Lets try this a different way, if YOU were suffering from a terminal painful illness would you not want the option of assisted suicide?

I would want the [legal] option.

I understand that some disabled and elderly people may get pressure to choose assisted from family members, etc., but aren’t those people in a living hell dealing with that sort of family pressure anyway?

Maybe weight could be given to people who have expressed an opinion before the option presents itself, much like DNR?

It’s their life, they should be able to end it if they want to. I don’t understand why it’s even an issue, honestly.

The religious right seem to think it’s only up to God as when we can check out and if we must endure extreme pain then so be it.
There are those that would want the terminally ill to stick around as long as possible to bleed them for as much money as they can.

It is legal in Oregon. You must see three separate doctors that say you have less than six months to live. And they must all agree that you are mentally sound. Then you get a significant amount of counseling before given the option.

“Since the law was passed in 1997, a total of 1,173 people have had DWDA
prescriptions written and 752 patients have died from ingesting medications
prescribed under the DWDA.”

It isn’t like we are handing out death pills to every depressed teenager.

@johnpowell then what are the ones that are against this, problem?

I definitely want that option.

Yes I want that option too. I would welcome release.

@SQUEEKY2 :: I am totally baffled about how anyone could be against it.

If we want to get serous we should close bridges and gun sales to people over 60 or people that have liver cancer.

@talljasperman :: You don’t count. Your problems are mental.

I would certainly want it as an option. But even if it were an option I would never take and didn’t even want, I don’t understand how my preference should determine what rights others have. It’s not like legalizing assisted suicide makes it mandatory.

Euthanasia should be a available option to anyone of sound mind who is suffering from a terminal condition.

I do want the option, though I would probably not use it. I don’t have any feeling about whether anyone should think assisted suicide is a good idea for them – obviously that is a very personal choice. But I do think that everyone should have a living will, so that no one needs to guess at one’s choices when it is too late to ask.

I want the option; I already have a no heroic measures clause join my medical power of attorney.

I would definitely want the option, and I have it, since I’m an Oregonian.

I too definitely want that option, if there is no chance of recovery I aint going to hang around so they can bleed every cent they can, or make the religious right happy, I would want off this shit pile.

Give me the option, please! Anyone who wants it and can face it should be given that alternative.

I would probably want it, yes. If all I’m gonna do is suffer like a mad bastard until I inevitably die before the next Christmas, I don’t really see a problem.

It should be an available option for everyone, not just terminally ill people. Cut back on the number of people who have to jump off bridges or stand in front of trains.

Don’t know what problem people have with the youth in Asia, they are…I got this wrong didn’t I?

I believe yes. But I won’t know for sure until (and if) the moment arrives.

I think if I needed that I’d just do it.

Knowing the option were there would be reassuring but as to whether I would use it, I have no idea, though I suspect not……

I wouldn’t need to be assisted. Suicide is legal in every US state. Even if I were tetraplegic, I could figure out a way to do it on my own.

It’s not so easy to kill yourself; you might want assistance.

Why shouldn’t everyone be offered assistance then? The only thing that would stop me (temporarily) was mobility. Otherwise, I don’t think it would be too hard to do it if I really wanted to.

I think everyone who meets the criteria established should. Suicide can be a very messy painful business or it can be more peaceful with assistance.

When you look at assisted suicide based on one individual it often looks acceptable. But when you look at how it affects the vast majority of [society]—especially those most vulnerable—the dangers outweigh the benefits of the few.

@keobooks Suicide is not legal in every US state. It is widely considered a common law crime—which means that it does not need a basis in statute—and therefore has significant effects on the deceased’s estate. Furthermore, attempted suicide is still illegal in some states, and all successful suicides involve an attempt. Thus it is possible in those states to argue that the suicide was accomplished through the commission of an illegal act with whatever legal consequences that might entail. And perhaps most importantly, it is legal in the vast majority of states for the police to forcibly prevent someone from committing suicide and send them to a mental hospital. Even if the person attempting suicide is not subjected to criminal penalties, then, they are hardly outside the reach of the law.

