Death with dignity law

[Lustyleah]

After a long and sometimes heated discussion with a group of people I'm  still on the fence about this. I can understand the urge to not go through the suffering that can be associated with the final days of life in some instances but are we on a slippery slope. 

You should have a right to end your life in the way you choose but should we make Doctors who have sworn to preserve life, and family members carry the part of the responsibility of this decision. 

How long will it be before others will start to make the choice for us. Will the elderly who my not be competent to make the decision on their own have it made for them.

How many times has a person be given 6 months to live and are still with us do to a new treatment or type of care. I just believe that there are a lot of gray areas and some cracks people could fall into. I'm trying to think my way through this just still undecided.

[Guest]

I applaud you for raising this controversial topic as part of today's discussion. However;

Rather than go to "worse case scenario" and insert conspiracy theory into the discussion, why not research how this end of life Law is working in States that have already passed similar laws, i.e. Oregon for one. 

Also, research how similar Laws in some European Countries are being used to the benefit of patients who are facing impossible Terminal Illnesses and giving them humane End-Of-Life options. Sara Palin's "Death Panel" scenario has long been disproven as FUD and ignorant propaganda concerning this issue on patient's rights and Humane End-Of-Life options.

[MAG]

55 minutes ago, Lustyleah said:

After a long and sometimes heated discussion with a group of people I'm  still on the fence about this. I can understand the urge to not go through the suffering that can be associated with the final days of life in some instances but are we on a slippery slope. 

You should have a right to end your life in the way you choose but should we make Doctors who have sworn to preserve life, and family members carry the part of the responsibility of this decision. 

How long will it be before others will start to make the choice for us. Will the elderly who my not be competent to make the decision on their own have it made for them.

How many times has a person be given 6 months to live and are still with us do to a new treatment or type of care. I just believe that there are a lot of gray areas and some cracks people could fall into. I'm trying to think my way through this just still undecided.

Why does every proposed law  bring out the "slippery slope" theorists?

There is no slippery slope that goes from "the right to decide what happens to me" to "other people deciding for me", and to my knowledge the proposal says nothing about "making" doctors participate.

Read all about Britney Maynard.

[Lustyleah]

7 minutes ago, MrBigShot said:

I applaud you for raising this controversial topic as part of today's discussion. However;

Rather than go to "worse case scenario" and insert conspiracy theory into the discussion, why not research how this end of life Law is working in States that have already passed similar laws, i.e. Oregon for one. 

Also, research how similar Laws in some European Countries are being used to the benefit of patients who are facing impossible Terminal Illnesses and giving them humane End-Of-Life options. Sara Palin's "Death Panel" scenario has long been disproven as FUD and ignorant propaganda concerning this issue on patient's rights and Humane End-Of-Life options.

As with most things Palin has said I feel she only plays to the masses. Like I said I am still undecided on this. Having gone through this a couple of years ago I can appreciate where the benefits of this law would apply. My concern lays with how many laws that have been passed that we saw as a benefit that were later interpreted legally to change the meaning of the laws intended benefit. I guess as with all laws there is the potentially  unintended consequences this is what concerns me. But I thank you for your input I try to take all opinions in to consideration when making my decisions.

 

 

 

[Lustyleah]

28 minutes ago, MAG said:

Why does every proposed law  bring out the "slippery slope" theorists?

There is no slippery slope that goes from "the right to decide what happens to me" to "other people deciding for me", and to my knowledge the proposal says nothing about "making" doctors participate.

Read all about Britney Maynard.

I value everyone has their own opinions on this subject but having gone through this myself It would be lie if I said I did not consider making this choice for that individual. I do not believe I said a doctor would be made to take part. I guess one could horde medical supply's till you had enough or just pulling the plug would work to I guess. We have all seen how well intentioned laws have been interpreted be our court system to change the meaning and spirit of many of our well intended laws. As with any law the potential for abuse is there one just has weigh the pros and cons for themselves. I have read of Britney Maynard's struggles and feel deeply for her and her loved ones. What I am saying is that 1 or 100 of these tragedies does not change the potential concerns of this law. As I said I am still undecided on thi subject but I do appreciate others opinions and that I have no claim to the high ground on this we must all make that individual choice.

[Lucy Kitten]

Choosing to die peacefully and pain free I don't think conflicts with the Hippocratic Oath and I don't know how firm that oath actually is for MDs these days. Administering lethal injection is definitely against the oath and that's because the receiving end of the injection doesn't get to choose.

