chose assisted suicide and higher divorce rates in families left behind?

Would you still scorn that belief?

LOLoad. I should know that. i LOVE vermont!!!!

In God we trust

To me, it is very different. Your uncle can decide to stop the treatment and death will happen naturally. With doctor assisted suicide, death will not happen naturally.

Neo, I have I know what you are are going through with your uncle. My dad had a long fight with cancer and my mother with lung disease.

And this whole time I thought this was a thread about Dr Death Steve Williams the wrestler...

Naturally and painfully vs. unnaturally and humane.

And his tag team partner, the late Terry "Bam Bam" Gordy

versus Leapin' Larry Shane and the Mighty Sheik

I say that we not only prosecute any "doctor" who assists with a "suicide" but that we also prosecute those who have assisted with their own suicide. They need to deal with their own pain, lack of diginty, self humiliation, and incurble sickness just like the lord intended, or how else will they gain the strength to enter the gates of heaven?

There should be no special favors, and all those equally responsible should be treated so by the law equally. Whether you assisted with, or actively particpated in the suicide should make no difference in the eyes of justice.

...and if they succeeded??

That is just it....if we are are prosecuting the doctor for a successful suicide, I would imagine we would have to prosecute the deceased too for ignoring nature's law!

It's only ethical.

My thoughts exactly. If someone wants to commit suicide, they will do it - with Dr's help or without. Why not make it humane?

I believe that one of the reasons that assisted suicide is railed against is that we, as a society, should value human life and there is that old slippery slope argument as to whether doctors will start "Assisting" suicides when there is potential for recovery, where the person may be in such a state that they truly cannot make a reasonable decision, etc.

Let me further state, though, that I never agreed that suicide be illegal. It's your life, and you can take it if you want as you are the one who will have to answer to God.

I can see it now...

Prosecutor - "Witness, do you see the defendant in the courtroom?"

Witness - "Yes"

P - "Would you please point him out"

W - "Yes, he's the dead guy in the coffin leaning against the defense table."

And that is just it for many...either they feel they do not answer to God, of have already made peace with the choice.

It is not a position that can be used as justification to not allow the practice. This is where we have to be reminded of the separation of church and state, and the law has to be written on as a reflection of the freedom of one from the state. Not that as the state trying to base the law on the individual answering to God.

Admittingly, it is a line that is easy to blur. And for many of us, it is hard to take God out of our reasoning, but it is something that we as a country tend to do too often...set laws for the man with no God, with the thoughts of God in the back of our mind for them.

I want to go on record that I believe a person should be able to choose when to end treatment.

But this whole church/state argument in this context baffles me.

We have laws that say it is a crime to committ murder. That law's genesis comes from many religious beliefs, including the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments.

By having a law that says it is illegal to commit murder, have we merged church and state?

Is it murder????

Thanks straw, you opened the gates, I'm standing back to see what everyone says about this

quote]if people who opposed assisted suicide based their belief on a Platonic (as in Greek philospher Plato) that all life has value and should be preserved at all cost, would you hold that belief in the same contempt?[/quote]
2 points: my issue is about self-determination here. second, how many of the people who feel this way also support the death penalty?

please try to explain this correlation.

without the treatment, the person would've died long ago. if a person is able to forgo medical treatment or choose to have it, why can't they choose when to end it?

you mean those people who also favor the DP? at any rate, the world and medicine has changed quite a bit from plato's time.


i'd love to see this study.

I don't think so. Most any law is going to have a begining in some klnd of morality. MOST morality is going to have it's begining in SOME religion. The government and the people pretty much are able to choose what laws they want to inact, regardless of where the law may have had it's roots.

I think, in this case, for merging of church and state to be seen, all of the 10 commandments would have to be adopted and for biblical reasons. Here they are. Obviously that hasn't happened.

As Recorded in Deuteronomy 5:6-22 (NIV) they are:
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

1. "You shall have no other gods before Me.

2. "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [ generations] of those who love Me and keep My commandments.

3. "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name.

4. "Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

5. "Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

6. "You shall not murder.
7. "You shall not commit adultery.
8. "You shall not steal.
9. "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
10."You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor's house or land, his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and He added nothing more. Then He wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me (Moses).

