Why Disability Advocates Say No to Doctor-Assisted Death

[KamaAina]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/20/why-disability-advocates-say-no-to-doctor-assisted-death.html

Public opinion is quickly propelling toward White’s favor, especially since over 11 million people watched Brittany Maynard’s video arguing for her right to die. Maynard passed away in Oregon last October, surrounded by her loved ones. Lawmakers in New York, inspired by Maynard, have recently introduced a bill that would legalize physician-assisted death. Seventy-four percent of the country is now in favor of physician-assisted death, while only 14 percent remain opposed.

The resistance to the legalization of physician-assisted death often seems to originate from religious zeal that, cruelly, would have people suffer rather than violate a divine edict not to kill. Assisted death’s supporters, then, are the forces of compassion, dignity, rationality, and secularity. In many articles on the topic, such as this one, the only opposition to assisted death mentioned is religious opposition. However, many disability-rights advocates are extremely concerned about the increasing societal approval of assisted death, and oppose it for entirely secular reasons.

Samantha Crane is the director of public policy at the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network. Crane recently lost her grandmother, who had Alzheimer’s disease. While Crane mourns her loss, she doesn’t view her grandmother’s final days as a tragic decline or a fall from the dignity of her earlier days. “She didn’t remember a lot of things, but every day she woke up, she was happy,” Crane told me. “She was dignified. I want to reclaim the term ‘dignity.’”

The Autistic Self-Advocacy Network is one of several disability-rights organizations that opposes legal physician-assisted death.

Disclaimer: I am the local contact person for ASAN.

[Maedhros]

1. I think the decision to end one's life is a personal one,

much like the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Too many ways to abuse that. Caretakers who are simply tired

of the expense and burden, for example.

[KamaAina]

4. You got it!

[rexcat]

8. And your post is based on...

what has happened in Oregon, The Netherlands or just an opinion that has no basis in fact? By the way, this has not happened in Oregon or The Netherlands where physician assisted death is legal.

[loyalsister]

12. Sorry to interject but this:

Disability Advocates Alarmed By Parents Who Kill

http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2012/03/27/disability-advocates-parents-kill/15248/

And if you doubt this happens:

Caregiver held in death of disabled St. Louis County man

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/caregiver-held-in-death-of-disabled-st-louis-county-man/article_ffee4f5e-e324-5927-b75d-e384f8827653.html

Father of disabled boy killed by caregiver campaigning for justice - See more at:

http://www.irondequoitpost.com/article/20140925/News/140929694

Below is the list of the names of some of the people with disabilities murdered by caregivers that we are remembering this year.

https://sites.google.com/site/pwddayofmourning2014/the-list

[rexcat]

15. What you linked...

had to do with illegal killings. What is the incident rate of people killing those who have become a "burden." With the proper safeguards as seen in Oregon and The Netherlands killing someone because they become a "burden" would be off the table. Four links does not prove your point and would only be considered anecdotal. I have asked for peer reviewed article in a legitimate journal related to the issue. Your lack of understanding of facts vs. opinions is telling.

[loyalsister]

19. If people are willing to kill when it's illegal

are there really enough safeguards to protect people? When these events surface people sympathize with murderers. Why would laws that make it legal to assist suicide do anything but encourage impulses to kill people who they (and sympathizers) view as a burden? Especially when they are charged with making medical decisions for them.

[rexcat]

140. I disagree completely with you

and considering the safeguards in place in Oregon this has not happened there. You will always find people who will do harm to others but they are a small minority. Your cynicism clouds your ability to lol at this issue in a rational way.

[pnwmom]

24. Which of these cases happened in a state with legal assisted suicide?

Do you know how difficult it is to comply with all the rules? One elderly relative, who was in the terminal stages of cancer, tried and failed to get a doctor to assist her. And then it was too late -- she'd lost the ability to complete the screening process. She ended up spending three additional weeks dying. It wasn't very dignified, unless you think it's dignified to live in a body that's rotting away, bit by bit. (Feet first).

As with abortion, I think people should be able to decide for themselves. The screening process would weed out cases of care-giver burnout. No doctor will do this unless they have a strong and consistent request by the patient.

[loyalsister]

32. What we are talking about is way different from abortion

We're talking about existing people. I know that the experiences of many people allows them to make the judgement of what is dignified, but I don't think there is an objective construct for that.
I agree that it is a personal decision. The problem is that it is not possible to draw a clear enough line between murder and assisted suicide for me to feel satisfied that there is not potential for serious unintended consequences.

[pnwmom]

36. It isn't murder when the person who asks for the assistance is terminally ill, competent,

and can actively participate in the process.

There is a serious unintended consequence of your position, too: needless suffering. And I know my relative suffered in her last months, even with the pain meds she was on. And she also suffered emotionally, knowing the prolonged and painful death she was facing.

[F4lconF16]

158. I disagree completely.

This is very like abortion in the sense of our bodily autonomy. It is my body; my right to have an abortion; my right to choose if I want to be alive or dead. Period. No single thing is more integral to my being than my decision to continue living, and as such, it is my right to make that decision.

One could also make parallels to the large number of failed or harmful abortions when abortion is outlawed. When doctor assisted suicide is not an option, what are people going to do when they come to that point? Though there may not be as many people as with abortion, there will be enough who try and fail, and there will be those that manage, but die slowly and painfully. That alone should make you support it.

The problem is that it is not possible to draw a clear enough line between murder and assisted suicide for me to feel satisfied that there is not potential for serious unintended consequences.

Again, I disagree. Go look at Oregon's laws: they are clear and leave little room for error. To condemn hundreds, if not thousands, to a slow and painful death over the worry that someone might do something is not okay in my book.

[loyalsister]

161. And yet

Apparently, there are quite a few people who are motivated to support this because of what might happen.

In Oregon, where physician-assisted death is legal, surveys of people who partook of the option showed that while only 28 percent cited pain as a reason for choosing to die, 93 percent cited loss of autonomy. Just about half cited fear of being a burden on others. This suggests that it may not be presently experienced pain that’s motivating people, but imagined future disability.

“As a culture, are ingrained with idea that disability truly tragic, horrible thing,” said Crane. “We can lead quality lives even when having support and assistance with bathing, if we are showing people that they are still valued and respected.”

I have experience with both abortion and disability. One case is a matter of not being required to serve as an incubator in the other instance, the support is based on a disdain for living the experience of me and many of my friends. Institutionalizing that sentiment solidifies and legitimizes the disregard for the lives we actually live and value.

[jwirr]

27. Thank you. In my own experience I was a social worker for a young disabled woman who lived

with her sister. The older sister was diagnosed with a terminal disease and she did not think that anyone would be there to take care of her sister after she died. So she shot her sister to death. Totally unnecessary and sad. This is what we are afraid of.

I have no problem with a individual in good mental health making these decisions for themselves but not for someone else.

