Terry Pratchett ready to be test case for suicide law

[Shroom Man 777]

Perhaps actually desiring to end your own life for, as you say, stubbing your own toe* actually demonstrate a deficient coping mechanism because (mentally) healthy human beings would find alternate ways to deal with toe-stubbing that won't inflict physical harm upon himself (death) and emotional/psychological harm upon his family, friends and loved ones! So instead of actually having the people kill themselves, we should instead offer some form of health treatment for what is actually a considerable disturbance in their unsound perception of things?

This is why risk for suicide is also a medical/nursing/whatever problem that needs intervention and treatment.

*Replace toe-stubbing with any other thing that isn't terminal illness, as some unworthy reason for an individual to kill himself and traumatize his friends/family/loved ones by leaving behind a portrait on a wall painted by his own fucking brains.

EDIT:

Geeze, mang. We know that fucking animals or eating inanimate objects or mutilating oneself is a display of someone having an unsound mind. Yet eating a gun is now acceptable?

[Dominus Atheos]

That's for the individual to decide, not others. One person and one person alone has the final say about suicide, and that's the person considering it. Society and even family cannot go beyond either offering support in trying to present alternate options or assisting the effort.

All well and good until you start talking about assisted suicide man. It's the thread topic. If you are relying on other people to do the deed, then it ISN'T the one person, and him/her alone making that decision.

Right, the doctor or pharmacist who's providing them the means to commit suicide also gets to decide whether or not to provide it. The family still doesn't get veto power, and the person can just find another doctor or pharmacist to help them.

[Shroom Man 777]

Is there any test at all to decide whether or not this person who has decided to kill himself is of sound mind? So now, people who are placed on suicide watch in mental hospitals or other institutions and have sharp objects kept away from them, can now request for his dietitian to prescribe him a healthy diet of gun?

[Knife]

I advocate a person has the right to end their life for any reason whatsoever, yes. Our obligation as a society or family is merely to support that person, one way or the other. Not tell them any particular decision is 'forbidden'.

A right? A right is something that a society gives member's of that said culture. So, no. If a society deems that a member of that culture does not have a right to do it, they don't. Can that person do it anyways? Sure, but with anything else we usually call this act illegal. Can the person remove themselves from the culture and do it? Sure, but that's not the same as exercising a right. As far as your obligation to a family member, it is more than just 'supporting' someone. What you are advocating is akin to standing by and 'supporting' your kid but not stopping them from laying their hand on a hot stove. As members of a society we do have an ethical duty to stop people from causing harm to themselves. Doctors and medical personnel have the implicit duty to do no harm.

Granted, easing pain and letting nature take it's course is one thing, while purposely killing is another. I must admit; I'm kind of on the fence on this one. Working in the medical field, I've seen some people with a DNR be put on Hospice and comfort care and take weeks to waste away before dying. I've also seen some people in horrible pain and suffering bounce back and have a couple more years of oriented X3 quality of life with their families.

With modern medicine, pain should not be a reason to kill someone. We can treat for pain in such a way that people should not feel it and if they die then, then nature took it's course. I think the bar should be a bit higher for medical suicide than just pain. That said, throwing the resources and ability of modern medicine to a patient that will die shortly but will put the family in debt for years, if not decades, may be part of the equation as well.

[Knife]

That's for the individual to decide, not others. One person and one person alone has the final say about suicide, and that's the person considering it. Society and even family cannot go beyond either offering support in trying to present alternate options or assisting the effort.

All well and good until you start talking about assisted suicide man. It's the thread topic. If you are relying on other people to do the deed, then it ISN'T the one person, and him/her alone making that decision.

Right, the doctor or pharmacist who's providing them the means to commit suicide also gets to decide whether or not to provide it. The family still doesn't get veto power, and the person can just find another doctor or pharmacist to help them.

Sorry, there has to be limits to that as well. We stop people, or try, from shopping doctors until they get a Rx they want (narcs) to prevent abuse, so we should at least expect the same, if not more, for medical suicide.

[Dominus Atheos]

Is there any test at all to decide whether or not this person who has decided to kill himself is of sound mind? So now, people who are placed on suicide watch in mental hospitals or other institutions and have sharp objects kept away from them, can now request for his dietitian to prescribe him a healthy diet of gun?

