How Do You Feel About Assisted Suicide?

[JimmyBoy]

What are your views/opinions on assisted suicide? Do you think it should be outlawed or do people (the terminally ill) have the right to decide if they want to go on living?


British TV Will Show Assisted Suicide

(Dec. 9) - A documentary that shows the deliberate act in which a terminally ill man takes his own life at a Swiss euthanasia clinic will be shown Wednesday night on British television.
Craig Ewert, a 59-year-old retired professor, suffered from motor neuron disease, more commonly known in the U.S. as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or Lou Gehrig's disease.


The progressive, degenerative disorder destroys the cells that control voluntary muscle activity such as talking, walking, breathing and swallowing, according to the National Institutes of Health. There is no cure and no standard course of treatment.

Britain's Daily Mail newspaper reported Tuesday that Ewert, a married father of two grown children, died Sept. 26, 2006, just five months after he was diagnosed.

His suicide was aided by the Swiss group Dignitas, the Mail said. Switzerland is the only country where assisted suicide is legal for nonresidents. Under the law, the patient must take the final action.

'The Suicide Tourist,' by Canadian director John Zaritsky, shows Ewert swallowing a dose of sedatives and then biting down on a mouth-operated switch to turn off the ventilator keeping him alive.

The Mail said Ewert, an American who lived in Harrowgate in northern England, paid the Dignitas 3,000 pounds, or more than $4,400, to cover the assisted suicide, his cremation and to ship his ashes back to Britain.
His wife of 37 years, Mary Ewert, is shown by his side, the Mail said. As he is slipping away, she asks,"“Can I give you a big kiss?"



Then she adds: "I love you, sweetheart, so much. Have a safe journey and see you some time."

In the Point Grey Pictures documentary, to be aired on the Sky Real Lives channel, Ewert discusses his reasons for choosing suicide.
"I have death or I have suffering and death," he says. "This way makes a whole lot of sense to me."

http://news.aol.com/health/article/british-tv-will-show-assisted-suicide/272690

[Crackity Jones]

Absolutely no reason for it to be illegal.

[Redmage]

What are your views/opinions on assisted suicide? Do you think it should be outlawed or do people (the terminally ill) have the right to decide if they want to go on living?Everyone should have the right to decide whether they want to go on living. What someone does with his or her life (including ending it) is no business of the state's whatsoever.

Criminalizing suicide is absurd on its face. How can you arrest, try, convict or punish someone who actually does it? Punishing someone who helps is only slightly less ridiculous.

[Tantrum]

I'm of the mind that it's nobody else's business.

But at the same time, I think you can be in favor of assisted suicide and still think that Jack Kevorkian is a creep who gets off on death. Just keep the two separate.

[Cy/MiG]

Personally, I think suicide is the cowards way out.

And depending on the disease/illness, perhaps the 'victim' has only himself to blame (*cough* AIDS/Cancer *cough*)

I suppose I lack the compassion to see otherwise.

Or refuse to give in to what I believe to be border-line nihilism.

Basically, if you want to commit suicide, do it yourself and don't get other people involved.

[Redmage]

Personally, I think suicide is the cowards way out.Until you've considered it, I'm not sure you're in a position to judge that.

It is certainly a very final solution. That is why my first recommendation to anyone considering suicide is "procrastinate." There will be time enough to do it tomorrow, if need be.

Basically, if you want to commit suicide, do it yourself and don't get other people involved.How about if you're bedridden and/or paralyzed? Perhaps in a persistent vegetative state? You can make your wishes known, if you're conscious and aware, but there's very little you can do about it yourself. If you aren't conscious, and are unlikely ever to be, then your agent can act on your previously stated wishes (such as a living will), but again there's nothing you can do to make it happen on your own.

And these are among the conditions in which suicide is most likely to be an acceptable option.

