Right to Die, or Duty to Die?

In hunting societies this is a survival mechanism. Old Inuit women, whose teeth had been worn down from constant chewing of the hides to soften them could not easily be supported by the hunters. When they became a drain on the family they often voluntarily walked out into the snow to ensure the survival of their offspring and their children. They had a duty to die so that others might live.

Similarly, in these societies baby girls were exposed at birth until boys (future hunters) were born. Unlike the baby boys, girls had no intrinsic right to live.
 

Butterfly said:
I personally feel very strongly that no one has the right (or ability, for that matter) to judge whether another person has the right to continue living or not. Sounds very Nazi-like to me, to decide that anyone or any group, whether defined by age, race, religion or anything else, has no right to continue living . . . . and I think it is very dangerous thinking.
Click to expand...


You are talking about something very different than the 'right to die'. To equate murder and choosing for yourself, when you are going to leave this world are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

If I am very sick, terminal and in great pain, I would prefer that people with good or reasonable health not tell me that I have to lie there in my bed, and 'enjoy' the suffering that could go on for a significant length of time. To choose for myself to be done with the pain and suffering isn't Nazi-like at all. It's my last 'choice' on this side of the grave.
 
Ina said:
I don't see the problem. If a person wishes to leave this world, there are many comfortable ways of accomplishing it, and without pain. But I don't think we owe it to anyone. Children are not obligated to care for their parent, and many don't. I don't think the government has any right to make this kind of decisions for us. They'll just have to find another way to pay off the national debt.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I understand your post Ina. When you say, 'we don't owe it to anyone', what are you referencing? Owe people the opportunity to end their own lives peacefully and without suffering or were you thinking of something else?

I wouldn't like to see anybody arbitrarily deciding that I am taking up space or whatever, but if I'm 85, in pain from some illness that's terminal anyway or maybe comatose, I think I should be allowed to call a halt to the 'endurance test'. "How long can she last despite the suffering because we have laws" is not a good enough reason to force anyone to stay alive when they want out. As it stands now, the government stops me from choosing to do what I want in that dreadful circumstance and sentences those who suffer to keep suffering.

And I think the right to die issue encompasses the frequent need of the elderly and dying who are unable through infirmity, to be able to facilitate the process. For example, a Vancouver woman named Sue Rodrigues, many years ago, sued for the right to have her doctor help her die. She had that disease that slowly paralyses you until even breathing is impossible and you suffocate. On her best day, she couldn't have managed a 'comfortable' way to accomplish it. And personally, as a healthy person, I can't conceive right now of a comfortable or painless way to kill myself and I'm able bodied. Sue's case was turned down by the courts and ultimately, she had to arrange secretly to have 'someone' give her a fatal shot of something but the person who helped her had to do it in secret so that he/she wouldn't go to jail for murder.

Over the years of I've also heard of a number of cases where elderly husbands or wives of senior spouses (who'd been married for decades and loved one another) killed their terminal and suffering spouse and then were charged with murder. That's not right at all.

As for the national debt, sorry but I don't understand.
 

I have worked in healtcare for nearly 40 years. I've pretty much seen it all. There is an alternative to living in agony and killing ones self... It's called HOSPICE. This allows for pain control while not doing anything that will prolong life with no quality. Unfortunately, Doctors do not bring this option up to patients and families soon enough.. HOSPICE is for people who have been determined by a doctor to have less than 6 months to live.. but can go on a lot longer.. What I see is that by the time Hospice gets involved.. the patient is already nearly dead.. SO what's the use. I think doctors look at it as them having failed. Nurses have the obligation to give the doc a push to offer this option. People can die in dignity without pain... usually in their own home, with loved ones aroundl. It's up to the Hospice nurses to keep pain under control.. make passing as easy as possible and to counsel the family throught this difficult time. The family needs more attention than the patient usually... to keep calm.. to accept.. and to let the inevitable happen naturally.
 
nwlady said:
Hey, we've already made it easy to throw away babies that mess up our cushy lives, lets throw away all the old people too, how bout the mentally disabled, let's trash them too, oh yeah, and those with too big a nose, we can't have that, oh yeah, too fat of people, they eat too much take up way too much space, and the skinny people oh yeah, they are just too sickly to look at. Hey crap, think of the dough we could all have if we didn't spend it on cancer patients, discard the "imperfect". Geesh, that ought to leave about zero people on Earth, just as it should be if they are going to think this way. How freakin sad, wish I hadn't even got on here today.
Click to expand...



That's not at all what this debate is about. This debate is about the elderly or those suffering from terminal illnesses being able to call a halt to the farce. This debate is about letting those who have a mind to not suffer, being able to make that choice legally and safely. So that their loved ones don't have to decide between being true to their mom or dad or husband or wives wishes or going to jail (for breaking the law by ending their lives/ending the suffering). This is about providing legal and medical means that the person/patient/dying human can decide for themselves, just how long they will endure the suffering. It's not at all about dealing with 'inconvenient' people and to frame it that way is disingenuous.
 
QuickSilver said:
I have worked in healtcare for nearly 40 years. I've pretty much seen it all. There is an alternative to living in agony and killing ones self... It's called HOSPICE. This allows for pain control while not doing anything that will prolong life with no quality. Unfortunately, Doctors do not bring this option up to patients and families soon enough.. HOSPICE is for people who have been determined by a doctor to have less than 6 months to live.. but can go on a lot longer.. What I see is that by the time Hospice gets involved.. the patient is already nearly dead.. SO what's the use. I think doctors look at it as them having failed. Nurses have the obligation to give the doc a push to offer this option. People can die in dignity without pain... usually in their own home, with loved ones aroundl. It's up to the Hospice nurses to keep pain under control.. make passing as easy as possible and to counsel the family throught this difficult time. The family needs more attention than the patient usually... to keep calm.. to accept.. and to let the inevitable happen naturally.
Click to expand...


Not everyone has access to first rate hospice care and not everyone wants to be medicated up to the eyeballs while their body takes weeks to die. My aunt's sister-in-law, who had Alzheimers, lay in her bed in the senior residence for six years. She knew no one, she spoke to no one, no one came to visit, she layed there and waited til death came by itself. Where was the merit in that?

On the other hand Susan Griffiths of Winnipeg who had multiple system atrophy went to Switzerland to end her life, when she was ready to do it. She and her family walked and talked and sang songs together in a garden, and then the time came for her to 'go to sleep'. And her family are left with lovely warm memories of that last day with their mom instead of memories of tubes and monitors and struggling to breathe and pain. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/26/susan-griffiths-suicide-switzerland_n_3154469.html

Letting the inevitable end happen naturally can still be a long and arduous process that leaves no one with good feelings.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
In hunting societies this is a survival mechanism. Old Inuit women, whose teeth had been worn down from constant chewing of the hides to soften them could not easily be supported by the hunters. When they became a drain on the family they often voluntarily walked out into the snow to ensure the survival of their offspring and their children. They had a duty to die so that others might live.

Similarly, in these societies baby girls were exposed at birth until boys (future hunters) were born. Unlike the baby boys, girls had no intrinsic right to live.
Click to expand...


But we're a different society now in many ways aren't we so are we really talking about the same thing? And how do any of us know how those old Inuit people were feeling by that point in their lives. Maybe it was seen as a release by them as well, and an opportunity to go to meet those they longed to see and maybe leave behind the illnesses that plagued their bodies and made their lives miserable.
 
Not everyone has access to first rate hospice care and not everyone wants to be medicated up to the eyeballs while their body takes weeks to die. My aunt's sister-in-law, who had Alzheimers, lay in her bed in the senior residence for six years. She knew no one, she spoke to no one, no one came to visit, she layed there and waited til death came by itself. Where was the merit in that?
Click to expand...


So your Aunt's sister-in-law had no concept of what her situation was.. BUT the family didn't want to see her that way? What I'm saying is... there is a danger of people (families) euthanizing others because they are tired of caring for them.. or paying for them to be cared for. Not that your Aunt's sister in law's family did this.. but you have to admit.. that sometimes families see a financial benefit to doing away with someone. Like inheritance.. just sayin' It HAS to be the decision of the patient.. unfortunately some are not capable of making that decision. Do we let others do that for them?? I think that is a pretty slipery slope.. don't you?
 
One thing I always wonder about, is the fear that our 'Christian' society has about dying. Considering that the church teaches about a God of love, angels, happily ever after, go to be with Jesus, yada, yada, yada, one would think that Christians would be waiting with some level of anticipation for that glorious day instead of recoiling in abysmal fear of the moment and being willing to plug into every type of machine and take every kind of pill just to stall the process. What does that say about 'faith'?
 
Dame Warrigal said:
It says that faith, like people, is imperfect.
Click to expand...


What does that mean 'faith is imperfect'? Does that mean they like their family and this planet more than they like God? Does that mean that they aren't 100% sure? Does that mean they are slightly afraid that they won't make the cut?

I guess in a way the question is rhetorical because having had previous experience in this regard (was a devout Christian for about 12 years), I know that based on what I read in 'the Book', I wasn't 100% sure most of the time.