The responsibility falls on no one but the person making the choice, doctors will be paid to do a service and family members ideally should be agreeing with their dying loved one's last wishes.

Choosing who dies will never happen. It just wont.

[Guest]

I'm with Mag on this one. Brittany maynard is the perfect example. I don't think it's up to anyone to judge what is right or wrong for anyone. Having had watched my mom suffer through pancreatic cancer, I know if it were available she would have loved to have the option .  Oregon has never had one single case of abuse or reports of someone not terminally I'll getting the pill. It's got so many safeguards to get it. It's a  decision that should be left up to the individual and their family. Bottom line for me is I think it should be an option. 

[MAG]

6 minutes ago, Lucy Kitten said:

Choosing to die peacefully and pain free I don't think conflicts with the Hippocratic Oath and I don't know how firm that oath actually is for MDs these days. Administering lethal injection is definitely against the oath and that's because the receiving end of the injection doesn't get to choose.

The responsibility falls on no one but the person making the choice, doctors will be paid to do a service and family members ideally should be agreeing with their dying loved one's last wishes.

Choosing who dies will never happen. It just wont.

Agreed.  Dammit, Luce, this has to stop.... 

[SultryKitten]

I will admit that nothing ticks me off more than when people feel they need to make decisions for other people's welfare. Just because someone doesn't agree with your decision doesn't make it not right, it gives them the freedom to choose based on what they feel is best FOR THEM. I want to leave this world the same way I came in...kicking and screaming, but I would not discard the idea of choosing to take my life if I knew for certain that I would suffer horrendously and it was terminal with debilitating results. Why make my family suffer watching me die in an excruciating way? How cruel!

People need to learn to respect people's decisions, and be okay with them taking another way out. Death is inevitable, but it shouldn't scar the person or their friends and family. I prefer to celebrate one's life and be happy that they are at peace instead of suffering to the very end.

xoxo,

Samantha Sheppard

[wglide2003]

I'm with Lucy and  Melissa on this issue. Must be the patient who chooses of of sound mind.

There won't be any more deaths, just less prolonged suffering.

[Phil-anderer]

Humane death - this should be an option for people with non-treatable or near-death diagnoses.  My opinion.

In our society, death is such a horrible, horrible thing, and the truth is... it's part of life.  Everything dies, and for those of us who believe our soul continues on, what is the big deal?

[Bit Banger]

Having recently lived through this (watching a loved one suffer for weeks after she decided she'd had enough) I'm a firm supporter of right to die. We considered relocating to OR, but by then she was too sick to travel. The best hospice could offer was an opiate stupor. I hope to have better choices when it's my time. 

[Running with Scissors]

It's a choice only you and you alone can make, and no one, IMHO has a right to tell you otherwise. I am glad this issue is on the ballet. It's about time. I say unequivocally yes!

[Mr.Pink]

15 hours ago, Lucy Kitten said:

Choosing who dies will never happen. It just wont.

ever hear of hitler, stalin, pol pot or mao zedong?

[pfunk]

2 hours ago, Mr.Pink said:

ever hear of hitler, stalin, pol pot or mao zedong?

Sure have! Luckily, we don't live in a dictatorship! That's why we get to vote on this question! 

Edited November 4, 2016 by pfunk

[daaacz]

Regardless of where you live or what laws affect you, everyone should have an advance directive on file AND you should discuss it with your loved ones so they understand your wishes and why you feel that way. My family knows I don't want to suffer or to live in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. I want to live my life and I don't want to waste time, emotion, and money when it's time for me to go. Not everyone is happy with it, but everyone who matters knows.

Here's a nice site where you can look up the current laws and download an advanced directive form: http://www.caringinfo.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3289

[Bit Banger]

2 hours ago, daaacz said:

Regardless of where you live or what laws affect you, everyone should have an advance directive on file AND you should discuss it with your loved ones so they understand your wishes and why you feel that way. My family knows I don't want to suffer or to live in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. ...

This is but one of several end-of-life documents everyone should have (titles vary state to state):

- Last will & testament

- Personal property memoranda (Details you don't want cluttering your will, like that brooch you want to give to cousin Sue.)

- Living Will or Advanced Directive. Mine is very specific regarding vegative state. 

- Durable or Medical Power of Attorney, this only covers medical decisions

- General Power of Attorney, this is for general business (banking, etc.), but can be limited to specific accounts. 

