Agnostic.com

60 9

Should euthanasia or "death with dignity" be available to anyone upon demand under controlled circumstances?

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?

GareBear517 7 Nov 13
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

60 comments

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

1

Having been the first person to put Dr. Kevorkian in jail in Michigan I know a thing or two about assisted suicide. In answer to the question, we all have the same "right to die" so I believe that the laws allowing assisted suicide for only those with six months to live violates the equal protection clause. The problem with any assisted suicide is that there is no way to regulate it. The only way you know that someone really wants to die is if they do it themselves. Freshman year in college in a philosophy course I saw a film of a guy who had 3rd degree burns over 60% of his body. The way they treat burn victims is to keep them in water to keep the burns moist. The problem is that it's stupidly painful. The guy was yelling "kill me, kill me." He got through the treatment and they played the tape back for him and asked, "did you really want to die/" and he said "of course not." You may not like how you have to kill yourself, stopping eating, bag over your head etc. but if you want to die you need to do it yourself. otherwise every one on one murder, the defendant just has to say, "he told me to kill him." Of course once it's regulated, it's no longer your choice, like in Oregon where you have to have two doctors say you're not crazy and a court to approve it. We have suicide hotlines because we think suicidal people have a mental defect--you can't have it both ways. Bottom line is that everyone, whether they have six months to live (apparently it's ok for them to be in excruciating pain in the 7th month) or just lost their family in the Oklahome Cith bombing and don't want t live anymore, has an equal right to die. By the way, please stop dragging animals into the discussion. We don't "treat animals better" animals can't commit suicide and need out our help.

lerlo Level 8 Dec 23, 2017

Incapacitated people can't commit suicide, either, and need our help! I wouldn't be proud to say I helped put Dr. Kevorkian in jail. He was blazing a path to humane treatment and mercy for the dying that can only be understood by secular humanists. I live in Oregon. The assisted suicide law on the books now is practically useless. The patient has to jump through hoops that would be daunting to a 25 yr. old in perfect health. I'm in poor health and have tried to make inquiries from my doctors in preparation for the time that will come. All I get is stonewalled. Why should I go out in bloody violence or terror when a peaceful death is possible? In Oregon, the patient has to be capable of administering the deadly dose himself, another ridiculous barrier for many.

Sorry for your struggles. Wasn't bragging about putting Kevorkian in jail, just suggesting that after a year and a half of research into assisted suicide I might know something about it. Everyone CAN commit suicide, as I said, you might not like how you have to do it. There is a reason the medical profession is against it: They took an oath to preserve life not end it. Kevorkian, the ghoul, was blazing a path for himself. He was pathologist and obsessed with death. If you look up Kevorkian's paintings you'll find one with Santa Claus coming down the chimney stomping on an infant. We need to push the medical profession to adequately treat pain, not sentence people to death. At the time I had the case and maybe still, in the Netherlands where assisted suicide was not prosecuted, people were wearing necklaces saying "don't kill me" because 60% of people in hospitals were killed without consent. Unfortunately it can't be adequately regulated. You don't want any regulations, unfortunately some medical professionals and family members who no longer want to care for family members will take advantage of no regulations. Hang in there!

@lerlo I don't understanbd why you say it can't be regulated. It seems to work fine in Switzerland and the Netherlands. Sadly switzerland is the only country which will allow medically assisted suicide for non-nationals, and it is expensive but there are plenty of safeguards to prevent misuse. Of course we can all find a way to end our lives if we are willing to upset lots of other people by doing it in a nasty, messy way, but why should we have to? Why can't we go with comfort and dignity when we want to?

@CeliaVL Just because there are laws doesn't mean it's regulated. In oregon if the judge and two psychiatrists say that you're suicidal, you can't do it? I would suggest reading my numerous responses if you're curious about the multitude of problems. When I had the case, the Netherlands didn't prosecute it and 60% of people were killed without consent and patients wore necklaces saying "please don't kill me."

@lerlo It looks as if you have been misled by some faith-based propaganda. Both the Dutch government and Dutch medical association have confirmed that 'Don't kill me' bracelets do not exist. They think Rick Santorum, who made the claim, may be confusing them with 'Do not resuscitate' bracelets, which are very common with old people. Always worth doing a fact check on extraordinary claims!

