Right to die: What's your position?

There are so many nuances and ethical considerations to such issues. It bothers me that the state is intervening in such intensely personal matters and I'm just curious where DUers stand.

Should life be preserved by any means?

Should the state be allowed to stand between a person or family's wishes?

Should a spouse or parent be allowed to override DNR orders?

Should terminally ill patients be allowed to commit suicide with medical assistance?

Where do you draw the line? Where should society draw the line?

I think a terminally ill patient should be able to decide if they want to go through agonizing treatments to keep them alive longer or to decide that it would be better if they ended their life peacfully and painlessly.

If you are terminally ill and you are of age (18+), you should be able to make that choice on your own (albiet with the advice of a doctor). It's that simple.

1. No, if the dying person has already died (brain dead) or is in severe pain.
2. Absolutely not. The state has no right, as they haven't lived with the person and gotten to know them.
3. Yes, see above answer.
4. Yes. It is their right to do so, but doctors uncomfortable with the procedure shouldn't have to do it if they don't want to.

before they are too infirm, or lack presence of mind to do it.

In cases of assisted suicide for the terminally ill, I would want the mercy we seem to have for not making our housepets suffer.
No one should be able to override a previously issued DNR order.

In the case of Terri Schiavo, my trepidation is rumors of spousal abuse and his claims that they discussed it but there is no written records of their discussion...in that one...it's almost as if he has the power to give his infirm wife the death penalty. That case of all concerns me since if abuse were involved, this would be tantamount to state sanctioned murder. It's a textbook case of how a law COULD be abused or manipulated.

/sarcasm

Seriously, suicide is a victimless crime.

exactly! Peoples lives are their own business, keep the state out of it.

The friends, the family, we suffer for many years. Suicide may not create a "victim" in the typical interpretation of the word, but I'm just mentioning this because I don't think of euthanasia as suicide and would hope that the lines are not blurred when people talk about the issue of assisted "suicide."

If somebody wants to take their own life for any reason whatsoever, that's their decision, IMO. I have no right to stop them.

Anybody's death for any reason leaves people behind who grieve, except for total recluses who have no family.

I guess it all depends on how you define "victim." I think if most people could foresee the emotional devastation that they are about to inflict on their friends and family, they would endure their current situation somehow, and not go through with suicide. It's just hard to convince suicidal people that their lives are in fact worth a great deal to the ones who love them.

Terminal illness is another story. And I have a real grievance against our government which regulates painkillers to the point that people live in agony because there's so much red tape that their doctors can't get them the meds they need to shut down the pain signals. I may be wrong, but I think many people would not choose to die if somehow the pain could be controlled. JMHO.

Ask anyone who has lost a loved one because of suicide and you'll find victims. Children, spouses, parents, and others....they are victims.

However, I would feel more comfortable if I had a terminally ill friend or family member who was suffering and it was terminal, and decided they didn't want to live a life dedicated to a bed and and IV's.

That's not living. That's existence.

I find it rather arrogant and ignorant for extremists in levels of power to dictate people should continue to exist even though they aren't happy, and that they should terminally suffer and/or continue to "live" when their life is essentially over.

That should be up to the individual and/or loved ones who were designated to make such choices for the person dying. It's a difficult enough decision to make. The people and institutions who really benefit from someone being kept alive are the hospitals, pharmaceutical/medical companies, and perhaps a few relatives who are unable to accept their loved one is gone. I would certainly understand a family member having difficulty making that decision however.

When a person is terminally ill it's completely different than other suicides because those people are depressed, had a bad day or whatever. That's how I viewed the post I responded, too.

I do think when it comes to the terminally ill, it's between them, their family and their physician. The government shouldn't be involved at all.

It's not a simple issue for anyone and every circumstance is different with unique people having to deal with it in a way that works best for them.

I believe in many instances some let go of life way sooner than they should when there is still some quality of life left to live.

I'll tell you this much: If I become terminally ill or am gravely injured, I will write 'DNR' on my forehead in black magic marker and find the nearest bus to jump under. I've seen both my grandparents wired to 27 machines in the hospital, the sum effect of which was to cause them to die much more slowly. Not this fellow.

