Assisted suicide ...

[Jemima Aslana]

I don't think it's about pain

That's not what I heard from those terminally ill patients who just wanted it all to end. To them it was about pain. Dunno who you're thinking of... not the people I heard statements from, that's for sure.

I think it's about a fantasy of personal choice.

Why does personal choice have to be a fantasy? Do we not live in a society that values personal freedom above (almost) all else? Anyone can grab a kitchen knife and end it all at almost any point, and it's not illegal to do so. Anyone can take an overdose of whatever medication and that isn't illegal either, since the only one hurt by it is the one doing it.

I have kitchen knives, and I have sufficient amounts of chemicals in my flat for me to mix a deadly cocktail should I so wish it. A person confined to a bed does not have this personal freedom and thus the freedom of choice has been taken away from them by their illness. Doctors can give it back by prescribing - NOT adminstering - an amount of medicine that the patient can choose to take of their own volition, should the time come when they really can get no more joy out of their life. And we're still only speaking of terminally ill patients with less than 6 months left.

People who are not sick are terrified of facing that situation, and prefer to believe that they'll retain some control over their fate.

Define fate, please? I would prefer not to have to face the situation. And as someone who, due to depression, have been a suicide candidate a couple of times, I am well aware of how risky this business is. Fact is, I *am* sick. A depressions is an illness. But it not fatal unless I make it so. Some/Many cancer patients *do* have a fatal disease. They *will* die. Choosing when you die can hardly be called controlling fate. Their fate is to die within 6 months, that cannot be changed. They can change circumstances but not what it will end with.

The fact that so many terminally ill patients do not choose suicide seems, to me, to indicate that there comes a point when you realize it's not a choice - death is coming for you, why run forward?

The fact that no one is planning on forcing anyone to commit suicide, to me, indicates that this group is irrelevant. Seriously, nothing will change anything for these people, they won't kill themselves, end of story.

It's the group of people who *do* want to use the option that are interesting. I don't care how many wont use it. The large majority of people do not cross the street when the light's red, does that mean it's superfluous to have a law saying it's illegal? No, because it's the minority that might cause trouble. Likewise the large majority (around here at least) seldom use the option of giving tax-free donations no matter how small to charity purposes, but that doesn't mean the option should not be there for those few who *do* make use of it.

Thusly my point is that the 9 out of 10 who won't kill themselves, won't do so whether or not it's legal for a doc to prescribe medicine for it. But the last 1 in 10 who does want to kill himself is forced to live through 6 months of pain just because *we* are too squeamish to help him with the opportunity to do it. Some may feel bad about prescribing 'ODs', but then we can let those who would feel bad about not prescribing them do it.

I know a doctor who told me she feels guilty for being skilled enough to keep people alive and in pain longer than they reasonably should live.

And for the tiny number of people who do choose death, or for the rather larger number of people who really want to embrace that fantasy of future control now, while they're still young/well/healthy, - is it really worth overturning the very long culture of medicine that insists that doctors not participate in the killing of patients, just for them?

You said somewhere that you were for the right of a woman to abort a foetus. That alone also turned over this long culture of medicine that you defend in this case. They had to change the hippocratic oath in order for doctors to do abortions, because in the original oath the doctor actually has to say that he will never disrupt a pregnancy.

Since you're okay with changing this long culture on this point, why not on the other? Someone else made the point that by now we've gotten so good at keeping people alive that the last time doctors can give them are not always worth it. And yet, in the hippocratic oath the doc also has to swear that he will do everything he can for the patient and never give up. This, also ,is in direct conflict with simply stopping treatment and let people die a natural death. Let's face it. The hippocratic oath and therewith the basic ethics of medicine are outdated. It was meant for a world where herbal medicine was everything they had and where surgery of any shape usually resulted in death anyway, it was meant for a world in which it was simply not possible to keep people alive through such torment, their bodies would cave in to the pain long before the doctor would have to take a stand on anything.

The long culture of medicine may be noble and all, but our culture in most other areas have been updated since the middle ages, heck our culture has been updated greatly within the last century alone. Women can vote! Golly! Why should we not update our medicine culture to fit our modern standards?

