Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The State has rules about what doctors may do precisely to prevent abuse of the system. F.ex. a heartless unscrupulous relative or someone with an interest in their death could either pressure the dying person or otherwise manipulate the situation so as to cause their death by proxy means. Even if most people won't go to that extent, an amazing percentage of people will do so. Sorry, but people are on the whole not basically "goodness of their heart" angels (barring a few and far between types).
You raise a very good issue that I had not thought of. I did have a situation where I represented an individual, let's call him Peter. He had a son, let's call him Steve. In Winter 1994-5 Steve made acquaintance of a grandmother, let's call her Gertrude.
Gertrude needed her roof fixed and Steve was in that business. Gertrude could not afford the work, so Steve agreed to perform it, and get title to the house, with Gertrude retaining the right to remain for the balance of her life. She died under mysterious circumstances about a week or two after the repairs.
When I took Steve's deposition and asked what date he flew from our area to Cancun, without an advance fare ticked, he fled the deposition room.
So I see your point. I retain my beliefs. I am 66 and afraid of life after the end of my career, if all of my colleagues, friends and family have taken the dive towards dementia and/or death.
My late bf's aunt died under Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) law two years ago. She had previously had cancer, and when MAID became law in 2016, she remarked that if her cancer returned, she would not go through treatment again but would choose to die.
You don't have to pay. You have to have a Provincial Health Insurance card, which is what Canadian citizens and permanent residents have to access the public health insurance.
It is not a pill or a clinic. The patient must request MAID through appropriate paperwork. Doctors and nurses are not allowed to offer it. There are rules under which it is allowed, terminal illness or loss of quality of life such as from a debilitating condition that renders one unable to care for themselves. Once approved, the patient chooses the day and place they want to die and can decide who they want present.
The daughter of the woman explained how it went. She was staying with her mother, and her two brothers and all the grandchildren, one of whom was an MD, came the night before. The day before death, the drugs are delivered in a box, and a nurse comes to place a port in each arm, in case one fails.
Then, she said, she asked her mother if there was anything special she wanted to eat. Her mother said, "Yes! KFC!"
She said they all were, gathered round, eating fried chicken the day before her mother's death. She said it was somewhat surreal.
The next day, the doctor came, and her mother said, "If anyone is going to cry or get hysterical, leave now. This is my choice." Then she said goodbye to her grandchildren except for the one who is a doctor, and they left the room. The MD granddaughter remained with the woman's three children for the end. The doctor administered a sedative through the port that put the mother to sleep, then administered the drugs that would end life. It took about ten minutes. Then the doctor notified the funeral home they chose simply that a death had occurred in the home, and they could pick up the body.
My bf was eligible for MAID but never asked. The nurse who was coming to the house each day near the end asked me if he ever mentioned it, because they were not allowed to offer, but he had told her that day he wanted to go. I said he knew about it, but did not bring it up.
As it was he died several weeks later. He had fallen asleep, and was breathing peacefully and regularly, and I said, "You know, if you want to go, just go". Within 30 seconds, he took three breaths with longer pauses in between each one, and that was it. Is that what he was waiting for?
Very well explained, and a very moving story.
I've not known anyone personally who had taken MAID until recently. They had a major stroke, and were in rehab. The prognosis was not good. They chose MAID. It's difficult to put myself in their place, and I did have a bit of trouble understanding their position, until someone said it was degenerative, with no hope for any more recovery.
Surreal is apt. I knew the time and the day. They didn't want anyone there, except the only living relative he had left, besides a half brother who lives out of the country. I tried to imagine what they were thinking as their last hours passed by. I was later told, he was impatient and wanted them to hurry up. Ya, he was kind of a....
It shows you just how fast life can change. They had just come back from another great trip. Was enjoying their new apartment by the beach, and just seemed to be doing what we all like to do, then bang.
So it's a lovely day here. I'm going to buy my favourites sandwich, my favourite iced-tea, and head to the beach and REALLY appreciate the moment.
I am starting this thread with a quote from another Great Debates thread, since it was veering badly off-topic. However, there is much good food for thought here.
