March 20, 2008
-
Right To Die
A woman from France died after suffering from a facial tumor.
She was in national news in France when she requested a doctor-assisted suicide. She was a school teacher and a mother. She had a rare form of cancer. The illness “left her blind, and with no sense of smell or taste.” She could not use morphine because she had side effects.
She wanted to receive a lethal dose of barbiturates under a doctor’s supervision. According to the article, euthanasia is allowed in Belgium and the Netherlands. Here is the link: Link
Do you think a person has a right to a doctor-assisted suicide?
Comments (162)
Yes.
without question.
Yes. No one should have to suffer like that!!!!
this isn’t some emo teenager begging for help committing suicide over a temporary problem. this is a woman who’ll suffer and suffer and suffer without an end in sight, until she dies.
Yes.
Yes.
definitely.
especially if there is no cure.
I have to say no, as difficult as that is. I’m sure I’ll catch flack from other commenters on this one.
I think so.
xo
under this circumstance, yes. i’d say only if they have a painful terminal disease and have consulted a doctor
If your going to kill yourself I think you should do it alone…
It would be nice if drugs were available for someone… Oh wait there are! Phsst…
yes..i did a whole speech on it in high school
Yes.
Yes. If one is suffering so much from physical pain, why not?
Um, yeah. Ew?
Definitely!!!
Yes.
I think if they can be proven of clear and conscience mind, then yes.
Absolutely.
No. Nobody put me out of my misery…so everyone else needs to feel suffering, it’s only fair.
I think so in these types of conditions, where there is absolutely nothing more that can be done and no pain medication can be given.
Yes I do. I would prefer a death with dignity, thank you.
No…if you’re gonna commit suicide, do it by yourself! Dont have a freakin doctor help you out.
Yes.
Let anyone just kill themselves. Who should stop someone from ending their misery?
The government!
Yes! Poor woman….
I will hesitantly say yes.
Of course.
Death with dignity. If she wants it, who has any right to control her life more than she does?
OUCH
oh, that poor poor woman
i’m on the line with this one, more towards yes though
Without a doubt.
Yes
::nods::
Yes.
yeah..
YES.
Only if the person’s unable to carry it out by himself. Why lay a guilt trip on somebody else?
Yes. And I must say I’m pleasantly surprised by all the other yes responses.
@SpringBackLovesYall - .
@angi1972 -
Um, hey guys, what if you’re PARALYZED? You might need a little help killing yourself if that were the case.
Or in the case of the woman, with the facial deformities and blindness, she might not be able to measure out a lethal dose of anything or swallow it. She’d probably need an injection, which I imagine is difficult to do if you can’t see.
After seeing the way a couple of my grandparents went (not to mention that to let Terry Shiavo die they had to STARVE her to death since you can’t give life ending drugs and she could breathe unaided), I am a strong supporter of legalizing euthanasia. I would like to die with the dignity that we think nothing of giving a beloved pet, rather than face the potential reality of a prolonged period of abject incurable misery.
Ahhh, such a hard question. I just think suicide is so… pointless, for the most part. I mean, once it’s done… it’s done. That’s it. No more decisions. No more anything.
But I probably get that feeling because I also think that suicide as an ‘option’ is overused. I suppose there are probably “worthy” reasons.
I don’t believe in suicide and I realize that I’m not in her position. I would have to say though, it’s her body, her life, she’s not harming another, I guess it should be legal. That’s sad.
@shellybean99 - VERY good point… Sorry I got carried away being a smart alec and didn’t consider the WHOLE angle…
Yes… but only by skydive. If I were her, I’d have someone shove me out of a plane without a parachute. Have me land over the ocean so that animals will eat me, then poop me out and then I would fertilize the seabed where sea plant life will grow, and then the circle will be complete. I have no idea what that means so don’t ask.
If I want to snuff it, damn it, I will. Screw being blind and all that. Cancer’s going to get you anyways
There is a slippery slope with this, and I am one in the minority as I say no. The law cannot sanction giving people death as a medical treatment, because death ISN’T a medical treatment. We should be more focused on trying to cure these people, not killing off those who are problematic. I can see special cases being granted for especially painful conditions such as this, and I do think THIS particular woman should probably be allowed to die…but to answer your question, in general, no.
