Agnostic.com

41 8

Just thought I'd throw this out there in case I can educate some of you and hopefully clear up some misconceptions you might have about assisted suicide. I was the first person to put Dr. Jack Kevorkian in jail in Michigan and I worked on his assisted suicide cases for about a year and a half and would consider myself an expert on the subject. For many it's a very emotional topic and logic and reason tend to be ignored. Just briefly I can tell you that once we decide that there is quality of life not worth living we tend toward nazism. The handicapped community was up in arms about passing such laws as people would ask them, "you're a quadriplegic why do you want to live?" Let me also say that I'm a strong believer in the right to die. I didn't ask to be here and I should be able to leave whenever I want...I just can't have help doing it. There is no way to regulate it. I'm happy to take questions, concerns, jabs etc. it won't be anything I haven't heard before. But if you're curious, had I ever tried Kevorkian, you would have heard about his paintings, one of which shows Santa Claus coming down the chimney stomping on an infant. (google it) He was a pathologist just obsessed with death.

lerlo 8 Jan 17
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

41 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

@lerlo. But, you were the only attorney, that I found in this entire posting! You also, misinterpreted my 'lawyer' statement! I said, 'we need a clever lawyer'...I never indicated anywhere in my responces that I didn't LIKE lawyers...I don't even know any!! (This is an assumption). I would say, that we are the PUBLIC. You would normally be representing the society at large, wouldn't you? Because, you had more facts about the 'justice system' than others on this forum, you dismissed most of the input from it! It seems to me like...you presented your 'book learning,' as more important than a desire to maintain our 'social order!' AND, you know what!! ...my opinion is as valid as the next person's! Here alone, is a 'lack of wisdom' on your part...not everyone's ideas has 'value' in your 'big picture!' Sir, I am a very serious person and mostly 'self-educated'...and on one of your responces, you stated, that 'some of you, just want to talk'(another assumption)...(even the ignorant have ideas)...that was an insult, any way you slice it! You may not have learned much here (I am still kinda of wondering why you are on this forum), because, I have not found another person so far (and you can read what I post), on this forum that treats LIFE like a 'text book'...I mean without...all of what HUMANITY is made up of! HOWEVER, my concern is...justice is at risk, when any person in authority...is the driving force with his NARROW life view... as fair and balanced with the fate of another human being in his hands! I believe the present state of our current social order, stands as an example of MAJOR disarray! If you gained nothing from YOUR own post...I bet, a lot of the rest of us did as this would not be a subject matter, that shallow minded people would tackle!

0

@lerlo. But, you were the only attorney, that I found in this entire posting! You also, misinterpreted my 'lawyer' statement! I said, 'we need a clever lawyer'...I never indicated anywhere in my responces that I didn't LIKE lawyers...I don't even know any!! (This is an assumption). I would say, that we are the PUBLIC. You would normally be representing the society at large, wouldn't you? Because, you had more facts about the 'justice system' than others on this forum, you dismissed most of the input from it! It seems to me like...you presented your 'book learning,' as more important than a desire to maintain our 'social order!' AND, you know what!! ...my opinion is as valid as the next person's! Here alone, is a 'lack of wisdom' on your part...not everyone's ideas has 'value' in your 'big picture!' Sir, I am a very serious person and mostly 'self-educated'...and on one of your responces, you stated, that 'some of you, just want to talk'(another assumption)...(even the ignorant have ideas)...that was an insult, any way you slice it! You may not have learned much here (I am still kinda of wondering why you are on this forum), because, I have not found another person so far (and you can read what I post), on this forum that treats LIFE like a 'text book'...I mean without...all of what HUMANITY is made up of! HOWEVER, my concern is...justice is at risk, when any person in authority...is the driving force with his NARROW life view... as fair and balanced with the fate of another human being in his hands! I believe the present state of our current social order, stands as an example of MAJOR disarray! If you gained nothing from YOUR own post...I bet, a lot of the rest of us did as this would not be a subject matter, that shallow minded people would tackle!

0

I didn't see a response, so I figured i'd ask again. Can you please provide the text of the oath that doctors swear?

google Hippocratic Oath

@lerlo So this one?

I swear by Apollo the Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture.

To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture; to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my own sons, the sons of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who have taken the physician’s oath, but to nobody else.

I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.

Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets.

Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all men for my life and for my art; but if I transgress it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me.

@DJVJ311 that is the classical oath, yes. there is a newer one but who is to say which doctor took what oath--either way the AMA opposes assisted suicide believing it causes them ethical problems

@lerlo You said it violated the Hippocratic oath. Is it the one that swears them to Apollo and Zeus and specifically bans abortion and that they will financially support their teachers for the remainder of their lives? or is it the one I quoted earlier that can support euthanasia? As the subject area expert, which is your claim? Telling me to go to google or dismissing my earlier argument for not including the one that swears to Zeus, Apollo and socialism is completely disingenuous. You have made the claim that doctors are sworn to this oath and have used that as your justification. Can you address my point from earlier?

From earlier:

"I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God."

It does not forbid Euthanasia, it simply says that the decision must not be the doctor's("don't play god" ) . It treats the task of saving a life as a gift to be thankful for, implying there are clearly other tasks. If the patient initiates the request and the doctor takes it as his Hippocratic duty to limit the suffering of someone who you say has the right and is going to kill themselves, is the doctor morally responsible for the death or only for the elimination of suffering?