I'm not an attorney, but having these documents (prepared by an attorney) smoothed many a bump in my SO's last days.  When someone reaches a terminal state, you'll be advised about DoNotResussitate and DoNotTransport directives. 

[MAG]

7 hours ago, Mr.Pink said:

ever hear of hitler, stalin, pol pot or mao zedong?

Did any of those guys live in the United States?

[daaacz]

18 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

This is but one of several end-of-life documents everyone should have (titles vary state to state):

- Last will & testament

- Personal property memoranda (Details you don't want cluttering your will, like that brooch you want to give to cousin Sue.)

- Living Will or Advanced Directive. Mine is very specific regarding vegative state. 

- Durable or Medical Power of Attorney, this only covers medical decisions

- General Power of Attorney, this is for general business (banking, etc.), but can be limited to specific accounts. 

I'm not an attorney, but having these documents (prepared by an attorney) smoothed many a bump in my SO's last days.  When someone reaches a terminal state, you'll be advised about DoNotResussitate and DoNotTransport directives. 

Nice.  I have all of those, but didn't think of them as part of the same package when I made my post. 

In my home state, a will is essentially just a suggestion. If it's contested at all, it ends up decided by the court. That's why my estate (as meager as it is) goes to a trust that will belong to my kids.

Get your stuff in order, folks.  It's not hard and it can be kind of fun to talk about once you get over the initial awkwardness.

[Kaduk]

1 hour ago, daaacz said:

Nice.  I have all of those, but didn't think of them as part of the same package when I made my post. 

In my home state, a will is essentially just a suggestion. If it's contested at all, it ends up decided by the court.

That's why my estate (as meager as it is) goes to a trust that will belong to Kaduk.

Get your stuff in order, folks.  It's not hard and it can be kind of fun to talk about once you get over the initial awkwardness.

^^^^ Ifixeditforyou ^^^^

[daaacz]

1 minute ago, Kaduk said:

^^^^ Ifixeditforyou ^^^^

I'll get that trust updated right away.  You will probably be disappointed--unless you really want my collection of "vintage" water bottle labels.

[Bit Banger]

17 hours ago, Mr.Pink said:

ever hear of hitler, stalin, pol pot or mao zedong?

You're comparing grapes to hippopotami. 

[jus12pla]

I think that should be one of the most fundamental rights in your life.  The right to not exist anymore.  To me it seems a little bewildering to me that we are all going to vote on this.  That we even have.  This should only be up to the individual - not the relatives, religion and certainly not the government.  

I don't think anyone is forcing a doctor to pull the trigger - but that should also be their right to refuse this service.  

The classic movie, Soylent Green, was very bleak but the part dealing with Sol "going home" seemed Utopian to me.  I'm talking about the business of making the last experience of life as wonderful as possible ...(not about being a muchie after that)

[SultryKitten]

This is the same as EMT's/Nurses'/Doctors' resusitating people that have on their charts DNR. They know it is only time before even though that won't work yet they do it anyway, or in some cases they didn't know.

A perfect example: my grandfather didn't want to suffer and was ready to go to his maker. He had been telling that for months, and we knew. Heck, even the hospitals/nursing home/clinics knew because he had been in and out. When he went into cardiac arrest, they resusitated him, sent him flight for life to NICU where due to prolonged period of having no oxygen to his brain(and kidneys failing) he passed away when we removed the life support. This is not what he wanted, and the whole family made the decision to do it quickly once there was confirmation because we knew this was not how he wanted to go. I am glad that we got to have closure and say goodbye, but in another, I feel bad that he suffered in that manner because it was against his wishes. If my grandpa had actually woken up, his quality of life would have been bad, and that is why I feel that the DNR should be taken into more consideration no matter what your oath or belief is.

Why should anyone have to suffer because you feel it is your duty to save a life? In a job like that, you are going to win some and lose some, but when you know for a fact that after a specific amount of time, or certain factors showing no indication of functioning, that the chances of survival are slim...you should just sit back, know you did the best you could, and perpare for the next one that does indeed need saving. Yes, there can be miracles, like people being cured of cancer, but those stories are rare.

My issue with people arguing about things of this nature is that people wnat the freedom to make decisions for their body, yet they turn around and want to pass petitions or vote to decide the outcome for someone else's decision. We seem to keep making laws for every little thing instead of letting people make bad choices, and increase the Darwin pool. We can't save the world, and we don't want to. The result is a more socialistic government that is allowing people to live off of the system, and do stupid things because they can't think for themselves. Also, people can't state their opinion or dress how they want without getting bombarded with insultrs, advice, or threats. We are so blessed with having the freedom to make choices, yet we are constantly going against what we proudly stand for. In turn, they gripe when they can't exercise their right because they keep adding in more laws that contradict it. Either we want freedom, or we want to be sheep...can't have both!

