CDZ Is it inhumane to not assist with requested suicide?

[saveliberty]

Frankly, the key factor, as I see it now, not as I saw it prior to having to deal with it, is one of quality of life, not just living. Frankly, the quality of life variables are one's every person must decide upon for themselves. For example, some folks may consider that merely being incontinent is sufficient for them to feel their life has come to ruin. Others may feel that they wouldn't want to go on if they are physically incapacitated, but mentally fine (or mostly so), and still others may consider that mental incapacity is their limit. It comes down to what one is willing to deal with and how one wants to live.

Personally, I think there ought to be life ending services available for a fee just as there are life creation services available for a fee. I think that because while we may as a society permit caregivers, family members, etc. to assist in a life ending action, it's quite a lot for many individuals to accept. I suspect too there are folks who want to die, but who don't want to know they are doing so "right now" or "ten minutes from now," so to speak. Some -- caregivers/family or folks desiring to die -- may not be able emotionally to face head on the reality of what they are doing even though they cognitively know its what they want or what their loved one needs/desires, understandably, thus the call for services such as that noted.

So the rich can die, but who pays for the poor?

Did I say it needed to be expensive? Why have you assumed it would be so dear that poor folks can't muster the money to partake?

Potential legal costs to challenges. Medical costs and so on.

 

[320 Years of History]

Frankly, the key factor, as I see it now, not as I saw it prior to having to deal with it, is one of quality of life, not just living. Frankly, the quality of life variables are one's every person must decide upon for themselves. For example, some folks may consider that merely being incontinent is sufficient for them to feel their life has come to ruin. Others may feel that they wouldn't want to go on if they are physically incapacitated, but mentally fine (or mostly so), and still others may consider that mental incapacity is their limit. It comes down to what one is willing to deal with and how one wants to live.

Personally, I think there ought to be life ending services available for a fee just as there are life creation services available for a fee. I think that because while we may as a society permit caregivers, family members, etc. to assist in a life ending action, it's quite a lot for many individuals to accept. I suspect too there are folks who want to die, but who don't want to know they are doing so "right now" or "ten minutes from now," so to speak. Some -- caregivers/family or folks desiring to die -- may not be able emotionally to face head on the reality of what they are doing even though they cognitively know its what they want or what their loved one needs/desires, understandably, thus the call for services such as that noted.

So the rich can die, but who pays for the poor?

Did I say it needed to be expensive? Why have you assumed it would be so dear that poor folks can't muster the money to partake?

Potential legal costs to challenges. Medical costs and so on.

Legal costs? Who would (or who would be allow to) raise the challenge if one seeks the service because one and one's family members can't bring themselves to do it, but they know that it's the right thing to do and it's what one wants?

Medical costs? How expensive do you suppose would be what need be little other than a very strong sleeping pill?

 

[saveliberty]

Legal costs? Who would (or who would be allow to) raise the challenge if one seeks the service because one and one's family members can't bring themselves to do it, but they know that it's the right thing to do and it's what one wants?

Medical costs? How expensive do you suppose would be what need be little other than a very strong sleeping pill?

You know, we spend hundreds of thousands to put admitted murders to death. Don't you think a regular citizen deserves at least as aggressive a defense?

 

[320 Years of History]

Legal costs? Who would (or who would be allow to) raise the challenge if one seeks the service because one and one's family members can't bring themselves to do it, but they know that it's the right thing to do and it's what one wants?

Medical costs? How expensive do you suppose would be what need be little other than a very strong sleeping pill?

You know, we spend hundreds of thousands to put admitted murders to death. Don't you think a regular citizen deserves at least as aggressive a defense?

No. Not if they willingly opt to end their life.

 

[saveliberty]

Legal costs? Who would (or who would be allow to) raise the challenge if one seeks the service because one and one's family members can't bring themselves to do it, but they know that it's the right thing to do and it's what one wants?

Medical costs? How expensive do you suppose would be what need be little other than a very strong sleeping pill?

You know, we spend hundreds of thousands to put admitted murders to death. Don't you think a regular citizen deserves at least as aggressive a defense?

No. Not if they willingly opt to end their life.

What part of admitted murdered did you miss?

Look, someone wants to avoid pain and die, have a DNR order and a stash of poison in their hospital bed. Do not bring another party into something that is a personal responsibility.

 

[320 Years of History]

Legal costs? Who would (or who would be allow to) raise the challenge if one seeks the service because one and one's family members can't bring themselves to do it, but they know that it's the right thing to do and it's what one wants?

Medical costs? How expensive do you suppose would be what need be little other than a very strong sleeping pill?

You know, we spend hundreds of thousands to put admitted murders to death. Don't you think a regular citizen deserves at least as aggressive a defense?

No. Not if they willingly opt to end their life.

What part of admitted murdered did you miss?

Look, someone wants to avoid pain and die, have a DNR order and a stash of poison in their hospital bed. Do not bring another party into something that is a personal responsibility.

