Ship of Fools: Euthananasia for the otherwise well but old?

Thread: Euthananasia for the otherwise well but old? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022956

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

Setting aside (as difficult as it may be) and whether mobile teams are needed to carry it out(!),the question of euthanasia for the terminally ill and in unbearable pain, I was really struck by one part of this article in the New York Times ("Push for the Right to Die"). I hasten to say that this position is controversial even in the Netherlands, where reportedly 2% of deaths are due to euthanasia (another striking figure, but maybe I'm out of it on this one).

"We think old people can suffer from life,” Dr. de Jong said. “Medical technology is so advanced that people live longer and longer, and sometimes they say ‘enough is enough.’"

Should a doctor be in the position of euthanizing a perfectly healthy 70 year old? Am I missing something here? Is there a non-depression related reason for wanting to die at 70 if healthy?

[ 03. April 2012, 17:42: Message edited by: Laura ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

70 is young these days. You might do better if you suggested 90 as a possible age to consider it.

Then again, I know a lady who has just celebrated her 90th birthday who still dons a wetsuit and goes surfing. I can't see her considering such an end until she is at least 120!

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

There's a difference between accepting the imminence of death and actively welcoming it.

I've seen both, and sadly a state without consciousness of either. And this in people whose ages ran from 68 (reluctant acceptance) to a current, splendid and wonderful 96.

No, chronological age as such, should, I believe, play no part in any consideration of the termination of life.

Posted by Eleanor Jane (# 13102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:

Should a doctor be in the position of euthanizing a perfectly healthy 70 year old? Am I missing something here? Is there a non-depression related reason for wanting to die at 70 if healthy?

Nope! Setting aside all discussion of the rights and wrongs of ethanasia, if you're perfectly healthy but want to die then you have the option to commit suicide. Granted, it's not actually that easy or comfy but I can't see any way that it's within a doctor's purview to kill physically healthy people!

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eleanor Jane:

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:

Should a doctor be in the position of euthanizing a perfectly healthy 70 year old? Am I missing something here? Is there a non-depression related reason for wanting to die at 70 if healthy?
Nope! Setting aside all discussion of the rights and wrongs of ethanasia, if you're perfectly healthy but want to die then you have the option to commit suicide. Granted, it's not actually that easy or comfy but I can't see any way that it's within a doctor's purview to kill physically healthy people!

I agree. I think it's important to notice the clever bit of doublespeak that habitually gets into the euthanasia debate: it makes no sense to speak of a "right to die". You might as well say an apple has a right to fall off the tree. What's really being asked for is the right to require someone to kill me. Put in those terms, I think some of the moral issues, especially when we're talking about well people, become a tad clearer.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think it's important to notice the clever bit of doublespeak that habitually gets into the euthanasia debate: it makes no sense to speak of a "right to die". You might as well say an apple has a right to fall off the tree. What's really being asked for is the right to require someone to kill me.

Yes.

Doctors are trained to preserve life, not destroy it. I'm not sure I would like to be treated by a doctor who is willing to kill healthy people.

Moo

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

NO euthanasia is a fancy name for suicide and I believe suicide is an irrational act and if not then a sin . And any medical person , nurse or doctor participating should turn in their liscense .
And just what is old nowadays ? I am 60 and still feel young and I know people 75+ who are more lively than sone teenagers .So
watch it when saying old.
[Votive]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

My experience with doctors and end of life measures is that they do not even begin looking for living wills/final directives until they no longer think they can bring the patient back to health. I cannot imagine anything beyond a tiny minority of doctors consenting to take someone's life because they feel they are too old. It seems far more likely that they would commit them and get some treatment going instead.

Beyond that, who is to make the decision about when someone is old enough to seek euthanasia? I remember when I was a kid thinking how ancient (43) I would be at the turn of the millennium. Given the drooling idiots in politics now, I would hesitate to even give them a chance to think about the subject.

Most importantly, I find that people who have age related conditions like dementia, seem to be as content with life as they were before dementia. That is a person who was happy before dementia seems to be generally happy with dementia, and vice versa. While we look with our eyes at their situation and cringe, they look at life through the lens of their present state and keep moving on with their life.

I think a lot of our thought patterns concerning older people are driven by a fear of becoming a doddering old burden. No one who isn't already there wants to have to have help with eating, toileting, bathing, etc. And yet, some people who need that help wake up in the morning looking forward to the day.

At some stage (say late) we might be beyond knowing about our plight most of the time. They might, if they could, say to themselves that life has gone on too long and it is time to part this veil of tears. There might even be some justification for that thought. If you think about it though, the people who might most want to no longer go through life with too many limitations, are the same people who no longer have the capacity to make important decisions.

Of course, just as with living wills, people who have capacity might draw up documents saying that when they get to stage X, they want to be euthanized. I would hope that they would be given a chance to renounce that choice when the time came. Even so, which one of us would want to be the person to say "Aunt Boudica and Uncle Prasutagus have reached that time. I guess we need to call the euthanasia clinic."?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It seems to me that when healthy elderly people express a wish to die, there's some issue in their life that isn't being addressed. "I've had enough" is merely a conclusion, not an identification of the problem.

It would be far better, in my view, to put the effort into helping the person to have a life worth living, rather than just saying "oh okay then, if that's what you want" and blithely accepting that the person's got nothing left to live for.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:

Most importantly, I find that people who have age related conditions like dementia, seem to be as content with life as they were before dementia. That is a person who was happy before dementia seems to be generally happy with dementia, and vice versa. While we look with our eyes at their situation and cringe, they look at life through the lens of their present state and keep moving on with their life.

I think a lot of our thought patterns concerning older people are driven by a fear of becoming a doddering old burden. No one who isn't already there wants to have to have help with eating, toileting, bathing, etc. And yet, some people who need that help wake up in the morning looking forward to the day.

Well said. It's often the fear of dependency in old age which gives people thoughts of suicide. And yet, with a gracious attitude, dependent people can make the life of a carer a joy. There is a serenity and peace about an elderly lady I know with dementia which was missing in her past life. The most difficult period was in knowing that she had the illness and coming to a place of acceptance both of it and of receiving personal care from other people.

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

@Tortuf: in the hospice world, there's a bit of black comedy:

Q: why do they seal a cancer patient's coffin shut?
A: So the oncologist can't administer more chemotherapy.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I do think otherwise healthy people can reach a stage of just being tired of life. I see this with my aunt now who is 97 and has always been a pleasant, optimistic person. She's lost a lot of mobility and independence just due to sheer old age and physical frailty, but she is healthy enough that she could easily live to 100. I find myself hoping she doesn't, because although she does her best to enjoy or at least tolerate the days she now has to spend in a wheelchair in a nursing home (we did everything possible to support her living independently at home till last summer, when it just wasn't possible any longer), I think she is tired of it, tired of being dependent on others, tired of living on without being able to do many of the things that made living enjoyable.

