Big Blue Wave's Comments
"The problem is lacking the will to live. It is a pain issue. Or a spiritual issue. Or a psychological issue."
How about a quality of life issue? I know that you don't believe we should have control over our own bodies. But, if someone decides, that life is not worth living FOR THEM, they should be allowed assisted suicide. Someone who is in the last stages of a horrible disease should have the right to exit on their own terms. No one have the right to tell them that they must suffer. No, really.
Quality of life is a matter of perception.
"I know that you don't believe we should have control over our own bodies. But, if someone decides, that life is not worth living FOR THEM, they should be allowed assisted suicide."
But then we're giving people the permission to kill.
It's not about control over one's body.
It's about being so unhappy that one feels the need to die.
It's a happiness issue, not a control issue.
"Someone who is in the last stages of a horrible disease should have the right to exit on their own terms. No one have the right to tell them that they must suffer."
No one is saying one must suffer.
Read what I write, please!
I am saying the issue is a psychological issue.
If you're so unhappy you want to die, the solution is not to kill someone, it's to make them happy.
If someone is in the last stages of cancer (has 4 weeks to live) and decides he has had enough, he should have the right to end his life. Plain and simple. This is not a psychological issue. It is a fact. Being happy 
will not change the facts. He is going to die in 4 weeks and would prefer to check out NOW! Why would someone want to extend this persons life? That is cruel.
How about DNR orders? Are you against them also?
"It's a happiness issue, not a control issue."
It's not a happiness issue, it's a fear issue. You're afraid that someone will take advantage of a legality and kill you, so you don't want anyone to have the option of a choice that you might not be allowed to make for yourself.
Try not to believe every little opinion piece you read in the media. Focus on what you want for yourself, and forget about forcing what you want on everyone else.
Suothern Quebec
We cannot give permission for people to kill.
Killing people should not be a solution to a problem. The issue is not suicide. You can't logically prosecute suicide.
But giving a doctor permission to kill someone does not address the issue.
If a late-stage cancer patient is fed up, then yes, it is a psychological issue. We do not want him to be fed up. We want him to derive some satisfaction from living-- not eliminate him. So the question becomes: how do we do that?
And as the article says, often, the drive for assisted suicide is done by people who are fed up with dying relatives. I am fairly certain this was the case with Michael Schiavo, Teri Schiavo's ex.
"He is going to die in 4 weeks and would prefer to check out NOW! Why would someone want to extend this persons life? That is cruel."
I do not want him to suffer. I want another solution that values his personal existence. Every person is valuable. That is why I do not want them dead. The question is: why doesn't that person value his own existence? Why is he fed up?
"How about DNR orders? Are you against them also?"
No, because DNR orders are orders to do nothing. That's not the same thing as actively killing someone. If a person has a heart attack and wants nature to take its course. I'm fine with that. Because it's nature taking its course. It's not some outside force trying to eliminate another individual.
Gorgon:
If someone wants to kill themselves, I can't personally do anything about it.
It's when society gives doctors permission to kill: that's what I have a problem with.
Because killing people is wrong. It makes no difference whether the victim in question wants death. If the victim does not value his own existence enough to live, that person is obviously vulnerable, and has psychological (and probably physiological) issues to attend to.
Besides it being wrong, you can be certain that doctors will kill people who do not want to be killed; or the elderly and infirm will feel the pressure to die.
Feeling pressure to die is horrid.
Killing people should not be seen as the solution to the problem. The problem with people who are suffering is not their personal existence. It's their mental state or their physiological state. Get to the real root of the problem.
I think I can understand why some people might consider living to be more painful than it is worth. I also think that it is wishful thinking to believe that those persons' problems can or could always be relieved through the administration of pain-killers or consoling words or a visit from loved-ones. There is pain and suffering that is stronger than the desire to live, that none of us can alleviate adequately. Who can judge or blame someone who is experiencing that sort of pain if they seek death?
I can understand an empathetic onlooker being swayed to desire death for that person as well, out of an honest desire to give them what appears to be the only effective relief from their pain. I don't think any of us should judge or blame someone whose compassion moves them to such feelings and intent. Indeed, I think such people should be commended for their concern for others.
What I don't understand is why it isn't obvious to those people that actually acting on those feelings brings with it inherent risks that could be worse than the pain and suffering of the suicidal person. Who would be authorized to 'assist' in the suicide? What is sufficient proof that the person has in fact asked for 'assistance'? How do you control against possible forging of that proof? What if the suicidal person changes his/her mind but is ignored? As has been pointed out by Suzanne, the desire to end one's life is often, possibly most often, only temporary. I think I have to agree with Suzanne's sentiment that if these suicidal sufferers could be aided more effectively, more of them would cease their suicidal wishes. The potential for human error in the execution and/or abuse of the legal ability to take life should be threatening enough for anyone--even suicidal sufferers and their compassionate would-be 'assistants'-- to realize that euthanasia should not be allowed. It is simply too dangerous for the sufferer, for the would-be 'assistants', for other sufferers who have no intentions of suicide, for society as a whole.
Perhaps euthanasia is understandably desirable in some rare cases, but for legal, practical and yes, moral reasons also, totally unacceptable as public policy.
