How to Die in Oregon

Diwundrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe you had said:

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.
Click to expand...

The way I was taught, "just" assessing sanity is a minefield of an endeavor with constantly-shifting criteria. Intent I think is usually left up to the legal eagles.

In any case it's hardly a bedside pronouncement, at least for now. Who knows what the future will bring?
 

unfortunately with the right to die, time is a very important issue and if the courts or govt drag out the process it just won't work.

i can unserstand a short period of time that is necessary to make sure about everything but anything longer than say a month is too long as some will die naturally in pain within a yr.
 
If you are already declared "terminal" by drs. Then what is wrong with just speeding up the process IF that is what you want.

Bty the time my husband was declared terminal he had already suffered at least a yr in unbearable pain.
 

SifuPhil said:
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.
Click to expand...

There was nothing in the documentary concerning psychiatric intervention or approval in the process, psychiatrists were not even mentioned. The paperwork as I understood it from the film was prepared by the attending physician, and it seemed a relatively simple process. Also, the counseling was done by an agency formed to interview the patient in home and make sure they understood the process and was willingly entering into it. It was not a psychiatric evaluation. A person from the agency was present at the end to mix and hand the drug to the patient, explaining to them what to expect from the drug and verifying with them that they understood what the result would be.
IMO having the option to peacefully end one's pain surrounded by family is much more humane and less traumatic for the patient and loved ones than stepping under a bus or putting a gun to the head. Sans the law, who's to say that a patient taking one's own life on their own wasn't mentally coerced by someone? If someone is bent on homicide, it can be done with or without the law.

Warrigal:
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.
Click to expand...

Warri, under your beliefs you have the right to meet your end in the way that seems right for you. But there are some that would choose to have the option to end the pain, with compassionate assistance, under the their own terms and under the law.

Speaking of having remissions, a woman who was one of the main focal points had liver cancer. After much pain and surgery and nothing more to be done, she decided to prepare for the end. She took the steps and obtained the drugs and set a date for three months in the future, her determined life expectancy, but had the drugs on hand in case she didn't make it. Within these three months she went into a remission phase and lasted about another nine months until the end. She knew during this time period that it was a temporary reprieve and had a lot of peace of mind during this period in being able to complete her list of things she wanted to do before she went. She peacefully went just before Christmas with her family surrounding her at home, on her own terms, under the law.

Would you deny her this lawful option, or make her put a bullet in her own head or suffer with unbearable pain for another week?

I really urge everyone to watch this film to understand the real impact of what these people have gone through with pain and suffering and how the law has been a godsend to them.
 
I believe in voluntary euthanasia, I watched too many people during my life die horrible deaths. They shoot horses don't they. We choose to euthanize our beloved pets at the point where we know their is no longer any quality of life. How can we do less for people. I am not afraid of death, but I am afraid of dying.

Warri how wonderful that you do not think that a large part of the world's population already feel that their life is more important than others. We see the results of that fact everyday throughout the world. Will there be collateral damage of course there will be. All we can hope for and is it won't be us or someone we love and care about.

Di they are not just hypothetical jousts or doomsday visions of Logan's Run. I believe they are real problems that will need to be worked through.

Will government involvement F*** it up, of course it will it always does. We simply have to work through those problems too like we always do. It is the only system we have, incompetent as it may be.

I have a dear friend who I trust 100% to help me if needed. She also knows that she can trust me 100%. I already have a living will and she is the person to make any decisions. I do not want to put my family through making these decisions, or trust some of them to. If it gets to the point I want to end my life, I know she will help me. She has done it before. You have no idea the peace of mind this gives me.

The bottom line is death with dignity should be an guaranteed right. It is simply right. They shoot horses don't they.
 
Ozarkgal said:
There was nothing in the documentary concerning psychiatric intervention or approval in the process, psychiatrists were not even mentioned. The paperwork as I understood it from the film was prepared by the attending physician, and it seemed a relatively simple process. Also, the counseling was done by an agency formed to interview the patient in home and make sure they understood the process and was willingly entering into it. It was not a psychiatric evaluation. A person from the agency was present at the end to mix and hand the drug to the patient, explaining to them what to expect from the drug and verifying with them that they understood what the result would be.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't blame me - I'm just vamping on a response originally from Di involving "legal eagles and psychologist signing off" on the process. ;)

But that brings up an important point - how is a medical doctor qualified to make a judgement call on a psychiatric matter, unless it's an obviously medical problem?

