my grandmother was in palliative care for her dementia + congestive heart failure for quite some time at our home before dying this january. it was interesting to see how the different family members responded to her care. one aunt begged for a doctor to 'assist her in her passing' (and would pray nightly for Jesus to 'take her home'), one uncle (family creep) stole money from my parents because now she couldn't keep an eye on it, and one aunt would constantly send her into emotional fits. my parents and i took care of her full time for a year and a half until she died under our roof with the hospice nurse here.
we had a rocky past, so it was nice to get to know her better for the year she lived here, even if she repeated herself every five minutes - didn't bother me a bit. i was glad for the time that i wouldn't have had if we listened to my aunt's suggestion.
I think ultimately I’m always going to advocate the right of an individual to choose their own end. Arguing from the side that enabling one thing could mean that a line is crossed and we suddenly decide to designate every disabled person as having lives not worth living doesn’t stack up for me. I do agree that there has to be very strict legislation in place to support euthanasia though.
This lady has clearly found purpose in her life. I’m happy to read that, but there are demonstrably plenty of terminally ill or disabled people who haven’t, or there wouldn’t be a debate.
The assumption is that palliative care is accessible to all and of high quality. Depends on the country you live in and whether you have private health care or not. Are you feeling lucky?
It also depends on how you balance protecting your own family versus having an extra few years of life. Are you willing to sign over every last penny to pay for medical expenses or could that money be used to support a son or daughter just starting out in life? Surely that should be my right to choose when the time comes?
Ableist, unconscious bias, sounds similar to me. How does someone else know how I view the value of my own life or my reasons for it? They don’t. I’m getting a bit weary of people telling me what I REALLY feel.
I do agree that an elderly or infirm person could theoretically be manipulated or encouraged by selfish family members to take the euthanasia option. This is a legitimate concern and there would need to be safeguards against this before I could fully endorse the euthanasia option being made legal here. There are very dysfunctional families out there.
I don’t fear death. I do fear being made to hang on when I don’t want to. I think the euthanasia debate hinges very much on how each person views quality of life. This lady might be right, my views on what constitutes my personal quality of life might change as I get older or if I get sick. They will still be my own views though. I’m not booking my date and time of death now. I’m asking to be allowed to book it later should I deem it necessary.
The problem with accessibility of palliative care is even more of a concern with euthanasia. If a country can’t take care of its sick, how will it keep euthanasia uncorrupted? The best we have now are the compassionate helpers of the world. In the case of people who truly lack the will to live, suicide is always a personal option. We make it hard to kill ourselves in the hopes that we can help others find their way to hope again. Those who cannot find that hope will always find a way to not exist.
I should add, I’ve had crippling mental health issues the last two decades (I’m 42) and complex regional pain syndrome since 2019. I was absolutely suicidal 6 months ago. I was too scared to kill myself, both for if it didn’t work and I made my body even worse and especially for my family. Since I couldn’t, I did a lot of internal work. I figured out what my wounds were (as dumb as it may sound, my parents don’t and never have liked me and it shaped my whole life. They also told me the goal of life is perfection, which is impossible), I did cognitive behavioral therapy on myself, and also was prescribed 600mg daily ketamine troches for my pain medication which is very helpful for depression it turns out. That combo of things, plus “I’m glad my mom died” by Jennette McCurdy, have brought me to a point where I am truly genuinely happy again. My thoughts and feelings are in order. I don’t know how I could ever lose hope for another person now.
Nothing of what you said sounded dumb to me. I’m glad you were able to find a solution that worked for you and that you are genuinely happy again.
I actually disagree that euthanasia is appropriate for people suffering from depression. My approach isn’t broad brush. More in line with situations where an individual is terminally ill, in pain and without hope of recovery. In those circumstances I believe individuals should have the option to choose a humane way to go.
I live in a country where you can’t even get a dental appointment! I dread to think how I could acquire quality palliative care. With ageing populations I’m not sure that there are enough compassionate helpers to go round.
If I was lying in bed, riddled with terminal cancer I’m not sure that making suicide difficult for me is necessarily fair. You’re right, it is difficult. I wouldn’t know how to go about killing myself in a humane way. Surely it would be kinder to provide me with the most humane option available at that point? Personally I would see hope as a false mistress in that situation.
I do agree with you that euthanasia should not be made easy and for the reasons you state. I think though that it should be an option in regulated circumstances.
From my experience with my mother being terminally I’ll, she could have gone at any time due to the sheer amount of fentanyl and opioids at her disposal. Although if you have zero palliative care options, the best you can really hope for is to seek out the helpers online. Gofundme for example, the news media, social media, hospitals, churches; just finding the people who CAN act on your behalf. Broadcasting the cruelty of it can enact change, there is always someone trying to find others to help
While reading Adrianna’s first comment, my hands went cold. That’s a good thing to occur, as it only happens when I’ve read something that’s shaken my mind so much, my body has to redirect energy to focus and ingest the information. I share her concerns, as a fellow “undesirable,” while I also share your concerns about personal autonomy. I don’t know the answer.
Same here. I have complex regional pain syndrome, aka “the suicide disease”. I’m bedridden 23/7 (I manage to cook dinner for my husband and 4 kids daily). I also watched my mom die two weeks ago in hospice after being ravaged by pancreatic and lung cancer. It was rough but she died a compassionate and comfortable death in the end surrounded by loved ones. I say the answer is to not trust society with something that can be corrupted. We as a world haven’t figured out how to do that yet.
