[CR_L1]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...ling/article.do

I know this is not everyones cup of tea but I for one agree with a change in the law.

[Yasko]

State of Washington has already passed "Right to Die" law allowing doctors in Washington State to prescribe lethal prescriptions for terminally ill patients! I have voted YES for this law to be passed! We help and humane euthanize sick animals but when terminally ill people want to die, "some" people were against it! Don't get it (well I do get it, but it's for another post). I have also signed legal paperwork, in case I end up in coma and my wife and family realize that there is no more to live for, "pull the plug". I don't want to be kept suffering and begging to die by some religious freak. Just my two cents!

[CR_L1]

Yasko, on Jul 30 2009, 07:58 PM, said:

State of Washington has already passed "Right to Die" law allowing doctors in Washington State to prescribe lethal prescriptions for terminally ill patients! I have voted YES for this law to be passed! We help and humane euthanize sick animals but when terminally ill people want to die, "some" people were against it! Don't get it (well I do get it, but it's for another post). I have also signed legal paperwork, in case I end up in coma and my wife and family realize that there is no more to live for, "pull the plug". I don't want to be kept suffering and begging to die by some religious freak. Just my two cents!

nice to meet a like minded person Yasko, to many people can't see any further than the end of their nose.

[alex4bs]

if im given the chance to vote in uk iwould be first in line to say yes kill me

[Tinbasher]

CR_L1, on Jul 30 2009, 06:52 PM, said:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...ling/article.do

I know this is not everyones cup of tea but I for one agree with a change in the law.

Todays descision changes nothing it only says that the Crown Prosecutor must clarify how they decide to prosecute or not in these cases.

Tin

[wheeliebear75]

I think if those who are allowed to are just that........ those who wanted to not live in suffering, I just have a problem with the "who" & the "why" parts. It should ONLY be brought up for those who would otherwise be involved with hospice. I think it's one thing to offer someone dying of Cancer or some other TERMINAL condition, but lets face it we are on a bit of a "slippery slope" here. Yes Washington in the U.S. allows for assisted suicide, but so does Switzerland or Sweden (sorry I can't remember which "Sw" country was the one) & they list SCI as a reason to commit suicide. So THAT is where I've got a bone to pick. We're not dying! The majority of us especially on this site although it is much harder to accomplish; have jobs, kids, social lives, & would say overall their lives are "happy". But I bet all of us who say that now didn't say that 6mo. after. It took us all years to "come to terms". So do I think someone who has been told they WILL die of Cancer in the next 18mo. has the right to say "no more.....please help me end it now with some dignity"?......yes it's their choice. Do I think we should just let anyone who has a condition that wont go away or who had a terrible accident "do it"?......the answer to that is NO.

We can make a person's life have meaning & have the person relatively "happy"; by ensuring the person is not in too much physical pain, does not feel isolated, & have something to do.......some purpose to their lives.
We can also take a person who feels so-so about life & convince them their life sucks & that it isn't worth having........"end your life........end the burden".

The problem is with "what is a candidate for the assisted suicide" & if people who have injuries are allowed to take the "assisted suicide" route than what will this say about all of us?

I'm glad California did not have any such laws in 1990 or in 2003, those were the 2 hardest years for me; 1990 because I had to learn to adjust & adapt & I felt VERY lonely because most of my "friends" did their own thing but without me.......2003 because I was in so much physical pain I'd thought of doing it myself. But now my pain is under control, & I have different friends who don't give a damn that I'm in a wheelchair or not, they do stuff with me that I can do. My life is much more enjoyable & it was just those 2 key things that changed it all for me; I'm still in pain but usually at a tolerable level, & I'm not isolated or feeling "alone".

Just my opinion.

[edlee]

alex4bs, on Jul 30 2009, 04:52 PM, said:

if im given the chance to vote in uk iwould be first in line to say yes kill me

Or at least in the first ten to vote to kill you.

Any of these laws only deprive a small minority who need to be aided in the act that the rest of us are free to do at any time.

