Should doctor-assisted suicide be legal?
I would most definitely choose it. I would let my family know we'd have our goodbyes and I am a Christian a lot of Christians do support this.
Here you have to have less than six months to live it's a medication you can get at the pharmacy I do not think there's a doctor interaction one. If i have less than six months to live and I was in constant agony or some disease and was choking all the time and my functions were shutting down
Answer to all wishes to end it all: self-injected heroin, enough for total pain relief and maximum euphoria. Is our society so narrowed minded that anything that may take someone's mind off "the Lord" contraband even by prescription? In total euphoria I would want to live as long as possible.
That's just a meaningless question. They're not supposed to find their next 'most valuable' move to be cessation. If they do so, they've miscalculated. And utility cancels out disutility, I'm not referring to the emotionally loaded version of 'useless' here, by useless I mean utility<=0.
The minimum age in Oregon is 18, and the person must be able to make responsible medical decisions for themself.
No worries, I posted my second comment at the same time you were posting your first.
Didn't want other reading my comment to think I'm ok with doctors assisting ppl who just feel like dying.
I agree with both your comments.
It's been legal in Oregon for a decade, and it has been very successful and had remarkably low criticism. Yes, it should remain legal.
The model for assisted suicide in the US is Oregon. You have to be 18 or older, have a terminal illness with less than 6 months to live, and make multiple requests for the drugs. It's not intended for people who are depressed or suicidal with no other illness.
Definitely - he should not be forced to break the hippocratic oath.
all I can say is, if I were a doctor, I wouldn't want to intentionally kill someone. not even if they asked me to.
And I'm tired of seeing all the comments about the doctors uncomfortable with it, 1) the patient can take the medication his or her self and 2) screw your moral issues there's a person in extremely serious pain, probably that of which you can't even imagine. This isn't about you!
It may be your device.
I use the free app Android speed booster.
If you have Android, that pretty much takes care of everything.
I left a written notice with next of kin and on my person that if I'm in such a situation (stroke that leaves me a vegetable?), do NOT listen to any pleas to kill me because I'm acting under duress.
IF you are allowed a choice, you should be allowed this one, too.
Keep your hands off me Kevorkians!
I would be fine with it remaining illegal. But if it does become legal, a doctor should be able to refuse and not be forced to kill someone.
Like every situation, this isn't black and white. It should be available but on a case to case basis, not everyone who wants one should be able to get one no matter their health, age, etc.,
When I think of this I think of really really old folks who are just in so much pain that nothing can be done and that is all they want, I realize they probably aren't the only ones who want it but when it comes to them they should be allowed that option
Because its the same country that is going to have drones spying on us.
So am I, many terminal illnesses make it impossible for the patient to do it themselves. So a doctor should be able to help. This also relates to my other comment about living wills and DNRs. Sorry of I took your comment out of context, I was specifically focusing on the very first sentence of your
How can we be called the land of the free if we're not allowed to make our own life or death decisions?
I'm speaking in cases of terminal illness and suffering not when the person is depressed or has a mental illness.
And besides, with doctor assisted suicide, the patient administers the medication, not the doctor.
So, you're actually believe you have the right to force another human being to do something they find morally objectionable?
The desire and ability can be very different with some illnesses.
It should be legal, if aged too/planned for (living will, etc). But in some states even a living will that indicates "no extreme measures" or a formal DNR is hard to enforce on the behalf of a sick individual.
If a person wants to die they will do it in any way they can, most times resulting in painful failed attempts. We put our dogs down when they're in pain and call it humane but we can't do the same for a person? And it's only b/c we're selfish, we don't want to get any blood on our hands so to speak.
--"useless", then how are they to move onto their "next most valuable move" if not with doctor's assistance if they are THAT debilitated?
Wait, so the person's right to escape excruciating pain is less important than the doctor's personal feelings? Doesn't sound like any hospital I've ever been to.
Someone choosing to end their suffering is not declaring themselves "useless". They are "declaring" that they wouldn't like to suffer through any pain any longer, regardless of whether or not they believe they would still have function remaining alive. And besides, if they have declared themselves--
The death penalty isn't relevant to this. But the death penalty is basically letting the criminal take the easy way out. Instead, why not lock them up for their whole life? It's a waste of money to do the death penalty, since it costs more because of the legal procedures required.
I don't. I'd rather they not declare themselves useless in the first place.
Well...of course we have the right to take our life. We have the "right" to do whatever we want. The thing is, though, is that, morally, we don't /want/ to take our own lives. There is a big difference between rights and things that are morally reprehensible.
My only problem with this comment is that is belittles the impact bullying can have on someone. Kids kill themselves every day because they're bullied relentlessly for their interests, sexuality, social status, etc.
I agree and I'm very pro- life but I don't want your religious beliefs or the courts forced on me. I've been with several dying elderly loved ones. When it's terminal anyway then please but out and let the family grieve without regrets. They did the right thing and it was hard enough without you.
EarlyBird- I was talking to Itabliss. I know you didn't call me names. ;)
What if the doctor doesn't want to do it? The govt is already forcing employers like Hobby Lobby to provide contraception and abortion coverage even if it violates their conscience.
How long before they force doctors to go against their conscience on this?
It's really bad for me. I try to post and it's taking a full 3 mins. ????????????????????
If someone decides they are ready to go, that is their decision. I believe some sort of therapy should definitely go on beforehand, but, in the end it should be up to the individual on what they do with themselves. It would more than likely happen, anyway, but just be painful/potential failure, etc.
Only in irreversible medical cases such as a terminal illness. Depression, absolutely not.
That is incredibly heartless. No human with someone on this Earth to love, or even remember them, can ever be declared useless. That aside, if a human truly is "useless", as you say, or, actually, immobile or in a vegetative state, how exactly do you expect them to euthanize themselves?
Nuggs - I didn't call you names, just trying to show you the other side of argument.
You want to leave this earth on your own schedule? Who am I to interfere?
This is simple economics. People only do what they consider to be the most valuable 'next move', we're all utility maximizers. If a man has decided that ceasing to exist on this planet is his most valuable next move, that's just him saying, in a nicer way, that he finds himself to be useless here.
@Brownskins I'm pretty sure nobody said "all". It isn't always necessary to say "some" or "a portion of" when making a statement. My statement was generalizing, yes. But, with this topic I think generalizing is fair. However, generalizing is not the same as saying "all". It's more like saying most.
I have also just made the mistake of labeling you as a Republican, which I apologize for. I need to read more carefully.
Fair enough, I will concede that my statement does not apply to all Republicans, indeed there are many who I find quite agreeable. Your party is however plagued with the same ailment as the Democratic Party, which is that the less desirable members can also be the loudest.
A law that makes it legal allows everybody to make their own decision. A law that makes it illegal does not allow people to make what is a private decision. I do not know what is best for you and your loved one; and you do not know what's best for me or my loved one.
Oh okay, like I said, just curious
What if I don't agree with you, do I still have to abide by what you think is right?
Soooo ryno must not support the death penalty, since that would make him a blatant hypocrite. Ryno???
That's your opinion. You can't make choices for others.