I also have no problem with using a DNR that would be effective in the case of terminal illness in a living will. One of the cases I remember needed a living will and could not make her own. The court allowed a committee of her friends, distant family and caregivers and others who cared about her to create a living will that was then presented to the court for approval.

This is a touchy subject for any person who is disabled because they understand that they are often seen as useless to the society. They (especially their parents like me) are scared that with the hate climate we live in this will go to far.

[pnwmom]

37. But it isn't assisted-suicide to make the decision for someone else. That's completely different

and not allowed by any state law that I'm aware of.

My elderly relative with terminal cancer tried and failed to find doctors willing to help her die. She was in a state where it was legal, but there are high hurdles involved, and one of them is finding two doctors who are willing to get involved.

[bobclark86]

65. You honestly have no friggin' clue how it works, do you?

In Oregon, the person who is to die has to request it -- no third-party requests.

Assholes are always going to kill people over inheritance and "being a burden." That has NOTHING to do with physician-assisted suicide.

[loyalsister]

96. Does a physician have to be present?

Do you deny the possibility odds that people who are considered burdens will be talked into it? What number are you willing to accept as a negligible risk?

[bobclark86]

139. Please show where that has actually happened.

The law in Oregon is more than a decade old. I'm sure there's thousands of cases to back you up.

Oh, wait.

[bbgrunt]

109. with physician-assisted suicide available,

those who are disabled will eventually feel added social pressure of disapproval. While I believe that people ought to be able to die with dignity and on their own terms, I also believe that wide spread acceptance of such a reality will add depressive, unworthy self doubts to people who have disabilities.

It may not happen immediately, but it is a path that opens up the question. The mood of today's political right wingers is already to do away with as many "useless" people as possible: get rid of welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, pensions, food-stamps, decrease vet benefits, etc. etc. Right now it's a free-for-all to see if some can survive amid the chaos of turning a society with a once strong middle class into economic slaves . Do you really doubt that assisted suicide would not be transformed by these nazi forces into euthanasia for the "unworthy"? Wake up. It's already happening.

[ND-Dem]

113. Yes, it's already happening; and it was this step by step process of allowing euthanasia of

one group of 'useless eaters' after another (all with some legal safeguards to make it look nicer, of course) that led to the holocaust.

My aunt was on hospice and they killed her by withholding hydration. It wasn't part of their protocol, but that's what they did. And they got very pissy when family members gave hydration.

[bobclark86]

138. And abortion leads to eugenics, Dr. Godwin. n/t

[ND-Dem]

53. +100. and to me it's very worrisome that the push for assisted suicide is coincident with

the retirement of the boomers and the push for austerity and reduced government spending.

"personal" decisions are never simply personal; they always occur within a context, and the context can mean a 180 degree difference in the decision.

[bobclark86]

68. Well, unless the NY law were to allow third-party suicides,

then that's not an issue. In Oregon, you need 1) a patient to make the decision, 2) several witnesses to confirm it was of the patient's free will with no "duress, fraud or undue influence," 3) a doctor to agree the patient has less than six months to live, and 4) a consulting doctor to agree with the first doctor.

[TwilightGardener]

70. I'm just talking about issues with the disabled, specifically.

Not about people who are terminally ill and of sound mind. The article references those with Alzheimer's, and you can see how assisted suicide involving those patients could be unethical. "Mom wouldn't have wanted to live this way" and that sort of thing. I'm not necessarily opposed to anyone freely and knowingly choosing to die, otherwise.

[bobclark86]

73. Well, since it's illegal under the laws that currently exist...

then your argument is moot.

The article references those with Alzheimer's, and you can see how assisted suicide involving those patients could be unethical.

The article is setting up a strawman. Don't fall for it.

"Mom wouldn't have wanted to live this way" isn't a valid request under the current laws.

"I don't want to live for the next two months my doctor said I will live in agonizing pain" is a valid way to get things rolling under current laws.

[Humanist_Activist]

75. So basically it has nothing to do with current or proposed death with dignity laws, but is rather...

a distraction, a way to spread FUD for no reason.

[laundry_queen]

97. Yep. That's how I see it. nt

[napi21]

133. That's not beern the result in Oregon.

In fact, it's mostly the opposite. In several cases, the patient was provided the "cocktail" and kept it on the nightstand. It was a stress easing remedy. The patient knew it was there IF and when it was wanted, and that knowledge took away a lot of the fear associated with the "unknown amount of pain" that comes with terminal illness. Each day, they would wake up and say "This isn't REAL BAD. I can handle it for now." some of those patients died naturally without the use of the medication. Others did finally utilize the meds, but only after the pain became unbearable.

I believe it should be an individual decision between the patient, their doctors, and their family. The laws should stay out of it.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. I strongly reject this thinking and the dishonest portrayal of Death With Dignity Laws

The implication that this decision could be made by an Alzheimer's patient is utterly false and no one else can make that decision for you. The laws apply only to people who are both in final stages of terminal illness and are of sound mind. The notion that it applies to people with dementia or Autism is dishonest and it is a terrific accusation to level. 'Others should suffer in their final days because of a bunch of bullshit I made up' is simply reckless nonsense.
The text of Oregon's Death With Dignity Law can be read at the link
http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/ors.aspx

[tazkcmo]

5. Thank you! n/t

[KamaAina]

6. I just heard a radio program on the issue

Last edited Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:42 PM - Edit history (1)

The opponent of assisted suicide mentioned "palliative sedation" as an alternative. So she clearly does not believe that 'others should suffer in their final days'.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Did she mention why it's her business? Because it's not. And do you care to address any points

I brought up or anything in the text of the Oregon law or any of the materials and data at the website about our law? Very transparent, lots of information, none of which is some lady telling me what I need to do because her grandmother had Alzheimer's. My mother had it, it is far more than forgetting a few things and it robs one of dignity and then it kills you. Everything this person says is bullshit.
She wants others to suffer in their final days. Couch it as you wish, she wants others do do as she wishes, for no good reason at all and to obtain this vicious objective she engages in a bunch of horseshit rhetoric that simply has no foundation in reality.

[REP]

17. This ^^^^^

[LiberalAndProud]

64. Palliative sedation.

How about a medically induced coma? No, thank you very much.

There is some pain so excruciating, even morphine won't reach.

[KamaAina]

128. Medically induced comas are often used for people with brain injuries.

Just sayin'.

[uppityperson]

14. Thank you and exactly. There are specific regulations, steps, qualifications in WA's law

also. It is not simply asking for drugs to die or to help someone else did. One of the problems with Alzheimer's is that by the time your body would typically qualify, often the intellect is gone. I am dealing with a parent with it now who would be appalled at how they are now and desiring death with dignity instead, but they are not of sound mind so we are playing it out, against said parent's desires expressed in past.

The parent is not happy, in no way dignified. Some are, mine is not. I wish my patent was, but is not. But it doesn't matter because the sound mind clause is not met.