And yet, while I think she'd be quite OK with a painless death if it occurred naturally, I don't think she'd opt for suicide, and I don't think I would in that situation. Maybe that's hypocritical but I do have a bit of a sense that you take what's given you and deal with it, whether (as for too many) it's an early death when you'd quite like to go on living, or the opposite problem.

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I do think otherwise healthy people can reach a stage of just being tired of life. I see this with my aunt now who is 97 and has always been a pleasant, optimistic person.

I totally get this. My great aunt was 107 when she died, and her sister (my great grandmother) was 104. Both of them essentially just said "I'm done here", and stopped eating, and slept their ways out. When you're ancient, you can pretty much decide to go, and no help is needed. But I'd really question a 75 year old in otherwise good health doing so.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Hesitantly, I can see a bit of a move beyond "must be in terminal pain" to "must be in permanent severe pain that cannot be adequately controlled, and asking for relief at any cost including death" or "without permanent unnatural help they would die naturally and either ask the help to stop or are permanently unconscious" (persistent vegetative state needing tube feeding or breathing machines, for example?) -- with second and third opinions and waiting periods etc.

There may be some conditions few of us want to live with. But once you remove the "terminal" requirement, condition, you've got to be even more careful not to open it to abuse. Or to the caretaker wanting relief rather than the hurting one wanting relief.

We do need to increase the ability to actually (instead of theoretically) reject "heroic measures." I've heard too many horror stories of medical people trying to impose life in spite of the written "living will" and relatives saying "stop!" My aunt said the emergency responders were trying to resuscitate her husband and she was trying to stop them and they refused to look at the living will -- what an awful battle she should not have had to go thru!

I worry that once one gets plopped into a nursing home, one loses the freedom to do suicide if the time comes that it seems appropriate. My Grandma kept pulling out the feeding tube, she'd been wanting to die for several years and was mad at the death angel for delaying. They kept putting the feeding tube back in.

I think the Boomers don't want the miserable last year or two of life they saw their parents go thru, but truth is none of us know until we are there.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

Have a living will stating what kind of care
you want. My late mother had 1 and it helped the doctors to know that she did not want extreme measures to preserve her life. Make
your wishes known to your family and/or care givers. [Votive]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I think there is a simple difference between not wanting more than palliative care in certain circumstances and wanting to actively terminate one's life when it's not quite the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palliative_care

To give someone else the power to terminate life in the second case is, I consider, dangerous.

It will often be a hard call when to switch to palliative care only.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I do think otherwise healthy people can reach a stage of just being tired of life.

Didn't Julian May toy with that idea in the novels of the Pliocene Exile? Of course, it was generally many lifetimes of years before the otherwise healthy people got so tired of life that they chose to forego another regeneration.

And there are the stories in which a vampire who is hundreds of years old decides to stay out until the sun comes up, because he's tired of life.

But it seems unlikely to me that an otherwise healthy person would tire of life in their 70s or 80s or even 90s.

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

It seems to me that as this very interesting thread has progressed, that there has arisen a false division between "healthy" and "unwell" and physical and mental health.

Depression can be aggravated to an unbearable state by a physical infirmity that may be bearable by another person.

A frail 98 year-old lady who enjoys her Bridge Parties every week, her painting group, has friends who call and do her shopping, can be living a happier and more fulfilled life than a 77 year-old who lives alone, looks after themselves, but cannot walk unaided outside, and sees no-one from one week's end to another.

And how do you define 'healthy' or 'fit'?

Deafness, for example can be totally isolating, however a person might otherwise be fit and well.

Similarly blindness.

Someone saying they have "had enough" should be taken seriously. They have probably been thinking that for some considerable time before being brave enough to vocalise it to another person. And if that person tries to "jolly them along" then the person who has had enough will probably curl up inside and just pray to die.

Its very easy to say "I can see no reason why a fit 70 or 80 year-old should want to die." You probably cannot see why they should want to die, especially from your own fit and healthy point of view.

There will be a lot going on inside that person's mind that you are not, and possibly never can be, party to.

Physical and mental health is inextricably entwined. Don't make the mistake, that so many do, of speaking of 'either/or'.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Discussion about this is very strong in Holland right now. The Parliament is still against it, but I'm not sure how long it will last.

Like people have said before on this thread, the discussion is being confused and mixed-up (perhaps deliberatly), and that doesn't help much.

This discussion about 'euthanasia' at old age is being mixed up with discussions about 'normal' euthanasia. I am in favour (with some very strong conditions) of euthanasia for people with strong physical and even mental problems. But this is something else. This isn't euthanasia, and I think this should be stressed in the discussion.

I agree 100% with Adeodatus that the 'right to die' is a bogey argument, and it should be countered right away. Nobody is taking away anyone's right to die. If the want to die, and decide to take a pint of arsenicum, nobody will be able to stop them. They aren't asking for the right to die, they are asking (no, demanding) the right to institutional help from Society if they want to die. That's something completely different.

I am against it, for different reasons, most of which have already been put forward on this thread. The most important ones are:

It would change dramatically the way we look at old age. If the elderly find life unbearable, maybe it would be a good time to look at the way we treat old people first.
If this is institutionalised, then there are all kinds of ways in which people could pressure their elderly family members to take this step.
It would require doctors, pharmacists and all kinds of people to actively help with the death of healthy people.

When I put forward these arguments on various Dutch internet forums, I've been called all kinds of things. I've been called a Christian fundamentalist, who only wants to listen to the will of God. I've been called a rationalist who doesn't understand that death is part of life too. All these arguments are bullshit.

I think that in the long run we're going to loose this one in Holland. And I'm quite afraid of it.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Fairly, or unfairly, I think some people who advocate for the "right to die" are looking with fear at what might happen to them when they get older. Sort of a "yuck, who wants to end up like that" mentality.

It is not as much fun to get up and go to the gym when your knees and hips hurt as it was when you were younger and could jog around the track and lift big weights. It is not fun to look in the mirror and see an old person staring back.

So what?

I remember an angst ridden youth when I had the hots for every female that walked by and felt that none of them knew I was alive.

Every stage of life has its issues. Some just look less yucky than others.

Ask yourselves how many older people vs. younger people are arguing for euthanasia for old age.

This is the problem with the whole issue. There is too much* input from younger people whose only perception of old age is "ewww."

_______________
Too much here meaning - any.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I can understand were this is coming from. My grandfather wasn't very keen on living anymore at the end of his life. He was twice a widower, after 25+ years with his first wife and 20+ with his second (my grandmother). After this, he didn't feel like going on much longer.

