Physician Assisted Suicide: for or against?

[silverdoctor]

Seen too many people suffer long and painful death, I don't want to go that way.

Seeing people in the old age home, don't know they are in the world - being fed, changed and what not. It's not a way for anyone to go.


My great grandmother was 105 when she died, always said she was sick of living and wondered why God wouldn't just take her. She had her mind, still mobile - just sick of living day to day in the old age home waiting for someone to come see her. It's not a life.

She never drank, never smoked, never did any drugs, always the good girl - and she regretted it late in life. Live your life she told me, enjoy it.


My uncle was in his mid 40's when he died of cancer. Never sick a day in his life, always avoided doctors like the plague. Took sick on a Friday evening, sick enough to hit the hospital. Diagnosed the next day, in coma by sunday and dead on Monday. No pain, he went fast, never seen anyone die like that before.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by Heyupduck

I am for it, but draw the line at children who's brains have not fully developed, so for over 21's yes, under, no.

Our government is already discussing allowing "mature minors" to make this decision. Keep in mind no terminal illness was mentioned, as I understand it, no medical issue would be required. It would sadden me greatly to know a child could walk into a hospital in my country and have a doctor end their life because they had a hard day at school. I obviously can't speak on others behalf, but I would gladly suffer in my old age rather than accept this reality, or worse, people deciding on the behalf of others who aren't given the choice.

[Sooner]

I'm for it, we put our dam animals to sleep to save pain but have to watch our most precious suffer even though they may want it to end that way.

You spend your whole life making decisions for yourself but when it comes to when/how you want to exit, that one were not smart enough to handle?

Has to be terminal and you should be of sound mind when you make the decision. Even if it is a decision made years prior in a living will type thing.

How anyone can ask their kid or family member to do the deed is beyond me. I would never ask that of mine. Just give me some good drug so I go to sleep with a smile, comfortable and in no pain. Docs do it already, my aunt was given a week & went into hospice care, she directed the docs to sedate as needed so there was no pain or suffering and she died a few days after, just the way she asked.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Our government is already discussing allowing "mature minors" to make this decision. Keep in mind no terminal illness was mentioned, as I understand it, no medical issue would be required. It would sadden me greatly to know a child could walk into a hospital in my country and have a doctor end their life because they had a hard day at school. I obviously can't speak on others behalf, but I would gladly suffer in my old age rather than accept this reality, or worse, people deciding on the behalf of others who aren't given the choice.

Well, that's very unselfish of you but I highly doubt that having a bad day would meet the government criteria for Doctor assisted suicide.

[Mulehahn]

To me, the criteria should be simple. Are you suffering from a condition that has no hope of recovery. If yes, you should be allowed to decide if D.A. Suicide is what you want. I have been very fortunate that all of my family has passed rather suddenly. But we had a very dear family friend who had a severe aneurysm. He went from being a very active person, hiking often, working 60 hours a week, taking care of his family. Then one day he couldn't talk, lost significant motor function and worse. He his last act was to take his own life. Everyone was upset with him, but I understood. He wanted to go out on his terms. It would of been nice if he could of gone to a hospital and ended it quickly, and cleanly. Not forcing someone else to find him.

[airbornedeerhunter]

Is it the OP's position that someone's religious beliefs should trump the wishes of complete strangers who are dying slow, painful, agonizing deaths over a period of several months all the while their family are forced to sit by and watch their loved one waste away simply because someone else believes in God???

Sell crazy someplace else.

[roger]

Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter

Is it the OP's position that someone's religious beliefs should trump the wishes of complete strangers who are dying slow, painful, agonizing deaths over a period of several months all the while their family are forced to sit by and watch their loved one waste away simply because someone else believes in God???

Sell crazy someplace else.

Agree. well said. It's not as if you just broke with your first girlfriend and you just can't live without her. You'll have to qualify!
pad should be available for those who choose it.same as abortion.
HaVing a way out in pad is better than going into a building and blasting 10 innocent people so the police will come and assist you with your exit.
leave religion out of this discussion.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter

Is it the OP's position that someone's religious beliefs should trump the wishes of complete strangers who are dying slow, painful, agonizing deaths over a period of several months all the while their family are forced to sit by and watch their loved one waste away simply because someone else believes in God???

Sell crazy someplace else.

I started this discussion, so I guess I was the one who got to choose what I put into it. If you read my post, I said "PERSONALLY" twice. Personally means just that. My view. Not yours. I am pretty certain that you can understand that word, especially when written twice. If not, Mr. Webster is your friend.

