Kevorkian out of prison after 8 years

I think that we have a right to die if we want to. Why should that decision be governed? What would the global (religion aside) consequences be if those who were slowly suffering from a horrible disease, or those who did not want to be alive for any other reason chose this option?

For example..my Dad found out he had an aggressive type of cancer, refused all treatment and died within the year. He would have chosen to die asap, rather than torture himself with chemo, etc. had it been an option.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jun 1 2007, 01:18 PM) [snapback]453370[/snapback]</div>

I guess he had to go to jail, since he technically broke the law. So, do you know if there are any plans in the works for the govt to change the law regarding "assisted suicide"?

 

Your pet dog will get more consideration than you will, if the both of you wind up with a terminal illness.

Is that right?

Kevorkian was punished for our collective discomfort with the idea of dying.

Harry

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jun 1 2007, 02:23 PM) [snapback]453433[/snapback]</div>

I second that. Good point.

Since I am bored today, I am now going to ramble on..lol

I was the only one in my family with the guts to let go of our 11 year old pit/mastiff. Sweetest dog in the world, but had bone cancer in his leg. Even with amputation he would have died a few months later, and after chemo, amputation and alot of suffering. Once we found out about the cancer, I chose to have him put to sleep forever and immediately after hearing his options. Best for him. Not so easy for me, though.

Regarding the potential of a suicide epidemic....so what if tons of people choose to "off" themselves? Why would others care? Because suicide is a sin, and the others would burn in H-E-double toothpicks? Wouldn't the net effect be fewer depressed/angry people in the world?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jun 1 2007, 02:35 PM) [snapback]453443[/snapback]</div>

And less money for all of the drug companies who generate millions (or more) off all the anti-depressants!

Ah, yes. I didn't think about the people they would leave behind.

The majority of folks probably wouldn't be relieved that the person they love, and who decided to leave the earth because they didn't really want to be here, is finally at peace/rest. That perspective would likely be perceived as too left-brained, rational, and/or "inhuman".

 

The only consequence of assisted suicide that I can see is the vulnerability of certain people concerning the "choice". Whose decision should it be to ensure that the person selecting assisted suicide is fit to make this decision? For instance, there are certain mental illnesses that go untreated and they me be more apt to make a decision to commit suicide than if they had pursued treatment for their disease.

On a whole, I'm all for assisted suicide. I would just want to ensure that people aren't falling victim as a result.

 

i think after a thorough psych evaluation people should be allowed to make the decision. if they're of sound mind... it's not anyone else's choice to make, now is it?

i also don't see this being a widespread practice... but i see it continuing to be a huge issue in our society because death is not perceived as a choice situation- it's an accident, it's unavoidable time passing, it's a genetic defect, it's mental illness. causes, not choices.

me personally, if something ever happened to a loved one i would rather know they died in peace and comfort than in horrible pain and suffering. i see this in a similar manner.

 

The government should have no hand in the decision to take one's own life.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jun 1 2007, 12:53 PM) [snapback]453457[/snapback]</div>

Me too. I would like it to be like in Soylent Green.

 

Dr. Kevorkian went public because of a belief that the law as it presently exists is wrong, and with the intention of publicizing the issue, in the hopes that the law would be changed. Regardless of anyone's beliefs regarding the rightness or wrongness of assisted suicide, Dr. K was brave and honorable in going public with it.

My own opinion is that people have a right to die if they choose to, regardless of their reasons. I'd make an exception for insurance fraud, but I don't think anybody's going to kill himself to get the insurance. There have to be safeguards against people talking Grandma into "requesting" death so they can get their hands on her property, but that's easily done by requiring a couple of doctors and a couple of headshrinkers to certify that the person is of sound mind and making the decision of his own free will. Once that's done, the government has no right to require anyone to live a life that has become unendurable.

What do PC's conservatives & Christian Fundamentalists think about this issue?

 

wow, I should call him!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 1 2007, 03:40 PM) [snapback]453598[/snapback]</div>

People do have a right to die, and all it takes is a dry cleaning bag over the head. There are hundreds os suicides every year, so anyone can commit suicide for any reason they want, and we can't stop them. With assisted suicide, we want to encourage the medical profession to provide a means for a person to have their life taken. That's an important distinction. Its a thorny question because of the possible unintended consequences.

I think you and I are about the same age, and if so, you'll remember the early abortion debate. It was commonly thought that a woman or girl with an unwanted pregnancy would, if abortion were legal, consult with her doctor and make an informed choice to have an abortion. It would eliminate the back-alley abortion mills that didn't know the woman, and didn't care about her, as long as she showed up for the procedure in the 30 minute time-window allotted her.

