Euthanasia/ Assisted Suicide

[WriterDom]

Euthanasia/ Assisted Suicide



I take the liberal side on this issue. (surprise?) Ashcroft is attempting to override Oregon's wishes.


Ore. Sues U.S. Over Assisted Suicide
By BRAD CAIN, Associated Press Writer

SALEM, Ore. (AP) - The state of Oregon sued the U.S. government Wednesday over a federal directive that essentially blocks the state's assisted-suicide law.

The lawsuit challenges the authority of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) to limit the practice of medicine in Oregon by attempting to bar physician-assisted suicides.

Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers also filed a motion Wednesday seeking to temporarily prevent the federal government from implementing the order barring doctors from prescribing federally controlled substances to hasten the deaths of terminally ill patients.

``Ultimately, what we're seeking to do is waylay the federal government from illegally interfering in the practice of medicine in Oregon,'' said Kevin Neely, a spokesman for Myers.

On Tuesday, Ashcroft dealt what could be a fatal blow to the country's only law permitting assisted suicides by serving notice on Oregon doctors that their licenses to prescribe federally controlled drugs will be revoked if they participate in Oregon's Death with Dignity law.

The order does not call for criminal prosecution of doctors. And it does stipulate that pain management is a valid medical use of controlled substances.

But it effectively puts the state's law on hold because a doctor would have to be willing to sacrifice his or her right to prescribe federally controlled medicines, which doctors say are essential for their work.

Right-to-die groups and other supporters of the Oregon law were angry that Ashcroft reversed the June 1998 order by his predecessor, Janet Reno (news - web sites), who prohibited federal drug agents from moving against doctors who use Oregon's law.

``Fundamentally, the actions of the U.S. attorney general take away the right of the state to govern the practice of medicine,'' Neely said.

At least 70 terminally ill people have ended their lives since the Oregon law took effect in 1997, according to the Oregon Health Division. All have done so with a federally controlled substance such as a barbiturate.

Under the law, doctors may provide - but not administer - a lethal prescription to terminally ill adult state residents. It requires that two doctors agree the patient has less than six months to live, has voluntarily chosen to die and is able to make health care decisions.

Unless an injunction is granted, assisted-suicide advocates and politicians say the law is probably on hold because doctors are not likely to run the risk of federal sanctions.

 

[Angel]

If I want to die, and I'm unable to do it myself, somebody damn well better do it for me rather then allow me to suffer when I was just going to die eventually anyway.

 

[RisiaSkye]

This is fucking criminal. As if we didn't already have enough reasons to think Ashcroft's the 700 club in poltico clothing already.

A little context on why I feel this way: I worked collecting signatures to get this bill on the California ballot, along with medical marijuana and several other medical-rights and access bills. My mother assisted the suicide of her best friend--the mother of my mom's goddaughter Aisha. A close friend of mine died at 23 of liver cancer, after a long painful illness. She knew she was terminal for months before she died, and by the end was literally begging for it to come. My mother is now seriously ill with a debilitating long-term killer (Type I diabetes, with complications and kidney failure), and when she becomes terminal, I'll do everything in my power to help her end her life on her own terms.

I can't think of a more hideously invasive federal perversion of power, to obstruct choice with regards to the most basic of rights.

Though I'm sure UncleBill can. *yawn*.

 

[modest mouse]

This is simply an issue of persoanl freedom, to me at least(though I am regretfully in the minority).

RisiaSkye...I have not "bumped" into you on the boards but I have found your posts continually informative, concise(well most of the time), and thought provoking.

 

[Samuari]

This subject is so full of problems that I have difficulty wrapping my mind around it. Basicly, of course some one who is dieing should be alowed to end thier life with dignity and no pain.

On the other hand, I watched my 90 year old father slip from a razor sharp mind (he published his last book a month before) into incoherentice in a matter of days, and linger for a week in babeling solitude. Perhaps he would have perfered to "die with dignity" but we cherished every breath he took, and he never indicated that he wanted end his final struggle artificially. He fought to the end, with the strength and honesty that he had lived his life, and it is something that continues to inspire me.

