Assisted suicide expands...

[leVieux]

There are people in Canada arguing that 12 year olds are capable of making that choice.

Yes, and we have our own craizes here insisting that pre-teens can rationally decide to permanently mutilate themselves,

 

[kbaxter60]

If one starts from the position of first, do no harm, it’s hard for me to reconcile assisted suicide. By the same token, it’s also hard for me to accept indefinitely keeping someone in an induced coma or on life support.

What I do know is once the government gets involved in something, it’s bound to get fucked up, so let the law be silent on the topic, I guess.

Yep.
And it probably needs to be requested by the person suffering.
Not some therapist, recommending it to a PTSD sufferer. Not the government.
Remember Logan's Run???

 

[Havok1]

In the context of this thread on medically assisted suicide, we’re not discussing making a mistake, we’re discussing a practitioner’s decision to kill someone.

In the case of medically assisted suicide, the decision is made by the patient, not the medical staff.

 

[paknheat]

Well, maybe little Castro Trudeau will be the first in line to MAID out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[MTA]

There are people in Canada arguing that 12 year olds are capable of making that choice.

yea that is ridiculous. In the same camp as children picking their gender and destroying their bodies.

Imo MAD should be for those that are terminally ill or if you are an adult and have absolutely expended all other options and want to commit suicide. Much better than someone harming others while they exit stage left

 

[leVieux]

In the case of medically assisted suicide, the decision is made by the patient, not the medical staff.

<>

That is the ‘’THEORY’’, yes, BUT. . . . . . .

<>

 

[benenglish]

In the case of medically assisted suicide, the decision is made by the patient, not the medical staff.

That is the ‘’THEORY’’, yes, BUT. . . . . . .

Supposedly.

At 6:40 in the video I posted, Kelsie Sheren touches on a case in British Columbia where a mother used MAID to end her own life. On another podcast I saw, she went into more detail on that case. From admission to the hospital until death was less than 24 hours, even though the woman was not in excessive physical pain or even incurably ill. It happened so quickly that the RCMP has become involved, investigating it as a potential murder. Her grown kids are raising a stink about how quickly it happened.

Even if you're very ill with something incurable and in serious pain leading to a nonexistent quality of life, the time period between being offered assisted suicide and going through with it should, it seems to me, be more than a day. I have to wonder who is actually making the decision, the patient or the medical staff pushing the patient, when such a major decision is made and acted upon that quickly.

 

[Cool 'Horn Luke]

We are SUPPOSED to a society of free and independent individuals. Leave it to the sufferer and that person's doctor to honor it.

 

[Havok1]

Supposedly.

At 6:40 in the video I posted, Kelsie Sheren touches on a case in British Columbia where a mother used MAID to end her own life. On another podcast I saw, she went into more detail on that case. From admission to the hospital until death was less than 24 hours, even though the woman was not in excessive physical pain or even incurably ill. It happened so quickly that the RCMP has become involved, investigating it as a potential murder. Her grown kids are raising a stink about how quickly it happened.

Even if you're very ill with something incurable and in serious pain leading to a nonexistent quality of life, the time period between being offered assisted suicide and going through with it should, it seems to me, be more than a day. I have to wonder who is actually making the decision, the patient or the medical staff pushing the patient, when such a major decision is made and acted upon that quickly.

As someone who has not dealt with this, I don’t know what an appropriate time period would be for dealing with it, and of course i didn’t listen to the podcast either. However, I think there is a huge difference between someone who just wakes up one day and wants to end their life and someone who builds up to that decision for a year or longer before going to a doctor about it. It’s definitely a complicated subject.

 

[Havok1]

<>

That is the ‘’THEORY’’, yes, BUT. . . . . . .

<>

Since the alternative would be murder, I would have to think that physicians would want to ensure there is no question as to whose decision it was. Although I suppose I’m frequently shocked about what does(doesn’t?) go on in the medical field.

 

[leVieux]

Since the alternative would be murder, I would have to think that physicians would want to ensure there is no question as to whose decision it was. Although I suppose I’m frequently shocked about what does(doesn’t?) go on in the medical field.