@CeliaVL Sorry to inject some truth here but of course the doctors doing the killing won't admit that involuntary euthanasia exists. Here are some facts: Dr. Herbert Hendin, an expert on Dutch euthanasia in Issues in Law and Medicine:
...a Protestant group also opposed to euthanasia, they distribute a “passport for life” that patients carry, indicating that in medical emergencies they do not want their lives terminated without their consent.
In "The Report of the Dutch Government Committee on Euthanasia, 7 Issues in Law and Medicine 339 (1991) Dr. Richard Fenigsen found that 14,691 cases of INVOLUNTARY euthanasia occurred annually in the Netherlands. Of the 8,100 cases where morphine was given in excessive doses with the intent to terminate life, 61% were done WITHOUT THE PATIENT'S CONSENT. (P.341) These cases were reported not as involuntary euthanasia but as "pain relief."

I researched euthanasia for a year and a half and I didn't get a 7-0 decision in the Michigan Supreme Court citing false facts. Please don't confuse me with Rick Santorum but of course you are allowed to believe whatever lets you sleep at night.

@lerlo I won't dispute your information since I haven't read it. I think you will find, though, that there is very strong support in numerous countries for changing the laws on pain relief in terminal illness, and medically assisted dying in cases of terminal and life-limiting illness. it used to be the case in the UK that terminally ill patients who were in severe and intractable pain were given doses of morphine which led directly to their death - that is, involuntary euthanasia. This was considered normal procedure and no-one objected. Since the Harold Shipman case and the vast increase in money-chasing litigation, however, doctors have become afraid to do this with the result that a considerable number of patients now spend their last days and even weeks screaming in agony and begging their families and doctors to put them out of their misery. The doctors are afraid to give them the dose of morphine that would be adequate for pain relief because they know that this dose will shorten the patient's life. It is all very well to say that we must improve our palliative care techniques, etc., but I think we need the option to choose to end our lives and to givbe doctors permission to do this when it is clearly the right thing. I would certainly have no objection to people carrying cards etc., saying that they wish to be resuscitated, treated, etc. In the UK this is the default position and you have to provide the paperwork if you do not want to be resuscitated, which can be complicated in emergency situations. The important thing is to make sure that your family know your wishes. I am sure we can find a way to meet everyone's needs and wishes if we show willingness to discuss it, but unfortunately many people don't want to accept that they are going to die.

@CeliaVL You realize you said that people were given morphine without consent, involuntary euthanasia, AND NO ONE COMPLAINED. Do you mean like the dead person? 🙂 Or the family of the dead person who no longer wanted the burden didn't complain 🙂 Doctors are supposed to do no harm and help people to live. Everyone has the right to suicide, even people who are not terminal. The only way you know that someone wants to kill themselves is if they do it themselves. I think we should focus more on developing ways to control pain. People can stop eating, drive their car off a cliff. If they are dying does it really matter how they do it--rather than force a profession which takes an oath not to cause harm to do it? By the way, if you give morphine to a patient with Lou Gehrig's disease it will ease their pain but it will suffocate them, why is that "dignified?"

@lerlo On that specific point, clearly, if you have Lou Gehrig's disease and wish to end your life, a more pleasant and dignified way of doing so needs to be found.I disagree that the only way to know if people really mean it is if they do it themselves - someone who is screaming in agony during their last days and begging to be put out of their misery is hardly in a position to do it themselves. I would be happy to let people do it themselves if they can be supplied legally with the means to do it in a decent and painless way. I would very much like to be able to go to the doctor and say 'Please can I have the drugs to end my life, and then do it myself at home, surrounded by family and friends. Not everyone has a car or a nearby cliff, and starving to death is very unpleasant and protracted for those watching.

5

Absolutely. We don't get to choose to be born, but we should be allowed to end our life if we feel we are done with it. There should be facilities where we could go to be euthanized and our bodies be used for science.

That seems a fair barter. Lately, I have wondered if there would be money to be made to satisfy the plutocracy by arranging end of life celebratory cruises where those who wished to die and their significant others might spend a few lavish and intimate days at sea towards the end of which those who so desired would be euthanized in their sleep then buried at sea over some deep marine trench killing two birds with one stone, no pun intended.

There are just not in the US.

Here is a great article from a documentary last year.

[dailymail.co.uk]

There is a movie: Suicide Tourist.

There is a suicide law in Oregon to protect ones right to take their life. But I’m not sure on specifics.

Thanks for the link! A very interesting read, and you can tell that the writer is a tad biased by her statement "Suicide is the biggest killer of young men in this country [UK] and the more it is normalised, the more people will think of it as a way out."

The "way out" part is what caught my attention. Suicide is the "way out" of what, exactly? It sounds as if she has NO concept of what death with dignity is, and has the religious mind set of "keep them alive as long as possible, so they can suffer with the rest of us".