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act specifies that the person has to be free of a mental condition impairing judgment. I'm a little confused by that provision myself. I mean, if all I had to look forward to was a drawn-out painful death, that would make me pretty depressed. Then since I'm now depressed I will be forced to continue my painful death instead of giving myself a quick, quite death.

It just seems like they may have the cart before the horse.

[Knife]

If I may make the Faux Paus of making three posts in a row; I may point out that a lot of your more powerful pain killers also supress the respiratory system as well as the heart. Also, lot term use can fry the liver and/or kidneys, so even treating for pain over a period of time will make a patients health decline.

[Shroom Man 777]

What criterion is there for people to be "allowed" to kill themselves? Just any depressed asshole who feels all emotional and has a hankering for a gun sandwich? Is there no option of treating these people so that the underlying cause, be it medical or psychological or whatever, that leads them to want to kill themselves gets cured or treated so that these people won't be inclined to kill themselves? If suicide is the "cure", shouldn't we try to prevent it first through other methods?

Knife has a point. Jesus Christ, we're supposed to help people and there's a whole shitloads of ways to help a person before we "help" them by making them eat a gun.

[Knife]

Is there any test at all to decide whether or not this person who has decided to kill himself is of sound mind? So now, people who are placed on suicide watch in mental hospitals or other institutions and have sharp objects kept away from them, can now request for his dietitian to prescribe him a healthy diet of gun?

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act specifies that the person has to be free of a mental condition impairing judgment. I'm a little confused by that provision myself. I mean, if all I had to look forward to was a drawn-out painful death, that would make me pretty depressed. Then since I'm now depressed I will be forced to continue my painful death instead of giving myself a quick, quite death.

It just seems like they may have the cart before the horse.

Probably because depression isn't a light switch with only two positions. It can mean all sorts of intensities and causes, along with physical and mental results. I am assuming that Oregon's act put that in there so mentally deficient people can't off themselves.

[Dominus Atheos]

All well and good until you start talking about assisted suicide man. It's the thread topic. If you are relying on other people to do the deed, then it ISN'T the one person, and him/her alone making that decision.

Right, the doctor or pharmacist who's providing them the means to commit suicide also gets to decide whether or not to provide it. The family still doesn't get veto power, and the person can just find another doctor or pharmacist to help them.

Sorry, there has to be limits to that as well. We stop people, or try, from shopping doctors until they get a Rx they want (narcs) to prevent abuse, so we should at least expect the same, if not more, for medical suicide.

Not according to the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. Any doctor can refuse to participate, but if the patient meets the requirements they can find another doctor who will.

The reasons aren't complicated: either the patient is guaranteed a painful drawn-out death, or they aren't. If they are, they can end their lifes; or if they aren't, then they can't. No one, no doctor, no family member, no judge, legislator, priest, or anyone else can tell them they can't. It's 100% their decision.

[Shroom Man 777]

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act specifies that the person has to be free of a mental condition impairing judgment. I'm a little confused by that provision myself. I mean, if all I had to look forward to was a drawn-out painful death, that would make me pretty depressed. Then since I'm now depressed I will be forced to continue my painful death instead of giving myself a quick, quite death.

It just seems like they may have the cart before the horse.

While I can understand the reason of wanting to die because you're hurting so much and it can't be cured and whatever, as Knife said depression and all these things is NOT a simple matter. Mental health is bloody complex and, really, what may apply to one case of depression/suicidal whatever may not apply to another case of whatever. Does some whiny emotional teen who wants to gulp down a bottle of muriatic acid get the right to kill him/herself, despite the shock and horror of his parents? What if this whiny teen's now a whiny adult? Do these guys get the same treatment of gun-diet as people who are in excruciating end-stage cancer who have no hope (or whose treatment may put the family in all sorts of debt and financial ruin?)?

Then you have to factor in the effect this will have on the family and loved ones. I know you Americans are all individualistic and don't give a rotten piece of fuck about the feelings of other people who love and care like the parents who were the ones who raised these people from when they were born, or siblings and other people who've lived together with this folks, but still man!

[Dominus Atheos]

What criterion is there for people to be "allowed" to kill themselves? Just any depressed asshole who feels all emotional and has a hankering for a gun sandwich? Is there no option of treating these people so that the underlying cause, be it medical or psychological or whatever, that leads them to want to kill themselves gets cured or treated so that these people won't be inclined to kill themselves? If suicide is the "cure", shouldn't we try to prevent it first through other methods?