As for the role of religion in this discussion, even though you may feel it has no role, it does. Kind of like ignoring that oxygen is real even though you can't see it. Canada's legal and medical systems were founded with a Judeo-Christian worldview that placed the highest value possible on life. Thus, the Hippocratic Oath which doctors swear, calls them to pledge their service to preserving, and saving human life. In keeping with this, the Justice system created laws to safeguard life, and punish with the highest measure, those who would harm or take it. Whether you agree with it or not is really irrelevant, as you live under those laws, which were created with a particular worldview in mind. However, I am smart enough to know that religion is not taken into consideration any longer in our gov't, but the court system still administers laws that had religious ideals as their foundation.

I started this thread because of an article I read that talked about the moral quagmire created when the law, should it be legislated in Alberta, be forced upon hospitals that are run by Covenant Health a Catholic agency. I trust even a simpleton can see the conflict should this happen, and the ramifications of a person taking ill in a hospital that won't carry out legislation based on their Charter right of freedom of religion which forbids them from taking life, and thus usurping the role of the Creator they believe in. I was looking for intelligent conversation, not ignorant one liners. They don't lend themselves well to a very complicated matter such as this. Save your smart aleck comments for elsewhere or send them in a pm.

[Slash8]

I watched my Dad last May say "F-it" and pull an oxygen mask off his face and then try to fight my sister putting it back on with what little strength he had left because he just wanted to go after battling lung & brain cancer for 8 months. He fought to live but he also fought to die. I know he would have much rather just went to sleep peacefully because he knew he wasn't going to pull out if it and you know what? I would have rather watched my Dad just go to sleep than to see that BS. Its been hell on my family especially my mother and siblings and god damn it its been hell on me watching a loved on go through that. Especially when its your hero.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by sns2

I started this thread because of an article I read that talked about the moral quagmire created when the law, should it be legislated in Alberta, be forced upon hospitals that are run by Covenant Health a Catholic agency. I trust even a simpleton can see the conflict should this happen, and the ramifications of a person taking ill in a hospital that won't carry out legislation based on their Charter right of freedom of religion which forbids them from taking life, and thus usurping the role of the Creator they believe in.

Be that as it may, it leaves out the part about artificially prolonging life far beyond when that person should be let to die. Medical system gets carried away and can keep people alive to suffer for no good reason for months or years beyond when they should have expired months or years past. If a person is terminal and keeping them alive is torture for them then treatment should be stopped. A Do not resuscitate order does no good here as the person has to actually die before treatment is denied. If they are artificially kept alive and prevented from 'dying' many victims of the system can be kept alive indefinitely and that was never part of 'Gods' plan either.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Well, that's very unselfish of you but I highly doubt that having a bad day would meet the government criteria for Doctor assisted suicide.

If this goes ahead, I'm sure any good lawyer could wipe the floor with the criteria, discrimination, standard of living, from the CBC "If the cut-off is 18 and we're prepared to let people 18 have physician-assisted death, why would we want to have 17-year-olds suffer interminably?", mental suffering, etc. all come to mind. From the Toronto Star,

"The affliction could be physical or mental. It need not be terminal." from the CBC,

"But Smith believes the discussion should go even further - to include young children.

"The committee isn't going to address that, but as a society we should," he said. "Obviously a five-year-old is not going to be able to give consent for something like that, but should we allow a substitute decision maker like the parent to say, "Johnny's had enough suffering. I think it's time that we assist him to terminate the suffering.""

There is alot of grey area when you combine the fact that no terminal illness is required, the decision can be based on mental suffering, and people are deciding for others.

[Arachnodisiac]

Anyone who works in EMS in any capacity knows that those who are against assisted suicide are the lucky among us who haven't seen or felt tremendous suffering, either because they haven't had the experience, or because they were insulated by delusion.

"I'm ready to die."
"Please don't let me live."
"I just want the pain to stop."
"I'm ready to meet my maker."

People literally beg to die. It is heartbreaking, it is real, and it is happening every day.

What I find sad is that the same type of people who are against euthanasia are the same ones who do not hesitate to seek and advocate for medical treatments that unnaturally prolong life. The truth is, 100 and 200 years ago, people didn't often live long enough to suffer - or at least they didn't suffer very long.

We have made incredible advances in medical care... it's time for our philosophy to catch up.

[Arachnodisiac]

Children DO suffer needlessly, and they should be included.
But no one, adult or otherwise, is ever going to be allowed to die because of a "bad day".
Children die by suicide frequently, especially by hanging on Canada's reserves. But believe me, those kids didn't just have a "bad day" either.
Your comments trivialize the plight of those suffering from mental health issues, and they demonstrate your lack of insight into the lives of the terminally/chronically ill.