[WorkInProgress]

The thing to remember, with reference to Jack Kevorkian, is that patients who are suffering serious and painful illness are not always in a position to kill themselves painlessly, which is the idea of assisted suicide. I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but I think I would lean toward making it legal, just with recognition of how miserable it can be to have nothing but pain and be unable to die comfortably. My mother, this time last year, when she was weak and ill and refusing to be tube fed, asked the doctors if they could help her die faster, and if there had been a Kevorkian in the house she would have called for him. I wouldn't put Kevorkian in any sicko category. He only stands out because other doctors refused to do what he did.

[Cy/MiG]

Until you've considered it, I'm not sure you're in a position to judge that.

You're asking me: A general misanthrope and master of melancholy if I've ever considered suicide?

Any time I have considered it, I always say: Suck it up, you pussy.

End of story.

It is certainly a very final solution. That is why my first recommendation to anyone considering suicide is "procrastinate." There will be time enough to do it tomorrow, if need be.

Disturbingly funny; absolutely true.

How about if you're bedridden and/or paralyzed? Perhaps in a persistent vegetative state? You can make your wishes known, if you're conscious and aware, but there's very little you can do about it yourself. If you aren't conscious, and are unlikely ever to be, then your agent can act on your previously stated wishes (such as a living will), but again there's nothing you can do to make it happen on your own.

And these are among the conditions in which suicide is most likely to be an acceptable option.

There are always 'exceptions' to the rule, personally, I don't like making massive decisions based on a few 'exceptions'.

And from personal experience, my great grandmother was left in a 'vegetative' state after suffering a stroke.

I watched her 'suffer' (and she did, from what I could tell).

But I also saw the gleam in her eye every time I visited her.

She died not too long ago; after a series of mishaps leading to a slow death after the removal of her feeding tube.

Is that the way she wanted to go? I don't know, don't think so.

Would she have favored 'assisted suicide'? I don't know, don't think so.

Personally, while I fear a similar fate, I'll face it if need be.

I'd rather die with 'character' and honor than to take the easy way out.

But that's just me.

[Redmage]

You're asking me: A general misanthrope and master of melancholy if I've ever considered suicide?

Any time I have considered it, I always say: Suck it up, you pussy.

End of story.Evidently not, if it happens more than once. In any case you should be cautious about applying standards based on your own self-image to other people.

There are always 'exceptions' to the rule, personally, I don't like making massive decisions based on a few 'exceptions'.If a behavior is rare, and suicide is, then almost any decision about it has to take account of exceptional circumstances. Moreover the choice that any given person makes in those circumstances is irrelevant to the policy. The fact that Person A decided against suicide does not limit Person B's freedom.

At least, it should not in a just and free society.

[Bugman]

I just happened to read this today.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28153835/

[tcklft]

In a case such as Mr Ewert's, where the alternative to suicide is a slow, lingering death, I feel assisted suicide is warranted. If it's just a whiny teenager having a bad hair day, then no. But I doubt these assisted-suicide groups cater to anyone who wants to off himself.

[Artoo]

People should have the right to choose whether they live or die.

I'm pro assisted suicide. Especially so after I saw the suffering I saw my Granddad in, and his attempt to take his own life in order to escape the pain that his cancer was causing him.

[MrMacphisto]

Legalize it and regulate it.

[Mephistopheles]

I agree that it's not up to the state to decide that. We're not living in Communist Russia, it's supposed to be a free country. And able-bodied people have the means to kill themselves, so why would terminally ill people who cannot do it themselves anymore be denied that right.

And cancer is mostly not something you cause yourself.

[Cy/MiG]

And cancer is mostly not something you cause yourself.

It is if you're a chewer or smoker.

And in other supposed cases (sunlight, cell phones) if it is a real 'threat' than avoiding said things as often as possible (or applying neccessary precautions) is the best route.

If you're a sun bathing, constant cell-phone using, smoker with a family history of cancer... and then you get it...

Well, DUH!

[Cy/MiG]

Evidently not, if it happens more than once. In any case you should be cautious about applying standards based on your own self-image to other people.