Knife has a point. Jesus Christ, we're supposed to help people and there's a whole shitloads of ways to help a person before we "help" them by making them eat a gun.

You are aware that Doctor-assisted suicide laws only apply to people with terminal diseases right? It's not any person who wants to commit suicide, it's only people who definitely, for-sure only have a drawn-out death ahead of them.

[Knife]

Not according to the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. Any doctor can refuse to participate, but if the patient meets the requirements they can find another doctor who will.

The reasons aren't complicated: either the patient is guaranteed a painful drawn-out death, or they aren't. If they are, they can end their lifes; or if they aren't, then they can't. No one, no doctor, no family member, no judge, legislator, priest, or anyone else can tell them they can't. It's 100% their decision.

I understand their intent, but again I think that's wrong. If a Doctor says no, they have to wait until they shop for a doctor who says yes. A family member could go to a judge and probably claim mentally deficient and if the judge agrees can file an injunction. I can't see how a law in Oregon can override the legal system by the very virtue of being a law.

Anyway, that's Oregon, not necessarily the entire topic so...

Again, if it is a painful drawn out death, it has no need to be. We can treat for pain, if they die during treatment then nature took it's course. If they are insist on dying, we may want to look at their mental status and treat for mental illness. All in all, it would end up being what the person is dying from and not just their insistence that they should die for society to accept such a thing. Not saying it should never happened, but this 'right to die' attitude needs a closer look.

[Singular Intellect]

As I see it, we can either provide legal and humane means to allow people to end their lives if they really desire that option, or we can be a inhumane society and force them to take more drastic and disruptive measures. If a person wants to kill themselves, they're going to fucking do it regardless; the least we can do is provide support for these people in the form of presenting alternative options while conceding the final decision is theirs. And when I mention alternative options, I'm encompassing things like access to therapy, support groups, etc. Just having that legal option available could save lives, since individuals could seek it out and in doing so, get access to the help that could change their minds.

For those dependent upon the actions of others to end their own life, I'd argue those attempting to deny them this option are guilty of advocating torture and are self righteous assholes of the highest order who think they're more qualified to judge the value of a life than the one living it.

[Knife]

As I see it, we can either provide legal and humane means to allow people to end their lives if they really desire that option, or we can be a inhumane society and force them to take more drastic and disruptive measures. If a person wants to kill themselves, they're going to fucking do it regardless; the least we can do is provide support for these people in the form of presenting alternative options while conceding the final decision is theirs. And when I mention alternative options, I'm encompassing things like access to therapy, support groups, etc. Just having that legal option available could save lives, since individuals coud seek it out and in doing so, get access to the help that could change their minds.

Fair enough, I actually agree with this, as written.

For those dependent upon the actions of others to end their own life, I'd argue those attempting to deny them this option are guilty of advocating torture and are self righteous assholes of the highest order who think they're more qualified to judge the value of a life than the one living it.

I would disagree, people in an objective perspective are more than ethically bound to protect someone who isn't objective, from doing harm to themselves, if they can. Shroomy's emo-teen analogy comes into play here.

[Singular Intellect]

For those dependent upon the actions of others to end their own life, I'd argue those attempting to deny them this option are guilty of advocating torture and are self righteous assholes of the highest order who think they're more qualified to judge the value of a life than the one living it.

I would disagree, people in an objective perspective are more than ethically bound to protect someone who isn't objective, from doing harm to themselves, if they can. Shroomy's emo-teen analogy comes into play here.

Why does a person have to have an 'objective perspective' to be permitted suicide? By definition the entire matter is a subjective one. Just because one person's 'objective point of view' makes sense to them, doesn't mean it matters to the one who actually has the desire to die.

We can cite 'objective' reasons why a person should live till we're blue in the face; in the end, if they don't agree with them, we should let them die humanely.

[Shroom Man 777]

You are aware that Doctor-assisted suicide laws only apply to people with terminal diseases right? It's not any person who wants to commit suicide, it's only people who definitely, for-sure only have a drawn-out death ahead of them.

