Euthanasia

Thoughts_Arrive · November 2017

Set to become legal in my home state...

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/historic-euthanasia-laws-pass-victorian-upper-house-20171121-gzqc8n.html

For/Against?
I am for. I am sick of religious groups saying no based on their faith. Fuck off and let people die if they want.

PJ_Soul · November 2017

Congrats to Victoria!!!! Canada just legalized recently too, although the law here is still too weak - it still results in people suffering needlessly because our PM wussed out a bit on the legislation. But that is all going through the courts now, so improvements to the law should come over time (hopefully in time for it to benefit me and mine, should we need it).
This is a really important issue to me, and I think it is downright sickening that people try to prevent it from being legal and accessible. All the excuses they use to justify their reticence are garbage.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · November 2017

Freedom of choice.

It is nobody's place to say what is right and not right for someone else if they are not impacting anyone with the choices they make.

Thoughts_Arrive · November 2017

The Catholic church interferes too much here in Australia (and globally).
They have too much influence over politicians on the conservative side.
First they tried to stop same sex marriage here and now this.

jeffbr · November 2017

My state legalized it almost a decade ago. Called The Washington Death With Dignity Act. I'm very much in favor of self-determination.

PJ_Soul · November 2017

jeffbr said:

My state legalized it almost a decade ago. Called The Washington Death With Dignity Act. I'm very much in favor of self-determination.

Washington and Oregon definitely do it well. Canada hasn't gotten to their level yet - still too many restrictions on who is allowed to do it, and we still don't have the option of taking the medication home and doing just among loved ones. It still has to be done in a hospital here (I would personally go with the hospital option myself just for logistical reasons, but a lot of people would much prefer to do it at home).

Bentleyspop · November 2017

For

Thoughts_Arrive · November 2017

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

My state legalized it almost a decade ago. Called The Washington Death With Dignity Act. I'm very much in favor of self-determination.

Washington and Oregon definitely do it well. Canada hasn't gotten to their level yet - still too many restrictions on who is allowed to do it, and we still don't have the option of taking the medication home and doing just among loved ones. It still has to be done in a hospital here (I would personally go with the hospital option myself just for logistical reasons, but a lot of people would much prefer to do it at home).

I'd want to do it at a PJ concert.
And then my body can be crowd surfed all the way to the back and into a waiting ambulance.

bootlegger10 · November 2017

I am in favor of it.

hedonist · November 2017

My body, my life, my decision.

Totally for it for myself or anyone else who chooses to go that route.

RunIntoTheRain · November 2017

I am for it

brianlux · November 2017

Right-to-die for terminal patients with little time left who are suffering great pain is compassionate and the arguments against it are, generally speaking, based on: a) fear, b) misinformation, or c) misguided religious beliefs.

A similar bill was brought before the California in 2016. One of the most compassionate people I know asked me to get involved by going to state senate hearings and voicing my opinion. We wrote letters, went the the state capitol a few time and despite that bill being shot down a number of times, we finally got approval. The bill had to be weakened to pass and right-to-die is still difficult in California, but at least it is possible. Hopefully we will see some reasonable amendments to that bill in the future.

So yes, I'm definitely glad to see this went through in your state, Thoughts.

josevolution · November 2017

Thoughts_Arrive said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

My state legalized it almost a decade ago. Called The Washington Death With Dignity Act. I'm very much in favor of self-determination.

Washington and Oregon definitely do it well. Canada hasn't gotten to their level yet - still too many restrictions on who is allowed to do it, and we still don't have the option of taking the medication home and doing just among loved ones. It still has to be done in a hospital here (I would personally go with the hospital option myself just for logistical reasons, but a lot of people would much prefer to do it at home).

I'd want to do it at a PJ concert.
And then my body can be crowd surfed all the way to the back and into a waiting ambulance.

Hell yeah lol , yes to the law !

unsung · November 2017

What if the person wasn’t terminally ill? Do they still get to choose?

josevolution · November 2017

unsung said:

What if the person wasn’t terminally ill? Do they still get to choose?

I’d say no ..

even flow - question mark · November 2017

Not only am I for it. I have problems with the news stories of the religious people keeping their loved ones on life support while espousing about how this is the way god wants it. So, so, natural to be hooked up to a machine! Right God?