0

@lerlo, I want to sincerely thank you for your post. I must admit that at the beginning, I was a bit mystified as to why you posted your Kevorkian case...as example to teach us something about sucuide. But after reading ALL the posts...I came to the realization of WHY our justice system is not fair and just. Without, your honest and candid responses, this would not have revealed itself. You have expert skills in where/how to find the law that covers the unlawful charge. It appears you are skilled in applying 'that law' (as with Kevorkian). However, you became an untrained expert on your 'subject', even down to analyzing certain drawings by Kevorkian and his behavior towards a patient's time of death and guessing on people's motives (I.e. woman who was 'tired of caring for her husband'😉. But, in all your responces...you lacked WISDOM about 'sucuide,' much less on 'death and dying.' Where was your life experiences? Even when prompted...you recited 'codes' and 'laws' and 'regulations!' What kind of a world would we have, if everyone lived their life in a bubble like that? If you noticed it was pointed out, that your position was '10 against...to 01!' So NOW, I understand why district attorneys want concede even when more evidence is brought to light and sometimes even when 'scientific' DNA is presented! You developed great skills to read and apply the 'rule of law,' when people break the law. But somewhere you must have blocked out what it takes to obtain wisdom! Because, I never found a thing that was WISE, in your post! I believe this is the reason you received so much flack! If this sounds like I am 'beating up' on you, I AM NOT! You inadvertently helped me to understand why people must have clever lawyers and luck to get "real justice' in our present system!
Just like 'book' learning is never enough...a DA without wisdom, but great 'law knowledge' will give us 'the luck of the draw' in our justice system! If this sounds harsh...it is! Even so, I still feel grateful to you for this revelation!

For the record, just because you may have counted some 10-1 against me (first of all I stated an opinion about the law because that's what we're talking about "assisted suicide laws" and whether they should exist) since 46 or so states still find it illegal I'd say that apparently there are more people against it. What I have learned form the post is that there are contrarians all over the place. Since last I checked it's still a free country to voice my opinion and a year and a half's worth or research on the subject I will continue to share my opinion despite the fact that some people here might not like it. I stated up front that it was an emotional issue and like most emotional issues, people like to ignore things like laws and facts because it interferes with their emotions. Whatever lets you sleep at night. If you think you're the first person not to like lawyers, you're mistaken. It's funny that the people that don't like them certainly change their mind when they need one. Either way, you're certainly free to disagree with, complain about or take solace from my post. It's nice that each person can have their own definition of wisdom--apparently only people with wisdom understand that the right to assisted suicide is innate.

0

@Lerlo...as a witness to so many unfortunate and horrible things over the span of 78 years, I have learned that it is not the criminal that creates the most harm in the world. It is from the ignorance of otherwise good people that can and does cause much harm! I myself, have been one of those people! But, I never give up on making adjustments...even here in old age!

I guess you want me to tell you that somewhere you have a right to assisted suicide...I don't think it's a good idea as I've explained and sure some states have legalized it. You want it--go to that state and I hope you meet their qualifications. While you're at it, try pushing for a law that says you have a right to assisted life and that someone must give you food and shelter. See how that goes over.

0

@lwelo, I have not thought of Kevorkian in years! I learned what I could from that situation and moved on. You did not share what YOU had learned 'OUT' of that experience. From your writings...you seem to be re-litgating the Kevorkian case. I am at a disavantage here without research and only some pretty clear memories. I do know without research, that 'life and death' issues have been taking place every day, month and year, since the 'Kevorkian case.' Using just one example to prove your point, seems shortsighted to me. I also, sense a 'put down'..."Thanks for the psychoanalysis," which helps prove my point...your "world view" seems pretty much, 'black and white!' Good luck with that!

0

@lerlo, it appears to me that you operate in a 'black and white' manner. You have no grays in your concepts! And, you make more assumptions than I am conformable with! What you might do, and what another person might do, under the same circumstances just might be altogether different! I have never met two people who behaved the same way about hardly anything. That being said, I am also wondering why this issue with Kevorkian is coming up for you so many years later? And, it would seem by your writings that you would handle the Kevorkian issue the same way that you did, back in the day. Yes...YOU know the law...or laws! But, it has been my experience that as my life has progressed over 50 of my last 78 years...that as i took in more information, it altered my ideas to the point, that my position today no where even resembles how I once understood certain issues...not even 25 years ago. I also may be 'a law abiding citizen' but I would not hesitate to break a law if it made no sense, for a particular moment! I don't make my own laws...neither will I follow 'laws' in blind faith...and I will take responsibility for my actions! I might hold myself to a higher moral code than the average person. I appreciate your responces, but there is still a question in my mind, why you bring YOUR Kevorkian issue up after so many years? Because, I have learned to move on from any past experience, asap...(I wonder if I could bring up something from just 5 yrs ago!) Each one of us must settle in our own mind, the life and death issue! And, I would never impose what I might do on any other person! I believe you can do the same at this moment in time. If we all become slaves, I guess that will change!

Thanks for the psychoanalysis. I raised the issue because it's still a relevant issue today and I thought I would bring the topic up and perhaps present some ideas that no one thinks about because it seems to be purely an emotional issue for most people.