He would never consider asking for death in this way because of his religious convictions, but he was often washed-out and depressed.

I can understand that people ask the question: why can't people like this be allowed to die? (Which is a bad formulation of the question, because it really means "Why can't they demand that someone kills them?")

But when someone is depressed, do we always have to do away with the source of depression? Even if this can have bad consequences for Society?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

"Lord, let me know mine end, and the number of my days...."

As horrible as it would be if we were to slouch towards an expectation that people should terminate themselves at a certain age, there is something to be said for such advanced knowledge. Time and time again, we hear or read confessions to the effect that if one had been aware earlier of his mortality, he would have lived more fully.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

What troubles me about this is the possibility that the having right to die for people over 70 will make it harder for them to insist on their right to live, either because they might feel pressure to die so as not to be a "burden" or because it just seems easier when they're going through a rough patch. I have mixed feelings about assisted suicide for those of any age suffering from a terminal illness, but I'm pretty sure that when there is no horrible, inevitable end in sight, people should be encouraged to live, and live well, not to die. I'd rather see resources going toward making elderly people's lives better than toward helping them kill themselves.

I can see people having "had enough" at a certain point in their lives. So let them kill themselves; it's not that hard to do. But I have very strong reservations about providing help, especially help that is built into societal institutions.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

While Ruth has a point, to my mind the more important problem is that we box older people in to a point that they would rather be dead. We need to make sure that people are not worried about being impoverished once they can no longer work; that they are not warehoused in a repulsive nursing home and ignored by one and all; that they are given opportunities to be productively engaged with the rest of society in whatever manner is open to them; etc. My suspicion is that folks who are "tired of living" are more often than not tired of being scared and abandoned.

--Tom Clune

[ 05. April 2012, 19:01: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What troubles me about this is the possibility that the having right to die for people over 70 will make it harder for them to insist on their right to live, either because they might feel pressure to die so as not to be a "burden"...

This is especially true if the elderly person knows that the money needed to keep him in a nursing home would otherwise be available to give a grandchild a start in life.

Moo

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

Moo, it shouldn't be an "either/or" situation. That it is says something rather unpleasant about our society imho.

Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I can see people having "had enough" at a certain point in their lives. So let them kill themselves; it's not that hard to do. But I have very strong reservations about providing help, especially help that is built into societal institutions.

I agree. Two more thoughts:
- if someone does not have the courage to do it themselves, do they genuinely want to die?
- also, to most people (IIRC, and I hope none of the exceptions are in the medical profession) actively taking a life causes at least some degree of psychological stress. It would be unfair to ask anyone to suffer this, unless under extreme circumstances (e.g. terminal incapacitating illness).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
While Ruth has a point, to my mind the more important problem is that we box older people in to a point that they would rather be dead. We need to make sure that people are not worried about being impoverished once they can no longer work; that they are not warehoused in a repulsive nursing home and ignored by one and all; that they are given opportunities to be productively engaged with the rest of society in whatever manner is open to them; etc. My suspicion is that folks who are "tired of living" are more often than not tired of being scared and abandoned.

--Tom Clune

Agreed. This is exactly what I was getting at. Addressing the reasons why someone has 'had enough' is quite likely to mean that they'll no longer have 'had enough'. But coming up with those kinds of solutions requires effort.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Moo, it shouldn't be an "either/or" situation. That it is says something rather unpleasant about our society imho.

Welcome to the way it is.

When one member of a couple needs Medicaid to go into a nursing home, it does not just affect the finances of that person. It significantly affects the finances of the spouse.

Meaning, the spouse who stays home may, or may not, have to eat dog food to make ends meet.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Fairly, or unfairly, I think some people who advocate for the "right to die" are looking with fear at what might happen to them when they get older. Sort of a "yuck, who wants to end up like that" mentality.

...

Every stage of life has its issues. Some just look less yucky than others.

Ask yourselves how many older people vs. younger people are arguing for euthanasia for old age.

This is the problem with the whole issue. There is too much* input from younger people whose only perception of old age is "ewww."

_______________
Too much here meaning - any.

There is, in almost the twinkling of an eye, that subtle substitution, as from out of a Mississippi riverboat gambler's sleeve, of the voluntary 'right to die' to the matter of involuntary euthanasia. It is so quick you could easily miss it.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

1. I was responding to LeRoc, who seems concerned about the potential in the Pays-Bas, while repeating my central theme that younger people tend to misjudge the quality of life of someone who needs help with their ADL's.

2. I genuinely do not believe there will be a push for compulsory euthanasia. Such a thing is beyond what humanity would tolerate. So, arguing against such is not my intention.

My intention is to try to make people understand that their reaction to the vicissitudes of old age is not what their reaction will be when they get there.

3. If the argument also appears to be against compulsory euthanasia it is because it works equally well for that issue.

Why throw in straw dogs like you are?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I'm not sure that involuntary euthanasia is that far fetched an idea. It is a subject which has been raised fairly consistently by Peter Singer and is, I believe, fairly regularly discussed in philosophical circles. Please don't tell me no one takes philosophers like Singer seriously. I wish they didn't.

There are rumours coming out of the Netherlands, which Le Roc, as you pointed out was discussing, that there are an increasing number of cases of involuntary euthanasia. As you, as a lawyer, would possibly understand, it is very hard to get people from the fairly hierarchical hospital system, where it happens, to become whistle-blowers.

I'm not sure my post was a red herring.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

People die of too much morphine all the time. You are not in otherwise healthy, but wanting to go meet God territory with that. That happens when the patient is not going to get better and they will "live" out a comatose existence until their body gives out naturally unless they are "given something for the pain." This happens with, and sometimes without, living wills.

Whether or not that is involuntary euthanasia is an interesting question. Where there is a living will and the person has chosen no intubation and the nasal canula is removed a dose or two of morphine to ease the resultant spasmodic breathing becomes enough morphine to slow muscle movement enough to cause a relatively painless death.

Where there is no living will and no family to make the decision? Do you go to a court and seek an order? Maybe. It costs money and might bring on family who couldn't be bothered to be there when daddy was dying to sue the hospital for wrongful death.

Is this scary? It should be. Is it regulated? There are a lot of witnesses. It is hard to kill someone who is not going to die anyway and not have somebody tell somebody. In any event, the overwhelming majority of medical practitioners I know are in it to help people.

Just some thoughts.

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What troubles me about this is the possibility that the having right to die for people over 70 will make it harder for them to insist on their right to live, either because they might feel pressure to die so as not to be a "burden"...
This is especially true if the elderly person knows that the money needed to keep him in a nursing home would otherwise be available to give a grandchild a start in life.