I can just imagine the torrent of cases of family members urging their sick relatives to just throw in the towel and ask for death rather than pay the price of being hospitalized. I mean, they’re not legally required to pay, so you could argue that they just don’t have to pay. But it is socially required family members pay for dying relatives, to do otherwise would result in the person being shunned.
Get what I’m saying?
-David
YES. Every mentally competent adult should have the right to do as he wants with his own body!
I should think that finding a doctor that will perform the procedure, NOT government intervention, ought to be the biggest stumbling block.
Most definitely. Without question.
@Direshark - If those people really don’t care about their relatives anyway, then why would they be paying for their hospital care, social stigma or no?
We’re not talking about murder here. We’re talking about competent adults (or previously competent adults with well-documented living wills) making decisions about their own body. I think that distinction would have to change your argument.
@Kestryl - Legally, most teenagers are too young to get medical procedures without parental consent anyway, particularly the emo ones. If a 14-year-old wants to kill himself, it would be illegal at least until he’s 18. But if someone is 18 and really wants to kill themselves, if they can find a doctor who is willing to perform the injection/procedure, then the government should never stand in the way.
Yes.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - heh. way to take me far too literally.
Yes. Without a doubt.
When I think of what my mother went through, I wish we could have given her some dignity.
As it was, she died under extremely suspicious circumstances. I think she overdosed herself. My whole family does. But because she had so many health problems, an autopsy was not performed. I wish I could say that my mother had some sort of dignity in her last minutes.
My eight year old sister found her dead, really, I was supposed to find her, but I went out. What is that? Is that fair?
None of us felt it was fair. Keeping someone alive who doesn’t want to be makes no sense.
Yes
@la_faerie_joyeuse - All I’m saying, is there is a huge possibility of abuse. I think plenty of family’s just might encourage their sick relatives into asking for suicide just so that they don’t have to pay for the bills. Take a family living in poverty, and a person who has cancer (not mild, but not end-stage). This person can still live for quite a long time if they get the right treatment, but the family doesn’t have the money for it. They’re not going to stop paying for them (they either love the person or they’re worried about the social stigma) so they just might be tempted into trying to convince that sick family member that the end is near, and they need to throw the towel in.
-David
Do you think a person has a right to a doctor-assisted suicide?
No. I object on philosphic grounds. The resources and directive of the physician should be to heal– to cultivate the quality and sanctity of life. If the woman wants to die, she can kill herself on her own.
well yes. however in the absence of the granting of that right as in many “civilized” nations there are alternative methods. obtain the meds yourself and do it yourself. but don’t listen to me if that is what you are looking for since your relatives will try and sue later.
How courageous to have endured that long! Yes, she should be allowed to end her pain a little early.
@Direshark -
@huginn -
I’m impressed at your answers. You actually answered the opposite of what I would have expected, and backed your responses quite well. My view isn’t quite as well formed on this issue, but I think I would agree with both of you on this one. Kudos.
Yes.
@Direshark -
There are arguments with some validity to make against doctor-assisted suicide. The one you gave is pretty weak though. If anything the situation would be the exact opposite in the example you gave. Loved ones, in my opinion, would be much more in favor of keeping the suffering person alive, no matter the financial cost, while the suffering person might feel an enormous amount of guilt knowing that the cost of keeping them alive is financially destroying their family.
Yes, if people want to die, let them. We have freedom of choice don’t we?
and i do acknowledge that there are certainly cases in which the self-obtained method is not viable. however sign a damn living will and push for a generalized reduction of gov’t mandated control over personal lives.
in cases like these, YES
Yes, especially because the article says she had horrible eye pain that she couldn’t take anything for. I can’t imagine living like that, in constant terrible pain and not even being able to take something for it. That’s terrible.
Yes, but…
Is it just me, or did you get an impression of “Hunchback of Notre Dame”?
I think it is okay for doctors to do this in cases such as the one like this. If it’s simply someone who has lost the will to live, asking for a doses of barbiturates, definitely no. But when someone is in pain like that, it is definitely acceptable.
@huginn -
How about the example of of one of the first cases of euthanasia that made it a relevant topic in the United States. I read over it for a paper awhile ago so I might get some details wrong, but it goes something along the lines of: A woman in the early 1900′s (or late 1800′s) tries to commit suicide by pouring lamp oil on herself and lighting herself on fire. Her effort fails though (I think due to outside assistance). The doctor is called to the house and finds a woman completely charred, with little to no hope of survival in absolute extreme agony. So does the doctor let her die on her own, in the next few hours or day or so, or does he finish the job she started and end her pointless suffering? He chose the latter and gave her an overdose of painkillers.