It is also completely disingenuous to say you wouldn’t need assistance. Perhaps not to actually commit the act, but people who support assisted suicide are not merely in favor of helping people die. They are in favor of helping people die with dignity. I could throw myself off of a building, but that is not quite the same as going calmly and peacefully with the help of an injection. The issue of general consequences is also a red herring. If it is acceptable for the one individual, it ought to be legal for that one individual. Making sure that it does not spread to unacceptable cases is a matter of how one defines the boundaries of the right. It is no reason for denying the right altogether. Once you admit that there are acceptable cases, only the slippery slope fallacy can get you to prohibition on the grounds that there are unacceptable cases. And fallacious reasoning is no basis for restricting someone’s rights.

^^ What I was saying but more clearly explained.

I just wanted to be blunt about this. I have had many friends with AIDS related illnesses who picked “Sunset Cocktails” as an option. They found ways to obtain it. I’ve had friends who suffered terrible deaths that were anything but dignified. My own grandfather had emphysema and had 10 terrible years of suffering (but I think his unwillingness to face his own mortality made it worse.. different topic.

Anyway, I used to be pro assisted suicide until I personally met some of the main activists in Not Dead Yet at an AIDS rally in San Francisco. I have my reasons and they won’t change. Accept it. I have my reasons and they will not be swayed by posts on the internet made by people who are not severely disabled or have severe chronic illness.

But the thing is, I seem to be the ONLY person on this site who is at all vocal about not legalizing assisted suicide the way it is being presented right now. Why all the butt-hurt over ONE person on this site? Seriously..

@keobooks This is a discussion site. If you present your arguments, other people are going to present their counterarguments. That’s how discussion works. But if you cannot imagine any possible reasoning that could change your mind, then you are the one acting in bad faith here. That’s not against the rules, of course, and I do accept it. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop responding. I get that it’s uncomfortable when someone points out that your arguments are factually incorrect and logically defective. But you chose to join this conversation. Other people responding to what you say is a known risk of discussing things with them.

P.S. I suspect the rest of us also have personal experiences that have swayed us to our current positions. I know I do.

Why do you think I assume nobody else has had experience that have swayed them? I just didn’t want people to think that I had no experience with assisted suicide and terminal illness.

I just see a second thread being made when there already was a thread and I think someone didn’t think that I’ve already thought about what would happen if I were in this situation.

I say “me and I” because nobody else has stepped up to the plate on this side. I don’t count the OP of the other post because she just beat around the bush in a passive aggressive manner, not actually bringing anything to the table.

Oh and REALLY? I’m the ONLY one in this thread not being willing to be swayed? Anyone here even glance at the Not Dead Yet site? I don’t think anyone else is going to change their minds anymore than I will.

@keobooks Yeah, I changed my postscript because I realized that I was actually the one being precious when it was worded the original way. Sorry about that. (And I completely understand your point about the other thread.)

I appreciate what you bring to the table, here, @keobooks . It’s not a black and white issue, and the possibility of inappropriate coercion does need to be considered.

Personally, I would like the option, but the way it is laid out in the DWD statutes I find to be too restrictive and too subject to the opinions of others that really may not jibe with my own.
There does seem to be an idea (in some discussions I’ve seen) that this would open the door to frivolous interpretation, but like @johnpowell said:“It isn’t like we are handing out death pills to every depressed teenager.”

@keobooks Helping people to die with dignity is a hell of a lot different then just suicide, and it has to be legislated very carefully, because people with bad depression would want it, but they are curable with the right drugs and therapy.
It should only be a choice for those that have a terminal, painful disease only,and give them a choice to leave peacefully with their loved ones by their side.
As I said it has to be legislated very carefully because I can see it being abused, by greedy family members, or by others that don’t want to care for the disabled ,and that would be horribly wrong.
But is it wrong for someone who is in constant pain, from some incurable illness to want to leave early instead of suffering for a few more months or a year?
I would want that choice, and if you really thought about I think you would to.

Ah, but @SQUEEKY2 , the kind of psychological pain that goes with some losses/situations simply cannot be cured by drugs and therapy. And even going with what you say, what if the medical committee decides that with more rounds of debilitating treatments the patient might have another year or two? If one could guarantee no abuse (which one NEVER can) the ideal would be…ideal. I want the option, but I don’t really like the terms.

But in the end it is a choice the person with the illness can make, and if they choose to remain to the end, then that is their choice as well.
I personally want the choice of opting out early, for those that want to stay, then that is fine as well.

Just to make it perfectly clear, I do agree that the possibility of inappropriate coercion needs to be addressed. This is what I was trying to get at with my earlier point about defining the boundaries of the law: it’s important to make sure we’re not too lenient, but that’s no reason to outlaw assisted suicide altogether.