"Focus on what you want for yourself, and forget about forcing what you want on everyone else."
Your side is forcing everyone to be a part of the 'assist to murder' and pay for it. If you want to commit suicide, do it on your time and dime. Take responsibility for your actions in life.
"Feeling pressure to die is horrid."
Know this for a fact, do you?
Sue Rodriguez. Look her up.
People who are suffer from terminal illness often suffer from Depression.
Treat the Depression, and their wish to die goes away.
Gorgon:
There are people who feel the pressure to die because of legalized assisted suicide.
What does Sue Rodriguez have to do with those people who feel the pressure to die?
"Treat the Depression, and their wish to die goes away."
Get serious.
"If you're so unhappy you want to die, the solution is not to kill someone, it's to make them happy."
I'm not sure what you're saying here -- are you saying that when a person has a terminal illness and they know death is imminent so they want to hurry it on before it gets too painful and too humiliating, it's because they're "unhappy"?
"Get serious."
Southern Quebec: That is what is so completely ridiculous about this woman (SUZANNE) - she really ~is~ serious!
I just love the whole "If you're so unhappy you want to die, the solution is not to kill someone, it's to make them happy." angle!! I can't imagine a more simplistic and ridiculous theory than that!
"People who are suffer from terminal illness often suffer from Depression.
Treat the Depression, and their wish to die goes away."
You've clearly never been a caregiver for someone in the last stages of a terminal illness or you'd have a better understanding of this issue.
I cared for my mom when she was dying of pancreatic cancer, one of the most vicious and painful diseases a person could be afflicted with. "Horrible" doesn't even come close to describing what she went through.
Long before she ever got sick, we discussed this kind of thing and basically pledged that we would do whatever was necessary to alleviate the other's pain, even help them on their way if it got that bad.
Eventually, the time came. My mother asked me, begged me to help her die. She was not depressed, she was beyond depression. I was in charge of her medication. I could have easily freed her from the physical devastation she was going through, as I'd promised to do.
I broke my promise. I couldn't do it, I was far too emotionally invested in the situation. Instead, I had to let her hang on a few more days, in spiraling pain and physical breakdown, until she finally got away on her own. But it's not how she wanted to go. I failed her.
The guilt I feel is only exceeded by my bitterness at a backward society that forces the loved ones of the terminally-ill into this corner because of some crackpot religious BS about "natural death". There is nothing "natural" about dying in agony of a rapacious, devasting illness. Take my word for it.
"devasting" = "devastating". d'oh.
"I'm not sure what you're saying here -- are you saying that when a person has a terminal illness and they know death is imminent so they want to hurry it on before it gets too painful and too humiliating, it's because they're "unhappy"?"
Yeah. They're unhappy. It's in their head. Treat the root cause of the problem and they won't want to die.
You all say "it's ridiculous".
Well-- is it true-- if you change people's thoughts and feelings, they won't want to die any more?
Is anyone here really contesting that?
"Eventually, the time came. My mother asked me, begged me to help her die."
Then her issue was pain. Treat the pain, then.
Everything that causes a person to want to die is treatable.Changes what causes a person to want to die, and you eliminate that desire.
"There is nothing "natural" about dying in agony of a rapacious, devasting illness. "
Of course it's horrible. I don't want a horrible death for people.
I just don't think we should give people the permission to kill.
How sick can one person get that he or she thinks just "making the pain go away" is the answer for everything? As if physical pain were the only consideration. How about the mental anguish? The anticipation? The disorientation? The knowledge that your body has betrayed you and will continue to betray you and what's worse, the person in charge of your care doesn't give a damn about what you want, they only care about making themselves feel better and now THEY're betraying you?
You are so full of fear and hate. Don't ever let me catch you trying to "take care" of someone I care about.
Do you even know who Sue Rodriguez is?
JJ, that wasn't aimed at you. It's not easy watching someone die. I know. You tried, at least.
"Everything that causes a person to want to die is treatable.Changes what causes a person to want to die, and you eliminate that desire."
You don't get it. Some pain is way beyond treatment, the best "treatment" can do is diminish the pain somewhat and keep the patient in a half-conscious state. My mother was on the highest level of morphine that was possible to administer and still keep her alive, yet she was still in screaming agony, and cognizant enough to know that it wasn't going to stop.
It's barbaric to let someone go on in that condition when they're begging to be let go, and too sick to take care of it themselves. There's no excuse for it.
JJ, I think she's about suffering. She thinks suffering is good for your soul. Making people suffer is her way of showing how much she "loves" them.
DNR orders are not just about doing nothing. They are also about stopping different treatments. I was in the same situation as JJ. After a major surgery, my mother was in a coma. She was not coming back. I had STRICT instructions from her. Do not bring me back without quality of life. Over a one month period, we slowly stopped different treatments, until she quietly passed. This was her wish when she was fully aware of what was going on. She was not depressed when she made this decision. She told us her wishes when the nonsense with Terri Schiavo was going on. Her exact words were, "If you EVER humiliate me like her parents are doing to her, I WILL come back."
