Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), or Euthanasia

[ChristineM]

Didn't know you could do that. Details?
The UK is a disgrace:
Dignitas - Dignity in Dying

Membership

 

[Revoltingest]

I've always favored the right to die.
You own yourself.
**** government attempts to own you.

 

[Brickjectivity]

My question is this: over the past 8 years, has your attitude to MAID or euthanasia changed? Are you for or against?

I haven't voted, yet; because I am concerned that government will use this to start removing unwanted people or expensive patients. I have no moral problem with letting suffering and dying patients have a painless death though. I don't want to have people killed out of convenience, and that is my concern. I admit to being a little paranoid, but I've seen governments do some very bad things and have seen bad things happen due to negligence or callousness. Here in the states for example we have an enormous federal government, and it so happens that sometimes veterans are not cared for properly as a result of that enormous size. Its easy for certain people to get lost and forgotten.

My second concern is that the healthcare industry could become interested in encouraging death for expensive patients. Dying people are expensive, and healthcare is a business.

 

[Estro Felino]

I haven't voted, yet; because I am concerned that government will use this to start removing unwanted people or expensive patients. I have no moral problem with letting suffering and dying patients have a painless death though. I don't want to have people killed out of convenience, and that is my concern. I admit to being a little paranoid, but I've seen governments do some very bad things and have seen bad things happen due to negligence or callousness. Here in the states for example we have an enormous federal government, and it so happens that sometimes veterans are not cared for properly as a result of that enormous size. Its easy for certain people to get lost and forgotten.

My second concern is that the healthcare industry could become interested in encouraging death for expensive patients. Dying people are expensive, and healthcare is a business.

There is something called biological testament.
If the person doesn't want to die by assisted suicide aka MAID, they will have to write it in their will, held by the Town Hall of residence.

 

[sun rise]

If the person doesn't want to die by assisted suicide aka MAID, they will have to write it in their will, held by the Town Hall of residence.

I've expressed my attitude which is different than my view of what the law should be. But this to me is backwards. Rather than kill the person unless they say no, it really must be the other way. My own personal choice was documented in a "health care directive" I executed a few months ago:

 

[Soandso]

For people against it, I recommend they read "Johnny Got His Gun"

Johnny Got His Gun - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Joe Bonham, a young American soldier serving in World War I, awakens in a hospital bed after being caught in the blast of an exploding artillery shell. He gradually realizes that he has lost his arms, legs, and all of his face (including his eyes, ears, nose, teeth, and tongue), but that his mind functions perfectly, leaving him a prisoner in his own body.

 

[sun rise]

For people against it, I recommend they read "Johnny Got His Gun"

Johnny Got His Gun - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Joe Bonham, a young American soldier serving in World War I, awakens in a hospital bed after being caught in the blast of an exploding artillery shell. He gradually realizes that he has lost his arms, legs, and all of his face (including his eyes, ears, nose, teeth, and tongue), but that his mind functions perfectly, leaving him a prisoner in his own body.

Stephen Hawking is a classic example of someone who continued to contribute until the very end when he died presumably due to ALS

 

[JIMMY12345]

Membership

Great post in view of major celebrities saying it should be allowed.No pain and as in the USA constitution none of these pesky busy bodies trying to rule other peoples lives.

 

[Echogem222]

Almost 8 years ago, Canada passed legislation that finally permitted doctors to assist people who, afflicted with terminal illness or unbearable medical issues, to die. There were strict rules (which have been relaxed a bit in the meantime).

To me, this made perfect sense. I have had pets put down (a cat suffering from cardiac failure, a dog with liver cancer). Although this saddened me, because I lost loved members of my family, I did it out of love for them -- to allow them to die comfortably and peacefully, without struggling on in pain.

Many people still believe, however, that this is wrong (or a "sin") when humans are involved. That even if Granny is in pain, it is wrong (for whatever reason) to grant he wish to seek help to die.

My question is this: over the past 8 years, has your attitude to MAID or euthanasia changed? Are you for or against?

8 years ago, I was 24 years old, and still a Christian, but after leaving Christianity behind, my views gradually changed over time, and now, since I adhere faith to Flawlessism, I understand the importance of accepting death as a positive aspect of life under certain conditions. Though honestly, to me at least, the teachings commonly taught of Christianity seems to contradict itself since anything that happens should be within God's plan, and God created death in the belief of Christianity, as well as teaches kindness, and Christian's don't take everything in the bible literally, so it would make reasonable sense that they would also accept death as correct under certain circumstances if they understood the Bible from a standpoint of critical thinking, not just accepting everything others have taught them of Christianity as being correct. The issue that I had is that I was discouraged from using critical thinking skills, to instead just focus on having faith, to trust God to lead me through prayer, preventing me from doubting others who taught me Christianity. But I should have realized that if prayer was all I needed, then there would be no need to learn anything about the bible after learning how to pray, as I would simply be granted perfect awareness of such things.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

I am for it. It's not anyone's right to prolong people's suffering against their will. Now I can only imagine that it would be a very difficult decision for a loved one to have to make, especially for something like a coma. Fortunately, that's what living wills are for, and no one should have a right to contest it, no matter how heart breaking it must be. They have been kind enough to make that decision for themselves, and not to leave family wondering about what the right decision is, so respect it.