There are generally enough pills in any random medicine cabinet in any random home to end ones life in a fairly quiet way. So any AB and most of us here, would be able to "off" ourselves any time we like.

Those who require aid to reach the proper shelf are the ones being discriminated against.

I have to believe that anyone who "attempts" suicide and fails,, didn't try very hard.
ed

[qbounce]

Well Ed,
I get your point about the drugs being available for suicide, but in actuality it probably isn't the wisest of choices.

First, the stomach pain kicks in.
Next would be the gut wrenching vomiting that the pills enduce.
After that would be excessive convulsions, knife stabbing pain through out, and your body's need to void all excrements.
All this happening BEFORE you go into a cardiac shock, and then, finally, death.

When your body's found, it will have throw up, piss, and sh*t all around it.

Not the most peaceful way to go, indeed.

A gun is messy, but quick. (woohoo, I got to use the suicide emot on a suicide thread!!!)

[wheeliebear75]

LMAO

[CR_L1]

Your right q & don’t forget the sociological effects it has on the people who find & clean up your mess.

Tinbasher,
I know it changes nothing at the moment, I have followed the story,

[edlee]

You might be right Q,, not everybody can get the heavy pain meds,,, well,, not as easily as we can. I've had doctors practically push some on me, to keep me from complaining, I guess. I am trying to get by without them,, so far.

As for the loved ones. People who really want it,, don't really care. People of whom it could be said, they have good reason,, well their families are prepared for it.

The question is should government be allowed to tell someone no, to something that generally has meaning to them alone? If so,, what, exactly does freedom mean? Even if you're religeous,, how about you leave that to god and me? If not,,, what's the problem?
ed

[Dave Bishopstone]

I fully respect a persons right to decide to end their own life, what I am uncertain of is the right to ask another person to assist in the act. Little account seems to be taken of the long term effects on the assisting person from an emotional point of view or of reconciling him or herself to what they have done. We have all done things in our lives that seemed OK at the time but as time moves on you revisit the event and question whether what you did was correct .

I obviously appreciate that some people are physically unable to terminate their own life, perhaps such establishments as Dignitas in Switzerland are the answer, but on an international scale, maybe clarifying 'assisting' to exclude 'travelling with' is the answer.

This post has been edited by Dave Bishopstone: 01 August 2009 - 12:55 PM

[greybeard]

Dave Bishopstone, on Aug 1 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

I fully respect a persons right to decide to end their own life, what I am uncertain of is the right to ask another person to assist in the act. Little account seems to be taken of the long term effects on the assisting person from an emotional point of view or of reconciling him or herself to what they have done.

Isn't it more likely that emotional damage would be caused by not allowing someone to help a loved one who is physically unable to act on their own wishes? - Being forced to watch the agonies of a loved one while being begged to help put an end to it, but being denied the right to do so because of the religious or moral beliefs of a group of politicians?

Nobody could be unaffected after an experience like that where the abiding memory of a deceased loved one would be tainted by the needless suffering the survivor was forced to witness.

In a secular society it is arguable that no politicians should have the right to rule on such issues. For them to do so is to exceed the authority granted to them by the electorate. Such outdated laws that no longer have relevance to society should be amended or repealed to reflect the times we now live in, rather than an age when the religious practitioners held power.

[CR_L1]

Well put Greybeard

[edlee]

I wish I'd said it like that. Well stated GB.
ed

[Tinbasher]

I would help a loved one to die BUT I really believe I should face the rigours of a thorough investigation if I do.

DIGNITAS really worry me they "help" people who are NOT terminally ill and last year "helped" somone with Caudia Equina Spinal injury from the UK. I am not making light of that injury but it is hardly terminal.

I don't object on religious grounds but on the slippery slope argument, the Nazi Aktion T4 programme started on the basis of being "humaine". And if you think am over reacting, I bet that every one of us has had someone tell us "If I was like you I would kill myself" these aren't the kind of people I want to decide.