[REP]

16. Thank you.

So tired of so-called advocates telling me how my life should end.

It is especially ridiculous for autism advocates to do so, as autism isn't a disease.

[jwirr]

28. I understand what you are saying. And yes Oregon's law provides protection for the individual. Are

you so sure that would be the case on all states?

At the time that Terri Shiavo was in the news regarding letting her die there was a baby boy in Texas that was taken off life supports because it cost too much. That is what we are afraid of.

[KMOD]

31. The Sun Hudson case was sad.

The baby was born with a terminal condition, congenital dwarfism. He was never able to breathe on his own from the moment he was born. His lungs would never develop and he would never be able to breathe without assistance. Sun's mother was not mentally capable of making medical decisions for her baby. She believed the Sun, was his father.

While I am completely against the State making life of death medical decisions, when the mental competence of the parent is impaired, someone needs to make a rational decision. At some point, baby Sun was going to pass. It wasn't a matter of if, but when.

[jwirr]

35. Oh I actually think there was reasons not to have placed him on life supports. But at the time I

remember that the reason given was the costs. That is a very scary decision. Where are we going to draw the line? How much money is too much to spend on a patient? There is reason for disabled persons to be afraid of these decisions.

[KMOD]

39. There were a couple stories that used cost as a narrative,

but that really had little to do with the decision.

Under Texas law, when there is a dispute about continuing life support between a family and the doctors, it goes to an ethics committee. If the ethics committee agrees that life support is futile and should be discontinued, the family is given 10 days to find another facility to take their loved one. In Sun's case, the hospital extended the 10 day limit and actually gave Ms. Hudson several weeks. The hospital pays for the costs of transfer if a facility is found. She was unable to find another facility to treat he baby.

Because she was unable to find a facility to take her baby in the above timeframe, the costs of transfer are now her responsibility. So yes, if she were rich, I'm sure she could persuade some facility to take her child, heck, even Jahi McMath's family have had financial help in keeping her preserved artificially.

Keep in mind though, that the hospital was very aware and concerned about Ms. Hudson's mental state. She was under psychiatric care for a few days after giving birth to Sun, and was clearly mentally incompetent. The hospital paid for her legal fees as she fought them, and I'm pretty sure she had a highly qualified attorney. The hospital was also paying for Sun's care as she fought them in the courts.

This decision was made for Sun, by the state, because his mother could not make a competent decision. Obviously baby Sun did not have a living will or health care directives. That should be the main point here.

Most of these cases never make it to judicial decisions, because the family usually accepts the condition eventually, or the patient dies.

Baby Sun was not merely disabled. He had a fatal condition and it's shocking that he even survived to even be born. He may never have even been conscious. And he may never have even had the necessary brain function to breathe.

[jwirr]

41. Interesting to hear the other side of this. Thank you. Those who put this down to purely economic

reasons obviously did not know the whole story. As I have said before - I support the idea of a committee and a court approved action.

[ND-Dem]

58. Action T4

... Under the programme physicians were directed to judge patients "incurably sick, by critical medical examination," and then administer to these patients a "mercy death" (German: Gnadentod).[3]

In October 1939 Hitler signed a "euthanasia decree" backdated to 1 September 1939 that authorized Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler, and Karl Brandt, to carry out the programme of euthanasia (translated into English as follows):

"Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. med. Brandt are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the competence of certain physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen], are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death [Gnadentod] after a discerning diagnosis. — Adolf Hitler [4][5]"

This precedent was used to establish a programme of killing children with severe disabilities; the 'guardian' consent element soon disappeared. From August 1939, the Interior Ministry began registering children with disabilities, requiring doctors and midwives to report all cases of newborns with severe disabilities....The reports were assessed by a panel of medical experts...

Brandt and Bouhler soon developed plans to expand the programme of euthanasia to adults...The idea of killing "useless" mental patients soon spread from occupied Poland to adjoining areas of Germany...The official programme for killing adults with mental or physical disabilities began with a letter from Hitler... The letter charged Bouhler and Brandt with "enlarging the authority of certain physicians, to be designated by name, in such a manner that persons who, according to human judgement, are incurable, can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death...

In early October all hospitals, nursing homes, old-age homes, sanatoria were required to report all patients who had been institutionalised for five years or more, who had been committed as "criminally insane", who were of "non-Aryan race", or who had been diagnosed with any of a list of specified conditions....

In early October all hospitals, nursing homes, old-age homes, sanatoria were required to report all patients who had been institutionalised for five years or more, who had been committed as "criminally insane", who were of "non-Aryan race", or who had been diagnosed with any of a list of specified conditions....

The first gassings took place at Brandenburg Euthanasia Centre in January 1940...

Patients were transferred from their institutions to the killing centres in buses, called the Community Patients Transports Service, operated by teams of SS men wearing white coats, to give an air of medical care...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4




All warm and fuzzy.

[jwirr]

99. Yes, I am very aware that this happened. When I say a committee - I was talking about the kind of

committee that was used in one of my cases. People who knew and cared for the woman. People from her own community and in some cases actual persons who loved her There is NO completely safe way to do this with disabled persons who cannot talk for themselves and do not have a family guardian to speak for them. That is the only time that a committee such as I suggest should be used.

Since you seem to think the idea of a committee is wrong I would like to know what you would suggest. The patient is not able to make the decisions, is terminal and is visibly suffering. What is your answer.

Keep in mind that as the oldest child I made this decision for both of my parents and recently for my brother who was dying after a motorcycle accident. Take the life supports off and let them go.

One of the things I think makes today different than 1939 is that many of these people are no longer confined in institutions way out on the edge of town - hidden and forgotten. Most are now living in the community and very visible. In these communities there are people who care for them. People like me and other parents.

[ND-Dem]

57. Oh, no reason to be afraid. The laws make it certain that nothng bad will ever be done

against a person's wishes, because we live in a perfect society and there's no historical precedent, none at all, for such a thing happening.

That these laws are being passed in a time of austerity, aging, poverty and disability is just coincidental.

"It's an individual right!!! None of your business!!" says the libertarian faction. Libertarian democrats aren't much different than libertarian republicans in my book.

[KMOD]

131. hyperbole

If you wish to point political fingers, you sound an awful lot like Bill Frist, I will say.

This is not a political divide. It's between people who have seen end of life suffering, and those who have not.

Oregon has had this law on the books for years, and no one, no one, has been forced to partake. In fact, most of the terminally ill in Oregon who have even qualified have chosen not to end their own lives. They did however appreciate the option that they could, if need be.

Death with Dignity is about compassion, not killing.

[ND-Dem]

132. you don't seem to know the difference between hyperbole and sarcasm.

no, no, I'm pushing 70 but have lived on a cloud all my life, unlike every other living being I've never seen any end of life suffering at all.

only you have seen it. unique and special you.


Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls

Euthanasia or assisted suicide—and sometimes both—have been legalized in a small number of countries and states. In all jurisdictions, laws and safeguards were put in place to prevent abuse and misuse of these practices. Prevention measures have included, among others, explicit consent by the person requesting euthanasia, mandatory reporting of all cases, administration only by physicians (with the exception of Switzerland), and consultation by a second physician.

The present paper provides evidence that these laws and safeguards are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions and that transgressions are not prosecuted. For example, about 900 people annually are administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent, and in one jurisdiction, almost 50% of cases of euthanasia are not reported.

Increased tolerance of transgressions in societies with such laws represents a social “slippery slope,” as do changes to the laws and criteria that followed legalization. Although the initial intent was to limit euthanasia and assisted suicide to a last-resort option for a very small number of terminally ill people, some jurisdictions now extend the practice to newborns, children, and people with dementia. A terminal illness is no longer a prerequisite.

In the Netherlands, euthanasia for anyone over the age of 70 who is “tired of living” is now being considered. Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide therefore places many people at risk, affects the values of society over time, and does not provide controls and safeguards.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/?report=reader

[KMOD]

134. Yes, I understand that some countries have taken this way to far,

That has not happened here, in the USA. It has been on the books in Oregon for over a decade, and there is no slippery slope there.

[ND-Dem]

135. how would we know?

“We are not given the resources to investigate (assisted-suicide cases) and not only do we not have the resources to do it, but we do not have any legal authority to insert ourselves.”[1]

-Dr. Katrina Hedberg, Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS)

Under Oregon’s lax oversight, these are some of the documented abuses and complications that have come to light:

◾Kate Cheney,[2] 85, died of assisted suicide under Oregon’s law even though she had early dementia. Her personal physician declined to provide the lethal prescription. Her managed-care provider found another physician to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs. When counseling to determine her capacity was sought, a psychiatrist concluded that she was not eligible for assisted suicide since she was not explicitly seeking it, and her daughter seemed to be coaching her to do so. Nevertheless, Kate Cheney soon received and used the lethal drugs...

◾Wendy Melcher[10] died in August 2005 after two Oregon nurses, Rebecca Cain and Diana Corson, gave her overdoses of morphine and phenobarbital. They claimed Melcher had requested an assisted suicide, but they administered the drugs without her doctor’s knowledge in clear violation of Oregon’s law. No criminal charges have been filed against the two nurses. The case prompted one newspaper to write, “If nurses—or anyone else—are willing to go outside the law, then all the protections built into (Oregon’s) Death with Dignity Act are for naught.”[11]

◾Annie O. Jones, John Avery and three other patients were killed from an illegal overdose of medication given to them by a nurse, and none of these cases have been prosecuted in Oregon...
[12]

http://dredf.org/public-policy/assisted-suicide/some-oregon-assisted-suicide-abuses-and-complications

/

[KMOD]

136. I'll address this later,

I simply do not have the patience right now.

[KMOD]

147. OK, first off, this is a link

to a biased site. I'm sure you know that.

As usual there are two sides to every story. I looked into a few of these cases. Have you, or did you just read these brief descriptions. If there is one in particular that you would like to discuss, I'm open to it.

I will say that the Wendy Melcher case does not seem to involve the Death with Dignity law at all. These were nurses who acted on their own.

[ND-Dem]

148. A 'biased' site? So a 'non-biased' site would advocate what? $2 an hour for the disabled?

The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), founded in 1979, is a leading national civil rights law and policy center directed by individuals with disabilities and parents who have children with disabilities...

Our Mission

To advance the civil and human rights of people with disabilities through legal advocacy, training, education, and public policy and legislative development.

Our Vision

A just world where all people, with and without disabilities, live full and independent lives free of discrimination.

http://dredf.org/about-us/

[KMOD]

149. Is there a particular case listed there that you wish to discuss?

Or are you just reading their brief summaries?

I can understand their is concern, but no one with a disability has been forced to kill themselves under Oregon's law.

[ND-Dem]

150. Do you want to answer my question about what constitutes 'bias' in your book?

Then you can tell me how you know, since there's no requirement for any witness to one's suicide in the law.

[KMOD]

152. Sure.

In this case, one-sided.

Do you really believe their are disabled people being killed in Oregon, and are successfully being hidden from anyone finding out?

Why should the law require a witness? It's personal.

[ND-Dem]

156. The site belongs to a reputable, long-standing disability advocacy group, not some crazy radicals.

I think the reason for witnesses is obvious, though also has problems.

I think it's quite possible for people to be coerced into killing themselves.

[NutmegYankee]

69. Thank You!

The opposition to death with dignity is just plain evil.

[Kalidurga]

7. Have there been any recent cases that point to assisted suicide being abused?

By abused I mean a person being pressured to getting assisted suicide or a person who is mentally unable to make an informed choice ends up being assisted murdered by proxy?

[KamaAina]

9. The guest on the radio show mentioned the name of one

but I forgot it.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. I offered a link to the text of the Oregon law and data about the entire history of the use of the

Death With Dignity Act. Such abuses would be virtually impossible and fairly pointless as only very end stage terminal patients found to be of sound mind qualify. Are people often murdered during the hospice stage of their terminal illness do you think?

[Takket]

13. .

“She didn’t remember a lot of things, but every day she woke up, she was happy,” Crane told me. “She was dignified. I want to reclaim the term ‘dignity.’”

I fail to see how the legalization of assisted suicide takes any dignity away from her grandmother. As already mentioned in this thread no one can force that decision on someone that can't make the decision for themselves.

[REP]

18. Samantha Crane can go fuck herself

I saw my father die a miserable death because of assholes like her. There is no dignity in suffering.

I am disabled. I have a disease that will kill me after making me suffer. I don't need "advocates" like Crane "helping" me.

[CountAllVotes]

55. +1

When I decide my time is up, I hope I can find help getting the deed done promptly and without issue. I wish you the same.

[Feron]

20. I'm autistic and support doctor-assisted death

I like Oregon's law and I think that is a good model to go by. No law will be perfect and I think theirs is really good.

While palliative care should be a priority, ultimately it is up to the person to decide his or her own fate.

My grandmother had dementia. I watched an independent spitfire of a woman devolve into a frightened shell of what she had been before the disease.

It was sad because she knew she was losing her memory and there were scraps of paper everywhere with the names of her kids, where she had lived, where she had gone on vacation, etc. My grandmother also thought that people were breaking into her house and kept a cache of weapons under her bed and around the house to defend against the figments of her mind. Thankfully she didn't own a gun.

This was about the mid-stage of dementia when we put her into a home. And what the article doesn't mention is that even in a good nursing home you have to be on top of her care all the time. And living with a family member wasn't an option.

If I'm unfortunate enough to get it or some other terminal disease, I want the option to go out like Brittany Maynard even if I ultimately choose not to use it.

Honestly pushing for palliative care, better assistance for disabled people, and caregiver assistance would do the most to help.

