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.

I fully concur.

Thanks for your response. The problem is the Hippocratic oath (see my subsequent post). Doctors take an oath to preserve life, not end it. it's why the AMA opposes assisted suicide, it violates the oath. Do doctors probably kill all the time in the name of euthanasia? Sure. Legalizing it is the problem. If someone won't help kill you should you be able to sue them? There is in my belief a right o die but not a right to assisted suicide. In a one-on-one murder situation, all the defendant would have to do was say, "he told me to kill him." It's a difficult subject. Everyone can commit suicide, stop eating etc. They just might not like how they have to do it. In Michigan at the time I had the cases, the assisted suicide law was that, as long as you were trying to alleviate pain, even if it caused death, it was ok. For instance, for a Lou Gehrig's patient, if you give them morphine it will alleviate the pain but it will suffocate them. kevorkian used carbon monoxide poison gas.

So, lerlo, its okay to kill yourself by starvation or other drawn-out or painful means, but not to get assistance from a professional that can make the process painless? I take it you are a xtian just like Mother Theresa who finds suffering ennobling in some perverse way?

@lerlo So in your response you open the door to my response. If a person is starving themselves to death, then helping them along is certainly alleviating pain. Because as you say, they may not "like how they have to do it."

There are obvious workable solutions to the legal fine points. A patient signs or affirms before hand that they are in agreement with the procedure which will likely result in death.

The Hippocratic oath,has like many ancient laws and codes, become outdated by modern understanding. Even taken on its founding principles, while it may be something doctors should weigh, it clearly isn't law. Doctors could not assist in executions if it were yet enough do that several states maintain the, similarly outdated, death penalty. I would be interested in how the assisted suicide laws in Oregon and Europe are evolving and working. I am certainly no expert in this field.

One question does occur to me though. And as far as I know it hasn't actually come up in a real case. What if the patient didn't die but instead was injured in a debilitating way? That seems to me to be the slipper slope of which legal nightmares are made.

People would say there is a difference in a piece of machinery and a thinking person. But the "slippery slope" shows how complicated it is. I was once actively involved with our states program (endoflifewa) when my partner was dying and I have insights into this issue that many don't. I have also thought of my own death and what if I was in a position where I could choose. It is complicated and it is getting more so.

@marmot84 Do you mean if a doctor was engaged to assist with death and the person didn't die? My guess is that the drug dose would be increased to make the death happen. Unless the patient changed their mind, they would still want to die. Otherwise I guess they have a law suit for breach of contract. In Arizona they tried to execute someone and he didnt die as expected so that has happened but of course the sentence was death so they just continued til they died.

I'm not sure what you mean by helping someone along who is starving themselves. Just like a hospitals DNR order, they can leave you alone but touching you without consent is assault.

As for Oregon, as far as I know only 100 people have used the law. I don't think we should have boutique laws for small groups of people. I notice there is no law that says people can live in dignity and that someone must provide them food and shelter. I'm not sure if indigent people have access to the law in Oregon, also another question.

@lerlo Thanks for your response. Yes, you outlined the hypothetical case I was wondering about. in my scenario, the person doesn't die but is badly maimed. I suppose this would have to be a substantially worse condition than they were already in. Perhaps what I am wondering about is if somehow the painless procedure wasn't so painless. Then after it began, the patient decided to abort it. I'm brought to wonder about it because of the many botched executions that have been in the news because of the drug supply issue.

Yes, you are absolutely right. It is a complex subject. It certainly tests the edge of understanding of the interplay between legality and morality. It also tests both independently.

Condescending or someone who was following orders and is now justifying action? I notice that nazism is used in the posting. I recall reading that the use of Hitler, Third Reich and Nazism is used as a discussion stopper that frequently works.

The Northern Territory of Australia enacted euthanasia type law in the 1990's, I think after the Chief Minister watched his mother die horrifically from cancer. A Federal Prime Minister on obtaining power in 1996 overturned that law on the main stated objection of it being contrary to UN Human Rights Conventions which only recognise right to life.

