The Right to Die

[Kodos]

It's been over 5 years since Dr. Kevorkian passed. I'm curious to see if people have come to accept assisted suicide as a basic human right.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Right to die, sure.
With physicians assistance, not seeing that being a good idea.

[MrBug708]

I abstained. I don't think it's a right but I've also been fortunate to not be in a position where this could be an issue and could feel different about it.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Right to die, sure.
With physicians assistance, not seeing that being a good idea.

Kinda where I fall as well.
So modified question, Jon. Right to buy the drugs to DIY painlessly?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Kinda where I fall as well.
So modified question, Jon. Right to buy the drugs to DIY painlessly?

I just made that "gah, damn that's tough" deep inhale sound.

I'm leaning no, since the most common drugs used seem to be seconal and nembutal, both of which has a history of recreational use (primarily the former apparently). That opens up the same concerns I have with, say, "medicinal" marijuana.

Bottom line for me, I guess, is that there are certainly a myriad of ways to kill oneself without increasing the potential for recreational abuse. I'm fairly loathe to open up that door any wider.

[thesloppy]

I think I'd need a little more definition than that....like not necessarily a physician's assistance, which would obviously and unfortunately be a conflict of financial interest, but still someone's approval seems necessary. Especially since plenty of other medication these days seems to include the possibility of "homicidal or suicidal urges", and suicidal thoughts can be temporary for any other number of reasons, I'd be a little sketchy with entirely unfettered access to a suicide drug. I think some sort of "quality of life/health" standard would have to be included to prevent relatively healthy folks from offing themselves, but that doesn't feel like a very clean solution either.

[Radii]

100% yes, with assistance. Sure there are lots of details to go through on exactly how to establish rules and procedures for it, but on the genearl concept, abso-fucking-lutely.

[BYU 14]

Abstained, because it is not cut and dry to me. My thinking largely falls in line with JIMGA's, with the individual having a right. I just don't see that most MD's would want to expose themselves assisting with this, similar to how many approve of medical MJ for pain control, but will not prescribe it due to the murky federal vs. state waters that could get them in trouble.

Same Pandora's box exists if you allow folks to buy these drugs on their own and the potential for 'abuse' that exists there.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I think I'd need a little more definition than that....like not necessarily a physician's assistance, which would obviously and unfortunately be a conflict of financial interest, but still someone's approval seems necessary. Especially since plenty of other medication these days seems to include the possibility of "homicidal or suicidal urges", and suicidal thoughts can be temporary for any other number of reasons, I'd be a little sketchy with entirely unfettered access to a suicide drug. I think some sort of "quality of life/health" standard would have to be included to prevent relatively healthy folks from offing themselves, but that doesn't feel like a very clean solution either.

Yeah, honestly I was thinking of the "I have a fatal disease and want to check out instead of suffering" scenario and not the "my life sucks I want to die" scenario.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I just don't see that most MD's would want to expose themselves assisting with this

On the lighter side, maybe it'd be a good choice for doctors who fall toward the very bottom of the bell curve.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yeah, honestly I was thinking of the "I have a fatal disease and want to check out instead of suffering" scenario and not the "my life sucks I want to die" scenario.

For the sake of discussion/thought ... in the light of your quote, who's to say what constitutes adequate "suffering"?

Ultimately life itself is fatal. If we stipulate that there's some "right" to die then doesn't that right exist if someone is merely a 9 on the pain assessment scale instead of a 10? And then a 7 instead of a 9?

And are we then to decide that only pain from X,Y, and/or Z causes qualify instead of pain from H, I, and/or J? The pain felt by those who suffer from depression or other forms of emotional distress is every bit as real to them as {insert horrific painful physical illness/condition here} sufferers experience.

It just seems to me that, in terms of "rights", either it exists or it doesn't.

[Shoveler]

Why make the process more complicated than it needs to be? If someone wants to die for any reason, they should have the opportunity to seek out professional help, sign a few forms, maybe wait a day or two in case they change their minds, and presto.. become a corpse.

[molson]

As long as euthanasia is performed via roller coaster rather than by a creepy old man who is operating independently and may be encouraging suicide because he gets off on being close to death, I'm all for it.