(Side bar: remember in History of the World part 1, Moses had fifteen commandments (on three tablets), and then dropped one of the tablets, so there were only ten left... )

I love that movie!!

yes, yes, yes, yes, no, no, no, YES, no, no, YES!!!!

ROFLOAD! Queen Nympho...

Did someone say nympho?

There are FIFTEEN....smash....TEN, Ten commandments...

Whats your job?
I'm a philosopher.
You mean a bull $ hitter...did you BS this week? Did you BS last week?

You are probably too young to remember the movie, grasshopper.

How about when Moses parted the Red Sea, and it was because he was being robbed... ??

indeed, I have never seen it.
However, I like the sounds of nymphos and queens.

You really ought to rent it, if you know your world history, it is hysterical!

LOLoad.

Its good to be the King...

You don't put out, he don't get out!

And now, the catapult! Meowwwww!

Repeat after me: "Death to King Loooiuuueeeee! cough, cough cough..."

"Death to King Loooiuuueeeee! cough, cough cough..."

You are killing me, DQ...

How about some Roman Red...

"Oh P iss Boy!!!"

he drops the tip into the bucket...HORK

"Don't forget the shake!"

Don't forget:

The Inquisition, here we go, the Inquisition what a show, bet your wishin that we'd go away, but the Inquisition's here and it's here to stay!!!!!"

Torqemada, you can't talk him outta anything...

"We have beaten their knees and broken their thumbs, not a convert not a one, one one. Now's the time to send in the nuns!"

2 points: my issue is about self-determination here. second, how many of the people who feel this way also support the death penalty?

please try to explain this correlation.
[/quote]

I made up the correlation. It is a hypothetical to flesh out logical reasoning, or lack thereof.

straw, i'm not following you.

I am not saying assisted suicide is murder. I am trying to understand why those against assisted suicide are trying to establish a religion.

But illegality/immorality regarding murder comes from religious beliefs, much like the beliefs that assisted suicide is immoral.

im not going the establishment route. i am going the moralism vs self-determination route. unlike murder, the right of the individual should be given consideration. a murderer chooses to end the life of the victim.

You seem to hold those against assisted suicide in contempt because their opinion is based on religious beliefs.

I was asking if their opposition were to be based on non-religious beliefs, would you hold their opinion with the same contempt.

What if the victim wishes their life to end?
What if we are not sure what the person's determination is?

Is murder (not assisted suicide) immoral?

no, i have a problem with them forcing those beliefs on others. try to convice them? sure, but the individuals rights should be paramount here. enough to trump laws where society says "this is a bad practice".


it's not contempt, but yes.

like suicide by cop? what are you thinking of here?


is this schiavo territory? living wills are helpful in this regard. communications to family are also instructive.

So would it be okay if the person signed a waiver "approving" assistance to end their life?

it depends. i'm not familiar with what these 'waivers' are. it sounds like the person is saying that they want assitance in terminating their own life.

"What if it was based on academic studies that demonstrated a correlation between patients who chose assisted suicide and higher divorce rates in families left behind?"

Huh?
I would not believe it.

Bottom line - Keep Your Laws Off My Body!

Well I just made it up. But yes, it would be like a consent form. If there was one of these forms signed by the person that was assisted, would there still be an argument?

Sure, suicide by cop. Or, the victim has expressed a desire for death and somone, without discussing with victim, kills them.

Yes, Schiavo disturbed me in that we were not ending treatment, but were going to starve her on the basis of what she may or may not have said. Schiavo didn't have documentation and I am not sure I agree with taking this action without clear, written instructions.


Finally, sorry, I added a last question after I made the original post.

Is murder (not assisted suicide as I am not saying it is murder) immoral?

Drug laws - should I be allowed to ingest any drug, since it is my body?

how is somebody going to strap themselves to kevorkian's machine, push the botton and NOT be giving consent? the waiver seems superfluous imo. kevorkian wasn't tried for murder was he?

The phrase is "establishment of religion". It does not have to be "a" particular religion.