Red:
None of it. How a society must deal with murderers has nothing to do with how it should handle voluntary life termination. There is a huge substantive difference between an admitted murderer of another individual and a person who is choosing to end their own life. There is also a huge difference between the role of a third party's executing admitted murderers is "us" exacting our judgment upon another person. Assisted suicide is one person requesting another person to aide them in carrying out one's own wishes.

 

[oldsoul]

As a point of information, a drunk .357 BAC used the front of my car to kill himself back in 1983. I might have a little more perspective on this one.

Irrelevent antidote. Unless, of course, you happened to know that the individual in question was INTENDING to die...

Fuck you

Psychological evaluations should be conducted on both parties prior.

I refuse to tolerate such outburts. Control your emotions if you wish to continue discussing anything with me.

You gave a very callous reply to a post you could have just ignored instead of insulting me. You got what you deserved for the attack.

If stating a FACT is an attack, then I guess I am guilty. Your outburst was still unwarranted, and rude.

 

[saveliberty]

What part of admitted murdered did you miss?


Red:
None of it. How a society must deal with murderers has nothing to do with how it should handle voluntary life termination. There is a huge substantive difference between an admitted murderer of another individual and a person who is choosing to end their own life. There is also a huge difference between the role of a third party's executing admitted murderers is "us" exacting our judgment upon another person. Assisted suicide is one person requesting another person to aide them in carrying out one's own wishes.

You are making it easier to kill a regular citizen than a criminal. So I fake a few signatures on my parents consent forms and bam! I get the inheritance. Awesome.

 

[saveliberty]

If stating a FACT is an attack, then I guess I am guilty. Your outburst was still unwarranted, and rude.

Yes, you are guilty. It was quite a normal response to an attack. A simple apology for your actions would have been sufficient. Now, I am done with you.

 

[oldsoul]

If stating a FACT is an attack, then I guess I am guilty. Your outburst was still unwarranted, and rude.

Yes, you are guilty. It was quite a normal response to an attack. A simple apology for your actions would have been sufficient. Now, I am done with you.

I have nothing to apologize for. Why would I apologize for stating a fact that you take offense to?

 

[320 Years of History]

What part of admitted murdered did you miss?


Red:
None of it. How a society must deal with murderers has nothing to do with how it should handle voluntary life termination. There is a huge substantive difference between an admitted murderer of another individual and a person who is choosing to end their own life. There is also a huge difference between the role of a third party's executing admitted murderers is "us" exacting our judgment upon another person. Assisted suicide is one person requesting another person to aide them in carrying out one's own wishes.

You are making it easier to kill a regular citizen than a criminal. So I fake a few signatures on my parents consent forms and bam! I get the inheritance. Awesome.

Red:
What does the comparative ease have to do with it? It's not supposed to be difficult for one to act upon one's own legitimate wishes.

Blue:
That would then be premeditated murder, not voluntary life termination. I suspect some individuals already attempt to execute such plots now. Are you really of a mind to argue that we should disallow one the right to voluntarily terminate their own life (on their own or with the aid of others, be it a service or friends/family) because someone might abuse the fact that such a right/option exists? I should hope not for such a guiding principle does not hold water.

• Should we deny one the right to bungee jump because there's a risk that their enemy may cut the cord?
• Should we cease airline transportation because planes can be hijacked?
• Should we prohibit the use of alcohol because some people may abuse alcohol?
• Should we disallow family members the right to visit their infirmed relative because the family member may slip something into their IV or otherwise kill them on the sly? Bam!

No matter what right or privilege be accorded, there will nearly always be someone who will seek to wrongly profit from its being available. That is no reason to deny the privilege to the rest of society.

 

[saveliberty]

We attempt to limit gun ownership based on that very premise.

 

[Dhara]

My Sister-In-Law is working part time at a nursing home and some of what she sees and tells me is tragic. There are people who have lost all control of their body and to them life is staring up at the ceiling from their bed. They wear a diaper and have to be lifted with a hoist out of the bed to be taken to the bathroom and cleaned like a baby. The Netherlands has assisted suicide and that seems to be the most humane option for people at end of life that request it. When I get older and if the US doesn't have similar laws in place, I will have my own "exit strategy" because I refuse to go out like that. The key is "requested" because we don't want the State deciding, but the option should be there.

You can just stop eating and drinking.