What hypocrisy. Australia does not even have a bill of rights or overall codification of the UN Conventions into Australian law. In fact only in that year both major parties wanted to pass laws stating exactly that to the other countries of the world "if we haven't made it Australian law don't rely on the international convention that we signed".

So it was with the Australian Prime Minister who along with Blair and Bush caused untold deaths in the pretense of mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction and have left the on going legacy of radioactive contamination from depleted uranium shells.

Warning the following reply contains photographs of horrific crimes committed against new born babies and their parents following the use of depleted uranium.

Warning the following link contains
photographs of horrific crimes committed
against new born babies and their parents
following the use of depleted uranium.

Would any god allow this to happen?

[pin.it]

Ultimate authority and condescending are in your head. Read up on the nazis who killed the handicapped because their quality of life didnt meet their expectations. When you understand the subject come back to me in civil terms if it's possible for you. Right to die and right to assisted suicide are two different things.

lerlo, Right to die & right to assisted suicide should not be 2 different things! Both are predicated on individual sovereign "body" rights! It is one thing to make one's own choice & another to make that choice for one, for or against. Please stop being such a condescending person if someone disagrees with you, it surely doesn't help your abhorrent case!

@lerlo You say, "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.", and then, "...consider myself an expert on the subject."

Nothing I said was uncivil. You are making spurious arguments and you have no idea what I understand. I understand logical arguments and you're out of your league.

As long as he's agnostic I suppose. Unfortunately, however, being agnostic doesn't stop you from being a short-sighted asshole.

Sorry, right to die you can justify. Right to assisted suicide you can't. Show me where that right comes from. Can you force someone to help you? Can you sue them if they don't? What if no one will help you? Once you bring someone else into it--it's no longer YOUR right. Nice try. Who decided that a drug overdose was painless--you want a drug overdose, buy enough drugs and take them.

lerlo, Part of the problem is that in many areas of this country it is illegal to even attempt suicide, by whatever means. But, you knew that. & stop with this forcing doctors or others to assist one, or to sue them if they don't. Set up a system that enables folk to get the counseling, help & assistance they need, & the only medicos involved would be ones that wish to be. How is getting assistance in something forgoing MY rights? Do I lose my rights if I retain the services of a lawyer in a legal situation? An architect in a building project? Did you play the Strawman in the "Wizard of Oz"?

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?

You tell 'em, KK!

Go for it! As I said we all have the right to die, just not a right to assisted suicide. You can't force someone to help you and it's called manslaughter in most states. If someone won't help you can you sue them? What if no one will help you?

That wiping part is certainly one of my red lines.....

@lerlo Like I said, got it covered.

@zeliasgrand Thanks for reading every other word of my posts--YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMMIT SUICIDE. If you want assisted suicide you go to a state that made it legal. My prosecution of kevorkian was pursuant to my oath to uphold the law of the State of Michigan. It benefited the law abiding people of the State of Michigan who passed the law and people who feel threatened by assisted suicide and the societal pressure once it is decided that there is a life not worth living made by the state. If you fear the rule of law, although under this administration it's questionable, but maybe you need to find another country. I REPEAT: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DIE AND COMMIT SUICIDE.(perhaps you missed the part about not liking how you might have to do it if you can't find anyone to help you)

@lerlo While I completely understand that you had a job to do, and followed the law, this is a social network, you can take off your lawyer hat and not be so adversarial with people. This topics triggers many, often fraught, emotions in people. We get it, there are laws. We also get that laws that are unjust need to be changed, and a lot of people are going to do what they feel is right, regardless of what Big Brother might have to say about it. No need for you to harp on the legalities here. Time to let it go.

@KKGator Hmmm not be adversarial with people--you mean like people calling me an asshole? ALL I've done is stated the arguments against it--havent ARGUED or been adversarial with anyone except the people who perceive that anyone that disagrees with them is adversarial. I have learned here since I'm relatively new that there are just some contrarians here, and anarchists who will be against any societal norms--I get it. Good for them. There are reasons assisted suicide is not legal in most of the Western world--that some of you choose not to like those reasons is your choice and thanks for your attempt to shoot the messenger. I won't apologize for trying to explain through the emotion. I notice you don't care that there are no laws requiring food and shelter--WHY IS THAT? You could call it Life With Dignity.

@zeliasgrand Of course that post wasnt lecturing me was it? I didnt read the rules that you had to agree with all posts--please give me a list of the the subjects I'm allowed to comment on...I don't care what they are but thanks for trying to eliminate anything ideas you don't like. You won't do it but try re-reading your original post and the parts about my attitudes--you can lecture but no one else can. Anyone who disagrees with you is arrogant and you're the perfect lady. Would you like to me to number the people that agree with me and tell you to get off the site? Exactly. Try and remember the common courtesy to allow others to voice their opinions even if you don't agree or like it. Or not--I don't care.

@lerlo " I notice you don't care that there are no laws requiring food and shelter--WHY IS THAT?" You have extrapolated to a fallacious conclusion. It's not possible for you to have noticed that I don't care about there being no laws requiring food and shelter. For one, it wasn't even a topic of discussion in this thread. For another, my feelings regarding anything other than the topic at hand are completely unknown to you. You are assuming facts not in evidence. I never called you an asshole, or attempted to shoot the messenger. I stated my personal position on the subject and conveyed my utter disdain for the laws which attempt to disregard personal autonomy regarding ending one's life. I never attacked you personally. Not even a little bit. I said that I understood you had a job to do and you did it. My comments were not directed at you personally, I was speaking in general terms. Until, that is, I asked you to take off your lawyer hat and accept that we all got it. That was it. Further, with that request, I was inviting you to take part in the community. Your further responses to me, and to zeliasgrand, did come across as adversarial. I reread the thread to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting my response. I don't think I have. Granted, I've been defiant as hell, and completely disrespectful of those "laws", but I didn't attack you. I'd like to suggest growing a little thicker skin, and not jumping to conclusions about people posting on social sites. As far as your "WHY IS THAT?" question, perhaps we could have a conversation about that particular topic, if you'd like.

@atheist not that I know of but there have been other posts suggesting euthanasia of people that are beyond making that choice and do not have an advanced directive

@atheist I didnt say anything like that. someone in a post when I first joined was advocating something like that

We ALL have the right to die, not just "terminally ill" patients. In Oregon arent those people in horrible pain in the 7th month? You don't think doctors arbitrarily make that 6th month decision? If they are in great pain are they of sound mind? The patient CAN choose but not make the choice for the doctor. The doctor took an oath to preserve life. Is the doctor violating some right of yours if they won't help you because it violates their Hippocratic oath? The right to die and the right to assisted suicide are two different things. Once there is a "law" it's no longer the patient deciding--it's the government. See my subsequent post. At the time I had the cases in the Netherlands where assisted suicide was not prosecuted people were wearing necklaces saying "don't kill me" because 60% were killed without consent. If a doctor has a choice of working hard to try and alleviate your pain or killing you, some will take the easy way out. We shouldnt sentence people to death because the medical profession hasnt adequately treated pain.

@lerlo I am curious how this is done in some other countries? Remember "Soylant Green"?

I am watching a British krimi where a big drug company has gotten people hooked on an anti-depressant pill that makes the person worse and they constantly need more and more to keep normal, kind of like alcoholism.

The question is why. Maybe it helps the "healthcare" givers more income at the expense of their patients. We could be in that boat someday.

I had a friend who worked on the crisis team in the Ryde area of Sydney many years ago. He used to be called out to sort out people marching along the railway line challenging locomotives hauling thousands of tons of freight to a fight! He stated that when such wannabes and wrist slashers turned up for the second time and definitely third time they showed them the correct procedure and place/ direction to open the required artery. I imagine that any reputable text on the practice of triage priorities will give you an indication of avenues to examine for speed.

[digitaltrends.com]

One problem is that if a person is mentally sane can they make the decision for the time they re not. With my partner the brain tumor did not affect her reasoning. After 15 days the doctor has to re-evaluate the patient to access the mental ability. He looked at my partner and the other4 people in the room and said she was the sanest person there, and then signed.

@DJVJ311 Nice one.