 

[Laurel]

It's so reassuring to know that at a time when terrorists are supposedly planning retaliatory attacks against the US, our Attorney General is keeping us safe from pot-smoking cancer patients and the suicidal terminally ill.

 

[WriterDom]

Two people voted no but didn't comment? Too bad, I'd like to hear the other side.

 

[Cheyenne]

My "living will" is already prepared and signed. My family knows my wishes should something ever happen to me and they face the decision to let me go or not.

That is a little different though than asking them to kill me. Not taking extraordinary steps is different from doing something to cause death. See the difference? I wouldn't expect anyone else to have to help kill me and have that hanging over them forever.

I voted "yes" to your quesion, which was: "Should a terminally ill person be allowed to die if they wish?" I think that situation is covered my my living will.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by RisiaSkye
Though I'm sure UncleBill can. *yawn*.

Actually, I can't. We agree on this one. And for the same reason I oppose conscription (the draft).

It's an assertion that the government is the owner of your life, not you and there is no more arrogant assertion of a government official nor a more dangerous idea. And it is direct contradiction to the ideas of the founders who specifically acknowledged our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If your life is yours by right, then you own it and have every right to terminate it when you see fit.

This is an idea applicable only in a totalitarian state.

I'm far less supportive of euthanasia because that involves someone else doing it for/to you which is distinctly different from Jack Kevorkian's role where he set up the mechanism but you had to actually activate it yourself giving you the full responsibility, control and decision.

Originally posted by Laurel
It's so reassuring to know that at a time when terrorists are supposedly planning retaliatory attacks against the US, our Attorney General is keeping us safe from pot-smoking cancer patients and the suicidal terminally ill.

But Laurel, somebody's gotta protect us from these savages, don't you think?

 

[Guru]

 

[rashid]

If I could see it comming

I'd do myself in a la jack K - If I'm too far gone to do it myself I hope a friend will quietly place a pillow over my face - at the same time I give no one else the legal right to off me when I'm not looking -

 

[Kymberley]

I voted no. After reading the question above the poll which is different from the title, I would change my vote to yes.

I don't believe in assisted suicide, for fear of that helpful relative that is there to assist the terminally ill patient actually being a money hungry slug trying to force the reading of the will for their own reasons.

As for being allowed to terminate my own life, not sure I could. I did have a best friend in Seattle who was so very ill most of her life. I talked with her weekly and used to pay for her to visit the boys and I in Dallas every year from the first of December until early February.

Her money hungry family controlled a trust fund of hers. One year, she called and said she was too weak to make the trip. I knew her spine was now collapsing and soon she would be not only legally blind from a different disease but also paralized.

The last time I talked to her was right before Memorial day. She killed herself the next morning. I didn't even find out for 2 months. I called for the following weeks after her death leaving various messages. Each time I feared she was again having to have another surgery. In her short 43 years, she had brain surgery 51 times and other surgeries at least 50 more.

Finally in late July, I got a call from her sisters. She was dead. Suicide. I was so angry with her. How dare she do that. I hung up on her sisters crying.

For days I was pissed. I wanted so badly to tell Terry how I felt about her killing herself and bailing on life.

My mom made one comment. "Quality of Life"

Enough said.


Ps. Those money hungry sisters wanted me to help them over turn the will. They were left out. My kids at one point stood to inherit 6 figures from her. We discussed it for about 3 seconds. The boys understood if we challenged the will, the sisters got some of Terry's money. They took great pride in telling both those witches that not having the money is no big deal and that they both hoped they learned to understand that Terry was about love, not money.

 

[RisiaSkye]

modest mouse--thank you, that's quite a compliment.

UncleBill--I actually suspected we'd agree. I was just giving you a little good natured poke. I mean it in fun--your politics remind me of my family; my mother used to be district chair of the AZ Libertarians.

