The right to die..

yes I live in SA too

yes as mentioned upthread by yourself and me and other posts - assisted dying is legal here in AUS now, under controlled conditions.

Vaughn also said We are legalising suicide in certain circumstances - which for Australia at least would be an incorrect statement - as no suicide is illegal now.
 

VaughanJB said:
Interesting. How do you feel about taking illegal drugs in the comfort of your own home? How about target practice with firearms in your living room? How about drink and driving - I mean, if you don't hit anyone, or endanger them, it's harmless right? And speed limits - if no-one is around, does it matter if you go 3X over the limit?

It's all a matter of perspective. What's truly surprising to me is that someone like yourself doesn't seem to think society as a whole should have any say, or opinion, about people effectively committing suicide. It's got nothing to do with "do-gooders". The question is, why can't people disagree on things without over-the-top comments like your own cropping up? We're all oldies here, and death isn't too far away. Talking about things is what people do.

You do know that it was such discussions, and yes disagreement, that enables the law in the first place, right??!?



Sorry, I didn't see anyone being rude in the thread (well, maybe one that I replied to above).

I'm surprised at your last line though. What does "accept it" mean? If one disagrees with it, then they disagree with it. The passing of a law won't likely change that opinion. One can accept it's legal, but it doesn't mean they have to like it. It seems to me that what you're really saying is, "why do they have to keep expressing their doubts", which is strange. Think of the debate on abortion - laws were made, enacted, and then generations later reversed. Laws are more fluid than we think. We're having a similar thing in the UK with the so called Brexit. Plenty of people still campaign for rejoining the EU, having disagreed with leaving in the first place.

I also think state sanctioned suicide is everyone's business. I happen to not agree with the Death Penalty, for example. I've never known anyone who has been killed this way, but I do think it's of concern to everyone. It's not the individuals death that's the issue - it's that the state sanctions people giving up and killing themselves. Do you really think society, and individuals, should mind their own business when it comes to suicide?

Just for the record, because clearly some are getting upset (not aiming this at you specifically), I have stated before that I can see both sides of the argument. I can appreciate someone is terrible pain, with days, perhaps months to live, might want to end things. But I'll never be comfortable with someone killing themselves. Since we're on a discussion forum, what's wrong with discussing it? What else do we do here?

As I've said - there is no shortage of ways to kill yourself, with or without such a law being in place. It's s shame that an exchange of opinions bothers some, but hey, a lot of topics divide us, largely, that's why talking to people, and the forum, is so interesting, no?

If this is written into law, I accept it's the law. But that only negates the illegality, it's going to remain a hot topic, imo.
Click to expand...
Now that is one hell of a word play, if ever I saw one.
Pot, kettle BLACK
 
hollydolly said:
do they do tourist DIYE's in California.. ?
Click to expand...
A few years ago, I believe there was a young woman in some state and she was dying of some dreadful disease and her family had to move to Oregon where they have had assisted dying since 1997. I think they had a requirement that a patient had to live there for 6 months at least in order to qualify. Not 100% sure but I seem to remember that. So that would be 'no dying tourism'.
 

hollydolly said:
do they do tourist DIYE's in California.. ?
Click to expand...
I don't know.

In CA, the law allows medication to be prescribed by a licensed physician to a patient who is over the age of 18, living with a chronic and life altering condition that is irreversible, and the person must be of sound mind to make these decisions.
 
StarSong said:
I don't know.

In CA, the law allows medication to be prescribed by a licensed physician to a patient who is over the age of 18, living with a chronic and life altering condition that is irreversible, and the person must be of sound mind to make these decisions.
Click to expand...
I wondered if like Switzerland, they allow people from outside CA to fly in for the specific purpose of being helped to end their own lives

I so wish the UK would provide this service. It's just beyond belief that people have to suffer so badly sometimes right until the end of their lives..
 
It is a condition where I live that you must have been a resident of the state for at least 12 months (and meet all the other conditions)

Bit of a moot point though since all states of Australia have VAD now anyway - so no need for anyone to travel to another one to do this.
 
January said:
It is a condition where I live that you must have been a resident of the state for at least 12 months (and meet all the other conditions)

Bit of a moot point though since all states of Australia have VAD now anyway - so no need for anyone to travel to another one to do this.
Click to expand...
Why not offer it. We offer it to our dogs and they die peacefully with the loving support of us around them to comfort them. Dont make people have to look elsewhere. Make it available for everyone. We shouldnā€™t ā€˜haveā€™ to suffer so.
 
Well, no, I dont think we should offer it to everyone - benifits available in 1 place are for residents of that place, not VAD for travellers.
But again, moot point in Australia since all states have legalised it now anyway.