RunIntoTheRain · November 2017

even flow - question mark said:

Not only am I for it. I have problems with the news stories of the religious people keeping their loved ones on life support while espousing about how this is the way god wants it. So, so, natural to be hooked up to a machine! Right God?

I agree. But it isn't just a religious angle. Medical treatment has advanced tremendously and that's a great thing usually. But sometimes, just because we can keep someone alive, it doesn't mean we should.
Quality of life, which is a grey area, needs to be considered.

Bentleyspop · November 2017

RunIntoTheRain said:

even flow - question mark said:

Not only am I for it. I have problems with the news stories of the religious people keeping their loved ones on life support while espousing about how this is the way god wants it. So, so, natural to be hooked up to a machine! Right God?

I agree. But it isn't just a religious angle. Medical treatment has advanced tremendously and that's a great thing usually. But sometimes, just because we can keep someone alive, it doesn't mean we should.
Quality of life, which is a grey area, needs to be considered.

Unfortunately too many people think that god and or jesus will sweep down from heaven and bring their brain dead loved one back to life.
This is, as far as I am concerned, a selfish act. People thinking about their own pain and not that of their loved one.
I'm a big believer in DNRs, Living Wills, Directives, etc.
Euthanasia, when used properly and ethically, is a practical tool for ending what for many is unbearable pain. Both physically and mentally for themselves and their loved ones.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · November 2017

unsung said:

What if the person wasn’t terminally ill? Do they still get to choose?

Depends on the situation.

If the person is in chronic pain, in a debilitated condition of some sort, and is tired of it... then that should be their choice. If someone is in the midst of an emotional crisis (say they've lost a loved one or breakdown) and thinks clinical death is the best option for them to cope... then maybe not.

Of course, this leaves grey area and who reigns supreme in the grey area?

unsung · November 2017

So then it really isn’t a choice unless certain pre-approved conditions are met.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · November 2017

unsung said:

So then it really isn’t a choice unless certain pre-approved conditions are met.

I don't know, man. I'm not trying to develop the blueprint for it. I'm just expressing that euthanasia serves some very well. For others that might not be in the correct state of mind to make such a conclusive and fatal decision for themselves... I think safeguards should be in place. Options need to be probed before jumping to the death option.

Do you agree?

Bentleyspop · November 2017

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

So then it really isn’t a choice unless certain pre-approved conditions are met.

I don't know, man. I'm not trying to develop the blueprint for it. I'm just expressing that euthanasia serves some very well. For others that might not be in the correct state of mind to make such a conclusive and fatal decision for themselves... I think safeguards should be in place. Options need to be probed before jumping to the death option.

Do you agree?

My understanding is that in the states that have it you need to get approved by a primary physician and a psychologist. And then there is a waiting period.
It's not "hey Im in pain and Im tired and I want to die tomorrow". There is a process and it takes time.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · November 2017

Bentleyspop said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

So then it really isn’t a choice unless certain pre-approved conditions are met.

I don't know, man. I'm not trying to develop the blueprint for it. I'm just expressing that euthanasia serves some very well. For others that might not be in the correct state of mind to make such a conclusive and fatal decision for themselves... I think safeguards should be in place. Options need to be probed before jumping to the death option.

Do you agree?

My understanding is that in the states that have it you need to get approved by a primary physician and a psychologist. And then there is a waiting period.
It's not "hey Im in pain and Im tired and I want to die tomorrow". There is a process and it takes time.

I'm aware of that. I was trying to respond to the 'essence' of Unsung's question to us (if I understood what he was getting at that is).

unsung · November 2017

The whole thing is just ridiculous. I understand the premise of terminally ill and not wanting to suffer, but one would need a waiting period to get permission? What is going to happen if they don’t wait? Is the government going to penalize them post-mortum?

If you really support this type of termination then really you should support anyone’s right to choose under any circumstance. It is their decision. I understand that this would keep doctors in the clear, but I am speaking of the individual right to choose.

The reality of this is people are not for free choice, they are only for this type of end if all of the boxes on the form have been checked. It can’t be called patient’s right to choose if they have to meet a mulititude of guidelines.

PJ_Soul · November 2017

unsung said:

The whole thing is just ridiculous. I understand the premise of terminally ill and not wanting to suffer, but one would need a waiting period to get permission? What is going to happen if they don’t wait? Is the government going to penalize them post-mortum?