Moo

Interestingly, I heard a speech by Dame Mary Warnock this week at a law conference. She strongly defended her right to decide not to waste her money on care in old age (and as she is 88, this is a real possibility very soon) but to leave it for her children. She questioned why self-sacrifice is regarded as noble in the young but wrong in the very old. She would prefer to die and not waste either NHS money or her own on prolonging a life which she regards as already having satisfied all her desires. At present she is still well, but wants to put an end to her life when she is not.

She also said that doctors should be prepared to end life; at present in the UK it has been made clear that relatives acting out of compassion will not be prosecuted if they assist someone to commit suicide. This means, she says, that only amateurs can help to end a life. This is plain silly, when a professional could do it better!

She said that as an ethicist, she accepts the a priori religious argument that self-destruction is forbidden by God. However, she is scornful of the consequentialist arguments about slippery slopes and pressure to die, thinking them over-exaggerated. Are we really so greedy that we all want to bump off mum?

I didn't necessarily agree with all she said, but she gave me pause for thought.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Do most of us want to bump off our mums? Of course not! But we also know that some do and will indeed tell their parents that if they had any decency they would go die. Also there will be the people who would never quite commit suicide on their own, but perhaps think of it now, and would feel that if the choice for assisted suicide were there that they should. In other words, they are happier because there is not such a choice. If there were such a choice, they would either die--no more happiness, but not something they are choosing actively now--or would feel guilty about living--which they aren't currently.

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Addressing the reasons why someone has 'had enough' is quite likely to mean that they'll no longer have 'had enough'. But coming up with those kinds of solutions requires effort.

Not everyone's reasons are addressable, though. In my grandfather's case it was the death of my grandmother that made him want to die too. Grandfather was 88 at that time and knew he was bound to start declining pretty soon anyway. He wasn't poor, or isolated, or in a bad nursing home, or anything else that society could have done anything about. Just heartbroken and worn out.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
Not everyone's reasons are addressable, though. In my grandfather's case it was the death of my grandmother that made him want to die too. Grandfather was 88 at that time and knew he was bound to start declining pretty soon anyway. He wasn't poor, or isolated, or in a bad nursing home, or anything else that society could have done anything about. Just heartbroken and worn out.

I've spoken to many a heartbroken and worn out young person whose life today is so miserable that he/she wants to die and would do so if someone were willing to do it for them in a clinical, painfree way. It would absolve them of the responsibility, and it would make the act itself acceptable. At what age would it be considered a valid option? At what age would we cease to try to help people to see the alternative options and help them in their bereavement or loneliness?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Fair enough Tortuf. I do respect you and your position.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
People die of too much morphine all the time. You are not in otherwise healthy, but wanting to go meet God territory with that. That happens when the patient is not going to get better and they will "live" out a comatose existence until their body gives out naturally unless they are "given something for the pain." This happens with, and sometimes without, living wills.

Whether or not that is involuntary euthanasia is an interesting question. Where there is a living will and the person has chosen no intubation and the nasal canula is removed a dose or two of morphine to ease the resultant spasmodic breathing becomes enough morphine to slow muscle movement enough to cause a relatively painless death.

I think the important point here is why the morphine is given. AIUI it is wrong to give morphine with the goal of shortening life, but if the morphine is given to relieve pain it is acceptable even if it shortens life.

I assume we are talking about someone who is terminally ill.

Moo

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

I seriously do not want to live to the point I am completely miserable. This trait runs in my family. I think 70 may ultimately be a perfectly good cutoff point, but I guess I will see when I get there.

I recall an article I read that doctors often are the first ones to want to have Do Not Resuscitate orders, because they 1) know how horrible things are when near death and 2) how awful the treatments are, including but not limited to defibrillation. Apparently it is not like TV and it is NOT pleasant during or after.

This incessant desire to save people at all costs is a cultural and religious artifact that I think has gone overboard. Not every life is worth saving, especially if that person doesn't want to live!

I think we should have the right to die, that there should be a clear and well done process like Oregon has, and that it shouldn't be a brawl to do it.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

What a frightening thread.

Some people I know already think I have a sad, sorry life. Poor old Twilight, rarely going anywhere, too much leg damage to walk without a cane, no more aerobic dance classes at the Y, no job, no grandchildren, just sitting in the house all day getting fatter, why not put her out of her misery?

Well excuse me for living! Nobody has any idea how much fun I have. My heart pounds with excitement before every new [i]Survivor{/i] episode and I'm up till midnight afterward arguing about it on the internet. I still haven't read all the large print books in the library and I'm backed up with the reviews I want to post on Amazon. Just recently I discovered all the old movies, free, on You-tube and, once again, there's a delightful space underneath for comments.

Being "shut-in" in the 21st Century doesn't have to be a lonely, stare out the window, existance anymore. The internet is going to keep many baby boomers in touch with other people even after our wrinkles have made us too unsightly for the young to want to look at.

Now I'm afraid I'll be carried out like the "Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail" character saying, "I'm not really dead. I'll get better."

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I am, however, too slow to edit my posts in three minutes. Shoot me.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

This premise was the basis of the wonderful movie "Harold and Maude". Ruth Gorden gives a compelling perfromance as a woman who commits suicide on her 80th birthday since she believes 80 is the best age to die and teaches Harold about life before she goes.

Posted by savedbyhim01 (# 17035) on :

Life is a gift from God. It's not up to us to decide when to die. Our time on earth is so short already and our chances to make a long term impact in other's lives are so limited that I can't see why a Christian would choose to end theri life healthy or not.

If the person is an atheist and they believe that there is nothing after death, there is even less reason to consider it.

I too agree with the concern about going to a doctor who helps people die to help you get healthy.

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Do most of us want to bump off our mums? Of course not! But we also know that some do and will indeed tell their parents that if they had any decency they would go die. Also there will be the people who would never quite commit suicide on their own, but perhaps think of it now, and would feel that if the choice for assisted suicide were there that they should. In other words, they are happier because there is not such a choice. If there were such a choice, they would either die--no more happiness, but not something they are choosing actively now--or would feel guilty about living--which they aren't currently.

Actually, I think there are many who would feel happier and less likely to commit suicide if the option were there. I can certainly imagine the situation where I knew I was in decline, but would like to enjoy as much more of life as I could, but wanted to know that when it became too much I could be helped to die. I think that I would be more likely to keep on living, unafraid of what lay ahead, than many elderly people currently are. After all, if the choice is to kill yourself whilst you still have the ability or hang on until the bitter end whatever your state, I might well choose to die much earlier than I otherwise would.