And actually, it isn't allowed to be offered to anyone - one of the rules is that the medical practitioner may not instigate it. It must be initiated by the patient and at the request of the patient.
 
@hollydolly
I remember a bloke by the name of Chittleborough or Chittleburgh, a centenarian who booked a one way flight from Perth Western Australia to Switzerland. I can't seem to find anything about it in a search. The same guy made the news when he was dismissed from his job as a lecturer at ECU Joondalup, in his late 90's or early 100,s.
 
PeppermintPatty said:
Why not offer it. We offer it to our dogs and they die peacefully with the loving support of us around them to comfort them. Dont make people have to look elsewhere. Make it available for everyone. We shouldnā€™t ā€˜haveā€™ to suffer so.
Click to expand...
We may well be prosecuted if we didn't euthanase a terminally ill pet.
 
Rakaia said:
We may well be prosecuted if we didn't euthanase a terminally ill pet.
Click to expand...
Who would know? Many people let their ill dogs die at home. Itā€™s not mandatory to have them euthanized. Many people think itā€™s wrong to euthanize a pet. Sad but true.
Some canā€™t afford to get their dog euthanized. Its costs about $500
 
January said:
... the medical practitioner may not instigate it. It must be initiated by the patient and at the request of the patient.
Click to expand...
If really we must do this horrible thing --I mean if the state must interfere so deeply into our lives --that is a very good start. In addition we must beware of the ill-intentioned relative whispering sinister suggestions in the ear of the helpless. I say again, I don't like it. Solutions to these problems can be found without interference by the state.
:) We've been around a lot longer than the state.
 
PeppermintPatty said:
Why not offer it. We offer it to our dogs and they die peacefully with the loving support of us around them to comfort them. Dont make people have to look elsewhere. Make it available for everyone. We shouldnā€™t ā€˜haveā€™ to suffer so.
Click to expand...
It's not at all unusual for owners to decide they don't want the hassle of diapering a now-incontinent pet, or deal with chronic illnesses, or pay for the medical treatment that will keep their pets alive. Euthanizing is often made for the convenience of the owners rather than because their pet is soon to be gasping a last breath. Even worse, they dump the pet on the local animal shelter or rescue organization.

The danger of offering easily available human euthanasia is the pressure from disinterested (or exhausted) family members, particularly when inheritances will be involved.

I have no delusions about the self-serving depravity of human nature when an easy path is made available.
 
StarSong said:
It's not at all unusual for owners to decide they don't want the hassle of diapering a now-incontinent pet, or deal with chronic illnesses, or pay for the medical treatment that will keep their pets alive. Euthanizing is often made for the convenience of the owners rather than because their pet is soon to be gasping a last breath. Even worse, they dump the pet on the local animal shelter or rescue organization.

The danger of offering easily available human euthanasia is the pressure from disinterested (or exhausted) family members, particularly when inheritances will be involved.

I have no delusions about the self-serving depravity of human nature when an easy path is made available.
Click to expand...
Sorry Star, but this is the weak excuse our governemnt gives for not passing the right to die law in this country.

Clearly as has been shown in countries where it is permitted ie Switzerland.. no-one can have the right to die unless it's shown clearly by them the patient to the Doctors that they are in their right mind and it is their choice only...
 
hollydolly said:
Sorry Star, but this is the weak excuse our governemnt gives for not passing the right to die law in this country. ... no-one can have the right to die unless it's shown clearly by them the patient to the Doctors that they are in their right mind and it is their choice only...
Click to expand...
:) With respect, hollydolly, this is your opinion, but there are others.
Yes, they ARE in their right mind and it IS their choice only --their choice because they know it is what their family wants.
I ask you, for whom is it not possible to live another hour, or day or week or month or year? What wonderful things might happen in these brief periods of time?
 
hollydolly said:
Sorry Star, but this is the weak excuse our governemnt gives for not passing the right to die law in this country.

Clearly as has been shown in countries where it is permitted ie Switzerland.. no-one can have the right to die unless it's shown clearly by them the patient to the Doctors that they are in their right mind and it is their choice only...
Click to expand...
Countries and states (including CA) with good safety gates in place and provide right-to-die have my deep admiration.

My point was more that humans don't always make decisions about euthanizing their pets based solely on what's best for the pet.