While I accept your opinion and your right to have it, I simply cannot accept your argument about 'not wanting to change the long culture of medicine'. By accepting abortion you have already accepted such change, and by accpeting that women can vote, and have the right to own their own property you have accepted change in other parts of society.

I can only respect people who have decided upon what they think of and feel about certain things, and I also know that it's not always possible to argue meticulously and rationally for why you feel the way you do. But that bit about our long culture sounded like you hadn't thought it completely through - or perhaps you were missing a few facts. No offense, the rest of your posts were fine, but this one just seemed to be a bit too quick

 

[henrietta]

That's not what I heard from those terminally ill patients who just wanted it all to end. To them it was about pain. Dunno who you're thinking of... not the people I heard statements from, that's for sure..

I'm thinking about all the healthy and well people who are convinced that we need euthanasia because they couldn't bear to be disabled or terminally ill.

Why does personal choice have to be a fantasy? Do we not live in a society that values personal freedom above (almost) all else? Anyone can grab a kitchen knife and end it all at almost any point, and it's not illegal to do so. Anyone can take an overdose of whatever medication and that isn't illegal either, since the only one hurt by it is the one doing it.

In the US, it is illegal to kill yourself, possibly because it's not a victimless crime - the suicide hurts people besides him/herself. The US is the personal freedom capitol of the world, a fact which is often mentioned in criticism of our society's ability to protect it's weakest members. I'm willing to live with it in general (though bring on the universal health care) but not when it comes to literally outright killing the weak.

The fact that no one is planning on forcing anyone to commit suicide, to me, indicates that this group is irrelevant. Seriously, nothing will change anything for these people, they won't kill themselves, end of story. It's the group of people who *do* want to use the option that are interesting. I don't care how many wont use it. The large majority of people do not cross the street when the light's red, does that mean it's superfluous to have a law saying it's illegal? No, because it's the minority that might cause trouble. Likewise the large majority (around here at least) seldom use the option of giving tax-free donations no matter how small to charity purposes, but that doesn't mean the option should not be there for those few who *do* make use of it...

Interesting comparison. I have an unfortunate relationship with marketing people and non-profits, and the placement of things like donation clauses in tax documents is calculated to not only directly increase donations through people marking it off, but to normalize the idea of donating to charity, thereby increasing the donation frequency. Which is great when you're talking about donating money to charity, but less great when you're talking about euthanasia.

Thusly my point is that the 9 out of 10 who won't kill themselves, won't do so whether or not it's legal for a doc to prescribe medicine for it. But the last 1 in 10 who does want to kill himself is forced to live through 6 months of pain just because *we* are too squeamish to help him with the opportunity to do it. Some may feel bad about prescribing 'ODs', but then we can let those who would feel bad about not prescribing them do it. I know a doctor who told me she feels guilty for being skilled enough to keep people alive and in pain longer than they reasonably should live.

Doctors who know how long people should live is what makes me think euthanasia is a bad idea.

You said somewhere that you were for the right of a woman to abort a foetus. That alone also turned over this long culture of medicine that you defend in this case. They had to change the hippocratic oath in order for doctors to do abortions, because in the original oath the doctor actually has to say that he will never disrupt a pregnancy.
Since you're okay with changing this long culture on this point, why not on the other?...Let's face it. The hippocratic oath and therewith the basic ethics of medicine are outdated. It was meant for a world where herbal medicine was everything they had and where surgery of any shape usually resulted in death anyway, it was meant for a world in which it was simply not possible to keep people alive through such torment, their bodies would cave in to the pain long before the doctor would have to take a stand on anything.
The long culture of medicine may be noble and all, but our culture in most other areas have been updated since the middle ages, heck our culture has been updated greatly within the last century alone. Women can vote! Golly! Why should we not update our medicine culture to fit our modern standards?