The anti-choice attitude of Not Dead Yet and ASAN is paternalistic and patronizing to the people they claim to represent. They certainly don't speak for me.

My biggest fear isn't my disability or acquiring a new one. My biggest fear is ending up with no quality of life, but being kept alive so that the medical complex can extract money and to please those that want to control the lives of others.

[CountAllVotes]

56. +1

Agree! Good post!

[Pastiche423]

21. In 1986 I was injured

an became disabled. A traumatic brain injury resulted in paralysis in my lower body and a history of Grand Mal seizures.

When I went online in 1997 the 1st site went to was for people with physical disabilities. It was there that I learned that some disabled people were terrified of the Death With Dignity law. Ironically, the reason I moved to Oregon was because of that law.

As another DUer has already posted, Death With Dignity requires that a person must be terminal, be checked out by two medical doctors and two psychiatrists. It contains many safeguards and is difficult to get approval.

I believe that it would be gross injustice to force anyone to live in pain with no hope of getting better. So it infuriates me to no end when I read OPs like the one I am responding to.

Please do not take my choice away from me.

[KamaAina]

22. "Death With Dignity requires that a person must be terminal"

Stephen Hawking has been terminal* with ALS for several decades. Ponder that for a moment.

[Pastiche423]

23. What's to ponder?

Is anyone trying to make Stephen commit suicide?

[KamaAina]

38. No, but what if someone had decades ago?

[LiberalAndProud]

50. Do you understand that no one is attempting to impose death on anyone?

It's about a terminal person having the legal right to take control of their own last days. It is a personal decision where government and interfering do-gooders have no business.

[KamaAina]

63. None of the people making the law are imposing death on anyone

My concern is with the doctors and even family members who have an ingrained belief that disabled lives have little or no value.

[LiberalAndProud]

66. Fascinating. That was Robert and Mary Schindler's concern, too.

[ND-Dem]

111. OFGS.

[pnwmom]

25. So? It also requires that the person give full consent, as attested to by multiple health care

professionals. This is NOT forced on incompetent people.

My elderly, dying relative was very competent and still couldn't get doctors who were willing to do it, and she lived in a state where it was legal. This isn't being forced on anyone in legal assisted-suicide states. Quite the opposite.

[Bluenorthwest]

157. Professor Stephen Hawking backs right to die for the terminally ill.

"I think those who have a terminal illness and are in great pain should have the right to choose to end their lives and those that help them should be free from prosecution," he said. "We don't let animals suffer, so why humans?"

He is concerned, however, that there must be safeguards to ensure that nobody's life is terminated against their wish. In 1985, when he became very ill with pneumonia, he was at one stage placed on a life support machine. His first wife, Jane Hawking, was given the option to turn it off.

"There must be safeguards that the person concerned genuinely wants to end their life and they are not being pressurised into it or have it done without their knowledge or consent as would have been the case with me," he told the interviewer.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/17/stephen-hawking-right-to-die

Next!

[loyalsister]

33. Aren't we all terminal?

We are all going to die.

[SheilaT]

26. If you don't believe in assisted suicide, then don't have

an assisted suicide. Period. Just as if you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one.

I respect disability advocates except when they are saying THEY can make the end-of-life decisions for everyone else. It's exactly like the men who claim control over women's bodies.

No one is forcing them to kill themselves. Meanwhile, because of too many stupid laws, too many people suffer needlessly. And to bring up Stephen Hawking is just stupid. He's not (so far as I know) seeking to end his life, nor does anyone around him appear to be pushing that optioin on him.

[CTyankee]

29. AND some oppose abortion in the same way...

I once worked for an organization that provided services for people with developmental disabilities and I interfaced with many parents of people with Down Syndrome. We have far fewer people with DS since Roe v. Wade and early genetic testing in pregnancy. Most of the parents were also Roman Catholics and saw it as a moral and religious issue, altho only a few got really worked up about it. Since I was adamantly pro choice I simply didn't discuss the subject.

[LiberalAndProud]

51. Isn't it two faces of the same issue?

In both cases we're talking about a person's legal right to have control over their own body, in my view.

[CTyankee]

60. Yep, Ithink you are right. Exactly.

[De Leonist]

30. I am saddened by this....

As an Adult on the Autism Spectrum, as a Cancer Survivor, and as a someone who recommends ASAN to people on the spectrum and to parents of Autistic Children I am so disappointed by this that I can't find the words. ASAN has been the frontrunner in the Neurodiversity Movement for a while now and to see this now makes me question what the Neurodiversity movement has become.

Should Caregivers be able to "Euthanize" their charges just because their burnt out ? No

Should people tell others who have no real quality of life that they can't die with dignity ? Not in my opinion as that is an extremely personal choice.

But to be fair the fact is that it does happen. Some caregivers could and would try to take advantage of the fact of that Assisted Suicide is legal if it were. However ASAN's position is a false dichotomy. We could have safeguards and and Legalized Physician Assisted Suicide.
We could have government funded support services for caregivers and their charges. If a caregiver has reached a breaking point emotionally, financially, or Physically than those same Support Services could take on their charge.

That is what ASAN should be advocating.

[Spazito]

34. Rather than oppose the right to die with dignity...

it seems to me ASAN would serve it's purpose better if they were to work to ensure the laws to allow legal physician-assisted death address their concerns rather than simply work to stop anyone from having the right to die with dignity.

Canada's Supreme Court recently ruled against the current law banning medically assisted death while giving the government one year to change the law to reflect the ruling. I could not be happier. Having the right to die with dignity is a constitutional right.

[KamaAina]

40. The Canadian court ruling does not even mention terminal illness

Last edited Sat Feb 21, 2015, 11:13 PM - Edit history (1)

[Spazito]

42. No, it doesn't specify terminal illness as it expects the governments, provincial...

and federal, to detail the requirements in any law it writes to replace the current law which was deemed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did stipulate the following:

The ruling only applies to competent adults with enduring, intolerable suffering who clearly consent to ending their lives and those with grievous and irremediable medical conditions.

You can be assured associations concerned about the disabled will be advocating for criteria in any laws written to ensure the safety of those unable to consent.

[KamaAina]

44. "enduring, intolerable (!), grievous and irremediable" != terminal

That takes us another hard bump down the slippery slope.

[Spazito]

46. Allowing competent adults the right to die with dignity ...

having fulfilled strict criteria is no slippery slope, it is simply compassion and acknowledging the right of an individual to choose.

The slippery slope argument in the context of this issue is false, imo, and put forward in an attempt to mislead those who may not know better.

Work to ensure there are protections for those who are seen to be vulnerable instead of working toward a ban for everyone, that would be compassionate, imo.

[ND-Dem]

112. The right to die (as long as it's with dignity, of course) is a constitutional right? Since when?

[Spazito]

120. Since the Canadian Supreme Court ruled it as such...

They ruled the current Canadian laws governing physician assisted death unconstitutional.