The document says life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The other side of that coin is having the liberty to end your life when there is no more happiness to pursue. Period.

the "Death with Dignity" measure. People must be able to make their own decisions about their own final destiny and how much suffering they wish to endure when they are terminally ill. There are lots of steps that must be taken before the physician-assisted death can happen in Oregon, and no one can make the call except the person him/herself. I can't say for sure what I'd do if in that situation, but I do know for sure it's not my business to tell someone else what they should do. I'm hoping SCOTUS will come down in favor of states' rights on this one. Would also be justice of some sort to have John Ashcroft find himself in that position some day. But that's just me...

Tired Old Cynic

It is so ironic that the party the believes in the death penalty and war and argues for states' rights, individual responsibility and less government intrusion would be fighting this measure.

I go back and forth. I think a doctor's role is really to ease pain, not to hurry death, but there's a fuzzy line there. I'm very uncomfortable with euthanasia.

And even doctor-assisted suicide. There are so many shadowy areas. What if a severely depressed person wanted to die? Someone who's battled depression for decades and wants to end their pain -- should a doctor support the decision to die? How is that different from someone who's in pain from inoperable cancer?

Ugh. I hate thinking about it, actually. Why did I click on this thread???

:shrug:

If somebody really wants to commit suicide, they will. Making it harder for them is inhumane. If you force an animal that's terminally ill to keep living (ie if it refuses to eat or drink and you force it to), it's "inhumane" to prolong it's suffering. If, on the other hand, the animal is suffering and you euthanize it, it's considered "humane". Why shouldn't that same thing be applied to people who can ASK to be put out of their misery?

If in the case of Terry Schiavo, if her "parents are willing to care for her in her vegetated state", then that should supercede her husband's desire to kill her, because she's not "physically suffering," or at least, she doesn't appear to be.

I don't believe in suicide or murder of any kind, but suicide is "self-inflicted." That's a lot different than someone else violating you.

If she cannot speak and tell anyone that she is in pain and wants them to kill her to end the pain, then if her husband removes her feeding tube killing her, I can understand how some people consider that to be murder, because she didn't ask for it, although he may claim that she doesn't want to be this way.

To me, suicide is wrong. Murder is wrong, but if a person "kills himself or requests it", that's different than someone doing it against their will, and I'd just have to say, "oh well, they killed themselves."

It is definitely a nuanced issue.

there was no clear intent on her part expressed. If somebody leaves a living will or something along those lines, it should be honored. For example: I have no problem with somebody who, while healthy, wrote "If I'm in a coma and it looks like it will never be reversed, I want to be left alone and allowed to die" and had it notarized. They expressed their wishes clearly in a manner that isn't subject to dispute. As such, their wishes should be respected.

1)Yes, up to the point that the family or patient doesn't want to live as a vegetable or to extend their life would only mean more agony when they are afflicted with a terminal disease.

2)The state has no business interfering with the wishes of the family.

3)My experience with DNR orders has shown the family and patient come to an understanding with the physician. If the patient wants the DNR no one should be allowed to override it. If it's the family, their wishes should be taken in consideration.

4)Terminally ill patients should have that right, but I think for it to happen, then certain guidelines should be met before it's allowed. I personally believe the criteria should be very strict and family, physician and patient should all come together and to a clear understanding before even comprehending this. I personally think there are very few cases when something like this is necessary.

4)The problem with right to die is that everyone's views on it is different and at different levels. My own ideas on it not everyone will agree with. I base what I think from spending ten years working in hospitals and ERs.

I don't think there will ever be a consensus by the general population that would bring about some laws. I believe the right to die is intensely personal and should only be decided by family, patient and physician.

My experiences with patients, families, physicians and even within my own family has shown most families want to do what is best for their suffering family member and that should include any of the above. The govt. has no right to interfere in any of it, IMO.

the "assisted suicide" law has been a big interest to me. Or, as we like to call it, the "Death with Dignity Act". The law is crafted very meticulously and it appears that all the predictions about families offing their wealthy relatives, etc., have yet to come about.

There are approximately 25 people per year who are eligible and choose to employ this law. That is less than 1/2 the number of criminals executed in the country. So evidently Bushco says it's ok for the states to use drugs to kill "undesirables", but it's NOT ok for the states to allow use of the same types of drugs by those who have reached the end of their lives and want some peace and dignity in their final days.

