When I hear people talk about the difficulty of euthanizing their elderly or desperately ill pets I immediately think that at least we accord our pets a more logical and merciful death than we do to our fellow humans. The wonders of modern medicine can be as much a curse as they are a blessing. We live in an unprecedented time when we can know what will probably kill us twenty years down the line. To modern doctors death is the enemy which must be fought to the last possible moment. Little concern is given to the quality of life of the patient/victim, only that they be kept alive.
The conspiracy is broad-based. Big Pharma wants to keep you on maintenance drugs and never seems to come up with cures. A patient cured is a customer lost. If they stumbled across a $1 cure for AIDS or cancer would we ever hear of it? And then there are the private, for-profit health insurance companies that are really legalized extortion and protection rackets sucking billions out of the health-care system for administration, profits and to pay lawyers to find ways not to honor the benefits spelled out in their policies. The patient is but a scrap of meat ground up in the gears of corporate medicine. If we truly have free will shouldn't we be allowed to opt out?
There are many reasons someone may want to take advantage of doctor assisted suicide. One would be to avoid a prolonged and torturous illness. Another might be to avoid being a burden to loved ones. There are also those who are alone in life and don't want to go through the steady drip, drip of watching their bodies deteriorate due to age. If the request is initiated by the patient, there is no outside duress and the patient has thought through their decision with the consul of medical professionals what gives the state the right to deny such a request no matter what the circumstances? Like back alley abortions unassisted suicides can be messy affairs that can lead to unintended consequences like paralysis or brain damage. The primary reason for legalizing abortions was to end horrific atrocities committed in non-clinical circumstances. Wouldn't the same argument apply to suicide?
Of course it should. The use of the term 'assisted suicide' is there for the purpose of negative spin. Euthanasia by choice is a better way to put it and far more accurate. The good thing about euthanasia is that the dying can be made painless and without any sort of trauma, either physical or mental. I've heard all the slippery slope arguments, but I just don't see any validity in them. The process would certainly be easier on family and loved ones as well. They would know in advance that it was going to take place and they would know that the person who made the choice would not have to suffer.
I wasn't really into physician assisted suicide until I watched my grandma die of congestive heart failure. It was a very slow and painful experience. I wish she died before she got too bad. It was hard on me to see that and my little cousin I think took it worse than I did. Maybe we all would have taken it better if we didn't see her go through that and slowly get worse and worse.
Most definitely.When great individuals like Dr .Kervorkian try to make the world a better place ignorant people win out. It was a travesty that Dr kervorkian was put in jail when he could have been helping people end their lives in dignity. We are able to euthanize our pets but not our loved ones .This is an example of the idiocy of humanity
Yes of course. Every state should have right to die laws but very few do. We should also be able to leave a will stating that in the event we become invalided with no prospects for a life of any quality and diminished mental capascity we should be put to death as there would be no point in going on living such a life.
Unfortunately, we have these evangelicals and other religious bodies who feel that we must keep these individuals in pain and suffering because life means everything. They never take into consideration the choice the person should be permitted to voice as is their right.This is also a position that should be provided at birth if a child is born with terrible diseases or conditions that would not allow them a normal life. If the child healthy this would not be an option ,but to place a child in the world that is badly crippled or has another problem that would provide a life of pain and suffering is not humane.
The terminally ill should be able to check out when they are ready. There shouldn't even be an argument to the contrary.
Assisted suicide is another thing entirely. What criteria would a person need to meet to be considered a candidate? Who would be administering the lethal dose or pulling the trigger? Most doctors ARE all about saving lives. Do we let people on death row do the killing for us, since they seem to be fine with taking lives? Are we rewarding them somehow if we do allow them to do it? Is it so terrible to reward someone, even a murderer, who can bring final peace to someone who is suffering so much that they actively seek ways to die?
Death with dignity is carried out every day in hospice care and hospitals however suicide is not.
There are circumstances that warrant individuals and their families to want to speed up the process and they are blocked by religious based laws and obstruction.
I agree with your analogies to abortion rights and would also like to add that what it boils down to is a person having the right to control their own body. And like abortion, painless suicide should be an option legally available and a matter decided between a patient and their doctor. And like an abortion and any other medical procedure yes... under controlled circumstances.
Great post! Thanks.
A few states recognize our right to die but the religious are alway opposed to giving us those rights. I believe any terminally ill person should have the right to end their life. After all what's the point of continuing life if there is no quality. I get upset with the liberal's for including suicide as wrongful death with a gun in their push for gun control. Often the gun is the only means we have of ending our life with dignity.
The right to die is just that, a right. I believe that one of the oddest things about the United States is that we practice the death penalty, but then refuse people who are suffering the right to death with dignity (the six states that now have legalized the right to die being the exception.)
Yes, it should. Great post.
By the way, I believe there already is a cure for cancer, Newcastle disease virus, which replicates about 10,000 times faster in cancerous cells than healthy cells. Last I checked, all clinical trials proved inconclusive. I doubt there's much profit in a virus. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/ndv-pdq
Absolutely a person's life is their own and no one else's that is why in most places attempted suicide is not a crime but, rather considered to be a sign of mental illness. Euthanasia should not be a crime either as long as the decision to be snuffed remains with the individual and no one else.
Such a decision cannot be taken lightly and needs to be subject to medical and psychological review because it would need to be a medical procedure, which leads to the next problem finding a doctor to do it. Legal consequences can change and what one day is legal the next could be declared murder with those penalties now falling on the doctor.