0

#lerlo, You seem stuck on 'The Law.' How is it that every "against the law,' situation, has some way around it? The 'right' attorney is needed and the 'luck of the draw,' for jury duty! Sir, you may have lots of facts, but it appears you could have a 'blind spot?' You reported that a man's mask was removed, to calm the man down...but you did not report that the man HIMSELF said 'stop' or 'proceed!' And, you added as if you were privy...'wife'...'she wanted him dead, because she was tired of taking care of him NO DOUBT(capital letters mone)!' Was, this a fact or assumption on your part? Sounds like mindreading to me! Maybe I am way out here in SOME field on this, but you tell your side as if you were there, 'like a fly on the wall,' reporting back to us! You make so many assumptions that it causes me to question your reasoning! With my type of personality, I would not allow my doctor to be consulted, if I decided to commit suicide. Who is he/she to block my free will? And, I might have already discussed it with my doctor...not to support me in dying...but support for me as a person!
...'pushing the medical profession to work on pain treatments,' ...'and not sentencing people to death'...shows a lack of knowledge on the nature of pain! 'They' developed pain treatments and we have thousands of people dying each day, from their pain treatment! Where have you been hiding out, all this time? And, let me add here, that this Country by law, has put people to death in...I believe every state in this country!! So is it 'putting people to death' that bothers you or are you on some kind of 'late life' campagn to 'justify' your position in the Kevorkian case? In my opinion, we should have the right to die when we choose. If a person should be in some delusional state, then, very attempt should be made to bring that person around. It is not the person that chooses to exit, that may be having the difficulty. It is the 'other' people who must face the loss and sadness (psychic pain and a challege to a person's belief system) that would take place around this 'life or death' event. I hope that you find the law, that puts this issue to rest...at least for you. I frankly struggled with your last statement...'violate the equal protection of all of our rights to die.' ???

Gee I don't know but I would hope that if someone was going to help me kill myself and they were a doctor supposed to preserve life that they may want to check into my medical problem before they just said, "sure, I;ll kill you." To find out whether all steps had been done to help me first. You obviously missed the part about Kevorkian violating his own rules about helping someone if they were struggling while he was helping them. Not to mention violating the law. If the law doesnt matter we don't need to be having the conversation because people can do whatever they want.

0

You started off with your original post with a, what seemed, somewhat genuine issue, but in all your responses have been either condescending, misleading or at the least, disingenuous. I will say, a conversation has ensued, so, for that, we owe you.

0

Since I know what it took to get to where you were when you charged Dr. Kevorkian, you were not unfamiliar with research. You imply regulations still lacked in overseeing assisted suicides. What did you find out about the places that had already legalized it? How did they deal with regulating it?

At the time it wasn't legal anywhere in the Western world. In the Netherlands where it wasn't legal but wasn't prosecuted, patients were wearing necklaces saying, "don't kill me" because 60% of patients were killed without consent. In Michigan at the time it was "legal" to the extent that you could treat someone's pain if the goal was to alleviate pain even though it might hasten death. So for instance giving someone with Lou Gehrig's disease morphine will ease their pain but it will suffocate them. A doctor could argue that they were merely treating pain. Kevorkian, after he lost his medical license, was using carbon monoxide gas which of course will end your pain after it kills you.

@lerlo Now that some Western countries have legalized assisted suicide, does any place have regulation you feel is acceptable?

0

As a follow up, let me give you my perspective on the law in the U.S as it stands and the problems I see with it. The U.S. Constitution says in the 10th Amendment that anything not included in it is left to the states. Now in the area of privacy the Supreme Court has, under the guise of the 14th Amendment found a right to privacy. There is no explicit right to die in the Constitution but it could easily fall under the 14th Amendment. As I stated I think we all have a right to die, terminally ill (we all are) or otherwise. There is NO right to assisted suicide in the U.S. Constitution since it includes another person and can't be considered privacy. Therefore it is left to the states. If a state wants to pass a law allowing assisted suicide they can--if you want one you go to that state.

The problem for me for instance let's take Oregon. To date I believe only 100 people have used the law. We don't create laws for 100 people. it's not a boutique kinda thing. Then only patients that are "terminally ill" with 6 months to live are allowed to use it assuming two psychiatrists and a court agree they are of sound mind.

  1. What if I just want to die because it's my right because life sucks or I just don't want to live anymore. What happened to equal protection of the laws? What about MY right to die? You don't think it's a bit arbitrary to say 5 months? They aren't in horrible pain in the 7th month? See the problem with setting such rules, limits? What about their mental condition? Is someone in horrible pain in their right mind? We have suicide hotlines because we think people that are suicidal need help. Should suicide hotlines be illegal?

  2. Doctors take a Hippocratic oath to preserve life--not end it. Allowing them to help people die is a violation of that oath which is why the AMA is against it. We should be encouraging the medical profession to deal with pain not take the easy way out and just kill people.

It's nice to use phrases like "death with dignity." There are all kinds of poisons out there that people can take without putting doctors in an ethical dilemma. I'm not sure taking an overdose or lethal amount of drug is dignity but just because it sounds so--doesn't make it so. Kevorkian used carbon monoxide gas. It is a difficult and, as I said originally, painful and emotional subject. Loved ones help people die all the time and juries use jury nullification to ignore the law and acquit them.