Not necessarily. Virtually every society, religious or non-religious, has prohibitions against murder and stealing. They certainly have a basis independent of religion since they promote a stable and safe society. That's one reason why prohibiting assisted suicide is not an establishment of religion.

And that is all I was trying to get to. That one can be against assisted suicide without establishing a religion.

For what its worth, which socities are non-religious?

IMO - yes.

Just like I think prostitution should be legal.....

i dont think these are the types of things that would be covered by physician-assisted suicide. also, who would be punished? the "expression" killing sounds like murder and the patient isn't doing it by their hand/directive.

a tragic case to be sure. certainly should be an impetus for people creating living wills. keeping her "alive" wasn't keeping her "living" and she had no possibility to "live" at any time in the future. technology makes many of these ethical questions so much trickier because they open up avenues which were not even though of before.

it is. but unlike assisted suicide, the victim isn't making the decision so her rights are never considered. in assisted suicide, the rights of the individual are being compared with the morality of the society.

Ok, so you are weighing the morality vs. the individual and siding with individual. My libertarian streak likes that.

I honestly don't know how I feel about assisted suicide. The difference between stopping treatment and actively doing something to end your life.

Misfeasance vs. nonfeasance.

i'm not an animal!


i really feel the same way. it's like abortion to me: what a horrible horrible dilemma! but yet i don't want to NOT make it a dilemma for the parties involved.

Perish the thought of the people petitioning their elected representatives to pass laws or not that express their values. It doesn't really matter though. Obama/Clinton 08 will make all things better.

I dont see where the dilemma is. It seems to me that the person that wants to die and the person assisting would not be objecting (obviously).

IMO - no. Not ANY drug - but only because of the side-effects. Ingesting a drug that could cause your actions while on that drug to adversly affect others is an issue. Ingest a drug that has no harm on others - go for it!

huh? the constitution is in place for (among other things) to protect the minority from the masses. in this example, the rights of the individual are pretty overwhelming.

I guess that makes pot ok

Thinking career change?

dilemma in arbotion: keep the child and everything that goes with that or abort the child and everything that goes with that.

dilemma in AS: get rid of the pain vs potentially going straight to [censored]

the only thing(s) that makes it NOT ok are fear of change and hypocrisy.

Very good point...but how do you decide which ones are okay and which arent? If you look at it that way, alcohol could be considered a drug.

Should the courts then declare the legislative process dormant?
Who is the minority. Those who disagree?

Or, more to the point, without establishing religion generally in violation of the First Amendment.

There have been small groups of people that have banded together in non-religious societies, but if you mean at a country level, the examples that come to mind would probably be certain of the Communist countries.

But, today, there would not really be any countries that are non-religious.

they can't. have you never heard of a law being declared unconstutional?

those desiring to have AS. if a law was passed by a majority of the people to make AS illegal, wouldn't that by definition makes those wanting AS in the minority?

People in NAMBLA wish to have statutory rape laws declared unconstitutional. Does their new found status as a minority grant them constitutional relief from the tyranny of the majority? At what point do you draw the line?

how many parties are there in man-boy 'love'?

"If you look at it that way, alcohol could be considered a drug."

Alcohol certainly is a drug..
That's the argument vs legalizing marijuana or not?
Which is more destructive? Alcohol or marijuana?
Who decides?

IMO, alcohol is much more destructive.

"Drug laws - should I be allowed to ingest any drug, since it is my body?"


Yes - it's your body.
You should be able to put whatever you want in it.
You should be able to have an abortion.
And you should be able to end your life if you want.
And of course I am referring to an adult making these decisions.

I am not saying that children should have whatever drugs they want or hurt themselves.

What does it matter? They're minorities now. To answer your question, two. For purposes of this discussion, wouldn't "minor" be an arbitrary term legislated by the tyrannical minority?

"IMO, alcohol is much more destructive."


I absolutely agree!

Yes, one makes me sleepy and the other causes me to make really bad decisions!

woah, you really ran too far with the 'minority' concept. if this were just a country of laws, majority would ALWAYS rule. the constitution protects minorities but i never said that it guarantees their PoV.

do i really have to go further with this since you admit this?
(the self-determination or whatever privacy right, etc involved with the pedophile has a direct impact on another person.)