If a behavior is rare, and suicide is, then almost any decision about it has to take account of exceptional circumstances. Moreover the choice that any given person makes in those circumstances is irrelevant to the policy. The fact that Person A decided against suicide does not limit Person B's freedom.

At least, it should not in a just and free society.

I get you're angle, but can I ask:

When the hell did personal freedom and choice become more important than life itself???

[Cy/MiG]

People should have the right to choose whether they live or die.

They already do.

Nothing's stopping anyone from killing themselves right this minute.

But most would rather have someone else do the deed, apparently.

That way the guilt is on someone else.

[Redmage]

When the hell did personal freedom and choice become more important than life itself???They've always been more important. If they weren't then we couldn't rightly sacrifice lives to preserve them. Freedom and choice include the right to decide how important life is, at least with regard to one's own life.

It is if you're a chewer or smoker.No, not really. Tobacco use can be shown to increase the incidence of cancer, but only on the scale of populations. You can say "We get 10,000 cancer cases per year that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise, due to tobacco." But you can't say whether or not any given case is one of those 10,000, even if the patient is a smoker.

Smoking increases your risk of cancer, but you can still get cancer without it. That means that it's impossible to say whether or not you would have gotten cancer if you had not smoked.

Nothing's stopping anyone from killing themselves right this minute.

But most would rather have someone else do the deed, apparently.

That way the guilt is on someone else.Very few people who are physically capable of ending their own lives ask someone else to do it for them. That's just a fact. "Assisted suicide" is seen almost exclusively in cases where patients don't have that ability.

You're beginning to make a lot of sweeping statements that are clearly based more on your emotional responses to this issue than they are on facts.

[Cy/MiG]

They've always been more important. If they weren't then we couldn't rightly sacrifice lives to preserve them. Freedom and choice include the right to decide how important life is, at least with regard to one's own life.

In general I'd agree.

But in hopes of avoiding derailing this thread, I'll say that there is massive hypocrisy and irony in the paragraph you just wrote and some of the people who believe it (and then don't follow it).

'Sacrificing lives' to 'preserve lives' to later 'off them'...

Seems like a wasted sacrifice to me.

I'd rather have a life without choice than all choice with no life.

No, not really. Tobacco use can be shown to increase the incidence of cancer, but only on the scale of populations. You can say "We get 10,000 cancer cases per year that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise, due to tobacco." But you can't say whether or not any given case is one of those 10,000, even if the patient is a smoker.

Smoking increases your risk of cancer, but you can still get cancer without it. That means that it's impossible to say whether or not you would have gotten cancer if you had not smoked.

Once again you over analyze an obviously general statement.

I never said otherwise.

But any semi-intelligent person knows what using tobacco products increases your 'RISK' of cancer (and excessive use makes the risk all the more real).

If someone contracts cancer and is a tobacco user and it WASN'T caused by the tobacco, that's just comedic irony.

Point is (*obvious statement alert*):

You don't use tobacco in hopes of NOT getting cancer.

And IMO, if a person gets cancer because of tobacco us, they've dug they're own grave and I have little to no symapthy for them.

Their assisted suicide was the dip and/or cigarrette butt.

You keep reaching for exceptions to the rule the same way I am making general statements.

You're beginning to make a lot of sweeping statements that are clearly based more on your emotional responses to this issue than they are on facts.

'Sweeping Statements' like:

People should have the right to choose whether they live or die...

And cancer is mostly not something you cause yourself...

Legalize it and regulate it.

Wait... that's right, I didn't make any of those sweeping statements.

I'm simply responding to sweeping statements with... sweeping statements.

[Redmage]

'Sacrificing lives' to 'preserve lives' to later 'off them'...No, sacrificing lives to preserve freedom and choice. Clearly freedom and choice are more important.

I'd rather have a life without choice than all choice with no life.Fortunately the Founders didn't feel that way.