Once a law says that a court or a psychiatrist gets to make the decision it is no longer the right of the person to make the decision. This is why in my opinion legislation can't solve the problem. If everyone has the same right it needs to be for everyone. If you let someone help, you have to look at their motives for helping and whether they really had
informed consent. Of course I personally think society should be encouraging people to live. Although I know that many of you don't understand societal pressure once there is a limit or "quality of life" set by some law, as I said previously, the handicapped community was afraid that, as happened in nazi Germany where handicapped people were killed because of their quality of life, that there would be societal pressure placed on them if "quality of life" limtis, suggestions or ideals were set up.

If you think you have a right to assisted suicide if someone won;t help you can you sue them for violating your right if they won't help you? Or is it just something that would be nice to have? All of us have the right to commit suicide, you may not like how they have to do it, but the only way you know if someone really wants to die is if they do it themselves. Just my two cents, well maybe three. Hopefully it will bring up some issues that you may not have considered before.

lerlo Level 8 Jan 17, 2018
0

I'm always suspicious when someone insists so carefully & resolutely as to how much of an expert he/she is on a subject. It usually means a strong opinion is headed this way.

Pretty sure I didnt give a strong opinion and I worked on the issue for a year and a half and was even tasked with writing a law allowing it. I was have citations for my positions, you don't like the word expert, your choice. My guess is that I know a little bit more about it than the people calling me names and last I checked even experts are allowed to have strong opinions.

@lerlo In the first sentence of your response you say you don't think you have offered a strong opinion and in the final sentence you defend your right to be allowed to.

Neither are the point.

The essence of my complaint, here, is my own belief that a strong and reasonable argument does not require one to establish a premise of expertise prior to the expose. I'm sure you've heard this expressed as the "appeal to authority" method of logical fallacy. If your argument has merit, it will stand on its own despite your supposed expertise on the subject. Furthermore, an assertion of authority on a subject is usually an attempt to convince others of a special understanding one person possesses that ordinary people are not expected to possess. It insults the intelligence of the audience; hence some of the negative reactions here.

I react to the insult by calling you out on it. 🙂 Own up, and laugh it off?

In any case, it's a cheap way to make an argument and I'd be genuinely surprised if you didn't already know that.

0

A slippery slope is no reason not to climb a mountain.

Well I didnt say anything about a slippery slope but sure there is a reason because if you slide down it you might get hurt or worse...and maybe someone, who really doesn't want to die in the case of assisted suicide, dies

0

I don't think it should be illegal to take your own life. It's your life you should be able to make that decision

It's not illegal to take your own life. Suicide is legal. It's having someone help you that is illegal in most of the western world for a multitude or reasons.

0

Can you say for certain that Kevorkian was obsessed with death or was he attempting to shock 'the senses' into facing another reality? Each person has so many 'sides'...were you witness to all of Kevorkian's, traits? Sometimes, different personality traits, only show up in, out of the way settings. I say this, because it seems that different people perceive me differently and even then...differently, in different settings. And on close examination, I believe that I am not the same with all people. I never had a personal experience with Kevorkian, but i did follow him and his his ideas on assisted sucuide. But, I never believed that he was obsessed with death. From a distance, it appeared that he wanted to assist in releasing another human from his pain/misery. Could he have been more in 'tune' with the pain that some people find themselves in? There was a time that I experienced a 'living hell,' from physical and mental pain. And likely, others have had it much worse. Could his actions have come from the 'obsessed' notion of relieving pain? I have seen documenories, on assisted sucuide, (with Kevorkian, too) for patients with terminal illnesses, after their condition had progressed into unbearable pain. There are assisted suicides, covertly carried out, today, for this very reason. But, much exploring has taken place before making this decision, (which I recall with Kevorkian). It is a slippery slope, for sure! But, can you say for certain that Kevorkian was obsessed with death or pain?

As you say, you don't know all the facts. Kevorkian violated his own rules when it came to "assisting" people. He said that if anyone ever struggled when he had the mask on them that he would take the mask off and not help them anymore. But in one instance, the man was struggling. Kevorkian took the mask off, let the man calm down and the put the mask on and killed him. Because the guy's wife was there and she wanted him dead because she was tired of taking care of him no doubt. To me, a man who runs around the hospital checking to see if he can determine the exact time of death is obsessed with death. A man who dumps people in parking lots after they die and who doesnt talk to a person's doctor before "assisting" them in their death is not serving their needs but his own. Did he start a dialogue, perhaps. Did he break the law, yes. We should be pushing the medical profession to work on pain treatment not sentencing people to death. And what about the people who have the same right to die and are not terminally ill? Why can't they have help too? There is no 'right" to assisted suicide because then it involves other people's rights not to help you. I will post something on the state of our laws as I see them, which to me violate the equal protection of all of our rights to die.

When I had the case, the law in Michigan on assisted suicide at the time was that as long as you were trying to alleviate pain you could treat someone even if it hastened death. For instance giving a Lou Gehrig's patient morphine will ease their pain but it will suffocate them. When kevokian gave Thomas Hyde poison carbon monoxide gas he was trying to kill him, not alleviate pain.

1

I've read all the comments and while I would like to respond individually I will handle a couple recurring themes first.

The reason that the medical profession, the AMA, is against assisted suicide is because doctors take an oath, the Hippocratic oath, to preserve life. By assisting someone to commit suicide they are breaking that oath. We shouldn't sentence people to death because the medical profession hasn't adequately dealt with pain management. But some doctors, if given the choice to try hard and relieve you suffering or kill you, will take the easy way out. No way to regulate it. In the Netherlands where assisted suicide was not prosecuted at the time of the Kevorkian cases, people wore necklaces saying "don't kill me" because 60% of people in hospitals were killed without consent.