Considering how Christianity is so willing to rule the lives of others as in this instance of me choosing when I will die for example, I would have thought that true faith would inspire a deep yearning to 'be back home with God'. Oh well, chalk one up to the ambiguity of humans right?
 
QuickSilver said:
So your Aunt's sister-in-law had no concept of what her situation was.. BUT the family didn't want to see her that way? What I'm saying is... there is a danger of people (families) euthanizing others because they are tired of caring for them.. or paying for them to be cared for. Not that your Aunt's sister in law's family did this.. but you have to admit.. that sometimes families see a financial benefit to doing away with someone. Like inheritance.. just sayin' It HAS to be the decision of the patient.. unfortunately some are not capable of making that decision. Do we let others do that for them?? I think that is a pretty slipery slope.. don't you?
Click to expand...



Do you want to be in that position? I sure don't and for a variety of reasons, including that I don't want to be a source of angst and pain for my family as I lay there and that too is a valid reason. No one is suggesting that you should take the same route as me, just as no one is suggesting that having abortion rights enshrined in law means that every woman is in danger of being forced to have one. So if it's your choice to lay there like a vegetable for a decade(?), that's your choice. Mine is to not go through that process. What benefit is there, save a hospital making money off that person's 'existence'.

Let's say I'm diagnosed next week with Alzheimer's. I have the prospect of the next five years with my mind reasonably intact, but from that point on, it's a downhill slide and within ten years of diagnoses, I'm guaranteed to be like my aunts sister-in-law. If I was allowed to die when I decided, then I could enjoy life for the next five years, and then perhaps half way through the next five, my doctor would be able to supply me with a combination of drugs that would allow this body to stop functioning. But if dying-with-dignity never gets off the ground, I have two options. I can either drive my car into a tree or find some other horrid means of killing myself probably with lots of gore and pain involved, while I am still functional and capable of enjoying the comfort of my home and family......or I can wait for the inevitable and wind up alone and trapped in a body and with a mind that has given up. My family continues to suffer (as do I) and the hospital and medical establishment continues to make a buck off my continued miserable existence.

You say 'some are not capable of making that decision'. Valid point and no one should be deciding for anyone, just work at making them as comfortable as possible. But for those who have put into writing, or stated their desires to various people (that they don't want to be put on life support or have 'heroic measures', etc.) or who have their wits about them but are suffering terrible pain and incapable of 'driving the car into a tree', should those people not have the right to decide their end and request the help of a doctor who knows how to help them? And all of these issues and ways to manage these decisions can be written into laws that would prevent abuses. Panels of doctors and ethics experts could be in charge of guiding those kinds of decisions. It doesn't have to be a slippery slope. We have the intellect to prevent that.
 
I don't want people who stand to benefit financially to make the decision to have a loved one euthanized. I think it's a dangerous proposition and would very likely be abused. I'm not talking about pulling the plug, or withholding care here.. I'm talking about actively having a person killed. If someone has never communcated with anyone their last wishes.. then there is no way anyone could be able to make that decision for another person. IF euthanasia were legal... and IF the person had put their wishes in writing.. then perhaps that is a different matter.. but without that... NO WAY.. I can see a huge abuse happening. IF a person has all their faculties.. and again, if euthanasia were legal, and decides that is what he/she wants, I agree.. they should be able to make that choice.
 
QuickSilver said:
I don't want people who stand to benefit financially to make the decision to have a loved one euthanized. I think it's a dangerous proposition and would very likely be abused. I'm not talking about pulling the plug, or withholding care here.. I'm talking about actively having a person killed. If someone has never communcated with anyone their last wishes.. then there is no way anyone could be able to make that decision for another person. IF euthanasia were legal... and IF the person had put their wishes in writing.. then perhaps that is a different matter.. but without that... NO WAY.. I can see a huge abuse happening. IF a person has all their faculties.. and again, if euthanasia were legal, and decides that is what he/she wants, I agree.. they should be able to make that choice.
Click to expand...


It's not going to be a case of 'decide on Wednesday and off Granny by Sunday'. While family may finally come to a point where they feel that a dying parent/grandparent has suffered enough, there would be doctors and boards and consulting lawyers who would have to be convinced enough to give approval before the court would allow them to follow through. That is really what the debate and the push for changes of law is all about. To allow me to decide when I've had it with the suffering that is accompanying my terminal illness or even my old age weariness and to not be held captive by the fears and insecurities of society. To allow my doctor and my family to legally help me leave this world when that time comes. And it's about protecting my right to communicate with my family that if I am incapacitated by an accident or sudden illness, that they won't be forced to keep me on indefinite life support or life extending care.