 

[Dhara]

At 92 and 90, Armond and Dorothy Rudolph’s bodies were failing them. He suffered severe pain from spinal stenosis, a narrowing of the spinal column. She was almost entirely immobile. Both suffered from early dementia, according to their son Neil Rudolph. They wanted to die.
The Rudolphs, married for 69 years, decided to refuse food and water to end their lives. Although they lived in The Village at Alameda, an assisted living facility in Albuquerque, N.M., they maintained they had a right to die on their own accord.
Three days into their fast, the couple told their plan to staff at the facility. Administrators immediately called 911, citing an attempted suicide.
The Village evicted the couple, and the next day, the Rudolphs moved into a private home, where they again stopped eating and drinking. Ten days after he began the fast, Armond Rudolph died. Dorothy Rudolph died the following day.
Voluntary Stopping Of Eating And Drinking | Compassion & Choices

 

[Asclepias]

My Sister-In-Law is working part time at a nursing home and some of what she sees and tells me is tragic. There are people who have lost all control of their body and to them life is staring up at the ceiling from their bed. They wear a diaper and have to be lifted with a hoist out of the bed to be taken to the bathroom and cleaned like a baby. The Netherlands has assisted suicide and that seems to be the most humane option for people at end of life that request it. When I get older and if the US doesn't have similar laws in place, I will have my own "exit strategy" because I refuse to go out like that. The key is "requested" because we don't want the State deciding, but the option should be there.

While I agree with your OP, your title bothers me. I wouldn't call it inhumane. I would call it lack of empathy or fear of eternal damnation depending on your belief system. if you thought it was a sin to kill or assist someone in killing themselves how could that be considered inhumane?

 

[320 Years of History]

At 92 and 90, Armond and Dorothy Rudolph’s bodies were failing them. He suffered severe pain from spinal stenosis, a narrowing of the spinal column. She was almost entirely immobile. Both suffered from early dementia, according to their son Neil Rudolph. They wanted to die.
The Rudolphs, married for 69 years, decided to refuse food and water to end their lives. Although they lived in The Village at Alameda, an assisted living facility in Albuquerque, N.M., they maintained they had a right to die on their own accord.
Three days into their fast, the couple told their plan to staff at the facility. Administrators immediately called 911, citing an attempted suicide.
The Village evicted the couple, and the next day, the Rudolphs moved into a private home, where they again stopped eating and drinking. Ten days after he began the fast, Armond Rudolph died. Dorothy Rudolph died the following day.
Voluntary Stopping Of Eating And Drinking | Compassion & Choices

It seems they were stronger and more courageous people than I. I don't know that I could willfully stop eating and drinking.

That The Village at Alameda evicted the couple is shocking to me.

• What makes evicting two 90+ year olds a humane thing, the right thing, to do, regardless of whether they are attempting to end their lives? In my mind, nothing.
• What had The Village to gain? Would not the impact on The Village been exactly the same had they just died in their sleep without willfully making their death happen? It seems to me the impact would have been substantively the same. All that comes to my mind is that The Village was more concerned about their own ass then about the wishes of the couple who'd paid their money to be there. Tsk, tsk, tsk....

 

[oldsoul]

At 92 and 90, Armond and Dorothy Rudolph’s bodies were failing them. He suffered severe pain from spinal stenosis, a narrowing of the spinal column. She was almost entirely immobile. Both suffered from early dementia, according to their son Neil Rudolph. They wanted to die.
The Rudolphs, married for 69 years, decided to refuse food and water to end their lives. Although they lived in The Village at Alameda, an assisted living facility in Albuquerque, N.M., they maintained they had a right to die on their own accord.
Three days into their fast, the couple told their plan to staff at the facility. Administrators immediately called 911, citing an attempted suicide.
The Village evicted the couple, and the next day, the Rudolphs moved into a private home, where they again stopped eating and drinking. Ten days after he began the fast, Armond Rudolph died. Dorothy Rudolph died the following day.
Voluntary Stopping Of Eating And Drinking | Compassion & Choices

Yes, starvation works to kill a person. Is that the way you would want your parents to go? How about yourself? As I understand it, having never experienced it myself, it is quite painful and unpleasant to say the least. Would it not be more "humane" to allow a person to push a button that releases a toxin into their own system, thus ending their life relativly quickly, and in relative comfort?
Why is it that you want to force others to live, or die, by your definition of right and wrong? Can there only be one "right" way to live, or die?

 

[MarathonMike]

My Sister-In-Law is working part time at a nursing home and some of what she sees and tells me is tragic. There are people who have lost all control of their body and to them life is staring up at the ceiling from their bed. They wear a diaper and have to be lifted with a hoist out of the bed to be taken to the bathroom and cleaned like a baby. The Netherlands has assisted suicide and that seems to be the most humane option for people at end of life that request it. When I get older and if the US doesn't have similar laws in place, I will have my own "exit strategy" because I refuse to go out like that. The key is "requested" because we don't want the State deciding, but the option should be there.

While I agree with your OP, your title bothers me. I wouldn't call it inhumane. I would call it lack of empathy or fear of eternal damnation depending on your belief system. if you thought it was a sin to kill or assist someone in killing themselves how could that be considered inhumane?

Good point. If that is your belief system, then the "temporary" condition of being locked in a failing body is trivial when weighed against eternal damnation.

 

[320 Years of History]

We attempt to limit gun ownership based on that very premise.

And what is your stance on gun control?