@keobooks Sorry, I seem to have missed part of your last reply. So just to clarify, I most certainly do not think you’re the only one in this debate who cannot imagine any possible reasoning that could change your mind. But since you expressly stated that nothing was going to change your mind, I responded to that statement. And for the record, I have read quite a bit of the NDY site and have discussed the matter in person with NDY members (some of whom invaded my bioethics class when they found out Peter Singer was on the syllabus).

@keobooks just out of curiosity, are you anti-abortion?

@cheebdragon just out of curiosity, how does this correlate?

@keobooks I don’t think anybody on this thread was being disrespectful or attacking; as @SavoirFaire said, it is a discussion site. If you feel you were being patronized, I’m sorry; it was useful to hear your personal take on it.

To all – It is a complex issue but I feel there are ways to establish the guidelines so that euthanasia is not rampant. As we know there are times now that a doctor will let a patient go quietly; this may put in more controls.

And dying with dignity has a lot to do with pain management and hospice care not just assisted suicide.

Nice answer^^^ @janbb .

@janbb “It is a complex issue but I feel there are ways to establish the guidelines so that euthanasia is not rampant.”

That’s right. And more importantly, assisted suicide and euthanasia are two separate issues. This is one of my objections to groups like NDY, who frequently conflate the issues (thereby undermining their own arguments). Euthanasia is, by definition, neither chosen nor requested. Assisted suicide is both chosen and requested. At least, this is how the terms are used in professional contexts.

For those wondering, the difference between choosing something and requesting something is that one can choose something without asking for it. I chose to eat cereal this morning, but I did not ask anyone to prepare it for me. I did it myself. Philosophers also tend to reserve the word “choice” for the result of a rational decision procedure. People suffering from a psychotic break, for example, do not choose in the full sense of the word. They merely act. This does not mean that all choices must be the result of perfect reasoning, however. It just means that the process must be a rational one.

“And dying with dignity has a lot to do with pain management and hospice care not just assisted suicide.”

Quite so. There is a whole host of reforms that could be made to end-of-life care, and assisted suicide is just one of them. One of the things that always strikes me is that the vast majority of people say they want to die at home, yet an even larger majority die in an institution while people vainly attempt to keep them technically alive.

@canidmajor the correlation obviously being that both topics involve life vs death and whether or not anyone has the right to make the choice.

@cheebdragon : Yes, obviously, in a rather simplistic way. My point being that this is not the same type of hot button issue on Fluther that abortion is. The main difference is that one is self-determination, the other is not.

@canidmajor The right to have an abortion is about a woman’s right to self-determination.

So correct me if I am wrong, the problem with assisted suicide is that the people that are against it, fear that it will be misused and abused?
Isn’t that the reason it needs to be carefully legislated, so it isn’t abused?
And I can’t see Doctors prescribing it for just anybody, you would have to fall in the guide lines.
Don’t deny the right to die with dignity to those that truly want it, just because your afraid it might be abused by others,last time I looked that is what laws are for.

@dappled_leaves: The term “anti-abortion” is almost always used in a context where the fetus is considered a living human and the abortion is used to terminate another human’s life. Not an idea I personally espouse, but the basis for most abortion arguments. The fetus’ ability for self-determination is non-existent. Therefore, the woman’s self-determination does not apply in my example.

Grrr. I replied in the wrong thread.

One concern NDY brings up is that there are not nearly enough psych evaluations being done on people requesting suicide. People may be depressed about things not directly related to their disability or illness. Right now, its up to a physician—who is human, with his own biases and prejudices—to determine if someone should be allowed to commit suicide.

The problem is that there are people who are severely and profoundly disabled who live relatively happy and productive lives. They may become severely depressed for reasons that have little or nothing to do with their disability. They may become so depressed that they want to die.

The problem is—if they weren’t disabled, they’d be discouraged from dying. People would give the person multiple evaluations, interviews and even drugs to keep them from wanting to die.

But if they are severely disabled, people ignore the fact that they were not always depressed and focus on the disability. Because most people are repulsed by severe disability, they assume NOBODY could live a dignified life with a severe disability. So instead of helping someone depressed get out of their slump, they offer suicide as a valid option.

But @keobooks those disabled severely depressed people are not terminal so how can they fall under the guide lines that make them eligible for Doctor assisted suicide?

