What is your opinion on assisted suicide?

Case 1: Terminating the life of a clinically brain-dead person by the decision of others.
Case 2: Assisting the suicide of a person who is terminally ill, or other terminal conditions who is cognitive and capable of making own decision.
Case 3: Assisting the suicide of a person who is otherwise physically able but wishing to commit suicide.



I think "Assisted Suicide" should be allowed if the person wants to.
And, in Terri Schivao's case, IMO, after 2 years or so and they are showing no improvement, assisted suicide should be a recommended option.
If it were me, I don't want to live my life in a hospital bed doing nothing and in that condition.
But, at the same time, I wish they made the death quick, not her starving to death.


Recently, my English class had an assignment on debate topics and we had to give a speech on our topic, and this one girl choose Assisted Suicide and the Terri Schivao case.
Beside Terri Schivao case, she showed a clip of a man, about 25 or so, who had mental and physical problems, and at one point the guy in this case was having a really hard time saying "to" in "I want to die", it was that bad.
After showing the clip of this guy, my classmate went back to her speech, and said "I understand that it is a difficult and emotional time and sometimes you want to give up. But to people with problems like (whats his name), I say 'suck it up'! God gave you life and you should be thankful that you have it!"
I was shocked she said that!! She has no idea what it was like for that guy in the clip, or Terri Schivao and the family, and she has the nerve to say "suck it up"

If a person is so ill they can't bare to live and need help to die the helper should not face legal action. People should have a right to die.

We have Family Planning clincs for unwanted babies so why not something for peope who want to die?
You offer them counciling, advice, alternate ideas to suicide and let people get an injection to help them die. there should also be time 3 week wait and the option to always say no.

Patients have a right to sign a DNR. ( Do Not Resusitate (sp?)). If patients have this legal document in their medical files, it is illegal to try to revive the patient if they are in cardaic arrest or have respiratory problems etc.. You can use this as a precedent of sorts to indicate that the life of the patient and the right to choose life or death is legally bound to that patient. The government/medical community/heck even family play a second fiddle to the rights of the individual in this case.

popo and asu got here first...

Anyways...
@fma lover stef - you're citing two COMPLETELY different cases in your post.
I also disagree with the way that the poll is phrased, but the former first.....

Terry Shiavo was dead. All that was being kept alive was a body which could eat, sleep, and go through the motions of living, but the actual person was dead. All of her brain but for her medula (which controls simple bodily functions) was dead, and she couldn't feel emotions or actlike a person or anything. It's just a hunk of meat, not really a person, and just a body that's only alive because of machines isn't really alive. If her husband wanted to keep her alive, then he could have, but he thought that it was horrible that she was being forced to live that way and thought that it was time for her to be done living on machines. He thought that it's what she would have wanted.

The second case, where someone wants to die who is cognitive and somewhat reasoning, and demands to be killed, is more gray. On the one hand, it's not completely right to let them die, but on the other, it's simply what they want. In this case, it's someone who could concievably become better.

The third possible example, which you didn't reference, is the case where a person wants to die for emotional or whatever reasons and is perfectly physically healthy. My opinion here might be considerably colored by emotion, but I say to let them f*cking get it over with. The biggest drain on a social community is a person who constantly threatens suicide and never just does it, either because the person doesn't really want to die or because society won't let them. It's best to do what asu said, and give them counciling.

At some point, though, I think that people like that should just be put in jail where they're not a psychological or physical danger to themselves and others.

Of course, I'm thinking of someone in particular. Don't take me too seriously on that last bit.


----------------------------

~edit~

i forgot about what's wrong with the poll.

The poll, in it's current form, regards only case #2 in my post above. It should definitely include case #1, and possibly even case #3. It also has 'yes' 'no' and 'if the person wants to' insinuating that 'yes' and 'no' are whether the person wants it or not.

A more appropriate poll might be:

When would assisted suicide be permissable?
1) Always, whenever anyone wants it
2) Always, but only after counseling
3) Only if the person has a dehabilitating mental condition
4) Only if the person has a dehabilitating physical condition
5) Only if the person has a dehabilitating mental or physical condition
6) Only if the person is completely brain dead
7) Never

Perhaps a mod should change it?

All the points I was going to raise are already here..
Now what do I say? Oo


---------------------------



I also agree these that would be a good idea.

I chose if the person wants to because if they want to die, you can't stop them. Kinda like the lady who had drowned her kids because she was sick. That illness, however, affects different people on different levels. A lot of people have had themselves put to sleep because of issues like that.

i know that each case is a little different. Terri wasn't by definition, alive. and when they took her feeding tube out, she wasn't really starving to death because she didn't have any brain functions. i think it's just the principal of suffering that i hate.

@MonsterEnvy - in your second case, yea if someone can be cured or helped and it would make life easier, thats great. and hopefully they can hold out that long. (recovery stories make me happy )but i think it's thier life and if someone is in a situation where help isn't availible, euthanaisa is a peaceful escape.

and with your third case. when someone is perfectly healthy but extreamly depressed, they will usually find some way themselves to take thier own life, they don't need "assistance". but yea i agree that sucidal people like that really do need to "suck it up". life's harsh, deal with it.


------------



sure if a mod can change it, yea. it's my first post so i knew something would be wrong with it and the i didn't like the way i worded the poll anyway

I do believe people should be allowed to die should they really feel life would be too painful to carry on. Its when it comes to those who can't make the decision themselves it gets complicated.

See some families will never want to let a family member die and so will keep them in a vegitaed state. On the other hand they might see it as an easy way to rid themselves of a sick family member.

As others have stated there needs to be strict guidelines, but yes I agree with it.

He does have a point i dont see the differance in killing yourself and killing an unborn baybe, although i do think both are wrong.

My own personal opinion, harsh as it may be:

If somebody wants out of the game of Life that badly, so be it. I don't particularly care what the reason is, either, sick and dying, mentally or physically ill, even 'I'm so depressed, my boyfriend dumped me'...if you're willing to quit that easily, then get on with it. One less in the gene pool...

My sentiments exactly.

I find it quite funny [in a tragic way] that Terri Schiavo, who didn't exactly match the medical definition of being 'alive', became the centerpiece of this debate. Usually when you're talking about assisted suicide, you're talking about people who are alive, but in intractable pain. Terri had no capacity to feel pain in her state. But then there were people who tried to convince the rest of us that she was like a character from Monty Python... 'feeling much better'.

Hmmm very interesting subject...

I hope someone will do this to me in the future if it seems that theres no hope... :thinks:

However it must be of that person decision if they have to end their life...they can either make that decision by Volentary Euthanasia or InVoluntary Euthanasia...

Really makes you think...

Ok everybody I went ahead and updated to poll. Since fma lover stef liked Monster Envys poll options I went ahead and used those. Vote again everybody since they've been reset.



This is the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. People have a really screwed up view of life. Oh, you're suffering from a terminal disease? You suffer 24-7? Be happy! You're alive!!

Just because your heart is beating and you're breathing doesn't mean you're really living. What about the quality of life? In this country especially we value quanity rather than quality of life and because of this people have to suffer. It's much like the abortion debate really if you think about it.

exactly!! thank god someone agrees with me!! i was almost scared when the class didn't react to that remark at all. hopfully they just wern't listening


----------------------------


thank you!!!

Please dont bring the "Abortion" thread into this one please!



Perfectly correct there!



Now I remember what I forgot to inlude in my first post, I agree with that!

that's a bit too harsh for my tastes.

believe me if you knew what some people have to go through in certain medical situations, i bet you wouldn't dare say that.

Actually, I DO know what 'some people have to go through', I've watched enough friends and family members go through it, and my opinion remains the same.

Examples, you say? OK, then...

My ex-father-in-law: died of kidney failure.

Good friend of mine: died of brain tumour (THAT one was truly horrific!)

Best friend's mom: died of ovarian cancer.

My grandmother: died of combination of heart disease and cancer (again, horrible to watch let alone experience)

My favourite aunt: died of lung cancer, never smoked a cigarette in her life...imagine suffocating slowly because your lungs are deteriorating and there's not a damned thing medical science can do to stop it.

These were all people in my life that meant alot to me. And they all said the same thing towards the end: "Why won't they just let me go?"

I'm sorry if you think me an obnoxious bastard, but that's how I think. Hopefully, you and I can remain on friendly terms despite our differences.

Nah I don't think you're an obnoxious bastard. Our health is something we all take for granted. For those people that want assisted suicide with severe medical conditions; they have reached the final stage of dealing with death. Acceptance. Could you imagine the emotional, mental and spiritual stress that would precede that decision? Especially with dealing with a long term illness...this might also bring into play depression. As any decent family member would do, you would be a bit selfish and push for that family member to continue living. No one wants to willingly let their loved ones die.

Medicine cannot prevent death. Patients can have a little bit of control over the manner and the timing of their own deaths....which makes death less frightening. And you avoid any extreme physical pain or limitation.

Keep in mind there are various ranges to this.

1) Assisted Suicide
2) Not accepting any medical treatment.
3) DNR request
4) Comfort care (Preference of patient comfort therapy in lieu of life-prolonging care)

Really, medecine could prevent death... there's no reason why people should die, but they just run down because of various controllabale factors. Some of the factors we just don't know how to control.

As far as your four things go:
1) Assisted Suicide
Again, I think that there should definitely be counseling. If, after a counseling and month long waiting period, the person still wants to go through with it, then so be it. And, again, people who do that over and over and never go through with it would be removed from normal society and given some sort of special treatment for the dehabilitating mental condition that they have.

A question, though- should minors be allowed to do that? Most of the time it is teenagers who want to kill themselves, and it's often because of hormones in the brain and suchlike. Should it be without necessarily having parental permission?

2) Not accepting any medical treatment.
That seems sort of stupid. When the medical treatment doesn't do any real good, like chemotherapy for a terminal cancer patient, then it does make more sense to let them enjoy their last few months. On the other hand, if it's a person who is could be saved or at least helped by medical treatment that isn't physically scarring in some way, then it's sheer idiocy not to take it. Doctors should be allowed to administer whatever medicines necessary to minors unless it has a risk associated with it that is disproportionate to the severity of the disease. Adults, I suppose, can make their own decisions.

3) DNR request
The person's not really alive there, so it's not really killing someone. To me, though, a DNR as written seems silly. I'd rather have it be something like DNKAOMIICBDACRL/ANRL (do not keep on machines if i'm brain dead and can't really live/am not really living.) Of course, DNR is a much nicer little acronym.

4) Comfort care (Preference of patient comfort therapy in lieu of life-prolonging care)
I think that I covered this under not accepting medical treatment.

Those cover it pretty well!

Thanks for changing the poll, mini. Your new avvy is awesome, btw.

If it's not medically pertinent, terminal cancer, life on a ventilator or on dialysis.......then it shouldn't have to do with doctors. These kids need counselling or they could just kill themselves on their own. Their parents / guardians probably have control of their medically related decisions in any case.

for #2
This could be for religious or cultural reasons. Still it's a personal decision. Plus even in the case of minors, Doctors need consent of either the patient or their medical proxy for all medically related decisions. They are ethically and legally held to this.

for #3
If a patient goes under cardiopulmonary arrest, You can't use resucitation, cardioversion or intubation on them if they have a DNR written in advance. This includes using defibrilators to stop cardiac arrest.

Thought I would tell you that I stoped reading at this point

I'm with you oon this one.

If you are to help someone commit suicide it gets called murder

I have no problem with assisted suicide as long as the person being killed has decided on it himself. If you wanna kill yourself, fine. Now, when the person being killed has no say in it...


I know I`m a bit late responding on this and I don`t want to start an argument over this. I just wanted to say that this comment brought me to tears. "It`s just a hunk of meat"? Really, how could you say that about another human being. It`s sad really...

I guess you've never been around dead bodies...or cadavers...

Attitudes like these annoy me to no end. The blind sentimentalism.

Sorry to say this, but when someone reaches that state they ARE pretty much a hunk of meat. What makes us 'human' the way most people see it is our mind or, if you want to get religious, our souls. At that point she was a breathing lump of flesh. Not what I would consider to still be a person.

well, i would probably assist in it if the person or the family of the person gives the go signal. of course after the counseling (<--- is that the correct spelling?) i would have to consider if the person is terminally ill. assisting in suicide can also mean not doing anything or removing therapy. there are do-not-resuscitate (<-- is this the correct spelling? sorry, im dumb today) orders from the patient himself... though it may seem inhuman, but there are views from theorists in bioethics that support euthanasia (even suicide)...

