Kevin's Watch

Vraith wrote:

null wrote:which 7% are you ok with offing Avatar?

That is a total distortion of what Av said.

Which 100% are you ok with locking up to torture and treat no matter what?

i'd rather not trust bean counters with the 100%. does anyone really believe that if we go with assisted murder of the sick and elderly that it won't come down to money? either the insurance companies not wanting to pay or families waiting on a payday when grandma is executed...

Eh, the current discourse isn't really religious or philosophical. Mostly socioeconomic with a bit of libertarian, self-principled reasoning. And when you start accusing other people of wanting to off people... Tank.

Aww... but then I won't be able to comment any more. I haven't finished sewing my sharkproof suit. Well, I have, but it pulls a little around the hips.

The serious point being I agree with peter's original thought that having this in general discussion encourages more diverse voices.

Of course, thematically, content-wise, you are correct.

Perhaps, perhaps.

*cooks popcorn and waits for the show*

Shaun das Schaf wrote:Aww... but then I won't be able to comment any more.

Me either, or as my fellow NY'ers would say, "me neither".

Deer of the Dawn wrote:

No! I think terminally ill people will be overrun by "assistance" in offing themselves!! And by extension, those whose treatment will cost too much, or isn't "worth it" because they are "too old"; or whose mental illness is too difficult to contain, or whose handicap is too expensive to maintain, etc....

I must say that this is where most of my concern lies....Insurance companies are only interested in money....I was a claims adjustor for one healthcare company, I KNOW THIS. If assisted suicide appears to be cheaper than ongoing treatment....you can be sure they will lay the pressure on. And families who are tired and spent from the ongoing care are in a position where they may be susceptible to this pressure.

I believe that laws will have to be crafted which do not ALLOW health insurance companies any say in the matter at all, whether it be policy, rules, or intent. What if insurance providers put caps on their care and say: after this amount has been spent, we will only pay for assisted suicide? I have no faith in healthcare insurance companies.

I am against.
(I am not sure why there are only 2 votes showing in the minority position.)
Con: Death is so final.

Who can speak to such pain as lorin has mentioned?
Pain is horrible.

But death is so final.

Lady Revel wrote:I believe that laws will have to be crafted which do not ALLOW health insurance companies any say in the matter at all, whether it be policy, rules, or intent.

For me, that would go without saying. The only person involved in choosing should be the person who wants to die.

--A

Avatar wrote:Agree with Vraith and Ali.

If it's my life, I get to decide if I want to live or not.

--A

It's a sound argument untill you subject it to scrutiny. On this basis for instance, should we not make 'the potion' freely available over the counter al all chemists. By not doing so we are forcing those who 'decide not to live' to end thier days by the primative means of the noose, the tall building or the speeding train. After all what the 'assisted suicide' programs tend to provide is not so much a way out for those who are so incapacitated that all they can move is their eyelashes, but more a controlled environment to carry out what people would be able to do for themselves - but only by thoroughly nasty means. How many people would opt for 'assisted suicide' if the mudus operandi were to wheel them to the edge of a cliff and toss 'em over. ie It's not the act but the means whereby the act is carried out that is significant.

Secondly the argument has the ring of petulance (sorry Av ) about it. Just because you 'own' something precious does not give you the right (morraly at least) to destroy it. Some would argue that life, in whatever cicumstances, is the most beautiful and precious thing we can ever own.

Avatar wrote:

Lady Revel wrote:I believe that laws will have to be crafted which do not ALLOW health insurance companies any say in the matter at all, whether it be policy, rules, or intent.

For me, that would go without saying. The only person involved in choosing should be the person who wants to die.

--A

But no life-altering decision is ever made in a vacuum. Everyone has an agenda. And the old and ill are seen as needing help in deciding; and some of them are already so vulnerable that others' agendas will overrule their own. Even lorin's friend wants help in executing (ugh, not intended as a pun) her decision. And, no health decision is ever made without insurance companies sticking their noses in.

I really think there are two discussions here and two sets of criteria. Suicide and assisted suicide are two very different things. Like Av says, it is an individuals right to off themselves. But when you are asking for assistance it is a whole new ball of wax. I would like to assist my friend, but don't have the courage or knowledge.

lorin wrote:But when you are asking for assistance it is a whole new ball of wax. I would like to assist my friend, but don't have the courage or knowledge.

Yea, that's one reason why a professional, clinical environment is best.
For technical and, more importantly, emotional reasons.
Ask anyone who works a lot with the terminal, I pretty much guarantee they can tell you about folk talked into assisting a loved one, and then change their minds once the person is unconscious/dying. It ends up very ugly and painful mess in every sense, short and long-term, for everyone.

I'm have serious doubts that I could do it...I have flashbacks to PETS I've had to put to sleep 15, 20, 30 years ago.

I agree that suicide and assisted suicide are two different things. Assisted suicide ought to be reserved, IMHO, for the terminally ill who have nothing to look forward to but the slow, painful (or drugged-up twilit) winding down of their lives. But I think we should all have the option.

Speaking of pets -- yeah, I still second-guess myself over my end-of-life decisions for a couple of our cats.

peter wrote:Secondly the argument has the ring of petulance (sorry Av ) about it. Just because you 'own' something precious does not give you the right (morraly at least) to destroy it. Some would argue that life, in whatever cicumstances, is the most beautiful and precious thing we can ever own.

Others would argue that there's nothing particularly beautiful or precious about a life that's run its course, and whose owner now has nothing to look forward to but weeks or months of pain before the end. It's been my experience that most people who are approaching the end of their lives reach a point when they know they're done, but death -- the ceasing of the body's functions -- takes quite awhile longer.