Dame Mary Warnock is an advocate of euthanasia, but she hasn't killed herself yet at 88! She claimed that far more pressure was put on her to sacrifice herself for her children when she was young, in terms of career choice, how they were brought up etc., something most women are very familiar with. As she put it, when it would be a pleasure to do so, then it oddly becomes an immoral choice rather than a praiseworthy one.

Surely the law could put safeguards into place to protect the truly vulnerable? I have been a strong and decisive person all my life so far and I intend to continue to be one in old age. I don't want to be patronised by younger people assuming I don't know my own mind! If I choose not to continue living, it should be my decision, not anyone else's. That will remain true for as long as I have the capacity to kill myself. Once I have a stroke or something and lose the physical capacity, why is it so inherently wrong for someone who is willing to do so to assist me? Or for someone to follow directions left by me whilst capable to kill me once Alzheimer's has become advanced? It would be wrong to force anyone to do it, but why is it wrong, subject to suitable safeguards, to permit it?

Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I remember when I was a kid thinking how ancient (43) I would be at the turn of the millennium.

That's weird. I remember thinking exactly the same thing, and remembering it a couple of years ago and thinking I must have been a strange child, but clearly I'm not the only one!

I can distinctly remember, when I was eight years old, making that calculation because of a book I was reading about the future of space travel which said that only young people could withstand the effects of the g-force of blasting off from earth to space.

What's even weirder is that I came up with the same answer as you - so we must have been born in the same year!

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Have just written and erased a very long post on this. However, I disagree wholeheartedly with Dame Mary (as usual), and I have known cases where old people were encouraged to take their own lives rather than be a burden and spend the money their children hoped to inherit. The situations were nasty and the fallout lasted generations.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Addressing the reasons why someone has 'had enough' is quite likely to mean that they'll no longer have 'had enough'. But coming up with those kinds of solutions requires effort.
Not everyone's reasons are addressable, though. In my grandfather's case it was the death of my grandmother that made him want to die too. Grandfather was 88 at that time and knew he was bound to start declining pretty soon anyway. He wasn't poor, or isolated, or in a bad nursing home, or anything else that society could have done anything about. Just heartbroken and worn out.

Heartbreak? Death of the love of your life?

I feel much the same way as Raptor Eye does. I'm not exactly convinced that, as terrible as those things are, there's any reason why they should mean "okay, my life is over" at the age of 88 when they don't mean that at an earlier age. My grandfather died in his mid-50s. Does that mean that my grandmother, also in her mid-50s, would have been entitled to declare "my life is over"? As it is she's now 90 and is pretty close to the point where her time as a widow has been longer than her time as a wife.

I'm not for a second suggesting that your grandfather's situation wasn't very difficult. But I really, really don't like the implications of the idea that a tragic event can mean 'my life is over', simply because too many people have thought that and subsequently been proven wrong. There are a lot of people out there who eventually discovered that only a phase of their life was over, and that a new phase could be built afterwards. It's not clear to me that there should be some kind of age limit on that rebuilding happening.

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Have just written and erased a very long post on this. However, I disagree wholeheartedly with Dame Mary (as usual), and I have known cases where old people were encouraged to take their own lives rather than be a burden and spend the money their children hoped to inherit. The situations were nasty and the fallout lasted generations.

If that is the case, we seem to have many of the disadvantages of the consequentialist objections already, without the advantage of those who wish to do so being able to choose when to die.

There are already people who kill off their relatives in order to inherit; monetary gain is a commonplace motive for murder. I can't see how that impacts on a discussion over whether those who wish to die should be able to arrange for that to happen.

On a personal level, I doubt if I will arrange for my own euthanasia, as I presently subscribe to the a priori ethical objection that self destruction is forbidden by God. However, I don't think that a good enough reason to forbid others without such a belief to abide by the same rules.

What persuades you that 'influencing mum to kill herself' would be easier under those conditions? Surely if the matter were out in the open, the invidious influencing that you say goes on today would be more difficult. A doctor approached now by an elderly person asking for help to die may feel obliged to talk around the subject discreetly rather than putting it out there and judging whose real desire it is that she cease to exist. There is much more scope for misunderstanding when everyone is skirting round the edge of legality.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Dame Mary Warnock is an advocate of euthanasia, but she hasn't killed herself yet at 88! She claimed that far more pressure was put on her to sacrifice herself for her children when she was young, in terms of career choice, how they were brought up etc., something most women are very familiar with.

Stay-at-home-mom; this century's fate worse than death.

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Dame Mary Warnock is an advocate of euthanasia, but she hasn't killed herself yet at 88! She claimed that far more pressure was put on her to sacrifice herself for her children when she was young, in terms of career choice, how they were brought up etc., something most women are very familiar with.
Stay-at-home-mom; this century's fate worse than death.

I certainly would have sacrificed some years of life in order to have a career. YMMMV.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:

This incessant desire to save people at all costs is a cultural and religious artifact that I think has gone overboard. Not every life is worth saving, especially if that person doesn't want to live!

I think we should have the right to die, that there should be a clear and well done process like Oregon has, and that it shouldn't be a brawl to do it.

This post gave me a shudder.

If not every life is worth saving, who is going to decide on the criteria? Perhaps disabled people should not be allowed to live either, depending upon this criteria.

Will people go to a hospital not knowing whether or not the medical professionals will do their best - or anything at all - to bring them back to full health? Will they worry, as someone told me they do in Holland, that they may be 'put out of their misery' by well-meaning doctors?

A 'process' facilitating the 'right to die' means giving people leave to kill others. Legality gives a societal stamp of approval to something which goes against the highest standards of human behaviour. [Tangent] We only need to look at what happened since abortion laws were approved to see that this is true. Those who argued for it expected very few cases.....but this is dead horse territory [/Tangent]

I think it better to use all of our resources, including the training of medical practitioners, to improve the health of all who need it, and this should encompass their mental and emotional wellbeing.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
A 'process' facilitating the 'right to die' means giving people leave to kill others.

While I fully agree with the sentiment that such a process could mean that, it is not always the case.

You are a doctor in an ER. A patient is brought in who has sustained considerable brain damage and severe burns. If you do nothing but administer something for the pain, the patient will die. If you take measures to keep the patient alive there is an 80%+ chance they will exist in a vegetative state and a 100% chance they will experience significant pain because of the burns. The patient is not likely to understand the pain from the burns, nor appreciate the reason for the pain from the multiple skin grafts to come.

Does that patient have a right to die? Is withholding medical treatment (other than pain meds) killing the patient?

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
You are a doctor in an ER. A patient is brought in who has sustained considerable brain damage and severe burns. If you do nothing but administer something for the pain, the patient will die. If you take measures to keep the patient alive there is an 80%+ chance they will exist in a vegetative state and a 100% chance they will experience significant pain because of the burns. The patient is not likely to understand the pain from the burns, nor appreciate the reason for the pain from the multiple skin grafts to come.

