|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Euthananasia for the otherwise well but old?
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
We are in agreement.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mogwai
Shipmate
# 13555
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
:love:
Posts: 704 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
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?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
A living will is a wholly different thing than assisted suicide for the non terminal.
*Who needs a mobile app?
Sent from my Droid.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