FWIW Only one medical person, gave us grief over the decisions we made. She looked like an evangelical when she looked down at us. (Like I cared!) Every other doctor and nurse agreed with our decisions.
Making someone suffer does not make you a good person.
"How sick can one person get that he or she thinks just "making the pain go away" is the answer for everything? "
I've addressed that issue.
Whatever mental anguish is at the root of the desire to die should be addressed.
I've noticed no one has contested the fact that if you address the root of the desire to die, you will eliminate the desire to die.
The reason people in pain ask for death is because their pain is not properly managed.
"It's barbaric to let someone go on in that condition when they're begging to be let go, and too sick to take care of it themselves. There's no excuse for it."
I'm not saying we do that, so you can stop repeating.I am saying there is an alternative. You can manage pain so that people are not in agony. You can treat depression. Palliative care is the answer. Palliative care is a relatively new phenomenon. That is why many medical professionals are not knowledgeable about it.
"JJ, I think she's about suffering. She thinks suffering is good for your soul. Making people suffer is her way of showing how much she "loves" them."
Again, Gorgon, you are making stuff up. I am not advocating suffering.
I am saying that you can live a reasonably comfortable and meaningful life at the end, so that you are not in agony, and not gung-ho to kill oneself.
Southern Quebec
DNR stands for Do not Resuscitate. It means if a person's heart has stopped, the professional is not to attempt to revive them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Do_...not_resuscitate
I am in favour of a person choosing to forego medical treatment.
But I am not in favour of dehydration and starvation.
These can be very painful for a dying person.
JJ, Gorgon, southern Quebec, you are distorting my true stance. I am not advocating suffering. I am saying that it can be managed. You do not know that, and many medical professionals do not know that, but it can.
There's a whole movement dedicated to comforting the dying.
"The reason people in pain ask for death is because their pain is not properly managed."
Your problem here is that you ASSUME that ALL pain can be "properly managed".
It cannot.
It's like the solution to hunger is eating. Someone is starving to death? No problem eh suzanne? The answer is eating a meal!!! The problem is that some people have no meal to eat. Life just isn't as simple as you like to make it. You can't wave your hands and make pain managable - as JJ's story makes clear (morphine, semi-conscious and STILL in pain!).
" I am saying that it can be managed. You do not know that, and many medical professionals do not know that, but it can."
Thank you SUZANNE! A genuine laugh-out-loud comment!
Oh the hubris....... None of ~us~ know how to manage pain. Hell, many doctors don't.... But suzanne? Oh yeah, with that high school (if that!) science backround she's got it all figured out!! Why don't the medical professionals just listen to her!!! Oh why???!!!!!!
"There's a whole movement dedicated to comforting the dying."
Yeah - it's called "assisted suicide"!
"Whatever mental anguish is at the root of the desire to die should be addressed."
What makes you think you know what's going on in the mind of every other person on earth? Do you not pay attention when someone tells you what they want? Do you always have to assume you know better than they do what they want and what will give them what they need?
You are so arrogant in your know-everything attitude. You're afraid of death, so you have this driving need to make others afraid of it, too. You have no concept that death is a natural part of life, and it is NECESSARY to the survival of the species. You're wrong to be afraid of it, but you're especially (even sinfully) wrong to make others afraid of it, too.
People die. Some choose to die sooner rather than later. I know of one person who committed suicide because he was bored, not because he was depressed. He was intelligent, talented, and loved. And he killed himself out of boredom. What would have been your remedy for him?
"He was intelligent, talented, and loved. And he killed himself out of boredom. What would have been your remedy for him?"
It shows how little brains, talent and love are when you don't have a deep faith in something other than earthly wants.
How full of contempt you are. How full of hatred for any who do not fall into lockstep with your views. What utter bilge.
"How full of hatred for any who do not fall into lockstep with your views"
It's not hate, just a fact. A lot of famous people have come to the conclusion that life is boring when you have everything you want on earth. Some find out there are bigger things and some, unfortunately don't.
No, it's hate.
"I'm not saying we do that, so you can stop repeating.I am saying there is an alternative."
You really don't get it. What's the alternative when their pain is so intense that it's unmanageable even by the highest levels of morphine? When they're taking it intravenously, transdermally and with booster pills every 2 hours, and any more than that would kill them? There's definitely no medical alternative.
Please don't tell me that what you're saying is "just make them think happy thoughts".
"Palliative care is the answer."
My mom had palliative care from the moment we brought her home from the hospital. I had a palliative care doctor and 2 nurses coming to the house every day to give her the kind of attention I couldn't. Palliative care is fine, but it doesn't alleviate the suffering. Pain of that magnitude is only relieved by one thing.
I think that a good way to tell when someone has lost an argument is when he/she starts to attack his/her opponent instead of his/her opponent's argument. Or when he/she begins arguing about something his/her opponent did not even say.
I for one have never heard of Sue Rodriguez, maybe Gorgon could enlighten all of us.
While I think it does seem a little trite to believe that any and all pain and/or depression associated with suicidal patients can be treated or managed adequately, I don't think it is fair to accuse Suzanne, or a supposedly 'evangelical' nurse, or anyone else who is against euthanasia of advocating for increased suffering. I think Suzanne's point is that more can and should be done to manage/relieve the pain and depression of more of the suicidal patients.
