Britanny Maynard

[KWT]

Evidently, in Oregon 99.9% of the people agree with those of us who are not in favor of assisted suicide..

Did you mean 99.9% of the religious right?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_D ... ignity_Act

Guess they should have voted.

[Laurettas]

Nope, Kenny, 99% of the people who died. I'm not positive but I think religious and non-religious people die.

[BrownBagger]

Maybe you guys should agree to disagree, i.e., knock it off, please.

[canadiandaughter]

Laurettas, why does it matter how many people use the right to suicide? The whole point is that SOME did make the choice to use it. Obviously it was not shoved down the throats of everyone like some here think will be the problem. It gives people an option. Does it hurt anyone that joe blow took his life instead of suffering? NO!! How I choose to die is MY CHOICE and I wish here in Canada, I had that choice. What I find very sad is it seems the ones most opposed to this are not the ones that are battling cancer and might possibly have this their reality some day. How do we as caregivers know how it really feels like to lay there dying of cancer? My argument is just that everyone should be allowed to decide for themselves how that happens. I am sure there are many laws that are passed that NOT everyone in the country decides to use. I have no problem with your strong faith, I have faith of my own, but I don't believe that god wants us all to suffer. Each to their own on faith, whatever keeps you strong and gets through the day, I will not judge you on that.

[NZJay]

I actually don't think Brittany Maynard would object to this thread. I mean, she took her story public to highlight the issue of euthanasia and bring discussion. I know in my country it's really got the talkback and media comments flowing - it's awesome! She's done a damn fine job of bringing this subject back into the spotlight.

In my country it's invigorated calls to revisit the Death with Dignity Bill, which was last before parliament in 2003, defeated by 59 - 58 votes (doh!). Interestingly, it was brought before parliament by politician Peter Brown, who was caregiver to his wife who died of cancer.

I think politics and ethics are tricky enough subjects without bringing religion into it.

My whole family are conservative christians so I know how it can roll. I recently had a chat with a lovely cousin, who is a doctor, about my intentions to exit on my own terms if that time came. She started talking about witnessing patients in a painful near-death state, and how beautiful it was to see, bathed in god's grace, the love they could offer those around them despite their own suffering. Her point was, if you "opt out" you miss out on these blessed final moments. It took me a while before I realised she viewed it as a weird sort of martyr scenario, where you attain a high level of spiritual calm through your extreme suffering.

That's cool, though. I told her if she ever ends up with a terminal illness she's more than welcome to suffer and strive for her spiritual ascendance. Personally I'd rather watch a good movie and eat a steak while listening to some sweet tunes, warn my loved ones to watch out for my ghost, and chuck back some pills with a nice single malt and go sleep-a-bye forever.

Hopefully cancer is bored of bothering me anyway, and I'll one day get to fulfill my dream of spending my final moments on this earth wrestling with a grizzly bear.

Keep up the good chatter, people! I'm enjoying the read.

[Lisahopes]

Laurettas, with the greatest of respect, I wish you would shut it.

You were a caregiver and should know when you are out of line. If I was stage 4 right now, I think I would have more choice words for your ridiculous and insensitive comments on this topic.

[robinkaye]

Laurettas, with the greatest of respect, I wish you would shut it.

You were a caregiver and should know when you are out of line. If I was stage 4 right now, I think I would have more choice words for your ridiculous and insensitive comments on this topic.

No one on this board has the corner on suffering, either they have suffered themselves, watched a loved one suffer or will in due time experience their own suffering. This is a subject that affects every single person ever born at some time in their life. To suggest that because someone is not stage 4 they don't have a right to an opinion about a subject that will potentially affect us all is absurd. Shutting down debate because you don't like an opinion that differs from yours is wrong.
Either choose not to debate or fight back with facts and opinion. The best way to counter words with which you disagree is with more words. I would venture to say that there are hundreds or thousands of subjects to which everyone has no direct knowledge or experience but still hold an opinion. I have had my beliefs changed over the years on many different things by listening to or engaging in debate. I've opened up more to this subject as a result of some of the things written here which has led me to go looking for information in other places. However, the few people on this board who choose to personally attack those with opinions that differ from theirs, make snide comments or tell another person to shut up don't help the cause.
I prefer to follow Votaire's philosophy when he says, "I disapprove of what you say but I'll defend to my death your right
to say it". The whole world would be a nicer place if people could learn to listen and respect the opinions of others even when they don't agree with your own. You either win, lose or find some middle ground until the next round. In a free society we all should have our voices heard, do you really want it any other way...or do we just choose to tell anyone who's opinions differ to shut up.

