Physician assisted suicide, is it the ultimate right [my body, my life] or a doorway to loss of rights by those our cultures devalue [the aged, the terminally ill, the disabled]?

If someone has made provisions for assisted suicide in a legal document, then yes, they should be allowed to die.

As long as the choice is entirely that of the person who wants to die, I am in favor of letting them have their wishes respected.

Here in Oregon it is legal. My father actually moved here when he was diagnosed with cancer because he wanted to have the choice. It came on to fast for him to choose but knowing he had the choice was a comfort to him durring his final months.

I can agree with echo2 on this. Here is the latest on Dr. Death. He has paid a high price for his beliefs and helping other people.



Kevorkian loses appeal in top court

Assisted suicide advocate is not eligible for parole until June 2007.

By David Shepardson / The Detroit News
Image

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected without comment an appeal Monday from Michigan's convicted assisted suicide advocate, Jack Kevorkian, who wants his conviction overturned.

Kevorkian has been in prison since April 1999 - convicted of second-degree murder, in 1998, of Thomas Youk of Waterford Township. "60 Minutes" aired a videotape of the death, showing Kevorkian's participation, which he termed a mercy killing.

Dubbed Dr. Death, Kevorkian has acknowledged assisting in 130 deaths since 1990.

Kevorkian's problem was that he became so obsessed with promoting doctor assisted suicide he came off looking like he really enjoyed killing people. Which he very well might have.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
If someone has made provisions for assisted suicide in a legal document, then yes, they should be allowed to die.
I'm curious, Lionel: What do you think of the Terri Schiavo case?

Go Oregon! ;)

I believe it should be an available option.

It depends on someone's beliefes whether they want to be helped to die or want to wait for death. If you're a christian you know that it's only God who can take your life away. If you do it by yourself you'll commit a mortal sin. That means you won't be redeemed.
If you're an atheist you don't believe in God so you don't care what will become of you after death.
If you look at the problem in that way, then you will agree that someone who's terminally ill might decide whether they want to be dead or not. They also must sign a document in which they agree to die.

Ok, let's make an assumption that euthanasia is legal. Now think of those who were terminally ill and they could hardly speak and move and who were put to death because their families didn't want them anymore as they had caused problems. Then, such a person can do nothing to avoid death. You might say " doctors are to treat people not to kill'em and no doctor would ever agree to something like that". Awright, but did you think about doctors who would be given a bribe just to free a family from an unwanted granny ?? Everything would be OK, signed documents etc. Then, the doctor will not be charged with murder.

Another thing is that it might be dangerous to move a moral border. In fifty years somebody can say "Let's kill everyone over 70. They are useless. Why do we have to allow them to live ??".

Did you think about such a curse of events ?

I had an aunt whose worst fear was to be kept alive when there was no reason to keep living.

She was kept alive with a feeding tube for 5 years while she just laid there. Sometimes would look up and around but that was about her only sign of life.

She wasn't even allowed to die naturally. But then again I had a friend with cancer who was appeared to be non responsive and on a feeding tube. He was transfered out of town and everybody thought he had died until he showed up at a dance and asked my wife to dance. It was like someone had risen from the dead. He now test 100% cancer free.

old reb

Originally posted by Vaalon
Ok, let's make an assumption that euthanasia is legal. Now think of those who were terminally ill and they could hardly speak and move and who were put to death because their families didn't want them anymore as they had caused problems. Then, such a person can do nothing to avoid death. You might say "doctors are to treat people not to kill'em and no doctor would ever agree to something like that". Awright, but did you think about doctors who would be given a bribe just to free a family from an unwanted granny ?? Everything would be OK, signed documents etc. Then, the doctor will not be charged with murder.

Another thing is that it might be dangerous to move a moral border. In fifty years somebody can say "Let's kill everyone over 70. They are useless. Why do we have to allow them to live ??".

Did you think about such a curse of events ?
Looks like a goddamned slippery slope to me. Your argument is logically flawed.

I think its not my body, so who am i to play God and decide weather i live or die? My time will come when it does...

I have always had a big problem with the "slippery slope" excuse for not changeing things. First off it asumes that humans are totally ignorant and don't have any values. For example, the idea that if we allow individuals to sign a document that allows them to die with dignity we will be murdering people over 70 within a couple decades. The idea is preposterous.