I'm am lost. Are we arguing there is a Constitutional right to assisted suicdie?

no, swimware just jumped into some argument. you may feel free to actually read where he started and my responses and debate with me from there.

I am not looking to debate, unless you are arguing that there is a Constitutional right to assisted suicide.

Yes. Ron impled their is a constiutional right to AS by saying that those who oppose AS are "forcing their beliefs down our throats" when all they are really doing is expressing their opinion through the legislative process.

there might be though not an enumerated one. (please see roe v wade)

One makes me hungry and one makes everyone look really sexy

LOLoad! So, when are we getting drinks?!?!?

And this is where the slippery slope argument takes hold isn't it? The unenumerated privacy right extends now to AS, what is next?

Drugs? My body, my rights.
Bestiality? My body, my rights, so long as I don't harm the animal.

Do you see how that argument logically extends beyond all belief, which has always been my concern about Roe and its case line?

beastiality

indeed i do.

and i don't know if that is necessarily a bad thing (to conservatives it is) especially since you can look at the merits of each of those cases to contrast them with one another. remember the scales, counselor!

No, you must stop, STOP, looking at the outcome to arrive at a decision in a Constiutional case. The outcome is a result of the Constitutional rule.

If the rule results in a negative outcome too bad.

You keep trying to balance the interests when there is no balancing to be done. Unless there are two, competing Constitutional rights, there is no balancing.

The rule you agree with means that I can strike down just about any law that infringes on me, so long as the activity I seek to do causes no harm to anyone else, regardless of societies interest, as determined by the legislator.

In balancing the scales, you are giving too much weight to the Constitution and the Court, at the expense of the legislature and States powers.

Remember that counslor?

Federalism.

you may have heard it in passing in your law school.

why? drugs: some drugs are so harmful to society that the consitutional duty of the congress is bigger than that of the individual. for drugs like pot, congress is making stuff up so the individual triumphs. THAT's the balancing to be done.

stop assuming that you know what i am talking about. you are simply thinking that you are smart enough to know my points.

what duty of Congress would that be?

I didn't realize that COngress can write a law that violates a citizen's right to privacy.

No, I am clearly not smart enough to know your points, since they are not based on legal principles, but rather your own concepts.

I'm always fascinated by how much support Big Death has on BOL - I don't know what that's a function of...hopefully just ignorance.

But Kevorkian was (is) a first-rate nutjob. As mad a scientist as real life provides. Most of those killed weren't dying (at least, no more than everyone else) - they were disabled and/or depressed.

And his motive wasn't sympathy - it was to experiment on those he killed. This isn't conjecture - it's from his own published accounts.

I guess I am ignorant then.

I have an aunt who has been bedridden with MS for the last ten years, totally immobolized. Cannot move, losing her ability to speak clearly, diapered, recieves fluids, but is still mouth fed like a baby, lays in bed all day watching TV or the world go by, having people read to her, and she is severly depressed and wishes she could just go. Could go on like this for several more years.

Her body has totally betrayed her to the point it is a limp mound of fleash, yet her mind remaines totally intact.

My ignornance would also lead me to believe a dignified passing with family and friends before it got to this point would have been preferrable over this current situation. It is how I would wish to go.

I know it would be easier for her family to deal with her illness too if we did not have to remember her in this condition for her last 10-20 years.

That's a tragic situation. But I don't agree with your assessment that a quick death is the solution to depression. Even if it was, involving third parties from the medical profession is a dangerous precedent.

It is so much more than just depression though...there is a total lack of any quality of life.

I would ask you, if your intact mind was in that lifeless body, is that a quality of life that you could live with upwards of 20 years?

My grandfather had parkinson's it was about the same way at the end, his mind was there and day by day his body gave out on him.

The last week his organs started failing and he had a living will in place, so basically they let him starve to death, because it stated no IV's to sustain his life. My only regret in following his wishes, is that it lasted a week, I wish it had been quicker for him.

I have a religious quandry: suicide is the only sin that can't be forgiven, since you aren't around to repent. It breaks the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

But what if you refuse dialysis? Or refuse a feeding tube or chemotherapy? Is letting yourself die, or not doing anything to prevent dying the same as killing yourself?