Kymberley--I've never factored money into my thoughts about it. The question about people in comas or otherwise mentally incapacitated is the reason for the living will, making the decision early. But, for those whose minds function, but whose bodies fail them in horribly painful ways, choice is incredibly important.

There's a difference between loving someone and selfishly holding onto them. Who are we to decide this for anyone? How can one in good conscience force someone to live, when they're ready to die?

To me, it's no less a violation than killing someone who wants to live--it violates the very most basic of human choices. It's horribly painful to be the ones left behind. But, it's only one person's choice to make. One person, one life to control. Free will, it's a bitch.

 

[Debbie]

I voted yes. I want to die without pain, with my dignity. We are kind to our pets if they are suffering, have a terminal disease or are really old.

 

[lillend]

I voted yes. I figure if a person wants to die for any reason it is their right to do so. If a person is in great pain and has no way of recovering who are we or anyone to tell them they must continue living?

My oldest boys father died of cancer. At the time of his death he had a 40 pound, inoperable (sp?) tumor in his hip and abdomen. He had lost massive ammounts of weight, his skin just hung on him. He could not stand on his own. He was hooked up to this thing that automatically adminstered morphine to him and he could push a button for an extra dose if needed. He had total necrosis (skin was rotting) on the area he had surgery a few years before. No matter what amount of drugs he was on he was in constant pain. Seeing him like this was horrible for me and I cannot even imagine what it was like for him. He was young, he had a 2 year old son he would never see grow up, he did not want die, but what if he had? Would it have been wrong? I do not think so. It was his life, he should be able to choose how lived it and if needed how it would end.

A poem I wrote after he died.....

Your death bell rang
on the telephone
the room was dark
as I stood alone

twenty after two
your soul moved on
I feel detatched
now that you're gone

Thought I was ready
thought I was prepared
it was for the best
the pain you were spared

I feel so confused
I just don't know
How to forget
how to let go

 

[Samuari]

lillend, your poem is good enough that I want to bring it back to the top for another look.

 

[sigh]

i voted yes, but i'm very torn on this issue...true ethical issues are like that...there are two right answers and it's never easy to choose between them

i watched my father die of cancer and my best friend die of AIDS before i was twenty years old...both died too young, after horribly debilitating illnesses that left them helpless and in agonies of pain

neither asked to have his life ended though, nor imposed on another to help

oddly enough, i took great comfort from being there when they died, holding their hands to the bitter end...my dad gave me a wink after he could no longer talk, and that wink spoke volumes

i think he was happy at the end, and had no wish to go any earlier than he did

i do think ashcroft should keep his filthy hands off this one...this is for individuals to decide with their families...the government has no place here

 

[lillend]

Thanx Samuari . I really appreciate it. I take a lot of pride in my poetry and I can't help but get a thrill when someone else appreciates what I have written. You have made my night

 

[cymbidia]

I am the lone "maybe" of the group, so far.

It depends, for me, on this question: Is the dying person alert enough to give informed consent to being assisted in this manner? If so, who and what determines "informed consent"?

Jack K's methods would definitely fit any definitive test for "informed consent", would it not? However, if the dying person was so influenced by a relative that they felt they had to do it, just had to, is that really a choice? Sick and desperately ill people are often amenable to suggestion and easily confused about what's best and right. such a person could be talked into pushing the button.

I am firmly, irrevocably in favor of individual rights in the area of self-determination, except when your exercising those rights would harm me, but this... well, this is a gray area.

How do we get rid of the undue influence selfish relatives and friends might bring to the bedside, however secretly, in cases of self-chosen euthanasia or assisted suicide?

I want the right to make this decision for myself, at any appropriate point in my life. (And what's an "appropriate point", anyway? Is it the same for you as for me? Who decides?) I just want to be sure that if we allow this, as a society, then all the hard questions are answered before it becomes relatively commonplace so that there is no societal confusion between this and murder.

Or can we ever have such a clean distinction, we who can't even decide if aborting a 12-week embryo is abortion or murder?

I have this all written down in legalese, too, Chey.
I hope my loved ones abide by this should the question of whether it's needed ever come before them.