@johnpowell Sorry to go way back to the beginning, but I have a question about your description of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. Here is what you said:

“You must see three separate doctors that say you have less than six months to live. And they must all agree that you are mentally sound. Then you get a significant amount of counseling before given the option.”

My question is about the last part. Specifically, is the counseling mandatory, or merely customary? Because my understanding is that one of the main objections to Measure 16 (and one of the primary arguments given in favor of Measure 51, which would have repealed it) was that the Death with Dignity Act did not require any sort of counseling by a member of the psychological profession. Were you referring, then, to the counseling that one’s physician is supposed to perform?

—————

@keobooks I take it that your objection is something like this: It may be the case that Oregon requires three doctors to declare you mentally sound before you are allowed to take advantage of assisted suicide, but none of those doctors are (required to be) psychologists. As much respect as we may have for them as professionals, then, we should really—at minimum—be bringing in someone who has mental health as an area of expertise when it comes to matters as serious and permanent as this.

I realize that this may not be your only objection. But it seems to be the one stated in your last post.

Now, I’m going to leave aside @SQUEEKY2‘s point about the terminal illness requirement. Because while I do think that’s important to the overall argument, I take it that NDY is in part concerned with those who would extend the right to assisted suicide beyond the terminally ill. And while that isn’t part of the current political discussion, it may be worth taking into consideration.

My question for you, then, is this: why do your concerns constitute a reason to oppose the legalization of assisted suicide rather than just a reason to make sure that assisted suicide is highly (and perhaps better) regulated? That is, your objection seems to be to ways that assisted suicide could be abused rather than to assisted suicide itself.

@canidmajor A life is a life (not that I care personally) but I used the term anti-abortion because I wanted to make sure there was a distinction between the topics. Pro-choice could have applied to both causes. I was curious about keobooks stance on abortion, hence the @keobooks. It was a simple question in the correct format for slightly off topic comments.

@SavoirFaire Super excellent answer, thank you, and I am referring to your last post.

This really isn’t the place to discuss abortion. Seriously.

I totally agree @keobooks , they are two very separate issues.
The right to die with dignity(Doctor assisted suicide)
Abortion The choice a mother makes (if she wants to terminate a pregnancy)
Are two very separate issues.

What about joining the two topics? Like can a pregnant woman with a fatal illness get doctor assisted suicide?

^^ That is venturing dangerously close to Hypo country.

@SavoirFaire The counseling is only mandatory if the physician/s think that you may be mentally unstable or depressed:

127.825 s.3.03. Counseling referral.

If in the opinion of the attending physician or the consulting physician a patient may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment, either physician shall refer the patient for counseling. No medication to end a patient’s life in a humane and dignified manner shall be prescribed until the person performing the counseling determines that the patient is not suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment. [1995 c.3 s.3.03; 1999 c.423 s.4]

Thanks @DrasticDreamer I was wondering how depressed people could even qualify for the service.

@DrasticDreamer That’s what I thought, but @johnpowell seemed to imply that counseling was always part of the process. It seem to me, then, that there are two possibilities here: (a) psychological counseling is not mandatory, but it is customary (perhaps physicians typically don’t feel comfortable determining a patient’s mental state on their own and so routinely refer potential assisted suicide patients to psychologists), or (b) though professional counseling by a licensed psychologist is not required, a sort of informal counseling by the physician is required insofar as they must do something to determine that the patient is mentally sound (and it is to this sort of counseling that @johnpowell was referring).

Either option helps us make sense of objections that the law does not require sufficient psychological care. Opponents hold the view that greater care should be taken to make sure that patients are not suffering from impaired judgment, which in their view means involving a professional psychologist in all cases (something that neither option guarantees). This seems reasonable on the surface—though we might worry that professional psychologists overwhelmingly tend to view suicidal desires as themselves indicating impaired judgment—but it still only seems to speak to how we delineate the right rather than to whether we ought to grant it at all.

Oregon Law does not require a psychiatric evaluation. Only if the prescribing doctor believes the patient has seriously impaired judgement. Few patients have actually been referred to psychiatrists—5% in 2008, for instance. These evaluations mean little or nothing. The psychiatrist’s evaluation can easily be overriden.

One example is a woman with Alzheimer’s named Kate Cheney. The first doctor didn’t believe that she was competent enough to wish for assisted suicide. Her daughter went to a second doctor. The second doctor referred Cheney to a psychiatrist. That psychiatrist deemed Cheney incompetent. So her daughter went to a third doctor—who again referred Cheney to a psychiatrist. THAT doctor said she was competent to make the decision, BUT she was heavily coerced and influenced by her daughter. Still, this evaluation was “good enough” and Kate Cheney was administered the drugs and died shortly thereafter.