No law that exists now or is likely to be enacted addresses non-terminal situations that may, upon mature consideration, warrant a person contemplating his own death. In no way do I advocate "permanent solutions for temporary problems" so this post is not aimed at teenagers or young adults who feel that their first breakup of a relationship means they'll never love or live again.
David Goodall, who you discussed on Free Market Principle to Lower healthcare in US, loosen Medicial Licensing requirements would not be eligible for DWD under Canadian or any U.S. state laws. Another example. My childhood acquaintance (I would not call him a friend) "Howard" had a dental procedure in 2001 that went badly awry. He had intermittent severe pain from the time of the procedure till July 2012, when he killed himself by self-poisoning in Los Angeles, where he lived. Our close mutual friend, Norman, traveled from Denver to LA to be with him but for obvious reasons kept his role limited. He also would not have qualified. In neither Goodall's nor Howard's case was death expected within six months and no doctor in his right mind would so certify. Both, however, correctly believed they needed to die. Objectively, many would likely have agreed.
DWD also does not take into account the issue of life spans outliving savings, incomes and living (and not demented) friends. I am personally worried about this. I do not have a good handle on my genetics since my Dad died at 47 of rectal cancer, whose origins do not apply to me. My mother died at 81 but almost everyone else in her family survived into their 90's (one still alive). As far as finances go mine are better than average. I hope to keep working till about 80 or maybe a bit longer. My current work colleagues, though, probably won't so I may lose my job sooner. Between my personal savings and my wife's bequest (that's a complex issue) I probably have eight to ten years socked away.
So, life after 90 is foreseeable but does not look appetizing. My $0.02.
I partially agree, however, the counterargument is that if someone is deciding they want to end their life over simple poverty, this reflects very poorly on the society in which they live, which has forced them to be so poor that this even comes up. Such a society is (at least tacitly) admitting that it has serious unresolved moral problems, such as uncontrolled greed of the wealthy.
I partially agree, however, the counterargument is that if someone is deciding they want to end their life over simple poverty, this reflects very poorly on the society in which they live, which has forced them to be so poor that this even comes up. Such a society is admitting that it has serious unresolved moral problems, such as uncontrolled greed of the wealthy.
It's not only money that you run out of. It's social network, things to do, sometimes one or more of your mind, sight, hearing, smell or mobility. If it were just money yes, you might have a point, even if I disagree with redistributionist policies. There is no way to redistribute the five senses, mobility or mental acuity.
It's not only money that you run out of. It's social network, things to do, sometimes one or more of your mind, sight, hearing, smell or mobility. If it were just money yes, you might have a point, even if I disagree with redistributionist policies. There is no way to redistribute the five senses, mobility or mental acuity.
Very good point.
As someone who is now 73, the outlook isn't great. Frankly, it's all downhill at this age, and every significant illness that comes along could be the beginning of the end. Young people don't understand that.
As someone who is now 73, the outlook isn't great. Frankly, it's all downhill at this age, and every significant illness that comes along could be the beginning of the end. Young people don't understand that.
In general, that is true. However, on the inspirational side, I was playing tennis with somebody as recently as September 2 021 when the gentleman who had just turned 95. He was a former member of the New York Board of Regents. He is a great exemplar for the community. He did not play the last two seasons. He did come last year in May when a plaque naming a tennis court after it was installed.
I hope your remaining years are as lucky and fruitful.
We are merciful to our pets but not to our people.
We warehouse our people when they are infirm and their quality of life is zero. Why? Because we don't want to let them go?
What about what they want?
Maybe someday in the US the laws will change to allow voluntary euthanasia for the elderly.
When that happens my choice is Edvard Grieg's "Morning."
Has anyone heard of the Legal 2000 ruling? Let's say you're in a nursing home and you tell the nurse you want to die. What happens? The nurse is obligated to send you off to a Psych Ward to pound some sense into you, even if you're bedbound and 90 years old. Reason: you've become a danger to yourself.
I worked in a LTC/Rehab facility for 18 years and I experienced that, one time, the facility Psychiatrist talked to one of my patients, and when she stated she wanted to die, off to the Psych ward she went. After she returned her wrists and ankles had black lines, indicating she was 4-postered to the bed. And she was a very feisty woman from Belize.