I feel like there are (at least) 2 different discussions/arguments here. One is The Right to Die, and the other is (forced) Euthanasia. For me, I absolutely think everyone who chooses to die should have access to compassionate end-of-life care from their physician. They should not have to hoard and hide opiates until they have enough to off themself. They should be provided with the necessary drugs and instructions. My mother was dying and probably had only days left. Her doctor gave her a prescription to get the job done. She went to sleep in bedroom on the first floor of the house and not in the bed she shared with my father for decades, so she could die and be carried out without unnecessary fuss. She chose to die on a Friday so, being Jewish, there would be an extra day to plan her burial since Jews must be buried the next day unless they die on the Sabbath. My father also took his own life when he was ready, but his story is very different. As you know, my father was a “famous” criminal because his case was the birth of Neurolaw in America. After he spent 14 years in prison, he was released and moved into an assisted living facility. He was 83, and not in great health. His arthritis was making it impossible for a single attendant to help him shower. They wanted to move him to the nursing home wing. He did not want to move or live in a nursing home, so he hoarded his opiates (the first time, someone on the staff stole his stash) and after I travelled from SF to NY to see him for the first time in 16 years, he downed the bottle of pills, my brother got a phone call from the ER a few hours later because someone checked on him while he was still alive and they got him to the ER. The doc there wanted to know whether to save him or not, given the circumstances. Had we not known this was what he wanted, we could have made the wrong decision. Btw, it’s hard to kill yourself with a bottle of pills. THAT is one of the reasons to want access to the right Rx for death. Even a veterinarian will tell you that you shouldn’t attempt to drug your old, dying dog to death because it often fails. It doesn’t have to be a guess with a dog, and it shouldn’t have to be a guess with a human. As far as the forced Euthanasia scenarios, those are not acceptable. It removes the choice which then becomes murder. I’m glad I live in California where my doctor can help me should I ever need to exercise my right to die.
This makes a lot of sense. The discussion started with "should we give the option to end your own life if you want?" And things got mixed with "euthanasia can be used to kill disabled people just as nazi Germany wanted". I think the discussion got in a mess because Athena and Adrianna weren't on the same page. And I don't know if euthanasia could even be applied to Omayra, because she could have been saved if rescuers had proper equipment so people thought she could have been saved. Plus she was just 13. It's not the same as a terminally ill 91 year old patient asking to die.
You also gave two good examples. The first is a terminally ill person choosing to die. The second is a about a person with no quality of life, choosing to die by any means. I am glad you let him go.
I am bemused to see that I'm not the only person who pondered a dystopian regime recruiting psychopaths, sociopaths and other people with an empathy deficit to administer involuntary euthanasia.
Knowing what I know now of the abuses that empathy is put to it's not necessary as I am positive that "empaths" would be happy to "assist" in suicide
For me the notion is easy to conceive of. But the value is difficult to measure, it can be approached from various ends, just to list the components is tricky and not all can be simply quantified and it can be too easily misused. What is the most usual way of grasping it is value in sense of contribution (next value in sense of meaningful (another tricky term) experience vs being a vegetable). Which is... Not really value of life, but value of contribution measured against costs of keeping someone around? Not sure if it falls under tribal thinking or different thinking, but it sounds tribal. It is from the point of view of a community an individual is part of rather than from the perspective of an individual or philosophy (in the sense of thinking about other things beside life standard of a community). I've read about a tribe making hard choices even about orphans because they ruled it too risky to try and sustain them.
Indeed, and that makes sense. I think that the more capability rises, and the impact decreases, when it comes to effort put forward for these individuals, that is where the moral debate has to take place.
i agree. this is why i walk away when people call themselves empaths. it is a term used far too often for an excuse in behaviors that will tug at emotional heartstrings and it reeks of manipulation. i.e., "oh i did this bad thing but it's because i have such a terrible past", "oh i think we should do this bad thing but it's because it will help better their terrible future"
translation is somewhere along the lines of: "lob your emotional empathy at me to support my cause because i am empathetic and empathy is good >:( "
I read through the entirety of your conversation, and whereas, yes, the government pushing people towards suicide is deplorable and not that unexpected, giving individuals the right to die should still be a valid choice for that person to make. (It should also be done under the oath of a 3rd party psychologist to ensure the person isn't being coerced into it.)
As horrible as the notion is to consider, over population is an ever-increasing threat, and I don't see it getting under control anytime soon. This sort of culling that you spoke of is likely to become more prominent as resources begin to dwindle regardless of the right to die debate. Just as any sort of reform to prevent humans from eventually turning the planet into a desert wasteland will come far too late.
Forcing patients to live years of misery for the sake of the family's comfort is far more selfish than letting them decide to depart on their own terms. Many of the living relatives that are appointed to caring for these people once their mind is completely gone out of obligation is also rather selfish of society to push on a person(family) essentially forcing them take on the financial and personal responsibility to care for an invalid. Doing so is seen as 'the right thing to do,' but it is in fact just taking away their right to live their life for themselves too. (Or the invalid gets shoved in a nursing home where they are essentially forgotten and too often mistreated by nursing home staff that are too overworked/underpaid/undereducated to give proper care to people in the last stages of life.)
The story of the horse, one of violence? Or was it thinning the herd because they instinctually were aware the colt was doomed to die? Nature has always been cruel, and we as a part of nature do not circumvent these laws.
Sometimes the most compassionate thing we can do is end a creature's suffering. To prolong life for the sake of living without a certain quality of life is not compassionate. From the conversation given, the person debating this was reflecting her own trauma of ableism with that of the colt's plight without the rational that a horse doesn't have the higher functioning brain of a human, so keeping it alive would be a disservice to it and the herd. There was no means for it to communicate anything meaningful in its short existence other than suffering, and to save it to live like that would be true cruelty in my eyes.
I do not think height of faculties comes into play. That's like saying an animal cannot know satisfaction, only be useful (in which case what compassion?). The colt can know satisfaction, can know it even without running around (especially when never could), the thing is that within herd conditions for satisfaction in state of such disability are not available. Taken away as a coddled pet it would be a possibility for the colt to live a satisfying life. But not within the herd.
We created a world (or parts of the world) for ourselves where it is possible. But resources can dwindle, either temporarily or longterm.
"Forcing patients to live years of misery for the sake of the family's comfort is far more selfish than letting them decide to depart on their own terms."
Exactly.