Does that patient have a right to die? Is withholding medical treatment (other than pain meds) killing the patient?

Although, in this situation, if the patient had a living will stating that they wished not to have medical treatment to keep them alive if they were in a certain state, then the medical staff are to honour this - there is no law saying they can't. This is not legally considered euthanasia.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
A 'process' facilitating the 'right to die' means giving people leave to kill others.
While I fully agree with the sentiment that such a process could mean that, it is not always the case.

You are a doctor in an ER. A patient is brought in who has sustained considerable brain damage and severe burns. If you do nothing but administer something for the pain, the patient will die. If you take measures to keep the patient alive there is an 80%+ chance they will exist in a vegetative state and a 100% chance they will experience significant pain because of the burns. The patient is not likely to understand the pain from the burns, nor appreciate the reason for the pain from the multiple skin grafts to come.

Does that patient have a right to die? Is withholding medical treatment (other than pain meds) killing the patient?

I understand the distinction and the difficulties Tortuf.

My view is that withholding treatment in such a case even though death may naturally take place is different from administering treatment so that death will take place. To die of natural causes does not require a bill of rights.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

We are in agreement.

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:

This incessant desire to save people at all costs is a cultural and religious artifact that I think has gone overboard. Not every life is worth saving, especially if that person doesn't want to live!

I think we should have the right to die, that there should be a clear and well done process like Oregon has, and that it shouldn't be a brawl to do it.
This post gave me a shudder.

If not every life is worth saving, who is going to decide on the criteria? Perhaps disabled people should not be allowed to live either, depending upon this criteria.

But surely the answer is "the person him or herself". No-one is yet advocating that someone else decide that you die. What is being argued is that sometimes a person would like to die, but lacks the physical capacity to kill him or herself. Under those circumstances, it should not be a crime for someone else who is willing to do so to kill them.

So the answer to your question about disabled people is not whether they be allowed to live, but more whether they be allowed to die. To which my answer would be 'yes, if they want to'. Being disabled should make no difference.

Lawyers (and I am one) are very keen on the omission/commission distinction, but I find it far more creepy that the badly burned person in the example above be allowed to die through neglect without being consulted than that they be asked their opinion, or have a living will consulted. I take a rather higher view of individual liberty than I see from most people on this thread. I don't hold doctors in high enough esteem to delegate to them the decision whether I live or die, thanks very much! The same goes for the state.

Posted by Mogwai (# 13555) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:

Should a doctor be in the position of euthanizing a perfectly healthy 70 year old? Am I missing something here? Is there a non-depression related reason for wanting to die at 70 if healthy?

No. It is inhuman.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Lawyers (and I am one) are very keen on the omission/commission distinction, but I find it far more creepy that the badly burned person in the example above be allowed to die through neglect without being consulted than that they be asked their opinion, or have a living will consulted.

If the person has suffered considerable brain damage, and being kept alive would likely mean their existing in a vegetative state, they're unlikely to be able to give an opinion. If they have a living will, that would be ideal, but it's not so likely that someone who has suffered an unexpected injury has a living will. This would be a difficult situation, and doctors do tend to veer on the side of taking all measures to preserve life unless a living will very specifically and non-ambiguously says otherwise. And in reality, living wills tend to be ambiguous, because they are based on whether the person will recover their faculties, and most often that is not known for certain. Especially with brain injury, recovery is unpredictable.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Why are we talking about people with severe burns and brain injuries? The proposal is that anyone over 70 be able to enlist help with suicide.

quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
There are already people who kill off their relatives in order to inherit; monetary gain is a commonplace motive for murder. I can't see how that impacts on a discussion over whether those who wish to die should be able to arrange for that to happen.

It affects this discussion because people won't have to kill off their relatives to inherit; they'll be able to convince vulnerable old people to kill themselves. The people who have had their elderly relatives declared incompetent so they can collect their Social Security checks and who have gotten them to sign over the deeds to their houses will be able to effectively get away with murder.

The National Center on Elder Abuse says that "According to the best available estimates, between 1 and 2 million Americans age 65 or older have been injured, exploited, or otherwise mistreated by someone on whom they depended for care or protection. ... Estimates of the frequency of elder abuse range from 2% to 10% .... It is estimated that for every one case of elder abuse, neglect, exploitation, or self-neglect reported to authorities, about five more go unreported." Source - pdf.

I do hear the argument in favor of self-determination. I have yet to hear anything that convinces me that really with-it people over 70 need help with committing suicide, but I'm pretty sure vulnerable people over 70 don't need an institutionalized mechanism that makes it easy for other people to convince them they'd be better off dead.

If you don't want to live, then okay, go ahead and do it, kill yourself. But why should anyone else help?

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Why are we talking about people with severe burns and brain injuries? The proposal is that anyone over 70 be able to enlist help with suicide.

quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
There are already people who kill off their relatives in order to inherit; monetary gain is a commonplace motive for murder. I can't see how that impacts on a discussion over whether those who wish to die should be able to arrange for that to happen.
It affects this discussion because people won't have to kill off their relatives to inherit; they'll be able to convince vulnerable old people to kill themselves. The people who have had their elderly relatives declared incompetent so they can collect their Social Security checks and who have gotten them to sign over the deeds to their houses will be able to effectively get away with murder.

The National Center on Elder Abuse says that "According to the best available estimates, between 1 and 2 million Americans age 65 or older have been injured, exploited, or otherwise mistreated by someone on whom they depended for care or protection. ... Estimates of the frequency of elder abuse range from 2% to 10% .... It is estimated that for every one case of elder abuse, neglect, exploitation, or self-neglect reported to authorities, about five more go unreported." Source - pdf.

I do hear the argument in favor of self-determination. I have yet to hear anything that convinces me that really with-it people over 70 need help with committing suicide, but I'm pretty sure vulnerable people over 70 don't need an institutionalized mechanism that makes it easy for other people to convince them they'd be better off dead.

If you don't want to live, then okay, go ahead and do it, kill yourself. But why should anyone else help?

I hear what you say about elder abuse, but this is now, with the law the way it is. We are not preventing it, and there is no evidence that euthanasia would make it worse.

Of course the fit elderly can kill themselves if they want. However, the case law in England has all been about the unfit. What if you have a stroke and can't swallow? What if you are bedridden? As I suggested earlier, I think the current situation faces the elderly with a dilemma. If they end their life too early, they miss out. If they wait until their life becomes a burden, they may not be able to physically carry out the act.

