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.
All of these issues can be taken care of easily in a written end of life document that patient already has, no need of the government to step in with allowing people to get a doctor to kill them directly.
Other posters already gave great explanations as to why you're wrong on this, so I won't repeat what they said simply because I don't think I could have said it much better.
I do want to make one thing clear though: no one is saying we need the government to get involved. This is simply dishonest of you to say. What we're saying is that two individuals, a doctor and a terminally ill patient, should be able to make a deal resulting in a painless and humane (and dignified) death to avoid living in either constant agony or sedation to the point of lifelessness, without the doctor having to fear being charged with a crime. So long as the patient fully consents and sets the parameters, and the doctor is comfortable doing so (a doctor should absolutely have the right to opt out if they are not ok with doing it), I see no reason why a physician cannot guide a man or woman to an early, but painless and happy death.
I have no desire to make my loved one's see me suffer. Seeing me suffer will only cause them to needless suffer and worry. It's hard to let go of loved ones, but it's even harder to see them struggle to breathe, or move, or even remain conscious.
You will need to ask Ron Paul. He is a doctor you know and he would have the info.
If you have no source, then please refrain from spreading misinformation. Ron Paul wouldn't be the first doctor turned politician to misrepresent medical knowledge for votes.
Other posters already gave great explanations as to why you're wrong on this, so I won't repeat what they said simply because I don't think I could have said it much better.
I do want to make one thing clear though: no one is saying we need the government to get involved. This is simply dishonest of you to say. What we're saying is that two individuals, a doctor and a terminally ill patient, should be able to make a deal resulting in a painless and humane (and dignified) death to avoid living in either constant agony or sedation to the point of lifelessness, without the doctor having to fear being charged with a crime. So long as the patient fully consents and sets the parameters, and the doctor is comfortable doing so (a doctor should absolutely have the right to opt out if they are not ok with doing it), I see no reason why a physician cannot guide a man or woman to an early, but painless and happy death.
I have no desire to make my loved one's see me suffer. Seeing me suffer will only cause them to needless suffer and worry. It's hard to let go of loved ones, but it's even harder to see them struggle to breathe, or move, or even remain conscious.
Depends on what you mean by government involvement. There is no specific approval/license that the government issues to either the patient or the doc.
Physician-assisted suicide needed an enabling law because otherwise a doctor who prescribes a lethal dose could be prosecuted for homicide. The Oregon act sets up standards and a procedure, and if the standards are met and the procedure followed, the doc is immune to prosecution. (Euthanasia is still as illegal as it ever was.) At the time the law was passed, Kevorkian was active, and it is important to note that even had Oregon's law been in place, he would still have gone to jail for the assisted suicide he facilitated in Oregon. That patient did not meet the standards and the procedure was not followed.
The law was passed by a citizen's initiative, the legislature had refused to pass a bill. A couple years later, opponents, led by the catholic church, gathered enough signatures to put the law on the ballot again. Voters again supported physician-assisted suicide, and by a noticeably larger margin than their first vote. Urged by opponents, the legislature then established a reporting requirement - docs report when they write a lethal prescription and whether the patient actually took the prescription (it turns out that quite a few don't.) AFAIK, there's never been any serious objection to the reporting requirement, the annual report is in fact interesting reading. http://public.health.oregon.gov/Prov...nts/year16.pdf
It's not the free-for-all so many people seem to think it is.
The problem with what you say is that you are putting the onus on another person to actively give you a lethal dose. I don't think this is really fair.
Our doctors are already making life and death decisions. They already call for the insertion of feeding tubes, hydration, medication, pain relief, and the removal of feeding tubes or life support. To many physicians it would just give them another 'tool' to help the transition from life to death. Like others have already pointed out; we cannot force physicians to participate. But there are always going to be some that can see the benefit of having another means to the end. Physicians are humans also; many do not want to see their patients suffer longer than necessary.
I can only hope that Pennsylvania adopts legislation like the five other states have adopted.
Wow. You don't even try hiding that you were just trolling the thread.
At least you are consistent.
And you're not the least bit reticent in calling people cowards for perhaps opting to end their own suffering in the same manner you'd opt to shoot your horse if it were out in the boonies and had rolled off a trail sustaining a compound fracture.
Simple Definition of coward:
someone who is too afraid to do what is right or expected :
someone who is not at all brave or courageous
Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary
In this context; the suffering person opting for end of life is not being a coward but the exact opposite.
And I might opine many on here would agree with me when I suggest you are being consistent as well.
Depends on what you mean by government involvement. There is no specific approval/license that the government issues to either the patient or the doc.
Physician-assisted suicide needed an enabling law because otherwise a doctor who prescribes a lethal dose could be prosecuted for homicide. The Oregon act sets up standards and a procedure, and if the standards are met and the procedure followed, the doc is immune to prosecution. (Euthanasia is still as illegal as it ever was.) At the time the law was passed, Kevorkian was active, and it is important to note that even had Oregon's law been in place, he would still have gone to jail for the assisted suicide he facilitated in Oregon. That patient did not meet the standards and the procedure was not followed.
The law was passed by a citizen's initiative, the legislature had refused to pass a bill. A couple years later, opponents, led by the catholic church, gathered enough signatures to put the law on the ballot again. Voters again supported physician-assisted suicide, and by a noticeably larger margin than their first vote. Urged by opponents, the legislature then established a reporting requirement - docs report when they write a lethal prescription and whether the patient actually took the prescription (it turns out that quite a few don't.) AFAIK, there's never been any serious objection to the reporting requirement, the annual report is in fact interesting reading. http://public.health.oregon.gov/Prov...nts/year16.pdf
It's not the free-for-all so many people seem to think it is.
You do realize suicide is still illegal in parts of the U.S.?
Also, committing suicide (depending on method) could find the individual breaking other laws as well.
Yes... throw them in jail, before you plant them like a crossword puzzle.... 6 down & 3 across.
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.