“The resources and directive of the physician should be to heal– to cultivate the quality
and
sanctity of life.”
Then doctors should not be involved in administering lethal injections (I’m not sure who administers them, but I am thinking it needs to be a person with a medical background) or abortions (not to get into the arguement on where life begins, but to cultivate life would mean not acting to prevent it from happening).
When I think of the moral duties of a doctor I think of a duty that involves easing suffering and healing when possible. If healing is not possible, then there only role switches to easing suffering, whatever form that takes.
@whataboutbahb - I’m speaking on what can happen theoretically, which is what I think we should argue from, because what can happen theoretically will happen, given the possibilities of abuse. Your example suggestion comes from a family very compassionate for their loved ones. While this can and would happen in that situation, imagine if you will, the spectrum of compassion. Towards one end, you have a family that’ll give everything for their loved ones. To the other, you have a family that cares nothing for the person. In between, you have all sorts of different cases where love might outweigh costs or costs might outweigh love, depending on the said variables. Anything but the far extreme of the compassionate side will feel tempted to convince their relative into euthanasia, granted that they have to pay enough money. This is murder. Convincing anyone into suicide by our laws is indeed murder. And this will open the door for these cases to happen far more often.
To those who say that the family never had to pay, well, that too depends. I believe married spouses have to pay for health care, I’m not sure though. And I’m positive parents must pay for their children. If they simply don’t want to pay the amount, then this euthanasia will be an option to them.
Think about it.
-David
hell yeah! I am all for human euthanasia. too bad Jack Kavorkian is dying. sniff.
Why do you post gross pictures?
lol. Yes, I think people should be able to have themselves put to rest. Jack Kavorkian (spelled wrong) shouldn’t have been charged.
YES.
One of the largest concerns in the area of doctor-assisted suicide is the issue of consent. I’ll expound on this later, but right now I got to be somewhere.
I hate to condone suicide but she should have been allowed to die instead of suffer.
@Direshark -
“And I’m positive parents must pay for their children. If they simply
don’t want to pay the amount, then this euthanasia will be an option to
them.”
In the case of parents, that wouldn’t matter since parents have the legal obligation to make decisions like that for their children. So they wouldn’t have to convince the kids of anything.
As for for your other examples- family members are under no obligation to pay other members’ hospital bills. I’m not sure between husband and wife as well, but I think I agree that they at least take on the debt the other spouse incurs. But what type of people would really try to convince a loved one to kill themselves to save some money, unless there is no chance of recovery? And if there is no chance of recovery and their death is imminent, then to me that seems like an important discussion to have, especially if the welfare of children is involved.
All in all, if you want to make an arguement against doctor-assisted suicide focus on the issue of consent and the huge gray area that exists on what is a valid level of consent or not, and the slippery slope that happens.
Oregon got the Death with Dignity Act law.
@whataboutbahb - How about the example of of one of the first cases of euthanasia.. A woman in the early 1900′s (or late 1800′s) tries to commit suicide by pouring lamp oil on herself and lighting herself on fire. Her effort fails…completely charred, with little to no hope of survival in absolute extreme agony…
I guess we can chalk that one up to that woman’s stupidity or thoughtlessness. There are means of suicide with less suffering and higher success rate.
But more on point: Measured against the absoluteness of death, a few days of suffering doesn’t seem that big of a deal. Modern medicine makes avaliable to doctors tools and drugs to ease the suffering of terminally ill patients.
Then doctors should not be involved in administering lethal injections…
The role fo the executioner is different from the role of a physician.
…or abortions (not to get into the arguement on where life begins, but to cultivate life would mean not acting to prevent it from happening).
Ending the potential of life is a bit different from ending actual life.
When I think of the moral duties of a doctor I think of a duty that involves easing suffering and healing when possible. If healing is not possible, then there only role switches to easing suffering, whatever form that takes.
Suffering can be eased without having to resort to euthanasia.
YES
@whataboutbahb - “But what type of people would really try to convince a loved one to
kill themselves to save some money, unless there is no chance of
recovery?”
It appears that our misunderstanding is connected to our views on humanity. I’d love to be idealistic but there are very many people out there who wouldn’t mind abusing this system. And there are plenty of people out there who, while they love their family, love money more.
