StillILearn
New Member
henrietta said:
Bizarre in what way, specifically, henrietta?
-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Assisted suicide ...
- Thread starter StillILearn
- Start date
Bizarre in what way, specifically, henrietta?
It's tone of victory. When did the left decide that protecting the weak and vulnerable was religious conservatism, and that their real role in the rapidly expanding world of health-related moral issues lay in championing the right of hurting people to be left alone? Liberals used to fight to end suffering, now they caution against meddling with people's right to kill themselves to end their pain - more cost-effective, but hardly 'pioneering' moral behavior. What the hell happened?
"The Supreme Court smacked former Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Bush administration when it ruled 6 to 3 that the Justice Department had gone beyond its authority in trying to undermine an assisted-suicide law in Oregon. The only disquieting note was that the new chief justice, John Roberts Jr., who had assured senators that he believed people had "the right to be let alone," nevertheless joined the dissenters in arguing that the federal government had the power to block Oregon's pioneering effort to let terminally ill patients end their own lives humanely.
The decision was notable because it rejected Mr. Ashcroft's attempt to impose his religiously conservative ideology on a state whose voters had decided differently. Oregon's law allowing physician-assisted suicide was approved narrowly in 1994 and reaffirmed by a thumping 60 to 40 percent vote three years later. Congressional conservatives, including Mr. Ashcroft when he was a senator, failed to push through a federal law to overturn it.
So when Mr. Ashcroft became attorney general in 2001, he simply declared that the federal Controlled Substances Act gave him the authority to prevent doctors from prescribing lethal drugs for the purpose of suicide. That position had been rejected by the Clinton administration, and Mr. Ashcroft issued his own directive without consulting Oregon or apparently anyone else outside his own department. His successor, Alberto Gonzales, embraced this power grab.
The Supreme Court concluded that Mr. Ashcroft had overreached when he ruled that physician-assisted suicide was not a "legitimate medical purpose" that would allow doctors to prescribe lethal drugs under the Controlled Substances Act. That act was intended to thwart drug abuse and trafficking, not to punish doctors who prescribed medicines in accord with state law. The majority found that Congress had not intended to pre-empt the state regulation of medical practice or to give a single executive branch officer the power to define standards of medical practice.
Congressional conservatives are already vowing to push through a law barring assisted suicide. After the sorry display of pandering during the Terri Schiavo tragedy, no one can bet that they won't succeed this time. But our own sense is that Oregon has acted with exquisite care by requiring that two doctors agree that a patient is likely to die within six months, and is well informed and acting voluntarily, before lethal drugs can be prescribed. Congress would be wise not to meddle in a sensitive issue that Oregon has clearly studied far more closely."
"The Supreme Court smacked former Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Bush administration when it ruled 6 to 3 that the Justice Department had gone beyond its authority in trying to undermine an assisted-suicide law in Oregon. The only disquieting note was that the new chief justice, John Roberts Jr., who had assured senators that he believed people had "the right to be let alone," nevertheless joined the dissenters in arguing that the federal government had the power to block Oregon's pioneering effort to let terminally ill patients end their own lives humanely.
The decision was notable because it rejected Mr. Ashcroft's attempt to impose his religiously conservative ideology on a state whose voters had decided differently. Oregon's law allowing physician-assisted suicide was approved narrowly in 1994 and reaffirmed by a thumping 60 to 40 percent vote three years later. Congressional conservatives, including Mr. Ashcroft when he was a senator, failed to push through a federal law to overturn it.
So when Mr. Ashcroft became attorney general in 2001, he simply declared that the federal Controlled Substances Act gave him the authority to prevent doctors from prescribing lethal drugs for the purpose of suicide. That position had been rejected by the Clinton administration, and Mr. Ashcroft issued his own directive without consulting Oregon or apparently anyone else outside his own department. His successor, Alberto Gonzales, embraced this power grab.
The Supreme Court concluded that Mr. Ashcroft had overreached when he ruled that physician-assisted suicide was not a "legitimate medical purpose" that would allow doctors to prescribe lethal drugs under the Controlled Substances Act. That act was intended to thwart drug abuse and trafficking, not to punish doctors who prescribed medicines in accord with state law. The majority found that Congress had not intended to pre-empt the state regulation of medical practice or to give a single executive branch officer the power to define standards of medical practice.