We have bigger problems to deal with than telling someone, that is sick, that they can't take their own life. Instead of making them feel bad for their decision, let's support them and give them lasting memories so that they end their life in peace.

xoxo,

Samantha Sheppard

 

[Paul Pudenda]

If someone wishes to end their life, they should be permitted to do so.  It is no one else's business, and certainly not the government's.  I've always felt that the government opposes suicide because they just don't want to lose a tax payer.  Same with the Church.  My mother suffered a stroke, and lingered for 10 years. Once, when I saw her she handed me a pillow, and the look in her eyes told me exactly what she wanted me to do.  I will never forget that moment.  On the other hand, no one should be forced to end life as a convenience to others.  But if I'm ready to go, no one has the right to tell me I can't.

[daaacz]

Here's an article and a podcast about the positive effect of having a living will and a medical community that is willing to honor it. I'm not a fan of the way NPR produces their audio pieces, but it's still good info.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/03/05/286126451/living-wills-are-the-talk-of-the-town-in-la-crosse-wis

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/02/28/283444163/episode-521-the-town-that-loves-death

 

[sparkey600]

On 11/3/2016 at 0:44 PM, Lucy Kitten said:

Choosing to die peacefully and pain free I don't think conflicts with the Hippocratic Oath and I don't know how firm that oath actually is for MDs these days. Administering lethal injection is definitely against the oath and that's because the receiving end of the injection doesn't get to choose.

The responsibility falls on no one but the person making the choice, doctors will be paid to do a service and family members ideally should be agreeing with their dying loved one's last wishes.

Choosing who dies will never happen. It just wont.

In theory I'd have to agree with you on this. It's a very complicated issue to say the least.

I left the question on my ballot blank because I don't think I have the right to say one way or another what a person can choose at the end of their days. I've seen a lot of pain and suffering, but the people (family members) that went through this were very religious and would never have supported it. Thus, my decision.

I'm glad it passed. I hope that people choose the right thing for themselves and for their family's. I hope I for one will not have to decide.

Is that cowardly? I don't think so.

[Lucy Kitten]

30 minutes ago, sparkey600 said:

In theory I'd have to agree with you on this. It's a very complicated issue to say the least.

I left the question on my ballot blank because I don't think I have the right to say one way or another what a person can choose at the end of their days. I've seen a lot of pain and suffering, but the people (family members) that went through this were very religious and would never have supported it. Thus, my decision.

I'm glad it passed. I hope that people choose the right thing for themselves and for their family's. I hope I for one will not have to decide.

Is that cowardly? I don't think so.

I would say it's a tad bit cowardly but I don't think that's right word. It's misguided kindness. It was all about giving people their own right to choose I saw no reason to say no or abstain. It doesn't force anyone to make a particular choice just allowed them the freedom to make a choice they didn't have before. In essence you would have been supporting the choice of your religious loved ones too. When it's our time to go we should all be able to choose how we do it, whether it be by suicide or just waiting it out.

[Bit Banger]

6 hours ago, Lucy Kitten said:

I would say it's a tad bit cowardly but I don't think that's right word. It's misguided kindness. It was all about giving people their own right to choose I saw no reason to say no or abstain. It doesn't force anyone to make a particular choice just allowed them the freedom to make a choice they didn't have before. In essence you would have been supporting the choice of your religious loved ones too. When it's our time to go we should all be able to choose how we do it, whether it be by suicide or just waiting it out.

+1

A YES vote on this amendment merely allows an individual to make the choice for themselves. It does not even force individuals to make a choice; inaction leaves the current system in place for that individual.  

A NO retains the system where "the establishment" gets to force a choice on everyone, a choice which often leads to extended pain & suffering. 

[sparkey600]

23 hours ago, Lucy Kitten said:

I would say it's a tad bit cowardly but I don't think that's right word. It's misguided kindness. It was all about giving people their own right to choose I saw no reason to say no or abstain. It doesn't force anyone to make a particular choice just allowed them the freedom to make a choice they didn't have before. In essence you would have been supporting the choice of your religious loved ones too. When it's our time to go we should all be able to choose how we do it, whether it be by suicide or just waiting it out.

Well said, thank you.