[KWT]

Maybe you guys should agree to disagree, i.e., knock it off, please.

It seems as good a time as any.

[jdepp]

I second everything in Canadiandaughter’s post above. Probably against my better judgment, I’ll try one last time. From the main opponent to death-with-dignity legislation, two arguments seem to be the most prominent.

1) Death-with-dignity legislation is terribly powerful. It has the dangerous potential to harm the fabric of American society, devalue human existence, and create the conditions for the elderly and the sick to be obligated to end their lives despite their wishes to go on living. The “right” will become “a responsibility” all across the country and we will all become “desensitized” to death if we are not careful! So we should fight against death-with-dginity legislation because everybody, or almost everybody, is affected by it.

2) Death-with-dignity legislation is terribly weak. The 17-year experience in Oregon shows that it is insignificant and hardly affects anybody. Despite all the public discussion only a tiny percentage of the population choose the option provided by the law. So we should fight against the legislation because nobody, or almost nobody, is affected by it.

Please notice that these arguments cannot coexist. They are in profound contradiction. It is impossible for a rational mind to hold both of them at the same time and not see the conflict. It does not seem ungenerous to suggest that anybody who pronounces them as if they were not in conflict is opposing death-with-dignity legislation on other grounds.

As to the question of whether the people of Oregon voted “with their actions” by not exercising their right to die in the manner of Brittany Maynard, that is so irrational it is hardly worth discussing. The people of Oregon voted for death with dignity by voting, and they voted for it. God bless them.

[Laurettas]

I assume that you are baiting me, jdepp? I will one final time respond to you. You seem to think that my reasoning is not sensible. Perhaps because you have not thought through the process that legalizing assisted suicide on a national level would entail.

1) Every medical school in the country would have to develop programs to train doctors on first accepting this as part of their treatment for patients, requiring for many a major shift in their thinking. They would have to be trained on how to deal with the cases of those taking self-administered drugs that fail to accomplish the goal. Between 15% and 20% of the people according to the history in the Netherlands. This, I assume, would basically involve the doctor actively euthanizing the person.

2) As well as doctors, pharmacists would also have to be trained to explain all of the ramifications of taking these drugs. This would include the very real possibility that these drugs could be sitting around in people's homes, open to the possibility of accidental ingestion by the wrong person or being given to someone not deemed appropriate to receive the drugs legally.

3) Physicians would, at some point need to mention suicide as an option for people nearing the end of their lives. The idea can be put into people's heads that would not have otherwise been there. This can be quite influential on a particularly vulnerable group of people. I have watched my parents as they have aged and often just because someone with some authority mentions something, they think that is what they HAVE to do.

4) Once this becomes widely accepted, it is inevitable that insurance companies will start denying expensive care for those at the end of their lives in favor of the less expensive option of suicide. We are a nation based on capitalism after all and this has had no small influence on our healthcare system, which is currently struggling to pay the costs of healthcare for everyone.

Something that is legal in just a few states has much less influence collectively than when something is legalized at a national level. And legalizing this in the US would have a profound effect on the world, due to our position in the world. So, yes, I have grave concerns about legalizing assisted suicide at a national level. I think we would be much better served to promote better palliative care so that we no longer hear about anyone dying in excessive pain. And teaching people that dignity has nothing to do with what an individual can do but everything to do with their capacity to be loved--which is everyone at every stage of life.

[jdepp]

I will one final time respond to you.

And I to you, and then we can stop, agreeing to disagree and letting the arguments speak for themselves. I do believe that you are confused about the issue. I believe that the closer a person gets to Brittany Maynard's actual situation, the more the right-to-die option makes sense. The further one is away from her circumstances, the more plausible the arguments against it seem to be. I find it telling that the stage-four patients are rarely the ones seeking to deny people like Brittany Maynard their right to choose. You seem to believe that one must "fly by the seat of one's pants" at the end of life, that nothing is predictable about it, but you also seem to be very sure that you will never find yourself in Brittany's position.