Also, if it's considered cruelty to not grant our beloved fuzzy family members a peaceful death, why isn't it considered cruelty to people who legally consent?

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

My father, who is 92, is slowly dying in a Nursing home. He was an athlete all his life, so that makes it particularly painful to watch him waste away, confined to a bed, unable to stand, unable to move, unable to dress himself or attend to his toilet needs. It would be easier for my mum, and for me and my brother, if he slipped away quietly, sooner rather than later. And it would probably be easier for him, but he hasn't said so. My friend who is a hospice nurse, assures me that eventually he'll accept the end, and when he does, when he's ready to go, he'll die peacefully. She's seen a lot of people die, so I trust her judgement, and leave it all in the hands of God and nature. It's hard to watch though.

I haven't answered the OP because I don't have an answer. Not all questions have easy answers. But I would ask those advocating for assisted dying, would you be the one to actively administer the coup de grace? I'm not sure I could.

I'm sorry, that's gotta be really rough for him, you n your family.

As for being the one to deliver the coup de grace, that's what trained professionals are for. I mean, you wouldn't perform life saving surgery on someone if you weren't a surgeon. And you wouldn't shoot your pet if it was suffering from terminal disease, which is why you'd take it to a vet.

 

[Jagella]

Almost 8 years ago, Canada passed legislation that finally permitted doctors to assist people who, afflicted with terminal illness or unbearable medical issues, to die. There were strict rules (which have been relaxed a bit in the meantime).

To me, this made perfect sense. I have had pets put down (a cat suffering from cardiac failure, a dog with liver cancer). Although this saddened me, because I lost loved members of my family, I did it out of love for them -- to allow them to die comfortably and peacefully, without struggling on in pain.

Many people still believe, however, that this is wrong (or a "sin") when humans are involved. That even if Granny is in pain, it is wrong (for whatever reason) to grant he wish to seek help to die.

My question is this: over the past 8 years, has your attitude to MAID or euthanasia changed? Are you for or against?

I used to support euthanasia, but I've since changed my mind because now it appears to be a threat to the disabled. Although "the right to die" might sound like a nice idea, I've found that its supporters see it as an easy way to rid the world of unwanted and burdensome people. So instead of supporting the right to die it makes more sense to me to support people's right to live well and with dignity. There's no doubt that we can provide better healthcare and improve people's lives. It's just a question of doing so.

 

[Jagella]

My father, who is 92, is slowly dying in a Nursing home. He was an athlete all his life, so that makes it particularly painful to watch him waste away, confined to a bed, unable to stand, unable to move, unable to dress himself or attend to his toilet needs. It would be easier for my mum, and for me and my brother, if he slipped away quietly, sooner rather than later. And it would probably be easier for him, but he hasn't said so. My friend who is a hospice nurse, assures me that eventually he'll accept the end, and when he does, when he's ready to go, he'll die peacefully. She's seen a lot of people die, so I trust her judgement, and leave it all in the hands of God and nature. It's hard to watch though.

I haven't answered the OP because I don't have an answer. Not all questions have easy answers. But I would ask those advocating for assisted dying, would you be the one to actively administer the coup de grace? I'm not sure I could.

Nursing homes definitely need to be reformed. My Dad spent the last few years of his life in a nursing home and often complained about his treatment there. I don't know how the nursing home industry gets away with it. I suspect many people give up on the "residents" in nursing homes and just don't bother improving the conditions in them. I suspect that the support for euthanasia is related to nursing home abuse.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I used to support euthanasia, but I've since changed my mind because now it appears to be a threat to the disabled. Although "the right to die" might sound like a nice idea, I've found that its supporters see it as an easy way to rid the world of unwanted and burdensome people. So instead of supporting the right to die it makes more sense to me to support people's right to live well and with dignity. There's no doubt that we can provide better healthcare and improve people's lives. It's just a question of doing so.

You might have had a point if the right to "the right to die" also included "the right to kill those you think are too old or useless," but it doesn't. The consent of the person who seeks that right is the first and most important requirement.

The plain fact of the matter is, there are deaths that can't easily be improved - ALS (Lou Gehrig's) for example. When you are suffocating to death because you can't draw breath, pain killers aren't all that much use as palliative care.

