Physician-assisted suicide has been a hotly debated topic across the United States for decades but a push to legalize the controversial practice in more states is picking up steam this year.

Starting with Oregon in 1997, ten other states and the District of Columbia have made it legal for a terminally ill patient to ask their doctor for a lethal cocktail of drugs they ingest to die. They include California, Montana, Vermont, Washington, New Jersey and Hawaii.

Lawmakers in ten more states have introduced physician-assisted suicide laws in 2023.

...assisted?--yes, doctors will assist you as fast as you run out of insurance.

It is MY life, MY body and MY right to end it I so choose.

 

Long before it gets to that stage I would talk it over with my wife and son and explain to them both why I would take the physician-assisted suicide route.

 

It is quite possible to do it myself, which may put my wife and son at some legal risk.

 

OTOH, if I did that and got it wrong, I could end up in a worse condition and put much more of a load and more stress on my family.

 

They could also assist me and that would put them both in a serious legal position.

 

What politicians don't seem to understand, is that it is NOT their life that they are literally playing with, but another persons life.

An ill person of sound mind should be allowed to exit life in a manner of their own choosing without harming others of course 

Edited March 23, 20233 yr by Tug

2 hours ago, Tug said:

An ill person of sound mind should be allowed to exit life in a manner of their own choosing without harming others of course 

It’s the benefitting others’ bit that’s problematic.

 

 

The line is drawn somewhere between the medical professions wallet and your wallet. You are not dead worthy until you are broke.

A very emotional subject this one.

I watched my son die slowly from untreatable brain tumours.

He was no more than a cabbage during his last six months.

He wore nappies, in a hospice and had to have everything done for him by the fabulous staff there.

Full marks to them but......

There is no way that I will let that happen to me.

I am DNR registered and carry an organ donor card.

Quality of life is the main thing.

What right does anyone have to tell anyone else that they have no right to check out if they want to do so? It shouldn't be just for end of life pain, but for anyone that has had enough of their horrid life and has no hope of better.

 

I'll only concede that the case should be adjudicated to prevent people being forced into it, as with greedy heirs

12 hours ago, Tug said:

An ill person of sound mind should be allowed to exit life in a manner of their own choosing without harming others of course 

I would imagine that the drugs used to keep someone alive at the later stages when you are told you are going to die would be 99% mind altering, so the 'sound mind' is a little iffy.

Off topic post removed

People should have the same rights as their pet dogs.   If you let a dog die of starvation the same way as this example of a human being tortured at the end of her life you would rightly be arrested for animal cruelty.   

 

https://metro.co.uk/2023/03/21/elderly-woman-dies-28-days-after-carers-stopped-giving-her-food-and-water-18475773/

14 hours ago, billd766 said:

It is MY life, MY body and MY right to end it I so choose.

Not sure if that's the problem though. Yes, I agree with your statement but is it right/ethical etc. for you to expect someone else to assist you? Just as you have the right so does someone else in refusal to assist...which possibly could include, by extension, the law makers/physicians (oath and all that).

Odd how some folk jump sides on the issue of  ‘Dominion over one’s own body’ when it’s they themselves that want the right to avoid a natural inevitability.

1 hour ago, RichardColeman said:

I would imagine that the drugs used to keep someone alive at the later stages when you are told you are going to die would be 99% mind altering, so the 'sound mind' is a little iffy.

which is why it's important to make a living will and tell everyone that might be involved when one is of sound mind.

 

I once had to look after a patient that kept trying to die on the ward by removing her feeding tube. I felt bad for her, but as she had no DNR order, legally she had to be treated.

In Canada in 2021 over 10,000 people had assisted deaths. 

 

On a personal note a year ago my mum in the UK told me she wanted to die. Now a year later she's gone from living in community assisted living to a full nursing home where she has no idea of her whereabouts or her own state of mind. Its just a matter of time now with no quality of life left. 