I see your point. I didn't mention the Hippocratic Oath, but any argument of tradition in medicine obviously brings it up. While I am in favor of abortion, I don't think that discarding one aspect of the oath means you have to ditch the whole thing. Our culture's more enlightened in many ways, women's rights being the absolute best (though being a woman, I may be slightly biased there) but in some ways, we're not. We're a bit more stupid about - or reluctant to admit - how human societies work. Humans tend to hate, tend to cluster into small groups based on various similarities and exclude or prey upon outsiders, are capable of extreme viciousness and flawless justificiation of same. There's a lot of shrewd knowledge of human nature in the oath, and I think our rather self-deluding society needs it. In any case, I don't think the oath's age or imperfection is an argument for euthanasia.

 

[SFG75]

I know we already talked about this when Terry Schiavo was in the news, but here (it appears) we go again:

Under what circumstances should my doctor be legally allowed to help me die painlessly?

I'm all for it, I'm glad that recent events in the states have gone the way they have in regards to this. I see a time in the future where most of the states allow it. I'm not certain why it is, but we tend to have this "fight-to the bitter end" neurotic impulse in America. This mentality allows us to hook people up on machines in the desire that perhaps some day, a miracle will assert itself no matter what. I guess that I see current laws forbidding this as being archaic or asinine in nature. As an example, I would include the story of my mother-in-law. Six years ago, she was in the hospital for an inoperable brain tumor. It was near the end of her life and she was in some incredible pain. Rather than give her powerful drugs to allow some sort of peace, the hospital staff rejected the request on the grounds that she might become addicted. AS IF THAT WAS HER GREATEST PROBLEM!. Some things in the medical world are not decided on common sense or what is in the patient's best interest. In the end, a doctor did provide the drugs necessary for her to not experience a horrible ending, but the fact that the fight had to be undertaken was very hurtful to her, my wife, and the rest of the family. Our current system is senseless and insensitive to the wishes of patients. And now for the answer to the question--I'm of the mindset that by having two doctors examine a person(who has a terminal diagnosis) and have that patient's desire before them, then it should be allowed. Yes, life is important, but so is a meaningful life.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

I'm thinking about all the healthy and well people who are convinced that we need euthanasia because they couldn't bear to be disabled or terminally ill.

As far as I'm aware the talk goes on being in pain for the last months of your life, not about being disabled or about being terminally ill in general. I know I would be able to bear either of the two you mentioned because I'm as stubborn as mule. Just because I may not be able to run a marathon it won't prevent me from getting some laughs out of what's left of my life. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about those people who are in so severe pains that they have two options: 1. be in such heavy pain medication that they'll be asleep for their last 5 months of life and 2. be awake but have constant pains - not just your average "ouch I hit my knee-pain", but the kind of pain that takes all your concentration to keep from screaming and crying constantly. If someone wanted to skip that kind of horror - or simply wanting to skip that amount of artificial sleep, I would not deny them that option, especially not since the situation would end in their death no matter what is done or not done.

In the US, it is illegal to kill yourself, possibly because it's not a victimless crime - the suicide hurts people besides him/herself.

Aha, I was not aware of that. It's not illegal here.

I find it interesting that it is illegal to kill yourself no matter the reasons, when it is perfectly legal for the state to kill you if it has sufficient reason. There's a completely new discussion on hypocrisy.

Anyways. This bit of info I did not have before does change the picture quite a lot. If suicide in general is illegal then there is no way 'assisted suicide' can be passed without the underlying law being changed.

And frankly I think the underlying law is a bag of bs, but that's just me and I'm horribly biased when it comes to suicide.

The US is the personal freedom capitol of the world, a fact which is often mentioned in criticism of our society's ability to protect it's weakest members. I'm willing to live with it in general (though bring on the universal health care) but not when it comes to literally outright killing the weak.

But then comes in the question: can you really say it'll change anything for anyone as these people will die with 6 months anyway? Personal freedom? When you're not even allowed to end your own life? Hardly. The more I learn about the US the more I realise that the whole thing about freedom is just a bunch of tripe. It may have been what the nation was built on, but personal freedom seems to be nothing but a ghost nowadays.