@atheist I haven't previously heard of this. My immediate thought is if someone other than the suicides switches the flow on, applies a clip to their nose to close it and puts a tube into their mouth the suicides can always, unless comatose, open their mouth to eject the tube. Surely a film of that broadcast live is proof of suicide not murder?
@lerlo opinion please.

@FrayedBear Assisted suicide is defined differently in different states. There are many elements that go into murder and I don;t think their description meets the elements of murder. If the patient spits the tube out and someone puts it back in, some type of homicide might be argued.

@lerlo I would have thought so also. Thanks for answering the hypothetical question.
Incidentally many responses on this thread are illegal under Australian broadcasting/ media rules and could not be broadcast or published.

@lerlo "Nanny state"

A shot gun does not take an oath to preserve life, doctors do, the Hippocratic oath. That's why the AMA won't condone assisted suicide. Not clear where everyone got the slippery slope argument from my post--I said nothing like that. The right to die and the right to assisted suicide are two completely different things. Do you think you can force someone to help you? If that's your right can you sue them if they won't help you? The comment about his painting was to show that he was a ghoul, only interested in death, not helping people. He once went around the hospital trying to see if he could tell the exact moment of death in someone's eyes.

@lerlo 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?

All arguments that imply that disagreement will result in a repeat of The Holocaust can generally be dismissed as slippery slope, which is why I asked you to explain that connection.

Your painting of the guy as a sadistic ghoul is an ad hominem because no one cares about him, we are intellectuals discussing an issue. You can keep smearing him, but that doesn't matter at all.

You have a right to free speech, that doesn't mean you have a right to forcing people to hear you or listen. If you have the right to assisted suicide, that doesn't mean you have the right to force anyone.

@lerlo As with most other question on this site it is very complicated. If it can be abused people will find a way to do so. It is good that this conversation is being done.

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.

Furthermore, Jack Kevorkian did not solicit for people to aid in their effort to commit suicide...they sought him out.

You do have the right to die, just not the right to assisted suicide. Should you be able to sue someone if they won't help you? What if no one will help you? See my subsequent post re Hippocratic Oath. Kevorkian got a letter from a mental patient asking for assistance in dying, kevorkian's response: "at this stage we can't help you." he was happy to kill anyone and everyone. He didnt even consult with the doctors of most of his last victims because he was afraid they would turn him in. Hence the problem with trying to regulate it.

@lerlo how can you state that kevorkianwas happy to kill anyone and everyone? You have just stated that he told a mental patient that help was not available at that time! What prescient abilities are you certified with enabling you to read into the future?

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.

@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.

And perhaps more than you wish to recognise. Here I am another.

[qz.com]

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.

They have now supposedly enacted legislation allowing assisted death of the terminally ill in Victoria Australia.
Interestingly no one is interested in listening to the plight of those driven to their suicides by bad governance, bad policing, bad public prosecutors and bad magistrates. Ready examples include homeless deaths, deaths in police custody (aka genocide), no legal representation in court, family law court verdicts, judicial murders, discrimination against pensioners/ the disabled/ the unemployed/ the sick all in the name of profit making and austerity.

It really can't be. There is no "right" to assisted suicide. We all have the right to die, from some one who lost their family in the Oklahoma City bombings and just doesn't want to live anymore, to someone with a terminal disease. We just can't regulate the help I don't think. First and foremost, doctors take the Hippocratic oath to preserve life--they cannot ethically actively assist in death. People can stop eating, drive off cliffs etc., we can all commit suicide, we just might not like how we have to do it. In the Netherlands, at the time I had the cases, 60% of patients were killed without consent and they took to wearing "don't kill me" necklaces. As it is now, for instance in Oregon, tow psychiatrists have to say you're of sound mind. If you're suicidal are you of sound mind? We have suicide hotlines because we think people that are suicidal have a mental defect--should suicide hotlines be illegal? What if no one will help you kill yourself? What happens to your "right?" I know may of these are just questions but as I stated I just don't think you can regulate assisted suicide. You can't force the medical profession to do it and you can't draw an arbitrary line about who gets to commit suicide and who doesnt.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.