I agree about the gray area of consent, but I’m not up to date on consent laws and do not presume to make a case on it.
Instead, I’ve allowed a theoretical possibility which will happen if we were to allow it. Your optimism of the goodness of humanity only goes so far…mark my words, you can never count on the general benevolence of humanity to put things straight! If that were the case, we wouldn’t need laws at all. “What kind of person murders someone?” You may have just as well asked me that when you asked “What kind of person cares for money more than their family?” Do we still need laws against murder? Absolutely.
Prosecutors would be flooded with cases of murder like this and suspecting family members of having tried to convince their sick relatives into consenting to assisted suicide… I personally think it’d be a legal nightmare.
-David
If your face is like that and you can’t smell or taste or see? Yeah.
Anyone read Ian McEwan’s Amsterdam? I think it won the Booker a few years back.
the life is hers to decide on what to do with it, but i just don’t think i’d be the doctor to help her out… i couldn’t live with it.
what about her kid? granted, she can’t quite take care of herself not to mention the little one, but still, the role of a motherly figure is important in development of a child, no?
Yes.. this is really painful
@Jiffipop - Was I supposed to laugh at that? I feel guilty… oh well.
@whataboutbahb - Great point.
@Direshark - I wouldn’t say they love money more… some families simply just don’t have the money to keep their loved ones alive (or healed) to begin with. I work in a Children’s Hospital that pays for almost everything, but only a limited number of children receive benefits. The others suffer longer or die earlier.
But you’re right; it would open a can of worms. I think that the consent laws would have to be VERY strict and incredibly supported… and still, there would be lawsuits and murder charges galore. I do think we need consent laws though, but technically it’s against Hippocratic oath for a doctor to do that. I think Oregon has a “Death with Dignity” law, but I know it’s been abused.
@huginn -
“The role fo the executioner is different from the role of a physician.”
Some states require a physician to be present, some states use EMT’s to give the injection (or insert the IV’s). The role of a medical expert is required for this, so it is not like they are taking on a whole different role. There medical expertise is the reason they have this role.
“Measured against the absoluteness of death, a few days of suffering doesn’t seem that big of a deal.”
So you would prefer absolute agony for a few days and then death instead of just agony for an hour or so and then death? I would be in favor of choosing the later, but that’s just me.
“Modern medicine makes avaliable to doctors tools and drugs to ease the suffering of terminally ill patients.”
You know you build a resistance to painkillers right? There are plenty of terminally ill people you can go find and talk to who have a high quality of medical care for them, but are still in enormous amounts of pain, all of the time. Modern medicine isn’t magic, there are limits.
“Suffering can be eased without having to resort to euthanasia.”
Sometimes there are no viable options left but delaying the inevitable or accepting it. And when the first path involves enormous suffering and the second saves that person from that pain, it seems only logical to end the suffering (in some cases).
My God, yes. Just end it. People should have the right to control their lives, and that means whether if they want to end it or not, the government doesn’t have the right to regulate that.
@adifferentkindofbeautiful - you could laugh if you want, but you don’t have to. I wasn’t making fun of her situation. I was just saying how I would want to go if I couldn’t see, taste, or smell (I can’t do two of the three so I’m almost there myself, haha).
I don’t think so, but I do think that this is a very sad story
Absolutely.*.on a case by case basis..and THIS is one of those cases in my opinion…take care..Lee
ps..even sadder if someone had to resort to suicide…*
@Direshark -
“Prosecutors would be flooded with cases of murder like this and
suspecting family members of having tried to convince their sick
relatives into consenting to assisted suicide… I personally think
it’d be a legal nightmare.”
The amount of cases like this would be very minimum, just for the fact that the amount of people who would seek doctor-assisted suicide would be very small. Most sick people have the capability of commiting suicide very easily. Why would they go to the effort of paying money for a lawyer to write up the proper legal forms and paying the doctor to do something they could do themselves? The issue of doctor-assisted suicide usually only involves the cases of people with very limited mobility who really are not physically capable of killing themselves. And they face legal consequences if a loved one attempts to assist them. So their best option would be a professional doctor.