Originally Posted by Trochu

If this goes ahead, I'm sure any good lawyer could wipe the floor with the criteria, discrimination, standard of living, from the CBC "If the cut-off is 18 and we're prepared to let people 18 have physician-assisted death, why would we want to have 17-year-olds suffer interminably?", mental suffering, etc. all come to mind. From the Toronto Star,

"The affliction could be physical or mental. It need not be terminal." from the CBC,

"But Smith believes the discussion should go even further - to include young children.

"The committee isn't going to address that, but as a society we should," he said. "Obviously a five-year-old is not going to be able to give consent for something like that, but should we allow a substitute decision maker like the parent to say, "Johnny's had enough suffering. I think it's time that we assist him to terminate the suffering.""

There is alot of grey area when you combine the fact that no terminal illness is required, the decision can be based on mental suffering, and people are deciding for others.

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

Anyone who works in EMS in any capacity knows that those who are against assisted suicide are the lucky among us who haven't seen or felt tremendous suffering, either because they haven't had the experience, or because they were insulated by delusion.

Wow. Just... wow.

[ForwardBias]

I'm for it. We should be free to decide, that simple.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by sns2

I started this discussion, so I guess I was the one who got to choose what I put into it. If you read my post, I said "PERSONALLY" twice. Personally means just that. My view. Not yours. I am pretty certain that you can understand that word, especially when written twice. If not, Mr. Webster is your friend.

As for the role of religion in this discussion, even though you may feel it has no role, it does. Kind of like ignoring that oxygen is real even though you can't see it. Canada's legal and medical systems were founded with a Judeo-Christian worldview that placed the highest value possible on life. Thus, the Hippocratic Oath which doctors swear, calls them to pledge their service to preserving, and saving human life. In keeping with this, the Justice system created laws to safeguard life, and punish with the highest measure, those who would harm or take it. Whether you agree with it or not is really irrelevant, as you live under those laws, which were created with a particular worldview in mind. However, I am smart enough to know that religion is not taken into consideration any longer in our gov't, but the court system still administers laws that had religious ideals as their foundation.

I started this thread because of an article I read that talked about the moral quagmire created when the law, should it be legislated in Alberta, be forced upon hospitals that are run by Covenant Health a Catholic agency. I trust even a simpleton can see the conflict should this happen, and the ramifications of a person taking ill in a hospital that won't carry out legislation based on their Charter right of freedom of religion which forbids them from taking life, and thus usurping the role of the Creator they believe in. I was looking for intelligent conversation, not ignorant one liners. They don't lend themselves well to a very complicated matter such as this. Save your smart aleck comments for elsewhere or send them in a pm.

Very eloquently put SNS.

I understand what you're getting at but should religious beliefs have any say in this matter? Should someone's religious belief trump the rights of others? Should I have to live a painful death at some point because someone else believes that their God doesn't like the idea of assisted suicide?

Yes, our laws and "civility" are based greatly on someone's belief in the bible and/or religious teachings - whether we like it or not. That currently dictates basically how we die - to the bitter end. Should that dictate how we die? Burning at the stake would be a quicker and less painful death than some experience.



SNS, I guess the big question is - if a referendum were held tomorrow and society as a whole had a chance to vote on it - would you vote with your head or your heart? It comes down to a future choice personally - the possibility to face a long and painful death, or to have the right to end the suffering painlessly.

One thing remains true in life, we are all going to die at some point. How is the unknown for most of us.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Be that as it may, it leaves out the part about artificially prolonging life far beyond when that person should be let to die. Medical system gets carried away and can keep people alive to suffer for no good reason for months or years beyond when they should have expired months or years past. If a person is terminal and keeping them alive is torture for them then treatment should be stopped. A Do not resuscitate order does no good here as the person has to actually die before treatment is denied. If they are artificially kept alive and prevented from 'dying' many victims of the system can be kept alive indefinitely and that was never part of 'Gods' plan either.

And that's exactly why I started the thread. You make a great point. This is not an easy issue, but it will affect all of us. Moral, personal, religious, and judicial quagmire. So many sides to every situation. So many things to think about.

[Scott N]

I'm 100% for it, with some controls in place of course.

My step mom had cancer a few years ago, and after suffering for quite a few months and with her quality of life rapidly disappearing, she told me in March 2014 that she wished her life was over and that she could end it peacefully. She didn't die until that September in the hospital. The way I feel is who in the hell has the right to deny someone like that a peaceful end? As many others have mentioned, sometimes we seem more humane to our pets than we do our loved ones.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by winged1

I support it, with some reservations. Outside influences must be negated somehow.