Continually holding up 'the slippery slope' as the reason to not affect a change ignores the rights of those who believe that it is wrong to force someone to linger by the application of technology and drugs. Get all the legalities and ethics of the situation tied up tight so you have to kind of jump through hoops to do it, but make it legal. We give our pets more compassion in some cases then we give people. Sue Rodrigues had to find someone willing to do an 'illegal act' so that she could die when she couldn't stand her suffering any more. That mystery person was compassionate and had to be brave as well.
 
There is no duty to die but I do think many, not just seniors need to take more responsibility for their health. I'm not talking about those with some kind of life debilitating chronic illness but those that are relatively healthy and don't do squat for themselves ASSuming they'll go to a doctor one day and get pills or a procedure or two or three. I find it very frustrating that those that are capable don't do squat even if a walk. Or at least take a few of the cheaper vitamins.

Prime example I know a relatively healthy 80 year old with no arthritis, no cholesterol problems, no heart attacks etc who refuses to at least walk. Their balance is getting poor from basic strength issues, even their doc said they need a round of physical therapy, they absolutely refuse to go through it. They talk about they'll use a cane if it gets to bad like it's a status symbol or right of passage. One thing anyone has to keep in mind is that if you don't use it you WILL LOSE IT. You don't workout and use your muscles you WILL BE UNFIT. A lot of old age issues are lack of use issues especially if you think about the activity level when young. Heck you got an entire generation of teens that have been deemed unfit for military service. Also something like B vitamins can help with energy and some nerve problems. Same person who won't do therapy refuses to take a B vitamin assuming their multiple vitamin will do the trick. Again the doctor recommend B12 which they take when they feel like it or remember-they simply don't believe non prescription nutrients might help them but they want cures not help. I think extra B vitamins would stop them from doing the herky jerky every time they move. This has been going on and off for over a decade now. They were always sickly like and they absolutely put zero credence in fitness or nutrition and yet scream bloody murder about the state of health care in the US thinking everyone should get 100% coverage for any health issues.

I'll help anyone live to 200 if they want but they have to put in just as much effort and not just wait for the cure like these cryo clowns. If you are willing to expect 100% medical care in your old age I expect a 100% effort on your part to do anything and everything to contribute to your own health and fitness-at all ages. But HEALTH care is NOT just a drug or procedure so seniors shouldn't be expecting truck loads of just pills and procedures in their old age.
 
And then I have seen families that have totally unrealistic expectations about healthcare. They seem to think that doctors can cure anyone if they just knew what they were doing. They demand ALL sorts of tests and procedures and life prolonging procedures to keep granny alive.. even if granny is 95 years old, riddled with cancer and hasn't known what is happening for the last 5 years. They want everything done.. and expect a miracle.. There needs to be some rationing of resources in cases like this.. Ethics committees need to get involved or there won't be care for the rest of us...
 
WhatInThe said:
There is no duty to die but I do think many, not just seniors need to take more responsibility for their health. I'm not talking about those with some kind of life debilitating chronic illness but those that are relatively healthy and don't do squat for themselves ASSuming they'll go to a doctor one day and get pills or a procedure or two or three. I find it very frustrating that those that are capable don't do squat even if a walk. Or at least take a few of the cheaper vitamins.

Prime example I know a relatively healthy 80 year old with no arthritis, no cholesterol problems, no heart attacks etc who refuses to at least walk. Their balance is getting poor from basic strength issues, even their doc said they need a round of physical therapy, they absolutely refuse to go through it. They talk about they'll use a cane if it gets to bad like it's a status symbol or right of passage. One thing anyone has to keep in mind is that if you don't use it you WILL LOSE IT. You don't workout and use your muscles you WILL BE UNFIT. A lot of old age issues are lack of use issues especially if you think about the activity level when young. Heck you got an entire generation of teens that have been deemed unfit for military service. Also something like B vitamins can help with energy and some nerve problems. Same person who won't do therapy refuses to take a B vitamin assuming their multiple vitamin will do the trick. Again the doctor recommend B12 which they take when they feel like it or remember-they simply don't believe non prescription nutrients might help them but they want cures not help. I think extra B vitamins would stop them from doing the herky jerky every time they move. This has been going on and off for over a decade now. They were always sickly like and they absolutely put zero credence in fitness or nutrition and yet scream bloody murder about the state of health care in the US thinking everyone should get 100% coverage for any health issues.