Personally, as I said before, I think everyone should have the choice of ending his/her life whenever they damn well feel like it, and it shouldn't be frowned upon or shown contempt. The spark of life is ours to do with as we wish, and if we wish to estinguish it, so be it.

:0) She was very bias. Haha. True.

@Annaleda There is an assisted suicide law in Oregon where I live but it is highly restrictive. Two physicians must state the patient has less than six months to live under any circumstances, the patient must be of sound mind when making the request and the patient has to be capable of administering the lethal dose themselves. How many invalids in their final days can meet these requirements. Less than 350 people in a state populated by 4 million people have been able to take advantage of this in any one year.

13

Absolutely, it should be available. Legal or not, if I reach the stage of being so disabled that life has little quality and/or if I am a burden on others, I WILL exercise that choice.

Many seniors, including myself, stock pile drugs against the day that we decide enough is enough. But this is risky business as the drugs may not be effective or would lead to a painful death.

I agree. I have no others, so I do feel it's my responsibility to make the decision for myself before I'm too far gone.

GareBear517: There is information online and groups with information on preferred medications or cocktails but they all urge caution because too little or the wrong combination of drugs can have terrible consequences. Vanilla yogurt is easy to swallow and honey for any bitterness.

I am making an exit bag kit for helium for myself. It seems easy to make and use and it's a very quick peaceful transition..Regardless of how it's done one should still have supervision or assistance. Even with something as straight forward as an Exit Bag, a hose can come loose as your posture changes or the gas can run out with disastrous results if you are alone.

Have you seen the movie Soylent Green? I love the part when you decide when to die, go to a clinic and they put on your favorite music, you lie down and peacefully go to sleep. I think euthanasia is the most humane way to die. All pet owners who have had to do this agree that the elimination of suffering is the most important when it's time to go. It should be a choice, not governed by someone else religion.

@SoloSentient With passing of my 91 old mother who wanted to be euthanatized, I would also want an exit kit. Dying slowly is not pretty. As I understand the right type of helium is hard to get a hold of. If you have any info to help me prepare, please share🙂

5

As a cancer survivor, some mornings during chemo, I truly didn't expect to wake up. And when I inevatably did, I felt as though I landed on the wrong side of Occam's razor. I had a good prognosis, but if I hadn't a hope in recovery, ended my suffering would have been the kindest thing to do.
Americans fear death more than most other cultures. It is inevitable for all of us. I firmly believe dying with dignity isn't just a treatment option, but the human right of the untreatably I'll.

I could not agree more!

all creatures in fact

As another cancer survivor-I had a hard time with pain-not knowing from day to day if I would survive. I think I had the fear of losing control of my body functions and not dying with dignity.

American's do fear death and avoid to subject, even with the dying. I do not fear death. What I fear is dying. Once beyond death's threshold fear of pain and death are gone. I fear the legal pressure, corporate greed, political fraud and bureaucratic medicine and their effect on my choices and treatment at the end of my life.

5

It is the right of every person to decide their own faith and especially when very sick.

Autocorrect could have changed it on him. My phone won't let me type "NC" (even though I live in north carolina) and always changes it to "NJ".

My computer won't let me use lower case letters for christian and other religious terms unless I go back and override the auto-correct.

3

I think a person should be able to make preparations for this while of sound mind and have the means available to them. Involving other people in the actual acts leading to death makes things more complicated.

I agree all this should be sorted out by the patient when of sound mind. Having worked in skilled nursing facilities, however, I can tell you that many people in the last years of their lives are incapable of feeding themselves must less preparing and taking an injection. Professional care and aid is a necessary evil.

been a doctor for 35 years. also read a lot about the history of the Holocaust. The first people in that process were exactly the people you mention. I do not have the confidence in people to NOT start a slide down a similar slippery slope again

Excellent point! Both of my parents have asked me to euthanize them if their minds go. My dad told me to take him to the lake, duct tape a fishing pole to his hand, and take the brake off his wheelchair. These things are too much to ask of a daughter.

2

What is life but freedom? Freedom to live the way we want and to do the things we do. True, suffering is part of life and we should try to reduce suffering when it happens. If people are living through excruciating pain then I believe it is their decision if they want to end their life, on their terms. Doctors should help to alleviate suffering but they should not be the ones who end a life, it's not fair on them. I think that whoever wants to be euthanized should be given an anesthetic before being euthanized. But they themselves should be the one to do it.
I'm thinking a process of anesthetic gas then an asphyxiating gas.