We do things everyday that don't prevent dying, smoking, driving after drinking, tanning, etc. So if you can do those things, I think it should be your choice to not get treatment for illnesses

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.

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?
[/quote]


As I clearly indicated, this should be a last resort for terminal patients with NO quality of life. There is a clear difference between no quality of life and a diminished quality of life. The logger can get a prosthesis and therapy. A patient in a permanent vegatative state cannot get a new brain, body, or therapy.

i think j's point is that there is a slippery slope.

perm vegatative state is a living will/end treatment decision. assisted suicide is a "do something more" not "discontinue what was being done".

i think that the ethics of the medical community would provide a good framework to assure that AS is only used for the terminally ill and in pain. j essentially posits that since there is no perfect way to guarantee that this isn't abused by "lesser" suicide-worthy events that an absolute prohibition is the best way to go. nothing in society is perfect, j.

If you refer to my post from yesterday evening, you will see that the SCOTUS referenced the very fact that just such slipery slopes did in fact come into play, costing the lives of thousands in the Netherlands at the hands of doctors. To presume that it cannot happen here is sheer folly.

If AS is allowed, how do you keep a doctor from making his/her own value judgments on whether a life should be ended?

perhaps those statistics show that there are thousands of people who are living in severe pain with no hope of recovery but yet we have a moral crusade to save them from he!!.

what is the public policy concern to outlaw this practice? the same as or related to the concern of what gay marriage will do to society?

I believe it would be up to the patient, not the doctor.

Precisely, this was among the disasters pointed out in the Remmelink Report, and among the factors contributing to the SCOTUS decision in Washinton vs. Glucksberg 1997.

Read it again Ron. There was no evidence in thousands of those cases that people were terminal or in unremitting pain. They were killed without controls in place and based uppn the doctors subjective judgment. The doctors became God.

dq, i think the point is that proponents have to satisfy the concerns of those opposed that doctors who agree to this won't take liberties in how broad the circumstances are where they will agree to help.

straw, to answer the question, i think that you have to objectivize the criteria as much as possible. terminal or no hope of recovery and unnecessary suffering. i think you can make those things pretty objective.

i think it's possible to create criteria to account for this though. if there are no lack of controls, create them. i don't think that's impossible to do.

The public policy concern is we do not want others, even medical professionals, ending people's lives. Why bring gay marriage into this?

So Fella has cited Danish studies showing AS in questionable circumstances. Protecting life is a public policy concern and even an atheist can look at this study and say that AS might not be a good thing.

I have said, I have not made up my mind on this, but again, stop demonizing everyone who argues against you.

I think we can create some objective criteria, although quality of life is inherently subjective. Additionally, I am not sure what controls could be put in place. Any thoughts on what control might work in these scenarios?

Ron, the Netherlands had created the controls. The requirements of defining terminal illnes; the necessity of at least two doctors who did not practice together agreeing and showing evidence that each was present when the patient made the request; no hope of recovery, family notification etc.

In spite of these, the doctors played God, because rather than adhering to the Hippocratic Oath, they applied the "Quality of Life Ethic" which is a very subjective standard. Doctor does not believe the patient is worth further medical treatment or palliative care, then do away with them, controls be damned.

Attorney Wesley J. Smith details this and far far more in his landmark book "Culture of Death - The Assault on Medical Ethics in America". As an attorney, you may find this very informative.

the patient is ending the life. the doctor is merely facilitating it. much like the gun shop owner is facilitating another suicide victim's death. i brought gay marriage up because, just like AS, the rationale for making such a law is what will happen to society if it is allowed.


that's a very broad public policy. sounds like a general policy. we are talking about a specific, limited set of circumstances.


i'm not demonizing, i'm trying to get through to the psychology/motivation behind the arguments.

It's legal in Oregon. As you can see below, many of the "controls" in Oregon are carried out and certified by the attending physician. Here are Oregon's controls:

(more information on Oregon's website at: Oregon govt. FAQ on assisted suicide law)

Q: How does a patient get a prescription from a participating physician?