"In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the Criminal Code laws prohibiting physician-assisted death infringes Section 7 of the Charter, which states that everyone has right to life, liberty and security of the person."

http://globalnews.ca/news/1815749/supreme-court-strikes-down-canadas-assisted-suicide-laws/

[ND-Dem]

123. i must be missing something. how does that imply a right to die?

[Spazito]

141. If you can't figure that out, I can't help you n/t

[ND-Dem]

144. well then, thanks for your un-help

[Spazito]

145. No problem...

If, at some later time, the bell goes off and you figure it out, well, that would be a good thing.

[ND-Dem]

146. it would also be a good thing if you just answered the question. heavy work for geniuses

like yourself, no doubt.

I suspect you've misunderstood my point of confusion, but since you're so super-intelligent, I'm probably wrong there too.

[whatthehey]

43. I'm disabled and very much say yes. Who "advocates" for me?

Wouldn't it be better to treat disabled folks like any other adult and give us at least some shot at a dignified and less agonizing end if we want one and choose one?

[KamaAina]

45. If we treated disabled folks like any other adult

we would give them the number for the suicide hotline, rasher than the syringe.

[Humanist_Activist]

103. And how would that help while some of them suffer from, to give an example, late stage progressive..

MS, or locked in syndrome, is talking about it supposed to make the symptoms go away?

What about end stage renal failure, or severe lymphoma or dozens of other diseases and afflictions where there is no known cure, there are horrifying effects such as severe pain and body breakdown. Should those people be allowed to have a choice?

[KamaAina]

127. MS? A dear friend has MS. So did several of Jack Kevorkian's "patients".

The difference is, Pat is still very much alive.

[whatthehey]

153. Except in enlightened states and countries where we don't torture them

With months or years of hopeless and helpless agony as incurable cancers destroy their bodies inside out cell by cell leaving them bed-ridden excruciating husks.

Why some think it is love to subject others to hopeless torment I have no clue.

[MFrohike]

47. Sheesh

I don't think many people who responded actually read the article. I doubt it's really convincing either way, but thanks for posting it. It's nice to see an article that actually focuses on the assisted part of assisted suicide. Too many get hung up on whether someone has a right to kill him or herself.

[KamaAina]

48. Mahalo (thank you)!

[whatthehey]

154. The assistance is important. Nay crucial.

My disability for example would preclude me from using a shotgun or even properly affixing a nitrogen bag. I lack medical knowledge on what OTC medications would prove painlessly fatal if any. The only certain ways I would have to ensure my own exit if it ever becomes the logical choice would either be extremely painful like poisoning, would risk others such as diving off roofs, or both. Doctors have the ability to write prescriptions for drugs that would anaesthetize as well as euthanize with no risk or chance of agonizing failure and set up proper delivery systems. That's the only humane way to make it happen.

[MFrohike]

160. Thank you

A reasoned discussion of the assisted part is desperately needed on this issue. Thank you, thank you, thank you for giving exactly that.

I'll admit to being uncertain about the whole thing because of the basic rule of do no harm. I wonder if doctors might not start assisting without being asked. Of course, that could be exactly the case right now. I don't know. I do know we need reasoned arguments like yours and whatever evidence we can gather on potential harms. Again, thanks.

[LiberalAndProud]

49. One wonders

if Ms. Crane's mother woke up every day spreading feces on the wall, would she still be claiming "dignity?" Bullshit personal anecdotes aren't convincing.

[elehhhhna]

52. her grandma seemed happy so no assisted suicide for anybody?

Anecdata strikes again.

[PumpkinAle]

54. Why make someone die in agony?

These people know what is coming, there is no other alternative. Pain meds have failed and all they can do is hope that someone makes that morphine drip continuous and stronger for each drip. So at the end of their life they may be so drugged up that it eases the conscience of those caring from them, so they may be in pain, but hey they can't communicate so it's okay?

Let people make their own decisions (in a will or in person). Legal physician assisted suicide should be an option.

[daredtowork]

59. My housemate and I disagree on this

Perhaps because I have the weaker personality or have gotten the shaft from society more. But my feeling is that people can be pressured into suicide. Their lives can be deprived of value by others. Their resources can be taken away until they are leading a very low quality of life. A person living with their family might be treated like a burden. Perhaps people in the family want an inheritance early as well.

At some point it might seem that death is the "better" option when one might have chosen to survive had they been given the option to have a better quality of life. Depressed people often think about suicide but then pull out of it. Poor people living under stressful circumstances are more likely to be depressed: it's because their options are so few, and it's hard to generate an internal sense of self-worth under those circumstances - especially when no one else ascribes any value to you. Disabled people especially may not be working, so they don't have the identity of work or the achievements of a career ladder to fall back on. It would take very little for someone to hint their life is not worth living. Even a medication change might mess with their neurochemistry, their hormones, or their blood pressure, causing a "depressed" feeling, that leads them to make negative decisions about their life.

Because I think all these things COULD be otherwise if the social infrastructure were stronger, if society cared more about quality of life for all, if health care were delivered in a more efficient manner, etc. - I do not trust "doctor assisted death", i.e. socially-approved suicide. I am for buffing up suicide prevention instead. If there is any "doctor assisted death" I would only want it legalized in the most well-defined circumstances of excruciating pain and "about to die anyway".

This is how I see it. My house mate (who is a left-leaning libertarian) vociferously disagrees with me. His significant other died of cancer, and he insists that he will not go out that way. So I have been exposed, indeed barraged, with the alternative point of view.

[Humanist_Activist]

61. All of those things you mentioned have treatments or options that could improve their conditions...

someone who is terminal does NOT have any options outside of possibly extreme pain and then death.

[daredtowork]

71. Uh no

As a person on welfare, I can tell you that socially inflicted very low quality of life is a fact and people pushed on their families as "burdens" are a fact as well.

[Humanist_Activist]

72. And with better welfare advocacy, better public policies, quality of life can increase...

don't bother trying to compare this to someone suffering from stage 4 Panceatic cancer, the comparison is fucking idiotic.

[daredtowork]

77. You are correct - comparing apples to oranges is idiotic

As I said, in my original position, I would only consider it in extreme cases of pain and definitively near death. Please don't throw out strawmen to make your drama point with me.

I've thought about my position a good deal, and I have valid fears about where the "right to die" argument will lead. The poorest and most vulnerable do get run over with a steamroller in this society when society can get away with it and look the other way. It is best not to open the door in the first place. "Right to die" might open that door. So I'm standing against it. (With a possible extremity exception, IF it is well-defined).

[Humanist_Activist]

78. The problem is that those fears people have already thought of, and the laws, as written...

ARE only for those whose prospects for recovery are nonexistent, death is pretty damn close to imminent and have to be of sound mind. Protections can and have been put in place, the risk of abuse is minimal if not non-existent, don't let the need for perfection be the enemy of the good. People do suffer before death and should be given options that allow them to choose when to die, its their choice, what right do you have to take that away from anyone?

