Right to Die Issue Terminally Ill, Hopelessly Paralized, Etc..What Are Your Thoughts? (page 3)

What-A-Coincidence

get all GB in a room and bring on armageddon

I remember about 25 years ago we were on the highway at about 60 mph and as going by hospital a lady jumped from the bridge on to our line of traffic we missed her but a couple of other cars hit her. It was in my home town and the papers said this lady had attempted suicide before but was stopped well this time she succeeded.

I can't help but think of the mental torment she must have went thru in order to do what she did, I doubt if I could ever do that no matter how much pain I was in, but then again it is hard for me to sympathize with what it really must have been like for her. I would think that some one in that type of pain should also be allowed to die as painlessly and with as much dignity as possible.

I do feel also that there are some people because of severe economic problem or chronic depression should be allowed by the state to end there pain and suffering in a dignified way especially if no cure exist for them.

Any thought on this?

Farkel

I think the issue can be answered quite simply by asking the question: "who owns your life, you or the government?"

If one thinks the government owns your life, then I guess there is nothing else to say: you are dealing with a moron.

Farkel

frankiespeakin

Fark,

That sounds kind of simple, but the issue I think is more complicated than that, many people just don't know how to go about it painlessly but thanks to the Internet such knowledge is readily available that just wasn't the case when my sister was ill many years ago. Also nobody wants to go painfully and a botched job is even scarier, and the threat of being prosecuted often leaves only the victim with no help from friends to get the job done.

restrangled

Frankie, I agree....

Your father's situation and my sister's makes me think that if they where given a very clear picture by the doctors as to what would be the stages they would have to go thru and if they were given a choice of a painless death they would have chosen to die with dignity and in their own time thus giving them a measure of control back to them instead of waiting and suffering.

If /and or when something like this happens to me, I do not wish to prolong my life with the meds and tests now available. I have seen too much suffering at the end of life, trying to prolong the suffering of those that need to go. They lay in beds with catheters, and bed pans. They can't even watch television. They lay barely breathing with oxygen tanks, vomiting, unable to communicate... and in terrible pain, but according to the medical community they must be kept alive because they can do it and charge for it.

Thank God for Hospice.

r.

WTWizard

When people are forced to live, the reason is often so the Establishment can continue getting something out of them. Like when they refuse to pull the plug--as long as that plug is in place, the bill keeps running up. Someone has to pay that bill, and the doctors (and those who bought them out) get richer. If people were allowed to decide to die when hopelessly and terminally ill, that would cut off drug expenses and medical bills. It would also mean the next of kin would get money that otherwise would have gone to the drug companies (who are really running the world).

Now, of course, children should never be inculcated to die in preferance to a simple procedure that could give them a very good prognosis. The biggest example of this would be when a religion forces or coerces a child to refuse a blood transfusion that would almost certainly solve the problem, and the child dies because of that. In that case, the religion should bear the brunt of the responsibility. Adults, on the other hand (and I do not mean "mature(??)" minors, I mean people that are at least 18 and preferably 21, should have that right.

Snoozy

It would be a good idea if the insurance companies could rewrite their policies to cover suicide(assissted dying) in the case of terminally Ill patients. I can't see what the big deal would be as long as everything was legal and aboveboard.

Dying from a horrible disease is a cruel hell on earth way to die. I have seen too much of it. I don't think anyone wants to go that way.

Snoozy

sammielee24

I believe that a person should have a right to decide for themselves...Death with Dignity should be legal. sammieswife.

OLYMPIA, Wash. — A 66-year-old woman with terminal cancer has become the first person to die under Washington state's new assisted suicide law, an advocacy group said Friday.

Linda Fleming, of Sequim, died Thursday night after taking drugs prescribed under the "Death with Dignity" law that took effect in March, said Compassion & Choices of Washington.

The organization says Fleming was diagnosed last month with advanced pancreatic cancer. She would have had to have been diagnosed by two doctors as terminal in order to qualify for assisted suicide.

Officials with the advocacy group said Fleming died at home with her family, her dog and her physician at her bedside.

"The pain became unbearable, and it was only going to get worse," Fleming said in a statement released by the organization.

A physician prescribed the drugs, but patients in assisted suicides must administer the drugs themselves.

mamochan13

Elsewhere and Frankiespeak: I think you are talking about a slightly different group of people. I was part of that group after being DFd, too. So while I understand the profound mental anguish that leads one to believe death is the only viable option and one which will actually benefit everyone, I also believe there is a cure for that condition, unlike a person who is terminally ill. I survived, thank god, and I look back in horror at what might have happened and the awful long-term consequences for my family had I succeeded in that choice (even at that, there has been consequences).

Hope for a cure, I suppose, is one of those things which might cause families to resist carrying through on an individual's expressed wishes regarding his/her right to die. Unfortunately, the argument for choice is also one JWs use when it comes to refusing blood. Now, I think every person has the right to choose what treatment they will accept: i.e. do I take painful chemotherapy to sustain my life for a few more years, or do I take blood when it contradicts my deeply-held beliefs and will impact my emotional and mental health in an unacceptable way? I also think every person ultimately has the right to choose whether they wish to continue living when they are facing hopeless economic conditions or severe depression or other mental illness.

But where to draw the line? And who makes the decision whether there is no longer a cure or hope? If a person's thinking is distorted by mental illness or, arguably, by cult-speak, is their decision truly theirs? There have even been cases where terminal or hopeless patients have been "cured" and gone on to find quality of life. I'm thinking "quality of life" might be a key factor.

Right to Die Issue Terminally Ill, Hopelessly Paralized, Etc..What Are Your Thoughts?

Share this