And for the last time, what relatives, who don’t care to much about other relatives, pay for their hospital bills? That whole premise is somewhat ludicrous. And if a family member can be convinced to seek physician-assisted suicide, what is the problem anyways? Unless coercion was involved, it’s still a valid choice by that person. If they want to trust in the guidance of twisted family members who just want them dead, the government should not get involved. I mean, it would be perfectly legal if i was a 18 year old boy who convinced my girlfriend to get an abortion because I didn’t want to get a job to pay for the kid. It is still her decision though.
From a legal perspective it would be an almost impossible case to prosecute someone for murder for “convincing” someone to commit suicide. People let other people convince themselves to do things all the time, some smart, some stupid. In the end the responsibility lies on the person who ultimately makes the decision though.
@Jiffipop - I know you weren’t. What a creative way to go… with my luck, I wouldn’t die from jumping- I’d just look terrible.
She had the right to live, so why not the right to die?
Of course!
Yes.
Thats an awesome looking picture….
@Direshark -
“I agree about the gray area of consent, but I’m not up to date on consent laws and do not presume to make a case on it.”
This arguement basically focuses on if the patient is mentally competent to make the decision or not. If the decision has already been made in a will, then it is different. But if a person is terminally ill and in a constant state of enormous pain, then competence is very hard to determine. If a person doesn’t have a rational understanding their various options and the consequences of them, then they can’t make a decision like that. It’s the same principle that guides contract law. If a person is not competent at the time of signing/agreeing to a contract, the contract is invalid. Proving the competency of some of these suffering people becomes a sticky issue, especially if you involve fact scenarios that include chance of survival, chance of recovery, etc, yet the patient still wants to die. I mean do you allow it no matter the percentage of recovery? Do you actually define a percentage and apply it to law, when all these percentages are usually just educated guesses in the first place? If a person was obviously mentally unstable, is that basically murder on the doctor’s part?
@whataboutbahb - They’d get lawyers to draft up papers and whatnot documenting it because that’s legal. I suppose you could argue some families might convince the person to kill themself in a non-official manner but a case like that is scoured for any signs of foul play, whereas with this euthanasia, it’d be a completely legally sanctioned act.
Relatives who do pay for hospital bills and might consider this act include those who have to pay by law (possibly parents, spouses, etc.) and those who do care about their relatives but only so long as they don’t cost them more than (insert random number here) dollars.
Placing undue pressure on someone to commit suicide, I believe, makes you responsible for their death and thus is illegal as it’s murder. I’m not the sharpest on these laws but I believe this is how it is. I’ve heard of a good amount of cases involving this.
-David
@whataboutbahb - I have to go to a mathematics exam. I will return!
-David
No.
@jelli_s - Yes, we have freedom of choice, but why choose death, when life is still available?
Sure, people have freedom of choices and requests, but doctor’s are under oath. Depending on the law of the country too =] I think people can, but I personally think only God can make the decision. Does that make sense? I mean, people play the role of God too much. =/ If God wants someone to live, maybe they have a purpose in life. If God takes someone away, than it is what it is.
x0x MK
You really bring out the best in some people, Dan.
Yes, I absolutely do. Killing yourself is not as easy as some people seem to think. Trust me…
I’ve tried.
As long as they are mentally stable, yes.
Yes!!
Why do we assume that there is merit in seeking to escape from enormous suffering or to take at face value the diagnosis of a condition as being terminal? Is there no merit in enduring suffering? Perhaps for the benefit of others who may come behind us? Are doctors not sometimes mistaken in their prognosis? Do miracles never happen?
I ask these questions because 19 months ago I was diagnosed with a glioblastoma level 4 brain tumor, which was surgically removed. Because of the aggressive nature of this brain cancer, I was told after the surgery that my prognosis presented a median lifespan of 4-6 months. That was obviously some time ago.
However, notwithstanding the skills of the doctors who are helping me, none of them created the cells in my brain, and none of them sustains those cells. I’m trusting God — the author and sustainer of every cell in each of our bodies — to do what He deems best. One of the things I’m doing is participating in a clinical trial of a new medication. If the clinical trial succeeds, then this medication will be available to other brain cancer patients.
In short, faced with a terminal diagnosis with a very short timeline, I have chosen to pursue life wherever I can, and to take what might otherwise be viewed as a tragic situation and turn it into something that benefits others.
Obviously, everyone faced with such dire circumstances has to make their own choices, but even in the case of this disfigured woman, I do not understand why she would choose death while life was still available.
On one hand I want to say yes, but look where it has lead in the Netherlands – euthinasia in all kinds of hideious circumstances, for children, old people, etc. I’m afraid it would lead to convience killings of unwanted people.
