Ballot question... (attorney, homes, to buy)

[tamiznluv]

Just saw commercial for one of the ballot questions this time around....physician assisted suicide. The commercial was anti. I am very conflicted about this question. On one hand, I've always thought a person should have the right to choose "painless" death over an agonizing one. On the other hand, I'm very worried that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means yourself too. What are some of the thoughts here by others?

[Cliff Clavin]

I'm in favor of this. If someone's religious views get in the way, then they don't have to exerscise their right to assisted suicide. Personally if, God forbid and knocks on wood, I come down with a terminal disease, I don't want to suffer needlessly nor do I want to be a financial burden on my family.

[DawnMTL]

Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin

I'm in favor of this. If someone's religious views get in the way, then they don't have to exerscise their right to assisted suicide. Personally if, God forbid and knocks on wood, I come down with a terminal disease, I don't want to suffer needlessly nor do I want to be a financial burden on my family.

Ditto.

I didn't realize that it was a ballot issue, though. It makes me wish that I could vote here. (I'm a Canadian with a green card, so I can't vote until I do my citizenship thingamajig.)

[wxjay]

I am against this ballot question. I believe every life is sacred and unique. But it is more than a religious argument for me. The very nature of a doctor's Hippocratic Oath is to do no harm to their patients. Assisting in the killing of a patient the ultimate form of harm that can be inflicted. That means that every physician who assists in a suicide is breaking that very oath. This is why the Massachusetts Medical Society is firmly opposed to this measure.

Second, the very sick are subjected to the will of their heirs as to whether or not to terminate their life. That's right - if you become very sick and need to give power of attorney to someone, they, not you, can make the choice for a physician to end your life. The need for a witness to your 'consent' can also be abused - again, it could be your heir that is the 'witness' that you want to kill yourself. That's not choice. That's not dignity.

Also, we already have laws in place for people who choose 'death with dignity'. You have the right to refuse life saving treatments (e.g., no resuscitating orders or refusal to take medication). This measure is unnecessary and in fact compounds the problem.

This is wrong morally and culturally. We cannot allow this to come to the Commonwealth.

[snatale1]

Originally Posted by tamiznluv

On one hand, I've always thought a person should have the right to choose "painless" death over an agonizing one. On the other hand, I'm very worried that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means yourself too. What are some of the thoughts here by others?

Mistake #1: Don't mix Religion and Politics.

People's bodies are there own. What they do with them, is up to them.

It's like the setup Kavorkian used, he'd hook them up...THEY hit the button that OD'd them. If I give you a gun to shoot yourself with, and you do....Regardless of any excuse a court or anybody else comes up with it is FACT that YOU shot and killed yourself not me. Arguing otherwise is no different than the people who eat 20 big macs a day, then turn around and sue because "McDonalds made them fat"

[wxjay]

Originally Posted by snatale1

It's like the setup Kavorkian used, he'd hook them up...THEY hit the button that OD'd them. If I give you a gun to shoot yourself with, and you do....Regardless of any excuse a court or anybody else comes up with it is FACT that YOU shot and killed yourself not me. Arguing otherwise is no different than the people who eat 20 big macs a day, then turn around and sue because "McDonalds made them fat"

Those analogies are invalid.

First, someone selling you a gun may not be illegal (depending from whom you get it and if you are permitted to have one). And if you bought it and just went home and shot yourself, then that was your decision. However, if you went to a gun shop and said, 'I'd like to buy a gun so I can shoot and kill myself', then it actually would be actionable and arguably illegal to sell the gun (your mental competence would be at issue).

Second, eating at McDonald's is indeed your choice. But McDonald's is not paid nor do they advertise eating their food in order to make you fatter and to kill you. So again, you don't go to McDonald's and solicit their product for the purpose of killing yourself.

[tamiznluv]

If you gave a gun to someone for the specific purpose of killing themselves and the DA could prove it, I'm pretty sure you'd be slapped with at least manslaughter. IDK but I'm thinking the Commonwealth would try that. If you gave me a gun, I would not use it...I'm too chicken for that. I'd like a nice OD and go to sleep. Then again, after watching my husband go through such excrusiating pain, I'd feel so guity killing myself to get out of that.