 

[Brickjectivity]

My question is this: over the past 8 years, has your attitude to MAID or euthanasia changed? Are you for or against?

My objection is that decisionmaking in medicine often has to do with the cost of healthcare. In Canada it is your government healthcare system, and in the USA it is insurers. These parties are often found negligent, when they benefit financially from causing people problems.

More recently in the news United Healthcare was found negligent with people's data. Nobody punished it. That is only one of its wrongs though. The soul-less shares in charge are not punished in any way. The person that is the corporation does not even feel shame. The people in charge are encouraged to be cold and to feel like nothing is in their control to change. Not only that but this company continues to have many dangerous and negligent practices afterwards: such as not informing people when they owe money to a medical unit until months have passed. Bills sometimes go into debt collection before people even know that an insurable cost has come up! Cuts down on insurance claims you see. I would never want to have legal euthanasia in this situation. Never. United Health would find a way to make money off of it. It would smile and would convince everyone that it was looking out for their best interests, and then it would somehow either prevent or encourage innappropriate euthanasia. That is what the business is about. It is about fooling people. For all I can tell its not even for money and may just be entertainment. Just for pissing people off and watching the world burn. Euthanasia must not be made legal.

Lets say I'm an old man way over 80 years old. I am worthless to society, but maybe I want to live. Who is going to pay to keep me alive and comfortable? It will be either the government or an insurer. Where will they put me? In some dark hole whatever costs least, with people who hate their jobs probably. It might not be my doctor, my family, my loved ones who decide what care I need or deserve. It might be the government, the accountant, the shareholder. They already gouge me for every finger prick. They'll kill me. They'll get me to say that I'm in pain or something like that. No, it must not be legalized.

We have a famous patriot Benjamin Franklin in our history, and he advises "Never let your doctor be your heir." Perhaps this isn't precisely what he is talking about, however we are continually in debt to doctors and to health insurers. Giving them power to kill us is a scary prospect.

 

[Jagella]

You might have had a point if the right to "the right to die" also included "the right to kill those you think are too old or useless," but it doesn't.

I've read that voluntary euthanasia easily can and does become involuntary. It is naive to think that people will always obey the rules, of course. When it comes to issues of life and death, we need to be very careful what we believe.

The consent of the person who seeks that right is the first and most important requirement.

That sounds good on paper, but what happens in the real world? It seems to me that almost always the people seeking euthanasia don't want it for themselves but for somebody else. I say let people speak for themselves regarding the quality of their lives.

The plain fact of the matter is, there are deaths that can't easily be improved - ALS (Lou Gehrig's) for example. When you are suffocating to death because you can't draw breath, pain killers aren't all that much use as palliative care.

So I assume that you would give the green light to a person dying of ALS to commit suicide. Many people in many different situations might find life to be unbearable. Should we offer a "final exit" to all who want it?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I've read that voluntary euthanasia easily can and does become involuntary. It is naive to think that people will always obey the rules, of course. When it comes to issues of life and death, we need to be very careful what we believe.

When people don't follow the rules around life and death, that's called murder. Always has been, and there are laws in place to deal with that.

 

[VoidCat]

I think it depends entirely on indiviual circumstance whether I am for or against. With putting a pet down I think oftentimes folk choose it when it's not needed and there are treatment options. I can see if euthanasia was widely availible in the US no restrictions some would choose it just because they can't afford treatment which would be awful. Preventable death. So I agree if it's availible it should have rules. And affordable universal healthcare should be availible to all. And I think with how many cultures view disability it could easily turn into eugenics. It's especially messy when it's a choice made by a legal guardian not by the patient


I do not want to say what rules should be in place. I can't. Im sure smarter people got ideas. I just know if someone is terminal and will die a slow painful death I think it's ok to put them out their misery. I just know if i had a pet and we exhausted all treatment options(and i would try my hardest even if I go into debt trying to save them) I would put the pet down if they were to die a slow painful death.

 

[Whateverist]

For before, for now, for forever for all the reasons already given. Death is natural and unavoidable. Sometimes postponable but always there are tradeoffs. Someone must decide when the tradeoffs are no longer acceptable. Who better to do that than the person who must suffer them?

Like the OP I've had the responsibility to decide when to say when for my pet dogs. The first few, the vets literally balled me out for making them suffer so long before letting them go. Now I pride myself on sticking the landing. I want to let them go when there is no medical path back to health and they take no interest in anything. For a dog no interest in sniffing the ground or eating is a good indication they are through.

 

[Wandering Monk]

So we have to look at medical life-extension. It seems that in many cases we are prolonging often painful death rather than prolonging life. That is cruel.