Tin

[evilmac64]

Why does any one think they have the right to decide for me. Right to live or die is personal. My life is mine for better or worse.Its up to me weather i stay or go .So ive stayed so far but who knows i might chang my mind in a day or two. What i mean is its my choice no one Else has the right to judge my quality of life and decide for me.

[Dave Bishopstone]

greybeard, on Aug 1 2009, 05:26 PM, said:

Dave Bishopstone, on Aug 1 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

I fully respect a persons right to decide to end their own life, what I am uncertain of is the right to ask another person to assist in the act. Little account seems to be taken of the long term effects on the assisting person from an emotional point of view or of reconciling him or herself to what they have done.

Isn't it more likely that emotional damage would be caused by not allowing someone to help a loved one who is physically unable to act on their own wishes? - Being forced to watch the agonies of a loved one while being begged to help put an end to it, but being denied the right to do so because of the religious or moral beliefs of a group of politicians?

Nobody could be unaffected after an experience like that where the abiding memory of a deceased loved one would be tainted by the needless suffering the survivor was forced to witness.

In a secular society it is arguable that no politicians should have the right to rule on such issues. For them to do so is to exceed the authority granted to them by the electorate. Such outdated laws that no longer have relevance to society should be amended or repealed to reflect the times we now live in, rather than an age when the religious practitioners held power.

Your point is equally valid Greybeard, the situation is the proverbial 'double edge sword' or being damned if you do or if you don't. I very frequently come into contact with the terminally ill and their relatives, the anguish on the latters face is clear to see yet very rarely do I hear from those approaching death or their loved ones the desire to accelerate the process. Many years ago my own father died at home with lung cancer, yes I watched his suffering and it was far from easy. I did not have a single thought of euthanasia. I suspect my father considered taking his own life as I found a quantity of tablets he had held back, but didn't use. What emotional scars has that left? Only positive ones for in those closing months I came to see my dad as I had never seen him before, a man of great strength, courage and dignity, who when the going got tough - fought to the end, for me personally a hard act to follow but certainly something for me to aspire to.

Of suicide, I have personal experience also, my mother suddenly and unexpectedly took her own life, this left me for many years with the "maybe, if only syndrome" - i.e. if only I had been there, maybe if I had have done this or that. She was not physically or apparently mentally ill, I guess she couldn't face the prospect of the years ahead, even though they may have been good years. Many years on I have accepted it was her personal decision and there was nothing I could have done that would have made a difference. I think none the less of her for her action but will always view it with sadness.

I do concur that this matter is so deeply personal that it is beyond the remit of legislators, but we are left with the situation of needing to protect the vulnerable from pressure to end their own lives by the less caring in society from what would be a massive loophole were we not to scrutinise very closely the person assisting a suicide.

This post has been edited by Dave Bishopstone: 02 August 2009 - 06:39 AM

[StillFingers]

If anyone has witnessed the slow horrific journey a loved one endures with terminal cancer, this would not even be of question. I'm sure I'll get "...how could you, it's god who decides who dies and when..." for my views on assisted suicide, but...

All you have to do is hold your loved one's frail hand, look into their dark sunken eyes, see the torment within. Notice the thin emaciated body laying before you, the morphine shot/drip that no longer eases the excruciating pain, the gentle then sudden firmer grasp of hand as another bit of flesh is eaten away. While all along knowing deep in your soul there is nothing you can do to comfort them, except perhaps be with them, love them, until their last desperate breath, because an old outdated law prevents any mercy.

Why is it that we let such insanity continue? We end our pet's lives without hesitation, so they will not suffer. Yet when those that we love so dear are writhing in pain, in a shell of what once was a vibrant loving human being...do we not do the same? Why are we so weak...

Jerry

[greybeard]

I fully agree that there must be rigorous scrutiny of anyone assisting suicide - but it needs to be done before the event, rather than after as it is now. I have no opinion about which body should be responsible for such scrutiny.