I am referring to Singular Intellect's bullshit where he said:

I advocate a person has the right to end their life for any reason whatsoever, yes. Our obligation as a society or family is merely to support that person, one way or the other. Not tell them any particular decision is 'forbidden'.

^ That is clearly bullshit. ANY reason whatsoever? ANY reason? How about, as I've said, people who are nowhere near as ill as these terminally ill people, who aren't even physically ill AT ALL, but who are mentally disturbed and are the kind of people who are placed on suicide watch in the mental hospital?

As I see it, we can either provide legal and humane means to allow people to end their lives if they really desire that option, or we can be a inhumane society and force them to take more drastic and disruptive measures. If a person wants to kill themselves, they're going to fucking do it regardless; the least we can do is provide support for these people in the form of presenting alternative options while conceding the final decision is theirs. And when I mention alternative options, I'm encompassing things like access to therapy, support groups, etc. Just having that legal option available could save lives, since individuals coud seek it out and in doing so, get access to the help that could change their minds.

What you're saying is that suicidal people should get treatment to fix the underlying problem that's led to their current suicidal condition (be it terminal illness, or teen angst, or whatever)? We ALREADY DO that without giving people bullshit "rights" to end their lives for just "any reason whatsoever" since that is really a poor choice of words since not every suicidal person is a person who is likewise afflicted by debilitating illness and some reasons ARE bullshit reasons. "Any reason whatsoever" could be "I'm now financially bankrupt and I'm going to blow my fucking head off with a shotgun because I no longer have access to my bullshit American creature comfort luxuries".

For those dependent upon the actions of others to end their own life, I'd argue those attempting to deny them this option are guilty of advocating torture and are self righteous assholes of the highest order who think they're more qualified to judge the value of a life than the one living it.

And what if it's for other reasons? You said "any reason whatsoever".

Why does a person have to have an 'objective perspective' to be permitted suicide? By definition the entire matter is a subjective one. Just because one person's 'objective point of view' makes sense to them, doesn't mean it matters to the one who actually has the desire to die.

We can cite 'objective' reasons why a person should live till we're blue in the face; in the end, if they don't agree with them, we should let them die humanely.

What if it's a hysterical teenager who's angry that daddy didn't buy her a pony? What if it's some guy whose just pissed off because all he does every day is work in a shitty cubicle in a shitty office building? What if these people are totally NOT suffering "inhumanely" from any sickness at all?

[Dominus Atheos]

Not according to the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. Any doctor can refuse to participate, but if the patient meets the requirements they can find another doctor who will.

The reasons aren't complicated: either the patient is guaranteed a painful drawn-out death, or they aren't. If they are, they can end their lifes; or if they aren't, then they can't. No one, no doctor, no family member, no judge, legislator, priest, or anyone else can tell them they can't. It's 100% their decision.

I understand their intent, but again I think that's wrong. If a Doctor says no, they have to wait until they shop for a doctor who says yes.

Which will most likely be found in the same hospital they are in. Very few doctors in Oregon object to doing this.

A family member could go to a judge and probably claim mentally deficient and if the judge agrees can file an injunction.

No they can't. The law has a very clear process for dealing with impaired judgment.

If in the opinion of the attending physician or the consulting physician a patient may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment, either physician shall refer the patient for counseling. No medication to end a patient's life in a humane and dignified manner shall be prescribed until the person performing the counseling determines that the patient is not suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment.

If the doctors think the patient's judgment is impaired, they refer him to a psychiatrist who makes the final determination. If the doctors don't think the patients judgment is impaired, the process continues. There's absolutely no allowance in the law for the family to "file an injunction" or anything. It's not up to the family, at all. Assuming the doctors think their judgment is fine, the only person who's decision matters is the terminal patient.

I can't see how a law in Oregon can override the legal system by the very virtue of being a law.

Do you not remember the Terri Schiavo clusterfuck? The courts and legislatures don't get a say in these sorts of matters.

Anyway, that's Oregon, not necessarily the entire topic so...

Oregon is AFAIK currently the only English-speaking common-law province to have this kind of law on the books, (besides Washington who has nearly the exact same law) so unless you want to debate Finlands law, this is the only basis for comparison. You're a veteran of the Trek vs Wars debate, call this the lower limit.

