This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
FatalHeaven
Under the law I refer to, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed, by a physician, with a terminal illness that will kill the patient within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life. Exercise of the option under this law is voluntary and the patient must initiate the request. Any physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider who has moral objections may refuse to participate.
The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the patient, is not entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, is not the patient's physician, and is not employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to be free of a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time. Should either physician have concerns about the patient's ability to make an informed decision, or feel the patient's request may be motivated by depression or coercion, the patient must be referred for a psychological evaluation.
The law protects doctors from liability for providing a lethal prescription for a terminally ill, competent adult in compliance with the statute's restrictions. Participation by physicians, pharmacists, and health care providers is voluntary. The law also specifies a patient's decision to end his or her life shall not "have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy."
Post by
donnymurph
I have been 100% sober from all drugs and alcohol for 10 years next month.
Congratulations!
Sorry about the off-topic post, I'm not one to debate very often.
Post by
FatalHeaven
I have been 100% sober from all drugs and alcohol for 10 years next month.
Congratulations!
Sorry about the off-topic post, I'm not one to debate very often.
Don't apologize, his sobriety is awesome, I don't mind someone congratulating him in thread :)
Post by
Squishalot
How about, for example, someone who suffers from chronic pain? Not life threatening, but certainly enough to severly hinder one's life experience.
Post by
FatalHeaven
How about, for example, someone who suffers from chronic pain? Not life threatening, but certainly enough to severly hinder one's life experience.
No, I think if it's not life threatening than they should not be able to request assisted suicide. Certainly they should be on extreme pain medicine and seeing doctors regularly to monitor the pain and the usage of the medicine. But if what you have isn't going to end your life, I don't think you should legally be able to do it either. I am pro-life. So, I just can't see ending your life if you're not already literally dying. But that's just me.
Post by
Adamsm
For all that I believe that people have the right to take their own lives...I actually don't think assisted suicide should be legalized, since that would open up a whole kettle of fish that we aren't really prepared for.
Doctor Kevorkian anyone?
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
I actually have more of an issue with the "assisted" part than the "suicide" part.
If a person chooses to take their own life, that is a decision that they should make, without involving someone else, especially a doctor. "Assisting" a suicide is, by all definitions, a murder.
I can understand why a person facing a painful. slow death would want to end it quickly. If that is their decision, than there are many ways they can do it without the help of anyone else.
Now, my belief as a Christian is that we should not take God's work into our own hands. Only He should decide when we leave this life. And, as a Christian, I know that any amount of suffering I may experience here, will be meaningless when I leave this life behind. If I have to endure 6 months, or even 60 years of pain here, I know I have a place in Heaven for an eternity after that.
I personally know a Stage 4 cancer survivor. She was given less than 1 month to live....6 years ago. Her treatment was painful, yet she recovered. So that brings another question to the debate. How do you
really
know your illness is terminal?
And lastly, the same doctor that could prescribe the lethal dose of medication, can also prescribe a myriad of pain medications that will make a person comfortable (or, at the very least, unconcious) for their final days. If, you truely believe you have no chance of recovery, than by all means, refuse any treatment, and place yourself in a drug induced coma until you expire.
Post by
Adamsm
What about thos with termianl illness that want to die, but are physically incapable of "pushing the button", or however they choose to go? Where do you stand in relation to them?
That's where the issue comes in again; I have no idea what would happen there.
Post by
FatalHeaven
For all that I believe that people have the right to take their own lives...I actually don't think assisted suicide should be legalized, since that would open up a whole kettle of fish that we aren't really prepared for.
Doctor Kevorkian anyone?
So if I understand this correctly, you are fine with someone in the same terminal medical condition ending their life, on their time, with no medical assistance. But you don't believe 'assisted suicide' itself should be legalized? And this is all because of one doctor?
I just can't agree on the logic of basing the decision on Dr. Death's actions. He is but one man. Certainly he made a crap-load of bad decisions. I mean, transfusing corpses blood into live people? Ew.
But I personally think with the proper laws and governing over the matter, it could be controlled. For the most part. There will always be the possibility of someone abusing the power. But that can happen with anything.
Post by
FatalHeaven
If, you truely believe you have no chance of recovery, than by all means, refuse any treatment, and place yourself in a drug induced coma until you expire.
The whole point is to have your last moments with your friends and family be as best as they can be. Not shriveled up in a drug induced coma.
To be fair, while I do support this, I don't know that I would choose this path if faced with a terminal illness. Honestly, I don't think I could take my life, assisted or not. But I believe in giving those patients who have the nerve, the right to choose how they go.
Post by
Magician22773
The whole point is to have your last moments with your friends and family be as best as they can be. Not shriveled up in a drug induced coma.
When my grandmother died of Congestive Heart Failure, she died a somewhat slow death. Her last week or so was spent in the hospital, mostly unconcious, on massive doses of pain medication. However, when I think of her, I remember the last times I saw her at home. She collected porcelain dolls, and I remember bringing her a doll that I had had found at a garage sale. I remember eating a bowl of ice cream. She always had ice cream in her freezer, as far back as I can remember, just in case one of the grandkids wanted some. Even at 30 years old, I still felt I had to grab a bowl every time I visited her. While those were not her actual "last moments", they are how I remember her.
The same feeling exist about my father who was killed in an accident. I was there, and he died while I was doing CPR. I may never get those memories out of my head, but they are not what I remember when I think of him. I remember our last hunting trip together. I remember how he would buy every toy he found at garage sales, and had a room set up like a toy store for my son, and other kids in his neighborhood, to go pick out a toy from.
