StarSong
Awkward is my Superpower
- Location
- Los Angeles Suburbs
The right to die..
- Thread starter Capt Lightning
- Start date
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
Sadly, you come across as being very defensive on the topic, and don't even appear to want to discuss it. So you shut it down with paragraphs like this.
We know we don't have to like it, and no-one has argued otherwise. We also know we don't have to do it, which again, no-one has argued against. They're just the sharing of opinions, since we don't even live in Australia or on that Continent! I don't understand why opposing views, or the admission that one is uncomfortable about it, bothers you quite so much. If ever there was a topic where all points of view should be heard, it's the death of a human being.
Ultimately, you get to choose at the ballot box, and the majority carry the day. Either way, surely we can still talk about it without being shut down?
gruntlabor
Last Frontier, Age 82
error
Last edited:
gruntlabor
Last Frontier, Age 82
Please, I have never said that dying people should be forced to continue suffering! I believe in the freedom of man to take his own path. The only real freedom is to own ourselves, the right to remain individuals.I dont see it as horrible at all. I see it as far more horrible to force people to continue suffering when a disease has progressed to the point of no quality of life.
The person must be i n a situation where they are going to die within the next 6 months - I really don't think this 'relatives pressuring them' scenario is very likely at all.
not sure what solutions you think there are for diseases progressed to point of meeting criteria for VAD or solutions to doing VAD illegally.
Much better to have properly administered doses done in a legal safe way if that is what people want.
It isnt a political thing or some socialist plot.
There are endless solutions to suffering --make a plan, Stan, it's a free republic
No parsed words, suicide is suicide. It is dangerous, half your terrorists are only suicides
Glib words, "Oh, he was suffering, he's better off dead." This IS a political thing, and it IS a socialist plot.
Debrah N.
Member
- Location
- Alberta, Canada
Anywhere death with dignity is offered, there are all kinds of hoops that have to be jumped through. Medical opinions from at least two medical doctors, counselling for a period of time, proof that every kind of treatment has been tried, etc. I think it's highly unlikely that anyone will ever be able to take grandma in and dump her.
Debrah N.
Member
- Location
- Alberta, Canada
Suicide is something that otherwise healthy humans do to themselves. Dying with dignity or assisted dying is when a person is suffering from a terminal disease and doesn't want to wait out the inevitable so a doctor 'assists' them. Two very different situations.
Mr. Ed
Life does not deserve my gratitude.
- Location
- Central NY
I think it is appropriate to leave to die rather than right to die.
Debrah N.
Member
- Location
- Alberta, Canada
Defensive is a good word to use. In this day and age, of rights being manipulated or even withdrawn, it behooves everyone to be defensive about all our rights. I think most agree it's okay to discuss these issues and even to suggest that someone's discomfort with something is their right and that they don't have to ever consider it as a solution to their situation. As long as no one stoops to name calling or abuse, we all have a right to decide how our lives run and run out for that matter.
gruntlabor
Last Frontier, Age 82
Good Grief! Find me, please, the dictionary that says that! Suicide is the taking of one's own life.
Yes the freedom of people to take their own path - including their end of life path in a safe and legal way when their disease is at a terminal and no quality of life stage.
No there are not endless other solutions to such suffering - I asked before what you think there are and you didnt name any solutions
no, suicide isnt suicide - like everything there is context. Probably why people like using different words to clarify what they mean
VAD has nothing at all to do with socialism or any other political view and absolutely nothing to do with terroism
gruntlabor
Last Frontier, Age 82
You would like me to name some of the myriad ways to painlessly off yourself? No, I don't give that kind of advice.
As to your remarks that "suicide isnt suicide" and "VAD has nothing ... to do with socialism ..." I believe they have no connection to reality, no offense, just an opinion.
I don't think it is that easy to painlessly kill yourself especially when you are sick and frail - which you are if you qualify for VAD.
And why would we want people to attempt that, rather than have a safe and assisted alternative.
However if they can do a DIY version, then no problem, they don't request VAD.
What I think has no connection to reality is not seeing the distinction between VAD and suicide.
And the socialist plot idea seems totally removed from reality - it isn't a political thing of any political persuasion.
And why would we want people to attempt that, rather than have a safe and assisted alternative.
However if they can do a DIY version, then no problem, they don't request VAD.
What I think has no connection to reality is not seeing the distinction between VAD and suicide.
And the socialist plot idea seems totally removed from reality - it isn't a political thing of any political persuasion.
gruntlabor
Last Frontier, Age 82
1. Speak to your doctor, if necessary ask for a referral to another doctor, ask for sleeping pills, pain meds, speak to your family, friends ... (look around you, January, at all these people who are itching to help, but leave the government out of it, my opinion.)
2. We would not want sick and frail people to attempt suicide, but assistance is not owed to them. These matters should be handled privately.