He isn't. Yet every medical condition has an attending psychiatric component, which can sometimes outweigh the physiological components.
 
yes you do but you are still going to die so what I didn't understand was how that would change anything in the right to die.

i am just saying that in the case of a terminally diagnosed patient...the medical drs say so would be enough.
 
I think everyone responds to a terminal diagnosis according to their own strengths and weaknesses. One patient may spend their remaining time calmly putting their affairs in order, filling their bucket list and generally enjoying the enhanced view of life they've suddenly acquired.

Others may despair and go into a deep depression.

A purely medical opinion on self-termination would not be affected by these radical extremes of thought. They would go only on the fact that the patient was medically terminal and, from what I can gather, give their pronouncement in terms of days, weeks, months or years. That action alone will define how the psychologically weaker patients respond and they often spend their remaining days marking off the calendar, instead of living their lives to the best of their capabilities.

Just when they need to be the most mentally clear is when the doctor dooms them to depression.

No one should know when they're going to die, even if some remarkable new machine came along that predicted with 100% accuracy. We aren't meant to know the time or manner of our death, because then instead of living we will just be waiting to die. That doctors give a ball-park figure is, to my way of thinking, a sin, but no more so than the person who demands an exact date.
 
SifuPhil said:
Hey, don't blame me - I'm just vamping on a response originally from Di involving "legal eagles and psychologist signing off" on the process. ;)

But that brings up an important point - how is a medical doctor qualified to make a judgement call on a psychiatric matter, unless it's an obviously medical problem?



He isn't. Yet every medical condition has an attending psychiatric component, which can sometimes outweigh the physiological components.
Click to expand...

No blame for anything...just explaining the process as I understood it from the film.

I guess the legislature has deemed the doctor attending a terminal patient is qualified to determine the prognosis and usual life expectancy for the stage they're in. I think it is based on more quality of end of life than a psychiatric issue. Remember, we are talking about physically terminally ill patients.

I assume that being a terminal patient or a patient with no quality of life left due to severe uncorrectable medical problems qualifies as an "obvious medical condition". No doubt that being in pain can cause attending psychological problems...hell, I'm a walking textbook probably.

I have no doubt that a psychiatrist or psychologist can find psychological issues with anyone, that weighs on decisions a person makes, ill or not.
 
Understood. I'm just saying that a medical doctor is not trained to recognize the psychological aspects of terminal illness.

And, remember that we're discussing only one possible scenario for assisted death, the most egregious one. What of the depressives, what of the people that lose a limb, AIDS patients ... there is an entire spectrum of qualifications that needs to be addressed before passing any type of all-encompassing legislation.
 
In the case of my husband, he was a very positive person...believed he would win his fight with cancer and he would have loved to fulfill his bucket list but because he was bedridden and all those tubes and pain...he couldn't...all he could do was watch TV.
6months before he died somehow we made it to Illinois for my sons wedding but it was pure torture...he actually stayed in bed at the Hotel we were at.

Boohoo...this is one of those memories that does make me sad!
 
SifuPhil said:
Understood. I'm just saying that a medical doctor is not trained to recognize the psychological aspects of terminal illness.

And, remember that we're discussing only one possible scenario for assisted death, the most egregious one. What of the depressives, what of the people that lose a limb, AIDS patients ... there is an entire spectrum of qualifications that needs to be addressed before passing any type of all-encompassing legislation.
Click to expand...

Even so sifuPhil...I am a firm believer in its your body and you can do what you want with it and that's the bottom line.

Those that have mental issues...wether there is a law or not will most likely try suicide themselves anyway.
 
Ahhh, don't cry...at least he made it to the wedding. Remember the good times; if only I practised what I preached.
 
SifuPhil said:
Understood. I'm just saying that a medical doctor is not trained to recognize the psychological aspects of terminal illness.

And, remember that we're discussing only one possible scenario for assisted death, the most egregious one. What of the depressives, what of the people that lose a limb, AIDS patients ... there is an entire spectrum of qualifications that needs to be addressed before passing any type of all-encompassing legislation.
Click to expand...

I have not read the entire Death with Dignity legislation in Oregon or Washington. Without studying the law, I can't assume to address what checks and balances are in effect, and don't really care. The fact that people have this alternative available to them is good enough for me. If there is something in the law that proves to be harmful, it will be challenged.



I don't want to turn this into a debate of right or wrong, mental and psychological and homicidal issues. I was moved by the film, and believe me it is no small thing to wretch emotion out of me. I only asked that readers try to watch the film and form their own opinion on the legislation. I am interested in what the members feel is right for them, not what they feel is right for someone else. I respect everyone's feelings on how they want to go should they be faced with a painful end of life dilemma. If assisted euthanasia is not for you, why would you wish to prevent someone else from being able to make the decision for their own life.

