One of the questions on my ballot - Euthenasia

[AmbrosiaWriter]

So, I thought I'd put this up to the debate but I wasn't sure if it should be in politics because although we're voting on it, the situation is much more social in my opinion.

The question was about allowing doctors to, basically, euthanize patients who are terminal at a certain point of their ailments. There are certain criteria that must be met though. There has to be two meetings with a witness while the patient is still considered to be mentally sound in order to confirm this is what they want to happen. (So it's not the doctor's or anyone's decision other than the patient themself.)

Now, I have a personal connection to this particular question because a dear friend of mine - he is basically like my second father - is terminally ill. Something went wrong with one of his procedures and it basically undid itself and it can't be fixed. He knows he's going to die soon, but he also knows that at a certain point he can't take care of himself and his condition will just deteriorate faster than a male dog jumps on a female in heat.

He doesn't want to force his family, his loved ones... me... to have to watch him deteriorate like that, and he doesn't want to suffer through at, as it would be VERY painful and not something easily countered with even strong painkillers. He knows we'd all consider it our duty to be with him through the end, and he can't bare the thought of our last memories of him being a shriveled husk of his former self, drooling from being completely knocked up on the painkillers.

He's still strong for now, but he would prefer that once his condition hits that starting point of no return, that he say good bye while he still can, then go to sleep peacefully, and dignified, with no pain.

So, that's my stand on it I suppose, as I agree and understand everything he's told me and explained to me, so I share his opinion.

What do others think?

[Greenday]

What do others think?

If I ever get to the point of no return where I'll just have a shell of a body and can no longer contribute to society, I pray someone takes me out to the pasture and puts me out of my misery.

It's a personal matter and needs to be left as such. As long as they have made the decision while perfectly sane, with witnesses, then they should allow people to do it if they want.

[Nekojin]

I personally think that people should have the right to end their own lives, period. That said, it's very tricky for circumstances to show that the person committed suicide, and wasn't murdered by someone. If the conditions are set up to make this sort of circumstance very hard to pull off without getting caught, I'm all for it.

[bex1218]

I tell people I don't want to be a vegetable for the rest of my life. They better respect that.

[siead_lietrathua]

another term for the same thing is Right to Die or assisted suicide
i've heard several right-wing mates of mine all say the same thing: allowing euthanasia will open the door for government to start shoving the old into gas chambers and getting rid of them when they get useless. and that's simply not true.
Right to Die is for anyone, of any age, that is suffering an untreatable illness and who WILL die. it's not about vanity (which people claim), it's about not suffering for weeks or months while you slowly die.
from the other side, i know alot of doctors oppose assisted suicide because they believe it breaks the Hippocratic oath. however, is it more harmful to end a life with mercy, or to force someone to suffer over an extended period of time?
assisted suicide is illegal in canada, for now. if i was terminally ill, i would have to suffer and die.
think i would prefer to go blow my brains out.

to the vegetable thing, if you are on life support you can have it in your living will that you are not to be kept on life support, and you are not to be brought back if you die once off life support. problem is, a lot of people don't bother writing a will or living will until they are old, which can make things difficult.

[Akasa]

I don't want to be a burden. If I were wasting away, in pain, and unable to care for myself I would want to end it. I don't want to be a vegetable, and I don't want to have some long lingering painful death.

[ngc_7331]

If I knew that I was going to die in a prolonged, painful way, damned right I want the choice to not have to suffer through that or put my loved ones through watching that. We help our animals die when they're suffering, why can't we have the choice to do it to ourselves?

[Blue Ginger]

to the vegetable thing, if you are on life support you can have it in your living will that you are not to be kept on life support, and you are not to be brought back if you die once off life support. problem is, a lot of people don't bother writing a will or living will until they are old, which can make things difficult.

I have a living will. I've had it since I was 21. It covers everything from life support to terminal illness to being disabled. Basically, if I can't care for myself with minimal help, put me out of my misery.

I had it written up after having 2 heart attacks in my teens. I just had to wait until I could afford to have the documents drawn up and witness by a legal professional. Before it was official, I made it clear to my parents what I did and what I did not want to happen. I even wrote it all out and signed it.

After watching my neighbour disappear into a shell of her former self with Parkinsons, I want to be able to choose the time I go.

[Andara Bledin]

I've been considering getting a living will, myself.

I figure if I'm not capable of telling my carers that I want to continue living, that's not much of a life; those resources should be put to better use.

^-.-^

[telecom_goddess]

We put animals down to put them out of their misery, we should be able to do that ourselves as well. These are OUR bodies and we should be able to do what we want, including die when we want.

[HYHYBT]

i've heard several right-wing mates of mine all say the same thing: allowing euthanasia will open the door for government to start shoving the old into gas chambers and getting rid of them when they get useless. and that's simply not true.

No, but a related risk that seems to me all but certain is that legal euthanasia would prove too much of a temptation for relatives who never much liked the sick person anyway and/or who would rather have an inheritance than let medical or nursing home bills eat it up.

One of my grandfathers killed himself while still healthy (and when he probably would have remained that way for many years) because assisted suicide is illegal. He was afraid of having to be tended by others; something to do with his experience in the hospital after losing an arm in the war and seeing how much worse some other survivors were. A major stroke, in particular, that affected his right side was apparently a big worry. So when he had a minor one with no lasting effects, rather than taking medicines to make it less likely to happen again, he made his arrangements, sent Grandma to Burger King to pick up breakfast, and left her a nasty surprise to discover when she returned.

[Panacea]

What state is this, and what is the exact text? It's hard for me to comment, otherwise.

I have concerns about euthanasia. I think it could be abused.

Self administered seems to be OK, in fact the sense of control it gives patients makes it less likely they will actually employ it. And that's what I really want, anyway. Control, especially over pain.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

What state is this, and what is the exact text? It's hard for me to comment, otherwise.

I have concerns about euthanasia. I think it could be abused.

Self administered seems to be OK, in fact the sense of control it gives patients makes it less likely they will actually employ it. And that's what I really want, anyway. Control, especially over pain.

Massachusetts.

Once again, there would have to be two meetings with the patient, with a witness, while the patient was considered to be mentally sound. They'd also have to submit it in writing, and one of the witnesses has to have no relation at all to the patient. A relative could not make the decision to try and get more inheritance, it has to be the decision of only the patient who would then get a prescription from the doctor and take it at home.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...n_2_%282012%29

That's the explanation. Unfortunately, the bill was defeated, so it's a moot point for me now.

[Panacea]

Sounds like it is based on Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. Which has not been abused, and rarely used. Most patients who have gotten a script under this have never used it.

[Android Kaeli]

I've told my family and such that if I ever, and I do mean EVER, get a terminal illness or am a vegetable to please, PLEASE, put me out of my misery. I WILL NOT live like that, not if I can help it and will not subject my family and friends to that torment either. It's not fair to me or to them.

If someone is to a point where they can no longer take care of themselves, be it because of an illness or an accident rendered them a vegetable, they should have the choice to not go on.