Do not go gentle

[MajGenl.Meade]

A stroke might remove her ability to choose, or even worse the ability to express that choice to someone else who would help her to carry it out.

And there is always the fact that she might not have made public everything about her health status.

yrs,
rubato

That's true but I think she was smart enough to make sure that a catastrophic event would not derail her intentions. As to the second, if that were the case then she'd be lying - her entire point was to go out at the moment that she started to be less than at her peak without the threat of gradual deterioration being present. Nevertheless, you could be right.

[Econoline]

Oh come on. If Sandra Bland could quickly and easily off herself while locked up in a Texas jail cell during a short period when no one was observing her, how hard could it be?

ETA: We can only discuss the story as presented, assuming the woman and the reporter are telling the truth. Both Meade and I have indicated that the issue becomes quite different if the person in question is escaping a terminal illness or chronic, unbearable pain rather than pre-emptively killing herself while "not quite at a peak".

[Big RR]

Pretty easy for a 28 year old with no apparent physical disabilities; not as easy for and older person who had such disabilities. And how many people who attempt to do the same thing wind up only partially succeeding and in much worse shape than they were before? That deterioration is what she wanted to avoid.

And hanging/suffocation is an incredibly painful way to go; using drugs to have an easy death is preferable. Why should she have to suffer?

[Econoline]

Carbon monoxide is painless, and a bullet from a gun in the mouth might cause pain but only for an instant. Even if you believe in assisted suicide you ought to believe that there should be some standard other than vanity and a vague fear of the future.

[Sue U]

Even if you believe in assisted suicide you ought to believe that there should be some standard other than vanity and a vague fear of the future.

I think that's exactly right and I wonder how the assisting doctor can justify his/her professional participation when the first principle of medical practice is "First do no harm."

I'm all for medicine easing and speeding death when the peace of the grave outweighs the physical and emotional pain of living, but I don't see that kind of calculus here.

[TPFKA@W]

Even if you believe in assisted suicide you ought to believe that there should be some standard other than vanity and a vague fear of the future.

I think that's exactly right and I wonder how the assisting doctor can justify his/her professional participation when the first principle of medical practice is "First do no harm."

I'm all for medicine easing and speeding death when the peace of the grave outweighs the physical and emotional pain of living, but I don't see that kind of calculus here.

For the same reasons you wouldn't deny a woman her right to choose an abortion whatever her reasons might be they are her reasons and she does not require your approval, nor should she.

Her body, her choice.

[Lord Jim]

Okay, now I find myself in agreement with Meade, Econo, and Sue...

[Big RR]

Well, that's where I disagree; I fully understand that some physicians may not want to participate, but let's not kid ourselves about doing "no harm". The annals of research and treatment are full of case histories where people are subjected to unnecessary treatments that don't help them one bit, but are pursued anyway because the physician refuses to do nothing (at the very best; sometimes to inflate the bill, others to generate data which might be useful in other situations; people with terminal cancers who still get chemo and radiation therapies that make the last weeks/months of their lives a living hell with no realistic hope of a cure). But medicine has to do something.

And yet helping to painlessly dispatch a person who no longer desires to live because of physical or mental/emotional pain is somehow causinfg harm that is impermissible.

I don't think a physician should be forced to perform these procedures, but I do think they should be available. Someone who chooses to die should have a better option than eating a gun or dying in an idling car, two types of suicides that are often not as successful as one would like.

Or, if physicians refuse to participate, let the drugs be available by other means so that those who choose to use them can get them. I don't have a problem with licensing technicians to dispatch people who choose to leave this vale of tears.

@W--can't argue with that.

[Sue U]

For the same reasons you wouldn't deny a woman her right to choose an abortion whatever her reasons might be they are her reasons and she does not require your approval, nor should she.

Her body, her choice.

I totally get that and don't disagree with the principle of autonomy, but I do think there is a significant difference between abortion and assisted suicide. I was trying to look at it from a medical ethics perspective, though, as these decisions are presumably made in consultation between physician and patient.

[Joe Guy]

For the same reasons you wouldn't deny a woman her right to choose an abortion whatever her reasons might be they are her reasons and she does not require your approval, nor should she.

Her body, her choice.

So, if a month before the baby is due, a woman chooses to have an abortion, it should be done because it's her body, her choice?

If a man who is being treated for depression and doing relatively well, misses a dose of medication and decides he wants to jump off of a building in downtown San Francisco, it's okay because it's his body, his choice?

[TPFKA@W]

For the same reasons you wouldn't deny a woman her right to choose an abortion whatever her reasons might be they are her reasons and she does not require your approval, nor should she.

Her body, her choice.

I totally get that and don't disagree with the principle of autonomy, but I do think there is a significant difference between abortion and assisted suicide. I was trying to look at it from a medical ethics perspective, though, as these decisions are presumably made in consultation between physician and patient.

How are they significantly different? Both are ending a life that for whatever reason has become emotionally painful or inconvenient. Not wanting to go forward with a baby's life is not really much different than not wanting to go forward with mine. I see old age has a huge inconvenience and it sucks up unbelievable amounts of resources I would prefer not to consume. Why not make avoiding it as easy as picking up a plan C pill at the pharmacy? Infinitely preferable to blowing my brains all over the wallpaper and carpet.

[Big RR]

Even if you believe in assisted suicide you ought to believe that there should be some standard other than vanity and a vague fear of the future.

