Why Do People Have To Fight For This?

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

A civilized society should not force people to suffer or fight not to.

This woman wanted to die before her illness killed her. She finally got her wish.

Martha Sepúlveda of Colombia, who had ALS, garnered international headlines when she sought euthanasia without an immediate terminal prognosis.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[SmCaudata]

Pro life people. They force you to born and force you stay alive but they refuse to help you with health care, food, shelter, or anything else for all the years in between.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Is Colombia more civilized than the United States?


The devout Roman Catholic died by euthanasia on Saturday morning in a clinic in Medellín, Colombia, in the company of her family.

Sepúlveda immediately fought back in the courts, and the judges agreed with her. “Forcing a person to prolong his existence for an indeterminate time, when he does not want to and suffers deep afflictions is equivalent to cruel and inhuman treatment,” the judge stated in his sentence.

 

[SmCaudata]

More civilized than the GOP? Probably.

 

[nickqt]

Pro life people. They force you to born and force you stay alive but they refuse to help you with health care, food, shelter, or anything else for all the years in between.

When you're a fascist, it makes perfect sense.

 

[blackangst1]

Im pro-life; however, I agree with assisted suicide. The only thing I really hate amongst pro-life people is support for the death penalty (which I abhor).

 

[DaaQ]

Is Colombia more civilized than the United States?


The devout Roman Catholic died by euthanasia on Saturday morning in a clinic in Medellín, Colombia, in the company of her family.

Sepúlveda immediately fought back in the courts, and the judges agreed with her. “Forcing a person to prolong his existence for an indeterminate time, when he does not want to and suffers deep afflictions is equivalent to cruel and inhuman treatment,” the judge stated in his sentence.

You do not remember Dr. Death? Kirk Kervorkian? (Spelling may be off) from Michigan.

EDIT: Yes he is in Prison or died there. I can't remember which.

 

[pmv]

I don't really know either way about this issue. Seem to be pitfalls either way.

 

[BD:)]

You do not remember Dr. Death? Kirk Kervorkian? (Spelling may be off) from Michigan.

EDIT: Yes he is in Prison or died there. I can't remember which.

It was Jack Kevorkian. He was charged with murder before I was born.

 

[DaaQ]

It was Jack Kevorkian. He was charged with murder before I was born.

Thanks, it was a long time ago for me, I remember the many trials before they imprisoned him.

 

[SmCaudata]

I don't really know either way about this issue. Seem to be pitfalls either way.

What are the pitfalls to letting someone with a terminal illness decode when to stop living?

Pros
1. Individual autonomy
2. Reduced health care (and social security) resources (good for society)
3. Reduced individual suffering.
4. People can plan their exit, allowing good byes.
5. People can keep their own money from going to hospitals and nursing homes, allowing them to pass it on to their children.

Cons
1. It's murky when dealing with mental illness
2. Religious people are offended because...


Basically, I truly can only think of the one Con. I'm willing to hear more.

 

[DaaQ]

What are the pitfalls to letting someone with a terminal illness decode when to stop living?

Pros
1. Individual autonomy
2. Reduced health care costs (good for society)
3. Reduced individual suffering.
4. People can plan their exit, allowing good byes.
5. People can keep their own money from going to hospitals and nursing homes, allowing them to pass it on to their children.

Cons
1. It's murky when dealing with mental illness
2. Religious people are offended because...


Basically, I truly can only think of the one Con. I'm willing to hear more.

John Engler was Governor of Michigan at the time I believe.

EDIT: It was 1999, and yes Engler was Governor. I remember they tried him many times before finally getting one to stick. He assisted 130 something suicides. Got released from prison for health reasons and died shortly after.

 

[SmCaudata]

John Engler was Governor of Michigan at the time I believe.

I don't follow what you are trying to point out.

 

[DaaQ]

He was a Republican Governor sitting at the time Kervorkian was finally convicted of murder.

EDIT: It took a bunch of corrupt politicians to finally put him in prison.

 

[pmv]

What are the pitfalls to letting someone with a terminal illness decode when to stop living?

Pros
1. Individual autonomy
2. Reduced health care (and social security) resources (good for society)
3. Reduced individual suffering.
4. People can plan their exit, allowing good byes.
5. People can keep their own money from going to hospitals and nursing homes, allowing them to pass it on to their children.

Cons
1. It's murky when dealing with mental illness
2. Religious people are offended because...


Basically, I truly can only think of the one Con. I'm willing to hear more.

Well the main 'con', it seems to me, is the difficulty in determining what is a completely free choice, sans any social or personal pressure.

To what degree is anybody completely free to make such a decision, without pressure, implicit or overt, from 'loved ones' who might have motivations of their own for wanting the person to make a choice one way or the other? (with varying-degrees of moral-soundness - i.e. ranging from "I can't bear to see you suffering like this" to "I want my inheritance, and I want it now!").

And then there are all the wider social issues that influence how much suffering someone who has a disabling, terminal illness might be facing. How far does society accomodate people in such situations, and when does it start to become expected that they should just make the choice to go, rather than impose such burdens on society (and the tax-payer)?

Just seems there's a danger of people being pushed, either by those immediately around them, or by a wider social attitudes, into 'not being a burden to others'. Comes down to the general issue of how far we have autonomy to make decisions, which seems a hard thing to decide in general to me. All these pressures can be internalized through socialization as well as explicitly created by others.

