Quote:Critics fear that legalising doctor-assisted suicide will start a slippery slide towards mass euthanasia. But this has not happened in Oregon, where in 17 years just 1,327 lethal doses have been dispensed—and that counts people who moved to Oregon specifically to die, including Brittany Maynard, a Californian with terminal brain cancer whose story moved some Californian lawmakers into supporting the bill. As The Economist has reported, there is little evidence that assisted-dying laws have been abused, and plenty that they alleviate suffering. Some fear that, if the option is available, sick or disabled people will feel undue pressure to make use of it. But this has not happened, either. On the contrary, many have found that having control over the timing and manner of their death has given them greater dignity and autonomy.
There's easy enough ways to kill yourself. I don't understand why doctors should be involved but if that's what they want to do so be it. Morally I don't like it but legally speaking I'm not sure why they can't.
Obviously, everyone is going to die no matter what. I'm not really sure it's a "right" or even can be a "right." Death is a fact of life.
A better way to put it is "should patients have the right to choose when to kill themselves?" and/or "should doctors be able to encourage people to kill themselves?"
(09-21-2015 08:52 AM)blunderbuss Wrote: There's easy enough ways to kill yourself. I don't understand why doctors should be involved but if that's what they want to do so be it. Morally I don't like it but legally speaking I'm not sure why they can't.
Doctors are involved in these types of decisions all the time. I'm not saying it isn't difficult, but it's already part of the job.
Quote:Critics fear that legalising doctor-assisted suicide will start a slippery slide towards mass euthanasia. But this has not happened in Oregon, where in 17 years just 1,327 lethal doses have been dispensed—and that counts people who moved to Oregon specifically to die, including Brittany Maynard, a Californian with terminal brain cancer whose story moved some Californian lawmakers into supporting the bill. As The Economist has reported, there is little evidence that assisted-dying laws have been abused, and plenty that they alleviate suffering. Some fear that, if the option is available, sick or disabled people will feel undue pressure to make use of it. But this has not happened, either. On the contrary, many have found that having control over the timing and manner of their death has given them greater dignity and autonomy.
Killing oneself is really very easy to do. Not sure what the big deal is. I mean, if the govt won't let a doc do it, just take a couple of pills or something.
As a health care practitioner, I'm torn on this. There are ways to die naturally and painlessly which are readily available. That's what hospice is for, but I also kind of understand the folks who want to die while they are still functional. I lean towards hospice though.
If a patient can competently make the decision and the doctor is willing to do it, I have less of a problem with it. Under no circumstance should the decision be made by a 3rd party, even with power of attorney, or should a doctor be forced to perform the killing by law or bureaucratic process. While I have less issue with a cancer patient with no hope ending it, I worry it is a slippery slope to death panels deciding that an 80 year old isn't worth the "investment" to perform a surgery to neutralize a survivable condition.
If a patient can completely make the decision and has a doctor willing to do it how can you have any problem with it? It sounds like none of your business.
(09-21-2015 11:27 AM)JDTulane Wrote: If a patient can completely make the decision and has a doctor willing to do it how can you have any problem with it? It sounds like none of your business.
Sounds to me like most don't have a problem with it so long as it is the actual patient that is doing the deciding. Allowing "others" to make that decision becomes a bit more scary, particularly when it's the "government" being involved.
I trust myself - I don't much trust that a governmental entity will always act in my best interest and not their interests................
This is something that falls squarely in the purview of the voters to shape the society they wish to live in.
Im curious what other issues you would put into this "societal" paradigm?
That's my question as well. What if the voters decide to confiscate all monies from individuals above $1 million to "refill the government coffers" - you okay with that. I mean "if the voters decide"?
Where do individual rights trump the "voters rights".
I think I know where you stand - more to the individuals rights.