As for regulating it, just because there are laws does not mean it's regulated. For those of you that believe as I do that WE ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO DIE, why in Oregon for instance is it only the "terminally ill" with 6 months to live that have the right? Do you seriously believe that in the 7th month they are not in excruciating pain? Or that doctors don't arbitrarily announce the 6th month? What about someone who lost their family in the Oklahoma City bombing and just doesn't want to live anymore? In Oregon they can't avail themselves of the law. Who decides if they can even die if they only have 6 months to live? The courts and psychiatrists who have to certify that the person is mentally sound. We have suicide hotlines because we think people that are suicidal have a mental defect--should suicide hotlines be illegal or can some suicidal people not have a mental defect? Either way it's not the person making the decision, it's the courts.

Freshman year in college I watched a video of a man with 3rd degree burns over a large portion of his body. The way they treat burns like that is to keep you submerged in water to keep the burns moist which is stupidly painful. They man was screaming, "kill me, kill me." The man survived the treatment and afterwards was shown the tape of himself screaming, "kill me, kill, me" and was asked, "did you really want to die?" He said "of course not." The only way to know if someone really wants to die is if they do it themselves.

As for not everyone can do it, everyone can commit suicide, they just might not like how they have to do it. Sorry, it's nice to say you want to die in a nice fashion but the people you want to do it have taken an oath to preserve your life. Everyone can stop eating, etc. Not intending to sound cruel which many of you will jump on but of course it's a difficult subject. I'm really surprised that I haven't read, or maybe missed it, that we treat our animals better. Animals cannot commit suicide--they need our help.

There are studies that suicide is contagious for those of you that want to do the research. Responsible societies cannot push it and while it would be nice if they could find a way to provide "death with dignity" (for those of you that get on me for using emotional terms) where does it say that carbon monoxide that kevorkian used or any other drug is a painless way to go? Has someone come back to tell us?

lerlo Level 8 Jan 17, 2018

As far as I can tell, the strongest point you have on this is the Hippocratic Oath. Other sources have done a better job than I ever could of debating how applicable that is to the subject. Meanwhile, everything else you've put forth is opinion, and while I do appreciate your rigorous assertions, I don't see how you can expect us to take them as anything but.

@FortyTwo Well since you know nothing about it I'm ahead of you. I addressed many individual concerns, I even responded to yours without calling anyone an asshole. Got any facts to show me that I don't know what i'm talking about? Got anything? My posts will address the majority of the MAIN points brought up by people so I don't have to keep repeating myself--I also have the right to address them in the manner I see fit but thanks for the concern

@Shawno1972 Since individual responses are too difficult, I will include my commentary on the Hippocratic Oath here as well:

The modern Hippocratic oath does not preclude euthanasia, but instead includes parts that can clearly be used to justify it.

"I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God."

It does not forbid Euthanasia, it simply says that the decision must not be the doctor's("don't play god" ) . It treats the task of saving a life as a gift to be thankful for, implying there are clearly other tasks. If the patient initiates the request and the doctor takes it as his Hippocratic duty to limit the suffering of someone who you say has the right and is going to kill themselves, is the doctor morally responsible for the death or only for the elimination of suffering?

@DJVJ311 Excellent! Thanks for bringing that in for the sake of argument. In light of this, I don't see how anyone can rationally support the aforementioned claim.

@DJVJ311 I notice that you conveniently leave out the classical Hippocratic oath which forbids anything close to assisted suicide. For some strange reason the AMA does not support assisted suicide. You seem to think that killing someone eliminates their suffering so it's ok and somehow isnt playing god. If you think there is no moral dilemma or ethical problem in a doctor deciding to try and treat the pain rather than end it permanently, we disagree.

@lerlo I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Is it your contention that doctors are sworn to Apollo and that all doctors are not allowed to perform abortions and that they will financially support their teachers if the teachers fall on tough economic times?

Please provide the text of the oath that doctors swear, since you are the subject matter expert.

0

"Johnny Got His Gun" is a novel written in 1938 by American novelist, and later blacklisted screenwriter, Dalton Trumbo. It was made into a movie with Timothy Bottoms playing the lead. Watch it or read the book and then talk about assisted suicide.

2

When my Dad became ill he asked at one point where is a kevorkian for me? He understood quality of life - for him - and he was ready to go, he knew the slow progression of his illness and had no desire to drag it out. No one wants to see a loved one go but the decision is theirs alone and it should be respected. Quality of life, like art, is subjective and individual, each person should have the right to decide for themselves.

My partner was at the peak of her life. She had done everything she dreamed of and more. She had severe osteoporosis and could have had a debilitating fall at any time. She was told radiation would freeze the tumor for 1 year but she would only stay where she was. She never wavered, now was the time.

Have you heard of the boiling frog syndrome? The water was just right for her. It was getting too warm and she jumped out.

@JackPedigo every one's point will be different so it HAS to be an individual's decision.

@silverotter11 Again, it can be complicated. I mentioned my closest friend's husband has Parkinson's. He is in the later stages. Years ago he wanted to not have to go through this and was looking for ways to end it. His doctor said that is normal and put him on anti-depressants. That solved his suicidal thoughts but not the disease. Now, both have to suffer through this. I see her and see how it is limiting and restricting her own life. There are a number of people here with this problem.