[daredtowork]

81. The DoR order already exists

So that right is already recognized in the breach.

People already make that choice by committing suicide whether it's legal or not.

Adding this law will just give interested relatives subtle ways to pressure with: "Don't you think it's time to have that talk with your doctor...? Aren't you in so much pain? I can't stand to see you in so much pain!"

One question I have is whether the restrictions on pain relievers in recent years (partly because people were using them to make their own decision to commit suicide) are part of what has been adding to people's pain in the first place? Perhaps with a little more morphine someone wouldn't be in so much pain?

Well that's just speculating. There's also always the chance that once the person is through the pain, some remission could occur and they could be grateful to have a second chance at life.

If someone's decision making capabilities are impaired when they are in that much pain, that wipes out the whole "sound mind" argument, anyway.

I think finding ways to relieve their pain and not make end of life so horrible is a better approach.

[Humanist_Activist]

83. After a certain point, pain relievers no longer work...

My, was going to be future father-in-law was on the strongest pain killers available, but he did have stage 4 pancreatic cancer, and those drugs did little for the month and a half he suffered, while all he did was cough up half digested blood and was delirious from the pain.

But really, go ahead and live in your world of sunshine and rainbows.

[daredtowork]

87. I am not living in a world of sunshine and rainbows

I'm living in a world of chronic pain from at least 2 separate genetic disorders. I just found out I may have pulmonary hypertension as well. For me that could mean heart failure, since all the male relatives in my family died of heart attacks at 50. To protect myself I should be trying to spare myself stress. But instead I've been leading a very high stress lifestyle for years thanks to the wacky rube goldberg machine that has replaced the old "welfare state". I won't go into details except to say people in Guantanamo live better than in certain respects than people trying to live on welfare because welfare is designed to drive you into homelessness so you will choose work: but many people like me are forced to live on it while waiting for YEARS for SSI to process.

My condition precludes me from taking nsaids, and because I suffer from fatigue I don't take narcotics. I know a LOT about physical pain. And it's possible I may know a lot about making near-death decisions in the near future as well.

If I am ever in the position of signing off for a doctor to help me die, I will definitely feel that I was HERDED into that position, and there were a lot of things that could have happened differently that would have led to a higher quality of life and better survival chances for me.

So frak you and the high horse you rode in on.

[Humanist_Activist]

89. So because our welfare system sucks, other people should suffer worse than you?

How selfish can you possibly be?

No, seriously, how fucked up do you have to be to even attempt this as an argument?

[daredtowork]

91. Actually you're saying your relative with pancreatic cancer should get the special treatment

I'm not the only one on welfare, and people who are homeless and end up in county hospitals suffer a lot more than your Father-in-Law.

[Humanist_Activist]

92. He was on welfare! He was, at the time, without insurance, working part-time as a...

landscaper, just barely scraping by, in fact, right before he was diagnosed, he and my MIL were homeless due to the meth lab next door blowing up part of their crappy duplex. MIL is on disability, and that's her only income.

Oh, and I sure as damn hell do NOT advocate that he get special treatment, EVERYONE should have such options available for them.

[daredtowork]

95. okay I will not try to argue who has worse story with you

because you can always try to change your story to make it worse than mine.

But what I will say is that my own quality of life was rendered very low by factors not of my own making. And if I am presented with the option of physician-assisted death - which could be a reality for me - from this perspective I know that I will have been pushed into that position, and that there were other options me. However, once I'm inside that pain, that might not be so clear, and the will to fight will probably be sapped away. I resent that.

Your argument tries to isolate me and say it's just me against "all" the people who want the right to die. Well I say I am standing up for "all" the people in poverty who being pushed into death by poor medical care and a terribly broken social system. The idea of Physician Assisted Death just seems to make it worse to me.

That's my stand and I'm sticking to it.

[Humanist_Activist]

101. I'm sorry, all I see is a selfish person, using their unfounded fears to restrict the rights of...

others, and don't pretend you are advocating for the poor in this, that's just fucking pathetic and crass.

[daredtowork]

105. Try all the Machiavellian rhetorical tricks you want

The OP is about a segment of the disabled community taking a position against "doctor assisted death". I came with my arguments agreeing with that. You came with a lot of name-calling.

[ND-Dem]

124. name-calling is often all they have.

[daredtowork]

126. I blocked him

If he had any more to say, don't enlighten me.

[ND-Dem]

118. bullshit.

[bbgrunt]

114. wow. that is an unfair response to someone who

has very carefully considered the issue and explained the reasons for his/her opinions. Would the law used in Oregon have helped your future father-in-law? Did he know before reaching the stage you describe that he wanted to call for his own demise? If you knew he felt this way, why didn't you get him a gun or help him in some other way to achieve his goal?

I am strongly in favor of an individual deciding for him/herself, but I am very wary of making it public policy--the terms of which are easily modified/corroded over time. I think we are being stampeded into making false choices here. If a person is of sound mind wants to terminate themselves there are ways to do it besides state sanctioned methods.

[ND-Dem]

117. and society *will* look the other way if they're told (as they already are) that the people affected

don't have value, are 'expensive,' and that *their* money is being wasted on them.

i.e. the poor, the disabled, the mentally ill.

[ND-Dem]

116. Those things aren't happening. The opposite is happening. and it's no accident that coincident

with all that, assisted suicide is also on the menu.

it's cheap; only a few hundred dollars.

[LiberalAndProud]

62. Depression isn't usually considered a terminal illness.

[daredtowork]

74. A person can have a terminal illness and be depressed

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Terminal can also have a lot of meanings. Is there an exact number of years before you clock out? The condition I have is terminal. My situation is also pretty darned depressing. If things take a turn for the worse to where I lose my autonomy in some way, I could easily be pressured into thinking my life is not worth living and I will probably die sooner rather than later. But I probably would have lived longer had I not been squeegeed into that position: that is my larger point.

[LiberalAndProud]

80. You would remove another person's right to control their own body,

because someone who really doesn't want to die might be persuaded to die too soon. Because you might be persuaded.

Do I understand your objection to allowing me to make my own choice in my own final days correctly?

[daredtowork]

82. If your decision-making abilities are impaired yes

Through pressure of relatives or other people around you or through radical deprivations of society - including abusive "senior living homes".

In India if a widow said to me "do you remove my right to control my own body because I want to commit sati and hurl myself into the fire because my mother-in-law says I will dishonor the family if I don't" - yup, I will stand in the way of her right to control her body and try to prevent her from hurling herself into the fire. I'll try to get the Mother-in-Law arrested. And at the end of the day, I'll still call myself a feminist.

[LiberalAndProud]

85. What if they're not?

What if fully sane and fully informed.

I find your analogy a bit over the top. Still, with rigorous screening of physicians, patients and process along with a carefully penned law, your concerns could be addressed.

[daredtowork]

88. IMHO pain would distort that decision making process

That's my opinion, and I've given my reasons for it.

