Oregon - The Right to Die law upheld

[colgate]

Originally Posted by celticgent

ok, imagine that you were sentenced to that pain for the rest of your life.

your opinion of having the CHOICE to end your suffering might be different.

I'm with Prince on this. I don't look at the Bible as a fairy tale of improbable acts but rather a guide to how to live a good life. A cornerstone of the philosophy is that you fight through every challenge, never give up, never say die. It's written in the book of Job. No matter how crappy life gets, never give up. I think the book is right on this point.

[RcktS4]

Originally Posted by colgate

I'm with Prince on this. I don't look at the Bible as a fairy tale of improbable acts but rather a guide to how to live a good life. A cornerstone of the philosophy is that you fight through every challenge, never give up, never say die. It's written in the book of Job. No matter how crappy life gets, never give up. I think the book is right on this point.

Yes - but do you also believe that the federal government shoul force its citizens to subscribe to this view, regardless of their own beliefs?

[celticgent]

exactly.

i shouldn't have to stop eating ham because the orthodox jews can't,

i shouldn't have to be a virgin until i'm married because some christians tell me i'm a sinner otherwise,

and i shouldn't have to be forced to live in pain because somebody tells me that their god 'says' it's a sin.

[punch]

Suicide? What are you talking about? The sciptures and traditional writings say much about falling into the trap of despondency. That is the mortal sin. But what of the person who throws himself on a grenade to save others around him? Is he going to hell? Was not Christ's death a suicide since, as God, he could have prevented it at any time? Or what about the person terminally ill who sees everything that he left behind for his family being eaten up by medical bills so the doctors that can do nothing for him get to make payments on their Lexus. So he blows his head off, not out of despondency, but out of love for his family? I am glad that God will judge him and not some member of a latecomer Protestant cult.

For my part, I strongly believe in a person's right to refuse life prolonging (if you can call it life) medical treatment and choose to die. I have instructed my family that if I become terminally ill, I want them to find a dealer and get me as much heroin as they can. I want to spend my last few weeks on this earth happy, not hooked up to some machine while a bunch of people in white coats use me (or my insurance company) as a golden goat.

[colgate]

Originally Posted by RcktS4

Yes - but do you also believe that the federal government shoul force its citizens to subscribe to this view, regardless of their own beliefs?

Nobody's forcing you to keep breathing. I'm pretty sure you can kill yourself today if you so choose. My concern is about turning the decision over to others. If you want to kill yourself, I think the government frowns upon the act but really, what can they do about it? They don't want doctors assisting in the act. Dying and pain are the inevitable consequences of being alive.

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by punch

I have instructed my family that if I become terminally ill, I want them to find a dealer and get me as much heroin as they can. I want to spend my last few weeks on this earth happy, not hooked up to some machine while a bunch of people in white coats use me (or my insurance company) as a golden goat.

Believe me, that is no picnic either. After witnessing first hand death with pain or death while heavily medicated, Id choose the pain. Thats just me.



You all realize that this would be a non-issue if it weren't for gun control.

[RcktS4]

Originally Posted by colgate

Nobody's forcing you to keep breathing. I'm pretty sure you can kill yourself today if you so choose. My concern is about turning the decision over to others. If you want to kill yourself, I think the government frowns upon the act but really, what can they do about it? They don't want doctors assisting in the act. Dying and pain are the inevitable consequences of being alive.

sigh - listen - can we at least talk about what the law actually says? It turns the decision over to no one but the sufferer. The doctor can prescribe only to THEM, and the sufferer is the only one who can administer to him/her self. This just makes it possible for a certain, very narrowly defined group of terminally ill people. Here's a summary from the Washington Post's article on the ruling.

Originally Posted by Washington Post

The law exempts from civil or criminal liability state-licensed doctors who dispense or prescribe a lethal dose of drugs at the request of a terminally ill patient. The patient must receive a diagnosis from an attending physician that an incurable and irreversible disease will cause death within six months. The doctor must determine whether the patient's request is voluntary and informed and must make a referral for counseling if there are any indications of a psychological disorder or depression.

A second, consulting doctor must examine the patient and the medical record and confirm the attending physician's conclusion. Doctors may dispense or issue a prescription for the lethal drug dose under the Oregon law but may not administer it.