A: The patient must meet certain criteria to be able to request to participate in the Act. Then, the following steps must be fulfilled: 1) the patient must make two oral requests to the attending physician, separated by at least 15 days; 2) the patient must provide a written request to the attending physician, signed in the presence of two witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the patient; 3) the attending physician and a consulting physician must confirm the patient's diagnosis and prognosis; 4) the attending physician and a consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself; 5) if either physician believes the patient's judgment is impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder (such as depression), the patient must be referred for a psychological examination; 6) the attending physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives to the Act including comfort care, hospice care, and pain control; 7) the attending physician must request, but may not require, the patient to notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. A patient can rescind a request at any time and in any manner. The attending physician will also offer the patient an opportunity to rescind his/her request at the end of the 15-day waiting period following the initial request to participate.

Physicians must report all prescriptions for lethal medications to the Department of Human Services, Vital Records. As of 1999, pharmacists must be informed of the prescribed medication's ultimate use.

true enough. but future prospects and pain are pretty objective.


future prospects and pain.

And if the motivation is religious in nature, you automatically dismiss it. While you are tyring to get to the psychology, we all clearly know yours.

You further argue there is basically no public policy that would want to prevent people from being killed. While we may want to define this type of killing as an exception to murder, there is clearly public policy implications, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.

Interesting gun analogy. Does the gun shop owner pull the trigger? If not, the analogy doesn't really hold.

Not entirely true. AMLF's point (or at least one of them) is what will happen to specific people (perhaps euthanized against their will) if it is allowed. As the Netherlands study showed (even if its statistics are only half right), this is a very real concern.

then perhaps this is what needs policing. it's like one argument in the immigration debate: "why do we need all these laws when we should just start enforcing what exists".

if we policed the objective criteria, they wouldn't be able to follow the subjective "quality of life".

THat is only part of the control. By control, it is how would we know the patient wants this?

Then we have to determine eligibility. Prospects and pain aare both subjective i.e. pain threshold varies from person to person.

Prospects are completely subjective, as some who are paralyzed become suicidal and depressed, while others move on with extremely productive lives.

Any other ideas on how we control the process and qualify the individuals?

not so, i just want it on the table so people aren't hiding the ball so to speak. as weird as it may seem, i'm a very religious/spiritual person.


stop saying it this way. i am talking about terminally ill people in pain. the public policy is limited to termianlly ill in pain people in my opinion. this isn't a culture of death.


does kevorkian pull the trigger?

the analogy stands.

they ask.

i think prospects are pretty objective. medicine is a science. pain is also something that is tested rather objectively.


those people wouldn't meet the requirements of the test.

For an ALS patient, I believe he did.

No, no one has said that a teenager should be able to legally obtain a physician's "assistance" for their suicide because of acne. No one has said that they shouldn't either. I want to know where you are drawing the line.



You don't think very clearly, then, because I could not have been less vauge about my opinion on the matter.



Then I don't understand why you support Dr. Kevorkian, who killed patients who weren't terminal, and had were certainly not vegetative. Most of his patients, as I posted previously, suffered from disabilities and depression, not terminal illness.

So, I'm still confused about where you are drawing the line.



It tells me that you ought to look to the statement that I responded to. Becka appeared to be positing that since people suffering from depression committed traditional suicide, it ought to be ok for a "doctor" to "assist" them.

ok, but did kevorkian decide or was he essentially an attorney-in-fact in that situation. (and i realize that that is effectively like the gun store owner actually shooting the guy buying the gun to commit suicide)

other than the situation where because of pain condition that the person cannot "pull the trigger" themself, isn't this still a matter of the person choosing their own fate?

Not only that, but the true analogy would be a gun shop owner selling the gun, loading the gun, placing it in the "customer's" mouth, and placing the "customer's" finger on the trigger.

j, then just don't reflexively snap at me!

rather than deal with broad strokes in this issue, i'm trying to be pretty precise with a particular set of criteria. i don't support some broader measure of AS.