If more can be done, why not do it? And if more is done, then it would follow logically that more of those suicidal patients would decide that speeding death along wasn't necessarily as attractive an option.
There isn't anything sinister or callous about Suzanne's argument. Obviously, some of you think it is naive, and perhaps it is to a certain extent. But your being ugly about correcting her 'ignorance' isn't very nice. And it makes it look like you aren't very serious about your own argument.
I've seen a lot of passionate feelings behind the argument for euthanasia, feelings that come from personal experience. I've never had such traumatic experiences with another's suffering as some of you have described. I don't think it's fair for anyone to tell you not to feel the things you did and do.
But so far, I haven't seen any of you speak to the obvious inherent problems associated with allowing euthanasia. As passionate as your arguments are, how do we know for certain that your loved ones really did want help to die? Shouldn't your strong feelings preclude you from making that kind of a judgement? Shouldn't there be a verifiable, dispassionate, easily-reversible, fool-proof way that everyone can be sure of a patient's wishes before the moment arrives? In the absence of such a safety, how can anyone, including you, be so sure that your loved one really did want to be helped to die?
If you do allow euthanasia, how do you control it, so that patients who do want to live to the however-bitter end are protected from those who, by error or neglect or even by malice, decide not to allow them that dignity?
The path to legal euthanasia seems to me to be a very slippery slope. The potential for error and abuse and the ensuing legal conflict and expense to society is staggering. Even if you reject the moral argument against euthanasia, what about the practical arguments that stand in the way?
Try using Google to look up Sue Rodriguez, Keith. I don't know how to link it.
JJ
I wasn't there when your mother died.
I just know that the medical system is not very well trained in chronic pain management.
This is what is fueling requests for assisted suicide.
We do not need to give doctors permission to kill. We must give them the means to give patients quality of life.
And that is possible. Nobody is beyond hope.
"Do you always have to assume you know better than they do what they want and what will give them what they need?"
I have a funny theory. Absolutely everyone wants to be alive and happy, and that's what I'm fighting for.
I've never met anyone who did not want that.
"You're afraid of death,"
Gorgon, you just castigated me, saying that I think I know what everyone else is thinking, but you are trying to play psychic on me.
Death is a natural part of life.
But killing shouldn't be.
Death should not be a solution to life's problems. Death should be the end of a natural process, not sought after as the way to make one's problems go away.
"I know of one person who committed suicide because he was bored, not because he was depressed. "
I suggsted that killing oneself out of boredom reflects a mental health issue. If your will to live is that minimal, you have a mental health problem.
"He was intelligent, talented, and loved. And he killed himself out of boredom. What would have been your remedy for him?"
The world out there is so full of challenge, excitement, adventure and can be so uplifting, that if he was simply bored, all he needed was a change in his life. As I did not know him, I cannot be more specific than that. But there is no shortage of things to do in this world to bring oneself a feeling of satisfaction and meaning.
"How full of contempt you are. How full of hatred for any who do not fall into lockstep with your views. What utter bilge."
That is ridiculous, Gorgon. You are the one project the anger and contempt. I'm saying "don't suffer! You can be happy! We want to help! Don't kill yourself".
Those are the words of a hater? Get real.
Haters don't try to save people's lives and help them alleviate suffering.
I wasn't talking to you.
"No, it's hate."
I guess you are really as shallow as you sound. You don't read anything without putting your biased attitude into it.
Ken, please let's refrain from personal attacks.
SUZANNE, I know you have good intentions, but you're wrong.
When someone has only weeks of horrendous pain to look forward to (and then the real humiliation they go through when their bodily functions go out of control), and they've asked to be spared of going through it to the bitter end, it isn't right to deny them. We are real barbarians in that respect. We do it for our pets, yet we can't do it for people. It makes no sense.
Of course I have a biased attitude, everybody has a biased attitude, and unlike some I never pretended different, and I certainly never pretended to be doing something "for someone else's own good" as if there were such a thing in the real world.
And I know hate when it's aimed at me, especially when it's presented under the guise of "love" for one's fellow human, when what it really is is interference and an attempt to control another person's life, plain and simple. I won't stand for it, so I suggest everybody quit trying and go back to minding your own business, if you can remember how.
SUZANNE: What are your medical qualifications?
Keith: "If more can be done, why not do it?"
Why do you assume that more ISN'T done? Could JJ have done more for her mom? I don't think so (even if suzanne thinks otherwise).
Keith: "And if more is done, then it would follow logically that more of those suicidal patients would decide that speeding death along wasn't necessarily as attractive an option."
Your assumption that "more" ~can~ be done is what I have a problem with. You don't think doctors already do what they can to alleviate the pain? Of course they do.... but it's not possible to alleviate ALL pain - sometimes the pain will win out.
Suzanne: "We must give them the means to give patients quality of life."
They already have the means - you don't know better than doctors do suzanne...
"We do it for our pets, yet we can't do it for people"
Animals have the grace to die quietly even when they are in pain. The pet industry gets more sympathy and financial aid from so-called human beings.