I'm for assisted suicide, but I'm more for states' rights, which is what Bushco is actually trying to chip away.

the "right to die" will quickly become a "duty to die". Hence the outcry over Million Dollar Baby. You didn't think we were a branch of the loony right, did you?

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/mediacircus/scribesmistook0205.html

Sacks's recounting comes to mind every time I read a new critic or columnist pontificating on the flap over Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby. Media pundits typically leave out mention of disability rights opposition to "right to die" issues -- they do it with coverage of Terri Schiavo, too -- or mass it with opposition from the Christian Right, as though it's capable of no real agenda of its own.

Some perspective may be gained from the experience of a friend who uses a wheelchair. Every month or two, she says, someone comes up to her and says, to her face, "I'd rather br dead than be like you." -- in the land of aloha, no less! How do you think she'd feel if "death with dignity" were legal, and someone in a white coat came twoard her with a syringe? :scared:

does NOT mean forcing people to die. If you look at any of the laws that have been written, they are crafted to prevent this sort of think from happening.

I haven't seen that movie, but if I'm not mistaken, it wasn't the state imposing its will. It was that man's decision and perhaps he would be charged with her death.

Just because abortion is a legal option, it does not mean people are forced to have one.

Don't you think that laws can be written to protect people's control over their own lives? In either case — forcing people to live or forcing them to die — is instituting the state's will over personal decisions and should NOT be permitted.

I don't have serious mobility issues, but I am in kidney failure. My prognosis is not very good. I've heard people say they don't know if they could stand what I have, and I'm not even on dialysis yet. Yet I am in favor of Assisted Suicide and death with dignity and anything else that lets a person decide not to spend the last few months or weeks or days of life in futile agony, or to be kept alive artificially for years if that is against their wishes.

I worry more about someone in a white coat coming towards me with a ventilator than I do coming to 'put me down.' I worry that no matter how many legal documents I have executed spelling out what I do and don't want done to me that some goddamned busy-body who doesn't know me will try to become my 'guardian' when I am helpless.

and my giblet donor card and witnesses in order, and I've warned them I'll haunt all their asses if they make me stay even one second longer than I have to.

"Should life be preserved by any means?"
Heck no. They can keep a corpse going for years already, but we're still far from being able to repair a brain. If I can't think, let me go.

"Should the state be allowed to stand between a person or family's wishes?"
If the patient has expressed his/her will clearly, absolutely not.
That's why an advance directive or a living will is so important. No one should stick people they love with an agonizing decision like that.
Absent the clear will of the patient, you've got a mess on your hands.

"Should a spouse or parent be allowed to override DNR orders?"
Depends whose orders. Not the patient's DNR orders, definitely.
Someone else's DNR orders leaves all those nasty grey areas open to interpretation again.

"Should terminally ill patients be allowed to commit suicide with medical assistance?"
Indeed they should. I've never seen a good argument against it.

"Where do you draw the line? Where should society draw the line?"
Make your will known...draw the line yourself!

Not to death, but to the active conscious process of giving up on life.

I fear death as much as the next person but the only thing I fear more is the thought of being kept alive either in constant pain or a vegetative state for no other reason than dying is viewed as the easy way out. None of us are getting out of here alive, so why delay the inevitable?

We certainly don't seem to care who dies, as long as we control or have some say in how they accomplish it. It seems that the more the person desires it, the less we feel inclined to "grant" it.


Should life be preserved by any means?

No. In the case of accidents, more rather than less should be done to preserve it but with terminal illness, death is coming anyway, why prolong it? Respect for life should include, rather than preclude, the right to end it when it no longer has value for the individual.

Should the state be allowed to stand between a person or family's wishes?

No. I think doctors, in conjunction with the family, can figure this one out without the state getting involved.

Should a spouse or parent be allowed to override DNR orders?

Only if something changes the prognosis that the patient did not consider at the time they signed the DNR.

Should terminally ill patients be allowed to commit suicide with medical assistance?

Yes. In fact, I think it should be considered part of the care of terminal illnesses. Like the Dr. Kevorkian model, consult two professionals not involved in that person's care to ensure that the prognosis is hopeless, that the person has made an informed decision and that no outside pressure has been applied.

Where do you draw the line? Where should society draw the line?

Like abortion, I think those who have no personal stake in the outcome, and who will not bear the consequences of that decison, should butt out.

I believe in the sanctity of life but respect its moral and physical limits.