<>

Of course,

but, we now have ‘’Surgeons’ & Pediatricians butchering innocent children for ‘’gender affirming therapy’’ based solely on the mental illnesses of their parents.

And Docs bragging of their performing hundreds of abortions of healthy young Humans.

’’THOU SHALT NOT KILL’’, anyone ?

<?>

 

[Lead Belly]

Playing God

Playing God generally refers to someone using their power to make decisions regarding the fate of another's life or many lives. Theologian Paul Ramsey is noted for saying, "Men ought not to play God before they learn to be men, and after they have learned to be men they will not play God." The religious framework of approach to this phrase refers to said religion's deity having a set plan for mankind, therefore man's hubris may lead to the misuse of technology related to sacred life or nature. wiki

That being said, like Baboon alluded: we have no trouble having compassion for our old dogs to spare them misery...

 

[toddnjoyce]

Since the alternative would be murder.

That’s the rub. Medically assisted suicide is conditionally approved murder or just a variation of suicide by cop or post-delivery abortion. The government doesn’t need to be in the business of enabling murder. And since we’re 50 states, there isn’t a one size fits all set of laws and regulations to cover this concept.

Then, sure as shit, that’s bound to get fucked up at least once, so that adds a layer of complexity and regulation and what happens when there’s one guy that can’t just get it right multiple times and leaves a trail of unsuccessful attempts?

Then, why does it have to be medically assisted get’s thrown into the mix and people start talking about humane ways and reasons to euthanize people being morally superior and you’ve just endorsed eugenics.

Like most concepts, it sounds great at the good idea fairy level, but the devil’s in the details. Governments are here to support the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, not enable the taking of those things away.

 

[Eastexasrick]

Governments are here to support the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, not enable the taking of those things away.

The devil is in the details.
They have that great and noble goal, " insure the domestic tranquility."
A person is quite tranquil once that person has been assisted in their suicide.

 

[toddnjoyce]

The devil is in the details.
They have that great and noble goal, " insure the domestic tranquility."
A person is quite tranquil once that person has been assisted in their suicide.

I’ve got a list of people .gov can assist in their suicide and a helicopter ready to give free rides.

 

[Havok1]

That’s the rub. Medically assisted suicide is conditionally approved murder or just a variation of suicide by cop or post-delivery abortion. The government doesn’t need to be in the business of enabling murder. And since we’re 50 states, there isn’t a one size fits all set of laws and regulations to cover this concept.

Then, sure as shit, that’s bound to get fucked up at least once, so that adds a layer of complexity and regulation and what happens when there’s one guy that can’t just get it right multiple times and leaves a trail of unsuccessful attempts?

Then, why does it have to be medically assisted get’s thrown into the mix and people start talking about humane ways and reasons to euthanize people being morally superior and you’ve just endorsed eugenics.

Like most concepts, it sounds great at the good idea fairy level, but the devil’s in the details. Governments are here to support the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, not enable the taking of those things away.

I can somewhat see what you’re saying, but there are two sides to this coin. The alternative is sometimes that they go kill themselves in some way that is more traumatic for them, or even others as well. Or, they possibly fail and are even more messed up than than they were to begin with.

Your last sentence, is also something that sounds good most of the time, but has exceptions. We end up with people who are “alive” where they become a financial and mental drain on their family. That is not good either, unless it’s what they want. How many times have we all said, or heard someone say something like “if I ever end up like that, just kill me” after seeing someone in a state that we would never want to be in? Sometimes, people really don’t want to live like that.

Also, even without medically assisted suicide being legal, although physicians can not just decide to provide a means for someone to end their life, there are situations where they may make the decision to remove life support, or stop treatments for patients, and that’s considered the most ethical decision. So decisions about life and death already exist, and arriving at these decisions is not a simple task.

Lastly, I know you know that the government is generally not looking out for our best interest. I believe you made a comment against keeping people on life support forever, but look at the Jahi McMath case out of California as an example of what happens when government gets involved. Tax payers were forced to foot the bill for medical treatment of someone who was legally dead, and resources were potentially diverted from other patients.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I can somewhat see what you’re saying, but there are two sides to this coin. The alternative is sometimes that they go kill themselves in some way that is more traumatic for them, or even others as well...