I live in a socialistic society where we have individual citizen ID numbers *gasp* a central register with all our citizens and their addies *double gasp* all those things so many Americans fear because "they'll inhibit their freedom" and yet, I seem to have more personal freedom than most Americans do. I can be euthanised if I'm terminally ill and should so desire, I can have an abortion without being harrassed about it should I so desire, and I can kill myself, or try to do so fail at it without being fined (or whatever happens when you fail at suicide)

On a sidenote: If it's illegal to kill yourself, how do they punish those who do? Interesting concept hehe

Interesting comparison. I have an unfortunate relationship with marketing people and non-profits... *snip*

Njeh, I can see your logic, but I'll still hold to my view that just like with abortion, the option should be there. Not because I'm hoping more will take the option (there can be no happy endings in neither terminal illness nor abortion cases), but because I want those who desire that option to have it.

I understand your worry, and while in the abortion case it is completely valid in both directions ('one might regret keeping the child' or 'one might regret losing the child') the euth. case only has a valid point in one direction. Terminal illness will end in death no matter how we twist and turn it, and while one can end up lying there in pain really really regretting not having chosen euth., one cannot be dead and regretting one *did* choose it.

Since it will end in death either way, I see no harm whatsoever in keeping the option open. Those very few who might feel pressured into accepting euthanasia, what will the bad consequences for them *really* be? Missing out on the last months will not be a valid answer - since those months were not something to long for (remember - in my argumentation those months are a pain-riddled lot)

I am a cynical person generally (I think you can tell ;P) but what is really so terrible about one or two out of 5000 terminally ill patients accepting euthanasia under pressure? They would die anyway. I honestly don't understand where the problem lies.

Doctors who know how long people should live is what makes me think euthanasia is a bad idea.

Perhaps I did not word it quite as I meant to. Someone before me mentioned how we can keep people alive longer than we're meant to be alive. That's what I was referring to. Our organs will start failing from sheer age. Our bodies will be worn out. Technically one might argue that once you get so weakened (from age or illness) that a simple flu would off you then you're not meant to live any longer. Now, *that* would cynical for real.

By saying what I did I simply meant that when we reach a point where it is only due to modern technology that we're still alive, then we have crossed the line for how long we "should reasonably live" - I insist on including reasonably. Anything beyond that is a gift voucher for a book. We might be lucky that the book store had the book we wanted, and we'll get a full and nice life thanks to our modern technology, it might also be that the book could not be acquired so we can cash it and get the impersonal neutral money and we'll spend our extra time being alive but not living.

I see your point. I didn't mention the Hippocratic Oath, but any argument of tradition in medicine obviously brings it up. While I am in favor of abortion, I don't think that discarding one aspect of the oath means you have to ditch the whole thing.

Nono, of course not. That's not at all what I implied, I merely wanted to point out that your argument about not breaking with a long-standing tradition didn't quite hold in court when set beside your other viewpoint where breaking with tradition was a-ok.

That and the fact that I'm generally against any argument of which the essentials is: "Because we've always done..." I'm sure you can imagine why As people and societies grow and change some traditions will have to be disposed of. We cannot prevent it and while I agree with you that change is not always a change for the better (goodness knows it isn't) we should not reject change simply because it is Change.

Our culture's more enlightened in many ways, women's rights being the absolute best (though being a woman, I may be slightly biased there) but in some ways, we're not.

LOL I think we can forgive you for that one. Though personally I'm of the belief that the spread of literacy was what truly helped all the other cultural breakthroughs happen. Without literacy there would be no cultural awareness, and without cultural awareness there would be no desire to change said culture. But that's just my take on world history, I don't think it's a coincidence that the development of our modern society didn't really start running fast until the printing press made texts more widely available back in the renaissance.

We're a bit more stupid about - or reluctant to admit - how human societies work. Humans tend to hate, tend to cluster into small groups based on various similarities and exclude or prey upon outsiders, are capable of extreme viciousness and flawless justificiation of same.

I'm not sure I agree with you there. While I agree with the flaws/realities you point out I'm not sure you're correct in saying that we're more blind to them now. Considering how many laws and regulations we *do* have, I think you're wrong.

We do not just have a law saying we should behave ourselves, no, because we know that some people could argue that it is not misbehaving to pass the intersection spite of the red light, we are forced to have a law saying that that specific thing is illegal.

If you were right about not realising how cruel humans can be, euthanasia would already have been accepted and applied - to everyone who has retired from the job-market.