To me, it's like abortion. I think people should have the right to choose for themselves.

I'm not mixing politics with religion. ^^^^^^^^

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin

I'm in favor of this. If someone's religious views get in the way, then they don't have to exerscise their right to assisted suicide. Personally if, God forbid and knocks on wood, I come down with a terminal disease, I don't want to suffer needlessly nor do I want to be a financial burden on my family.

I third this.

I have ZERO issue with anyone's religious stance on this issue. That being said, I do believe that every individual should have the right to choose.

I remember my grandmother's last days (months, really) were with us because she couldn't live alone and we didn't want her in a home (nor did we have much faith in the homes, though we did have a hospice nurse come to the house). She had suffered multiple strokes and had a terminal cancer. She was in her mid 80s. She had refused life saving treatment, but it wasn't enough. Her medication ("to make her more comfortable") combined with her dementia (that seemed to come out at night) caused her to try to get out of bed at night, fall, break bones, etc. She was, lucid during the day. This continued for months as she gradually got weaker and weaker. She would cry daily and apologize for being such a burden. She absolutely would have opted for physician assisted suicide and even begged for the doctors to do it anyway (which they refused, of course).

Anyway, when she eventually passed, it was almost a relief for us. A feeling of relief when a loved one passes is a horrible feeling to have, but we couldn't help it. She wasn't suffering anymore, and we were no longer burdened. To add to that, my brother and sister were in middle school. Those few months of watching Grandma suffer and hallucinate at night was terrifying for them and did irreparable damage to their memories of a wonderful women.

I have two physicians in my family. Both strongly support physician assisted suicide for reasons just like the one above. So do it.

Again, if you feel that it is morally unacceptable, don't do it. Thankfully this is one of those issues where it doesn't need to apply to you should you not agree with it. However, I would support an addendum allowing doctors to not participate should it violate their beliefs. I think those who opt out would be in the minority, but I don't believe they should be forced to participate.

[tamiznluv]

The only thing I remember about my paternal grandmother is the night I had to spend with an aunt and uncle that were caring for her because my mother had to be rushed to the hospital for a bowel obstruction operation. I was terrified with her "sundowner's" that happened that night! My poor Dad had to come back in the middle of the night to come pick me up and call my Nana and Bampa the next day.

The reason some dementia is called "sundowner's", more babies are born, more people die, and sick people feel really lousy is because the sun has gone in and the sun's magnetic field and whatever else is gone. I would be fine during the day but would hallucinate at night when I had mono and pneumonia combined. I was a sick puppy.

The only thing I see in that anti-commercial that I don't like is there is no psychological consult. I also see that no physician is need to attend. That's okay with me too. That way they are not "really" killing you. No one but the patient and doctor should be involved with this decision. Keep company with you if you wish and they are willing but no decision should be made with a third party. There should be a clause in the DNR papers that let you opt into assisted suicide should you have that paper in case you get dementia or alzheimer's.

I got the guilt trip too after hubby died, irfox. The second thing I felt was relief after the sorrow.

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by tamiznluv

If you gave a gun to someone for the specific purpose of killing themselves and the DA could prove it, I'm pretty sure you'd be slapped with at least manslaughter. IDK but I'm thinking the Commonwealth would try that. If you gave me a gun, I would not use it...I'm too chicken for that. I'd like a nice OD and go to sleep. Then again, after watching my husband go through such excrusiating pain, I'd feel so guity killing myself to get out of that.

To me, it's like abortion. I think people should have the right to choose for themselves.

I'm not mixing politics with religion. ^^^^^^^^

And yet, those who are against assisted suicide claim that the pain can be controlled. They are outright liars.

BTW....why would you feel guilty if you had the opportunity to choose assisted suicide rather than suffer?

I am absolutely positive your husband would be very grateful that you didn't have to suffer like he did.