Who are you to legislate morality - if it's ok for the ALS patient, why not the parapalegic? If it's ok for the MS patient, why not the chronically, severely depressed? What is the public policy interest in having one live, but not the other?

the real difference is, we don't have people like vt shooter supplier making the decision. we have doctors making the decisions. if they are madmen breaking the rules like they did in holland then go after them for it. just don't get rid of the system because it's not enforced correctly.

because the people who i would qualify are going to die within a short amount of time anyway and are in severve pain.

Actually, he just served a prison term for "pulling the trigger".

did he pull the trigger, swim? perhaps in the ALS case he did. otherwise, was he really the trigger puller?

But Ron, what makes you qualified to judge who is eligible?

i think the medical community is qualified or could devise qualifications. the paradigm of the criteria not working (holland) isn't centered around the criteria, but rather the enforcement of it.

Ron, you're making a values judgement - why is it ok for a person who is in pain and projected to die within X months to have the "assistance" of a physician, but not someone who is paralyzed? Who are you to impose your morality on the paralyzed?

yes, hence the murder conviction.

Some commentary, pro and con, about a book written on the subject of Euthanasia and PAS by a circuit court of appeals judge:

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/gorsuch0107.htm

of course i am. but rather than try to make some bright line rule, i am trying to accomdate certain people who, in my estimation, would truly benefit from it; i am trying to balance my morality with the needs of others. some people qualify, others do not. we establish limits everywhere in soceity.

Coercion, sanity, fraud. None of these are a concern?



Medicine is a science, but medicine cannot and does not know how long a person may or may not live. And medicine cannot measure life quality during that time.

Even if we limit this to terminal patients, what time frame would be considered terminal. At the extreme, we are all terminal as we are all going to die eventually.



What would be the test requirements then?

Yes he was really the trigger puller. The executioner is the trigger puller too, we just allow that as an exception.

What would the limits be? We establish limits everywhere but we don't want a bright line rule.

I am really trying to flesh through this with you, can you help me out a little.

sure they are. but those are separate issues that can be dealt with independently.


sorry, i never mean to imply an exact date and time. pregnancies are ~9 months, person x has ~1 year to live.

luckily i was talking about pain and suffering.


learn to read previous posts. i said the test twice in the same post earlier.

terminal or no hope of recovery and unnecessary suffering. i think you can make those things pretty objective.

Is this the test?

Terminal I think is objecive. No hope of recovery - what does this mean? Recovery from what?

Objective define unnecessary suffering? Who determines what is necssary and unncessary? The individual. If so, subjective. The legislature? Medical boards?

Pain and suffering and comletely subjective concepts that we attempt to objectify, but they are unmeasurable.

did you miss the new math on that one? seems to me we had a whole thread about it...

Quote:
Coercion, sanity, fraud. None of these are a concern?

sure they are. but those are separate issues that can be dealt with independently.

Not a clue what you mean here.

like the gun debate: if we abolish guns, guns will become illegal. "but the criminals will still have guns!" ok, but it is illegal for them to have them.

in other words, the gun prohibition will not completely fix the problem, but there are other laws to capture the contingencies; sure, there could be fraud or coercion in the AS, but we can punish the fraudulent and coercive people.

straw, i would think that the medical people and social philosophers can work together to hammer out the details.

Then stop denouncing others who want to make a different values judgement. Your smarmy "the Bible says (obliquely) that it is wrong" sarcasm is the height of hypocrisy. Once you've stipulated that there must be limits, the question is only where the limits are. My limit is any "assistance," because I don't think it's acceptable. Yours is in situations where you deem it to be acceptable, but not in areas where you don't. Moralizer.

ok, j, but unlike you, i think that the person affected means a lot. take a look at roe. is it carte blanche abortions on demand? no, there are limits. here, the limits of what we as a society demand must be subordinated in certain circumstances to the rights of the individual.

So no controls to prevent that upfront? Wait for someone to allege it? Of course, the patient is dead, so they can't claim coercion at that point can they?

Earlier you answered that a paralyzed person would not qualify, which means you have some qualifications in mind. Now, as usual, you will defer to experts.

Does that mean that a paralyzed person could request AS?

What makes your values judgement superior to J's?