When you get to that state you are dead, all thats left is a functioning corpse, the human part of you is gone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5056326.stm

Thank you popo, and Finaly someone has called for it again

I believe we were created by God. We have no right to decide when someone lives or dies. No matter how bad the situation is, it's God's decision when that person dies.

That's idiotic.

Then why did God bless people with the knowledge to perform acts that save peoples lives? Doctors should not be permitted to practise...medical science should be burned to the ground for they are trying to save peoples lives.

@GREEDisGOOD - You may think we have no right to decide whether someone lives or dies, as that's God's choice. But what about people's free choice? Or what if we're being tested to see if we'll put someone out of thir pain? What if God wants us to take responsibility for our own people instead of saying 'it's God's problem' every time theres something uncomfortable going on?

As Chiyo said, doctors save people's lives all the time, and I don't see doctors as causing God's displeasure.

Basically, you can't know what God wants us to do. You have no right to decide what God thinks about the issue, and no right to force that decision of yours on others.

Don't shoot me for bumping this~ I figured bumping the old thread was better than making a new one. I'm doing a report on the topic in Forensics, so I wanted to see what people thought, and what people think now.

Personally, I think euthanasia should most definitely be legalized. Euthanasia is a choice, and it's one only the person in pain should be making. A priest, miles away, not feeling the pain of the victim, has absolutely no grounds to say that the patient shouldn't be allowed to die just because it "offends their religion". Quite bluntly, I don't care if it offends your religion. If a minister walked in and tried to tell me I couldn't kill myself because "God gave me this life", I'd probably throw something at him. (Admittedly, I don't think I'd have the strength) Not everybody is religious, so not everybody thinks that higher beings control their lives. I certainly think that I control my own. It doesn't hurt you to leave the option available; if you're ever in that situation, refuse it. Don't stop people whose beliefs might not even coincide with yours from having the option made available. It's their choice, not yours. It's their life, not yours. It's that simple.

Wouldn't it be considered murder by current definitions and laws though? If it were made legal, the definition of murder would also have to be changed.

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Even if malice was not present, it would still be premeditated. While I'm aware this would simply be a technicality to the issue, it is still something that cannot be overlooked.

If this were legalized, what would the new definition look like?

Perhaps it would be edited to include cases of consent in the party being killed. But that would be even more complicated to legislate. After all, how would you legally define consent to assisted suicide? Would you have to use paperwork? Have one or more reliable witnesses present?

I was thinking the same thing. It would be easy for murderers to perhaps forge whatever legal papers are needed. There is no one to argue it as the only person able to would be dead. It seems like it would just create more opportunities for unlawful acts to occur.

currently here's the AMA's (american medical association) policy on euthanasia
(from http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_onl.../HnE/E-2.21.HTM )



Some of the above opposition from the medical community is that assisted suicide violates the principles of 'do no harm' as well as could create a potential slippery slope ....(i'll stop before i invoke godwin's law)

That being said, Euthanasia is happening all over the US (not just in Oregon where the Death with Dignity Act of 1994 is still going strong)

Nowadays in the US, it's ethically and morally acceptable for a doctor to aggressively provide pain relief (let's say in this case morphine) to patients up to (and including) the point of death. This is usually in terminally ill patients. The doctor may still be brought to trial, but no jury would realistically convict the physician for operating in that capacity. It's a nice little loophole to provide the service to those who actually need it (imo).

edit:
adding some replies



already done:
http://oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml
edit 2:
after fully reading that legalese ...
patient doesn't have to deal with courts. 2 witnesses and a 15 day waiting period minimum between the initial and secondary requests before any prescription is written...requires medical evaluation AND a terminal illness. Also requires notification of next of kin (interesting?) and one must be a resident of oregon.

Which is why you might have to make a case in court first, have the papers certified by a judge, and then have the approval to carry it out beforehand. Messy complications with notaries and third-party witnesses would also be involved.

Only orthothanasia ('pulling the plug').
Making doctors help in suicide is stupid, but forcing people to live (especially in pain) is cruel.