Off topic, and I will probably stir the pot......

Cindy311

I watched a documentary the other night talking about the Die with Dignity law in Oregon and Washington State. A person should have the right to decide what is right for them. Sometimes there is only so much that medicine can do to help, and when that is exhausted why should a person have to wait for nature to take its course? One common thing I noticed during the doc was that the people who were ending their lives were thankful to have that choice.

ldrosophila

I'm just going to add:

Everyone needs to make sure they have specific instructions for their family members on the measures they wish to be taken to preserve and or safe their life. Do you want dialysis? Do you want to be hooked up to a machine if there's very little chance you'll never get off it? Do you want a feeding tube? Everyone is saying "if the personal is able to make the decision" but things get sticky when that person isn't able to.

good point

1shauna1

If I could see a long, physically painful death ahead of me....I probably would want help too. This to me is different than someone who is suicidal.

alienaliens

I agree it's their right also, cause I see myself in that situation - old, sick, suffering and rotting from some cancerous disease - just to get sicker and sicker. I've told my folks if that happens to me, do not let them put any feeding tubes in my belly or my nose. I watched my mom wither away in the hospital for two months.

But as for the .22, most people who want to go are cowards and cannot do it to themselves. Some think of the ultimate "sin" of suicide. Hospitals may consider themselves as "murdering" someone, who knows why they won't help people end a tortured painful life.

keef1972

So far this is pretty respectful, but in before the lock, because it's just a matter of time before someone stirs the pot to the point of no return

(and yes, I totally believe in medically assisted suicide. Sound mind or not. Imagine being an Alzheimers patient and having to live that life of misery simply because you're not of "sound mind" enough to make that decision. No thank you)

Well said....that's when I accidentally wanna fall off a high bridge.

_crafty_

Thou shalt not kill.

Don't tell me what to do!

djeffreys10

I think someone should inform her that a .22 round is much cheaper than medical.

whatever all the damn crazy people have bought the stores out ...have you tried to buy any lately?

It can still be found in most gun stores, just not in wally world. Hell, I will donate a round or two to the cause if need be.

pinkledoodledoo

I think it should be allowed in all instances of chronic and/or terminal illness, including mental illness. If someone's suffering, physically or mentally, is severe enough that they no longer wish to endure it and they'd rather their family didn't have to find their body with a note then I think medically assisted suicide should be an option for those who want to keep their dignity and just give up the fight.

I know a lot of people would disagree with the mental health aspect of my opinion but as a long time sufferer of depression, anxiety and a personality disorder I can honestly say that being medicated for the rest of my life with drugs that will probably end up killing me anyway is not an appealing thought and the idea of doing it myself and leaving that visual image in the minds of my family is not something I would ever do.

jenifr818

I think someone should inform her that a .22 round is much cheaper than medical.

whatever all the damn crazy people have bought the stores out ...have you tried to buy any lately?

It can still be found in most gun stores, just not in wally world. Hell, I will donate a round or two to the cause if need be.

Got any .380 you wanna donate to me? Not for assisted suicide purposes, but because the local gun store now charges $5 more a box than they did last time I bought it :sad:

escloflowneCHANGED

Thou shalt not kill.

So jesus would rather they suffer in pain for a long and arduous death!?

JustAboutDelicious_wechanged

Thou shalt not kill.

So jesus would rather they suffer in pain for a long and arduous death!?

You, yes
Me, no

BITEME_GRRR

"helping someone kill themselves" = "medically assisted suicide" = admitting your life has no more value


thats like handing a loaded gun to every depressed teenager and saying when you feel like **** I'll help you pull the trigger

Tatonka_usn

Got any .380 you wanna donate to me? Not for assisted suicide purposes, but because the local gun store now charges $5 more a box than they did last time I bought it :sad:

Count your blessings....I can't find any .40 ammo around to here to say my life. :grumble: :noway:

Alex_is_Hawks

It's really none of my business why someone wants to go unless they are family or close friends(and even then it's quesitonable if it's any of my busienss). If I were an outsider looking in, I would want my family member or friend to be evaluated by a mental health professional before pulling the plug. I would also like them to get a second and third opinion as to a cure. However, if all options have been exhausted, and they want to die to end a chronic illness that is causing the suffering, then I would want them to go peacefully. I would also not like the media to get involved becuase it's no one else's business what is going on. A moment like that would be hard enough without being scrutinized by the public.

i am not going to say if I am Pro choice or not, that is my business and no one else needs to know however.