Euthanasia Coaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by molson

As long as euthanasia is performed via roller coaster rather than by a creepy old man who is operating independently and may be encouraging suicide because he gets off on being close to death, I'm all for it.

Euthanasia Coaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you claiming that Kevorkian was such a doctor?

[vex]

Originally Posted by Shoveler

Why make the process more complicated than it needs to be? If someone wants to die for any reason, they should have the opportunity to seek out professional help, sign a few forms, maybe wait a day or two in case they change their minds, and presto.. become a corpse.

What would the age limit be here? 18?

[Solecismic]

I can see the appeal of a night with Farrah Fawcett, then the ring ceremony and floating upward toward a painless death on my 30th birthday.

This in a world where life has no internal meaning. As I get older, and as someone with a serious disorder that brings constant pain, I ask this question once in a while. I don't have an answer. If all I had to do was fill out some forms and obtain a prescription, I doubt I'd be here today. But if life has no meaning to you, what's the point of prolonging it?

[BillJasper]

If someone doesn't want to be here, why stop them from leaving?

[stevew]

Dammit, was about to bring up the euthanasia coaster

[Suicane75]

Yes.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

For the sake of discussion/thought ... in the light of your quote, who's to say what constitutes adequate "suffering"?

Ultimately life itself is fatal. If we stipulate that there's some "right" to die then doesn't that right exist if someone is merely a 9 on the pain assessment scale instead of a 10? And then a 7 instead of a 9?

And are we then to decide that only pain from X,Y, and/or Z causes qualify instead of pain from H, I, and/or J? The pain felt by those who suffer from depression or other forms of emotional distress is every bit as real to them as {insert horrific painful physical illness/condition here} sufferers experience.

It just seems to me that, in terms of "rights", either it exists or it doesn't.

Originally Posted by BillJasper

If someone doesn't want to be here, why stop them from leaving?

The question of children/dependents makes this murky for me*......like I certainly wouldn't deny the pain that can come from depression or similar emotional issues, and wouldn't necessarily deny any individual the right to end such suffering, as long as I'm looking at them in a vacuum, but the possibility/probability that someone who is responsible for other people might off themselves due to temporary/short-term mental or emotional issues presents too much risk for me. Of course, that logic kind of ignores the fact that there's already any number of readily available, unintended instruments of suicide available to folks, should they choose, but I just struggle with the idea of making it "too easy". Like, should it be easier/cheaper to kill yourself than to talk to a therapist/doctor? Some folks are so exhausted they'd probably just take the route of less resistance, and I'd prefer it if suicide wasn't that option.

*seems worth mentioning my dad killed himself when I was 11. He had split when I was a baby, and I had almost zero contact with him, so it wasn't necessarily earth shattering, but it was of course traumatic, made me consider the topic of suicide from an early age, and effects my thinking on the matter to the extent that my thoughts always go to kids whenever the subject comes up. No apologies/acknowledgment necessary, and I'm completely comfortable discussing the subject, FWIW.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Are you claiming that Kevorkian was such a doctor?

I've read anecdotal accounts of people who used to work with him and remember him randomly showing up at patients' deathbeds, presumably to try to be there the moment they died because he found it so interesting/exhilarating. Nothing about him trying to talk anybody into doing it. But I think there's a potential for abuse when something like that is carried out by an individual agent working alone. Obviously terminally ill people didn't and don't have a ton of options and were compelled to hire Dr. Death, but I'd prefer a world where it's regulated some and it's easy to obtain that "service" in a more official, organizationally sanctioned and observed manner. Dr. Kevorkian's services were basically the equivalent of back-alley abortions. Maybe some doctors performed illegal abortions because they were adamantly pro-choice and believed in that cause, but I'm sure there were plenty of scammers and creeps in the group too that were dangerous to women.

[EagleFan]

Yes but with a caveat that there is some intervention so doesn't become another outlet for suicide not related to quality of life.

Also, the physician assistance should be more on the technical side, to oversee to make sure it will not cause undue suffering to the patient (setup correctly).

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Also, the physician assistance should be more on the technical side, to oversee to make sure it will not cause undue suffering to the patient (setup correctly).