One story we heard from our local endoflifewa doctor (Carol Parrot - she has a site) was about a family. The husband got a disease and suffered for months before dying. Some time later the wife got sick. She remembered what both her husband and herself (the stress could have brought on her illness) went through and opted for the Death with Dignity program which was administered. Afterward the adult son said thank you to Caroll because he was not prepared to see his mother suffer as had his father.

Ending one's life often includes both people in a relationship and often the nuclear family even gets in the way. My friend did not want her husband to go but now maybe has second thoughts. When Parvin said she was ready it was somewhat of a relief because we talked about her future possible bone issue and neither of us wanted to have to deal with it. The best thing I could do for her was to support her all the way and I did gladly. When you love someone you want whats best for them not yourself!

@JackPedigo The last line says it all, When you love someone you want what is best for THEM, you are not part of the equation. We are all a bit selfish tho and that's human.

4

Sorry, but you surely won't get a "thumbs-up" from me. whether Kevorkian was a paragon or not is not the issue. Freedom of choice is the issue & I don't believe the State has a right to stick their noses in this issue unless abuse can be shown. If we had common-sense, non-religious laws then you can "prosecute" if someone breaks those. We surely don't have those laws in place now.

Perhaps you missed me saying that we all have the right to die--but choice is not your issue, you want to force someone else to help you. How you do it is your issue. You can do it yourself but you want force someone else to help you. What if they say no, can you sue them?

That was never the issue, to force a doctor to assist one! You are so good with strawmen (not!). I never brought that up & it was not one of your original statements. If some doctors do not wish to participate, I sincerely doubt they would ever be forced. The abortion issue is the same, no one would force doctors to perform one. There are doctors who because of many reasons would help with both matters, & they should not be persecuted. THAT is the issue!

@lerlo isn't a doctor's signature required to obtain the chemicals necessary for a painless death?

@FrayedBear No idea but if you read some of the comments here any overdose will do. I'm not sure who decided that it is painless though.

@lerlo As you keep saying everyone can suicide by not eating. Lack of water and dehydration are much faster occurring in days not weeks. Certainly not painless. Are you saying that anyone can walk into a chemist and buy drugs without a doctor's prescription? You live in USA not I. Do you still work as a prosecutor?

Maybe people here post things for thumbs up, I could care less. As I stated I brought the issue up for people to look at things they don't normally look at regarding assisted suicide because it's just an emotional issue for most. Last I checked people's rights don't normally include other people.

@atheist Truth, you don't even know you're not breathing, then boom.

@lerlo You could care less? I thought lawyers chose their words carefully.

5

The main thing I think about with that situation is. We as a society show more compassion for a hurt, sick, old or mentality deranged animal than we do for people. We seem to think it is somehow right to prolong people's life that are in agony. Seems a moral issue to make someone suffer with out relief.

Animals can't commit suicide and need out help--all people can commit suicide, you might just not like how they have to do it, stop eating etc.

@lerlo Think you totally missed my point.

@azzow2 it's also a moral issue to let people starve and we have no laws guaranteeing them food. I think you missed my point. Animals can not do for themselves. Should we help people first, absolutely. How about life with dignity, food, shelter etc before we care about death with dignity? How about getting on the medical profession to adequately treat pain? Not finding ways do die.

@lerlo Have you ever watched nature a mother animal will kill its young if they are not healthy. The old and week are killed and eaten. Still can not see the point in letting someone suffer just because it is a self righteous moral issue. Those facts you pointed are good points in an a moral perfect world.

@azzow2 They're not good points at all. He's using the Fallacy of Relative Privation. He's saying other problems are worse, so this problem should be ignored until those are taken care of (one of which is world hunger by the way. It's also funny to me that he's saying we need to solve world hunger before death with dignity at the same time he's saying people should have to die without dignity by starving themselves to death.)

@JeffMurray I should have put amoral perfect.

6

My late husband was chewed up by cancer and young. I've never seen anyone in so much intractable pain in my life. I know he would have loved to check out earlier but held on due to fear of various legalities that negates benefits to heirs. He was in agony the last year of his life.

He even spoke of taking himself out with a gun, but didn't want to subject anyone to the aftermath. How horrible is that for someone not to have any choice beyond a violent messy means?
I can't help wonder if having been given the choice would have enabled him to have control over his destiny and given him peace of mind.

He went from a beautiful sentient creature to a tortured skeleton in no time flat. It was a nightmare.

That had to have been excruciating for you, also. You have my sympathy & understanding, & hopefully, we will wake up to the problems that these laws impose on many.

@phxbillcee Thank you. It's hard for people to understand until they've been there.
We tried so hard to mitigate his suffering, but it was too often in vain.

I'm sorry to hear about your father. It's a difficult situation. The medical profession has not done an adequate job treating pain. I hope my subsequent post answered some of your questions.

I agree with the other poster, thank you for sharing this story. I'm sure it is difficult to even think about it much less sharing. Or maybe it helps some to share. I also agree that we should have control over our end of life to choose to end it or no. I know for me, it's as much that I don't want those around me to have to suffer also while I'm suffering.