Also just for the record. Sometimes it is best to live through the pain. My dad is still alive, he is in his 50's. He broke his neck in 4 places, takes multiple injections and medication just to stay alive and he has arthritis in both his hands. He can't sleep well at night due to sleep apnoea and his broken neck surgery. But he still wants to live to see me and my sister grow up. We are both adults but I want him to keep living.

If one day he did say he had enough and that he wanted to be euthanized, I'd stay by his side until the end. He's lived a great life. He's been the best father that he could, even if he was away so often with work when I was a kid. I realized that he was working hard for his family.

Taking a life is never easy. But I'd rather he pass away peacefully, without having to go through all that pain.

You mentioned "anesthetic gas then an asphyxiating gas" but beware that the wrong gas can make for a very unpleasant death. CO2 or carbon monoxide is noxious and before it can knock you out you experience disorientation, panic, hyperventilation, convulsions then unconsciousness, and eventually death.

I am not advocating this nor will I describe the kit or set up but the concept is simple. If helium replaces the oxygen you normally breathe that deprives the brain of oxygen causing a rapid loss of consciousness and death. The last thing you want to experience before dying is panic, disorientation and convulsions and an inert, non-toxic gas will do that. Along with may other considerations and preparations.

Well there's always an anesthetic and a gun. But that wouldn't be legal for the rest of the world. Only America.

Being double in continent or looking my senses through dementia or death with dignity... no contest in my mind

1

In regards to assisted suicide, this is a funny and I think, true story from hilarious comedian Doug Stanhope. Please watch this video. It’s not too long.

Great routine! I love Doug Stanhope!

He’s pretty damn funny. One of the best

I will check it out thanks

3

Yes. Without hesitation, I say yes. My brother died from complications of AIDS, my father from complications from Alzheimer's disease and my mother died from Emphysema. All were unnecessarily long and quite horrible to watch. While medical science has extended life, little has been accomplished to improve the quality of those extra years which too often are filled with pain, lack of mobility, confinement, and warehousing of the aged, ill, suffering and forgotten.

What is more fundamental than the right to choose when you have suffered enough? To be able to make that choice, prepare for your departure and control the circumstances surrounding your death seems the most humane outcome for this final struggle for control and self determination.

Ten likes for you!

Well said, and I'm sorry for your many losses.

Thank you. Before he died my brother brother said he imagined death would be like taking off a tight shoe. Helping yourself or someone achieve such a passing is a kindness of the highest order.

2

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. [cancer.gov]

Over the years I have participated in innumerable fund raising activities for every disease from cancer to AIDS. The hook is always, "Help find a cure for__!" fill in the blank. Millions are raised but all we get are more maintenance drugs, never cures. I am beginning to think that instead of making grants to pharmaceutical companies, universities and the like that the search for cures be nationalized and the NIH stop making such grants.

I totally agree.

2

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?

Orly Level 5 Nov 14, 2017

There is only one criteria that the person considering assisted suicide should have to meet. Namely, that it is their desire to do so. Despair, depression, loneliness are really terminal illnesses in their own right. Should those suffering have only violence (guns, jumping) or risky homemade poisonous concoctions as an option? Counseling should be part of the process but the ultimate decision should be left to the individual. Squeamish doctors should not put their values above those of their patients. But if many opt out there would still be those who would probably have a practice specializing in such assistance. The idea of using condemned convicts as the supervisors over such acts is outlandish and unnecessary. The whole idea is to allow assisted suicide in clinical surroundings.

Doctors are not all about saving lives..just customers

3

If a person is ill, and suffering with no real chance of recovery, then I think they have the right to determine if they want ot save themselves suffering and end their own life, with or without assistance.

But what if they don't want to go on living - even without a terminal illness? Shouldn't that be their choice? If you don't think so - why not?

That is a tougher question. If a person doesn't have a debilitating illness, but still wants to commit suicide, I fall back on the old saying that "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem".

Of all the people who attempted suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, everyone who survived changed thir minds after jumping... usually on the way down.

I think in al;most every case persons who are suicidal have built a kind of psycholigcal box for themselves in which they can see no way out. I myself have had suicidal feelings, and one of my sisters attempted suicide twice (persons raised in a rigid religion are at least three times more likley to commit suicide). In both of out cases, all we needed to do was knock out one of the walls of our psychological box, simply by leaving the religion, and we had a way out other than suicide.

In the end we all die anyways. I look at it as staying to see how our life story goes I've had a pretty miserable childhood, nto as bad as some, but not happy, and I only have the one life. I'd like my adult life to be much a happier, as i have more control over that part of my life than I did as a child. I want to see how the adventure ends based on my own, not somebody else's decisions about how to live my life.