Suicide is probably far more common than people imagine. When someone is terminally ill but dies before expected, autopsies are rarely performed. Their passing is simply attributed to the illness, although their docs know their patient had more than enough meds to end their lives gently if they so chose.
 
gruntlabor said:
:) With respect, hollydolly, this is your opinion, but there are others.
Yes, they ARE in their right mind and it IS their choice only --their choice because they know it is what their family wants.
I ask you, for whom is it not possible to live another hour, or day or week or month or year? What wonderful things might happen in these brief periods of time?
Click to expand...
Sadly it's not my opinion only... everytime there's a poll about this in the UK, the majority come out in favour...

so how do you account for the people who have no family ..who are going to these places to choose their right to die ?... are we going to accuse their friends and neighbours instead ?

Could it simply be that the people are suffering agonies of long lingering pain with no end in sight... ?... but instead no..it has to be being forced on them by greedy families ?..why would that be?..
They don't get any say in allowing a healthy person to be put to sleep... and they can't convince a healthy person to be put to sleep at a death by Dignity Facility... because the person has already to be terminally ill or in such pain that continuing to live would be detrimental to their body..or mind .. that's the rules.. ..and in any case if families could easily convince their terminally ill member to go to Dignitas..or simialr then why would they waste the money flying there, paying the not insubstantial fee..., why not just convince them to take an overdose at home ?
 
StarSong said:
Countries and states (including CA) with good safety gates in place and provide right-to-die have my deep admiration.

My point was more that humans don't always make decisions about euthanizing their pets based solely on what's best for the pet.

Suicide is probably far more common than people imagine. When someone is terminally ill but dies before expected, autopsies are rarely performed. Their passing is simply attributed to the illness, although their docs know their patient had more than enough meds to end their lives gently if they so chose.
Click to expand...
...but in many, many cases in the past and probably even now.. Doctors have been known to hasten the lives of their patients, whom they know have little or no quality of life left...
 
StarSong said:
It's not at all unusual for owners to decide they don't want the hassle of diapering a now-incontinent pet, or deal with chronic illnesses, or pay for the medical treatment that will keep their pets alive. Euthanizing is often made for the convenience of the owners rather than because their pet is soon to be gasping a last breath. Even worse, they dump the pet on the local animal shelter or rescue organization.

The danger of offering easily available human euthanasia is the pressure from disinterested (or exhausted) family members, particularly when inheritances will be involved.

I have no delusions about the self-serving depravity of human nature when an easy path is made available.
Click to expand...
This is why everyone should write down their preferences. Unfortunately these papers have to be filled out when people have cognitive ability however advanced derivatives are not allowed . This is what Dying with Dignity is trying to change. Most people want to die when they become incognitive but at that time you arenā€™t in a position to give consent.

Things might be a bit different. Most nursing homes will pay for 1/2 of the fees if you have money. Nobody expects you to sell your home. If you have no money then health Canada will pay for your nursing home.

My sister in law had to pay for her motherā€™s care. I think it was because she lived with them . ( maybe it was just the upgrade she had to pay for ) Iā€™m not sure if itā€™s different in the States. Does your government pay for nursing care?

I can see this type of thing getting taken advantage of for sure. If mom or dad donā€™t have the finances most relatives arenā€™t going to want to pay.
 
January said:
Suicide isn't illegal now. At least it isn't in Australia.

What is illegal is assisting someone else to do it.

Voluntary assisted dying, where a medical practice legally prescribes and/ or administers medication to cause death is what has been legalised - subject to checks and controls.

I don't see any hard truths in that, just a statement of fact.
And I think it is important to clarify what we mean - that isnt a play on words, it is using words to convey accurately what we mean.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - but the literal definition of the word Suicide is: "ending your own life. It is sometimes a way for people to escape pain or suffering. When someone ends their own life, we say that they "died by suicide."".

I understand the legal standing issue, which is why we need a framework that supports suicide without helpers getting prosecuted. But I don't think the process needs rebranding by pretending it's not suicide. In fact, it's dangerous to do so, imo. We shouldn't lose the gravity for such a decision, imo.

Mind, as is obvious, I'm highly uncomfortable with this topic. I can see both sides, and honestly I don't like either of them.
 
I think the checks and controls we have here are a suitable framework.

Nobody needs to be comfortable with the topic - if you don't like the idea of VAD, don't do it. Nobody has to do it if they don't want to ,whatever pain or suffering or irreversible stage of disease they are in.

Possibly they would feel differently when they are actually in that stage though.
 
gruntlabor said:
If really we must do this horrible thing --I mean if the state must interfere so deeply into our lives --that is a very good start. In addition we must beware of the ill-intentioned relative whispering sinister suggestions in the ear of the helpless. I say again, I don't like it. Solutions to these problems can be found without interference by the state.
:) We've been around a lot longer than the state.
Click to expand...
..
Click to expand...
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.:unsure:

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. :rolleyes:
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top