[Dave Bishopstone]

StillFingers, on Aug 2 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

If anyone has witnessed the slow horrific journey a loved one endures with terminal cancer, this would not even be of question. I'm sure I'll get "...how could you, it's god who decides who dies and when..." for my views on assisted suicide, but...

All you have to do is hold your loved one's frail hand, look into their dark sunken eyes, see the torment within. Notice the thin emaciated body laying before you, the morphine shot/drip that no longer eases the excruciating pain, the gentle then sudden firmer grasp of hand as another bit of flesh is eaten away. While all along knowing deep in your soul there is nothing you can do to comfort them, except perhaps be with them, love them, until their last desperate breath, because an old outdated law prevents any mercy.

Why is it that we let such insanity continue? We end our pet's lives without hesitation, so they will not suffer. Yet when those that we love so dear are writhing in pain, in a shell of what once was a vibrant loving human being...do we not do the same? Why are we so weak...

Jerry

It is not really about whether we accept the right for a person to end their own life - that must be for them and them alone. The scenario you describe implies that at the terminal 'end' stage someone other than the patient may make such a decision on the patients behalf - that can never be acceptable. I also doubt the validity of the patient making the decision sometime in advance, then later being unable to confirm their wishes. It must for safety's sake be a 'here and now' decision in real time.

[greybeard]

Dave Bishopstone, on Aug 2 2009, 08:53 AM, said:

StillFingers, on Aug 2 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

If anyone has witnessed the slow horrific journey a loved one endures with terminal cancer, this would not even be of question. I'm sure I'll get "...how could you, it's god who decides who dies and when..." for my views on assisted suicide, but...

All you have to do is hold your loved one's frail hand, look into their dark sunken eyes, see the torment within. Notice the thin emaciated body laying before you, the morphine shot/drip that no longer eases the excruciating pain, the gentle then sudden firmer grasp of hand as another bit of flesh is eaten away. While all along knowing deep in your soul there is nothing you can do to comfort them, except perhaps be with them, love them, until their last desperate breath, because an old outdated law prevents any mercy.

Why is it that we let such insanity continue? We end our pet's lives without hesitation, so they will not suffer. Yet when those that we love so dear are writhing in pain, in a shell of what once was a vibrant loving human being...do we not do the same? Why are we so weak...

Jerry

It is not really about whether we accept the right for a person to end their own life - that must be for them and them alone. The scenario you describe implies that at the terminal 'end' stage someone other than the patient may make such a decision on the patients behalf - that can never be acceptable. I also doubt the validity of the patient making the decision sometime in advance, then later being unable to confirm their wishes. It must for safety's sake be a 'here and now' decision in real time.

Exactly.

[alex4bs]

aggree with gb i have watch 2 wives suffer in last hours of their lives.i wouldnt like to go through wat they went through its time for a referendom on when a relitive can say enough is enough>>alex

[Slowlegs]

I totally support right to die legislation but I feel in all cases it must be the right of the person who is doing the dying rather than the person ending it. I think there obviously has to be rules ant tests involved, I am sure a lot of us when we were first injured either wished or indeed vocalised our choice in the matter. I am just glad now they didn't listen to me because although my life has and does indeed suck sometimes the good bits do make up for it overall.

[qbounce]

I would bet to say that Hospitals, as well as insurance companies, play A huge role in trying to keep euthenasia outside their doors, if only to keep lifeless bodies on insurance paid, life support systems as long as they can milk it for. Who would suffer more if it were legalized?
Certainly the medical field, and not the patient or their family.

Edit to add, we cannot be admitted into a Hospital under any circumstance in the USA without something called an ADVANCE DIRECTIVE. This stipulates that, should anything go wrong while in the care of the hospital, if the said patient is in a situation where he goes on life support, he has the RIGHT to be taken off it. However, I'm not sure of all the in's and out's of this contract. But it's there in case one becomes a vegetable, and (thinking beforehand) doesn't want to unnecessarily burden their family with any extra medical expenses.