We are supposed to be above the animals yet we don't even care enough about our elderly to give proper pallative care. We'd rather just kill them all.
Ken - "we don't even care enough about our elderly to give proper pallative care. We'd rather just kill them all."
Thanks for that, Ken. Just... thanks.
Southern Quebec:
I don't have any.
Does anyone in this discussion have any medical qualifications?
I know what the people in the palliative care/pain management field say.
Most doctors are not well-equipped to deal with those issues.
"Why do you assume that more ISN'T done"
I assume it is sometimes not done because there are people with medical qualifications who say that the majority of medical professionals are not well-versed in chronic pain management and dealing with end-of-life issues.
Animals don't ask to die. *We* decide when they've had enough.
Legalizing assisted suicide will make others decide when the sick person has had enough. Sure, the issue is framed as the sick person making the decision. But it's like abortion-- a good chunk of the women who go for abortions aren't doing it because they really want it for themselves, it's because the boyfriend or the parents want them to get the abortion.
The woman is the one making the final decision-- nominally-- but her will is not the true motive for it.
And it will be the same thing for assisted suicide.
And now doctors will have the power to kill the patient, even if it really isn't their true motive.
And you can be sure that fed up relatives will decide for them when they've had enough.
The issue that is at stake here is giving doctors the permission to kill people.
That makes death a viable solution in one case.
I can see death becoming a solution in other cases. Think Tracy Latimer. She didn't ask to die, and her father substituted his judgment for her own.
When human life is not seen as absolutely inviolable, this is what happens. People decide for others who is worthy to live and who is not.
If human beings are in and of themselves valuable, we just can't kill them without negating the idea that human life is valuable.
If suffering makes life less valuable and not worth the while, then a suffering-free life becomes more important than life itself.
And of course we don't want people to suffer, but if suffering make life less worthy, then life's worth isn't absolute; it becomes cheaper.
And when it becomes cheaper, then people become cheaper.
We have this crazy way of separating "personhood" and "life" in this society. When we think of "a person taking his own life", we think of a person taking away something extrinsic to himself. But life and personhood are one and the same. You can't kill yourself and NOT do yourself harm. It's impossible. When you extinguish your existence, you are extringuishing your "self".
If suffering makes the "self" less worthwhile, it will only lead to inequality. The "self" who has a "good" life will be more valuable than the "self" who has a perceived "worse" life.
You can't introduce the idea of assisted suicide without cheapening life and introducing the notion of inequality in itself into society; when people are okay to kill because they're suffering, they will be seen as less worthy. It's a natural progression. And we'll look for more people whose lives are less worthy and open to being killed.
So the solution isn't death, but ending suffering, because that's the real issue. It's not the death part; people want to live and be happy. That's what they ultimately want. They think of "autonomy" as the means to end their suffering, but it doesn't end their suffering so much as end their existence. That's like trying to cure disease by killing people.
So you're hearing one part of the argument from some people in the palliative care industry, and the rest of us hear from others in the same industry who have different opinions, and some doctors haven't got a clue about anything except how many patients they get to see today so they can prescribe a bunch of pills that really don't need to be prescribed, but it's the easiest thing to do, and my own doctor is amazingly well-informed about all kinds of things including nutrition and herbal remedies, which are not traditionally the perview of physicians, and when it's all said and done, nobody is an expert on anything except himself.
You cannot make these broad, sweeping, all-inclusive statements about what is good for everybody or what is necessary for everybody because there is no such thing as good for everybody. Each individual person is different, and you must take each individual case at its own face value. You cannot say that so-and-so wants to commit suicide only because he's depressed, he might be depressed and he might simply not want to keep putting off a perfectly natural process that he is not afraid of. But you don't get to say. Only he gets to say.
When you get to the point that you're in so much pain you can't see straight and you can't think of anything except making it stop and there's no drug in the world that will make it stop without killing you, then you come and tell us what you'll do for yourself. But don't you tell anyone that they can only do what you think is "moral". You don't get that power.
"Try using Google to look up Sue Rodriguez, Keith. I don't know how to link it."
Thanks for the effort Gorgon, I will look it up on Google.
"Your assumption that "more" ~can~ be done is what I have a problem with. You don't think doctors already do what they can to alleviate the pain? Of course they do.... but it's not possible to alleviate ALL pain - sometimes the pain will win out."
Joe: I agree with you that doctors are, without a doubt, doing all they know how to do. I also agree with you that even if improvements could be made in the relief of patients' pain and suffering, there would still be pain that would win out in some cases.
I concede the point that euthanasia may truly be desirable and even morally correct in some rare circumstances (perhaps not as rare as I imagine).
However, I reject what seems to be your assumption that improvements cannot be made, that doctors' judgement is final and definitive. I for one would be wary of giving a doctor that much credit or power.
I prefer to hold on to the hope that improvements in palliative care are possible. And that for the sake of the patients whose lives could be made more pleasant by such improvements, reasonable efforts should be made to make those improvements a reality.
If that hope is what you consider to be an ignorant assumption that more can be done, then I am sorry that you have a problem with it. Without hope for a better future, how could anything ever improve?