Qualia, my Dad finally passed at home with the "help" of hospice. They did not hasten, just eased some of the pain he was going thru. He had major congestive heart issues & he kept "trying" to go, but the pacemaker that the hospital had just recently installed prevented him from "easing" out on his own. It kept bringing him back to go through the same process all over again. We (his family) & he didn't need assistance for his passing, just a bit more common sense on the part of hospital staff. Hospice folk were just great (Hospice of the Valley here in Phoenix, AZ) & they have my undying (well, obviously not really) gratitude. A whole other story involved in the local priest at the church my dad attended & his "schedule", but that's a whole other story!

@phxbillcee interesting he was in hospice and they gave him a pacemaker. Did he think of refusing it?

btoje; received the pacemaker before his hospice stay. very shortly before. I think the medical team at the hospital thought they were doing the right thing, but it's the old "if one has a hammer, every problem is a nail" situation with the medical community.

At the very least he had someone to be with him. I think some of us fear we will be alone when our time comes.

My partner not only had me but a big community (our house was a revolving door)and her kids. When her brother questioned her choice she sent them packing.

3

" no way to regulate it" that is a total piece of crock. Assisted suicide is legal in all European countries and now in Canada, then again in these countries we actually believe everyone has the right to healthcare from cradle to grave. [news.vice.com]

Sorry, just because there is a law doesnt mean it's regulated. Can someone with 7 months to live, in horrible pain, die in Oregon? No. Look up the Hippocratic oath hotshot and then come back to me and explain why the AMA is against assisted suicide. What if no one will help you die? Can you force them? Can you sue them? 100 people have used the Oregon law. We don't make laws for 100 people.

@lerlo , In Canada it is not that hard to find a health professional to assist you, there are many compassion groups that will find them for you. Hippocratic oath states do no harm, many doctors regrade doing nothing to help ease someones pain when that is what the patient wants as doing harm. And for your information hotshot here in Canada the AMA has no sway.

@HeathenFarmer Thanks for not addressing the other points, because you see you can't have a right to force someone else to do something. Yes Amercian law has no sway in Uganda either, thanks for recognizing the difference in laws. When you can address how your right to kill yourself REQUIRES someone to help you let me know. Enjoy Canada

@lerlo CMA as a policy leaves it to the discretion of the physician. It also requires a phycological examination and consent of the court. Sorry, you live in a third world country.

@HeathenFarmer So much for having rights...if you're in too much pain you won't be sane and if the court says no, then what do you do? Violate the law? End of discussion--doesn't matter what the law says, you're doing it anyway. Thanks for the exercise in futility--

@lerlo The court is only responsible to see that due diligence is done and so, far it has never found it was not. We are talking about people incapable of doing it themselves.

9

My late partner opted for the "Death with Dignity" program immediately upon hearing she had a brain tumor. She did not care if it was curable (it wasn't) all she knew was her quality of life was going to be reduced and that was unbearable to her.

I live on an island in Washing state in an area known as the Salish Sea. I am constantly dumbfounded by the energy and connections present in this community! We discovered there were 2 physicians living on island that were prominent in the endoflifewa program. One, a Dr. Tom Preston helped write the law (he emphasized the word suicide was removed from any talk of the program). He helped us and delivered the meds. to end her life. The other was a Dr. Carol Parrot (an anesthesiologist & also a resident) who helped reformulate the medications to one that was quick and without bad side affects (like burning). She would go around the conservative parts of the state (it's called the Cascade curtain and most places to the East are very conservative) to provide the 2nd signature needed for the program. She worked with our doctor and, in the end was instrumental in getting the medications delivered.

Why should anyone suffer when they don't have or want to?? Euthanasia should be a right of everyone. Keeping people alive and suffering costs the community valuable resources. Yes, it can be complicated but the best way to deal with that is to start and allow the program to evolve. I have said many times (and will keep saying it) the religious say this goes against (a ) god's plan and is unnatural. Yet they will go to great lengths and expense to preserve their life. They say they can't wait to meet Jesus, but just not yet.

Well said.

Thank you for sharing your story.

See my additional post. The AMA hasn't reconciled violating their Hippocratic oath to preserve life not take it. Everyone can commit suicide and it's nice to say how you want it done. 100 people have used the Oregon law, we don't make laws for 100 people. What about someone who is not in pain and just wants to die--they also have the right but not under our laws. What if no one will help you--should that be against the law? Should you be able to sue them?

Thank you.

@lerlo My partner was never in pain. She had a type of brain tumor that only affected her speech, at first the last couple of days she became weak and hours before medication arrived she went into a coma and stopped breathing some 10 hours later. The law for Death with Dignity says it is NOT suicide but the cause of death is what one is drying from.
Yes that is different than one wanting to end their life before a fatal illness sets in.

I have a close friend whose husband in in late stages Parkinson's. S0oon he will need to be committed. At one point he said he didn't want to go down this road and anted to end it while he still could. It is out of his hands now and he and his wife are going into slow suffering mode. Plus both they and society will bear enormous costs. For what???

I just started a book "Being Mortal". It questions the role doctors play in "preserving" life. Maybe the "Hippocratic" (hypo-critic) oath needs to evolve!

@zeliasgrand and you can leave me and my posts alone--see how easy it is. I don't care about you blessing or your beliefs. Me and 46 or so other states don't think it should be legal but who are we to disagree with you. Key word in my post was bring to light issues most EMOTIONAL people like you don't consider and apparently you're happy in the blissful state. Congrats. How about a law that people can live with dignity--guaranteeing food and shelter? Where are those laws or we only have to help people die not live?