Polls in the UK now show a clear majority in favour of assisted suicide. I don't think a blanket age limit makes much sense, as a person can be incapacitated at any age. See the thoughts of
Melanie Reid , award winning Times journalist for apposite commentary.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

If a person has the choice to be euthanised simply for being old, whereas a young person doesn't have the choice, the unspoken implication is that an older person's life is less important - less worth keeping.

In such a situation, older people would start to feel more disposable - people who wouldn't normally consider being euthanised would start to consider it. They would see their life as being considered by society as having lower value than a young person's life.

If I knew that once I reached 70 I would have the option to be euthanised, I think that would make me feel very uncomfortable about reaching 70, simply because of all the unspoken societal values behind such an option. Even if I had no intention of being euthanised, and totally loved life, the very fact that I had such an option would make me consider it, and make me wonder if maybe it's selfish to remain alive.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Why are we talking about people with severe burns and brain injuries? The proposal is that anyone over 70 be able to enlist help with suicide.

quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
There are already people who kill off their relatives in order to inherit; monetary gain is a commonplace motive for murder. I can't see how that impacts on a discussion over whether those who wish to die should be able to arrange for that to happen.
It affects this discussion because people won't have to kill off their relatives to inherit; they'll be able to convince vulnerable old people to kill themselves. The people who have had their elderly relatives declared incompetent so they can collect their Social Security checks and who have gotten them to sign over the deeds to their houses will be able to effectively get away with murder.

The National Center on Elder Abuse says that "According to the best available estimates, between 1 and 2 million Americans age 65 or older have been injured, exploited, or otherwise mistreated by someone on whom they depended for care or protection. ... Estimates of the frequency of elder abuse range from 2% to 10% .... It is estimated that for every one case of elder abuse, neglect, exploitation, or self-neglect reported to authorities, about five more go unreported." Source - pdf.

I do hear the argument in favor of self-determination. I have yet to hear anything that convinces me that really with-it people over 70 need help with committing suicide, but I'm pretty sure vulnerable people over 70 don't need an institutionalized mechanism that makes it easy for other people to convince them they'd be better off dead.

If you don't want to live, then okay, go ahead and do it, kill yourself. But why should anyone else help?

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Originally posted by Ondergard:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I remember when I was a kid thinking how ancient (43) I would be at the turn of the millennium.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's weird. I remember thinking exactly the same thing, and remembering it a couple of years ago and thinking I must have been a strange child, but clearly I'm not the only one!

I can distinctly remember, when I was eight years old, making that calculation because of a book I was reading about the future of space travel which said that only young people could withstand the effects of the g-force of blasting off from earth to space.

What's even weirder is that I came up with the same answer as you - so we must have been born in the same year!

Me too. And I came up with the same answer too. There must have been something in the air in the mid-sixties. Did we all read 'Look and Learn'?

M.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
.... There are a lot of people out there who eventually discovered that only a phase of their life was over, and that a new phase could be built afterwards. It's not clear to me that there should be some kind of age limit on that rebuilding happening.

To be fair, that sort of rebuilding does get harder and harder as you get older. It takes a lot of energy and motivation and directed effort to "rebuild" - mental, social, physical, and emotional energy. OliviaG

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
.... There are a lot of people out there who eventually discovered that only a phase of their life was over, and that a new phase could be built afterwards. It's not clear to me that there should be some kind of age limit on that rebuilding happening.
To be fair, that sort of rebuilding does get harder and harder as you get older. It takes a lot of energy and motivation and directed effort to "rebuild" - mental, social, physical, and emotional energy. OliviaG

Certainly. I'm not disputing that.

If anything, that's why I would argue that the community around a person ought to be putting the effort in, not leaving the person to struggle on their own.

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Why are we talking about people with severe burns and brain injuries? The proposal is that anyone over 70 be able to enlist help with suicide.....

If you don't want to live, then okay, go ahead and do it, kill yourself. But why should anyone else help?

[tears hair] thanks! I was starting to get really frustrated! I'm looking at a potential Logan's Run kind of slippery slope, and we're talking about the desperately ill.

I believe that there's no justification for the state encouraging any healthy person to die, frankly, either by facilitating or condoning it through approval of a process through which doctors can end such lives. I don't think there's any way to be sure the decision is free from duress, and even if it were, holy crap!

[Holy crap! is, I realize, not the most cogent argument, but I'll try to do better]

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

If you don't want to live, then okay, go ahead and do it, kill yourself. But why should anyone else help?

Because not everyone can do it themselves.

I have to point out that this is not theory. There is a pretty successful implementation of similar in Oregon and in Switzerland. I'm sure there are others.

According to the almighty wikipedia the Oregon Death with Dignity Act:

"An independent study published in the October 2007 issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics reports there was "no evidence of heightened risk for the elderly, women, the uninsured, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses including depression, or racial or ethnic minorities, compared with background populations."

There is a risk of botched suicide attempts, suicide attempts that risk others lives trying to save them, and so on. There are costs to society both ways.

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

Mad Geo 'I have to point out that this is not theory. There is a pretty successful implementation of similar in Oregon and in Switzerland. I'm sure there are others.'

Isn't it a bit early to tell how this sort of thing will pan out? Attitudes to death, the elderly etc shouldn't transform overnight but could evolve over time, and not necessarily for the better.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
According to the almighty wikipedia the Oregon Death with Dignity Act:

"An independent study published in the October 2007 issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics reports there was "no evidence of heightened risk for the elderly, women, the uninsured, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses including depression, or racial or ethnic minorities, compared with background populations."

But that law covers assisted suicide for the terminally ill, not for everyone over 70. I think that has the potential to have more wide-ranging effects. It's one thing to assist someone to die when they're going to die within six months anyway and quite another to help someone die who might live another decade or two.

quote:
There is a risk of botched suicide attempts, suicide attempts that risk others lives trying to save them, and so on. There are costs to society both ways.

So people need to do their research before attempting to off themselves.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

I'm saying that the law in Oregon is thorough. it could easily be applied to the broader idea. From the Oregon website:

The patient must meet certain criteria to be able to request to participate in the Act. Then, the following steps must be fulfilled:

1) the patient must make two oral requests to the attending physician, separated by at least 15 days;

2) the patient must provide a written request to the attending physician, signed in the presence of two witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the patient;

3) the attending physician and a consulting physician must confirm the patient's diagnosis and prognosis;

4) the attending physician and a consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself;

5) if either physician believes the patient's judgment is impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder (such as depression), the patient must be referred for a psychological examination;

6) the attending physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives to the Act including comfort care, hospice care, and pain control;

7) the attending physician must request, but may not require, the patient to notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. A patient can rescind a request at any time and in any manner. The attending physician will also offer the patient an opportunity to rescind his/her request at the end of the 15-day waiting period following the initial request to participate.