In any case, we're talking about suicide, in which the choice is to surrender life. You've registered your own preference, but that doesn't mean it should be the law of the land.

But any semi-intelligent person knows what using tobacco products increases your 'RISK' of cancer (and excessive use makes the risk all the more real).Sure, but "risk" doesn't tell you about any specific case.

If someone contracts cancer and is a tobacco user and it WASN'T caused by the tobacco, that's just comedic irony.Perhaps. The point though is that no one can ever know either way.

It does raise an interesting question, though. Why is it legal to kill yourself slowly and painfully, but not quickly and painlessly?

And IMO, if a person gets cancer because of tobacco us, they've dug they're own grave and I have little to no symapthy for them.Fair enough. And if ever you can be completely certain that someone's cancer was actually caused by their own behavior, then this might come into play. In the meantime though perhaps compassion should be the order of the day, just in case.

I'm simply responding to sweeping statements with... sweeping statements.There is a difference between a statement about policy (such as "Legalize it and regulate it.") and a statement about fact (such as "But most would rather have someone else do the deed, apparently. That way the guilt is on someone else.). One is saying what ought to be done, the other is making a claim about the way things are. The difference is especially important when the factual claims are about something that is impossible to know as fact.

When people begin generalizing about things they can't possibly know, I tend to think that there's more emotion than fact behind it.

[Cy/MiG]

No, sacrificing lives to preserve freedom and choice. Clearly freedom and choice are more important.

It's still ironic.

Technically, people are [and HAVE] sacrificing their own lives they'd like to keep and live so others can voluntarily end their own lives.

I believe 'facepalm' is in order.

It does raise an interesting question, though. Why is it legal to kill yourself slowly and painfully, but not quickly and painlessly?

Because smoking and dipping 'feels good' and helps some people 'calm down'.

But if and when it comes back to kill those same people, they want no part of it.

Please keep in mind that this general statement is directed ONLY at those who follow into this 'grouping' and nobody else.

Is what I said 'fact'? In some cases, many others not. On the whole you can't really dismiss it.

There are really stupid and stubborn people in the world, you can't deny it.

There are some (however small a percentage) who want to do harmful things that can be fatal or give them fatal diseases and then they want assisted suicide to avoid the painful death they thrust upon themselves.

Just like abortion, I'd prefer if there was a policy in place that prohibited certain people from 'cop outs'.

Call it ths TS rule.

Basically, IMO: You do the crime/deed, you do the time/pay the price.

IMO, Life is not a video game and there should be no 'reset' button.

There is a difference between a statement about policy (such as "Legalize it and regulate it.") and a statement about fact (such as "But most would rather have someone else do the deed, apparently. That way the guilt is on someone else.). One is saying what ought to be done, the other is making a claim about the way things are. The difference is especially important when the factual claims are about something that is impossible to know as fact.

Tracking. I apologize.

But I usually don't intend to come across as what I say is fact. I just call things how I see them and get tired of typing IMO every damned post.

In the meantime though perhaps compassion should be the order of the day, just in case.

When people begin generalizing about things they can't possibly know, I tend to think that there's more emotion than fact behind it.

Please remember I'm a melancholy misanthrope.

I tend to believe 'two wrongs don't make a right' and 'If you give a mouse a cookie...', simple gradeschool, big-bird concepts that ring true no matter the age (IMO).

If I sound angry, it's probably because I'm calloused and nothing more.

I never intend to speak for others, I just potray them how I see them in my eyes.

And as much as I generalize, you specify. We're polar opposites fighting a potentially endless battle.

Like Batman and Joker (I'd be the Joker, obviously).

You see assisted suicide as helpful for those who are in an impossible situation and can't help themselves (probably much more complex than that...)

I see it as beyond ironic and counterproductive to society, regardless of how 'compassionate' it may or may not be.

I don't think you're wrong for supporting it.

I just think the concept of it is wrong.

In my view there is a difference.