@Laserlawyer - AWESOME!!!
I feel so sorry for her… That’s all I can think of right now.
They have a right to suicide so why not doctor assisted suicide?
there are thousands who suffer like her and even worse. there should at least be adequate pain relief or a suicide option made available to them. they deserve their dignity and the peace they seek.
yes, yes absolutely.
why make a person suffer and hate life even more than it is?
The poor woman was probably eager to be rid of life’s burdens.
Yes.
God, that makes me want to cry for her…
<33
Of course they should be able to choose ; if they are of sane mind of course. After much planning and counselling.
I think in her situation, its shows that there needs to be a right to die.
yes and no. I think that if a person is of sound mind and has a life threatening condition and all treatment options have been exhausted, then yes. My only reservation would be in the case of mental illness (both as someone who lives with it and whose spouse does as well).
Absolutely.
Yes.
Yes. They’re not being emo and all “I hate my life, kill me”- they’re sick, and they’re going to die anyway. It’s a miserable situation contemplating your death and suffering.
If they’re in pain, sure.
No. Doctors take an oath to heal and not harm.
Definitely, but I think it depends on the circumstances. This woman, yes. A person who is clinically depressed and has not tried all other methods? No.
@Direshark -
“I suppose you could argue some families might convince the person to
kill themself in a non-official manner but a case like that is scoured
for any signs of foul play, whereas with this euthanasia, it’d be a
completely legally sanctioned act.”
Actually, that is completely backwards. The person would be better off killing themselves, if possible, then involving a 3rd party. Even if doctor-assisted suicide was legal, the situation itself would be highly scrutinized to make sure proper consent was given, and the patient was of sound mind. If a patient did it themselves and left a note….those are usually open and closed cases, except in extreme circumstances. It might make a person more likely to commit suicide, if societal views began to reflect the legalization, but it would not open a floodgate of suicides as a result of family pressure to save money. Also another thing to consider, from a greedy family member point of view, if a person is about to die somewhat soon anyways, it would be better for that person to die naturally- that way the life insurance can be collected, if there is any.
“Placing undue pressure on someone to commit suicide, I believe, makes
you responsible for their death and thus is illegal as it’s murder. I’m
not the sharpest on these laws but I believe this is how it is. I’ve
heard of a good amount of cases involving this.”
Legally, no it doesn’t. If a person is coerced into committing suicide, that is a different story, but still a very hard case to prove.
Take for example the recent myspace case where the teenage girl, Megan Meier, hung herself after being harassed by a friend through a fake myspace account. The friend posted insulting bulletins and the last message sent Megan allegedly stated “The world would be a better place without you.” Horrible right? Yet no charges where brought against the friend or her mother, who created the account. Was this person inadvertently putting undue pressure on someone (who they knew had depression issues) to commit suicide? Yes, the girl hung herself shortly after seeing the last message. Is it murder though? No. If this was in real life it would more than likely constitute harassment, but since it occurred online the laws have yet to catch up with technology. The main point remains that, from a legal stand point, putting pressure on someone to commit suicide, if all it consists of is verbal communication and does not involve threats, is not murder. If you have cases that show otherwise I’d be interested in seeing them.
This arguement has a little more validity when changed slightly around in a universal healthcare country. Then the hospital staff and its doctors can potentially be put in a situation where encouraging certain patients to accept suicide would increase the level of care and money available to devote to care for more “viable” patients. Or just save the hospital money, since it has no personal ties to the patient.
In her case yes, why would you want someone to continue such pain?
In her case, yes. She looks miserable.
I think this post shed some new tear on the topic euthanasia.
After all, it’s not only about how to die, it’s also about how to live
@whataboutbahb - Indeed, I have seen the light of your main points, and now confess that I was initially wrong in my thoughts. I do insist, however, that while you have shown my case to be impractical and probably rare given that situation, it remains a possibility within certain scenarios and certain fiscal situations (i.e. forced to pay for them yet they lie in a hospital physically unable to kil themselves). Once again, probably a rare case, but this is within the realm of possibility, and undoubtedly would happen granted such a freedom.
In other news, however, you brought up the very case I wanted to discuss when I said “I’ve heard many cases regarding this”. The fact is, is that charges would have been brought up against that family for co-ercion but they, for some reason, could not find the statement the dad had supposedly found where she directly told her to kill herself. For some odd reason the FBI was not able to find this bit of evidence and they did not have a case of co-ercion into suicide – only harassment.