My partner's mother passed away last year. For over 2 years, she moaned that she was "ready to kick the bucket". She had congestive heart failure, but proved to be one tough cookie. Even though she was a devout Catholic, I know that she would have opted for assisted suicide. She had no fear of the unknown. She was a very matter-of-fact, no-nonsense woman. She wouldn't have considered it grounds for eternal life in hell; just good medicine. She would have opted for assisted suicide because her care came at an exorbitant cost. We're talking tens of thousands of dollars a month. She wanted her money to go to her heirs; not for two years of hospice. She was in a constant state of alarm about this. There are many considerations about dying well, but the cost is astonishing if you give the best compassionate care available today. Realistically, it is out of the realm of possibility except for those very well off. Even with the best care, plus a lot of relatives spending time with her in between work and other family responsibilities, she was clearly miserable. She finally succumbed to covid, struggling to breathe. Who on earth benefited from this?? It's appalling. I refuse to die this way when there's no reason to prolong the inevitable.
In addition, your remarks about over-population and dwindling resources are spot-on. Society is going to have to reckon with the law regarding assisted suicide. We don't really have a choice.
It feels more like a means to juice people out of their life savings with the costs of healthcare (in America especially) for the dying and the ones left behind footing the bill. Healthcare businesses are turning profit hand of fist keeping people 'sick' and in their care. This goes not just for end-of-life care but many health issues expectant on continued expensive daily treatments and care. It's not much different in prisons. You have a person convicted of life in prison, on death row, who are kept alive in that state as a means to ensure 'punishment' when in actuality, it's private businesses collecting tax dollars to feed/house them instead of actually carrying out the sentence. That to me is also cruel and unusal punishment by people who derive joy from an overinflated sense of justice. If you've deemed this person has done such heinous crimes that they should be put to death, then why prolong it? You're not doing them or society any favors. (Don't get me started on the BS that is the justice system though. All the appeals for regular prisoners that are denied a possibility of early release, so that they can continue being a cash cow for the business running the prison.) That's a whole other can of worms on the grossness of society.
I don't think elderly care is necessarily a conspiracy to bilk people of their savings. There's a number of reasons why my partner's mother's care was so expensive. She chose to sell her house, and live in an expensive apartment complex for seniors. She had had a number of heart procedures, and justified this to herself, and later to me, saying she hadn't expected to live long. When she needed medical help, she refused to live with any of her children, although they all begged her to, and would have loved to have her. But, she had to maintain her independence. I can understand it, but it was a whole lot more expensive for her to live out her golden years this way. When she became terminal, she moved to another apartment run by the Catholic Church where she had considerably more care, plus hospice. This was extremely expensive. Again, she was asked to live with one of her children's families instead. She refused. So, had she lived with one of her family members, the costs would have been significantly reduced, although still quite a lot. I think she may have been shocked to find out how much her choices were going to cost. It was very inconvenient, because the family is spread out all over the country. But, I admired her independence. This woman was incredible. She was actually run over by a truck at an old age, survived, and lived a decade longer!
As for the death penalty, I think the protocol has to allow for a number of appeals. But, I don't believe in the death penalty in the first place. That's another can of worms...
Well dang... I went to edit my reply, and it disappeared into the ether. A truncated version...
I don't think the majority of healthcare workers are out to siphon the savings of the elderly, but I do believe that corporate conglomerates have CEOs at the top who don't see people over numbers. They're out to run a business, so they will cut corners where they can in order to secure more profits. Keeping customers means keeping a steady income coming in, so promoting the idea of prolonging life would be in their best interests.
The death penalty. I am not for the death penalty, but I am more against prolonged suffering. Prisons are a setup for society to lock away individuals they believe are no longer worthy of human rights. Putting a person in a cage for 20+ years is a fruitless endeavor. Especially when you are putting them with other individuals who are equally in need of reform. The Netherlands has the right of it in how they're going about reducing recidivism by actually treating criminals like people in need of reeducation. If there is no plan to reform, what's the point? It's just petty revenge otherwise.
Unfettered and crony capitalism are detrimental issues in all facets of our lives, but especially in healthcare. As a former nurse, healthcare is sacred. It shouldn't be politicised, or monetized. That should be a human right, and not for profit. I'm for a more limited capitalism that protects people from being exploited.
"It's just petty revenge otherwise."
Sorry, but I would call it justice. Rehabilitation and restitution should be the norm when possible. But, there are criminals who are so dangerous that they cannot be rehabilitated. I had the opportunity during college to tour one of the last insane asylums with a class. There was a maximum security section for the criminally insane. One guy, in for murder, had a lobotomy. When asked, he reenacted the murder he committed with obvious glee. Many there had serious brain injuries, and uncontrollable sadistic urges. Profoundly dangerous. Immune to intervention. The regular prison system couldn't deal with them because of this. So, in cases where there's brain damage accounting for these behaviours, it's impossible to reach them. Yet they are often highly intelligent, and extremely manipulative. So, that's one set of prisoners who cannot be released. Another set can be. I'm not understanding how reeducation would work for every offender. Plus, our society demands accountability. Otherwise, there's chaos. If there's no prison sentence for crimes deemed egregious to society, there would be no reason not to act out badly. For instance, the idea in some places not to prosecute shoplifters means that shop owners have to take the loss, and raise prices for the rest of us to cover it. It isn't a victimless crime.
However, jailing people for decades over something like pot, is unconscionable. Ditto petty theft. These things happen disproportionally to people of color.
So, the Netherlands has the right idea. Providing education, vocational instruction, and mental health interventions are all wonderful, and a great way to prevent recidivism, once the debt to society is paid. But, this can't work on all individuals due to medical conditions that can't be remedied, such as serious brain injury, which often causes violence.
I understand the incentive behind justice, but it's often abused for financial gain rather than its intention of action equaling consequences. The majority of criminals don't fall into the clinically insane category. Even in the Netherlands, there are individuals who are never going to reach an appeal to be given a chance to be able to be reintroduced to society, but that is the rare 10% if that. I don't disagree that a criminal should not be made accountable for their crimes, I'm just saying the method is not inductive to reform over just punishment for punishment's sake. Logically speaking, if there is no chance for reform, all you're doing is placing a person in a box to waste away in misery. (That is not living, nor is it a life.) Is that justice or spite? They're already as good as dead in that scenario, except now they have suffered as well, and society has to pay to extend their suffering as a means of 'justice.' If someone is truly deemed irredeemable (which would be very few if a reasoning mind is present) death would be a mercy. It's the only means where I would agree to the death penalty. For the rest rehabilitation should be tried and reintroduction to society the end goal. On average, if a person is given the right incentive, reform is possible. It's been proven that the Netherlands methods have borne far better fruit given recidivism rates are around 10% whereas in most other countries where more than half become repeat offenders.