I always warned all my patients about telling a nurse or visiting Psychiatrist about stating they wanted to die and the ramifications.
Think: Who are most opposed to a national Right to Die law like they have in Canada. Think loss of jobs!
Dr.'s, I've heard, routinely ignore DNR's. At the facility I worked at I knew which were DNR, and yet, when they seemed near death, the nurses ran over to that patient's room with a Crash Cart. It could have been the census was low and they didn't want to lose a "customer". When the census reaches a certain low point, one of the nurses goes home.
MY jury is out on the psychological evaluation. There needs to be some measures to prevent "permanent solutions to temporary problems" but if you see my post above there are a variety of problems other than imminently fatal illnesses that are not so temporary, an d probably should qualify (link).
If we examine suicides, they fall into two groups.
The first group is in the minority, less than 3% of all suicides.
For these people, there is no possible resolution to their situation and there never will be. Not only is a successful resolution impossible, it is not possible to obtain even a neutral outcome.
And that is true by any objective measure.
For the other 97%, it is wholly subjective.
There is a resolution to their situation, and often more than one possible resolution, and even in the worst case scenario, one can still achieve a neutral outcome.
Sadly, their extreme subjectivity does not allow them to see resolutions to their situation.
They do not necessarily need psychological counseling, but they do need a disinterested objective third party to show them what they themselves cannot see or refuse to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
Obviously I'm not a Libertarian,...
Neither am I, and Libertarians are often the butt of my jokes. Libertarians are so discombobulated they couldn't even organize a sock drawer. The Party has been around for how many decades?
Yeah, and how many hold public office? Yeah, well, there you go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
...so I'll say this: Whatever right to self-ownership one has is limited to acts and expressions that don't hurt, harm, or degrade the dignity of others (exception: reasonable and proportionate defense, retaliation, or punishment of someone committing the just-described class of act - by definition a wrongful act).
That is totally incongruous and flawed.
One is either a free and natural person or they are the property of the State, or others, or both.
There is no gray area there.
The duty to do no harm exists irrespective of one's status.
Regardless of one's status, I am not responsible for the "dignity of others." Dignity is subjective and thus cannot be measured unlike harm which is objective and can be measured. Likewise, I am not responsible for the feelings of others.
People feel the way they do precisely because they want to and for no other reason.
I can say, "Boo!" and one might start crying incessantly, another might throw a tantrum and sit in the corner and sulk, and still another might laugh their ass off until the pee their pants.
But one thing is crystal clear: I did not make them feel that way nor did I force them to take those actions....they chose to feel and act that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
In a true democracy, the state is there as a referee and an enforcer of majority-agreed-upon laws.
Laws by their nature are inherently amoral.
In other words, laws and morality are independent of each other.
Slavery is immoral. The laws, or in the case of tribal groups where it was a societal norm, that permitted it to exist did not make slavery moral just as the laws that prohibited slavery did not make it immoral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
If Jane and Paul have a dispute and one commits a legally forbidden act, the state does have a right to protect the attacked person (and society); namely by issuing punishment to the attacker. Or alternately, if nobody attacks the other, one of them can take the other to court (or have some form of mediation).
To put your claim into context, if Jane was a slave-owner and Paul was her slave who escaped and fled to gain freedom, the State has a right to hunt down Paul and return him to her possession.
The fact that something is legal or permitted does not make it moral or ethical just as laws that prohibit certain acts does not make those acts immoral or unethical.
If we adopt your views, then companies acted morally and ethically when they dumped toxins into aquifers, rivers, streams, and lakes causing harm to people (and the environment) because at one time there were no laws prohibiting such acts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
The State has rules about what doctors may do precisely to prevent abuse of the system. F.ex. a heartless unscrupulous relative or someone with an interest in their death could either pressure the dying person or otherwise manipulate the situation so as to cause their death by proxy means.
In that situation, yes, the State and society both have a compelling interest to prevent abuse but that does not require draconian laws or out-right prohibitions to protect those who might be vulnerable.