Okay, a tad exaggerated perhaps, but my point is that the very fact that there are such heavy debates on especially questions that have to do with conscience and morals (death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, gambling, racism, and many others) shows me that we *are* aware of how flawed our own judgment can be at times, that we *are* keenly aware of how careful we need to be when applying certain principles to certain things. Thereby not said that we always reach the right conclusion after a thorough debate, but at least we do have the debate, so the cause is perchance not as lost as you might think

There's a lot of shrewd knowledge of human nature in the oath, and I think our rather self-deluding society needs it.

Perhaps, but I'm fairly certain I see some quite different things in it than you do What say I find the Oath in its entirety and we pick it apart in another thread?

In any case, I don't think the oath's age or imperfection is an argument for euthanasia.

Absolutely not! But it's an argument for why I thought the last point in your previous post was flawed That's all I intended with using it, nothing more nothing less

I hope this post made sense, it's almost 4 AM now.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

Yes, life is important, but so is a meaningful life.

I just wanted to pick up on this since there was no room in my previous post for more yada yada

I fully agree. As I see it the difference lies between 'existing' and 'living'. People can exist to the very end and can be kept alive far longer than is reasonable, their condition considered, we do not stop existing till we die - at least that is what I mean by 'existing'.

And to some people whether the reason is morals, religious beliefs, or whatever it might be 'living' does not end till we die either. But that's where we split up. Because to other people - me among them - a life that cannot be lived is not a life. And there is no way you can live life if your consciousness is clouded by heavy pain constantly, or if you're constantly asleep. I may perhaps be a bit of a sensualist but I define 'living life' as being able to enjoy stuff (whatever 'stuff' is is up to the individual). It may not be more than being able to talk to your daughter on the phone or reading a book, for some that might be enough, but for others it takes more than that, and I really don't think it can ever be up to anyone but the person himself to determine whether there is enough left to live for.

I can imagine an athlete who has been running since before he learned to walk. If he gets an illness that will kill him within 6 months and the last 3 of them he'll be confined to a bed. Leaving out the factor of family and focusing only on one thing, I would grant it should he wish euthanasia, because when he lost the one thing that could have kept his spirits up even through terminal illness, namely the use of his legs, he would be as good as dead inside, no matter how alive his body is.

The feeling of having nothing left is the bleakest of them all. Even the feeling of sorrow and loss does not match it. Sorrow and loss provokes emotional reactions that, while sad and tragic also reflect good things that were once shared. But when a person truly feels that there is nothing left, there will be no emotions. It is grey, it is a void, it is utter bleakness, and when that comes upon a person who is dying anyway, I will not be the one to force her through another 4 months of it, just because I'm squeamish about what other people think of as 'life'.

 

[muggle]

A little off topic but still a somewhat related question.

If a person commits suicide should the insurance company, if he/she has life insurance, be liable for paying life insurance to the person named on the policy.

 

[henrietta]

A little off topic but still a somewhat related question.

If a person commits suicide should the insurance company, if he/she has life insurance, be liable for paying life insurance to the person named on the policy.

I believe suicide voids most life insurance contracts.

 

[henrietta]

Aha, I was not aware of that. It's not illegal here.
I find it interesting that it is illegal to kill yourself no matter the reasons, when it is perfectly legal for the state to kill you if it has sufficient reason. There's a completely new discussion on hypocrisy.

True, though it's probably a neccessary hypocrisy. Few states would last long if they didn't reserve the right to exercise powers they withhold from their citizens.

The more I learn about the US the more I realise that the whole thing about freedom is just a bunch of tripe. It may have been what the nation was built on, but personal freedom seems to be nothing but a ghost nowadays.I live in a socialistic society where we have individual citizen ID numbers *gasp* a central register with all our citizens and their addies *double gasp* all those things so many Americans fear because "they'll inhibit their freedom" and yet, I seem to have more personal freedom than most Americans do. I can be euthanised if I'm terminally ill and should so desire, I can have an abortion without being harrassed about it should I so desire, and I can kill myself, or try to do so fail at it without being fined (or whatever happens when you fail at suicide)

Hey, I was using 'personal freedoms' pejoratively! To indicate the big bad US of wealth disparity, poverty and despair, you know. We do have ID#'s (against our will, but the Social Security #s are a de facto ID number you can't live without), legal abortion, legal protest against abortion, legal treatment of pain that includes adequate pain medication and legal treatment of the dying or seriously ill that includes Do Not Resucitate orders, living wills, and hospice care.