Now we’re taking into considerations what a non-patient’s needs are. Suicide, no matter how ‘humane’ requires acknowledging someone decided their life wasn’t worth living. That’s traumatic enough for relatives no matter the method used. But government endorsing it is supposed to somehow make that less traumatic?

… I believe you made a comment against keeping people on life support forever, but look at the Jahi McMath case out of California as an example of what happens when government gets involved.

You’ve made exactly my point why .gov should he silent on this topic. Aside from the practitioners mistakes leading up to her death, the core arguments center around legal vs biological life determinations.

Call me cold hearted, but reality the medical determination was over-ridden by a judge. Without life support, her body would not have been able to function minimally enough for survival without that assistance. Never mind the fact that Mom was the one that decided for her the surgery should be done.

Strip away all this and life/death determinations come down to moral vs ethical beliefs. Is it moral to force a body to survive despite its inability to do so on its own? Is it ethical to do so? But I digress from the original topic, which is whether or not government should sanction certain individuals to enable suicide.

At the grand level, I don’t believe that’s something government should be involved in. Everything else is just window-dressing, because once a government decides it has that power, it’s accepted it has the power to kill the people who put it in power to begin with. The limits then just become malleable as to which citizens must be killed.

 

[Havok1]

Now we’re taking into considerations what a non-patient’s needs are. Suicide, no matter how ‘humane’ requires acknowledging someone decided their life wasn’t worth living. That’s traumatic enough for relatives no matter the method used. But government endorsing it is supposed to somehow make that less traumatic?


You’ve made exactly my point why .gov should he silent on this topic. Aside from the practitioners mistakes leading up to her death, the core arguments center around legal vs biological life determinations.

Call me cold hearted, but reality the medical determination was over-ridden by a judge. Without life support, her body would not have been able to function minimally enough for survival without that assistance. Never mind the fact that Mom was the one that decided for her the surgery should be done.

Strip away all this and life/death determinations come down to moral vs ethical beliefs. Is it moral to force a body to survive despite its inability to do so on its own? Is it ethical to do so? But I digress from the original topic, which is whether or not government should sanction certain individuals to enable suicide.

At the grand level, I don’t believe that’s something government should be involved in. Everything else is just window-dressing, because once a government decides it has that power, it’s accepted it has the power to kill the people who put it in power to begin with. The limits then just become malleable as to which citizens must be killed.

I’ve had multiple family members who have lived a great, long life only to end up suffering through poor health problems say they wanted to end their life. One of which lives in a state where this is legal. Neither of them chose to take their own life, although one is probably incapable. I personally do not think going this route is nearly as traumatic as suicides the way they normally occur. At least that is my opinion based on receiving this news from elderly family members and having seen a number of suicides.

You say the government should be silent on the topic. I agree, but in my view, the government being silent on the topic means leaving the decision to the patient, not making it for them.

 

[toddnjoyce]

…You say the government should be silent on the topic. I agree, but in my view, the government being silent on the topic means leaving the decision to the patient, not making it for them.

That’s where we are in agreement. Where we differ is likely on who else the patient can involve in executing on that decision, who can legally make that decision on behalf of the patient, and under what conditions the delegate or provider is empowered to perform those duties and where it deviates from existing palliative and hospice care pathways.

 

[leVieux]

Playing God

Playing God generally refers to someone using their power to make decisions regarding the fate of another's life or many lives. Theologian Paul Ramsey is noted for saying, "Men ought not to play God before they learn to be men, and after they have learned to be men they will not play God." The religious framework of approach to this phrase refers to said religion's deity having a set plan for mankind, therefore man's hubris may lead to the misuse of technology related to sacred life or nature. wiki

That being said, like Baboon alluded: we have no trouble having compassion for our old dogs to spare them misery...

<>

We must decide for the dog.

We cannot presume to decide for another Human.

Just not the same.

But make sure your wishes are known to your Family and are in your Will & ‘’Living Will’’.

Most of the problems I’ve seen were caused by the Families, not the Patient.

<>