How far are we from the right to die legalization?

[Conservative65]

For those that want to die and don't have physical limitations to do so, they have no excuse.

Which is why the topic is about those who don't have the physical means. So what are you on about?

The topic of the OP is about the right to die as a general concept.

And under that general heading there are subheadings. If this one bores you, no one's forcing you to pursue it.

The topic of the OP is the right to die. If ability was a subheading, show it.

 

[koshergrl]

"The right to kill one's spouse who didn't have the good sense to die when you throttled her the first time"

 

[Arianrhod]

For those that want to die and don't have physical limitations to do so, they have no excuse.

Which is why the topic is about those who don't have the physical means. So what are you on about?

The topic of the OP is about the right to die as a general concept.

And under that general heading there are subheadings. If this one bores you, no one's forcing you to pursue it.

The topic of the OP is the right to die. If ability was a subheading, show it.

It's called "discussion." It's what adults do.

You want simple, here's simple: If you have the ability and the means, AFAIK there's no law against eating a bullet. In fact, if you succeed, there's no law that can touch you, at least not in this life. Your religion may have something to do with what you believe awaits you in the afterlife, but that's a separate topic.

So what do you consider worth discussing about that scenario? Do or do not; there is no try.

Just don't take anyone else with you.

 

[koshergrl]

For those that want to die and don't have physical limitations to do so, they have no excuse.

Which is why the topic is about those who don't have the physical means. So what are you on about?

The topic of the OP is about the right to die as a general concept.

And under that general heading there are subheadings. If this one bores you, no one's forcing you to pursue it.

The topic of the OP is the right to die. If ability was a subheading, show it.

It's called "discussion." It's what adults do.

You want simple, here's simple: If you have the ability and the means, AFAIK there's no law against eating a bullet. In fact, if you succeed, there's no law that can touch you, at least not in this life. Your religion may have something to do with what you believe awaits you in the afterlife, but that's a separate topic.

So what do you consider worth discussing about that scenario? Do or do not; there is no try.

Just don't take anyone else with you.

Are there a bunch of people in prison for failing to kill themselves, or something that I haven't heard about?

Because last I checked, nobody was being prosecuted for botching their own suicide.

 

[Arianrhod]

Which is why the topic is about those who don't have the physical means. So what are you on about?

The topic of the OP is about the right to die as a general concept.

And under that general heading there are subheadings. If this one bores you, no one's forcing you to pursue it.

The topic of the OP is the right to die. If ability was a subheading, show it.

It's called "discussion." It's what adults do.

You want simple, here's simple: If you have the ability and the means, AFAIK there's no law against eating a bullet. In fact, if you succeed, there's no law that can touch you, at least not in this life. Your religion may have something to do with what you believe awaits you in the afterlife, but that's a separate topic.

So what do you consider worth discussing about that scenario? Do or do not; there is no try.

Just don't take anyone else with you.

Are there a bunch of people in prison for failing to kill themselves, or something that I haven't heard about?

Because last I checked, nobody was being prosecuted for botching their own suicide.

Which is essentially what I said in Post #23.

Glad you're finally ready to sit at the grownups' table.

 

[Arianrhod]

There has always been talks in modern law about the right to die. Is this implemented recently? Some hospices I heard work with it. But what is you are not geriatric, just have other disabilities, physical or mental? Mentally disabled patients are usually homeless, but many would take advantage of a right to die practice against homelessness. But even if you are not homeless, you may want the right to die. For example a chronic forgetfulness, when you keep losing your wallet, coat, everything, every second day, could fall in the right to die category. How restricted is the right to die law these days? What do you know about it?

Getting back to this, I think the most important thing is the individual at the center of it. No one has the right to decide for another person who is capable of deciding for themselves.

This is why you're never too young to have an advanced health directive (a.k.a. a living will). AFAIK, anyone who goes into the hospital for a surgical procedure is asked to fill one out before the surgery (the hospital will have the forms), but in an ideal world every adult would complete one. Here's an example:

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...eAdvancedHealthCareDirectiveForm-fillable.pdf

Lots of lawyer words, but page 3 is the pertinent part. You get to decide this; no one else. Your doctor(s) and family members should be given copies, and they're obligated by law to honor your wishes.

That's how it works at present.

The two examples you mentioned - mental illness and dementia - are what I'd consider out of bounds. The person can be declared legally incompetent, but that doesn't give anyone else the right to decide to end their life...nor, IMO, should it.

 

[Conservative65]

For those that want to die and don't have physical limitations to do so, they have no excuse.

Which is why the topic is about those who don't have the physical means. So what are you on about?

The topic of the OP is about the right to die as a general concept.

And under that general heading there are subheadings. If this one bores you, no one's forcing you to pursue it.

The topic of the OP is the right to die. If ability was a subheading, show it.

It's called "discussion." It's what adults do.

You want simple, here's simple: If you have the ability and the means, AFAIK there's no law against eating a bullet. In fact, if you succeed, there's no law that can touch you, at least not in this life. Your religion may have something to do with what you believe awaits you in the afterlife, but that's a separate topic.

So what do you consider worth discussing about that scenario? Do or do not; there is no try.

Just don't take anyone else with you.

YOU said it was a subheading. Now it seems it's something YOU made up. I'll discuss the OP with you not what you demand I discuss with you. That's your choice. The OP or run like the pussy you are.

 

[JoeB131]

The justification used to challenge the death penalty in every state has been the murderer suffers.

Yes, they do. That and you guys keep trying to execute innocent people. 156 people released from Death Row because they didn't do what they were accused of.

Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row | Death Penalty Information Center

That said, I'm very apprehensive about "Right to Die" legislation, where killing the patient becomes a valid medical option for big insurance. These guys kill enough patients with their greed, I'm not keen to give them additional opportunities.

 

[Arianrhod]

Which is why the topic is about those who don't have the physical means. So what are you on about?

The topic of the OP is about the right to die as a general concept.

And under that general heading there are subheadings. If this one bores you, no one's forcing you to pursue it.

The topic of the OP is the right to die. If ability was a subheading, show it.

It's called "discussion." It's what adults do.

You want simple, here's simple: If you have the ability and the means, AFAIK there's no law against eating a bullet. In fact, if you succeed, there's no law that can touch you, at least not in this life. Your religion may have something to do with what you believe awaits you in the afterlife, but that's a separate topic.

So what do you consider worth discussing about that scenario? Do or do not; there is no try.

Just don't take anyone else with you.

YOU said it was a subheading. Now it seems it's something YOU made up. I'll discuss the OP with you not what you demand I discuss with you. That's your choice. The OP or run like the pussy you are.

Post #26.

 

[anotherlife]

There has always been talks in modern law about the right to die. Is this implemented recently? Some hospices I heard work with it. But what is you are not geriatric, just have other disabilities, physical or mental? Mentally disabled patients are usually homeless, but many would take advantage of a right to die practice against homelessness. But even if you are not homeless, you may want the right to die. For example a chronic forgetfulness, when you keep losing your wallet, coat, everything, every second day, could fall in the right to die category. How restricted is the right to die law these days? What do you know about it?

Getting back to this, I think the most important thing is the individual at the center of it. No one has the right to decide for another person who is capable of deciding for themselves.

This is why you're never too young to have an advanced health directive (a.k.a. a living will). AFAIK, anyone who goes into the hospital for a surgical procedure is asked to fill one out before the surgery (the hospital will have the forms), but in an ideal world every adult would complete one. Here's an example:

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...eAdvancedHealthCareDirectiveForm-fillable.pdf

Lots of lawyer words, but page 3 is the pertinent part. You get to decide this; no one else. Your doctor(s) and family members should be given copies, and they're obligated by law to honor your wishes.

That's how it works at present.

The two examples you mentioned - mental illness and dementia - are what I'd consider out of bounds. The person can be declared legally incompetent, but that doesn't give anyone else the right to decide to end their life...nor, IMO, should it.

Very interesting. I think demented people do have sober moments, from what I observe, and during those sober moments, they are afraid what will happen to them when they slip back into their dementia. Many turn out to wish for death on themselves. But here is the even more difficult barrier. They are all scared to die too like everyone, so many of them can't carry out their suicides. Would a law be useful, to kill them in this case, upon their signatures? I know in the olden days 50 years ago, if you just attempted suicide, however slightly, you got the standard murderer's death penalty and you died, eliminating these modern problems. Shouldn't we bring back that law, to help them?

 

[koshergrl]

Nobody got the death penalty for attempting suicide.

 

[Arianrhod]

There has always been talks in modern law about the right to die. Is this implemented recently? Some hospices I heard work with it. But what is you are not geriatric, just have other disabilities, physical or mental? Mentally disabled patients are usually homeless, but many would take advantage of a right to die practice against homelessness. But even if you are not homeless, you may want the right to die. For example a chronic forgetfulness, when you keep losing your wallet, coat, everything, every second day, could fall in the right to die category. How restricted is the right to die law these days? What do you know about it?

Getting back to this, I think the most important thing is the individual at the center of it. No one has the right to decide for another person who is capable of deciding for themselves.

This is why you're never too young to have an advanced health directive (a.k.a. a living will). AFAIK, anyone who goes into the hospital for a surgical procedure is asked to fill one out before the surgery (the hospital will have the forms), but in an ideal world every adult would complete one. Here's an example:

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...eAdvancedHealthCareDirectiveForm-fillable.pdf

Lots of lawyer words, but page 3 is the pertinent part. You get to decide this; no one else. Your doctor(s) and family members should be given copies, and they're obligated by law to honor your wishes.

That's how it works at present.

The two examples you mentioned - mental illness and dementia - are what I'd consider out of bounds. The person can be declared legally incompetent, but that doesn't give anyone else the right to decide to end their life...nor, IMO, should it.

Very interesting. I think demented people do have sober moments, from what I observe, and during those sober moments, they are afraid what will happen to them when they slip back into their dementia. Many turn out to wish for death on themselves. But here is the even more difficult barrier. They are all scared to die too like everyone, so many of them can't carry out their suicides. Would a law be useful, to kill them in this case, upon their signatures? I know in the olden days 50 years ago, if you just attempted suicide, however slightly, you got the standard murderer's death penalty and you died, eliminating these modern problems. Shouldn't we bring back that law, to help them?

The opportunities for abuse in such a scenario would be extensive. I can think of all sorts of ways people could be coerced into signing something against their will.

As it is, merely giving someone power of attorney can lead to all sorts of manipulation.

Besides, breakthroughs in understanding Alzheimer's and other dementias are being made all the time. There are also numerous reasons (side effects of medications, malnutrition, even fevers) that a person may seem to be suffering from dementia but, when the cause is determined, they're restored to their normal selves.

Treacherous territory, IMO.

 

[Arianrhod]

Nobody got the death penalty for attempting suicide.

Did you notice the part where anotherlife wrote "50 years ago"?

Although I'd be inclined to think it was longer ago than that.

From a religious POV, suicides were denied burial in Christian churchyards until recently.