If it's a rational decision and is not the result of mental illness or coercion, who are we to judge. Do you really think someone who chooses to kill themselves should be forced to justify their decision to someone who can have no idea of what they feel or are going through?

If a man who is being treated for depression and doing relatively well, misses a dose of medication and decides he wants to jump off of a building in downtown San Francisco, it's okay because it's his body, his choice?

Based on what you say, probably not; but actual situations are rarely as cut and dry. Certainly we may want to have some safeguards to insure the decision is one made freely by a person capable of making it, but if a person is capable of doing so, I don't think it is anyone else's business.

[Sue U]

For the same reasons you wouldn't deny a woman her right to choose an abortion whatever her reasons might be they are her reasons and she does not require your approval, nor should she.

Her body, her choice.

I totally get that and don't disagree with the principle of autonomy, but I do think there is a significant difference between abortion and assisted suicide. I was trying to look at it from a medical ethics perspective, though, as these decisions are presumably made in consultation between physician and patient.

How are they significantly different? Both are ending a life that for whatever reason has become emotionally painful or inconvenient. Not wanting to go forward with a baby's life is not really much different than not wanting to go forward with mine. I see old age has a huge inconvenience and it sucks up unbelievable amounts of resources I would prefer not to consume. Why not make avoiding it as easy as picking up a plan C pill at the pharmacy? Infinitely preferable to blowing my brains all over the wallpaper and carpet.

I guess I see them as different because I don't see abortion as "ending a life." And I don't think medically assisted suicide should be prevented at all; I do think it should be a decision made in consultation between patient and physician, though, like other medical procedures. I wouldn't ask anyone to justify their decision to me or to the world at large, but I would think a physician should ensure that there is informed consent and a review of available options before selecting the treatment.

ETA:

I see old age has a huge inconvenience and it sucks up unbelievable amounts of resources I would prefer not to consume.

My mom says the same thing. I say, "But Mom, you're 86." She's says, "Yeah, it's a good thing I'm not old yet."

[TPFKA@W]

Your Mom has a point. Some are young and active at 80 while others are spent at 60.

I hope she keeps her outlook.

[Sue U]

Your Mom has a point. Some are young and active at 80 while others are spent at 60.

I hope she keeps her outlook.

Well, she called me last night to say she decided to take off this weekend to Seattle to attend an art show opening (her grandson's wife is exhibiting), and as long as she's out west she's going to spend a few days with her old pals at the orca research center in the San Juan Islands, maybe help do some ID on the current members of J pod and K pod.

So yeah, not old yet.

[MajGenl.Meade]

How are they significantly different? Both are ending a life that for whatever reason has become emotionally painful or inconvenient. Not wanting to go forward with a baby's life is not really much different than not wanting to go forward with mine

[TPFKA@W]

Your Mom has a point. Some are young and active at 80 while others are spent at 60.

I hope she keeps her outlook.

Well, she called me last night to say she decided to take off this weekend to Seattle to attend an art show opening (her grandson's wife is exhibiting), and as long as she's out west she's going to spend a few days with her old pals at the orca research center in the San Juan Islands, maybe help do some ID on the current members of J pod and K pod.

So yeah, not old yet.

She sounds grand. I hope you have inherited her genes and her optimism.

[Econoline]

Even if you believe in assisted suicide you ought to believe that there should be some standard other than vanity and a vague fear of the future.

If it's a rational decision and is not the result of mental illness or coercion, who are we to judge. Do you really think someone who chooses to kill themselves should be forced to justify their decision to someone who can have no idea of what they feel or are going through?

If they want that someone's help, yes. Furthermore, anyone who is in a position to provide assistance to a person committing suicide damn well ought to have enough empathy to have at least some idea of what that person is feeling/going through.

I think that's exactly right and I wonder how the assisting doctor can justify his/her professional participation when the first principle of medical practice is "First do no harm."

For the same reasons you wouldn't deny a woman her right to choose an abortion whatever her reasons might be they are her reasons and she does not require your approval, nor should she.

Her body, her choice.

Most states, nations, and people--and some religions--view a late-term (post-viability, say) abortion as legally, ethically, and medically different from an early abortion and as such often require a better justification before it will be allowed. (Prior to ~the 16th century, even the Roman Catholic church made a moral distinction based on "ensoulment" of the fetus.) I merely think that there should be similar additional scrutiny in the case of an early-term ASSISTED suicide.

If a man who is being treated for depression and doing relatively well, misses a dose of medication and decides he wants to jump off of a building in downtown San Francisco, it's okay because it's his body, his choice?

It's probably not okay, but if he's dead it's a moot point. But if someone gives that man a ride out to the middle of the bridge and helps him climb over the fence, that is DEFINITELY NOT okay.

[TPFKA@W]

t's probably not okay, but if he's dead it's a moot point. But if someone gives that man a ride out to the middle of the bridge and helps him climb over the fence, that is DEFINITELY NOT okay.

The doctors involved do not help the patient climb the fence. The patient must climb the fence on their own power. What the doctor does is eliminate a painful and messy splatter on the water or rocks below by providing a painless way to jump.

The bottom line for me is that what I choose to do with my life is nobody's damned business but mine as long as it is not directly causing you physical harm.

[Lord Jim]

If I became "incapable"...

A pathetic hulk of a man, (yeah, I'm sure there are some around here who think I already meet that criteria ) a burden to my loved ones, staying alive by sucking tapioca through a straw and staring into space; I'd eat my gun....

But it would be unthinkable for me to take myself away from my family, (especially my children) before that happened...just because I didn't want to get older...