That's an awful lot of ifs you're taking for granted. What if those ifs are not so?
Keith, you shouldn't have any trouble finding Sue Rodriguez. When I plugged her name into Google, she was first, second, third, and so on. She had ALS and wanted to commit suicide, but she needed help and no one would help her because everyone was afraid of being charged with murder, so she sued the governmetn and the doctors for the right to die with dignity and her case went all the way to the supreme court. They turned her down by a vote of 5 to 4, but she actually managed to get it done anyway. Somebody helped her die. And nobody is looking to arrest anybody for it. That's her victory, of sorts.
She wasn't unhappy and she wasn't depressed, she just wanted to have the final say over how and when she died rather than wasting away unable to talk or move or do anything...no quality of life.
"You cannot make these broad, sweeping, all-inclusive statements about what is good for everybody or what is necessary for everybody because there is no such thing as good for everybody."
Yes you can, Gorgon, because human beings have the same nature. Individual differences do not deter from the fact that we are all of the same substance.
Otherwise, there is no equality.
"But don't you tell anyone that they can only do what you think is "moral". You don't get that power."
Our government does. Our government's job is to protect what rights and the Common Good. I don't get that power, but society does.
Euthanasia is often portrayed as a compassionate response to a painful existence. Fair enough. But how selfish is it to ask someone else to take your life for you? To become a killer on your behalf?
JJ, I'm so sorry that your mom died a painful death, and I'm sorry that you feel guilty over it. But it really was unfair of her to put that burden on you. Your inability to "pull the trigger" so to speak is more than understandable. But then your conclusion that a doctor should have stepped in and ended her life does not follow. If it was so hard for you, why would it be easier for someone else?
Doctors are trained to preserve life, not to take it. I can't imagine that, even if euthanasia should become legal in this country, there would be a rush of doctors willing to provide the service.
I guess what I'm saying is this: I personally can't condone suicide. I think there is value in life right up to the bitter, painful end. My grandfather's and my aunt's deaths from cancer were both rather affirming experiences, even though both were suffering painfully. (I don't really know how to explain that, other than they were looking forward to seeing what was to come, and were, if you will, offering up their suffering for those poor souls in purgatory.) However, I can see how, for those people who don't believe in an afterlife, or what you will, and can't see any value in suffering, the last days of a terminal illness would be meaningless and painful.
If you belong in the category of people who believe suffering is meaningless, you really ought to take care of matters before you get to that point in your illness, rather than relying on someone else to euthanize you.
"Otherwise, there is no equality."
Whatever gave you the idea that there is such a thing as equality?
"I don't get that power, but society does."
BULLCOOKIES! And this time, you may take the capitals as being a little more than just emphasis.
Nobody gets to tell anyone else that they cannot do something simply because it's "immoral." It is not up to anyone else to tell me what I have to think is moral or not. I decide that for myself. You don't have to agree with me, but you do have to allow it.
" But how selfish is it to ask someone else to take your life for you?"
Not take your life for you. Assisted suicide is simply being asked to support the suicde by giving assistance if they cannot manage everything on their own. When they've already made the decision and are ready to act, but they can't quite manage it without a little help.
Like handing them a bottle of pills, opening it for them, and a glass of water with a straw in it if they can't drink from the glass directly. Putting everything within reach for them, and they will still make the final decision for themselves.
I can do that for someone I love if that's what they want. I have already agreed to do it.
"Like handing them a bottle of pills, opening it for them, and a glass of water with a straw in it if they can't drink from the glass directly. Putting everything within reach for them, and they will still make the final decision for themselves."
Fine, as long as you take personal responsibility for this action. The problem is when you people, who believe in killing each other, want the rest of us to be a party to it with legislation that approves of your actions.
Keith: "I reject what seems to be your assumption that improvements cannot be made"
I did not mean to imply that improvements can't be made... Of course they can - I hope they continue to work on that along with a cure for cancer, a cure for blindness, etc...
But in the mean time we have people suffering unecessarily, having exhausted all of the remedies available, and in terrible pain with only a short time to live (in constant pain) anyway! Let them end their painful life - it's the only nice thing to do! Have a heart!
Melissa: "If you belong in the category of people who believe suffering is meaningless"
You mean if you are SANE.
Seriously - how absolutely INSANE do you have to be to believe that suffering has ANY meaning other than the absolute hell it puts the ONE person who is suffering through!??!
And then you continue with:
"you really ought to take care of matters before you get to that point in your illness, rather than relying on someone else to euthanize you."
So, you don't believe suicide is OK - but your suggestion to us is that we kill ourselves BEFORE our disease gets to the stage where we can't do it ourselves??
Religion..... (shaking head)...
"Think Tracy Latimer. She didn't ask to die, and her father substituted his judgment for her own."
Amen to that! Any GOOD and compasionate father can only dream of having the strength to do what he did. It must have been a terrible thing to go through - watching your daughter live in her own little hell, and then deciding to end her suffering.
Heaven doesn't exist - but if it did Tracy would be up there thanking her father for his strength.