3. There is no distinction between VAD and suicide, none whatever. But that is only my opinion.
You will not convince me that someone should be murdered simply because they ask for it, although it will be quite a profitable undertaking. There is a law on the books where I live: Thou shalt not kill, paraphrased.
that doesnt make sense - so it is ok for people to get sleeping pills etc and overdose in a haphazard way but not to have a safe and legal way of doing it
I prefer a government to allow this safely with checks and controls
You cant just get another script from another Dr here though - medication supplies of such drugs are monitored and limited
If there is a law do not kill then people shouldn't euthanise pets??
Most people understand context - the difference between killing a healthy dog and euthanising a sick one.
and same difference for humans - except the human requests it for themself
and no it isnt a profitable undertaking - who is profiting?
I prefer a government to allow this safely with checks and controls
You cant just get another script from another Dr here though - medication supplies of such drugs are monitored and limited
If there is a law do not kill then people shouldn't euthanise pets??
Most people understand context - the difference between killing a healthy dog and euthanising a sick one.
and same difference for humans - except the human requests it for themself
and no it isnt a profitable undertaking - who is profiting?
gruntlabor
Last Frontier, Age 82
1. A haphazard way? I would think that would be efficient but, if not, at least one would have had a nice rest and made a plot change. The noble American indian simply took a walk, sat down in the elements and waited.
2. I know that is your preference. I can't respect it. I believe you mean well, but others do not.
3. Sometimes it takes a village to solve a problem, not the filthy UN.
4. We do not seem as interested in the welfare of pets and animals as we are for ourselves. Red meat is the ultimate in quality protein.
5. The difference is that we are stewards of the earth's creatures. Human beings enjoy the intelligence to deal with their problems themselves.
6. You're kidding, right?
Thank you for your civility in this charged discussion, January. You've a cooler head than I
PeppermintPatty
🔷 💜 🔷
Good post.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
Well, no-one had stooped to name calling or abuse, so I don't think that applies here. Frankly, if someone doesn't want to discuss a topic - on a discussion forum - then I don't think it's those who are participating in a normal way to shut up. If someone isn't open to a discussion where they might hear opinions that are different from their own, then the question is, why are they in the thread?
With respect, this is very much wrong, imo. This is why we can't debate topics these days, every one is entrenched and ready to shut down discussion, as though everything is a war. I repeat a simple truth - there is no shortage of ways to end our lives. We can't stop people ending their time on this earth. The debate here is whether the right to kill yourself should be enshrined in law. The act itself - let's no pretend we have any control over it.
Are you kidding? With the drugs someone would already be on, it would be very simple. Any assistance surely could be given by family members. Are we really going to suggest that the issue here is that people with constant pain, and illness, are too weak to end their lives, therefore we need state sanctioned suicide to help them? You know, I've stated prior, I see both sides of this issue, but I personally think you're going to need better reasoning to overcome the naysayers (although, to be fair, I don't think you have much interested in winning anyone over). Imo.
Human beings are not dogs. Or cats. You seem to have missed out on thousands of years or evolution, societal practices, beliefs, and concepts such as the spirit and the soul. We recognize that dogs are not human, and they are not afforded the same rights as humans. This argument is a total non-starter, imo. Well, at least until Planet of the Apes becomes a thing. Then we're going to really think about state sanctioned suicide for them too.
The people administering the drugs. The people making the drugs. The people selling the drugs. The lawyers involved in an paperwork. Are you suggesting everyone is going to end someones life for free?
I do think it's telling that the arguments seem to have boiled down to such levels. "Hey, we kill dogs, so what's the difference between a dog and my mother?" I mean, really?
The thing is, I don't think I'm even coming out against state sanctioned suicide in certain cases. What I am trying to do is to have a discussion about the topic. This is a serious discussion about a serious subject. We need to think a little more deeply than being concerned about dogs. imo.
Debrah N.
Member
- Location
- Alberta, Canada
Well, no-one had stooped to name calling or abuse, so I don't think that applies here. Frankly, if someone doesn't want to discuss a topic - on a discussion forum - then I don't think it's those who are participating in a normal way to shut up. If someone isn't open to a discussion where they might hear opinions that are different from their own, then the question is, why are they in the thread?
With respect, this is very much wrong, imo. This is why we can't debate topics these days, every one is entrenched and ready to shut down discussion, as though everything is a war. I repeat a simple truth - there is no shortage of ways to end our lives. We can't stop people ending their time on this earth. The debate here is whether the right to kill yourself should be enshrined in law. The act itself - let's no pretend we have any control over it.
Are you kidding? With the drugs someone would already be on, it would be very simple. Any assistance surely could be given by family members. Are we really going to suggest that the issue here is that people with constant pain, and illness, are too weak to end their lives, therefore we need state sanctioned suicide to help them? You know, I've stated prior, I see both sides of this issue, but I personally think you're going to need better reasoning to overcome the naysayers (although, to be fair, I don't think you have much interested in winning anyone over). Imo.
Human beings are not dogs. Or cats. You seem to have missed out on thousands of years or evolution, societal practices, beliefs, and concepts such as the spirit and the soul. We recognize that dogs are not human, and they are not afforded the same rights as humans. This argument is a total non-starter, imo. Well, at least until Planet of the Apes becomes a thing. Then we're going to really think about state sanctioned suicide for them too.