None of us imagined that abortion providers would spring up that neither knew the woman nor cared much about her, but would perform hundreds of abortions per week in an assembly line fashion, often without invoking the woman's normal support mechanism we thought would be there (i.e., her doctor).

If assisted suicide is elevated to the level of a basic human right, you will not be able to limit it to those who have a terminal disease. A right can be exercised by anyone, at any time, as long as it does not endanger others. People will win the right to have assisted suicide for severe depression, or any other reason.

It is not too far fetched to think about the phone ringing and having a parent pick up the phone to hear "Mr. Smith, this is the City Good Life Clinic, with a statement from your 18 year old daughter, who has designated you her next of kin: 'Mom and dad, Billy left me so I am exercising my right to suicide, as I can't live without him.' You may claim her remains within the next three days."

But beyond making it a basic human right, which I object to, I think we are far too nervous about the use of drugs for the terminally ill or those in great, intractable pain. We should remove the regulations that make prescribing heroin, morphine, cocaine or any other pain killer in doses large enough that may not only relieve the pain, but also kill the patient, to enable the medical pros to deal with the human suffering. The difference in what I am proposing is that we remove the liability of the care giver trying to alleviate the pain so the patient can be given sufficient drug levels. Today some doctors will rely on time tables to avoid liability, but the patient can be in horrible pain for hours.

The tragedy is that some people die long, painful, lingering deaths, and often are not in a position to make a decision that will considered "of sound mind".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 2 2007, 12:55 AM) [snapback]453782[/snapback]</div>

Do you think this does not happen because suicide is against the law or because there are no such clinics available to make it more convenient?

If the latter, would state/federal non-profit (only charging enough to cover operating costs) clinics provide a solution? They would require satisfying a standard set of "admission" tests such as Daniel alluded to to hinder abuse of the process, as well as other safeguards...

 

Fshagan: My memory of the early abortion debates was not whether a woman would, or should consult her family doctor (who in fact might or might not know her or her family or be a competent advisor on other than medical issues) but rather, whether abortions should be available in a setting that would be as safe as such an operation can be made, given the current state of medical science. On the other side, were those who felt that abortion is murder and should never be allowed. The latter group believed that the availability of safe and legal abortions would increase the total number of abortions, and that it was better that some women die in back-alley abortion clinics, in order to discourage other women from getting abortions.

If I understand it correctly, the argument against assisted suicide is that it should never be allowed, and it is better for some people to suffer lingering and agonizingly slow deaths, in order to make it less likely that some depressed people will turn to assisted suicide.

The argument that people who really want to die can do so without assistance, makes my point rather than yours: The 18-year-old who is depressed because her boyfriend left her can take her own life unassisted, and this happens all too often. But the terminally-ill person, whose decision to die arises out of intolerable and uncontrollable (or uncontrolled) pain may actually be physically unable to take the actions that can end his life.

Killing yourself is not all that easy. Wrapping your head in a plastic dry-cleaning bag (not generally available next to a hospital bed in any case) is one thing: exercising the self-control to not remove it as you begin to suffocate, is quite another. The whole point of assisted suicide is that an overdose of a lethal drug ends the pain without requiring the super-human self-control to deprive yourself of air as the agony of suffocation becomes greater than the pain that motivated the desire to die.

We kill terminally-ill pets humanely. We make that decision for the pet. But we won't permit human beings to make the same decision for themselves without placing in their way the immense barriers that unassisted suicide presents for a terminally-ill person who is unable to get out of his hospital bed.

Nobody is suggesting that assisted suicide be offered to healthy people. The argument is that it be available to people who have been certified to be terminally ill without hope of recovery, for whom quality of life has deteriorated beyond the point that the person himself considers acceptable. It's a personal right that does not affect others.

You and I agree that facilities caring for the terminally ill should be allowed to give as much painkiller as needed, of whatever type is needed, to eliminate pain, to those individuals wishing to receive it. Present laws appear to be motivated by a religious belief that the avoidance of pain is sinful, and a corollary belief that pleasure is sinful. Morphine not only deadens pain, it makes you feel all nice and warm and fuzzy inside, and some self-styled Christians are opposed to anything that is enjoyable. I can think of no other reason why it should be illegal to give morphine or heroin to terminally-ill people. (One more reason why I believe that religion harms society and hurts people.)