I agree that euthanasia shouldn't be allowed, for the very reasons Adriana McGee mentioned.
Instead, assisted suicide should be the golden standard; it would need to involve triple-blind psychological evaluations; and in the end, should the psychological evaluation process favor their appeal... the patient should be required to trigger the actual process of their own termination, while being offered to do so in as comfortable way as medically possible. I think this is already how it's playing out in Northern European countries that already have had carried out this discussion through.
Worthwhile to keep in mind that people who are adamant about suicide will easily find a way to get it done, so this would be one one hand about actually encouraging them not to do so recklessly - and in the other hand about allowing them to do so in a painless and effective way, IF they manage to *convince* the psych specialists evaluating them that it's for the best and that they're indeed acting on their own free will.
My reasoning: there is already such a thing as covert euthanasia, and it needn't involve legal procedures. Many instances of it are documented throughout history. It can involve foul play such as provoking "accidents" or hiring assassins, or it can involve only psychological torture that can very well make the victim clamor for death. If there were such a thing as process of assisted suicide that was developed from the ground up to address these possibilities... its psych evaluations could actually give the patient a fighting change against the latter possibility, which could indeed involve sending them to a hospice where they might be allowed to spend the remainder of their life in a dignified and non-abusive setting.
That's a good point. I would have been clearer in using the term "eventually" rather than "easily". I did not mean to imply that suicide is an easy thing to do, but that there are many easily accessible options to try and carry it out when one has moved past the ideation stage.
That's funny that you write this, I was just talking to someone the other day that If things go south for me I want to do the right to die thing. As you know I was shot several times in June, after a 12 hour surgery my anatomy is different now and I have some complications here and there. I still have bullet fragments in what's left of one of my vital organs that has to be checked every 6 months.
The recovery from the surgery was brutal AF and ALOT of suffering (3 months worth). As someone diagnosed with psychopathy everything's logic to me. My experience of suffering the way i did it would make sense that if I'm going to lose anything else and I'm going to die Inevitably anyways that there's no need to suffer till the end. Pain medication doesn't take away ALL the pain, I experienced hallucinations with what they gave me because it was so strong but I still felt pain.
It doesn't bother me at all to die, I been in the hospital a few time with near death experiences from my shenanigans,apparently im hard to kill. Unfortunately I am one of the ones who has an affinity for testing mediocrity, I never think about how dangerous some of the things I do are.
I been told several times I have a 50/50 chance to live and it never bothered me at all, I think to myself oh okay and well that's that.
My reason for choosing the right to die option is to bypass all the physical suffering and go straight to the inevitable lights out part. I have a abnormal high tolerance for pain but pain 24 hours a day for 3 months will make someone weary. Give me the lights out pill, goodnight and goodbye.
Totally understandable. I don't think that psychopaths really suffer though, as I equate suffering as the emotional toll that illness, injury, loss, and emotional damage takes on a person. For a psychopath it is the immediate. Such as you getting shot and having to deal with the pain. You deal with it, it's unpleasant, it sucks, it's painful, but it doesn't leave a lasting mark when it's over, and it is absent the fear and uncertainty that neurotypicals experience. That is what I consider when I think of the word "suffering".
This is my second time getting shot and im sure it can or will possibly happen again. When I said suffering it was to constantly feeling physical pain afterwards from having my whole digestive system surgically rearranged and most importantly not being able to eat or digest anything for 3 months while my body adjusts to the changes (i lost 60lbs). I was informed what I can be facing in the future had this fails me and I decided what to do to resolve it. To me it's a "if this happens I do that", type of deal.. problem solved.
I was telling my son about this because he likes that Canada has universal health care and we were discussing the slippery slope argument, which, playing the devil's advocate, I took that stand, he said that argument wasn't a valid one. He then named reasons why. So I brought up this situation.
He didn't believe it. Not in Canada! He asked for the link, so thank you.
I've done some thinking about the right to die issue and I personally would like that right, however I believe that no matter where you live it will eventually come to pass that it will be abused.
Like the examples you listed of government control where people are being killed instead of treated. Perhaps at some point even healthcare insurance companies will be offering death instead of treatment too.
Because in the end it's all about the money, it's saves them money.
So that said, I believe she was right.
I haven't changed my mind about my right to choose, and maybe with the right laws in place we can slow down the killing of people who don't want to die, but humans are greedy by nature, tribal and often heartless, so I believe we're on that slippery slope already.
As far as population control as I read someone mentioned, there are far easier ways to do that, like China did. I see a future where both will happen. Sadly.
I think the true reason for the anger is people not admitting their privilege. When people are from the “haves” vs the “have nots” there is, especially in youth, a desire to argue about how hard they also worked as a defense mechanism but it sets off the ones who struggled more.
my grandmother was in palliative care for her dementia + congestive heart failure for quite some time at our home before dying this january. it was interesting to see how the different family members responded to her care. one aunt begged for a doctor to 'assist her in her passing' (and would pray nightly for Jesus to 'take her home'), one uncle (family creep) stole money from my parents because now she couldn't keep an eye on it, and one aunt would constantly send her into emotional fits. my parents and i took care of her full time for a year and a half until she died under our roof with the hospice nurse here.
we had a rocky past, so it was nice to get to know her better for the year she lived here, even if she repeated herself every five minutes - didn't bother me a bit. i was glad for the time that i wouldn't have had if we listened to my aunt's suggestion.
That is amazing. It is good that you had that opportunity
This is a tough argument. You’re right!
I think ultimately I’m always going to advocate the right of an individual to choose their own end. Arguing from the side that enabling one thing could mean that a line is crossed and we suddenly decide to designate every disabled person as having lives not worth living doesn’t stack up for me. I do agree that there has to be very strict legislation in place to support euthanasia though.