I am curious about the people who are against assisted suicide. They call it murder and say only god should decide when we die. I wonder where they stand on the death penalty and abortion. These three issues are related because they all involve the purposefull and intentional ending of life. Granted each life is very different, a fetus, a criminal and a sick dieing person.

Here in Oregon a person has to get two separate phychiatrists to sign off that they are mentally stable, they have to have their personal physician and a second Dr. sign off that what they are suffering from is terminal and they have to have a lawyer draw up the papers. It isn't something they just decide to do in a moment of pain and depression. It takes a couple monthes to get all the paperwork and legal crap ready.

it IS a conflict echo.....

Let me tell you how i look at it...

While the bible does give the message that only God decides who lives and dies....the bible also mentions that you should trust and pray for your leaders. I know with corruption and all that's hard to do.....but its not totally insane, like the feeling i get from you guys on the subject.

So here's what im talking about....The politician in me doesnt necessarily agree with the death penalty, but if abortion is legal and can kill people WHO NEVER HAD A CHANCE, then i say you should be able to kill those who did have that chance and blew it.

If abortion is overturned, then you might see me changing my stance on the death penalty, until then, no ma'am

I understand you logic.

It is interesting that you use a logical argument. Everyone I have spoken with about these issues makes a religious/moral case for why things should or shouldn't happen rather than useing reason.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I'm curious, Lionel: What do you think of the Terri Schiavo case?

What aspect of it? I thought Terri's Law was a heinous usurping of the court's authority, if nothing else.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
What aspect of it? I thought Terri's Law was a heinous usurping of the court's authority, if nothing else.
Well, should her husband be allowed to make that decision?

Originally posted by Decka
it IS a conflict echo.....

Let me tell you how i look at it...

While the bible does give the message that only God decides who lives and dies....the bible also mentions that you should trust and pray for your leaders. I know with corruption and all that's hard to do.....but its not totally insane, like the feeling i get from you guys on the subject.

So here's what im talking about....The politician in me doesnt necessarily agree with the death penalty, but if abortion is legal and can kill people WHO NEVER HAD A CHANCE, then i say you should be able to kill those who did have that chance and blew it.

If abortion is overturned, then you might see me changing my stance on the death penalty, until then, no ma'am



I feel the same way ! YOur logic is 100% correct.
My belief on the death penalty is that you must have DNA evidence to sentence the death penelty.
When their is circumstancial eveidence then LIFE should be the sentence.
Now, when I say DNA as eveidence I mean in the cases in the last 5 yrs or so or when the option is there for an older case going to trial.

It is interesting to me that some of the same people that would have an injured animal put to sleep to avoid its pain and suffering would not want a person to volunteer to die to avoid such.
My mother died of cancer. She choose to stop eating and drinking before the pain became unbearable. She passed quietly in her sleep. Sure, I had selfish thoughts of hanging on to her. But, as her doctor explained, she choose her path. She allowed nature to take its course. We (the family) did not consider forcing her to suffer for our selfish reasons. I lost my first, and bestest, friend when she died. She died with dignity.

Do not allow your own personal mental hangups to interfere with anothers choices. I personally have standing orders that in the event I become incapacitated, with no hope of recovery, that I be allowed to die. I do not fear the here-after in any way. During my recent heart attack it was nip-and-tuck for a while. I was suprised a few days later to remember that death had never entered my mind. Could be that the times I faced death situations in my past prepared me for the moment, but, I believe it lay more in the fact that I feel there is more to experience after death. A new adventure.

Some Shakespear from the 10th grade comes to mind. It went something like....
I think it strange that men should fear for seeing death a necessary end shall come when it shall come. Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury- signifying nothing.

Great post Dan.

I watched both of my parents die. It was swift and quiet. But if they had lingered in pain I would have done whatever they asked of me to ease their pain. I do it for my pets, it is the least I could do for the people who gave me life. I hope someday that someone will do it for me if necesary.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Well, should her husband be allowed to make that decision?

I'd say so, unless someone can prove definitively that he's up to something.

I'd say so, unless someone can prove definitively that he's up to something.
Which is what they all were saying while saying they weren't saying that. Seriously, she's a vegetable! What could he be up to?

Originally posted by Blibblob
Which is what they all were saying while saying they weren't saying that. Seriously, she's a vegetable! What could he be up to?
Anti-Christian things, that's what! ;)