So, for the vast majority of those who are suicidal, I think they can adequately recover and live happy and fulfilling lives. However, I cannot say for sure who can and who can't recover. I think help should be offered and be available for suicidal persons.

From a stand point of valuing human life, if there were no efforts to prevent suicide, then human life itself would be devalued, and then how would we feel about people taking the lives of others? For that reason, even if it only makes a light difference in valuing human life itself, suicide of physically healthy people should be prevented if possible.

1

They shoot horses, don't they? This is a subject where laws are created and controlled by 1) the religious who see suffering as part of God's plan, and 2) big pharma who see disappearing profits.

Shameful, really, that something so personal such as our eventual destiny is state-controlled. I've heard a few stories from places where assisted dying is legal, but the hoops to jump through are horrendously complex.

I live in Oregon that has legalized physician assisted suicide but the conditions one has to meet are so restrictive that few can take advantage. You have to be of sound mind but near death and capable of administering the fatal dose yourself. How many invalids are capable of that?

I think if the sufferer agrees to die then he shld be assisted to end is life. Or given the means to end his life himself.

1

Let's just call it suicide. Yes. Suicide is allowed. Last I checked any human who truly want to die will surely kill himself in private. The public suicide attempt are mostly depressed people who wants attention. If any human truly wants to die (s)he can simply drink poison on his well laid bed or practice the honour death stabbing or slicing of his or her own throat.
We have enough public death already, let's not add honour suicide to the list.

What poisons will work? Will it be an agonizing death? Is the person capable of a violent death by knife, gun, jumping or stepping out in traffic? Why should he/she not be accorded the dignity of a proven, painless death professionally supervised? Sure. Anyone can kill themselves. Or can they?

none of us is getting out of here alive. you can't add to the deaths but you can make the transition much better. some things are worse than death and some people aren't capable of killing themselves painlessly.

2

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.

Our recoiling in horror at the idea of euthanasia and its being legislated against is mainly the work of religion. Another good reason to build an impenetrable wall between church and state. Like abortion this matter should be left strictly to the individual and his/her physician. And physicians should learn in their medical educations that sometimes death is the cure.

2

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.

Agree

7

To die with dignity is the only way to go.

But such a rare event.

6

Fantastic post.. I 100% agree all around...the medical establishment is a corrupt for profit business that has lost all reliability..natural medicine and homeopathic is the way to go.. suffering people should have the right to die...

We definitely have death without dignity for those who cannot play the corporatist plutocrat game invented to squeeze the last dime out of the desperate. When you have no more money to buy tokens to feed Big Pharma, the insurance rackets and corporate medical networks you can just go to a corner, wither and die. I think they call it Freedom.

6

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

I'm with you, brother!

4

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.

See my reply to AtheistinNC!

2

I agree with you on all points.

We need to talk up the idea of a new Constitutional Convention formed of people mostly outside present day government who have all been corrupted by the need for huge campaign donations traded for promises. The old Constitution was written during the "Age of Enlightenment" and served the 18th and 19th centuries well. But we need a new one based on secular humanist and democratic socialist principles to serve us in the 21st century.

3

Absolutely we should have the right to be helped to die painlessly and peacefully. It is now legal in Canada but only for the terminally ill, which excludes a lot of people who would want assisted dying, particularly those with dibilitating chronic illness.

Bebel Level 4 Nov 20, 2017

Same is true in Oregon where you have to be diagnosed as terminally ill with less than six months left to live by two physicians, of sound mind and capable of administering the lethal dose yourself. Few can meet that criteria which makes the law essentially useless. Highest usage in one year has been 350 people.

2

yes it should for sure

a lot of drugs will kill you but not nice and clean like you would imagine so do research. sadly I have.

3

Yes. And I've wondered why believers fight so hard against this. If heaven is real why wouldn't you let your people go?

To the religious it is unnatural and is playing God. They fail to see that the ways of extending life is also unnatural and playing God. I like to think these people say they can't wait to meet Jesus, but not just yet.

3

A couple of years ago I saw a video on YouTube of a British Senior showing viewers how to make a Suicide Bag, or Exit Bag. If it wasn't such an important issue for me it would have seemed like a Monty Python skit. She was a good presenter and her design is smart and simple to assemble. The video was pulled and I believe she was forced to stop selling the kits she produced.

But this is a real improvement over poison, firearm and so many other methods. Just Google Exit Bag.

It's not 100% foolproof but there is no need for people to suffer more than they choose to endure. But laws have to change and others must be written to clarify our rights at the end of life.

Good info on Exit Bag. Thanx!

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:3689
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.