Anyway, I leave you with that. I have to go study econ for now.
-David
Yep.
@Laserlawyer -
Well, she isn’t asking you to understand. No one is. I’d like to think I’d make the same decision as you, faced with those odds, and I commend you for it. But, just like everything else, this is her choice to make, at peace with her conscience.
@Direshark -
I just typed a long response that got lost with a mishap in my hyperlink effort. So here is the abbreviated version-
In my opinion it is doubtful that there is much of a criminal case versus the mother or daughter for their contribution to megan’s suicide, even if that message was found.
Missouri state law does not specifically address the issue of coercing a person into committing suicide and the County Prosecutor himself stated that he did not think there were any laws that were broken when he had briefly reviewed the case. link
The fact remains that coercing a person into suicide does not constitute murder, no matter what state law you are looking are. Here is a link that describes assisted suicide crimes (which include coercion in some states) and their punishments. I looked over a few and all I could find was medium to light sentences for coercing a person into committing suicide; Illinois the punishment was 3-5 years, Connecticut was a sentence no longer then 10 years.
I agree with you that your example is not outside of the realm of possiblity, and it might have already have happened before. But I would think cases like this would be rare, and hopefully any states that legalized physician assisted suicide would address this problem with either case law or state statutes that identified coercing a person into seeking a physician assisted suicide by use of 1) threats, 2) force, or 3) extreme psychological abuse would be a punishable offense. I still remain of the opinion that it shouldn’t be a crime for a family member to suggest or even say to patient x that it might be better for everyone if patient x were to seek a physician assisted suicide. Asking or telling in and of itself is not coercion.
Man that was annoying to rewrite.
Yes.
We put animals to sleep to keep them from suffering unnecessarily. Why not grant human beings the same kindness and respect?
ethically speaking, she has the right to choose for herself. and if it’s legal, she has the right to it.
however, i believe that instead of surrendering herself to death, she can surrender herself to God instead. I know it sounds very difficult to point it out in her condition but there is no dignity in dying – only living. So i think if she has this cancer and she hasn’t died yet, i believe God gave her the condition for a purpose and that the purpose isn’t death. I believe God gives us suffering to train us to be fit to fulfill our purpose on earth. If we surrender ourselves truly to him with thanks and exaltation, then He’ll help us through ANYTHING. And it doesn’t apply only to us regular people, it applies to her too.
@princess_serenity07 -
I totally agree with what you said about suffering being one of God’s training tools. The bottom line is that when someone is faced with a horrible illness, the choice they have is whether to trust in the strength that God can provide and get to know Him better (which is eternal life), or to trust in their own strength (which is a kind of death).
When someone is trusting in their own strength, I completely understand how they can reach a point of despondency and simply want the suffering to end by any means necessary, including suicide. But I still say they have another choice. They can choose not to act as if they were autonomous and they can choose instead to acknowledge that they did not bring themselves into this world, so what right do they have to take themselves out?
This is a very touchy subject. It’s humane to put pets to sleep if they are suffering, so why not people? Pets are different that people. From a Christian perspective no, life is sacred. From a humanitarian perspective, why would you want to suffer more than necessary.
If I were hooked up to machines, I would want the plug released and let God decide. Other than that, I really don’t know.
Yes, if that’s due to endless suffering from terminal disease. ..
Yes, definitely.
yes i do, in these cases..obviously not for the run of the mill i lost my job joe, but yes i believe in it.
@Direshark - Ok, I understand your point. I don’t get, though, how that connects with a reason to ban or limit euthanasia.
yes !
Look at here, what kind of life is that?
I have always thought that the right to live includes the right to die.
Currently, according to law, they don’t. I think this is unmerciful. We provide better for our pets who are suffering and in pain.
I think a simple yes or no may not be an adequate answer. I lean towards the no side of things. I am disturbed by the conditions this leads to for society.
@Direshark - On your original post, there are two things that I have issue with. The first of which is that it isn’t a medical procedure ergo the government can’t sanction it as one, and the second being family disposal.