This lady has clearly found purpose in her life. I’m happy to read that, but there are demonstrably plenty of terminally ill or disabled people who haven’t, or there wouldn’t be a debate.
The assumption is that palliative care is accessible to all and of high quality. Depends on the country you live in and whether you have private health care or not. Are you feeling lucky?
It also depends on how you balance protecting your own family versus having an extra few years of life. Are you willing to sign over every last penny to pay for medical expenses or could that money be used to support a son or daughter just starting out in life? Surely that should be my right to choose when the time comes?
Ableist, unconscious bias, sounds similar to me. How does someone else know how I view the value of my own life or my reasons for it? They don’t. I’m getting a bit weary of people telling me what I REALLY feel.
I do agree that an elderly or infirm person could theoretically be manipulated or encouraged by selfish family members to take the euthanasia option. This is a legitimate concern and there would need to be safeguards against this before I could fully endorse the euthanasia option being made legal here. There are very dysfunctional families out there.
I don’t fear death. I do fear being made to hang on when I don’t want to. I think the euthanasia debate hinges very much on how each person views quality of life. This lady might be right, my views on what constitutes my personal quality of life might change as I get older or if I get sick. They will still be my own views though. I’m not booking my date and time of death now. I’m asking to be allowed to book it later should I deem it necessary.
The problem with accessibility of palliative care is even more of a concern with euthanasia. If a country can’t take care of its sick, how will it keep euthanasia uncorrupted? The best we have now are the compassionate helpers of the world. In the case of people who truly lack the will to live, suicide is always a personal option. We make it hard to kill ourselves in the hopes that we can help others find their way to hope again. Those who cannot find that hope will always find a way to not exist.
I should add, I’ve had crippling mental health issues the last two decades (I’m 42) and complex regional pain syndrome since 2019. I was absolutely suicidal 6 months ago. I was too scared to kill myself, both for if it didn’t work and I made my body even worse and especially for my family. Since I couldn’t, I did a lot of internal work. I figured out what my wounds were (as dumb as it may sound, my parents don’t and never have liked me and it shaped my whole life. They also told me the goal of life is perfection, which is impossible), I did cognitive behavioral therapy on myself, and also was prescribed 600mg daily ketamine troches for my pain medication which is very helpful for depression it turns out. That combo of things, plus “I’m glad my mom died” by Jennette McCurdy, have brought me to a point where I am truly genuinely happy again. My thoughts and feelings are in order. I don’t know how I could ever lose hope for another person now.
Nothing of what you said sounded dumb to me. I’m glad you were able to find a solution that worked for you and that you are genuinely happy again.
I actually disagree that euthanasia is appropriate for people suffering from depression. My approach isn’t broad brush. More in line with situations where an individual is terminally ill, in pain and without hope of recovery. In those circumstances I believe individuals should have the option to choose a humane way to go.
I live in a country where you can’t even get a dental appointment! I dread to think how I could acquire quality palliative care. With ageing populations I’m not sure that there are enough compassionate helpers to go round.
If I was lying in bed, riddled with terminal cancer I’m not sure that making suicide difficult for me is necessarily fair. You’re right, it is difficult. I wouldn’t know how to go about killing myself in a humane way. Surely it would be kinder to provide me with the most humane option available at that point? Personally I would see hope as a false mistress in that situation.
I do agree with you that euthanasia should not be made easy and for the reasons you state. I think though that it should be an option in regulated circumstances.
From my experience with my mother being terminally I’ll, she could have gone at any time due to the sheer amount of fentanyl and opioids at her disposal. Although if you have zero palliative care options, the best you can really hope for is to seek out the helpers online. Gofundme for example, the news media, social media, hospitals, churches; just finding the people who CAN act on your behalf. Broadcasting the cruelty of it can enact change, there is always someone trying to find others to help
Suicide is not always a personal option. People who experience paralysis or who have lost the use of their hands need help.
Indeed true
i like how you put this ^
Amen!
While reading Adrianna’s first comment, my hands went cold. That’s a good thing to occur, as it only happens when I’ve read something that’s shaken my mind so much, my body has to redirect energy to focus and ingest the information. I share her concerns, as a fellow “undesirable,” while I also share your concerns about personal autonomy. I don’t know the answer.
I don't either, which is why the discussion is so important
Same here. I have complex regional pain syndrome, aka “the suicide disease”. I’m bedridden 23/7 (I manage to cook dinner for my husband and 4 kids daily). I also watched my mom die two weeks ago in hospice after being ravaged by pancreatic and lung cancer. It was rough but she died a compassionate and comfortable death in the end surrounded by loved ones. I say the answer is to not trust society with something that can be corrupted. We as a world haven’t figured out how to do that yet.
Indeed, and my condolences for your loss.
Thank you. Unrelated but my youngest daughter is named Athena. 😊
That's very cool
sending you extra spoons, rose.
Indeed, pretty much everything can be corrupted.
I feel like there are (at least) 2 different discussions/arguments here. One is The Right to Die, and the other is (forced) Euthanasia. For me, I absolutely think everyone who chooses to die should have access to compassionate end-of-life care from their physician. They should not have to hoard and hide opiates until they have enough to off themself. They should be provided with the necessary drugs and instructions. My mother was dying and probably had only days left. Her doctor gave her a prescription to get the job done. She went to sleep in bedroom on the first floor of the house and not in the bed she shared with my father for decades, so she could die and be carried out without unnecessary fuss. She chose to die on a Friday so, being Jewish, there would be an extra day to plan her burial since Jews must be buried the next day unless they die on the Sabbath. My father also took his own life when he was ready, but his story is very different. As you know, my father was a “famous” criminal because his case was the birth of Neurolaw in America. After he spent 14 years in prison, he was released and moved into an assisted living facility. He was 83, and not in great health. His arthritis was making it impossible for a single attendant to help him shower. They wanted to move him to the nursing home wing. He did not want to move or live in a nursing home, so he hoarded his opiates (the first time, someone on the staff stole his stash) and after I travelled from SF to NY to see him for the first time in 16 years, he downed the bottle of pills, my brother got a phone call from the ER a few hours later because someone checked on him while he was still alive and they got him to the ER. The doc there wanted to know whether to save him or not, given the circumstances. Had we not known this was what he wanted, we could have made the wrong decision. Btw, it’s hard to kill yourself with a bottle of pills. THAT is one of the reasons to want access to the right Rx for death. Even a veterinarian will tell you that you shouldn’t attempt to drug your old, dying dog to death because it often fails. It doesn’t have to be a guess with a dog, and it shouldn’t have to be a guess with a human. As far as the forced Euthanasia scenarios, those are not acceptable. It removes the choice which then becomes murder. I’m glad I live in California where my doctor can help me should I ever need to exercise my right to die.
