Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO blue states will all legalize death with dignity over the next 15 years and red states will never do so.
However if the nation becomes more authoritarian even blue states will hesitate to legalize.
i don't understand how someone in hospice would have no food and no water.
that simply does not sound right.
Simple answer is that actively dying people generally lose their appetite. When my mother was in the last weeks of lung cancer, we could barely get more than meal replacement shakes down. She turned away from solids. She lost interest in drinking water other than keeping her mouth moist.
There are pages of informed sources on the subject, plus many discussions of the ethics of withholding. The experiences I had watching both parents through the death process made me seek answers. I went from uninformed opinion on the subject to better educated through research. It's something people have the choice to do if they want to know about the subject.
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,596,781 times
Reputation: 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lillie767
First we have to accept the premise that it is not irrational to want to die.
Which is precisely the issue. Many, if not most, people think it is irrational to want to die while they very likely have many years of good health left despite the agonizing life they will likely have. That claim has a number of problems.
1. You can't prove a negative, at least not easily. Saying "it's irrational (the negative term) to want to die even while having a long agony for years in the meaintime" is like demanding someone prove another negative "the universe is not shaped like a pretzel on the largest cosmic scale".
2. Burden of proof. The majority agreeing with X isn't proof of X's truth. History's littered with examples of this. So the burden of proof lies with someone or some group saying "X is the case". In this case, the mainstream has the burden of proof when claiming "It's rational to continue living when going through long-term chronic agonizing pain".
3. Feelings are not always a reliable guide to truth or ethics (this should resonate with the "facts don't care about feelings" crowd). Genetic and/or neurologically programming proves nothing. Animals and humans both will steal items and assault/attack members of their own species to get what they want (food or otherwise). I understand even rape is fairly common among ducks. Chimpanzee tribes fight years long warsyears-long wars. "You" may feel like stealing, raping, or killing but that doesn't make it right, even if it is natural. If this is true for bad acts, then why not for bad life situations?
Which is precisely the issue. Many, if not most, people think it is irrational to want to die while they very likely have many years of good health left despite the agonizing life they will likely have. That claim has a number of problems.
1. You can't prove a negative, at least not easily. Saying "it's irrational (the negative term) to want to die even while having a long agony for years in the meaintime" is like demanding someone prove another negative "the universe is not shaped like a pretzel on the largest cosmic scale".
2. Burden of proof. The majority agreeing with X isn't proof of X's truth. History's littered with examples of this. So the burden of proof lies with someone or some group saying "X is the case". In this case, the mainstream has the burden of proof when claiming "It's rational to continue living when going through long-term chronic agonizing pain".
3. Feelings are not always a reliable guide to truth or ethics (this should resonate with the "facts don't care about feelings" crowd). Genetic and/or neurologically programming proves nothing. Animals and humans both will steal items and assault/attack members of their own species to get what they want (food or otherwise). I understand even rape is fairly common among ducks. Chimpanzee tribes fight years long warsyears-long wars. "You" may feel like stealing, raping, or killing but that doesn't make it right, even if it is natural. If this is true for bad acts, then why not for bad life situations?
All this addresses the rest of your post, Lillie.
The premise is accepted as is. No need to prove a premise. It is the basis upon which the conclusion is made.
This is why I maintain that we accept this premise and then move on to action, which you seem reluctant to do.
So, I have read every response, and there appears to be a basic agreement among those that posted, but what about making this a possibility, and then that putting some people in the position that they feel they have an "obligation" to choose death versus continue to cost others in dollars, stress, any cause any sort of burden to others? How to keep others from forcing a choice, how would that work?
Also, unless someone is terminal (maybe even if they are to make sure others are not making the decision), there should be at least some requirement that they undergo some psychological counseling to make sure there is no answer other than death for that person. Look at the suicide rates and how they are growing, especially with younger people. When you are young, so many things seem like the end of the world that just giving them the right to choose death does not seem very humane.
I am not sure what happened that makes life not seem anymore the precious gift that it is. So, yes, I am not so much in agreement with this, as there are many issues that need to be addressed prior to moving toward such a thing. My biggest concern is not "the right to die", but "the obligation to die".
So, I have read every response, and there appears to be a basic agreement among those that posted, but what about making this a possibility, and then that putting some people in the position that they feel they have an "obligation" to choose death versus continue to cost others in dollars, stress, any cause any sort of burden to others? How to keep others from forcing a choice, how would that work?