If you really support this type of termination then really you should support anyone’s right to choose under any circumstance. It is their decision. I understand that this would keep doctors in the clear, but I am speaking of the individual right to choose.

The reality of this is people are not for free choice, they are only for this type of end if all of the boxes on the form have been checked. It can’t be called patient’s right to choose if they have to meet a mulititude of guidelines.

Jesus Christ man. Okay, fine, be pro-suicide across the board. But I don't see why that should lead to punching a gift horse in the mouth on this one. The reason there are limitations is more to protect doctors, not people who want to die. I'm pretty sure most doctors did not sign up to be agents of random suicide, nor to skirt mental healthcare by just making it easier for the mentally ill to take themselves out while they aren't in any shape to make a sound decision about it. That is the main difference between suicide and doctor assisted suicide. The ones doctors assist are sane, sound, informed, and medically justified cases. That is why doctors are willing to be involved. Because there is no other reasonable alternative to end the patients' suffering. The rest can still kill themselves in various ways on their own, but in cases of depression and grief, etc, it's not a terminal or permanent thing - that is why doctors wouldn't want to help them die rather than help them get better. Philosophically, that would be like killing someone instead of removing their appendix (The Hemlock Society says that using the ol' pipe from the tailpipe into the car method is the most gentle way to do it on your own... the Hemlock society, though, offers this info to those who don't have the legal option of doctor assisted suicide, not to encourage mentally ill people to kill themselves during a depression).
I do, however, think it's fairly ridiculous to actually make suicide illegal. It's not in some places, but in others it still is. And all that means is that those who fail in their attempt can get punished. That is awful.

brianlux · November 2017

RunIntoTheRain said:

even flow - question mark said:

Not only am I for it. I have problems with the news stories of the religious people keeping their loved ones on life support while espousing about how this is the way god wants it. So, so, natural to be hooked up to a machine! Right God?

I agree. But it isn't just a religious angle. Medical treatment has advanced tremendously and that's a great thing usually. But sometimes, just because we can keep someone alive, it doesn't mean we should.
Quality of life, which is a grey area, needs to be considered.

Excellent point. My father died a couple of weeks ago. He was 96 going on 97. The medical staff asked if we wanted to keep him on a saline I.V. and do whatever else they could to keep him alive. Losing my Pop was one of the hardest things I've ever dealt with but with almost no veins strong enough to support an I.V., his being unable to talk (and toward the end, unable to open his eyes), "keeping him going" would have been cruel and selfish. True, this is not the same as someone younger and terminally ill and in great pain, but the similarity is that when it's a person't time to die, we and they are better off if we acknowledge this and do the compassionate thing and let them go.

If doctors tell us, "Yes, there is a chance this person may recover if we keep him or her hooked up to machines", that is worth considering. But when it's obviously a terminal situation and the person is suffering, there's no point in keeping them hooked up except, maybe, for the hospital to rake in more money. I'm not sure how much or how often that is a factor, but I have no doubt it happens.

brianlux · November 2017

unsung said:

The whole thing is just ridiculous. I understand the premise of terminally ill and not wanting to suffer, but one would need a waiting period to get permission? What is going to happen if they don’t wait? Is the government going to penalize them post-mortum?

If you really support this type of termination then really you should support anyone’s right to choose under any circumstance. It is their decision. I understand that this would keep doctors in the clear, but I am speaking of the individual right to choose.

The reality of this is people are not for free choice, they are only for this type of end if all of the boxes on the form have been checked. It can’t be called patient’s right to choose if they have to meet a mulititude of guidelines.

When I sat in on California state hearing for the right-to-die bill, one of the concerns for those opposed was that potential heirs who were eager to grab their inheritance could potentially sway medical staff into giving assisted suicide when there still might be a chance for recovery. In my opinion, this argument was carried a bit too far, but at least to some extent, it is a valid concern (picture potential heirs rubbing their hands together and thinking, "Let's just finish the old man off NOW so we can get a hold of his bread!"), thus the need for a fair amount of safeguards included in the legislation. Law makers have to take into consideration potential abuse of the law. I believe our state law was watered down too far, but at the same time, for the reason I just stated, it makes sense to have some restrictions and guidelines in place. Giving anyone free will in these situations implies all people will do the right thing. Not all people will.