My analogy might be over the top, but my position in life is also not exactly mainstream. My viewpoint isn't going to be the standard one.

Sadly, I doubt my voice would be heard when a State law was penned. Voices like mine are usually not heard at all, as I am invisible to political representatives.

[LiberalAndProud]

93. Let me say that I understand that your concern is for the marginalized among us.

I get that. I really do. But we aren't talking about an actively aggressive euthanasia program here. We're really not. The slippery slope argument just isn't convincing to me.

And OF COURSE pain will have an influence on the decision. For pity's sake -- and I really mean for PITY's sake! Requiring people to live out their last days in excruciating pain is at least equally as inhumane as it is to require it of our beloved pets.

[daredtowork]

98. That's the fault line in the argument

I doubt people who are afraid of the slippery slope will be convinced otherwise, and the people who don't believe in it aren't going to be swayed either.

This OP article is interesting, though, because it showed that religion isn't the only source of strong disagreement/dissent.

[bobclark86]

67. You do know the law is for people dying of cancer and SuperAIDS, right?

It's for those who don't want to spend their last six months covered in bedsores, needing tubes to eat, breath, pee and poo, in constant pain from which there is no escape except for death and no chance of recovery. It has bupkis to do with depression.

[daredtowork]

76. If it's vigilantly limited to that, then okay - but if it's a gatekeeper

to looser and looser definitions to "right to die"...which I suspect it is: then I'm against it.

[bobclark86]

79. Umm... IT IS.

Period.

That's why the two laws on the topic spell it out.

[daredtowork]

84. That's the current law

But then we have Rahm Emmanual's brother declaring he wants to die at 70 because life isn't worth living after you become "disabled". There is a real danger of life increasingly becoming disposable at the most vulnerable fringes and society finding excuses to trim down a little. This tends to look like conspiracy theory from the point of view of the comfortable middle class. But if you're already standing on the edge and you can see how casually society deprives people of food and shelter and looks the other way about "unmet need", lowering quality of life for thousands of people of people to *nothing* - you would really worry about how we - perhaps unconsciously - put out feelers about how to get rid of "the burdensome".

Over the last few decades the GOP have more or less created a fake malthusian crisis at the bottom end of the scale, which will make people feel like "we" can't afford to deal with all these poor people. The best thing will be to hope they "die quickly". If that can't be done through shorting them on health care, food, and shelter, then perhaps they will be worn down by the constant INFLICTION of a low quality of life and choose suicide.

This is the deep background ball I see in play. I'm sorry you don't see it, too.

You probably have a relative with AIDS or cancer who is suffering or who has chosen to end their pain, and I'm sure that's a hard thing to deal with.

[Humanist_Activist]

86. What I see is fearmongering and FUD being spread to try to legally restrict the choices some people.

may make because they make you uncomfortable. I'm sorry, but your comfort is the least of our concerns.

[daredtowork]

90. What I see is oppression of the weakest being achieved in the name of "rights" for the few

and it will probably succeed thanks to the big drama played out by the woman with brain cancer. A middle class drama played out to the middle class audience with the ear of the political representatives who will push through the legislation.

The people who are speaking against it - the ones you say who are spreading FUD and fearmongering - are from the segments of society who are less likely to be listened to and more easily run right over. So in the end it's doubtful their objections will mean anything.

[Humanist_Activist]

94. I didn't know that dying with extreme pain was something that only afflicts the upper classes...

well that changes things, oh no, it doesn't, because its not fucking true.

Do you want to try again?

[daredtowork]

100. What are you talking about? nt

[Humanist_Activist]

102. You are the one saying "I'm standing up for the poor" and all that bullshit, in a thread that...

has NO FUCKING RELATION to that particular issue.

[daredtowork]

104. The Disabled are More Likely to be on SSI/SSDI, i.e. POOR

My point is central to the OP. What's your point?

[REP]

107. I'm disabled, on SSD, and I want to decide for myself

I don't need so-called advocates demeaning me by assuming I can't make my own decisions. But thank you. Please run your own life.

[daredtowork]

108. There are definitely different opinions here

I'm speaking as a person representing myself and my opinion as a person who might be in that situation - not as an advocate or as a representative of any organization. But at least I can look to the OP to know that I'm not the only one who feels as I do. The major point of the OP is that those feelings don't necessarily source from religion.

[bbgrunt]

119. Your issue is a valid one and your arguments well presented. I admire your

tolerance in the face of detractors who insist on narrowing the argument into one of false choices.

[ND-Dem]

129. i don't believe 'cancer' and 'superaids' are in the text of the law, nor is the law limited to

those conditions.

I still have a bedsore from being in the hospital 6 months. once gotten, the buggers are hard to get rid of. yet here I am, typing to you.

[KamaAina]

155. "SuperAIDS"?

[bobclark86]

159. It's from South Park

I'm using it as a catch-all for short-duration terminal illnesses.

[ND-Dem]

115. I agree with you, fwiw.

[Warpy]

106. Just because her grandma seemed happy, not everyone is

and she should be ashamed of herself for presuming they are all secretly living in a haze of happiness as they suffer intractable pain that gets worse every day.

The assisted suicide movement is for such people, not those who are still able to achieve some quality of life. It's for people for whom daily existence has simply become too hard and who can't see themselves coping with even worse down the line. A way out that provides the least amount of trauma to extended family should be a viable choice.

"Choice" is the operative word here. If a person either refuses it or is incapable of choosing due to advanced dementia of any type, assisted suicide is simply not an option.

ASAN needs a better director of public policy. They deserve better leadership than someone with no personal boundaries who thinks she's wise enough to make life choices for everybody else in the world.

[KMOD]

121. Bam!

Thank you!!!

[Omaha Steve]

110. I'm terminal and there is no state law for me to get assistance

It should be up to me, not a no-death panel.

OS

[madinmaryland]

122. Huh? Autism is NOT dementia/Alzheimers.

People with Autism can lead fulfilling lives, while dementia/alzheimers cannot.

[KamaAina]

125. Who is saying that?

Samantha Crane happens to work for ASAN; her relative had Alzheimer's.

[KMOD]

130. Again, Alzheimer's patients do not qualify under the Death with Dignity Act.

They are lacking sound mind, and awareness, which are required.

But I digress to another point.

Please think before you give your Alzheimer's loved one a feeding tube, or a breathing tube, and please think before you try to treat their eventual pneumonia with antibiotics.

The above have nothing to due with Death with Dignity laws per se, but just death, natural death, which is also ignored in these debates.

We are at the point where people do not understand death. Where people do not accept death. It's scary and sad .

[bluestateguy]

137. Here comes the special interest crowd

[cleanhippie]

142. Anything that "...seems to originate from religious zeal..." should be dismissed outright.

And I do mean anything.

[HERVEPA]

151. I'll decide for myself, thank you very much.

Keep your views off of my body.