This makes a lot of sense. The discussion started with "should we give the option to end your own life if you want?" And things got mixed with "euthanasia can be used to kill disabled people just as nazi Germany wanted". I think the discussion got in a mess because Athena and Adrianna weren't on the same page. And I don't know if euthanasia could even be applied to Omayra, because she could have been saved if rescuers had proper equipment so people thought she could have been saved. Plus she was just 13. It's not the same as a terminally ill 91 year old patient asking to die.
You also gave two good examples. The first is a terminally ill person choosing to die. The second is a about a person with no quality of life, choosing to die by any means. I am glad you let him go.
I am bemused to see that I'm not the only person who pondered a dystopian regime recruiting psychopaths, sociopaths and other people with an empathy deficit to administer involuntary euthanasia.
Knowing what I know now of the abuses that empathy is put to it's not necessary as I am positive that "empaths" would be happy to "assist" in suicide
Indeed. I have no interest in killing anyone. I don't see anyone's life as less valuable than my own. I think that notion is a bit strange
For me the notion is easy to conceive of. But the value is difficult to measure, it can be approached from various ends, just to list the components is tricky and not all can be simply quantified and it can be too easily misused. What is the most usual way of grasping it is value in sense of contribution (next value in sense of meaningful (another tricky term) experience vs being a vegetable). Which is... Not really value of life, but value of contribution measured against costs of keeping someone around? Not sure if it falls under tribal thinking or different thinking, but it sounds tribal. It is from the point of view of a community an individual is part of rather than from the perspective of an individual or philosophy (in the sense of thinking about other things beside life standard of a community). I've read about a tribe making hard choices even about orphans because they ruled it too risky to try and sustain them.
Indeed, and that makes sense. I think that the more capability rises, and the impact decreases, when it comes to effort put forward for these individuals, that is where the moral debate has to take place.
i agree. this is why i walk away when people call themselves empaths. it is a term used far too often for an excuse in behaviors that will tug at emotional heartstrings and it reeks of manipulation. i.e., "oh i did this bad thing but it's because i have such a terrible past", "oh i think we should do this bad thing but it's because it will help better their terrible future"
translation is somewhere along the lines of: "lob your emotional empathy at me to support my cause because i am empathetic and empathy is good >:( "
Yup, I have seen that myself
I read through the entirety of your conversation, and whereas, yes, the government pushing people towards suicide is deplorable and not that unexpected, giving individuals the right to die should still be a valid choice for that person to make. (It should also be done under the oath of a 3rd party psychologist to ensure the person isn't being coerced into it.)
As horrible as the notion is to consider, over population is an ever-increasing threat, and I don't see it getting under control anytime soon. This sort of culling that you spoke of is likely to become more prominent as resources begin to dwindle regardless of the right to die debate. Just as any sort of reform to prevent humans from eventually turning the planet into a desert wasteland will come far too late.
Forcing patients to live years of misery for the sake of the family's comfort is far more selfish than letting them decide to depart on their own terms. Many of the living relatives that are appointed to caring for these people once their mind is completely gone out of obligation is also rather selfish of society to push on a person(family) essentially forcing them take on the financial and personal responsibility to care for an invalid. Doing so is seen as 'the right thing to do,' but it is in fact just taking away their right to live their life for themselves too. (Or the invalid gets shoved in a nursing home where they are essentially forgotten and too often mistreated by nursing home staff that are too overworked/underpaid/undereducated to give proper care to people in the last stages of life.)
The story of the horse, one of violence? Or was it thinning the herd because they instinctually were aware the colt was doomed to die? Nature has always been cruel, and we as a part of nature do not circumvent these laws.
I agree with the right to die, and hopefully with dignity. The third party psychologist to ensure there's no coercion is an excellent idea.
"The story of the horse, one of violence? Or was it thinning the herd because they instinctually were aware the colt was doomed to die?"
It was compassionate because it spared the colt the far worse fate of a prolonged and miserable death.
Sometimes the most compassionate thing we can do is end a creature's suffering. To prolong life for the sake of living without a certain quality of life is not compassionate. From the conversation given, the person debating this was reflecting her own trauma of ableism with that of the colt's plight without the rational that a horse doesn't have the higher functioning brain of a human, so keeping it alive would be a disservice to it and the herd. There was no means for it to communicate anything meaningful in its short existence other than suffering, and to save it to live like that would be true cruelty in my eyes.
I do not think height of faculties comes into play. That's like saying an animal cannot know satisfaction, only be useful (in which case what compassion?). The colt can know satisfaction, can know it even without running around (especially when never could), the thing is that within herd conditions for satisfaction in state of such disability are not available. Taken away as a coddled pet it would be a possibility for the colt to live a satisfying life. But not within the herd.
We created a world (or parts of the world) for ourselves where it is possible. But resources can dwindle, either temporarily or longterm.
I agree wholeheartedly. Keeping the colt alive would amount to kindness being cruelty. That was a false equivalence.
"Forcing patients to live years of misery for the sake of the family's comfort is far more selfish than letting them decide to depart on their own terms."
Exactly.