What determines suffering? Who determines that? Who makes the benchmarks?

Why does suffering have to be present?

At what point can someone who is diagnosed with something terminal allowed to say "I want to kill myself due to the suffering" can they be preventative and do it before the suffering? Is mental suffering due to knowing about your diagnosis whether or not you feel all the debilitating symptoms enough?

Where do you determine that all the options have been explored? Again, who gets to determine that you've tried hard enough?

How does someone who (in a preventative manner) determines that they want suicide before they lose function of their mental and communicative faculties determine that they meant it once they HAVE lost their faculties?

What and where is true misery?

How does age affect this? What if it was a 6 year old versus a 75 year old? suffering is the same, outlook on life is the same, potential is the same? is one allowed and the other "horrific"?

There are so many questions that have to be fielded for this kind of discussion.

it's really not something to be tackled lightly on a fitness form.

Jus sayin

exmsde

Philosophically speaking, you own your body and you can do what you wish with it. Including taking your own life. The problem with the mental competency requirement is that wanting to commit suicide is treated as defacto proof that you are not mentally competent! It's clearly the wrong test. So there is definitely some mental status check required before society SANCTIONS suicide, but sanctioning and your natural rights are not the same thing.

In some cases circumstances can be on your side. If you are on dialysis for example, you can simply refuse treatment and it is not considered suicide. When my father was in his last days the doctors and nurses made it clear that this was an option (which in the end was not necessary).

Yes you can kill yourself without asking for legal permission. The problem is that anyone who assists you in any way can then be charged with a crime. I mean, the friend who buys you the box of .22s or enters the code to disable the limiter on the morphine drip can find themselves in prison. Once you are disabled you probably can't kill yourself without that assistance. And you definitely don't want a botched attempt. That's why some states (e.g., Oregon) do allow assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness. It's not really to protect the person who wants to die, its to protect those who assist them and make sure the means for doing humanely (for whatever current definition of humane is accepted) possible (e.g., morphine overdose rather than bullet in the head) are made available.

yoovie

Should be allowed if the person is in a decision to mentally handle the situation and speaks to a specialist first.

I dont think it is kind to FORCE a person to EXIST when they are tired and don't want to.

sijomial

My Dad died after a long drawn out decline due to an incurable degenerative illness.

The last few months were appalling for him, in pain, undignified and hooked up to a breathing machine in hospital which stripped him of all independance.

Had there been a way for him to be helped to die peacefully at a time of his chosing he would have taken that path with the full support of the family.

His courage was inspiring but no-one should have to endure what he went through.

kkzmom11

I think that it is the persons right IF they are legally sane and not suffering from a mental condition that makes it impossible for them to make an informed choice. Psychologists would/should be required to verify that the person is sane and capable of making their own informed decisions, just like we do before trials.

If they are and they still want it I think it is better for all to be done at a hospital than by themselves where a family or friend will most likely have to walk in on and find them.

But that is just my two cents..

i agree with this person. the person should only be allowed if they have been determined to be of sound mind.

yoovie

Unfortunately, half the country believes that in order to want to die - you are already proving that you are not of sound mind.

They believe that people who are born are required to stay alive until they die naturally or get sick or murdered. We do not get a choice, we are legally required to stay alive as long as possible, no matter how much it costs us and no matter if we can even be a functioning part of society or not. You are NOT allowed to die. It is a 'sin' or some fluff like that.

and it's hyper unfair.