This post has been edited by qbounce: 02 August 2009 - 09:32 PM

[StillFingers]

Dave Bishopstone, on Aug 2 2009, 12:53 AM, said:

StillFingers, on Aug 2 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

If anyone has witnessed the slow horrific journey a loved one endures with terminal cancer, this would not even be of question. I'm sure I'll get "...how could you, it's god who decides who dies and when..." for my views on assisted suicide, but...

All you have to do is hold your loved one's frail hand, look into their dark sunken eyes, see the torment within. Notice the thin emaciated body laying before you, the morphine shot/drip that no longer eases the excruciating pain, the gentle then sudden firmer grasp of hand as another bit of flesh is eaten away. While all along knowing deep in your soul there is nothing you can do to comfort them, except perhaps be with them, love them, until their last desperate breath, because an old outdated law prevents any mercy.

Why is it that we let such insanity continue? We end our pet's lives without hesitation, so they will not suffer. Yet when those that we love so dear are writhing in pain, in a shell of what once was a vibrant loving human being...do we not do the same? Why are we so weak...

Jerry

It is not really about whether we accept the right for a person to end their own life - that must be for them and them alone. The scenario you describe implies that at the terminal 'end' stage someone other than the patient may make such a decision on the patients behalf - that can never be acceptable. I also doubt the validity of the patient making the decision sometime in advance, then later being unable to confirm their wishes. It must for safety's sake be a 'here and now' decision in real time.

Nothing was implied at all, she was a dear friend, her decision was made before her diagnosis and was not honored. She died 3 years ago on a Sunday morning, her family near her side. It is illegal to assist in CA, so they did not. Your doubts are indeed unfounded. Her pain was real. Thus the debate, thus my reply. Not all is fair, not everything so easy to dismiss.

If you need more information to satisfy your curiosity, send me a personal message, I'll share what I can.

I hope we, one day, can honor such requests, free of legal persecution.

Jerry

This post has been edited by StillFingers: 02 August 2009 - 10:58 PM

[StillFingers]

qbounce, on Aug 2 2009, 02:18 PM, said:

I would bet to say that Hospitals, as well as insurance companies, play A huge role in trying to keep euthenasia outside their doors, if only to keep lifeless bodies on insurance paid, life support systems as long as they can milk it for. Who would suffer more if it were legalized?
Certainly the medical field, and not the patient or their family.

Edit to add, we cannot be admitted into a Hospital under any circumstance in the USA without something called an ADVANCE DIRECTIVE. This stipulates that, should anything go wrong while in the care of the hospital, if the said patient is in a situation where he goes on life support, he has the RIGHT to be taken off it. However, I'm not sure of all the in's and out's of this contract. But it's there in case one becomes a vegetable, and (thinking beforehand) doesn't want to unnecessarily burden their family with any extra medical expenses.

Q, you can indeed setup an advanced directive, my father did so long before his heart failed. When the time arrived in June of 2003, a call from his doctors was taken, my mom, sister and myself honored my father's request. The dopamine keeping his heart pumping could no longer be increased as any additional dosage would have killed him. He lasted four hours on his own, no life support administered by his request.

Jerry

[wheeliebear75]

The analogy of our pets was brought up; that we euthanize cats & dogs so they won't "suffer". But I believe that unless you think this is what should have been done to all of us.......that argument looses just about all if not totally looses all merit. We're still here & had we been our family's pet rather than human member of the family lets face it just about each & every one of us would have been "put down". I have often thought to myself "God I'm glad I'm not a dog or cat", whenever I hear of a pet that had to be put down. I have heard people who suffer from "FIM Syndrome" Foot In Mouth Syndrome"......they're the ones who say the dumbest crap "If I was in your shoes I'd have killed myself", "why are you with HER she's in a wheelchair" to BF, my Mother wanted to slug a superior of hers, when the guy found out I had both a SCI & TBI he actually asked "ARE YOU happy she survived?"......like she might have hoped in hindsight that I wouldn't have made it! THAT kind of shit is what lets me know that although many people do/are seeing us more as equals than they did in decades past......there is still a LOT of room for improvement.