[colgate]

Originally Posted by RcktS4

sigh - listen - can we at least talk about what the law actually says? It turns the decision over to no one but the sufferer. The doctor can prescribe only to THEM, and the sufferer is the only one who can administer to him/her self. This just makes it possible for a certain, very narrowly defined group of terminally ill people. Here's a summary from the Washington Post's article on the ruling.

Thanks. I am against it. Yeah, govt does kind of set the tone of debate. Just as the govt of Iran is busy turning suicide into an act of heroism I prefer my govt keep treating it as an act of cowardice. But, again, that's me.

[RcktS4]

Originally Posted by colgate

Thanks. I am against it. Yeah, govt does kind of set the tone of debate. Just as the govt of Iran is busy turning suicide into an act of heroism I prefer my govt keep treating it as an act of cowardice. But, again, that's me.

I can understand your position, and that's cool with me. I just don't want to see people misunderstanding what it says, as though this was some sort of "let your family have you killed" law.

[colgate]

Originally Posted by RcktS4

sigh - listen - can we at least talk about what the law actually says? It turns the decision over to no one but the sufferer. The doctor can prescribe only to THEM, and the sufferer is the only one who can administer to him/her self. This just makes it possible for a certain, very narrowly defined group of terminally ill people. Here's a summary from the Washington Post's article on the ruling.

Good debate. Like AA writes, can of worms. Cowardice was a bad term for what I was trying to convey. But anyway.

Man I keep editing this because I want to think like a guy hooked to the machine keeping him alive. I guess if the guy says stop it, let me live unassisted and is of sound mind, then pull the plug. Isn't that happening today? I didn't say give him a fatal dose of morphine. I wrote pull the plug on machines doing the living for him. Let him die naturally if that is the inevitable outcome.

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by RcktS4

I can understand your position, and that's cool with me. I just don't want to see people misunderstanding what it says, as though this was some sort of "let your family have you killed" law.

The problem is that it will, inevitably, come down to that. The boundaries of the law will be challenged.

Let's say Joe Sickdude has terminal cancer, bone cancer. He also has a living will stating that should he be terminally ill, two drs...., 6 months to live..., etc, he wants to be killed.

The problem is that because of the cancer, Joe's blood calcium count has skyrocketed...causing dementia. On top of that, he is on pain medicine to manage the pain. He can't walk, and is sure to die within months. He is essentially a vegetable, but he is still in pain and still has some amount of consciousness.

He cannot physically speak for himself requesting suicide at this moment, but he made it perfectly clear that should this happen, he wants to die. In addition, two doctors have signed off and the prognosis is very grim. Should this be allowed?

Going the next step...same situation, but Joe never wrote that living will...he did, however, make mention of his desires (should this situation occur) shortly before the prognosis was given (and obviously before the dementia). He told his wife, children, and his lawyer. Should it be allowed?

The only difference between these cases and the model given in the law is the fact that he made his request before the prognosis. Is the request still valid? And is the family at liberty to carry out the request on his behalf?

[celticgent]

Originally Posted by AAlmeter

Going the next step...same situation, but Joe never wrote that living will...?

well, here's Joe's chance.

http://www.hcdecisions.org/HCD_forms.pdf

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by celticgent

well, here's Joe's chance.

http://www.hcdecisions.org/HCD_forms.pdf

Yes, but does that apply to the new law? Would it be honored? Can a life/death decision be considered valid when one person makes it based on an "if come" situation compared to the point where they are living it daily? I think everyone can see how easy it would be to say "I'd tough it out" without being in pain, and also how easy it is to say "Kill me" without being at the moment where they are taking what would be their last look at their 7 month old granddaughter.

More technically, I just don't buy into this law. I am, as I stated, all for right to die, but I don't think more layers of laws and government are the way to handle it. I still predict that no one will get a swift, painless death. It will be dragged out in courtrooms, putting the families through hell, ruining doctors careers, getting lawyers rich, and getting the Holy Most Rev Jackson some air-time.

[Roger Miller"]

News to me that i needed help or a law to end my life.

_____
rm

[Hammerhead]

Greg, I'm with you. I support this practice for the same reason as I support RKBA and other similar personal choice decisions. I just don't believe it's the place of government to interfere in our lives. I can't think of a single instance where forcing someone who's an invalid, terminally ill, or in pain, to endure that existence because some twit with a fountain pen decided he cornered the market on all the answers.