According the OED, medical is an adj. meaning, “Of, relating to, or designating the science or practice of medicine in general” and procedure is the noun meaning, “the performance of particular actions, esp. considered in regard to method.” Having particular contextual meaning, jointly medical procedure would mean those actions which are part of the science or practice of medicine in general, and socially we would stipulate that it is something that a medical practitioner’s, usually a doctor, would do. Medicine, as it is chiefly used, means “To treat or cure (a person, condition, etc.) by means of medicine,” and it is very apparent that we would have disagreement on the meaning of treat or cure. It would, however, be a medical procedure insofar as it is a doctor using medicines in order to treat this woman in such a way that she feels bettered by it. I believe that the principle holder of the definition of “treat or cure” should be the patients who are faced with the prospect of treatment. This, of course, would extend those who are charged with their care in the absence of their ability to determine such things.
As that extension would come into play in family issues dealing with money, it is of great concern to think about that too. Individuals who are supported by others and depend on them in order to live are, in many respects, at their mercy. True, convincing may take place but there is a low chance that it will be epidemic in the first place (look back on Oregon), and the other thing is that it is probably not going to pass by most doctors that suddenly this person is asking to die when before they showed no signs of wanting it and they haven’t been consulted yet. Honestly, do you think that it will be a walk in visit that you walk out with the barbiturates or take them right there after just 15 or so minutes? For the unconscious and incapable of making the decision, there are other moral and ethical problems there that the doctors would have to address with the family as well, making it very unlikely that we will see a massive population drop in the elderly. Also, there is the reality that most places that have laws permitting PAS also have stipulations on the laws like mental stability, terminal illness, extreme suffering and complete willingness of the patient. As such, I am not even sure that either side of the complaint is at all a threat to the people you are worrying about.
Perhaps in this woman’s case.
Suicide: The willful taking of one’s own life: a grievous sin against the fifth commandment. A human person is neither the “author” nor the Supreme Arbiter of his life, of which God is sovereign Master.
So, to answer your question…When you are God, you can give and take away life, otherwise you must carry your own cross until He calls you Home. Case closed!
Yes, because no one should have to die alone. With assisted suicide, family and friends could keep the person company without being afraid of legal consequences.
No.
If euthanasia is allowed under certain conditions, the message that “since you have this condition, you are different your life isn’t worth as much/ your life doesn’t have the same value attached because it’s fundamentally flawed: therefore it’s okay if you kill yourself”.
Any life is worth the same as the other. Who is anyone to judge someone else’s pain? You really can’t. What about clinically, medically handicapped people or people with mental disorders- they will suffer throughout their lives- can this be extended to them as well? It all comes down to a person’s choice. There are people who have terminal diseases and live in pain and don’t think they have the right to end their lives, that think that even though they are suffering it doesn’t make suicide somehow different that if a “normal” person commits suicide.
Yes
Yes.
Cancer sucks.
I, too, hesitantly say yes.
But very hesitantly.
She would just leave her family then..?
I wonder what they thought..
YES!
Absolutely. Without a doubt. As long as they are of a sound mind, people can make their own decisions.
If you’re going to committ suicide, why drag in an outside party to something that should be far more private? Just to have your conscience eased by having someone murder you with your knowledge so that you can say to St. Peter ” I did not take my own life, I was killed by another?” Suicide is such a cop out in the first place. Life is to be lived and to be an inspiration to those you claim to love. Her relatives can not say that ” she lived a life full of pain and yet never had a complaint, always met you with a smile on her face. She was an example to us all. ”
@Laserlawyer - i guess it’s based on the person’s perspective in life… but i stil hope that she and others like her would understand that God is always the best choice.
Well, according to the law, suicide is illegal, believe it or not. And if you’re a Christian, you believe only God should decide when you leave. And if you’re an atheist, well…you have no responsibilities, so you believe people can do what they want. But the fact is it’s God’s body, technically.
Christian or atheist, either way, you should appreciate that you are alive and you should respect and value your own life, because there are actually people out there who WANT to live. It’s completely selfish to want to kill yourself. So she lost some of her sense. Deal with it. It happens all the time, and people don’t want to die because of it. And if you DO want to die because of it, then you probably didn’t deserve to be born in the first place.
Yeah. I’m don’t normally sound this critical, but suicide really upsets me.
Yes, she is the one suffering and it is her choice.
Assistant suicide?! YES! But commiting suicide out of depression or whatnot, no.
yes.
Of course I do.
yah accha hai.
Yeah. If you want to die, and there’s no possible way to end the suffering, you have a right to die.
Yea.. RIP