Go Beavers · November 2017

unsung said:

The whole thing is just ridiculous. I understand the premise of terminally ill and not wanting to suffer, but one would need a waiting period to get permission? What is going to happen if they don’t wait? Is the government going to penalize them post-mortum?

If you really support this type of termination then really you should support anyone’s right to choose under any circumstance. It is their decision. I understand that this would keep doctors in the clear, but I am speaking of the individual right to choose.

The reality of this is people are not for free choice, they are only for this type of end if all of the boxes on the form have been checked. It can’t be called patient’s right to choose if they have to meet a mulititude of guidelines.

It’s about physician assisted suicide, not suicide in general. They’ve made boxes to check off which protects doctors, but it’s also a step toward ackowledging our mortality at some point, rather than defaulting toward modern medicine keeping our bodies functioning no matter what. This issue will be magnified even more as us Pearl Jammers get old and technology advances. Theoretically, we’ll probably be able to be kept “alive” for ages unless we die in an accident.

PJ_Soul · November 2017

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

The whole thing is just ridiculous. I understand the premise of terminally ill and not wanting to suffer, but one would need a waiting period to get permission? What is going to happen if they don’t wait? Is the government going to penalize them post-mortum?

If you really support this type of termination then really you should support anyone’s right to choose under any circumstance. It is their decision. I understand that this would keep doctors in the clear, but I am speaking of the individual right to choose.

The reality of this is people are not for free choice, they are only for this type of end if all of the boxes on the form have been checked. It can’t be called patient’s right to choose if they have to meet a mulititude of guidelines.

It’s about physician assisted suicide, not suicide in general. They’ve made boxes to check off which protects doctors, but it’s also a step toward ackowledging our mortality at some point, rather than defaulting toward modern medicine keeping our bodies functioning no matter what. This issue will be magnified even more as us Pearl Jammers get old and technology advances. Theoretically, we’ll probably be able to be kept “alive” for ages unless we die in an accident.

It won't even take us getting old. A lot more of us will start having stronger feelings about this issue when more of our parents start reaching the end of their functional lives. With the huge aging baby boomer population issue, I think doctor assisted suicide laws are going to progress faster than they ever have before.

brianlux · November 2017

PJ_Soul said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

The whole thing is just ridiculous. I understand the premise of terminally ill and not wanting to suffer, but one would need a waiting period to get permission? What is going to happen if they don’t wait? Is the government going to penalize them post-mortum?

If you really support this type of termination then really you should support anyone’s right to choose under any circumstance. It is their decision. I understand that this would keep doctors in the clear, but I am speaking of the individual right to choose.

The reality of this is people are not for free choice, they are only for this type of end if all of the boxes on the form have been checked. It can’t be called patient’s right to choose if they have to meet a mulititude of guidelines.

It’s about physician assisted suicide, not suicide in general. They’ve made boxes to check off which protects doctors, but it’s also a step toward ackowledging our mortality at some point, rather than defaulting toward modern medicine keeping our bodies functioning no matter what. This issue will be magnified even more as us Pearl Jammers get old and technology advances. Theoretically, we’ll probably be able to be kept “alive” for ages unless we die in an accident.

It won't even take us getting old. A lot more of us will start having stronger feelings about this issue when more of our parents start reaching the end of their functional lives. With the huge aging baby boomer population issue, I think doctor assisted suicide laws are going to progress faster than they ever have before.

About 15 years ago, the Human Services prof I worked with at our local college said this very thing. She and I are both boomers, so her words really stuck with me. The fact of the matter is, my generation is huge and generations following are not as big. There will not be enough services people in the field of care-giving* to go around. I believe most of our kids will not be interested in doing the work either, even for there own parents*. Currently, a number of boomers who can afford it and have the right social connections are starting up co-habitation living centers where people live in clustered housing and support each other any way they can. There will be more of these and there will be more euthanasia.

It's not fun for me to think about these things. I hope I'm like my dear grandma: lived independently until she was 90 and went out like a light with a heart attack while sitting on the crapper. No muss, no fuss. Well done, grammy!

*(It's a difficult, challenging and under-paid job. I had to help change an elderly persons "diaper once". That was tough enough but then I think about seeing clients die off frequently? Very difficult. Sorry to say, I would not do well doing this kind of work regularly.)

lastexitlondon · November 2017

I say anyone who wants to go or die or end suffering of any kind mental or physical.
Should be allowed to by law.
The mind and body are one.

Euthanasia

Comments