My partner's mother passed away last year. For over 2 years, she moaned that she was "ready to kick the bucket". She had congestive heart failure, but proved to be one tough cookie. Even though she was a devout Catholic, I know that she would have opted for assisted suicide. She had no fear of the unknown. She was a very matter-of-fact, no-nonsense woman. She wouldn't have considered it grounds for eternal life in hell; just good medicine. She would have opted for assisted suicide because her care came at an exorbitant cost. We're talking tens of thousands of dollars a month. She wanted her money to go to her heirs; not for two years of hospice. She was in a constant state of alarm about this. There are many considerations about dying well, but the cost is astonishing if you give the best compassionate care available today. Realistically, it is out of the realm of possibility except for those very well off. Even with the best care, plus a lot of relatives spending time with her in between work and other family responsibilities, she was clearly miserable. She finally succumbed to covid, struggling to breathe. Who on earth benefited from this?? It's appalling. I refuse to die this way when there's no reason to prolong the inevitable.
In addition, your remarks about over-population and dwindling resources are spot-on. Society is going to have to reckon with the law regarding assisted suicide. We don't really have a choice.
It feels more like a means to juice people out of their life savings with the costs of healthcare (in America especially) for the dying and the ones left behind footing the bill. Healthcare businesses are turning profit hand of fist keeping people 'sick' and in their care. This goes not just for end-of-life care but many health issues expectant on continued expensive daily treatments and care. It's not much different in prisons. You have a person convicted of life in prison, on death row, who are kept alive in that state as a means to ensure 'punishment' when in actuality, it's private businesses collecting tax dollars to feed/house them instead of actually carrying out the sentence. That to me is also cruel and unusal punishment by people who derive joy from an overinflated sense of justice. If you've deemed this person has done such heinous crimes that they should be put to death, then why prolong it? You're not doing them or society any favors. (Don't get me started on the BS that is the justice system though. All the appeals for regular prisoners that are denied a possibility of early release, so that they can continue being a cash cow for the business running the prison.) That's a whole other can of worms on the grossness of society.
I don't think elderly care is necessarily a conspiracy to bilk people of their savings. There's a number of reasons why my partner's mother's care was so expensive. She chose to sell her house, and live in an expensive apartment complex for seniors. She had had a number of heart procedures, and justified this to herself, and later to me, saying she hadn't expected to live long. When she needed medical help, she refused to live with any of her children, although they all begged her to, and would have loved to have her. But, she had to maintain her independence. I can understand it, but it was a whole lot more expensive for her to live out her golden years this way. When she became terminal, she moved to another apartment run by the Catholic Church where she had considerably more care, plus hospice. This was extremely expensive. Again, she was asked to live with one of her children's families instead. She refused. So, had she lived with one of her family members, the costs would have been significantly reduced, although still quite a lot. I think she may have been shocked to find out how much her choices were going to cost. It was very inconvenient, because the family is spread out all over the country. But, I admired her independence. This woman was incredible. She was actually run over by a truck at an old age, survived, and lived a decade longer!
As for the death penalty, I think the protocol has to allow for a number of appeals. But, I don't believe in the death penalty in the first place. That's another can of worms...
Well dang... I went to edit my reply, and it disappeared into the ether. A truncated version...
I don't think the majority of healthcare workers are out to siphon the savings of the elderly, but I do believe that corporate conglomerates have CEOs at the top who don't see people over numbers. They're out to run a business, so they will cut corners where they can in order to secure more profits. Keeping customers means keeping a steady income coming in, so promoting the idea of prolonging life would be in their best interests.
The death penalty. I am not for the death penalty, but I am more against prolonged suffering. Prisons are a setup for society to lock away individuals they believe are no longer worthy of human rights. Putting a person in a cage for 20+ years is a fruitless endeavor. Especially when you are putting them with other individuals who are equally in need of reform. The Netherlands has the right of it in how they're going about reducing recidivism by actually treating criminals like people in need of reeducation. If there is no plan to reform, what's the point? It's just petty revenge otherwise.
Unfettered and crony capitalism are detrimental issues in all facets of our lives, but especially in healthcare. As a former nurse, healthcare is sacred. It shouldn't be politicised, or monetized. That should be a human right, and not for profit. I'm for a more limited capitalism that protects people from being exploited.
"It's just petty revenge otherwise."
Sorry, but I would call it justice. Rehabilitation and restitution should be the norm when possible. But, there are criminals who are so dangerous that they cannot be rehabilitated. I had the opportunity during college to tour one of the last insane asylums with a class. There was a maximum security section for the criminally insane. One guy, in for murder, had a lobotomy. When asked, he reenacted the murder he committed with obvious glee. Many there had serious brain injuries, and uncontrollable sadistic urges. Profoundly dangerous. Immune to intervention. The regular prison system couldn't deal with them because of this. So, in cases where there's brain damage accounting for these behaviours, it's impossible to reach them. Yet they are often highly intelligent, and extremely manipulative. So, that's one set of prisoners who cannot be released. Another set can be. I'm not understanding how reeducation would work for every offender. Plus, our society demands accountability. Otherwise, there's chaos. If there's no prison sentence for crimes deemed egregious to society, there would be no reason not to act out badly. For instance, the idea in some places not to prosecute shoplifters means that shop owners have to take the loss, and raise prices for the rest of us to cover it. It isn't a victimless crime.
However, jailing people for decades over something like pot, is unconscionable. Ditto petty theft. These things happen disproportionally to people of color.
So, the Netherlands has the right idea. Providing education, vocational instruction, and mental health interventions are all wonderful, and a great way to prevent recidivism, once the debt to society is paid. But, this can't work on all individuals due to medical conditions that can't be remedied, such as serious brain injury, which often causes violence.
I understand the incentive behind justice, but it's often abused for financial gain rather than its intention of action equaling consequences. The majority of criminals don't fall into the clinically insane category. Even in the Netherlands, there are individuals who are never going to reach an appeal to be given a chance to be able to be reintroduced to society, but that is the rare 10% if that. I don't disagree that a criminal should not be made accountable for their crimes, I'm just saying the method is not inductive to reform over just punishment for punishment's sake. Logically speaking, if there is no chance for reform, all you're doing is placing a person in a box to waste away in misery. (That is not living, nor is it a life.) Is that justice or spite? They're already as good as dead in that scenario, except now they have suffered as well, and society has to pay to extend their suffering as a means of 'justice.' If someone is truly deemed irredeemable (which would be very few if a reasoning mind is present) death would be a mercy. It's the only means where I would agree to the death penalty. For the rest rehabilitation should be tried and reintroduction to society the end goal. On average, if a person is given the right incentive, reform is possible. It's been proven that the Netherlands methods have borne far better fruit given recidivism rates are around 10% whereas in most other countries where more than half become repeat offenders.