Congressional conservatives are already vowing to push through a law barring assisted suicide. After the sorry display of pandering during the Terri Schiavo tragedy, no one can bet that they won't succeed this time. But our own sense is that Oregon has acted with exquisite care by requiring that two doctors agree that a patient is likely to die within six months, and is well informed and acting voluntarily, before lethal drugs can be prescribed. Congress would be wise not to meddle in a sensitive issue that Oregon has clearly studied far more closely."
Motokid
New Member
The Terri Schiavo case is completely different. (See this TBF thread for that discussion) That case was about a husband deciding the fate of his wife and what her wishes supposedly were since she could no longer state her wishes.
This is about me making a decision on my own life. Should I decide I no longer want to fight some terminal illness I would hope that I could count on a doctor to help me through those last hours or days in a way that I thought best for my particular beliefs.
To bring the Schiavo case up in this discussion is not appropriate.
This is about me making a decision on my own life. Should I decide I no longer want to fight some terminal illness I would hope that I could count on a doctor to help me through those last hours or days in a way that I thought best for my particular beliefs.
To bring the Schiavo case up in this discussion is not appropriate.
veggiedog
New Member
Well, it is an editorial. Obviously the writer was happy the law wasn't repealed. You didn't expect it to be completely unbiased, did you?henrietta said:
I think what liberals want isn't to be 'cost-effective' but to offer people a way to end their pain, ONLY IF THEY ARE TERMINALLY ILL AND DUE TO DIE WITHIN SIX MONTHS. No one even suggested that random people should be allowed to kill themselves after they were dumped by their girlfriends. There are many precautions taken to avoid unnecessary death, such as written statements from the patient and multiple doctors. They're not saying they want to kill people as they become old and decrepit, but that these people should have a right to die peacefully, rather than writhing in pain. If they are not going to live much longer anyway, why make them suffer so much for nothing? Giving them THE OPTION (not the command) of ending their pain is, by my standards, considered moral. Oregon is the only state where people have this right. If it's taken away from them, imagine how much harder life would feel for a terminally ill patient in that situation.henrietta said:
How are conservatives protecting these poor, suffering patients who just want it to end by telling them when they can and cannot die? I would highly disconcerted if the government refused to provide me with adequate pain relief medication, such as marijuana (which I certainly would be willing to take if I was in enough pain, as it is ten times less dangerous than morphine) and then told me to stuff it and deal. In fact (and this may be a longshot), I can see Dubya not allowing people to die just to stretch the life-expectancy rate of Americans (who are drastically falling behind). If people are dying and just want it overwith, don't you think they should have the right to depart in peace?henrietta said:
StillILearn
New Member
veggiedog said:I just realized how awful and long the post above was, and how nobody's going to want to read the whole damn thing. I also just noticed how conceited I sound. I really didn't mean to appear so rude.
veggiedog, I didn't find`your post to be long or awful. I read it all the way through with my head was nodding like, like that of a Hula Doll in the back window of a '56 Chevy.
I didn't think you sound conceited either, I thought you sounded intelligent and thoughtful.
Scottishduffy
New Member
I fully agree that those at the end of life should have the right to decide how they wish to die. For goodness sakes, your death is the last decision you will ever have a say in. It is a momentous event that should be carried out according to the wishes of each individual.
As someone who has seen many people die, who has been there to see a last breath taken on more than one occassion, I have agree with a person's right to die as they wish. I am not saying family's should be able to ask for an unaware and unoritented person to be killed. However, if a fully alert, oriented, and capable individual wishes to die, Then why not? I agree with the Oregon controls which ensure that only those already near the end of life can do this.
Many of the people who fill their prescriptions in Oregon don't even use them, but it is just a comfort to know that if things became too painful the option is there. My mother works in Hospice, patients stockpile medications *all the time* in order to have that option available to themselves. However, since this is illegal in Florida the hospice must destroy the stockpile if they find it. The patients just find it comforting to know that if they needed it, it's there, regardless of whether they actually use it.
Let each person die as they wish. If they wish to have the option of assisted suicide. Sure. If they wish to be 103yrs old with us doing CPR on them. Sure. YOUR death, YOUR way.