As to your objections 1-4, all of them and others were presented to the people of the state of Oregon before they voted on the death-with-dignity act. They judged that the benefits of the legislation were worth the risk, and none of the problems you identify has really materialized. Just the opposite. People are not ingesting the drugs by mistake, the elderly and sick have not proven so weak-minded as to ask for life-ending drugs just because an authority figure has mentioned that the option exists, etc. In short, the sky has not fallen, not in the least, and for the very few people who have desperately needed the option provided by the law -- people like Brittany who need it so much that they move their families from another state -- it has proven precious beyond words.

We may have a point of agreement that promoting good palliative care should be a priority in the country. As the baby boomers age and hospice continues to grow, I trust it will be. But we also have eloquent testimony -- cases like Pam, above, come to mind -- that sometimes palliative care, no matter how good, cannot be the answer.

Let us not forget the case that started this thread: Brittany Maynard. She gave hospice and palliative care the closest scrutiny she could, but her medical circumstances told her, in absolute terms, that it was the wrong answer for her. She found the right answer, in Oregon, and in pursuing it she inspired a lot of people to rethink their opposition to right-to-die legislation. Maybe one day she'll inspire you, too.

[andy21]

There are 3 choices here:

(a) Everyone has right and obligation to live (Means no assisted suicide allowed for anyone for whatsoever reason.)
(b) Death with Dignity( The middle ground where people who want to die, can die, people who want to live can live)
(c) Everyone has right and obligation to die(Means assisted suicide for all disabled, old, sick etc.)

So anyone with even a partial analytical mind can deduce that in both case(a) and case(c), someone’s own belief and rights are getting violated and can be equally cruel in practice. However, in case(b) both sides seem to have their own rights i.e. as CRGuy said Your rights END exactly where MINE begin, and MINE end where YOURS begin. There is no trampling on each other's rights.
So case (b) already seems the reasonable middle ground.

Now it seems to me that people in favor of case(a) want to take away rights from people in favor of case(b). But no one who favors case(b), wants to take rights away from people in favor of case(a) and push for case(c). So shouldn’t the two extremes of case(a) and case(c) compromise on middle ground case(b).

[NZJay]

There are 3 choices here:

(a) Everyone has right and obligation to live (Means no assisted suicide allowed for anyone for whatsoever reason.)
(b) Death with Dignity( The middle ground where people who want to die, can die, people who want to live can live)
(c) Everyone has right and obligation to die(Means assisted suicide for all disabled, old, sick etc.)

So anyone with even a partial analytical mind can deduce that in both case(a) and case(c), someone’s own belief and rights are getting violated and can be equally cruel in practice. However, in case(b) both sides seem to have their own rights i.e. as CRGuy said Your rights END exactly where MINE begin, and MINE end where YOURS begin. There is no trampling on each other's rights.
So case (b) already seems the reasonable middle ground.

Now it seems to me that people in favor of case(a) want to take away rights from people in favor of case(b). But no one who favors case(b), wants to take rights away from people in favor of case(a) and push for case(c). So shouldn’t the two extremes of case(a) and case(c) compromise on middle ground case(b).

I think we have a winner!
Very well presented, and 100% correct in my opinion.

Situation B is the rational conclusion, and I am confident enough in the law-makers that we will not see a spill-over into Situation C...

Which, it seems to me, is the main reported concern of proponents of Situation A. But why should we deny a humane right in lieu of a fear which many may consider irrational and baseless?

[Laurettas]

For this reason:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lling.html

[jdepp]

Sigh. I thought we were done, Laurettas.

Your article is from Theo Boer at the Protestant Theological University where he was appointed in 2001 as an Associate Professor of Christian ethics. You would probably try to argue that his change of heart regarding the "slippery slope" was based on rigorous analysis of the facts, but his publication history suggests otherwise. Not to put too fine a point on it, he's pushing the Christian agenda. Here are his latest three scholarly works:

2013
- Theo A. Boer, 'Palliative Sedation: An Exploration from a Christian Ethical Point of View', in: Currents of Encounter 38. Amsterdam/ New York: Rodopi 2013, 13 pp. (forthcoming)
- Theo Boer and Richard Fischer (eds.), Human Enhancement: Scientific, Ethical and Theological Aspects from a European Perspective. Brussels: Conference of European Churches, 2013 (302 pp.)
- Theo Boer and Cees Dekker, ‘I don't want comfort, I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger’, in: Theo Boer and Richard Fischer (eds.), Human Enhancement: Scientific, Ethical and Theological Aspects from a European Perspective. Brussels: Conference of European Churches, 2013, 33-55.

Can we stop now, Laurettas? I don't think we need another link to another Christian against euthanasia.