X2
If it's bad enough that doctors are keeping a person alive, with next to nothing for Quality of Life, then the choice should be allowed to be made.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Very eloquently put SNS.

I understand what you're getting at but should religious beliefs have any say in this matter? Should someone's religious belief trump the rights of others? Should I have to live a painful death at some point because someone else believes that their God doesn't like the idea of assisted suicide?

Yes, our laws and "civility" are based greatly on someone's belief in the bible and/or religious teachings - whether we like it or not. That currently dictates basically how we die - to the bitter end. Should that dictate how we die? Burning at the stake would be a quicker and less painful death than some experience.



SNS, I guess the big question is - if a referendum were held tomorrow and society as a whole had a chance to vote on it - would you vote with your head or your heart? It comes down to a future choice personally - the possibility to face a long and painful death, or to have the right to end the suffering painlessly.

One thing remains true in life, we are all going to die at some point. How is the unknown for most of us.

On a macro-level, religious beliefs do have a say in the matter due to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which give protection to freedom of religion. You have a large fight brewing when you have publicly funded, Catholic hospitals. Plus, legal precedent that states that doctors do not have to perform abortions based on personal convictions.

On a micro-level, religion plays a role because all adherents to a religion, not just Christian, are informed by their religion, and thus have definite beliefs about the value of life.

I believe in separation of church and state, and so would be very comfortable for this issue to go to a referendum. If it were held today, I would in all likelihood abstain from voting, which is our democratic right, as I am just not sure at this point in time.

While many religious people are very black and white in their convictions, the older I get, the more I realize that life is lived out in many shades of grey.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

Children DO suffer needlessly, and they should be included.
But no one, adult or otherwise, is ever going to be allowed to die because of a "bad day".
Children die by suicide frequently, especially by hanging on Canada's reserves. But believe me, those kids didn't just have a "bad day" either.
Your comments trivialize the plight of those suffering from mental health issues, and they demonstrate your lack of insight into the lives of the terminally/chronically ill.

I can easily find cases that support the opposite of what you are choosing to believe. In the Netherlands, there are multiple cases of where a spouse died and the surviving partner, perfectly healthy, decided they didn't want to live any longer, a parent who lost a child and decided they didn't want to live any longer, people who have been fired from their jobs, and decided they didn't want to live any longer. I think you are confusing your opinion with fact, but the fact of the matter is, in the two countries that currently allow DAS, relatively healthy people are choosing to end their lives, and not because of a wonderful event that occurred in them either. Check the data, but a large percentage of people utilizing DAS in those two countries are not physically suffering.

And your comments suggest children with mental health issues, who may not be of sound mind and capable of making a decision let alone know what they are doing, should be killed? I may have a lack of insight, but I'd prefer attempted treatment and care for these people vs what you're implying.

[winged1]

Originally Posted by sns2

I started this discussion, so I guess I was the one who got to choose what I put into it. If you read my post, I said "PERSONALLY" twice. Personally means just that. My view. Not yours. I am pretty certain that you can understand that word, especially when written twice. If not, Mr. Webster is your friend.

As for the role of religion in this discussion, even though you may feel it has no role, it does. Kind of like ignoring that oxygen is real even though you can't see it. Canada's legal and medical systems were founded with a Judeo-Christian worldview that placed the highest value possible on life. Thus, the Hippocratic Oath which doctors swear, calls them to pledge their service to preserving, and saving human life. In keeping with this, the Justice system created laws to safeguard life, and punish with the highest measure, those who would harm or take it. Whether you agree with it or not is really irrelevant, as you live under those laws, which were created with a particular worldview in mind. However, I am smart enough to know that religion is not taken into consideration any longer in our gov't, but the court system still administers laws that had religious ideals as their foundation.

I started this thread because of an article I read that talked about the moral quagmire created when the law, should it be legislated in Alberta, be forced upon hospitals that are run by Covenant Health a Catholic agency. I trust even a simpleton can see the conflict should this happen, and the ramifications of a person taking ill in a hospital that won't carry out legislation based on their Charter right of freedom of religion which forbids them from taking life, and thus usurping the role of the Creator they believe in. I was looking for intelligent conversation, not ignorant one liners. They don't lend themselves well to a very complicated matter such as this. Save your smart aleck comments for elsewhere or send them in a pm.

Maybe you could quote for us, where in the Canadian medical, or North American, code of ethics, are physicians expressly prohibited from offering such services.