There are many other points made in this article, but I’m just pointing out that people are NOT being evaluated by psychiatrists nearly as much as they should be. And when they are, their evaluation can be overridden until it’s the “right” choice.

@keobooks The link you provide claims that Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act was put into place as a means of class warfare, which is complete bullshit. Voters voted it in once, and then again when people from outside of the state tried to interfere. If you want a say in how we vote, move here.

And these statistics prove that the “class warfare” claim is nothing but hype to try to scare people to the opposing side.

Furthermore, if anyone is interested in Oregon’s actual laws regarding the matter, you can find them here

@DrasticDreamer That’s kinda how I feel about immigration. You just have to live here.

There is a big difference between immigration and death with dignity. Other States are looking at Oregon to decide what to do. You’re not living in a bubble where what happens where you live doesn’t affect the rest of the country. Don’t try to pretend that you do.

And according to your statistics, only 2 out of 77 people who used assisted suicide one year had a psychiatric evaluation, so what I was originally arguing still stands.

@keobooks looking at one of the links posted by @DrasticDreamer(Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act—2013)It did sat say the terminally ill, and that is what it is for, why does one need a psychiatric evaluation if they have a terminal illness?
It’s not like your locked in if you change your mind, why would you want to deny this right to people that really want it?
I understand your fear that it could be abused by some,and the thought of that makes me sick as well, but that is the approach the anti-gun people make,(since a few people use guns in crime, no one can own a gun) Really??
May be it has to be in law, that once diagnosed with a terminal illness,you have to have psychiatric evaluation, at that time as well to determine your wishes , so everyone knows your wishes ,in case you can’t say so when the illness worsens,personally I do not want to rot in a bed shitting and drooling on myself the last few months or years of my life, for what??
To make the health system more money? To appease the religious right? Why would you deny me that? Why can’t a Doctor prescribe me a painless, peaceful end to my suffering a bit early?WHY?

@keobooks the population on California is higher than ALL of Canada, so unless you currently live here, you can’t really begin to understand. If you think that every fucking state has the same exact issues you are straight up delusional.

@cheebdragon—OK special snowflake, there’s no reason for all the vitriol over YOUR State, which we weren’t even talking about.

I believe that in every single State in America, people get sick and die. In fact, unless I’m mistaken, people get sick and die everywhere all over the world. So everyone has something to say about assisted suicide. And Oregon isn’t so different in that way. It’s not like we were comparing it to Yemen or Vatican City or some other theocratic country. The question WILL and HAS ALREADY come up in other States in the last few years. So it’s important to watch what’s going on and be prepared to have a well formed opinion when it’s time to vote on it.

It’s like gay marriage. Every governor of every State seems to think they have special snowflake protection against it, but the Supreme Court keeps overturning it in every state that has contested it so far. It’s not because all States are the same. It’s because they are all the same in ONE way. People of the same sex want to get married and have the same rights as straight couples in every State in America. No matter how different things are, that remains the same.

So yes, it IS important to watch legislation in other States and have opinions on it ready for when it comes time for your State to vote on it.

—@keobooks “Voters voted it in once, and then again when people from outside of the state tried to interfere. If you want a say in how we vote, move here.” I was agreeing with her sentiment, it had absolutely fuck all to do with you. I wasn’t asking for your opinion, it was just a statement and I never even said that immigration compares to death with dignity.
Abortion is a better comparison than gay marriage but you refused to answer that question, which is understandable if you have hypocritical views on the value of human life.—

@cheebdragon if it had “absolutely fuck all” to do with me, then why did you put my name in front of your blabbering on about how the population is bigger than Canada and bla bla bla?

See, usually when someone puts YOUR name and then some text, you perceive the text to be directed to YOU. That’s how it works.

@keobooks my first comment about immigration was not directed at you. Why you felt the need to address it is beyond me.

If the only reason to oppose death with dignity is that people may be taken advantage of, that’s a pretty stupid reason. People are taken advantage of in worse ways every fucking day, you can’t prevent it. Statistically speaking you should be more concerned about being raped or stabbed by a family member than being taken advantage of via death with dignity.

[Mod says] Flame off, folks