If you really love someone, you will not focus on those last moments, but will remember the best moments.
Post by
Squishalot
I know we have moved on to the next topic, but I will finish this one by saying that I guess we will agree to disagree on that point.
I beleive they are less capable.
Sure thing.
No, I think if it's not life threatening than they should not be able to request assisted suicide. Certainly they should be on extreme pain medicine and seeing doctors regularly to monitor the pain and the usage of the medicine. But if what you have isn't going to end your life, I don't think you should legally be able to do it either. I am pro-life. So, I just can't see ending your life if you're not already literally dying. But that's just me.
So the quadraplegic in constant pain doesn't count, even though his ability to enjoy life is next to zero?
What happened to the objection to:
we consider it inhumane to allow a dog or cat to suffer until its natural death from cancer and other ailments. But we demand that humans, whose feelings we can directly relate to, die slowly.
This hypothetical fellow is suffering, and you're going to prolong his suffering just because he's not going to die in the next 6 months?
Post by
FatalHeaven
So the quadraplegic in constant pain doesn't count, even though his ability to enjoy life is next to zero?
What happened to the objection to:
we consider it inhumane to allow a dog or cat to suffer until its natural death from cancer and other ailments. But we demand that humans, whose feelings we can directly relate to, die slowly.
This hypothetical fellow is suffering, and you're going to prolong his suffering just because he's not going to die in the next 6 months?
I guess you could put it that way, yeah. He is in pain, yes and I feel bad. But he isn't dying.
Jesse Billauer
Louise Sauvage
Brooke Ellison
And many more....
These people all had life. They rose above the pain. Imagine what they would have given up if assisted suicide were legal for them and they chose that option... I do not, can not, will not believe in legalizing assisted suicide for those without terminal illnesses.
Post by
Adamsm
So if I understand this correctly, you are fine with someone in the same terminal medical condition ending their life, on their time, with no medical assistance. But you don't believe 'assisted suicide' itself should be legalized? And this is all because of one doctor?
I just can't agree on the logic of basing the decision on Dr. Death's actions. He is but one man. Certainly he made a crap-load of bad decisions. I mean, transfusing corpses blood into live people? Ew.
But I personally think with the proper laws and governing over the matter, it could be controlled. For the most part. There will always be the possibility of someone abusing the power. But that can happen with anything.
It's not just Dr Death; it's a wide variety of things that could pop up because of it, unless every single aspect of it is set up, since people could and would abuse it to kill those they find 'inconvenient'; have a family member with MS? Oh 'they' said they wanted to end it all. Have a family member with a genetic disorder? Same deal.
Some gold digger marries an elderly person, and says they wanted to die, which just means the digger happens to get the money....but then again, my mind is pretty dark.
Post by
Squishalot
I guess you could put it that way, yeah. He is in pain, yes and I feel bad. But he isn't dying.
Isn't it inhumane to prolong someone's suffering? After all, if you amputated the legs of a cat after it was hit by a car and had nervous system damage and was in crippling pain, despite the fact that it's not going to die any time soon, you'd still put it down.
I still feel like you're being inconsistent. Their quality of life is next to zero.
Post by
Ordayc
Since I've been following the recent off-topic discussions for some time and I find them really interesting, I thought I might add my point:
First of all, I feel that ending oneself's life is a fundamental right of every person, independent of whether they are about to die or not. While I would not agree with someone ending their life without a good reason (such as a terminal illness), I nonetheless think forcing someone to live against their will, especially if they find hardly any joy in their life, is inhumane. As such, I feel a person has the right to end their life at any point. As an extension to this, I also feel that assisting someone in their suicide should be allowed as well. IMHO, these two principles are tied together. If I deny someone the possibility of being assisted, I also curtail their right of suicide, especially if the person to commit suicide is not capable of doing so alone; furthermore, I see no reason why a
willing
person should not be allowed to help.
Now to come to this topic, I think assisted suicide should be legal even if the person is not about to die, but simply has to live with chronic pain. I agree with you, Squish, that the reasoning appears inconsequential. FatalHeaven, if I understand you correctly, you deem assisted suicide appropriate if a person is expected to die within a set amount of time, but not if the person has to live – possibly under the exact same conditions – without an estimate of death. Where would you put the border? What if the person is expected to die within 10 months, 2 years, 10 years? At some point, the person has to die anyways.
Personally, I wouldn't even tie the right of suicide (and its assistance) to the existence of physical pain. If a person has little to no quality of life, suffers mental pain and is determined to die, that should be allowed.
(Please don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting death should be considered as a alternative solution at all. On the contrary, life
should
be promoted – a person in a desperate situation should be presented options other than death. However, if a person is not willing to go on with their life and consciously decides the they want to end their life, that should be possible, and people who are willing to support that should also be allowed to.)
Post by
gamerunknown
You must suffer the consequences
The last three presidents of the US all committed felonies, as did Sarah Palin. Do you think they should have been barred from office and denied the right to vote?
Also, being on permanent pain meds often lowers a person's lifespan due to kidney failure. Comparison to terminal illness is valid, IMO.
Post by
Squishalot
FatalHeaven, if I understand you correctly, you deem assisted suicide appropriate if a person is expected to die within a set amount of time, but not if the person has to live – possibly under the exact same conditions – without an estimate of death. Where would you put the border? What if the person is expected to die within 10 months, 2 years, 10 years? At some point, the person has to die anyways.
Thank you for putting it much more elegantly than I did. And welcome to our debate threads!
Post by
Sas148
It's my belief that it should be a freedom to choose. If something is said to be causing you pain and you wish to exit this world of your own accord then it's not my place to say no.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.