The people administering the drugs. The people making the drugs. The people selling the drugs. The lawyers involved in an paperwork. Are you suggesting everyone is going to end someones life for free?
I do think it's telling that the arguments seem to have boiled down to such levels. "Hey, we kill dogs, so what's the difference between a dog and my mother?" I mean, really?
The thing is, I don't think I'm even coming out against state sanctioned suicide in certain cases. What I am trying to do is to have a discussion about the topic. This is a serious discussion about a serious subject. We need to think a little more deeply than being concerned about dogs. imo.
Never said anyone in particular was being abusive, just put it out there as a criteria to avoid, for having decent discussions. How many discussions have you seen online that deteriorated the moment one person resorts to that? Probably plenty. And you’re right, if someone is uncomfortable with a discussion, there’s plenty of other topics to take a look at.
Being defensive doesn’t mean getting so entrenched that you are ready to go to war. It just means being ready to defend/argue/explain/justify your position or in this case, why this or that right should be protected.
What we’re talking about too I think, is protecting people from having to go out on the street like Adam Maier Clayton did to find some heroin, so that he could end his life in a lonely hotel room because he didn’t meet the criteria for assisted dying and he didn’t want his family to get in trouble. He tried every means to get well, nothing fixed him and he suffered unbearable pain through no fault of his own. And the law didn’t help him at all.
Adam’s Story | Maggie Maier
And family members can’t help you die if you care about their safety and freedom. What’s more, some people can’t do anything for themselves. The first assisted death in 1993 in Canada was a woman named Sue Rodrigues, who suffered from ALS. She was an activist spokesperson for the right to an assisted death. She was forced to ‘commit suicide’ because it still wasn’t legal, with the aid of an anonymous doctor. At the time of her death, she was wheel chair bound and couldn’t do anything for herself.
At least today in Canada, you have to meet specific parameters, have to have exhausted every means of treatment with no remission, doctors assess the request and it usually takes about three months, you must be 18 or older, have submitted written request yourself and witnessed by two independent witnesses who have nothing to do with your care. And you have a 'cooling off period' in which to change your mind, that you have to wait out before you can proceed. And I believe a patient must be well enough in most instances, that they can take the medications themselves with an official witness approved by the court. So there are guard rails.
Get the facts on MAID | Dying With Dignity Canada.
still sounds the same thing to me but I am not opposed to "legally assisted suicide" - surely this is a play with semantics??
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
I understand the issue. Assisted Dying, it seems to me, is about protecting those left behind, and not much else. As you say, you help someone die with it, and you're guilty of a crime. With Assisted Dying, you're not. Nothing really changes very much for the actual individual involved, as your case with Adam illustrates. If someone wants to end their life, they will find a way, with or without the law being in place.
But really, that's not the issue. I think there is a difference between explaining your point of view, and being defensive. One can defend their position without being all-out defensive. In the latter instance, counter points of view are just dismissed and brushed off, which doesn't work in a true discussion.
As I've said, nowhere have I said I'm against Assisted Dying. I have tried to explore different points of view, because I'm interested in the level of thinking that has gone on to this. I've also stated that state sanctioned suicide is problematic and should be of concern to all. Knowing the world we live in, I think it is fanciful to imagine no-one can, or will, be coerced into following the wrong path. I just think we should be mindful of it.
It doesn't get any more important than the loss of life.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
It is, but it's on the side of those who want to rebrand suicide as "assisted dying". As you state, just call it what it is so people aren't confused or the action is dressed up in the emperors clothes. What we're talking about here is legal protection for people helping their loved ones kill themselves. This may not change your mind about it, and that's fine. It is what it is.
No, it's not. We don't send our soldiers out to die. Dying may be a consequence of a war, but it's not the reason we send people. We sincerely hope they will all return!
Yes, often people who meet the criteria for VAD are too weak or disabled to administer drugs themselves.
and family members (presuming the sick person has them handy and in agreement) assisting is the very scenario we are wanting to avoid - people doing things illegally and being subject to prosecution rather than a medical practitioner or the person themself, doing it in a safe and legal way
and like I said, here in Australia people don't get unlimited supplies of such drugs - precisely to avoid overdoses
Well nobody here in Australia needs a lawyer to do the paper work for this
the people making the drugs would make more in most cases if the person lived till they died of the disease rather than dying by VAD - several months more of using pain relief etc
The drugs here would be available on the PBS - (pharmecutical benifits scheme which covers most medications) so they would be bought from a pharmacy - again the pharmacy benifits more by the person buying their end of life medication for a few more months rather than the VAD dose and then nothing more
The doctor administering if the person cannot do it themself, would get a standard Medicare fee - like they would for visiting the patient at home for any other reason or treating the patient for their illness.
No I am not suggesting people will do it for free, they will be paid as you are for doing any job - but I am saying they gain less financially by doing so than if the patient lived a few more months - ergo it is not a profitable undertaking.