How do you, in any stretch of imagination, think that assisted suicide would be legislated a mandatory service. That thought is absurd.

[norwestalta]

I'm for it. Quality of life trumps quantity. I think its better for all involved (parents,children,spouses).

[winged1]

Originally Posted by Trochu

I can easily find cases that support the opposite of what you are choosing to believe. In the Netherlands, there are multiple cases of where a spouse died and the surviving partner, perfectly healthy, decided they didn't want to live any longer, a parent who lost a child and decided they didn't want to live any longer, people who have been fired from their jobs, and decided they didn't want to live any longer. I think you are confusing your opinion with fact, but the fact of the matter is, in the two countries that currently allow DAS, relatively healthy people are choosing to end their lives, and not because of a wonderful event that occurred in them either. Check the data, but a large percentage of people utilizing DAS in those two countries are not physically suffering.

And your comments suggest children with mental health issues, who may not be of sound mind and capable of making a decision let alone know what they are doing, should be killed? I may have a lack of insight, but I'd prefer attempted treatment and care for these people vs what you're implying.

With out a doubt, if painless suicide was readily available, it would be utilized. May be a future service for crematoriums. Line ups on busy days, Christmas, Valentine's. Somehow, it just seems more plausible then dropping bombs on people's who don't want to die. Do unto oneself, as he would do upon others?

[kevinhits]

I am thankful that this legislation is coming before I get old/sick to ensure I have a way out of suffering and pain when and if it ever happens to me....

[Jayhad]

we are not truly free until we can choose what we can and can't do with our bodies

[Salmon Slayer Lenny]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

Anyone who works in EMS in any capacity knows that those who are against assisted suicide are the lucky among us who haven't seen or felt tremendous suffering, either because they haven't had the experience, or because they were insulated by delusion.

I've worked in EMS in pretty much every capacity for over 23 years and I think that is one of the most naive and ignorant statements ever made? You make an association fallacy implying everyone is of the same thought process to support your own ideology. The same philosophy applies to those in medicine.

I am neither wholly for or against it. Yes, people can suffer. But on the other hand, if properly applied, palliative care and hospice care do very well to end or limit suffering. In actuality, it hastens the process along.

I'm also not opposed to those having the right to choose. The problem is that all too often, it's the simple fix and people that support it are playing god. I've seen many, many, many terminal patients that have no interest in ending their life. Yes, some do and with certain criteria, I think it makes sense whether I support it personally or not.

It needs to be well regulated, well thought out, well researched and properly applied. I don't think any one physician or any one institution should be forced to implement P.A.D. The problem with this is when one group feels their rights supracede the rights of others. Instead of people making blanket statements, account for the fact that this would easily be accomodated.

Quite simply, the College of Physicians and Surgeons does not support a blanket P.A.D policy. It's not fair to every physician to force this on them. Their should be specialists that work in this area and it should be left to them. Think about it, how long is a referral going to take as well as the screening process? IF you think it will just be hastened along and fast tracked, it kind of defeats the purpose. There will be some that it is the right decision for, there will be many it will not be.

[Salmon Slayer Lenny]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

Anyone who works in EMS in any capacity knows that those who are against assisted suicide are the lucky among us who haven't seen or felt tremendous suffering, either because they haven't had the experience, or because they were insulated by delusion.

And Arachnodisiac, I think you are confusing the shot gun to the head with brain matter everywhere, the C.O poisoning and the hanging with suffering. This is an example of blurred lines confusing 'terminal suffering' with mental health diseases. One does not equal the other.

[Mike_W]

My wifes grandmother was "dying" the doctors made the decision that her time was up as there was no recovery in sight. They drugged her and starved her for two weeks before she finally passed away.
How is that any better?
I'm all for it. I think people should have the right to choose when they die in any terminal case and do so with the dignity of not having to shoot yourself.

[The Elkster]

I think it should be a personal choice 100%. Hey, if one is religious and feels it is wrong then don't opt for that choice. But stay the F out of other people's business. I don't need some bible thumper deciding what is best for me quite frankly. If I went along with them I'd never have had the pleasure of my right hand...and no nothing fell off!

Now I do believe that no medical person should be compelled to have to assist a suicide. It should be a choice between individuals on both sides of the equation. A family member should not be allowed to have a say in the decision. They should only be directing medical staff to carry out instructions previously laid out by the victim. If no clear instructions then no assisted suicide. PERIOD. Could make it mandatory to identify wishes in some registry with a default to NO.

Lots of fear mongering but there is no reason why this couldn't be a viable system. Just have to lay out strong ground rules. Sad we have more compassion for our pets then our families.