What the [censored] do you mean by that? That I don't think the person means anything? I think it's pretty easy to argue that I think they mean more than you do. I think it's incredibly wrong headed to say that it's no one else's business whether they live or die. I value people with MS, or with brain damage, or who are paralyzed. I believe that no matter the disability, no matter the disease, no matter the mental state, they have something to contribute to life here.

And, counselor, what limits do Roe and Doe, together, allow to be placed on abortion? Effectively, none - an abortion must be allowed at any time if it determined to be in the best interest of the "mental health" of the mother. Even the recent decision allowing the prohibition of one particularly grotesque procedure will still not allow government to ban all ninth-month abortions. The Court specifically said was only allowing the law to stand because other late-term abortion procedures were still available.



That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Just as I am entitled to mine. Even though [gasp!] mine is informed by ideas about the inherent worth of human beings as children of God and the value of the life He has granted.

unlike you, j, i don't think that i know what is best for everyone.


AS laws were upheld today because gun stores and pharmacies are still operating...

i'd rather try to acknowledge reality and make an attempt to help certain people who want to help themselves. rather than trying to find a common ground in the criteria, you and straw will just dig in in some academic exercise and ignore the practical one.

It's not that I think I know what is best for everyone, while you only know what is best for the 99.99% of the population not facing the exceptional conditions in which you would allow "assisted" suicide. It's that I think that life is valuable, no matter who is living it; you think that some lives aren't of the same value, and thus it's ok for doctors to end them.

huh?

i'm not sure how allowing some people dignity is degrading life. but right, rather than allow a doctor to help them ease their suffering, let's effectively require them to hang themselves or shoot themselves. much better.

So, when I try to find common ground in the criteria, you return to experts better capable can decide.

How is this finding common ground in the criteria?

Furthermore, finding common ground in the criteria concedes the point that AS is a grand idea, which I have said I am not sure about. I have not decided if we should allow it or not, and that is why fleshing out the criteria would help.

Instead of doing that, you retreat to I think we do this, but have no idea how ground that you keep going to.

Discussions, arguments, disagreement, communications of any kind, require two people. Two people who actually value each others opinions.

Not sure you value anyone elses, so why should we value yours?

ok, well, while you are trying to decide, people are still going to pharmacies and gun shops.


in 2 months time you won't have to worry about the scourge to this board known as Ron Mexico.

hey where do you think you are going?

back to school rodney dangerfield-style! i've been practicing my "triple lindy"!

Maybe you will learn something this time.

Simply repeating your improper analogies will not make them any more correct.

And as you have said, let's start somewhere.

I wish I could go back to school, I would love to be a professional student. Just go to school as a job. See how much stuff I could truly fit into this blond head of mine!!!

let's hope, straw. :pats head:

of course they are. :pats head:

Condescension from Ron; how unusual.

I also agree 100%

This thread made me think of this song:

Let Me Go Easy

Come pleasure me again. I'm so tired of digging in.
I've done my share, don't need to win, just let me go easy.
For two years my body fights. At this point it don't seem right.
Just to do it out of spite and keep hanging on.

Go on let me go easy. Won't you let me go easy, you let me go right now.

I see the numbers dwindling, of my enemies and my friends.
And still I know it never ends, so I'm passing you this torch.
Fight the greed and the federals. Fight the need and the toxic spills.
Drink from that wishing well, but may it never quench your thirst.

Let me go easy. Go on let me go easy. Won't you let me go easy,you let me go right now.
Let me go easy. Go on let me go easy. Won't you let me go easy,you let me go right now.

So when you get to Ladenville, 'fore the tears the fare thee wells, for a moment stand real still and you'll feel me moving on.
You go ahead with your plans, you won't be seeing me again, but you'll feel me in the hand, the hand that holds the plough.

Let me go easy. Go on let me go easy. Won't you let me go easy,you let me go right now.
Let me go easy. Go on let me go easy. Won't you let me go easy,you let me go right now.

written by Amy Ray (Indigo Girls) to honor a friend that died after a long struggle with cancer.

You said that you're only going to allow it in certain circumstances. Circumstances that are, thankfully, very rare. So, you're going to prohibit is for everyone else. Almost as if you know what's best for them. Moralizer.

Letting go is not the same as being sent off.