"Nobody gets to tell anyone else that they cannot do something simply because it's "immoral." It is not up to anyone else to tell me what I have to think is moral or not. I decide that for myself. You don't have to agree with me, but you do have to allow it."
Society doesn't operate that way. Government doesn't operate that way.
While it's true that we allow for a great amount of freedom, we can and do criminalize activity because it's bad for people and believed to not be in the best interest of society, even if it curtails people's freedoms.
"Any GOOD and compasionate father can only dream of having the strength to do what he did."
That is sick. Who is he to dictate his daughter should die.
This is exactly what I mean folks.
Joe, you may not feel that way if someone decides in your stead you've had enough, and you should die (when you're vulnerable).
"how absolutely INSANE do you have to be to believe that suffering has ANY meaning"
Sure Joe, religious people who think suffering can have meaning are all insane.
Your prejudice is showing, Joe.
joe agnost: "Seriously - how absolutely INSANE do you have to be to believe that suffering has ANY meaning other than the absolute hell it puts the ONE person who is suffering through!??!"
That's ad hominem.
Suffering can have meaning: it can bring the families of the person suffering closer together while they care for her. Watching someone stoically bear her suffering is a lesson in courage for those around her.
We can agree to disagree on this. You don't have to call me insane when I hold an opinion different from your own.
"That is sick."
I understand your position - but when you REALLY think about it ~what~ is more sick?? Spending your days watching your child suffer uncontrolably, or doing something to stop it.
I submit YOUR position is far more cruel and sick.
"Sure Joe, religious people who think suffering can have meaning are all insane."
Exactly. How can anybody deny this?
Sorry Melissa for calling YOU insane - I meant your BELIEFS are insane. Is that better? 
OK, Ok.... sorry again. (I kid... I'm a kidder.)
I find one of the more objectionable parts of organized religion is the idea that suffering is good. The idea that god would kill his only son for ME is cruel - not loving.
Why must suffering exist? I submit that suffering is a bad thing with no positive qualities to the person who is suffering. Sure - the selfish family might think the suffering was good because it brought them together, but that's just plain sick.
"If you belong in the category of people who believe suffering is meaningless, you really ought to take care of matters before you get to that point in your illness, rather than relying on someone else to euthanize you.
Well, some of us will. I know I have the ways & means to make sure I don't end up dying a slow ugly painful death... BANG! Won't hurt a bit.
However, by the time most people get their diagnosis, they're already under some kind of surveillance (in the hospital or at home being cared for by relatives), and it's not easy to get away. (While my mother could still get around, she went for her medication a few times, and I stopped her. I should have let her do what she had to do.)
The whole thing about offering one's suffering up to the LORD is an ancient scam. It only came about because primitive people had to find a way to rationalize the agony they were going through.
"Spending your days watching your child suffer uncontrolably, or doing something to stop it."
She wasn't suffer uncontrollably. That's the thing.
There are ways of stopping it.
Latimer's wife's diaries portrayed Tracy as being happy.
The point is: Tracy Latimer had a right to life. That right is inviolable.
NOBODY has the right to kill you.
When you take away the right to life, no right is safe. Nobody is safe.
The message I get from your message is: When your suffering and existence causes someone else enough grief, they have the right to kill you without your permission.
That is extremely scary.
"I find one of the more objectionable parts of organized religion is the idea that suffering is good"
Suffering isn't good per se.
But mortification is.
Any athlete suffers when he trains.
But it's not the suffering that is good.
It's being able to deal with the suffering, to make something something good out of the suffering, which is good.
Suffering for suffering's sake is pointless. But suffering for a greater purpose is what is good.
Gorgon: "Like handing them a bottle of pills, opening it for them, and a glass of water with a straw in it if they can't drink from the glass directly. Putting everything within reach for them, and they will still make the final decision for themselves.
I can do that for someone I love if that's what they want. I have already agreed to do it."
Gorgon, have you really thought this through? Saying you will be able to go through with this, and actually being able to follow through when the time comes are two completely different balls of wax.
But lets for a minute assume that you are able to assist someone with their suicide. What if she's unable to swallow the pills, or to put them in her mouth? Do you put the pills in her mouth for her and massage her throat to help her swallow?
And what if she upchucks the pills? Or what if she falls unconscious but doesn't actually die? She's no longer able to tell you that she wants to die. Do you keep going? What if she's changed her mind? What if she's had some beatific vision that tells her that there IS meaning to her suffering? (Okay, maybe that last bit is far-fetched wishful thinking, but stranger things have happened then deathbed conversions.)
And I'm sure you realize this, but you are on shaky legal ground here. "Yes, Officer, she told me over and over that she wanted to die. Really she did."
"Society doesn't operate that way."
I don't give a flying fig for how "society" operates. I operate that way, and if they don't like it they can lump it.
"Who is he to dictate his daughter should die."
He is her father who loves her and wants to end her suffering. Who are YOU that you want her to continue to be tortured? You don't know her, you don't "love" her and you don't have to l;ive with watching her suffer, so you don't get to vote on it.
"religious people who think suffering can have meaning are all insane."
What possible "meaning" does suffering have to anyone, especially the one who is suffering unwillingly?