[Evil Dave]

I can only speak from my point of view but if I were to be struck with some disease that was incurable and either incredibly painful or destroyed my quality of life I would want the option to choose how and when I end my own life. I am a rational person who is capable of making choices about how I live my life (or not live it as the case may be).

The biggest arguments against it are

1) 'It's and affront to God '

Thats your god not mine, I don't have to live by what you think is right.

2) 'The system could be abused by people seeking inheritance from relatives or some other form of gain '

There would of course need to be some form of regulation to make sure that this didn't happen.

3) 'You don't need it make it legal, just go and kill yourself anyway'

Aside from the fact that some people can't move enough to kill themselves, it is still better to be allowed to die in a peaceful and painless way rather than just slitting your wrists or jumping off a bridge. Those sorts of suicides are more traumatic for the person and their family. I mean, someone has to find the body and clear up the mess don't they. Why not let people did peacefully in a clinic instead?

[Dave2112]

I usually try and stay out of these, as they hit too close to home, but I'll offer a few personal opinions...and they are jst that. Personal opinions.

First off, I agree that a person's life is theirs to do with what they will. The religious "damnations" and such are merely further machinations and fairy-tales designed to make people do what you want them to do. Without "damning" suicide, the rest of the mythology doesn't hold together...so, ergo...suicides go to hell. There, that fixes that problem.

Now, since this isn't a religious debate on the topic...I'll agree that a person has every right to end their life in the way they see fit. I tend to disagree with the oft-touted and bumper-sticker philosophy of the "coward's way out". Personally, if an individual feels they no longer belong in this world for whatever reason they have, they should be allowed to leave it on their own terms and at a time of their chosing.

I know I'm most likely either alone or in very small company on this one, but my personal philosophy is that I'd rather die with dignity on my own terms than have it chosen for me. Of course, this is a generalization, and there's a lot to consider. What would the reasons be? Terminal illness? Hopeless depression? Or maybe just a final understanding of a misplacement of one's self in either timeframe or place. Sometimes a person may simply come to the conclusion that they truly do not have a place among the society they are forced to live in. Their philosophies, beliefs and ways of life are just too far removed. Being a "part" of the world around you is a vital part of the human psyche, and when that isn't being fulfilled for whatever reason, and I know this is gonna sound strange....but why not "see what's on the other side?"

What I mean is...do any of us really know what's next, if anything? We think we do. We've been told what to think or believe. But we do not know. No one does. What if life is simply a series of "steps", one existence to the next? Who are we to say that someone can't decide to move on to that next step on their own?

Bottom line is, I feel that there's a certain courage that has to be mustered in order to make that final decision. Leaving mental instability out of it (in which case, there should be no judgment), whether due to terminal illness or just a personal decision, I just don't feel that a "coward" is going to pull the trigger, take the jump or swallow the painkillers. I've known several people in my life who've "survived" attempts, and not one of them said they'd just woken up and thought "You know what? I'm too chicken-shit to face the world, I think I'm gonna just die. It's easy." The ones I spoke to about it always speak of a long decision process, a weighing of options and a certain fear of what's "on the other side". And that's the fear that must be overcome. It's an old saying that courage is not the lack of fear, but rather being afraid and doing what you must anyway.

I do agree that a person should make this decision alone and not involve others unless absolutely neccessary. In the cases of the terminally ill, the ones who simply cannot physically accomplish it on their own, resources should be available. Responsible medical resources. Allowing a person who has already suffered to pass on without further suffering. At peace. But, for the individual who simply "has thier reasons", I will agree that one should keep it to oneself and do what must be done, so to speak.

In closing, although the overall tone may suggest this, my post is in no way an open-letter support of suicide as an option. Life is precious. However, that preciousness is in the eye of who posseses it. If it's lost...then that's their decision and their choice.

[locker669]

ALS is not painful nor is it a common disease.