Again, if it is a painful drawn out death, it has no need to be. We can treat for pain, if they die during treatment then nature took it's course. If they are insist on dying, we may want to look at their mental status and treat for mental illness. All in all, it would end up being what the person is dying from and not just their insistence that they should die for society to accept such a thing. Not saying it should never happened, but this 'right to die' attitude needs a closer look.

Pain pills lose their effect after a few months. If we could make people comfortable while they waste away over the course of a half year, we would be doing it right now. The fact that we still hear stories about people who suffer drawn-out painful deaths proves that we can't.

[PainRack]

This New York Times article on pallative sedation covers the issues pretty well.

I'm not sure what the doctors are really saying, but the article thrust is different from what I read and hear elsewhere.
The only thing the article got right is yes, people DO believe that the morphine and other drugs make them go faster.
Palliative sedation isn't something to hasten people death, but rather, to provide sedation until they die. The problem, the real problem is that it masks signs of recovery. And of course, if you don't provide nutrition/hydration, well, they will starve to death. "normally", by the stage you start this, they're too far gone.

People find it difficult to accept the goals of palliative medicine. While they will not hasten death, the philosophy is that they won't seek to extend life either. And its difficult to make that choice given the massive options available.

[Singular Intellect]

I am referring to Singular Intellect's bullshit where he said:

I advocate a person has the right to end their life for any reason whatsoever, yes. Our obligation as a society or family is merely to support that person, one way or the other. Not tell them any particular decision is 'forbidden'.

^ That is clearly bullshit. ANY reason whatsoever? ANY reason? How about, as I've said, people who are nowhere near as ill as these terminally ill people, who aren't even physically ill AT ALL, but who are mentally disturbed and are the kind of people who are placed on suicide watch in the mental hospital?

Define 'mentally disturbed'. If a healthy, relatively fit person wishes to end their life and yet is otherwise perfectly sane, lucid and of sound mind, do you think they should be denied this option?

As I see it, we can either provide legal and humane means to allow people to end their lives if they really desire that option, or we can be a inhumane society and force them to take more drastic and disruptive measures. If a person wants to kill themselves, they're going to fucking do it regardless; the least we can do is provide support for these people in the form of presenting alternative options while conceding the final decision is theirs. And when I mention alternative options, I'm encompassing things like access to therapy, support groups, etc. Just having that legal option available could save lives, since individuals coud seek it out and in doing so, get access to the help that could change their minds.

What you're saying is that suicidal people should get treatment to fix the underlying problem that's led to their current suicidal condition (be it terminal illness, or teen angst, or whatever)? We ALREADY DO that without giving people bullshit "rights" to end their lives for just "any reason whatsoever" since that is really a poor choice of words since not every suicidal person is a person who is likewise afflicted by debilitating illness and some reasons ARE bullshit reasons. "Any reason whatsoever" could be "I'm now financially bankrupt and I'm going to blow my fucking head off with a shotgun because I no longer have access to my bullshit American creature comfort luxuries".

So that person can either blow their head off with said shotgun in their garage, or appeal to society's resources that permits people to end their lives humanely while promoting options to dissuade them from that choice if at all possible.

For those dependent upon the actions of others to end their own life, I'd argue those attempting to deny them this option are guilty of advocating torture and are self righteous assholes of the highest order who think they're more qualified to judge the value of a life than the one living it.

And what if it's for other reasons? You said "any reason whatsoever".

Like your financial example? By all means, do explain what is accomplished by forcing such individuals to resort to violent and disruptive attempts to end their lives instead of appealing to society's system where we'll permit and even help people to die so long as they let us give them every reason to make another choice?

Why does a person have to have an 'objective perspective' to be permitted suicide? By definition the entire matter is a subjective one. Just because one person's 'objective point of view' makes sense to them, doesn't mean it matters to the one who actually has the desire to die.

We can cite 'objective' reasons why a person should live till we're blue in the face; in the end, if they don't agree with them, we should let them die humanely.

What if it's a hysterical teenager who's angry that daddy didn't buy her a pony? What if it's some guy whose just pissed off because all he does every day is work in a shitty cubicle in a shitty office building? What if these people are totally NOT suffering "inhumanely" from any sickness at all?

If they truly want to die, then they should be permitted to do so. Obviously every case needs to be dealt with on an individual basis; I highly doubt young children would be permitted to die until reaching an age of consent that is enforced.

Apparently you're under some misguided notion I'm advocating suicide booths where you simply check off 'Yes' or 'No' before entering your personal gas chamber.

My argument is about giving people the choice; society admitting people are entitled to end their lives if they wish. Society should help them accomplish this humanely after we've done our best to give them every opportunity to make another choice.

I hold nothing but contempt for self righteous, holier than thou shitstains who think anyone who wishes to die must be mentally impaired and prevented from ending their life at all costs.

[PainRack]

Pain pills lose their effect after a few months. If we could make people comfortable while they waste away over the course of a half year, we would be doing it right now. The fact that we still hear stories about people who suffer drawn-out painful deaths proves that we can't.

Any proof?
The evidence of tolerance of opoids for terminal cancer is that it happens only in a very small subset of people, in most cases, the need to increase medication is due to disease progression.

Granted, easing pain and letting nature take it's course is one thing, while purposely killing is another. I must admit; I'm kind of on the fence on this one. Working in the medical field, I've seen some people with a DNR be put on Hospice and comfort care and take weeks to waste away before dying. I've also seen some people in horrible pain and suffering bounce back and have a couple more years of oriented X3 quality of life with their families.

With modern medicine, pain should not be a reason to kill someone. We can treat for pain in such a way that people should not feel it and if they die then, then nature took it's course. I think the bar should be a bit higher for medical suicide than just pain. That said, throwing the resources and ability of modern medicine to a patient that will die shortly but will put the family in debt for years, if not decades, may be part of the equation as well.

I'm not sure about euthanasia though. I totally agree that we now have the tools to actually improve pain and the like. Pyschic pain and depression is a more iffy problem, the hospice here has discussed the problem of prescribing haloperidol, anti-depressants before. It takes weeks before it starts to take effect, given that hospice patients are only given a few months lifespan before they're admitted, well.... its worthless.

However, I also recognise that death is ugly. Especially the long, drawn out process of dying itself. My personal opinion is that if you do reach the stage where you have entered terminal unconsciousness, you should be allowed to die prior you have entered the requisite authorisation prior. And of course, when your family and etc has visited you and blah blah blah.

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act specifies that the person has to be free of a mental condition impairing judgment. I'm a little confused by that provision myself. I mean, if all I had to look forward to was a drawn-out painful death, that would make me pretty depressed. Then since I'm now depressed I will be forced to continue my painful death instead of giving myself a quick, quite death.

It just seems like they may have the cart before the horse.

That can be treated. Anti-depressants, pain relieving medications and etc.

Then you have to factor in the effect this will have on the family and loved ones. I know you Americans are all individualistic and don't give a rotten piece of fuck about the feelings of other people who love and care like the parents who were the ones who raised these people from when they were born, or siblings and other people who've lived together with this folks, but still man!

You do know that our Asian culture is also the one which STILL refuses to tell cancer patients about their diagnosis or even the fact that they're going to die, out of respect for the family, right?
Which one is more cruel?

[Shroom Man 777]

Define 'mentally disturbed'. If a healthy, relatively fit person wishes to end their life and yet is otherwise perfectly sane, lucid and of sound mind, do you think they should be denied this option?

What makes them want to kill themselves? Can't that thing that makes them want to kill themselves be fixed? Do you not realize that wishing to end your own life is, normally, NOT a normal impulse in human beings and that the risk for self-harm is actually classified as a health problem? The leading cause of suicide is mental illness, and a lot of these causes can be treated right and people can be helped out of the conditions that lead them to consider suicide in the first place.

So that person can either blow their head off with said shotgun in their garage, or appeal to society's resources that permits people to end their lives humanely while promoting options to dissuade them from that choice if at all possible.

Then the primary intervention would be to dissuade them from that choice, if at all possible. People don't just go "gee, I'll kill myself" willynilly - there's an underlying cause, and the only ones I can imagine that can't be treated and are extreme enough to justify allowing a person to kill himself would be excruciating terminal illness or otherwise similarly prolonged and torturous circumstances that cannot be resolved at all.

Like your financial example? By all means, do explain what is accomplished by forcing such individuals to resort to violent and disruptive attempts to end their lives instead of appealing to society's system where we'll permit and even help people to die so long as they let us give them every reason to make another choice?