I agree that euthanasia shouldn't be allowed, for the very reasons Adriana McGee mentioned.
Instead, assisted suicide should be the golden standard; it would need to involve triple-blind psychological evaluations; and in the end, should the psychological evaluation process favor their appeal... the patient should be required to trigger the actual process of their own termination, while being offered to do so in as comfortable way as medically possible. I think this is already how it's playing out in Northern European countries that already have had carried out this discussion through.
Worthwhile to keep in mind that people who are adamant about suicide will easily find a way to get it done, so this would be one one hand about actually encouraging them not to do so recklessly - and in the other hand about allowing them to do so in a painless and effective way, IF they manage to *convince* the psych specialists evaluating them that it's for the best and that they're indeed acting on their own free will.
My reasoning: there is already such a thing as covert euthanasia, and it needn't involve legal procedures. Many instances of it are documented throughout history. It can involve foul play such as provoking "accidents" or hiring assassins, or it can involve only psychological torture that can very well make the victim clamor for death. If there were such a thing as process of assisted suicide that was developed from the ground up to address these possibilities... its psych evaluations could actually give the patient a fighting change against the latter possibility, which could indeed involve sending them to a hospice where they might be allowed to spend the remainder of their life in a dignified and non-abusive setting.
I agree with everything you've said, except for this:
"Worthwhile to keep in mind that people who are adamant about suicide will easily find a way to get it done"
It isn't easy to commit suicide. It's even more difficult if ill. Plus, a failed suicide is a potential nightmare for everyone.
I doubt that we'll ever see an end to "covert euthanasia". That's just a type of crime that's always been with us.
That's a good point. I would have been clearer in using the term "eventually" rather than "easily". I did not mean to imply that suicide is an easy thing to do, but that there are many easily accessible options to try and carry it out when one has moved past the ideation stage.
Thank you for this. Genuinely changed my view.
She made excellent arguments that need to be heard.
I'm disabled also. She does not speak for all of us.
That's funny that you write this, I was just talking to someone the other day that If things go south for me I want to do the right to die thing. As you know I was shot several times in June, after a 12 hour surgery my anatomy is different now and I have some complications here and there. I still have bullet fragments in what's left of one of my vital organs that has to be checked every 6 months.
The recovery from the surgery was brutal AF and ALOT of suffering (3 months worth). As someone diagnosed with psychopathy everything's logic to me. My experience of suffering the way i did it would make sense that if I'm going to lose anything else and I'm going to die Inevitably anyways that there's no need to suffer till the end. Pain medication doesn't take away ALL the pain, I experienced hallucinations with what they gave me because it was so strong but I still felt pain.
It doesn't bother me at all to die, I been in the hospital a few time with near death experiences from my shenanigans,apparently im hard to kill. Unfortunately I am one of the ones who has an affinity for testing mediocrity, I never think about how dangerous some of the things I do are.
I been told several times I have a 50/50 chance to live and it never bothered me at all, I think to myself oh okay and well that's that.
My reason for choosing the right to die option is to bypass all the physical suffering and go straight to the inevitable lights out part. I have a abnormal high tolerance for pain but pain 24 hours a day for 3 months will make someone weary. Give me the lights out pill, goodnight and goodbye.
Totally understandable. I don't think that psychopaths really suffer though, as I equate suffering as the emotional toll that illness, injury, loss, and emotional damage takes on a person. For a psychopath it is the immediate. Such as you getting shot and having to deal with the pain. You deal with it, it's unpleasant, it sucks, it's painful, but it doesn't leave a lasting mark when it's over, and it is absent the fear and uncertainty that neurotypicals experience. That is what I consider when I think of the word "suffering".
This is my second time getting shot and im sure it can or will possibly happen again. When I said suffering it was to constantly feeling physical pain afterwards from having my whole digestive system surgically rearranged and most importantly not being able to eat or digest anything for 3 months while my body adjusts to the changes (i lost 60lbs). I was informed what I can be facing in the future had this fails me and I decided what to do to resolve it. To me it's a "if this happens I do that", type of deal.. problem solved.
Do you have a link for the info. About that woman who was offered MAID instead of healthcare?
Sure:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11508581/Woman-featured-commercial-euthanasia-Canada-wanted-live-access-care.html
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/woman-euthanasia-commercial-wanted-to-live
Thank you
I was telling my son about this because he likes that Canada has universal health care and we were discussing the slippery slope argument, which, playing the devil's advocate, I took that stand, he said that argument wasn't a valid one. He then named reasons why. So I brought up this situation.
He didn't believe it. Not in Canada! He asked for the link, so thank you.
Certainly. Happy to help.
I've done some thinking about the right to die issue and I personally would like that right, however I believe that no matter where you live it will eventually come to pass that it will be abused.
Like the examples you listed of government control where people are being killed instead of treated. Perhaps at some point even healthcare insurance companies will be offering death instead of treatment too.
Because in the end it's all about the money, it's saves them money.
So that said, I believe she was right.
I haven't changed my mind about my right to choose, and maybe with the right laws in place we can slow down the killing of people who don't want to die, but humans are greedy by nature, tribal and often heartless, so I believe we're on that slippery slope already.
As far as population control as I read someone mentioned, there are far easier ways to do that, like China did. I see a future where both will happen. Sadly.
I think the true reason for the anger is people not admitting their privilege. When people are from the “haves” vs the “have nots” there is, especially in youth, a desire to argue about how hard they also worked as a defense mechanism but it sets off the ones who struggled more.
Suffering gives a person something to get through and overcome. A life without suffering is likely not going to be a well-examined one.
I agree