Physicians must report all prescriptions for lethal medications to the Oregon Health Authority, Vital Records. As of 1999, pharmacists must be informed of the prescribed medication's ultimate use.

Notice item #2 "...at least one of whom is not related to the patient"

Based on the Oregon law, the person has to satisfy two people, one unrelated AND the physician themselves, plus possibly a psychologist, before medication will be provided.

In short, it is a fairly comprehensive system of checks and balances before anything is done.

I understand that the 70-year old version has a high "Ick factor". But I personally think that we all should be given this right, should we want to.

We have recently had two suicides impact our family (indirectly). In one, the son hung himself in the garage. He had long time psychological issues and I cannot imagine his poor folks finding him like that. The other was depressed and locked his girlfriend out of the house, then killed himself with a gun while she could hear it.

I can't help wondering if society gave them other options, if that wouldn't have been a better way to go, or even if they had been given a psych counselor option, then to subject their families to those experiences. I freely admit I could be wrong, but then I also feel rather strongly that people should be able to choose to die should they wish.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo: I understand that the 70-year old version has a high "Ick factor". But I personally think that we all should be given this right, should we want to.

We have recently had two suicides impact our family (indirectly). In one, the son hung himself in the garage. He had long time psychological issues and I cannot imagine his poor folks finding him like that. The other was depressed and locked his girlfriend out of the house, then killed himself with a gun while she could hear it.

I can't help wondering if society gave them other options, if that wouldn't have been a better way to go, or even if they had been given a psych counselor option, then to subject their families to those experiences. I freely admit I could be wrong, but then I also feel rather strongly that people should be able to choose to die should they wish.

Society did give them other options. They could have sought out counselling, they could have carried on, they could have changed something, etc etc. They decided to kill themselves. You are suggesting that society should have made it easier for them and their families by providing someone else to kill them clinically. Everything within me cries out against this. Not only does it compound the horror by involving a third party, it says that it's OK for someone to opt out of life when the going is tough.

It's not OK. It's harmful. It wouldn't protect their families from its impact if it were carried out clinically, it would remain the violent act that it is. It's like a bomb of darkness exploding when someone kills himself, one that impacts on everyone who knew him, particularly so on everyone who loved him, and also on everyone who has heard about it, as you know and I know by experience. It's a tragedy which leaves everyone with 'if only's', a gut feeling of misery, a tendency to want to blame someone, and the loss of a taboo which gave people a sense of security.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mad Geo: We have recently had two suicides impact our family (indirectly). (...) I can't help wondering if society gave them other options, if that wouldn't have been a better way to go

So what would have been the difference? In this case, instead of them killing themselves, they could have demanded that someone kill them. Would that have made a difference to the family?

quote:
Mad Geo: I freely admit I could be wrong, but then I also feel rather strongly that people should be able to choose to die should they wish.

Here is the false 'right to die' argument again. I realise that I run the risk of sounding heartless here; having a suicide happening close to you really is a terrible thing. But it seems to me that these people who committed suicide already exercised their right to choose to die when they wished.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

We all have the right to die. We all die. We all have the ability to die when we choose.

My fear about right to die legislation is the pressure that will be put on older people by their families and themselves to die rather than face the cost of going to a nursing home.

For instance, a couple has saved $100,000 here in Tennessee. If the husband needs Medicaid, the caseworker will divide their money in half. The Husband will have to spend down to $2,000 to qualify. The wife will get to keep the $50,000, but may not be able to keep much, if any, of the husband's retirement and Social Security. That money will go to the nursing home.

So, a couple that could have eked by is now a spouse with the upkeep and expenses of a household (or, maybe assisted living) and precious little income with which to accomplish that task.

How much internal and external pressure do you think the husband will have to end his life and save the income and savings for his wife?

The idea of someone not related is all good and well. It does not do anything near enough to address internal family pressure. How long will the person be in the presence of the Oregon third party vs. family?

It would be one thing for the husband to decide to die all by himself. It would be another for there to be a whole procedure for dying waiting for him.

Someone show me old people lining up to demand the right to die and I will rethink the issue.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

LOL! Lining up? Are you kidding? We barely let people that are terminally ill have the right to die. Look at all the people here that can't abide this idea, even when shown it not only can be controlled and regulated, it IS being controlled and regulated, successfully.

The Schiavo case is classic Americana. We can't let a person die that has absolutely no quality of life because Jesus and Jeb Bush said so.

Sorry, I would rather fight for the people that are being shouted down by the medical establishment and the (generally) Christian denominations and politicians that know what's BEST for us. I want MORE options of freedom, not less. I'm silly that way.

It may not be pretty, but then neither is someone botching a suicide, or a family finding the body.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Society did give them other options.

Uh. NO.

British society may give them other options. Over here, we are lucky if they get 48 hours in a mental ward as "mental health care", and a slap on the back and telling them to "Buck up" is SO helpful.

Look, I'm not proposing we go around willy nilly helping people off themselves. QUITE the contrary. If it were up to me, we'd have free mental health care, extensive regulation, and so on. But I think it should be a viable option after ALL other options have been exercised, as possible. I think freedom to choose ones destiny should be everyones right.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

A living will is a wholly different thing than assisted suicide for the non terminal.

*Who needs a mobile app?
Sent from my Droid.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
A living will is a wholly different thing than assisted suicide for the non terminal.

Exactly. So all the stuff about the terminally ill needing a right to die and the horrors of the Terry Schiavo case are beside the point.

Elder abuse is rampant in the U.S. Assisted suicide on demand for everyone over 70 will mean that those assholes who are right now getting away with taking elderly people's Social Security checks and getting them to sign away the deeds to their houses will get them to agree to be euthanized by doctors.

I can't imagine a lot of doctors would be willing to do this, either. Many of them clamor for assisted suicide for the terminally ill because they see the end-of-life suffering, but how many of them are calling for assisted suicide for anyone over 70 who wants it?

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Watch this.

Try to look outside your own particular circumstances before posting more comments.

Edit: Not aimed at Ruth.

[ 12. April 2012, 01:38: Message edited by: Tortuf ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mad Geo: I think freedom to choose ones destiny should be everyones right.

I choose that it is my destiny to be on a Hawaiian beach surrounded by pretty girls in hoola dresses waving coolness to me with big fans. But strangely, Society isn't going to give this to me.

More to the point (and for the third time): if someone believes that it is their destiny to die at a certain moment, they can. Half a pint of arsenicum will do the trick (I'd trow in another half pint of whisky, jsut for the taste). Nobody can deny this right to them, simply because nobody can do anything about it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0