What you propose is just a form of psychological/psychiatric counseling with the added option of assisted-suicide if the problems are unresolvable. My only problem is that your criterion for allowing suicide is "any reason whatsoever".

Now, hopefully, the treatment regimen and giving of "every reason to make another choice" (as you said) will help eliminate frivolous reasons for suicide and leave only the ones who have no recourse but to actually end their lives. THEN it won't be just "any reason whatsoever" but their reason would be that "the problem is untreatable and cannot be fixed and there is nothing that can be done to fix said problem in his life, so the person continues wishing to just die."

If they truly want to die, then they should be permitted to do so. Obviously every case needs to be dealt with on an individual basis; I highly doubt young children would be permitted to die until reaching an age of consent that is enforced.

Apparently you're under some misguided notion I'm advocating suicide booths where you simply check off 'Yes' or 'No' before entering your personal gas chamber.

My argument is about giving people the choice; society admitting people are entitled to end their lives if they wish. Society should help them accomplish this humanely after we've done our best to give them every opportunity to make another choice.

I hope those every opportunity to make another choice roots out crappy reasons for suicide because a lot of otherwise suicidal people, if treated right, can continue on living instead of dying.

I hold nothing but contempt for self righteous, holier than thou shitstains who think anyone who wishes to die must be mentally impaired and prevented from ending their life at all costs.

Self-harm is NOT a normal impulse and in a vast majority of cases, the impulse to harm oneself is brought about by mental illness and/or by other ugly circumstances that can be resolved, fixed and/or treated - with the person being helped to live a better life INSTEAD of fucking killing him.

As a student nurse and an aspiring health care professional, I hope you can bloody understand that what they teach us is that people should be helped to resolve their problems (health or otherwise) so they can live their lives healthily, WITHOUT wanting to kill themselves and without the underlying problems that lead to these suicidal desires.

If a person is in such a condition wherein all other attempts to treat/fix/help him are exhausted and his problems continue on, and that his life is pretty much so crap, then perhaps yeah, assisted suicide would be an option. I guess. But you can understand why I like to put priority on other options and interventions that DON'T involve killing people and where problems are resolved without ending any lives because, ideally, that IS the best outcome. Assisted suicide would probably be for those very damn unideal outcomes where there is no other recourse, and that a person would be better off dead. Which is pretty fucked up.

You do know that our Asian culture is also the one which STILL refuses to tell cancer patients about their diagnosis or even the fact that they're going to die, out of respect for the family, right?
Which one is more cruel?

That's pretty fucked up too. Ugh.

[Knife]

I understand their intent, but again I think that's wrong. If a Doctor says no, they have to wait until they shop for a doctor who says yes.

Which will most likely be found in the same hospital they are in. Very few doctors in Oregon object to doing this.

It was a minor nit-pick in that by it's very happenence, it delays the patients 'right' to die when they want.

]A family member could go to a judge and probably claim mentally deficient and if the judge agrees can file an injunction.

No they can't. The law has a very clear process for dealing with impaired judgment.

For your Death with Dignity law, not in normal law. Families have some legal rights as well, some of which is to appeal to a judge that a family member is mentally deficient and no longer capable of exercising their rights and need a guardian with power of attorney. If Oregon's law nix's that, then I can foresee a court challenge in the future.

If in the opinion of the attending physician or the consulting physician a patient may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment, either physician shall refer the patient for counseling. No medication to end a patient's life in a humane and dignified manner shall be prescribed until the person performing the counseling determines that the patient is not suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment.

If the doctors think the patient's judgment is impaired, they refer him to a psychiatrist who makes the final determination. If the doctors don't think the patients judgment is impaired, the process continues. There's absolutely no allowance in the law for the family to "file an injunction" or anything. It's not up to the family, at all. Assuming the doctors think their judgment is fine, the only person who's decision matters is the terminal patient.

For assisted death, it does not change any sort of laws about advocating for a mentally impaired person. I can absolutely see a court challenge eventually over guardianship over a person who is no longer deemed metntally capable of making those choices by the very intent of committing suicide. You may think Oregon's law is air tight, but no law is cut and dry, it is why we have courts.

That said, that's getting into the nitty gritty of laws; I bring it up some what like Shroomy because the very idea that some one wants to kill themselves is in all other realms a sign of mental illness.