IF legislation is put in place to decriminalize the assisting but with safe-guards to make sure the person is not being "rail roaded" into doing so AND the person is indeed "terminal" then I would be "OK with it". In the situation of someone who is dying from Cancer or some other condition that WILL CAUSE THE PERSON TO EVENTUALLY DIE REGARDLESS OF MEDICAL INTERVENTION TO SAVE THEM.

The encyclopedia states the definition of: "terminal illness" is a medical term popularized in the 20th century to describe an active and malignant disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer or advanced heart disease than for trauma. In popular use, it indicates a disease which will end the life of the sufferer.

OK so if the encyclopedia states that "Terminal Illness" is NOT associated with trauma, than why do the Swiss allow persons with SCI to go kill themselves? With proper medical care we can outlive our AB counterparts. SCI doesn't necessarily kill us, only if the initial trauma or some subsequent infection that "does us in". SCI does NOT = TERMINAL!

Had I been offered any sort of "end of life" counseling back in 1990 I would have probably taken it; I was feeling isolated cuz my friends were all teens & went off & did their own thing so I became the person to wave at & say "hi" but not hang out with anymore. It's hard for everyone but as a teenager this sort of thing is REALLY HARD to take. 2002 & 2003 were some of the worst years for me; I was not only in extreme pain......but my brain injuries got used against me in court & so I lost physical custody of my kids & was only given visitation; between the physical pain I was + the emotional pain of loosing the kids......yeah I was miserable!

I'm one of those people who can/will die if stung by a bee if I don't use my epi-pen; I'd thought about putting on some bright clothes & perfume & wait for a bee to land on me & sting me. I'd thought about pushing myself out in front of a train. I'm also diabetic & so I have to use insulin......thought about shooting up a bunch of that to lower my sugars enough to die. But there are these 4 little people who would miss me & even one day of sadness is one day too many & especially if it was preventable. My nephew has had to live with the memory of his father hanging himself in a motel room........this has devastated him.......he's gotten into drugs & all sorts of crap.......and he only just turned 18 in April, but that isn't something a 16yr old should have had to deal with. I didn't want to do the train thing; #1 it would devestate the driver who operated the train, #2 there wouldn't be much to bury or hold services for #3 it would harm my children family & friends for the rest of their lives. I'll just "deal".

But that was THEN & this is NOW; NOW I'm for the most part pretty happy. For the most part I have my pain under control, I am able to have the kids visit me whenever I want (with the exception of major Holidays.......the asshole ex & his family almost always get them.......& I get stuck with Dec. 26th or last year we had our Thanksgiving on Sat. vs. Thurs. the actual Thanksgiving Day). I don't feel isolated, I do feel loved, & I have a pretty positive outlook on life.

I'm lucky though. Yes I may be legally blind, partially paralyzed, & have a brain injury; but I am blessed with a Mother who as an OT has made it much easier for me, children who are understanding about postponing outings, friends who want to be around me & do things with me despite all of my "issues", & I live in a country where I'm currently able to get pretty decent medical treatment & access to my community.

Hope this made sense & hope it didn't ruffle too many feathers.

[StillFingers]

My pet analogy was only directed at pets being kept alive despite terminal illness, nothing more. Everything you mention WB75 is proper and there was no offense taken or even thought. If you take a look at my profile you will understand that I have done well and that SCI for me was not a deal breaker. And, at no time did I, have I ever consider this new struggle worthy of ending.

The difficulty lies in where to draw the line when this life becomes unbearable. I do not condone suicide, life is to precious. At the same time, this is my choice. An option to end life, your own by choice, should not be denied, in my opinion.

Jerry

[Denny]

CR_L1, on Jul 30 2009, 06:52 PM, said:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...ling/article.do

I know this is not everyones cup of tea but I for one agree with a change in the law.

If I have chance, I will vote for Right-to-Die.