Also, it does seem _very_ murky when dealing with mental illness - at what point does mental illness begin, anyway? When would it be said to be due to 'depression'?

I don't even know how I'd feel about it in if I were in that position myself.

I'm a "don't know" on the topic. Historically people have been helped 'on their way', and then those who were involved faced a legal reckoning for it, and the judgement of juries often led to an acquittal.


Edit - I mean, you can argue there would be "safeguards" but there are "safeguards" for the use of the death penalty in the US criminal justice system, and in practice those don't seem to have been as infallible as advertised. Plus they would only really protect against the direct personal influence, not that of the wider social attitudes.

And there have been dodgy doctors and such like who have already shown how the unethical and sociopathic could take advantage of the possibilities legally-easily-accessible assisted suicide would create (e.g. Harold Shipman)

 

[SmCaudata]

He was a Republican Governor sitting at the time Kervorkian was finally convicted of murder.

EDIT: It took a bunch of corrupt politicians to finally put him in prison.

Yep. I thought you were saying that was a con with regards to right to die laws.

 

[SmCaudata]

Well the main 'con', it seems to me, is the difficulty in determining what is a completely free choice, sans any social or personal pressure.

To what degree is anybody completely free to make such a decision, without pressure, implicit or overt, from 'loved ones' who might have motivations of their own for wanting the person to make a choice one way or the other? (with varying-degrees of moral-soundness - i.e. ranging from "I can't bear to see you suffering like this" to "I want my inheritance, and I want it now!").

And then there are all the wider social issues that influence how much suffering someone who has a disabling, terminal illness might be facing. How far does society accomodate people in such situations, and when does it start to become expected that they should just make the choice to go, rather than impose such burdens on society (and the tax-payer)?

Just seems there's a danger of people being pushed, either by those immediately around them, or by a wider social attitudes, into 'not being a burden to others'. Comes down to the general issue of how far we have autonomy to make decisions, which seems a hard thing to decide in general to me. All these pressures can be internalized through socialization as well as explicitly created by others.

Also, it does seem _very_ murky when dealing with mental illness - at what point does mental illness begin, anyway? When would it be said to be due to 'depression'?

I don't even know how I'd feel about it in if I were in that position myself.

I'm a "don't know" on the topic. Historically people have been helped 'on their way', and then those who were involved faced a legal reckoning for it, and the judgement of juries often led to an acquittal.


Edit - I mean, you can argue there would be "safeguards" but there are "safeguards" for the use of the death penalty in the US criminal justice system, and in practice those don't seem to have been as infallible as advertised. Plus they would only really protect against the direct personal influence, not that of the wider social attitudes.

And there have been dodgy doctors and such like who have already shown how the unethical and sociopathic could take advantage of the possibilities legally-easily-accessible assisted suicide would create (e.g. Harold Shipman)

If someone is depressed due to a terminal illness, it likely doesn't meet criteria for clinical depression provided the mood is reasonable given the stressor. It's not too hard to decide clinically. Basically, if I'm in pain, dependent on others, and dying, I SHOULD be depressed. That's not a mental illness.

Even people that are clinical depressed. Say you want to die due to depression every minute of every day. You tried every medication and treatment available including TMS, ECT, vagal nerve stim. Why should you be forced to live that way for another 30 or 40 years?

If I had a major spinal cord injury and was in and out of the hospital, dependent on someone else to help me bathe, toilet, and eat, I may not want to go on. Or, I may be like Christopher Reeve and champion causes. It's crazy to think that society should step in either way.

Privided people are of sound mind, they should be allowed to decide what they want to do.

 

[pmv]

If someone is depressed due to a terminal illness, it likely doesn't meet criteria for clinical depression provided the mood is reasonable given the stressor. It's not too hard to decide clinically. Basically, if I'm in pain, dependent on others, and dying, I SHOULD be depressed. That's not a mental illness.

Well, we're all in pain, dependent on others, and (in a very long-term sense) dying. Nobody is entirely autonomous, so it's a continuum.

Even people that are clinical depressed. Say you want to die due to depression every minute of every day. You tried every medication and treatment available including TMS, ECT, vagal nerve stim. Why should you be forced to live that way for another 30 or 40 years?

If I had a major spinal cord injury and was in and out of the hospital, dependent on someone else to help me bathe, toilet, and eat, I may not want to go on. Or, I may be like Christopher Reeve and champion causes. It's crazy to think that society should step in either way.

But society always steps in, one way or another, there's no escape from it. We're products of it, our lives are entirely shaped by it.


While I certainly find it easy to be turned off by the Catholic 'every sperm is sacred' world-view (and I've seen the Catholic pro-life stance mocked as wanting more souls to ensure a steady-stream of potential victims for abuse by priests), it does seem to me that the opposite dystopia, a Brave New World of Soma and suicide booths, is equally present lurking at the other extreme.

I can read about a case of someone in horrible pain fighting for the right to die and feel one reaction, then read about, say, Harold Shipman, and think the opposite (he - the worst serial killer of modern times, surprisingly, British rather than American - wasn't explicitly a Dr Kervorkian "mercy killer", but he was a doctor who killed the elderly and chronically-ill, for the sheer power of it, and in fact only got caught when he branched-out into trying to gain financially from his crimes by forging a will).

So I end up as a "don't know" as long as I'm not being forced to decide at gunpoint. Maybe some moral/social dilemmas don't have solutions in this world?