I believe that a person who is of sound mind should HAS the right, not should have the right, to made decisions about the circumstances and timing of his or her death. It is ideal to have advance written directives about one's wishes and to have discussed these preferences with family and friends.

I think a much more difficult situation presents itself when no clear preference has been communicated to those around the terminally ill person and there is some question as to the patient's mental state.

I think society has to do the most loving thing possible and weigh all of the evidence to decide the appropriate action.

I hope that when I find that stage in my life I will be granted the dignity to make crucial decisions about my continued presence.

...with their life, as long as they don't endanger others in the process. This includes ending their life. We are all going to die anyway, why not let an adult make this one fucking choice for themself? I understand that no one lives in a vacuum, and I'm not against offering alternatives or help to someone considering suicide. However, I don't think it's the government's business to tell people they can't.

if the end is near and my future consists of machines and feeding tubes, I would want them to pull the plug, or give me the option to do it.

No one should be able to keep you from it. And family members should have the right to determine when the plug is pulled.

I've been trying to set up a will, power of attorney, medical power of attorney, and advanced directive and IT'S HARD.

At least it's hard for me to decide who to appoint and then how to make it very clear what my wishes are....particularly regarding the advanced directive.

Here are my responses to your questions:

Should life be preserved by any means?
NO, a resounding NO!

Should the state be allowed to stand between a person or family's wishes?
I guess when I really think about it, no the state should not interfere. If the person in question left people appointed to handle their wishes, then it shouldn't be an issue. If they did not, then it comes down to who decides when there is no directive, and no immediate determination of who is the next of kin. For instance, I am not married, both my parents are deceased and I have four other siblings. Not sure what would happen right now in my case without the appropriate paperwork. That's why I'm trying to get it ironed out right now!

Should a spouse or parent be allowed to override DNR orders?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

Should terminally ill patients be allowed to commit suicide with medical assistance?
Yes.

Where do you draw the line? Where should society draw the line?
That's the $100,000 question (actually - use any dollar amount). It's a slippery slope as far as I'm concerned. I guess my "bottom line" is that I think medical advances have contributed to our life span, but I think we as individuals should have the final say on how much is too much.

if somebody doesn't want to live, that is their choice, and must be respected.

will, and at least one family member who states they will go to bat for you if someone contests....

Should life be preserved by any means?
No. But each individual who believes this needs to have it defined for him/her self. It should be explicitly stated on what your personal threshold is. For example, I would not want to be in a vegetative state, but someone else might say "if my eyes are open don't let me die yet." (that wouldn't be the legal way to say it btw)

Should the state be allowed to stand between a person or family's wishes?
The state has no business in my bedroom, bathroom, living room or dying room.

Should a spouse or parent be allowed to override DNR orders?
NO. Neither should a Nurse or other medical professional.

Should terminally ill patients be allowed to commit suicide with medical assistance?
Yes.

Where do you draw the line? Where should society draw the line?
Personally? My line is if there is no chance of reversing the diagnosis, or if there is no responsiveness, or if the pain is so severe that I would have to be in a morphine cloud in order to get by, and I sleep 23 and 1/2 hours a day, then I would want to be given my time to rest/die. Though let's be clear. My line is MY line -- it is not up to me to say anyone with a terminal illness should just kill his/her self. Sure, mental screening and therapy should be used to ensure that a person is not just acting out of depression. Support should be given to people who have illnesses that are terminal. We should honor and visit people who are dying, not avoid them or just send them flowers and then feel good about ourselves. Society doesn't really have to draw the line -- it's not society who is saying it's time for me to go when the cancer is everywhere and I have to exist on morphine in order to bear the pain -- it's me, saying I've had a good life, please let me go in peace. My body. My decision.

edit...format/typo

peoples private lives.

* is moving towards mandatory mental health checks for children.
Next are the homeless, drug addicts and other 'hopeless cases'. Then there's is mandatory treatment.
Before you know it there will be cases were the state considers the patient to be beyond help, and the state will see fit to do the "mercifull" thing. I can almost hear them: "It's a though decision, it's hard work, but someone's got to do it".

"The right to die" is not in question, this is about the "right" to be suicided by a totalitarian regime.

Plus, they are the ones fighting this. If your theory is their goal, why would they be interfering with the cases and laws that are greasing that slippery slope?

Period.