I'll help anyone live to 200 if they want but they have to put in just as much effort and not just wait for the cure like these cryo clowns. If you are willing to expect 100% medical care in your old age I expect a 100% effort on your part to do anything and everything to contribute to your own health and fitness-at all ages. But HEALTH care is NOT just a drug or procedure so seniors shouldn't be expecting truck loads of just pills and procedures in their old age.
Click to expand...


You sound like some one who is involved in some form of health care where you see this attitude a lot and are a little fed up. And I'm in agreement with you by the way on pretty much all of what you've said.
 
The problem (in the USA) is that in order to get complete care for old age is you must surrender all your savings and properties to reach the "low income level" required for Medicaid (Tax Dollars paid by working citizens of the USA) to supplement the Social Security (a fund that was initially established to provide a safety net for seniors, but that has been used for other purposes over the years). With modern medical care and the enormous cost of prolonging life at any cost, there are questions one has to ask. I don't think anyone should be forced to submit to euthanasia, but if it is a choice between living my final years alone and in pain or taking a permanent sleeping pill, I think I would choose the pill if it were available. This is where a living will (legally stating your final wishes while you are still able to think clearly and without coercion) comes in to play.
 
That is exactly why I want the ability to choose when and how I will quit being a drain on family and society in general. I choose to live a sedentary life, visiting the doctor only when I feel there is a real need, and spending my saved earnings (leaving something to my children) on what I want instead of the medical and pharmaceutical big companies. Nobody should be forced to accept my way for themselves, but this is my choice.
 
The baby boomers will break the system in a matter of a few short years. There won't be enough government funding or probably enough workers to keep this lot going on and on...
 
Ralphy1 said:
The baby boomers will break the system in a matter of a few short years. There won't be enough government funding or probably enough workers to keep this lot going on and on...
Click to expand...

Not so.. SS is solvent at 100% payout until 2037.. Medicare less... BUT there is a very simple solution.. to keep both solvent forever. Raise the cap on FICA contirbutions. Right now.. we pay FICA tax on only the first $113,000 of income. After that FICA stops being deducted. For most of us.. that well over the amount we make. However, there are many folks that make MUCH more.. Millionaires and Billionairs pay FICA on only a very small fraction of their yearly income. Why not on 100% like most people? If we did this there would be no problem funding SS and Medicare. HOWEVER, there is a factor.. controling the House.. that REFUSES to consider this simple solution... Because they are in the pockets of the wealthy... and would rather reduce their taxes and have the rest of us living in poverty.
 
It is Medicaid that funds nursing home care and that is the big enchilada that is unsustainable...
 
Ralphy1 said:
It is Medicaid that funds nursing home care and that is the big enchilada that is unsustainable...
Click to expand...

There are income and asset limitations on a Senior getting Medicaid, and Medicare will pay for only the first 100 days of care PROVIDED there is a rehabilatative diagnosis.. In other words, provided that the patient has the possibility of improving with some rehab... as in the case of a Stroke.. or post surgical wound care. After that 100 days, the patient is on their own and must either pay privately , or turn their Social Security check over to the facility. So.. long term custodial nursing home care will drain private bank accounts and assets first before turning to Medicaid, and Medicare coverage is limited to 100 days if at all.
 
Seniors have figured out to hide their assets by putting them in their children's names five years in advance of going to a nursing home as that is now the "look-back" period by the Government...
 
I'm not positive and if there are any Canadians here who know the real facts please jump in. But I think in Canada, they look at your 'income' when it comes to going into nursing homes. So if you have say $100,000 worth of savings or bonds or whatever just kind of sitting there and you have some stocks that pay you some dividends and a pension that pays you an allowance (as my husband calls it), then they ignore the savings and bonds but take into account your dividends and pension (income) as they determine how much help you'll get on your living expenses.

For example, my one aunt who never worked outside the home had a little nest egg from the sale of her little apartment. She also got the Old Age Pension which is about $480.00 per month and then she got the Guaranteed Income Supplement (because she was below the poverty level as far as income goes I guess) which is also in the vicinity of $400 or $500 per month. But the residence that she lived in was about $2500 per month so the difference was made up by the government. So when she died, there was a small estate that was divided up between the kids and grandkids.

Frankly, as a woman who never worked outside the home, and who raised a family of seven children (three fosters) on her husbands Social Security payments (he was injured when he was young in a logging accident) and whatever home based 'jobs' he could come up with, she did pretty good in her last years. I would love to have a cozy little one bedroom apartment like she had! Nothing fancy, nice building, and two square meals a day! Who could ask for more?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top