On a sidenote: If it's illegal to kill yourself, how do they punish those who do? Interesting concept hehe

I believe we dig them up and spank them. It's a village entertainment, right after the public stonings for having an abortion. Seriously, people who attempt suicide aren't usually charged, the law gives the police an excuse to attempt to stop them, and they're usually confined to a mental health unit in a hospital for examination. It seems like a good idea to me.

Terminal illness will end in death no matter how we twist and turn it, and while one can end up lying there in pain really really regretting not having chosen euth., one cannot be dead and regretting one *did* choose it. Since it will end in death either way, I see no harm whatsoever in keeping the option open. Those very few who might feel pressured into accepting euthanasia, what will the bad consequences for them *really* be? Missing out on the last months will not be a valid answer - since those months were not something to long for (remember - in my argumentation those months are a pain-riddled lot)

By that logic, it's more or less okay to murder someone who's terminally ill, because you didn't really deprive them of much anyway. I know that's not what you're saying, but your emphasis on the last few months of life being not a big deal is a little disturbing.

Perhaps I did not word it quite as I meant to. Someone before me mentioned how we can keep people alive longer than we're meant to be alive. That's what I was referring to. Our organs will start failing from sheer age. Our bodies will be worn out. Technically one might argue that once you get so weakened (from age or illness) that a simple flu would off you then you're not meant to live any longer. Now, *that* would cynical for real.

And unrealistic unless we start applying that standard to infant care, since the old and sickly aren't the only vulnerable people whose lives have been extended by modern science.

Nono, of course not. That's not at all what I implied, I merely wanted to point out that your argument about not breaking with a long-standing tradition didn't quite hold in court when set beside your other viewpoint where breaking with tradition was a-ok. That and the fact that I'm generally against any argument of which the essentials is: "Because we've always done..." I'm sure you can imagine why

I didn't think I was saying that, although I suppose it was open to interpretation. I certainly don't accept tradition as a one-stop answer to criticism. What I meant was that the oath doctors take (cannot spell that word again, once was a major achievement) installs in a very arrogant profession some basic constrictions against misuse of specialized knowledge and personal power, and that I have never found any euthanasia argument convincing when it attempts to dismiss this oath as out-dated.

LOL I think we can forgive you for that one. Though personally I'm of the belief that the spread of literacy was what truly helped all the other cultural breakthroughs happen.

After having taken up horseback riding, I personally think that the displacement of the horse as a major transportation device was the key. They're contrary animals, and I can't help thinking that some of their unreliable natures filtered through any society dependent upon them.

 

[abecedarian]

I believe suicide voids most life insurance contracts.

It must depend on the insurance policy. My dad committed suicide in 1972 and my mom was able to collect his life insurance. They had paid on it for many years before his death, so it wasn't as if he'd taken out a policy while planning his death.

 

[SFG75]

It's a poverty of spirit and imagination to consider suicide the pursuit of happiness,

but to believe that government approval of physician-assisted suicide is nothing more than a simple expression of freedom of choice is to be willfully blind to the natures of our species, our politics, and our government.

I believe two doctors would be able to find out if a person is truly terminally ill. Either the tumor shows up or it doesn't.

 

[StillILearn]

It must depend on the insurance policy. My dad committed suicide in 1972 and my mom was able to collect his life insurance. They had paid on it for many years before his death, so it wasn't as if he'd taken out a policy while planning his death.

What were the circumstances of your father's decision, abc? I know there are reasons for people wishing to end their lives other than a terminal illness. (For instance, I know of people who were in excruciating physical pain for which there was no cure, and only inadequate means of alleviation available to them.)

 

[abecedarian]

What were the circumstances of your father's decision, abc? I know there are reasons for people wishing to end their lives other than a terminal illness. (For instance, I know of people who were in excruciating physical pain for which there was no cure, and only inadequate means of alleviation available to them.)