 

If assisted dying was an option a year ago I would have certainly given by blessing to her wish.

I am surprised it hasn't happened sooner. A country that has death panels (insurance companies can decide to disallow expensive but life-saving treatments) and allows millions to forego health insurance premiums because they cannot afford it ought to allow them a way to check out. 

There is the obvious Kirk Cobain gun treatment (CCGT) which leads to the same conclusion but it is messy and not nice for the relatives who have to identify the body with no head, 

Having a choice is better. 

15 hours ago, billd766 said:

It is MY life, MY body and MY right to end it I so choose.

..................................................................................

It is quite possible to do it myself, which may put my wife and son at some legal risk.

 

OTOH, if I did that and got it wrong, .............

 

Exactly my opinion. But if done completely alone and with (or without) success, what legal risk for wife and son could there be ? There is of course more than a risk if they would assist somehow.

7 hours ago, TKDfella said:

Not sure if that's the problem though. Yes, I agree with your statement but is it right/ethical etc. for you to expect someone else to assist you? Just as you have the right so does someone else in refusal to assist...which possibly could include, by extension, the law makers/physicians (oath and all that).

Is it also ethical to spend money on keeping me alive against my wishes. I would not wish on anyone the problem of keeping me alive as a vegetable for perhaps years, and depriving other people a chance to live?

26 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Is it also ethical to spend money on keeping me alive against my wishes. I would not wish on anyone the problem of keeping me alive as a vegetable for perhaps years, and depriving other people a chance to live?

If you mean 'vegetable' in that you are brain dead and a machine is performing functions then as always, I would have thought doctors would consult the family and it would be their decision. I don't think that comes under 'assisted'. 

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I once had to look after a patient that kept trying to die on the ward by removing her feeding tube. I felt bad for her, but as she had no DNR order, legally she had to be treated.

I feel for you with that, much kudos to you and your medical colleagues for what must be a rollercoaster of emotions you deal(t) with. From the high of bringing back someone from the brink of death to situations like this that must be soul destroying. 

13 hours ago, billd766 said:

Is it also ethical to spend money on keeping me alive against my wishes. I would not wish on anyone the problem of keeping me alive as a vegetable for perhaps years, and depriving other people a chance to live?

Don't ignore the fact that a vegetative body is earning hospitals loadsacash for little expenditure.

 

12 hours ago, TKDfella said:

If you mean 'vegetable' in that you are brain dead and a machine is performing functions then as always, I would have thought doctors would consult the family and it would be their decision. I don't think that comes under 'assisted'. 

Plenty that are not brain dead and can live without being on a machine.

Always seemed strange to me that we think it kind to euthanise an animal that is unable to function properly, but deny humans the right to opt out voluntarily.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Plenty that are not brain dead and can live without being on a machine.

Always seemed strange to me that we think it kind to euthanise an animal that is unable to function properly, but deny humans the right to opt out voluntarily.

Very well then, please give an example of a person in that condition would proceed...assuming the Doctor is under a Hippocratic oath?

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Don't ignore the fact that a vegetative body is earning hospitals loadsacash for little expenditure.

 

But it is not doing a lot for the person involved nor their family. The hospital facilities could also be used for people with a greater need.

Only right-wing Fox News seems to think the notion of "assisted suicide" for the terminally ill is controversial.

 

If a terminally ill person still has their wits about them and is capable of making an informed decision, they certainly should have the right to make it as regards their own life and body.

 

Perhaps it goes against the grain for some doctors' well-engrained professional notion of "doing no harm."

 

But in my book, leaving a terminally ill person against their will with no resort but to suffer in pain and/or unable to control their own body and its functions is doing far more harm than letting them escape from than pain and anguish.

 

Should be legal in all 50 states.

 

 

Edited March 25, 20233 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

20 hours ago, TKDfella said:

Very well then, please give an example of a person in that condition would proceed...assuming the Doctor is under a Hippocratic oath?

You missed out some words in that. Please try again.