[Redmage]

ALS is not painful nor is it a common disease.Actually pain management is a common part of ALS therapy (http://www.promotingexcellence.org/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageID=3370). Constantly struggling to breathe is no fun either. Most ALS patients die of suffocation.

And what does it matter how common it is? From the patient's perspective it doesn't need to happen more than once.

[BlackestLily]

Well, I'll do my best not to speak for others in my life. But I am pro-choice in this matter.

Reiterating that it's someone's choice, my grandparents both got cancer at the same time. One had ovarian cancer mixed with kidney, etc. The other had colon and lung cancer.

Neither 'wanted' to be there. They were, in essence, living to die in those final months of their life. My grandfather died of starvation because his body couldn't break down food any longer. They rerouted his intestines for waste and tried IVs nutrients. Nothing worked. All he could do was watch us eat at events like bbq's and comment, "Man I could almost taste it...I can't...but I want to so badly." He was bedridden and couldn't function in day to day life. My grandmother had a similar tale. You could hear them puking whatever was in their stomachs right back out at various times throughout the day. The living room looked like a homage to a medical facility. They could barely walk and couldn't enjoy any of the things that they used to.

This bulldozed my father emotionally, watching them both slowly die in the most painful way possible. Imagine someone nearest and dearest to you. Now watch them die slowly before your eyes. The feeling of helplessness is unparalleled. When they died it was no relief. He never knew when they would. It was constant fear everyday that something would happen and he may need to be there for them. Our family was constantly at their house, helping, running errands, unable to move from the emotional brakes we were placed on.

One day when my father was at work, he received a phone call from his work office (he works in construction). His mom was on the phone because his dad was dying. After arguing with my grandmother for 5 minutes, she finally put my grandfather on the phone. My father tried to speak with him and was met with gurgling and sounds a baby would make. He could literally hear him dying, and my grandmother didn't want him hearing that. As most know who have ever worked in construction, the site you work could be any random location. He was over an hour away from them. By the time he got there, he watched EMT's carrying my grandfather out in a body bag. He didn't get to say goodbye, there was no dignity, there was no comfort, and there was no relief.

So to those who say it's a cowards way out, shame, shame, shame on you. Some individuals and families can decide what is best for themselves and act upon it according to how they see fit. If you do not wish to, simply don't. In this way you will make your choice known.

[kis123]

I'd rather die with 'character' and honor than to take the easy way out.

But that's just me.

What on earth makes you think that suicide is the easy way out?? Especially when the only option is a slow, grinding, painful death? What character and honor is it in wasting away to die?

Aninmals get better respect than humans when it comes to dying. If I brought in my cat to the vet and he had an incurable or financially insurmountable disease, he/she would give me euphanasia as an option. Why can't humans get the same options without being judged for them?

[ticklee_heather]

I think it is difficult to be critical of someone who wants to take their own life because you never know what led them to do. Most the people I've known who did it just felt a sense of hopelessness that they couldn't get past. Looking back I really wish I had reached out to them more and had been there to talk.

With all that being said, I don't agree with assisted suicide. I understand why people do it because it is usually performed on people with terminal illnesses or someone who has lost their quality of life. Still, I feel that you devalue life with assisted suicide. I think assisted suicide reaffirms to people that their life has no quality or value. I understand why other people are so passionately in favor of it, but I just believe that it is wrong.

[Cy/MiG]

What on earth makes you think that suicide is the easy way out??

Because it's only natural to be afraid [of the unknown, death and/or pain].

Killing yourself to avoid the prospects of pain is clearly taking an easy way out.

What character and honor is it in wasting away to die?

To face the pain and/or fear [and perhaps even overcome it].

My tombstone will read:

'He felt the fear, but did it anyway.'

Honest and comical.

[..Glamorous..]

ALS is not painful nor is it a common disease.

That is the biggest load of crap I have heard today. When I was 6 yrs old I watched my grandmother die from ALS. She couldn't do a damn thing for herself, she was in so much pain. Try living with someone with it before you say you know anything about it.