Also, unless someone is terminal (maybe even if they are to make sure others are not making the decision), there should be at least some requirement that they undergo some psychological counseling to make sure there is no answer other than death for that person. Look at the suicide rates and how they are growing, especially with younger people. When you are young, so many things seem like the end of the world that just giving them the right to choose death does not seem very humane.
I am not sure what happened that makes life not seem anymore the precious gift that it is. So, yes, I am not so much in agreement with this, as there are many issues that need to be addressed prior to moving toward such a thing. My biggest concern is not "the right to die", but "the obligation to die".
There's another obligation I see; some folk are sick, in pain, and want to end their misery, but thinking of deserting family makes them feel too guilty, and they trail on, miserable and in pain, so others won't feel bad.
Exactly.I don't see why a person who can still move, needs to go to a clinic to end it all. I have already decided I will do it myself, if the time comes. Many people manage to do it, without paying a clinic.
My late bf's aunt died under Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) law two years ago. She had previously had cancer, and when MAID became law in 2016, she remarked that if her cancer returned, she would not go through treatment again but would choose to die.
You don't have to pay. You have to have a Provincial Health Insurance card, which is what Canadian citizens and permanent residents have to access the public health insurance.
It is not a pill or a clinic. The patient must request MAID through appropriate paperwork. Doctors and nurses are not allowed to offer it. There are rules under which it is allowed, terminal illness or loss of quality of life such as from a debilitating condition that renders one unable to care for themselves. Once approved, the patient chooses the day and place they want to die and can decide who they want present.
The daughter of the woman explained how it went. She was staying with her mother, and her two brothers and all the grandchildren, one of whom was an MD, came the night before. The day before death, the drugs are delivered in a box, and a nurse comes to place a port in each arm, in case one fails.
Then, she said, she asked her mother if there was anything special she wanted to eat. Her mother said, "Yes! KFC!"
She said they all were, gathered round, eating fried chicken the day before her mother's death. She said it was somewhat surreal.
The next day, the doctor came, and her mother said, "If anyone is going to cry or get hysterical, leave now. This is my choice." Then she said goodbye to her grandchildren except for the one who is a doctor, and they left the room. The MD granddaughter remained with the woman's three children for the end. The doctor administered a sedative through the port that put the mother to sleep, then administered the drugs that would end life. It took about ten minutes. Then the doctor notified the funeral home they chose simply that a death had occurred in the home, and they could pick up the body.
My bf was eligible for MAID but never asked. The nurse who was coming to the house each day near the end asked me if he ever mentioned it, because they were not allowed to offer, but he had told her that day he wanted to go. I said he knew about it, but did not bring it up.
As it was he died several weeks later. He had fallen asleep, and was breathing peacefully and regularly, and I said, "You know, if you want to go, just go". Within 30 seconds, he took three breaths with longer pauses in between each one, and that was it. Is that what he was waiting for?
So, I have read every response, and there appears to be a basic agreement among those that posted, but what about making this a possibility, and then that putting some people in the position that they feel they have an "obligation" to choose death versus continue to cost others in dollars, stress, any cause any sort of burden to others? How to keep others from forcing a choice, how would that work?
Also, unless someone is terminal (maybe even if they are to make sure others are not making the decision), there should be at least some requirement that they undergo some psychological counseling to make sure there is no answer other than death for that person. Look at the suicide rates and how they are growing, especially with younger people. When you are young, so many things seem like the end of the world that just giving them the right to choose death does not seem very humane.
I am not sure what happened that makes life not seem anymore the precious gift that it is. So, yes, I am not so much in agreement with this, as there are many issues that need to be addressed prior to moving toward such a thing. My biggest concern is not "the right to die", but "the obligation to die".
This is a bone of contention for proposed expansion of the MAID laws in Canada to include untreatable mental illnesses or those whose mental illness has not responded to treatment. It is often mischaracterized by opponents as assisted suicide, but that is not what they are talking about. You would not be able to just say, "Hey, I want to die, please help me do that." A person who said the would be offered treatment for depression and suicide ideation. It is for people who have no quality of life due to mental illness that cannot be treated.
But, there's a thin line in there as far as making the determination of whether all options for treatment have been exhausted, and so the matter has been put off for further study regarding at what point is someone's mental illness deemed untreatable.
Here is a moving story of the journey of a Nova Scotia physician who died under Canada's MAID law and donated her organs. She had a degenerative condition that would leave her bedridden and helpless. She was 47 years old.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