Additionally, it is disingenuous to have doctors be part of that process because it places [American] doctors at odds with medical ethics, namely the duty to preserve life. Such duty is non-existent outside the English-speaking world. In the non-English speaking world, doctors have a duty to provide palliative care in lieu of extraordinary and costly measures to preserve life.
And, that brings us back to "dignity."
"You're not allowed to end your life because it would harm my dignity and upset me and make me feel bad and angry" is not a reason to bar people from ending their lives.
One is either a free and natural person or they are the property of the State, or others, or both.
…
In other words, laws and morality are independent of each other.
Slavery is immoral. The laws, or in the case of tribal groups where it was a societal norm, that permitted it to exist did not make slavery moral just as the laws that prohibited slavery did not make it immoral.
…
The fact that something is legal or permitted does not make it moral or ethical just as laws that prohibit certain acts does not make those acts immoral or unethical.
………
Additionally, it is disingenuous to have doctors be part of that process because it places [American] doctors at odds with medical ethics, namely the duty to preserve life. Such duty is non-existent outside the English-speaking world. In the non-English speaking world, doctors have a duty to provide palliative care in lieu of extraordinary and costly measures to preserve life.
And, that brings us back to "dignity."
"You're not allowed to end your life because it would harm my dignity and upset me and make me feel bad and angry" is not a reason to bar people from ending their lives.
You could talk all you want about being a natural person with rights - but we all are under a suppression of the state power.
The state/government was not always there - it is a product of the societal development - starting in ancient but post-tribal periods.
The state is a suppression machine -to put it primitively: the legal system, the police, the military, the prisons, etc is there to suppress the considered criminal? minority of the society to benefit the majority of it, to protect that majority from the undesirable actions of a few.
It is also there to protect the society against the outside enemies forces.
Eventually it was/is used to protect ruling classes - inevitably.
We agreed to surrender our natural rights to the state for that protections.
It backfires sometimes, when TPTB is usurping more and more of our rights without our approvals, agreement under the pretext of “democracy” - very overrated and it isn’t that of a valuable or desirable under close scrutiny as we are all led to believe.
The movie “Idiocracy” has a good take on that.
Your take on slavery being immoral isn’t true. Morals were/are changing.
When the first slavery appeared in the ancient world it is was actually quite progressive and we could say - the most moral.
Why? Because the alternative to slavery was death.
Before the phenomenon of slavery the warring tribes and factions were killing the members of the losing tribes - as there was not enough resources to make use of the captured
Once the society developed agrarian techniques one person could produce enough food for himself, his children with some leftovers of crops.
Now captured enemies could be used - if fed - in exchange for their labor which produced - you guessed it - even more extra - food, buildings, timber, etc.
Changing morals regarding life, dignity, available resources may help us to accept euthanasia for at least a part of the society if not for all - no matter the reason.
Agree, that we shouldn’t involve doctors.
It is easily could be done without their involvement to help preserve their oath.
However, you are wrong about non-English speaking doctors.
The English speaking doctors (euphemism for Western?) are not exceptional, and not exceptionally moral: I actually argue they are most likely less moral - judging on our own government data on how many medically unnecessary surgeries, procedures, tests and medications they are using on their patients.
It is shocking when the profit motive is involved.
In the countries where the doctors are salaried - there is no phenomenon like that.
In the absence of greed, profit motive as well as legal blackmail like in the US - no societal resources are wasted on futile attempts and the dignity is preserved..
Euthanasia looks more and more moral: return of some of our natural rights taken by the government back to us
Last edited by L00k4ward; 05-14-2023 at 03:19 PM..
Dr.'s, I've heard, routinely ignore DNR's. At the facility I worked at I knew which were DNR, and yet, when they seemed near death, the nurses ran over to that patient's room with a Crash Cart. It could have been the census was low and they didn't want to lose a "customer". When the census reaches a certain low point, one of the nurses goes home.
This is exactly what went on in the ICU where I worked. DNRs over ruled, either by the doctors or the family, and nurses racing down the hall with the crash cart to code a patient who had no meaningful quality of life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