We're not talking about Obummercare and Medicare where everyone in the country is forced into a legislative boondoggle, but a rather choice everyone has individually, that will ultimately affect no one, other than themselves.
 
Ozarkgal said:
If there is something in the law that proves to be harmful, it will be challenged.
Click to expand...

That hasn't always worked out so well in the past 238 years ...

I am interested in what the members feel is right for them, not what they feel is right for someone else.
Click to expand...

But you'll never get laws passed on individual desires - there are always going to be those that don't agree with any law passed. The whole idea of a Democracy (even though we're not one but claim to be) is that everyone is voicing their opinions, and part of having an opinion is deciding what is good for the majority.

We're not talking about Obummercare and Medicare where everyone in the country is forced into a legislative boondoggle, but a rather choice everyone has individually, that will ultimately affect no one, other than themselves.
Click to expand...

But if that were indeed the case here then we wouldn't need any law on the matter at all. We already have the right to pursue happiness, which could be interpreted as being the right to choose our death.
 
Di they are not just hypothetical jousts or doomsday visions of Logan's Run. I believe they are real problems that will need to be worked through.
Click to expand...

Warri and Jackie:
They are merely hypotheticals if you continually lump all possible scenarios together. Why do we need do that?

If someone is terminal, in pain and requests euthanasia that seems pretty clear cut to me. That could be classed as 'Category One.'
They want out. Their reasons if not obvious then are at least their own business. End of section. No further correspondence necessary. Give 'em their papers and let them get on with it, at their leisure and with dignity!

These are the people we need to take care of first, you can fuss and fight and argue the details of the rest who don't qualify later.
You people wouldn't sit about watching a dying, suffering animal writhe while you endlessly discussed the finer points of whether it was sane enough to welcome death. Or would you? Seems it's okay to do that to people so I have to wonder a little.

I say again: I fail to see why one size must fit all in terms of Euthanasia qualifications.

If these Category One people can have a reasonably sensible conversation with a doctor and shrink then that alone should be enough to get approval that they aren't raving nutters or manic depressives. And to be blunt, what if they were? Their circumstances alone would explain that wouldn't it?


Hell an intelligent conversation is more than it takes for us to get drivers and marriage licences and those decisions have dire consequences for a wrong move. Imagine how many divorce lawyers would be poor if we all had to get stamped sane before we married?
How many pedestrians would be around if IQs and hormone levels were tested for all drivers? How sane are road ragers??
But they get licences don't they? They have rights, they are allowed to decide for themselves whether they choose to marry or drive.
The suffering apparently don't get a say in anything.
Why is their escape from their predicament prevented by their attitude to it?? Are they to be punished for having a mental breakdown over it? Do only heroes qualify for a dignified end? Just how 'fair' do you wanna get with this?

This 'sanity' argument reeks of Catch 22 to me. ..paraphrased "If you.aren't afraid of war you won't apply to get out of the Army because you're obviously insane. If you do apply then that proves you are sane and can't get out of the Army" Or, if the pain is tolerable you don't need euthanasia but if it's bad enough to drive you crazy then you can't have it because you're 'insane'. That how it works??

Ethics in extremis can be a two edged sword and should be handled with plain common sense not just with highminded philosophy to salve our own consciences.

Palliative care does NOT work well for all. I have first hand knowledge of this from a recent departure who was still in pain on almost triple the dosage that would kill most people on palliative care due to a long history of taking ever stronger pain killers for another ailment.
She was to all intents immune to palliative care drugs.
A four hour dose barely lasted 20 minutes. She went the really hard way. Although due to the stress, quicker than most. But that was her choice, she didn't request 'help' due to religious reasons. That was HER CHOICE which was duly respected.
The medical staff were afraid to administer higher doses anyway as it would have been devilish hard to explain in a court of law as it was.

I've also spoken long and often at Singleton with palliative care staff over coffees, who admitted that it's not often the seemingly great answer that it's touted to be. Sometimes, but mostly not. Some of them joked that they'll jump under a bus if their time comes. How much confidence does that give you in it??

Okay back to the fray. What particular doomsday scenarios can you throw up preventing .. 1.Terminal. 2. Coherent. 3 Personally requesting suffers from being given authority to end it by their own choice?

Let's see if we can get Category One up and running at least.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top