Of course, once a person is unaware the family takes over. The family may not be able to ask for a person to be killed but they can refuse all treatment and ask to make their loved one a Comfort only patient which effectively will end in the death of most within a week. ( At least in the critical care unit where I am)
As someone who has seen many people die, who has been there to see a last breath taken on more than one occassion, I have agree with a person's right to die as they wish. I am not saying family's should be able to ask for an unaware and unoritented person to be killed. However, if a fully alert, oriented, and capable individual wishes to die, Then why not? I agree with the Oregon controls which ensure that only those already near the end of life can do this.
Many of the people who fill their prescriptions in Oregon don't even use them, but it is just a comfort to know that if things became too painful the option is there. My mother works in Hospice, patients stockpile medications *all the time* in order to have that option available to themselves. However, since this is illegal in Florida the hospice must destroy the stockpile if they find it. The patients just find it comforting to know that if they needed it, it's there, regardless of whether they actually use it.
Let each person die as they wish. If they wish to have the option of assisted suicide. Sure. If they wish to be 103yrs old with us doing CPR on them. Sure. YOUR death, YOUR way.
Of course, once a person is unaware the family takes over. The family may not be able to ask for a person to be killed but they can refuse all treatment and ask to make their loved one a Comfort only patient which effectively will end in the death of most within a week. ( At least in the critical care unit where I am)
StillILearn
New Member
Scottishduffy said:
This is how my father chose to go after a severe stroke. It took about a week. No food, no water, no heroic measures. He was conscious pretty much throughout, and was able to make his wishes known to us.
veggiedog said:
Harder than trying to survive while being subtly pressured to end it all for the financial and emotional well-being of their family and society? Sure, it sounds good - let people who want to die have the right to do so. Moral qualms about suicide aside, that leaves the field of human nature wide open to start pushing the envelope again. How long until it becomes your civic duty to die?
Americans already hate sickness, disability and death - the disabled are frequently anti-euthanasia for that very reason. They have bitter personal experience of society's loathing for that reminder that we're all vulnerable.
veggiedog said:
No. I believe pregnant women have the right to abort their fetus, I believe our society has the right to impose the death penalty on condemned killers, but I do not believe any individual, no matter how painful their suffering, has the right to turn our society into one that intentionally murders its own innocent citizens with the help of its own doctors. Most dying patients can kill themselves without medical help; the issue is a moot point, practically speaking. So why is it such a potent one? I think it truly has more to do with modern anaethema toward death and suffering than with any noble desire to ease pain or support individual freedoms.
veggiedog
New Member
They are not pressured to kill themselves. These people themselves choose to end their pain. The statement of the wish to die must come from the patient him/herself, NOT a family member. If the person is unable to communicate this statement, nothing is done. How does this provide well-being for anyone, anyway? Life insurance doesn't cover suicide, and instead, families lose a loved one. Society doesn't benefit at all--only loses economic potential. It is not the 'civic duty' of these people to die. No one is forcing them to give up their lives. If I have not stated it bluntly enough yet, THEY THEMSELVES MAKE THE CHOICE, not the government, not their families, not their doctors, and not society. This does not glorify or approve suicide in general.henrietta said:
Americans overall are quite compassionate about sickness, disabilty, etc. Many donate very generously to different organizations and researchers to find cures, create free treatments, and such. Anyway, the government is NOT promoting ending the lives of people who do not choose to end their lives. It's not trying to create the 'perfect race' or anything. These are people who want it to end, and personally, I don't think you have the right to guage how much pain physically, mentally, and emotionally they are going through. I don't support suicide just because you're depressed or heartbroken or whatever. But I don't want the government controlling my life. The government should not have the right to judge my situation. If I am terminally ill, and have only a short time to live anyway, there is no use in making me go through so much pain for nothing. The law doesn't promote assisted suicide, it only offers it as an option. That doesn't mean you have to take them up on it if you are in excrutiating pain. I doubt I would. But you don't know what some people go through everyday. These people are entitled to their own choice. You can't decide for them. That's not right.henrietta said:
Why should women have the right to end somebody else's life when a poor, sick pateint doesn't have the right to end his/her own? The fetus has no choice in the matter, while the patient does. My body is my property, so hands off. I don't want others telling me what I can and can't do with it. I am strongly against the death penalty (being a crazy, tree-hugging hippie liberal). Some of these people are mentally sick--not physically--but what gives society the right to wrench their souls away? You argued that society pressured people into physician suicide, but this is society FORCING someone to die!! They don't even have a choice. That's equivalent to the government murdering someone, pure hypocracy, in my opinion. As I have repeatedly stated, society is not murdering anyone. These are people who have expressed their wishes to end their life based on their own situation. They are 'innocent' people who should have a choice in matter concerning their life, because they deserve it and have the right to it.henrietta said:
Whatever happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Shouldn't people have choices regarding their life? Shouldn't they have the liberty to make their own decisions (especially when it becomes clear that they don't have many options left anyway)? And shouldn't they be able to pursue happiness, or at least put an end to their sadness?