He was under a great deal of strain due to a prolonged strike at his job. He felt torn between providing for us and staying loyal to the union. I believe he was severely depressed, and as it was in the middle of the winter(Jan 27), and he couldn't do the activities he enjoyed most (his garden was his baby, and he loved to hunt and fish). I know from things my mom realized later, that he was exhibiting some classic signs of depression, but in 1972, those were not plastered in every media form known to man. Looking back, mom realized she should have pushed him to go talk to our doctor. But at the time, she really didn't know what to make of it.

 

[StillILearn]

He was under a great deal of strain due to a prolonged strike at his job. He felt torn between providing for us and staying loyal to the union. I believe he was severely depressed, and as it was in the middle of the winter, and he couldn't do the activities he enjoyed most (his garden was his baby, and he loved to hunt and fish). I know from things my mom realized later, that he was exhibiting some classic signs of depression, but in 1972, those were not plastered in every media form known to man. Looking back, mom realized she should have pushed him to go talk to our doctor. But at the time, she really didn't know what to make of it.

Ah. What a shame for everybody involved. We humans have a tendency to second guess and blame ourselves when things such as that happen, even when there was no possible way we could have known what to do to change the situation or the outcome. I do know that suicide affects many, many people besides the person who takes his or her own life. All the more reason (in my mind) for us to openly discuss the subject. I'm sorry about your dad, abc.

 

[abecedarian]

Ah. What a shame for everybody involved. We humans have a tendency to second guess and blame ourselves when things such as that happen, even when there was no possible way we could have known what to do to change the situation or the outcome. I do know that suicide affects many, many people besides the person who takes his or her own life. All the more reason (in my mind) for us to openly discuss the subject. I'm sorry about your dad.

Thank you. It was specially hard for my mom. I was at school, and she was taking a nap, when he went into their room to get the shotgun and gun kit. She was a light sleeper, and on any other occassion she would have awakened immediately if someone entered the room. My great aunt told her that it was a blessing she slept through it, since in his state of mind he might have killed her too. She was the one who found his body too, so it was something she never got over.

 

[StillILearn]

Thank you. It was specially hard for my mom. I was at school, and she was taking a nap, when he went into their room to get the shotgun and gun kit. She was a light sleeper, and on any other occassion she would have awakened immediately if someone entered the room. My great aunt told her that it was a blessing she slept through it, since in his state of mind he might have killed her too. She was the one who found his body too, so it was something she never got over.

No. One can only imagine how she has suffered. All of the family, and his friends.

Has this affected how you feel about assisted suicide in the case of persons requesting help with ending their lives? I don't see how any law would or could have changed your father's mind; he wouldn't have approached a doctor at that point. His own unbearable pain was obviously emotional rather than physical.

 

[abecedarian]

No. One can only imagine how she has suffered. All of the family, and his friends.

Has this affected how you feel about assisted suicide in the case of persons requesting help with ending their lives? I don't see how any law would or could have changed your father's mind; he wouldn't have approached a doctor at that point. His own unbearable pain was obviously emotional rather than physical.

That's a tough one to answer. I've stayed away from the thread mostly because my main discomforts with the whole idea stem from religious beliefs, and they're hard to word in such a way as to be acceptable in this forum. I believe in the occassional miracle, and I know that doctors do no know everything. So, I have a hard time going along blindly with the idea of assisted suicides. I'd want each and every case exhamined to make sure no one benefits sordidly from the death of any patient.

 

[StillILearn]

That's a tough one to answer. I've stayed away from the thread mostly because my main discomforts with the whole idea stem from religious beliefs, and they're hard to word in such a way as to be acceptable in this forum. I believe in the occassional miracle, and I know that doctors do no know everything. So, I have a hard time going along blindly with the idea of assisted suicides. I'd want each and every case exhamined to make sure no one benefits sordidly from the death of any patient.

Fair enough, although another's religious beliefs may allow her to view her end of life decisions in a different light. Our laws should always take this into consideration.

I absolutely agree with you that the option of assisted suicide should only ever be considered on a case-by-case basis.