Hi @NiNyu. Yes, I understand, and did think of what you said when you referred to "getting the picture." If a terminal patient is not suffering, then I would be very happy for them, though I can't imagine that many terminally ill patients experience an especially peaceful or painless death at the end.
I said I think it should be for terminally ill patients because there is no hope of recovery for them. A patient with T, no matter how unhappy, has hope, they have time and with time, change can happen. Change that the person cannot necessarily see in the depth of their suffering. As you said, "ending yourself is freakin' hard" and I think it should be, it is a big deal, especially when you are technically full of life.
This is all just my opinion, ours seem to differ, but I do not imagine my opinion is going to have much bearing on whether or not T or anything else becomes approved for assisted suicide.
@Craig in Cali
I am not sure comparing the right to eat and the right to die really works. You can be prevented from eating in numerous ways, but in almost any circumstance, you can kill yourself. Also, assisted suicide is legal in some states, you have to take the medication which would kill you, yourself - the "assistance" is the doctor giving you the lethal drugs. I think that should be available in every state. (This is the assisted suicide to which I was referring, not the person A helps person B.) I actually do not have a problem with that being legalized (with proper regulations around it) in the same way assisted suicide is legal in Oregon. It is the "for what conditions" that I question.
I think what you stated there is exactly the problem with allowing T on the "assisted suicide" list. If you're saying we should just offer assisted suicide to everyone, no matter what, then that's another thing, but otherwise, what makes T more worthy than depression etc. or are they both adequate reasons? People commit suicide over both.
Finally, I certainly do not propose that anyone be forced to live - no one is. Anyone may end their life at any moment and, thought I do not like to say it, it's not that hard or necessarily painful to do. I do not like the idea of having assisted suicide as an option for someone experiencing suffering that could be temporary. As you said above, "how do we quantify the suffering? How long is enough?" If someone who is depressed and wants to die, but otherwise has nothing wrong asks for assisted suicide, then do they get it? What are the qualifications? Is it still this person's right to die? Yes, but should a doctor have to help them do it? I am not sure. I have to imagine from a doctor's perspective, writing a script for death weighs heavily.
I acknowledge the complexity of the issue and I do not claim my opinion is right or better than anyone else's. I do not want to force anyone to live and I cannot, happily. It is simply that, for me, when I think of the issue, the greatest divide is between those who have time, and those who do not have time. A terminal patient has done everything that can be done, literally, death is coming, soon, and that is it. They may not want it, but it is around the corner. Someone with T, someone with depression or whatever other non-terminal condition, has time, has options, has hope for change. No doctor can look at them and say without question that they will never feel better. That is the difference for me.
What I wrote are just my feelings, I am in no way looking to get into an argument with anyone or get anyone heated. I didn't realize I wrote such an especially controversial post. I was just sharing my own, personal opinion as part of the conversation. My views are not set in stone forever, I am exploring this issue as I write about it - polite, respectful conversation is how changes of mind and of reality, happen.
For the record, if assisted suicide were legalized for T tomorrow, I wouldn't necessarily be happy about it, but I wouldn't stand in anyone's way either - which I think is a difference from what you seem to have read in my post.
*I do have to add one amendment to this: If someone is actually physically incapable of ending their own life, who truly wants to die (someone who is irrevocably paralyzed, for example) then I absolutely think they should be able to have some assist them, as, essentially, their right to die has been taken away by their circumstance.
I said I think it should be for terminally ill patients because there is no hope of recovery for them. A patient with T, no matter how unhappy, has hope, they have time and with time, change can happen. Change that the person cannot necessarily see in the depth of their suffering. As you said, "ending yourself is freakin' hard" and I think it should be, it is a big deal, especially when you are technically full of life.
This is all just my opinion, ours seem to differ, but I do not imagine my opinion is going to have much bearing on whether or not T or anything else becomes approved for assisted suicide.
@Craig in Cali
I am not sure comparing the right to eat and the right to die really works. You can be prevented from eating in numerous ways, but in almost any circumstance, you can kill yourself. Also, assisted suicide is legal in some states, you have to take the medication which would kill you, yourself - the "assistance" is the doctor giving you the lethal drugs. I think that should be available in every state. (This is the assisted suicide to which I was referring, not the person A helps person B.) I actually do not have a problem with that being legalized (with proper regulations around it) in the same way assisted suicide is legal in Oregon. It is the "for what conditions" that I question.
How do we quantify the suffering? How long is long enough? Do they have to have a terminal illness, really, or can they just have some horrible neuropathy?
I think what you stated there is exactly the problem with allowing T on the "assisted suicide" list. If you're saying we should just offer assisted suicide to everyone, no matter what, then that's another thing, but otherwise, what makes T more worthy than depression etc. or are they both adequate reasons? People commit suicide over both.
Finally, I certainly do not propose that anyone be forced to live - no one is. Anyone may end their life at any moment and, thought I do not like to say it, it's not that hard or necessarily painful to do. I do not like the idea of having assisted suicide as an option for someone experiencing suffering that could be temporary. As you said above, "how do we quantify the suffering? How long is enough?" If someone who is depressed and wants to die, but otherwise has nothing wrong asks for assisted suicide, then do they get it? What are the qualifications? Is it still this person's right to die? Yes, but should a doctor have to help them do it? I am not sure. I have to imagine from a doctor's perspective, writing a script for death weighs heavily.
I acknowledge the complexity of the issue and I do not claim my opinion is right or better than anyone else's. I do not want to force anyone to live and I cannot, happily. It is simply that, for me, when I think of the issue, the greatest divide is between those who have time, and those who do not have time. A terminal patient has done everything that can be done, literally, death is coming, soon, and that is it. They may not want it, but it is around the corner. Someone with T, someone with depression or whatever other non-terminal condition, has time, has options, has hope for change. No doctor can look at them and say without question that they will never feel better. That is the difference for me.
What I wrote are just my feelings, I am in no way looking to get into an argument with anyone or get anyone heated. I didn't realize I wrote such an especially controversial post. I was just sharing my own, personal opinion as part of the conversation. My views are not set in stone forever, I am exploring this issue as I write about it - polite, respectful conversation is how changes of mind and of reality, happen.
For the record, if assisted suicide were legalized for T tomorrow, I wouldn't necessarily be happy about it, but I wouldn't stand in anyone's way either - which I think is a difference from what you seem to have read in my post.
*I do have to add one amendment to this: If someone is actually physically incapable of ending their own life, who truly wants to die (someone who is irrevocably paralyzed, for example) then I absolutely think they should be able to have some assist them, as, essentially, their right to die has been taken away by their circumstance.