Fudge_Brownie Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 I recently got a flier in the mail for my state-level ballot questions, produced and mailed by the state. One of the questions is titled "Prescription Medication to End Life" http://www.sec.state..._12/pip12_2.htm For those who have watched someone die, they probably have ideas formed on this already. But I know we have a lot of younger people here who might not have even thought about it. I'm curious what people think about what I'll call the right to die. The question "what would you do if you had x days/months/years to live" invokes glamorous responses, but anyone who knows pain and suffering knows it isn't as pretty or fun. A key point I really like in that synopsis my state provided is what the death certificate reads: terminal illness. As in: not suicide. I'm under the impression that if you have a life insurance policy, and you get a terminal diagnosis, you have to live it out for the sake of cashing the life insurance check, otherwise they rule it a suicide and keep the money. I'm pretty sure that's right though it's too late in the night for me to verify, but that's disgusting to me. And more importantly, on a human level, you have the right to die whenever you want. As far as I'm concerned, you have the right to live, and the right to quit. As a result, I think the proposed law is more complicated than it should be, but it's a step in the right direction. So I'm curious, does anyone really want to force people to legally stay alive? Obviously you can swallow some coolant or put a gun in your mouth any day of the week, but legally, safely, and guaranteed, should people have the option? Since I think most people will be for this, I'm curious if many people are against it. In the poll, I've included pain and psychologic issues as well, as those could be reasons. I've taken the assumption that anyone fine with pain related reasons is ok with terminal illness. If that is not the case, feel free to post about why you feel that way. And psychologic issues could be severe mental retardation, but maybe it's as "basic" as depression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobT5M Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 If you have the right to live, why shouldnt you have the right to die. Id rather be taken quick then suffer in a bed for months on end wishing I were dead. Have seen many relatives go that way and I would not want that for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honeyman Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 I'm waiting for someone to talk about the "sinfulness" of suicide... in my view we should exercise complete responsibility in our lives and death. The belief system surrounding sin in this case is a construct built by man, and let's face it, there are plenty of people on the planet these days. I say cast off when you want to... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 I smell Soylent Green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mossback Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Problem? We've been right to die out here for almost 20 years. it really is not a problem. I would vote for it again in a second. I smell Soylent Green. If you've ever been to a hospice to see a loved one off (as my dad was) the painkillers are given so liberally you don't quite know where one begins and othe other leaves off at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Yeah Chuck, I've been there. Even had to fight a hospital over a DNR order where they interpreted it differently. The concern is often around whether the family or those responsible are trying to end the life of someone who has become a burden (it happens) or if this is what the individual truly wants - and whether they are in their sound mind in that decision. The challenge is you might think I do not want a DNR, etc but when suddenly you find yourself in the dire straits of being trapped in a dying body, that perspective might change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theForgottenone Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 Watching my dad went through hospice program about a month ago with terminal illness and recently passed away, i vote DEFINITELY yes. Nothing more painful then watching a loved one goes through the process end of life where their body is a shell of it used to and trapped in a bed. He lasted 5 days without any solid or liquid intake. It is not a sight for anyone to witness for hour loved one. I still think of him every moment and wish he had an easier exit such as in a good dream of sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted November 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 I guess I was really off-base with my impression of social opinion here. It really saddens me to say 51% said no here in MA. It was that close. "Summary: Should a doctor be legally allowed to prescribe medication, at a terminally ill patient's request, to end that patient's life?" And I (possibly ignorantly) believe a key factor that many might not have known the importance here was that the death certificate would read the under-lying illness and not that they checked out early. I'm really curious why anyone would vote against it? Is it religion? Social uneasiness with death? The emotional desire to keep grandma alive one more day, week, or month? The belief that it would be pushed on unwilling people (despite the proposed legislation's wording intended to prevent this)? I just don't get it. I know Live Free or Die is our neighbor's slogan but... what the fuck. You want to keep your loved one alive, go ahead and beg, anyone could still say 'no'. But that hollow look in their eyes is there for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tightmopedman9 Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 In response to you summarized version of the bill I would vote yes. My grandfather was once a rocket scientist, one of the lead engineers on the first probe to Venus, and ended the last 15 years of his life in state of complete physical debilitation which, in the last 5 led to mental illness. An extremely intelligent man had to live 15 years of a life trapped in his own body. That is no way I'd like to end my life. With that said, I don't think all people should be in control of when they want to die. I don't have any direct experience with it, but temporary mental illness can cause some unsettling thoughts into suicide. Not to mention, some people diagnosed with a 'terminal' illness end up making a full recovery. It would be hard to define the sanctions that defined someone in the correct state who could make the decision to end their own life. Somebody who could later lead a fulfilling life might end up pulling their own plug prematurely, although it already happens all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 I thought you bought house in RI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted November 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 I thought you bought house in RI? You've been to RI, right? Do I need to say any more? I grew up in MA, got an apartment in RI for a little over a year, then bought a place in MA. My location has been listed as MA for 2 years now. You must use mobile-mode a lot! There, you can use that as your excuse. RI is like New England's Canada; one big long running joke . Moped, your concerns are reasonable, but would you say it's a person's right to die as and when they choice, or is it society's right to keep people alive? I expect that people will be pretty divided on that question, I'm just curious how you feel. As for the failed proposed law, it did take some of your concerns in to consideration. [see below] In short, they allow the doctor to disagree, require mental health eval, and require several people to be involved in the decision process, including a completely unrelated person who has to sign. While not fool proof, it definitely attempts to address a good amount of the risk. "To qualify, a patient would have to be an adult resident who (1) is medically determined to be mentally capable of making and communicating health care decisions; (2) has been diagnosed by attending and consulting physicians as having an incurable, irreversible disease that will, within reasonable medical judgment, cause death within six months;"[...]"The patient would also have to sign a standard form, in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom is not a relative, a beneficiary of the patient’s estate, or an owner, operator, or employee of a health care facility where the patient receives treatment or lives."[...]"The proposed law would require the attending physician to: (1) determine if the patient is qualified; (2) inform the patient of his or her medical diagnosis and prognosis, the potential risks and probable result of ingesting the medication, and the feasible alternatives, including comfort care, hospice care and pain control; (3) refer the patient to a consulting physician for a diagnosis and prognosis regarding the patient’s disease, and confirmation in writing that the patient is capable, acting voluntarily, and making an informed decision; (4) refer the patient for psychiatric or psychological consultation if the physician believes the patient may have a disorder causing impaired judgment;[...]An unwilling health care provider could prohibit or sanction another health care provider for participating while on the premises of, or while acting as an employee of or contractor for, the unwilling provider." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo850T5 Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 (edited) It's your life, die if you want to. The world is over-populated anyways. Especially if you're suffering from a terminal illness, that should just be common sense. Edited November 10, 2012 by Wagon Mafia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 How is the world over populated? We have excess resources and excess capacity to support our existing population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo850T5 Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 How is the world over populated? We have excess resources and excess capacity to support our existing population. Yeah in America lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 No I was speaking globally. There are sufficient resources to support all. Inept leadership and corrupt governments are the general source of resource maldistribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts