How to Die in Oregon

[Ozarkgal]

I know dying is not a fun subject and the closer we are spinning toward it, the less some are inclined to talk about it. I guess everyone has their idea of how they want the end to be, based on personal and religious beliefs. Most people I have talked to about this say they would rather end it on a reasonably good note, than to suffer and be put through medical procedures that have the same outcome shortly anyway. I'm one of those people.

This afternoon I watched a HBO documentary called "How to Die in Oregon". Oregon passed a law making it legal for people that are facing an end of life medical situations to obtain drugs necessary to end it when they are ready. The drugs are picked up at the pharmacy, and are taken in the privacy of one's home with prior end of life counseling.

They had several cases studies of people in different situations that opted to end their lives with dignity. I was very moved by the freedom and relief these people felt in being able to prepare for the end and decide when the time was right for them.

This law doesn't just randomly let people commit suicide. In fact, it is not termed suicide, but death with dignity. It must be approved and certified by a doctor, and filed with the state.

Washington state has since passed a similar law allowing it's residents that freedom, thanks to a man on his deathbed that did not have that option and made his wife promise to work to get the law passed. She promised him, and followed through to success in getting the law passed.

I may have to move back to Oregon if I am diagnosed with a terminal illness..I want to be able to have that control and choice.

I am interested to know what your personal thoughts on this are, if you care to share.
You can watch the documentary on Netflix or rent it on YouTube and possibly Amazon.

Here is a trailer:

 

[Diwundrin]

It's still a dog's breakfast of selfish religious beliefs mixed with ever more complex legal twisters of 'what ifs?' down here.
Everybody is waiting to get it 100% right when it can never be that. Meanwhile others suffer anguish while they diddle about with their petty pedantic arguments.

We're always being promised 'a conscience vote' in Parliarment but that doesn't happen. Personally I don't see the benefit of being held by law to the conscience of any politician who ever lived! We voted them in to run the country not our minds!
I want an open public Referendum on it.

But they won't do that, firstly because the Pollies are frightened of putting some of their self righteous religious constituents offside because they know it will be voted in with a landslide, and secondly because they haven't a clue on how to word the damned thing!

It's even further away now as the new PM is a dyed in the wool, ex/failed priest, Roman Catholic and we know which way his conscience is gonna go and that he'll influence the 'conscience' of anyone in his Party who wants to keep their job.

I don't personally know anyone who is adamantly opposed to Euthanasia. Some have mixed feelings but still agree that it should be up to the individual to decide for themselves. Even Catholics, but shhhhh, don't tell the priest.

We have our version of Jack Kavorkian (or whatever) here but every time he gets something set up in a State the Feds close him down.

 

[SeaBreeze]

If I am suffering with a terminal illness, I would like to be able to end my life peacefully, and on my own terms. I always thought that the Dr. Kevorkian method was a good idea for some. I have a book on my shelf called Final Exit, that my mother in law had bought for herself when she was older and in pain from various illnesses, arthritis, etc. She never had to use the methods in that book to take her own life, thankfully she passed peacefully in her sleep of natural causes.

I think everyone should have the right to end their lives when they no longer want to endure the pain or expense of a serious illness in their old age. I don't think I would travel to Oregon, and involve the government or doctors in the process though...but it is very good that people who want that kind of assistance be granted it. Something like that should be available in all the states.

 

[Ozarkgal]

Something like that should be available in all the states.

So right SB..this is a cause I could get behind!

I don't think I would travel to Oregon, and involve the government or doctors in the process though.

You know I am not normally for government involvement in peoples lives, but in this case the process seemed fairly simple and having it somewhat assisted leaves little room for error and there is not the stigma of a flat out suicide, done alone and in the shadows. The family members are able to be present with no fear of prosecution for aiding a death.

 

[Old Hipster]

I'm all for death with dignity, or whatever you want to call it. I've watched far too many relatives die horrible deaths from a terminal disease. And one grandpa killed himself with a .357 in the back yard. That's not a good way to go either.

We treat our animals with more compassion than we do people.

 

[Ozarkgal]

OH:

We treat our animals with more compassion than we do people.

That's for sure. As I was watching this show, I started putting myself in these peoples positions and really realized the suffering they were going through trying to live through the pain every day, as well as the pain the relatives were having, watching it and caring for them. I wouldn't want that to happen to a dog I loved, let alone a relative, or myself for that matter.

 

[Warrigal]

In Ancient Greece and Rome, voluntary suicide by opening a vein, often after a dinner attended by friends, was not uncommon.

Suicide in Graeco-Roman Society

Contrary to views in the Judaeo-Christian world, Graeco-Roman attitudes toward suicide held that it could be acceptable under certain circumstances. While some condemned it, such as the Pythagoreans, suicide most often occurred when one’s honor was irretrievably lost, and the individual confronted great public shame. It could also be associated with political protest, if one refused submission to tyrannical authorities. On the other hand, as an answer to petty misfortunes, suicide was frowned upon as a cowardly and disgraceful act.

Though it was not commonly represented in the art of antiquity, the suicides of famous historical figures such as Socrates, Cleopatra, Sophonisba, and Lucretia became favorite subjects of later artists, writers, and music composers. Some scholars believe suicide was fairly commonplace in the Greek and Roman world, at least up through the Early Imperial period. Of the thirty-two extant Greek tragedies, suicide figures prominently into thirteen examples.

During the second century B.C.E., compulsory suicide became the preferred method of execution for the Roman elite. Eschewing imprisonment and a public trial, white-collar criminals were allowed to return to their families with the stipulation that they would kill themselves within one day. This provided the convicted a dignified, private death befitting his/her class.

Mandatory suicide was later taken to the extreme by the emperor Nero who became infamous for sending daggers to the dinner tables of his political adversaries.

There is no law in Australia against suicide, only assisted suicide. Some resistance to making it legal to assist someone to die probably stems from the worry that in some cases people may be pressured into accepting death because they have become a burden or because they have money that is being consumed by their illness. Voluntary is one thing, mandatory is something else. The line between them may become rather blurry. If you open your own vein there is no doubt.

 

[Old Hipster]

OH:

That's for sure. As I was watching this show, I started putting myself in these peoples positions and really realized the suffering they were going through trying to live through the pain every day, as well as the pain the relatives were having, watching it and caring for them. I wouldn't want that to happen to a dog I loved, let alone a relative, or myself for that matter.

I watched my Dad, one Grandma, an Aunt, an Uncle and my stepdad all die of cancer. And it was unbearable for all parties involved. My Grandma thankfully died of heart failure, in an ambulance on the way to the hospital, before the cancer completely ravaged her body. The others all suffered a grim and painful death.

I think a lot about death, too much I am sure.

 

[SeaBreeze]

You know I am not normally for government involvement in peoples lives, but in this case the process seemed fairly simple and having it somewhat assisted leaves little room for error and there is not the stigma of a flat out suicide, done alone and in the shadows. The family members are able to be present with no fear of prosecution for aiding a death.

I have to watch at least the trailer, I can't right now on this computer. You have some good points there OG. I know that if I did intend to take my own life, I would definitely make my intentions clear with a suicide note, etc., so nobody would be accused of killing me or assisting in my death. Would be great if this was available in my state for sure, that would make the decision easier, as I do think it's a good idea.

 

[SeaBreeze]

I've also had relatives whither away and die a painful death with cancer...don't want that for myself. I always said that I wished I would die quick from a heart attack, or in my sleep. Said that even when I was young.

Old Hipster, I think a lot of us think more about death as we age. We hear of people we know, including celebrities we grew up watching or listening to pass on. I often think of how I would feel if my husband died before I do. We are very close, and don't have many other people in our lives or children, I would be devastated. I think it's good to ponder it at times, as it's a reality for us all to face. Better than blocking it out of your mind, and being hit with the reality when it happens.

My heart goes out to all the folks here on this forum who've lost a spouse or a child...I can't imagine the heartbreak they endure. Having said that, if my husband was slowly dying from a serious illness and wanted to end his life, it would be nice to have something like what they're doing in Oregon available. As much as I love him, I wouldn't want him to suffer if he was tired of the pain, and ready to go.

 

[Diwundrin]

We seem to forget that people find themselves in circumstances where they simply can't, physically, do it for themselves.
Those are the people I think of in regards to euthanasia, the rest of us can stagger under trains and buses or whatever, but the quadriplegics who've had enough, the ones weakened by cancer or other causes who can't raise a coffee cup, need assistance to accomplish their wishes and that's where the obstacles lie.

The law holds their families or trusted physicians to ransom.

If a person's testimony, sworn on a Bible or not, is good enough in a court of law to be taken as proof of guilt to convict someone facing a death sentence for murder, then how come it's not good enough to be taken as proof that the person has made a decision to die themselves??

Where is the logic in that?

As to coercion or pressure by others, so what? That is still no one's business but the person's making the decision or the police if it's that blatant.
If they feel that they are indeed a burden and they choose to relieve their family of that then it is still their choice isn't it?
Perhaps that person feels that freeing their family of their suffering is the last and greatest gift they can bestow on their loved ones.
Does anyone look at it that way?
How exactly is that such a bad thing?

If they had run into a burning building to save their family and died in the attempt they'd be heroes. So why is choosing to die in bed to save their family what can only be wasted expense that threatens their futures, and the needless anguish involved, be considered anything less than heroic too?

Why are their families punished for helping them end the suffering all round?? I don't recall a family jailed for getting caught in a fire that someone died saving them from, does anyone?

I repeat, coercion or not, burning buildings or not, it is still their decision to go in or out or not.
But how many will off themselves just please somebody they hate and know wants them dead anyway?
Damned if I'd hurry it along to make 'em happy, would you?

Sometimes too, people simply get tired of life because it isn't worth the effort any longer. It's not even depression, just enough. They're content with having lived their lives. Done all they wanted, don't want to do it again, know it's never going to get any better, bored with it all and tired of the view from the bed they're confined to. If they want out who are we to stop them leaving the 'party' just because they don't have something deemed terminal and aren't physically suffering pain? They still have mouths, we can do them the honour of respecting their wishes surely.

(Yes Warri, all the legal eagles and phychiatrists signing off and the correct paperwork must ensue, of course.)


A parting shot for the spiritually conscience stricken ....

For every inspirational example we see on TV of the heroic 'recovery' and adaptations that some people have made to overcome their disabilities there are thousands who haven't. We don't see the ones sobbing quietly, in dismal nursing homes, the failures, trapped within their own useless bodies, bored to insanity and simply wishing they were gone. Not everyone has either the mental or physical capabilities to achieve what the very few can. They too deserve a say in their own futures.

For every one of those 'miracles' of the brain dead waking up, and the 'terminal' cancer victims recovering there are millions who don't. Why should the millions suffer on the off chance that a miracle might occur to the very, very, few?
Think instead of the mental abyss they and their families must be enduring when it doesn't.

[/rant]

 

[Warrigal]

We seem to forget that people find themselves in circumstances where they simply can't, physically, do it for themselves.
Those are the people I think of in regards to euthanasia, the rest of us can stagger under trains and buses or whatever, but the quadriplegics who've had enough, the ones weakened by cancer or other causes who can't raise a coffee cup, need assistance to accomplish their wishes and that's where the obstacles lie.

The law holds their families or trusted physicians to ransom.

If a person's testimony, sworn on a Bible or not, is good enough in a court of law to be taken as proof of guilt to convict someone facing a death sentence for murder, then how come it's not good enough to be taken as proof that the person has made a decision to die themselves??

But it is not good enough. The testimony is tested with rigorous cross examination and if that is not possible, it is not acceptable. The standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" which is a very high hurdle.

Where is the logic in that?

As to coercion or pressure by others, so what? That is still no one's business but the person's making the decision or the police if it's that blatant. If they feel that they are indeed a burden and they choose to relieve their family of that then it is still their choice isn't it?
Perhaps that person feels that freeing their family of their suffering is the last and greatest gift they can bestow on their loved ones.
Does anyone look at it that way?
How exactly is that such a bad thing?

*** We have enough situations where the elderly are chiselled out of their homes and other assets by family members to be wary of family members who exploit the love their parents have for them to get an early inheritance windfall. If the family member requesting euthanasia for a parent or spouse had to forego any benefit from the will, would thewy still come forward? If yes, I'd say they had passed an important test.

If they had run into a burning building to save their family and died in the attempt they'd be heroes. So why is choosing to die in bed to save their family what can only be wasted expense that threatens their futures, and the needless anguish involved, be considered anything less than heroic too?

Why are their families punished for helping them end the suffering all round?? I don't recall a family jailed for getting caught in a fire that someone died saving them from, does anyone?

I repeat, coercion or not, burning buildings or not, it is still their decision to go in or out or not.

That's a straw man argument, and you know it. Heroism has nothing to do with suicide, even though lives may be sacrificed altruistically.

But how many will off themselves just please somebody they hate and know wants them dead anyway?
Damned if I'd hurry it along to make 'em happy, would you?

Not for someone they hate, but mothers continue to love their hateful children, and are therefore vulnerable to exploitation. Fathers too. See above ***.

Sometimes too, people simply get tired of life because it isn't worth the effort any longer. It's not even depression, just enough. They're content with having lived their lives. Done all they wanted, don't want to do it again, know it's never going to get any better, bored with it all and tired of the view from the bed they're confined to. If they want out who are we to stop them leaving the 'party' just because they don't have something deemed terminal and aren't physically suffering pain? They still have mouths, we can do them the honour of respecting their wishes surely.

My mother, aged 91, came to this point. She was in reasonable health for her age but wheelchair bound and quite demented. One day she suddenly stopped eating and drinking. Her decision and no-one else's. She indicated quite clearly that she had had enough. We supported her decision while periodically testing her resolve with food. She remained resolute and died peacefully within seven days. For that week she received best quality palliative care. She did not suffer at all. Her death certificate said "dementia, dehydration". No other paperwork was needed.

(Yes Warri, all the legal eagles and psychiatrists signing off and the correct paperwork must ensue, of course.)


A parting shot for the spiritually conscience stricken ....

For every inspirational example we see on TV of the heroic 'recovery' and adaptations that some people have made to overcome their disabilities there are thousands who haven't. We don't see the ones sobbing quietly, in dismal nursing homes, the failures, trapped within their own useless bodies, bored to insanity and simply wishing they were gone. Not everyone has either the mental or physical capabilities to achieve what the very few can. They too deserve a say in their own futures.

For every one of those 'miracles' of the brain dead waking up, and the 'terminal' cancer victims recovering there are millions who don't. Why should the millions suffer on the off chance that a miracle might occur to the very, very, few?
Think instead of the mental abyss they and their families must be enduring when it doesn't.

I'm not arguing the spiritual issues. People can follow their own consciences within the law. Currently the law allows people to refuse treatment and even food. What I don't want to see is the law allowing treatment and sustenance to be withheld for reasons of cost or personal profit.
[/rant]

I don't want to be euthanized but I've already contemplated very seriously which treatments I will accept or refuse in the event of certain end of life conditions I may find myself in. Hubby and I have had discussions on the subject. One day I will make a living will. If I leave it too late then I will rely on my children to decide for me. Within the law.

 

[SifuPhil]

I cannot see psychiatrists signing off on this process, at least not as presented. They cannot even agree on the inclusion of one disorder or another in the DSM - how are they going to agree with self-termination?

I agree with Warri that there are enough dastardly family members who can persuade Mom or Dad to open a vein that you can't exclude the possibility. Heck, there are many ways to disguise homicide as suicide, and unless the local gendarmerie is of CSI quality it isn't going to be caught.

I believe in self-termination at any time for any reason, given of course the exclusions of children and teens. One of the few things we have left that we can control in life is the manner of our death, either passively through a living will / DNR order or through active means such as gun or pill.

I also agree with OG that any form of government involvement is going to muck up the apparatus.

 

[Warrigal]

If you don't include children and teens then the mercy argument is invalidated.
Is their suffering not as valid as that of adults?

 

[Diwundrin]

I cannot see psychiatrists signing off on this process, at least not as presented.

They don't have to sign off on the process, just assess sanity, and intent. They get up in courts and make judgement calls, they can do it at bedsides.

Geeeze, that kids one is a toughy. Not one I'd like to decide but I have no kids and only those involved could make that call.

We're getting back into that 'what ifs' territory again and that just goes round and round. The biggest stumbling block is getting it past the professional 'counseller' /psychiatrists/psychologist types who want all the credibility for their profound knowledge but won't take any responsibility for their judgements. They're all more intent on covering their arses than worrying about the well being of their 'clients.'

Yes there will be mistakes. Yes there will be murders gotten away with, but there are already. Happens all the time. Perfectly healthy people get murdered too. Sometimes we have to accept that there may be collateral damage to go with the benefits.
That happens all the time too. Every time some early parolee cuts another throat it's down to the 'winning' of prisoner's rights.

Rights of any kind don't come free. We just have to put more thought into which ones are worth the associated risks.

Get over trying to keep the World so damned pretty. It isn't Disneyland out there no matter much sparkle and PC bullsh*t we paint it with.
We are never going to get everything right for everyone. Democracy is about doing what's best for the majority, or at least it used to be.

 

[Warrigal]

Democracy is about doing what's best for the majority, or at least it used to be.

No individual rights then?
I thought the principle was that your rights stop at the point where they infringe on my rights.

 

[Diwundrin]

And my right to step off the twig impinges on your rights how again??

 

[Warrigal]

It doesn't unless I end up as some sort of collateral damage. Feel free to suicide anytime without legal sanction.

I suppose deep down my concern is about a shift in community attitudes that might accept that some lives are worth more than others. After voluntary euthanasia becomes acceptable would it not be easier to rationalise routine euthanasia for the old, the infirm, the disabled and the insane ? Civilisation is still a wafer thin layer stretched over a primitive core. Killing to be kind might become a convenient way out of any number of social problems. Convince me that this can't/won't happen and I will shift my position. Until then, I would prefer more effort go into better palliative care and better pain management.

 

[Old Hipster]

I've also had relatives whither away and die a painful death with cancer...don't want that for myself. I always said that I wished I would die quick from a heart attack, or in my sleep. Said that even when I was young.

Old Hipster, I think a lot of us think more about death as we age. We hear of people we know, including celebrities we grew up watching or listening to pass on. I often think of how I would feel if my husband died before I do. We are very close, and don't have many other people in our lives or children, I would be devastated. I think it's good to ponder it at times, as it's a reality for us all to face. Better than blocking it out of your mind, and being hit with the reality when it happens.

My heart goes out to all the folks here on this forum who've lost a spouse or a child...I can't imagine the heartbreak they endure. Having said that, if my husband was slowly dying from a serious illness and wanted to end his life, it would be nice to have something like what they're doing in Oregon available. As much as I love him, I wouldn't want him to suffer if he was tired of the pain, and ready to go.

I agree losing a child or a spouse has to be devastating.

Never having children I've dodged that problem and my husband and I are like you guys, when one of us goes it will be very hard for the remaining spouse. We do everything together.

Our best friends in the world, the wife, all three of her children died and sometimes I don't know how the woman ever coped through all of it.

We all just want to live a long life and then go to bed one night and never wake up, I have known quite a few people who have gone that way, so there is some hope! A few years ago one of my husband's brothers went to bed early not feeling well and that was it, the lucky bastard!

My other grandpa, my grandma dropped him off at the front door to the medical clinic and went and parked the car and by the time she got into the building my grandpa was laying dead on the floor. Not a very good advertisement for the clinic. I was about 13, I'll never forget that, I went with my dad to go get grandma and walked in and grandpa was still on the floor, at least with a sheet over him.

Whenever I hear about an old person who just died suddenly, I always think how lucky they were! Hopefully this doesn't happen until well into their 80's or even 90's!

 

[Diwundrin]

It doesn't unless I end up as some sort of collateral damage. Feel free to suicide anytime without legal sanction.

I suppose deep down my concern is about a shift in community attitudes that might accept that some lives are worth more than others. After voluntary euthanasia becomes acceptable would it not be easier to rationalise routine euthanasia for the old, the infirm, the disabled and the insane ? Civilisation is still a wafer thin layer stretched over a primitive core. Killing to be kind might become a convenient way out of any number of social problems. Convince me that this can't/won't happen and I will shift my position. Until then, I would prefer more effort go into better palliative care and better pain management.

Warri. We are discussing VOLUNTARY euthanasia at the personal request of a sane individual. Stop flapping around the point with the what ifs that are really just exercises in hypothetical jousts.

No one has to decide who is worthy to live or not except the person making the request.

If those other doomsday visions of Logan's Run are a problem then separate the categories of euthanasia.
One size doesn't have to fit all.
Just as there are different degrees of murder charges, there could easily be different degrees of euthanasia responsibilities to be authorised.

Is that really so hard to sort out?

 

[CeeCee]

I am all for the option of being allowed to end my life if it has become physically unbearable....I too saw my husband suffer in pain from cancer and although Hospice was great in the end with giving pain meds even those didn't help.

it took him a whole day of groaning and moaning to die, he was out of it but you could tell he was in pain....towards the end I think hospice gave him an extra shot of something thanfully but that day is embedded in my memory.

I do not want to go thru that.

 

[Warrigal]

Warri. We are discussing VOLUNTARY euthanasia at the personal request of a sane individual. Stop flapping around the point with the what ifs that are really just exercises in hypothetical jousts.

We may discuss whatever we like. It's the legislation and how it is applied that matters.
How trusting are you ?
On other matters, not so much, but on this one apparently, totally trusting. Uncharacteristic of you, IMO.

The trouble I see with voluntary euthanasia at the personal request of a sane individual is that family members of someone who does not fit those criteria, but who is nonetheless suffering, will not be satisfied with the exclusion. As always, the devil will be in the detail, and I'm not speaking theologically.

 

[Old Hipster]

I am all for the option of being allowed to end my life if it has become physically unbearable....I too saw my husband suffer in pain from cancer and although Hospice was great in the end with giving pain meds even those didn't help.

it took him a whole day of groaning and moaning to die, he was out of it but you could tell he was in pain....towards the end I think hospice gave him an extra shot of something thanfully but that day is embedded in my memory.

I do not want to go thru that.

I'm so sorry your husband died CeeCee.

It's basic cruel and unusual punishment. I have been around for that too, and aunt and an uncle, both died at home with the "help" of Hospice, my god, did they suffer and linger it was beyond grim and nobody should have to go out like that if they don't want to and who would!

When you are wracked with pain and being slowly eaten away by cancer, well no thanks, that's not for me.

I run to death and death meets me as fast. And all my pleasures are like yesterday.

 

[SifuPhil]

The trouble I see with voluntary euthanasia at the personal request of a sane individual is that family members of someone who does not fit those criteria, but who is nonetheless suffering, will not be satisfied with the exclusion. As always, the devil will be in the detail, and I'm not speaking theologically.

Just as with children there are going to be (or should be) varying interpretations of any law passed for self-termination.

If an adult, sane person is making the request what right would the family have in contesting it? Greed and personal interest, which should in no way out-rule the sane individual's request. We are theoretically the owners of our own bodies.

The only problem I see in that scenario would be waiting for the psych eval and the legal process to run their courses, by the end of which you would possibly no longer be considered "sane". Contrary to what Di believes I still think that the biggest stumbling block will be with the psychologists, at least until the religious figures step up to the plate and weigh in with their ideas.

That will really gum up the works.

 

[Diwundrin]

How are stumbling block phychologists contrary to what I said? They'll dither around with the psychobabble of it to cover their arses as usual.
No argument there.

Too tired to go back over it and check... I'm off duty as of now. Night all.