I just finished reading Kent Haruf's "Benediction", whose main plot involves a man's last three months of life. Haruf's account of Dad Lewis's last several days would be instructive reading for those participating in this discussion. The man's death certainly fits the criteria of the way all of us hope to go -- "he died quietly in his sleep" -- but there's nothing particularly beautiful or uplifting about it. To be clear, I think it would have been a mistake for Dad Lewis to have asked for a chemical cocktail the minute he received the diagnosis; he had a fair number of things to wrap up, as would we all, and he took the time he needed to get them done. But I don't think he would have lost anything important if he'd been given the choice before his body finally gave out.

And I'm going to move this to the Close now.

And the topic has been Closed.

Peter, sorry, I missed that. If I own it, it's mine. If I have a right to life, I have a concomitant right not to live if I don't want to.

Is somebody else's appreciation of my life more important than my suffering?

--A

Coming in on this late, but read back a bit. I am the wielder of life and death for my mother. This is legal and registered legally. She has chosen assisted suicide if certain conditions apply and they are very specific. She has also made legal her wishes to not be on certain types of life support. So if all her criteria are met to the degree that there is no probable chance of recovery from the doctor then yes. It's happening. I admire that and wish that for myself. I think that if a person makes a choice for assisted suicide and specifies the conditions then their wishes should be fulfilled. It's just like donating organs. Most hospitals require the next of kin to co-sign for a donor to actually donate and some families say no last minute which is in direct opposition to the deceased persons wishes.

Ugh, that's awful. I'm a registered organ donor and that is all that should matter...

I'm Murrin wrote:Ugh, that's awful. I'm a registered organ donor and that is all that should matter...

Yea. On that and body to science donations it is odd how many "caring family members" show more "care" for the corpse than they ever did for the living person.

Both my parents have similar documentation in place to Jenn's mom...and their lawyer told them already that all the paperwork doesn't guarantee their wishes, only makes it more likely.

Yeah, crazy innit? You can specifically lay down your wishes and they can still ignore them. And probably largely because of the same prejudice against allowing people to choose for themselves.

And this is in cases where it's not assisted suicide, but rather just "being allowed to die." (Usually these type of things are just instructions that extreme measures are not be taken to preserve life.)

It's even "worse" when you want them to actively kill you.

(Oh, I'm a registered donor too. In the UK. Where I am no longer resident. So according to their records, I won't have ever died. It's immortality. Of a sort. )

--A

Avatar wrote:Yeah, crazy innit? You can specifically lay down your wishes and they can still ignore them. And probably largely because of the same prejudice against allowing people to choose for themselves.

And this is in cases where it's not assisted suicide, but rather just "being allowed to die." (Usually these type of things are just instructions that extreme measures are not be taken to preserve life.)

It's even "worse" when you want them to actively kill you.

(Oh, I'm a registered donor too. In the UK. Where I am no longer resident. So according to their records, I won't have ever died. It's immortality. Of a sort. )

--A

Eighty years from now, someone's gonna check the records and say "We gotta know when this guy finally dies. Those are the organs we need to be studying!"

yeah i'm undecided about this topic as well.

like someone mentioned upthread i still have unresolved feelings
about putting my two cats down, but that's mostly because i was
unable to explain to them the options and ask them what they'd
like me to do. that was the worst part of it.

i worked as a nursing assistant on a cancer ward in the 80's and
due to that experience i have always made the glib comment
"just shoot me" (should i ever be that sick and in that much pain),
meaning i'd like someone ELSE to decide should i be unable to do
so. quality of life was always the issue for me, not quantity.

having read some of the arguments in this thread, i realize how
selfish that sort of glib comment actually is. i don't think it's a good
idea to put that sort of decision on someone who loves me.
i'm not even sure that it would ameliorate any kind of feelings of guilt
that i believe would occur if there were prior documentation as in
jenn's case.

on the one hand i agree with Av and Jenn's mom, my body my decision
and here's what i want you to do should these conditions apply.
and certainly my experiences at uk med center had that impact on me.
i would not want to lay in bed and suffer for an extra year or so.
i also would not want to rack up the medical bills for any family members
in keeping me alive if i were comatose, etc.

on the other, i agree with deer regarding the abuses that could arise.
and i don't believe prior documentation would alleviate feelings of
guilt and regret that could arise in family members charged with the
disposition of my wishes.

and lastly, somehow i came to the mindset that i should "play the hand
that's dealt me" regarding my physical body, meaning that i'm not big
on cosmetic surgery, sex changes, etc, and have always felt that suicide
(as in depression-type suicide) was not a good solution to any problem.
as i read this thread that idea came to my mind again and though i totally
understand the whole "my body, my decision" (and have employed it in
my arguments and decision-making concerning abortion) am now not so
sure that it is really a good argument for any kind of life-taking (whether
it be abortion or assisted suicide.) i haven't abandoned it entirely, i'm
just now not as certain as i once was on that.

having said all this, i am obviously and unreservedly in the undecided
category!
i can't figure it out. i don't feel qualified to figure it out.
and frankly (and this is not a commentary on any of you so don't take
it that way) i'm not sure any of us (us being the general us and not
anyone in particular) actually ARE qualified to say what is right and
what is wrong.
that is the question that i continue to ask myself about Raymond
and Churchill (my cats), did i do the right thing?
and if i'm feeling this way about my pets
i'm absolutely certain that i'd be feeling even worse about a loved
one or family member.

so yeah. all that blather to say...i'm undecided.
and i'm not sure i'm ever going to be able to decide.