I can't see how a law in Oregon can override the legal system by the very virtue of being a law.

Do you not remember the Terri Schiavo clusterfuck? The courts and legislatures don't get a say in these sorts of matters.

Apperently you don't, the courts and congress did get involved. In the end, they let nature take it's course and did not artificially extend her life.

Anyway, that's Oregon, not necessarily the entire topic so...

Oregon is AFAIK currently the only English-speaking common-law province to have this kind of law on the books, (besides Washington who has nearly the exact same law) so unless you want to debate Finlands law, this is the only basis for comparison. You're a veteran of the Trek vs Wars debate, call this the lower limit.

It may be the only basis for comparison, but it doesn't neccessarily wrap up all the ethical issues in a nice tiddy package with a bow.

Again, if it is a painful drawn out death, it has no need to be. We can treat for pain, if they die during treatment then nature took it's course. If they are insist on dying, we may want to look at their mental status and treat for mental illness. All in all, it would end up being what the person is dying from and not just their insistence that they should die for society to accept such a thing. Not saying it should never happened, but this 'right to die' attitude needs a closer look.

Pain pills lose their effect after a few months. If we could make people comfortable while they waste away over the course of a half year, we would be doing it right now.

Uhm, we do do that today. where are you getting your information.

Generally today, when a person goes on hospice, they are prescribed various pain killers to the point that if they have to, the patient is unconscious during their final days/hours. Sure, their body is in pain, but the conscious mind doesn't know about it. That's one of the problems, a family member might be by the bedside and the person may groan or some such and the family member deduces that the patient is in pain. They may be, or they may be fighting to get out of the drug haze, or they may be having a bad dream. Who knows, but if they snap out of it and recover, they really don't remember the experience, nor the pain, People put under in surgery don't remember the pain during surgery either, though they may be in pain when the recover after.

In short, we can treat for pain to the point where a dying patient doesn't feel it until they pass. It happens an astoundingly large amounts of times every day.

The fact that we still hear stories about people who suffer drawn-out painful deaths proves that we can't.

Ah, with info and proof like that I can't help but retreat in my position with fear.

[Shroom Man 777]

That said, that's getting into the nitty gritty of laws; I bring it up some what like Shroomy because the very idea that some one wants to kill themselves is in all other realms a sign of mental illness.

As much as people'd go on about how it's shitstaining to say that all people who want to die have mental illness, it IS a fact that wanting to die IS a legitimate health problem. "Risk for self-harm/injury" and "Risk for suicide" is a nursing problem/diagnosis according to our books (you guys use the NANDA, right Knife?) and DOES require intervention. Jesus Christ, what kind of healthcare professionals would we be if we just let people fucking die just because they "felt" like they "wanted" to kill themselves then and there? That's bloody contrary to what we're supposed to be doing, which is helping people LIVE HEALTHILY. If they want to die, then there's obviously something UN-HEALTHY that should be fixed so that they'll WANT to LIVE. Assisted suicide should be an absolute last resort, not a first resort.

[Knife]

I'm not sure about euthanasia though. I totally agree that we now have the tools to actually improve pain and the like. Pyschic pain and depression is a more iffy problem, the hospice here has discussed the problem of prescribing haloperidol, anti-depressants before. It takes weeks before it starts to take effect, given that hospice patients are only given a few months lifespan before they're admitted, well.... its worthless.

True, but I'm assuming that the discussion of terminally ill people who want to off themselves represents people who still have a life span of 6-12 months rather than someone who will die tomorrow regardless of what happens. That is more than enough time to diagnose and treat for any mental illness so they can live out what they have.

However, I also recognise that death is ugly. Especially the long, drawn out process of dying itself. My personal opinion is that if you do reach the stage where you have entered terminal unconsciousness, you should be allowed to die prior you have entered the requisite authorisation prior. And of course, when your family and etc has visited you and blah blah blah.[/quote]

Indeed. I think I've advocated before on this board a position pretty much like Dominus; however, having seen more than my fair share of dead and dying people in all forms and my meager training, has moderated my view. Refusing to have medical science extend your life is one thing, to have it actively end your life is another. If AMA and refusing care lets you die quicker, then ok, you actually do have that right; the right to refuse medical treatment, but to have a doctor actively kill you is quite another.