Have a nice day!
veggiedog said:
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.
veggiedog
New Member
henrietta said:
To force someone through pain and misery is just as bad as forcing someone to die, perhaps even worse. I would rather be killed than tortured, I don't know about you. Maybe I don't know as much about our species as you, but as far as I can tell, my family would never consider making me write out a forced statement in want of suicide, because they love me. The government doen't care whether I live or die (it barely recognizes I exist), and should have no say in it either way. It's not even legalized in 49 of our states, so I'm perfectly sure you're safe wherever you are. If not, you can ask to be moved up to Washington. This is hardly cruelty against the elderly. These are terminally ill patients who are due to die within six months. It's hardly shortening their lives, or ridding America of its vast population of old people.
Could you give an example of what you think would happen otherwise, that does not involve the approval of the patient? Do you think shady doctors sweating with bloodlust will skitter about with syringes, slyly injecting anyone and everyone who has told them they smell like a hospital with a lethal drug?
Have a nice day!
KristoCat
New Member
Veggiedog, let me first say that overall I agree with your arguments, on an emotional basis. However, I can't resist playing the devil's advocate here:
You (and many others) are fortunate to have such a caring, loving family. But, people can be really evil. Honestly, I can see a family member forcing another family member to write statements in favor of suicide, or somehow tricking them into it, especially if there is some kind of large inheritance involved. People can be truly horrible.
Actually, for millions of people on government-funded health insurance programs like Medicaid, the government definitely cares whether they live or die. If a person on Medicaid dies, the costs involved in that person's medical care disappears. The government always wants to cut costs.
Anyway, despite all this, I do believe in my heart that it's wrong to force someone to continue living when they truly have no other option except more pain, and death later. Free will is a gift.
You (and many others) are fortunate to have such a caring, loving family. But, people can be really evil. Honestly, I can see a family member forcing another family member to write statements in favor of suicide, or somehow tricking them into it, especially if there is some kind of large inheritance involved. People can be truly horrible.
Actually, for millions of people on government-funded health insurance programs like Medicaid, the government definitely cares whether they live or die. If a person on Medicaid dies, the costs involved in that person's medical care disappears. The government always wants to cut costs.
Anyway, despite all this, I do believe in my heart that it's wrong to force someone to continue living when they truly have no other option except more pain, and death later. Free will is a gift.
Jemima Aslana
New Member
Post #30 in this thread, courtesy of veggiedog has my full and complete support.
I don't think I can add anything to it for now.
I don't think I can add anything to it for now.
veggiedog said:Could you give an example of what you think would happen otherwise, that does not involve the approval of the patient? Do you think shady doctors sweating with bloodlust will skitter about with syringes, slyly injecting anyone and everyone who has told them they smell like a hospital with a lethal drug?Have a nice day!
Interesting, I hadn't thought of the issue in that way. Snidely Whiplash aside, though, I think euthanasia is a pretty important question with a nasty history that kind of deserves more measured consideration than 'hey, I wouldn't want to live like that, what's up with the Man making me?'
Scottishduffy
New Member
henrietta said:
Doesn't suicide (in the case of a terminally ill patient) also accept death and seek to minimalize the persons pain? The physician themselves do not actually deliver the lethal dose of medication. The doctor merely writes the prescription. The person themself must fill the prescription, and must take the medication by themself. It is entirely upon the individual here to make the decision.
If someone is in that much pain (like the cancer patients), and truly wants to end it all, how can we refuse them? If it is the free will of that one person who states their will with a clear mind and swallows that medicine on their own. Where does this go wrong?
I dunno.... I have seen too many people die...
Scottishduffy said:
It's already legal to increase pain medication to treat pain, resulting eventually in such high dosages that the patient loses consciousness more or less permanently - so why the need for doctors to prescribe suicide doses? I don't think it's about pain, I think it's about a fantasy of personal choice. People who are not sick are terrified of facing that situation, and prefer to believe that they'll retain some control over their fate. 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? 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?