"Watching someone stoically bear her suffering is a lesson in courage for those around her."
So go ahead and demonstrate your lesson in courage. I'll watch. I'll even cheer you on in your agony. And when I think you're not suffering enough, I'll help you along by poking you with a sharp stick, okay?
"There are ways of stopping it."
There were not.
"When you take away the right to life, no right is safe. Nobody is safe."
Nobody is safe anyway. You don't get a written guarantee of safety for the duration of your life once you are born. The best you can get is the ability to protect yourself the best way you know how. Yourself. Not nobody else.
"The message I get from your message is: When your suffering and existence causes someone else enough grief, they have the right to kill you without your permission."
Wrong message. When your suffering and existence cause YOU enough grief, YOU have the right to kill YOURSELF without anyone else's permission. And if you need help, you should be able to ask for it without "society", who hasn't a fricking clue what's going on with you, deciding that you haven't suffered enough for THEIR satisfaction.
"Latimer's wife's diaries portrayed Tracy as being happy."
When I was in high school I kept a diary and I kept writing that a certain boy was madly in love with me when the truth was he didn't even know I existed at the time. Wishful thinking. Diaries are lies we hope other people will snoop around to read for themselves.
"Suffering for suffering's sake is pointless. But suffering for a greater purpose is what is good."
So go ahead and suffer for your greater purpose, whatever you think that is. I'll watch.
"Gorgon, have you really thought this through?"
Don't put me in your place, I don't belong there. I think different than you, I have different values then you and I make different decisions than you. When I say I can do a thing I mean I can do it and I am not going to entertain your what ifs. My contract is between me and someone else and you do not get to know the details. That is all.
"you are on shaky legal ground here."
No I'm not.
"Who are YOU that you want her to continue to be tortured?"
She wasn't being tortured. I don't want her to suffer, but I don't want her to die either.
"When your suffering and existence cause YOU enough grief, YOU have the right to kill YOURSELF without anyone else's permission."
Tracy Latimer did not give that permission.
"What possible "meaning" does suffering have to anyone, especially the one who is suffering unwillingly?"
If it contributes to something greater, it can have meaning.
"Nobody is safe anyway. You don't get a written guarantee of safety for the duration of your life once you are born. The best you can get is the ability to protect yourself the best way you know how. Yourself. Not nobody else."
I wasn't talking in that sense. I was saying that if the right to life is not the most important right, then that implies people have the right in some circumstances when you live and when you die, and it becomes a situation where the strong can kill the weak if they so choose.
"She wasn't being tortured. I don't want her to suffer, but I don't want her to die either."
Yeah she was being tortured. And you either had to let her suffer or let her die. There were no other choices.
"Tracy Latimer did not give that permission."
You weren't there, you don't know that.
"If it contributes to something greater, it can have meaning."
What could possibly be greater, and who gets to decide? Would I be allowed to decide on your behalf? Because I can assure you that you are NOT allowed to make that decision on MY behalf!
"Suffering for suffering's sake is pointless. But suffering for a greater purpose is what is good."
Well said Suzanne.
"Suffering for suffering's sake is pointless. But suffering for a greater purpose is what is good."
Religion... (shaking head).
Joe
Have you never suffered for a higher purpose?
"
"Tracy Latimer did not give that permission."
You weren't there, you don't know that."
She could not consent. She had the mind of a small child and she couldn't communicate with words.
Gorgon writes on suffering:
"What could possibly be greater,"
You honestly would never suffer for ANYTHING at all, ever? Like you wouldn't go on a hunger strike, or suffer persecution, or go to a weight loss boot camp, at all, ever?
You mean you would never suffer for any reason whatsoever?
"Have you never suffered for a higher purpose?"
I don't think so... but it's irrelevant anyway. The point it not whether I ~have~, but whether I think it is good.
You know what? You might have a point - if you include the pain a body builder endures to gain a stronger body then I guess you're right... that's some "good" suffering.
If you're talking about ~unintended~ pain then I can't imagine ANY higher purpose making it worth it.
Perhaps you need to believe that there is a sadistic god out there to understand your views on this - because no ~just~ god would want that for ANYBODY.
"Have you never suffered for a higher purpose?"
Define a higher purpose!
"You honestly would never suffer for ANYTHING at all, ever? Like you wouldn't go on a hunger strike, or suffer persecution, or go to a weight loss boot camp, at all, ever?
You mean you would never suffer for any reason whatsoever?"
Why would I? Hunger strikes are stupid and self-injurious for absolutely no reason, I don't need to lose weight and I never will, and there's no way on earth I'm ever going to allow somebody to persecute me for any reason, I will fight physically with intent to do great bodily harm to anyone who tries it.
I see no reason for me to voluntarily suffer for any reason whatsoever. What reason would make you want to make yourself miserable? Why would anyone voluntarily submit themselves to suffering, especially if it involves physical pain? Don't you know that pain is your body's way of telling you to pay attention there's something wrong here?
Ignoring the pain and allowing yourself to suffer through it is like continuing to drive your car with four flat tires and a stripped transmission, all you do is more damage.
Commenting by HaloScan