Most doctors would consider this a violation of their oath. Many also feel suffering is somewhat subjective.

The most effective method is an overdose of barbiturates, which often requires an anti-emetic. It's not neurosurgery. Veterinarians do this all the time with shots.

[Dutch]

I'm nowhere near qualified to answer this question, I'm against suicide, and would only consider it an available legal option in the most extreme situations....like agonizing, permanent pain I guess...it depends.

But if it were a legal option. Would others have a say in it? Family? Should anybody that would assume the debt (Spouse?) have a say in it?

So, if "Billy" has $100,000 in debt and he decides to off himself instead of paying up, who pays that money? (Serious question, I have no idea.)

[flere-imsaho]

I support the right to die, but Dutch raises a good point:

Originally Posted by Dutch

So, if "Billy" has $100,000 in debt and he decides to off himself instead of paying up, who pays that money? (Serious question, I have no idea.)

We live in a country (well, most of us) where huge numbers of people are on disability who shouldn't be, aided by a cottage industry of doctors and lawyers who help put them there. I've linked this before, but: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

I just don't have a lot of faith that the U.S. could put together and sustain a good and workable legal process for this such as, say, Switzerland: Euthanasia in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I'm not saying the Swiss version is perfect, either.

So yes, in theory. But big doubts about the actual practicality of the practice, at least in the United States.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

If you want some real life examples, there's a documentary called 'How to Die in Oregon' that's a great movie about the topic.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So, if "Billy" has $100,000 in debt and he decides to off himself instead of paying up, who pays that money? (Serious question, I have no idea.)

If there's a co-signer, that person becomes responsible the debt, and if there's not, the creditor gets in line in the estate settlement process. If there's not enough to distribute, they don't get their money back. Nobody but a co-signer inherits debt, but someone could see the inheritance they would have otherwise received get eaten up by debt obligations of the dead person.

I don't know if states that have legal euthanasia consider the debt situation of the patient. Presumably at that point the patient isn't earning money and is actually costing everyone around them a lot of money (including their creditors, ultimately.) So I imagine in most cases euthanasia is a net positive financial event for the family and the patient's creditors.

[Kodos]

My Right to Die | Mother Jones

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by molson

So I imagine in most cases euthanasia is a net positive financial event for the family and the patient's creditors.

Especially when you consider the last months are very expensive if you are in a permanently hospitalized or hospice situation.

[Kodos]

One Man’s Quest to Change the Way We Die

Not exactly on the same topic, but it seems related. An article about how we handle people who are dying.

[Gaelic Hill]

I once wrote an essay about government/religion telling citizens what they can/cannot do with their own body (right to die, unhealthy eating, prostitution, drugs, fight clubs, etc). Government was NOT created for this purpose, and many of the Greek philosophers agree with me. Bottom line for me is, let those throwing stones switch places with somebody in terrible chronic pain, then I will listen to their opinion.

[CrimsonFox]

maybe this should be extended to talk about taking away people's health insurance and allowing them to die too?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

maybe this should be extended to talk about taking away people's health insurance and allowing them to die too?

If people are paying for their health insurance, why would you take it away?

[Gaelic Hill]

Maybe this is a hair off topic, but do you know that, on average, 20 or so veterans commit suicide each DAY? That is so sad and depressing.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Gaelic Hill

Maybe this is a hair off topic, but do you know that, on average, 20 or so veterans commit suicide each DAY? That is so sad and depressing.

That is terrible.

[Kodos]

Yep. It's sad what our endless wars do to people in the military.

[albionmoonlight]

For a few years, I handled misdemeanor cases off of a military base. Mainly DUI, simple drug possession, and simple assaults. The influence of mental-illness there was shocking. I know that I saw a very skewed sample size (the folks whose turn to substances and/or domestic violence was so strong as to result in criminal charges), so I cannot really talk to the scope of the problem as a percentage of enlisted personnel.

But the problem is real. I am now a huge advocate of increased resources for mental health treatment for the military. There are a LOT of folks suffering out there.

[dubb93]

My 2 cents from a career in healthcare. You have a right to die if you make that choice. People make that choice every day. You do not have a right to tell a doctor or a nurse that they have to kill you.