2

The gun is probably the best tool we have available at the moument for ending our life when we have reached the point of not having any quality of life. Unfornately some people only make half hearted attempts and end up just badly hurting themselves but done correctly the gun is a quick and painless way of ending your life. I knew a pharmacist once who had terminal cancer who even with his access to a multitude of drugs ended his life by putting a short barreled 12 gauge shotgun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. Seems he trusted the shotgun more than he trusted drugs.

I disagree. Think of how many people die quickly and not only painlessly, but euphorically from overdoses of heroin. How would that not be a better way to go? You get high, then drift off to sleep, then die.

@JeffMurray If that’s the case why did the pharmacist choose the shotgun. Seems the shotgun would be quick and painless and probably messy as hell.

@Trajan61 Maybe he also hated his relatives? In all seriousness, I assume it is because the efficacy of "local pharmacy" medications in causing death is not what you're looking for if you seriously want to die. Most of it is pills with which a lot of things can go wrong. If they had Schedule II IV medications at that pharmacy (which, to be honest, I don't know if they are stocked at any local pharmacies) that would be a different story. It's all about comfort level and assumed success rates I imagine.

Yeah, a shotgun would be fast, but the mess would be considerable.

@phxbillcee One thing about it you wouldn’t have to worry about cleaning up!

I don't like the gun idea. I knew a woman that put a gun in her mouth. She must have jerked the trigger as she blew off the front of her face and destroyed both of her optic nerves leaving her totally blind. She recovered and underwent many reconstructive surgeries...many. And she had to learn to talk again and all kinds of training for the blind. She did do well though. I know another case where someone had to walk in after a brother's suicide and witness the scene and it was gory. Sorry to be so graphic but I wan't do a gun mostly because I'm a coward, but also because I don't want anyone to have to deal with the mess.

Reallyron, a gun would be quick, & relatively painless, if you don't flinch. But the "mess factor" one leaves for the folk that have to clean up, well, shitting oneself is the least of the mess!

@Reallyron Few people seem to think (or care) about how this affects others. It's all about the one.

2

"Let me also say that I'm a strong believer in the right to die...I just can't have help doing it."

You, sir, are not a strong believer in the right to die. Replace the word 'die' with the word 'abortion' to see how wrong you are. Actually, for quadriplegics, any right is a right they'd need help with. To claim that needing help should invalidate a right is disgusting. I hope someday you will have the sense to know what a horrible thing you've done and it keeps you up at night. Or, better yet, you end up with locked-in syndrome, in total agony, requiring help desperately with no way to even ask for it.

@JWDiaz Thanks, seems not many do. I really think putting yourself in someone else's shoes is vitally important when deciding where you stand on an issue (or wishing commensurate punishment on someone for failing to).

@JeffMurray Omg we've seen that. It's terrifying. Even the best nurses would sometimes forget to put the pain & call button back on my husband's bed. He was so weak he could hardly press the pain button to begin with. After that became apparent we had 24/7 rotating shifts of friends and family to keep watch at the hospital.

@Qualia Imagine how much worse it is for people who can't push call lights or PCA pump buttons...

Jeff, I agreed with you right up until you wished these maladies on him. I wish a fate like that on no one, & would hope just the recognition of these situations would be enough to sway him. I know it probably won't, especially if his views are religiously based, but I will still not wish this on anyone.

@JeffMurray Been there too. At the end had to push the buttons for him.

@phxbillcee Then you're better than me I guess? I have no problem wishing suffering on people that caused it in others. Not like wishing does anything other than show how much disdain I have for awful people. Wait, do you think wishes work?

You sir are completely clueless and I won't be wasting my time responding to any more of your rants but if you think that assisted suicide and abortion are the same, or the right to die and abortion are even close, we have nothing to talk about. Quadriplegics can stop eating like everyone else. Oh, now you want to preach about HOW someone gets to die. Read up on the Hippocratic oath that doctors take to preserve life and tell me why the AMA is opposed to assisted suicide. Find where I said that needing help, and we can all kill ourselves, invalidates any rights? You won'tr find it but nice try. There is a right to die--but no right to assisted suicide--should you be able to sue someone who won't help? What if no one will help--are they violating your right?

@lerlo
I wasn't saying that assisted suicide and abortion were the same, I was pointing out how poor the argument was with an analogy. If something is a right, it shouldn't matter if help is needed. And how exactly do quads "stop eating just like everyone else" when they're being fed through an IV or gastrostomy tube? (Which, by the way, shows what a grotesque human being you are suggesting that just because someone is disabled they should have to starve to death over an extended period of time to exercise the right you claim to support.) So you DID, in essence, suggest that needing help invalidated or revoked their right.
Maybe you should have read the Hippocratic Oath before posting. "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism." "Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty." That the AMA is fearful of what a position change would mean is irrelevant. 10% of the states in this country have legal forms of assisted suicide, and it won't be long before they rest wise up and follow suit. And we can debate individual circumstances and what ifs if you'd like, but to parse the difference between 'right to die' and the 'right to assisted suicide' (for someone who would qualify and needs help) is nothing more than a despicable tactic similar to states that say young women have the right to an abortion, but only if they get permission from their parents.

@phxbillcee Am I more justified now? This guy wants quads who are already suffering and desperate to die to sit in a bed and literally starve to death.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:15964
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.