Despite being from the neocon journal, The Daily Standard, and not being in favor of it, this article presents a fairly complete assessment of where the country (and the world) seems headed on this subject. Personally, I think as long as the person isn’t coerced and all treatments have been tried (not the case with some of Kervorkian’s patients and in other instances), it is none of the government’s business how or when we choose to die.
Should laws against assisted suicide be rescinded as “paternalistic?” Should assisted suicide be transformed from what is now a crime (in most places) into a sacred “right to die”? Should assisted suicide be redefined from a form of homicide into a legitimate “medical treatment” readily available to all persistently suffering people, including to the mentally ill?
According to Brown University professor Jacob M. Appel, the answer to all three of these questions is an unequivocal yes. Writing in the May-June 2007 Hastings Center Report (“A Suicide Right for the Mentally Ill?”), Appel argues in that assisted suicide should not only be available to the terminally ill, but also to people with “purely psychological disease” such as victims “of repeated bouts of severe depression,” if the suicidal person “rationally might prefer dignified death over future suffering.”
[…]
As disturbing as Appel’s proposal is–it is essentially a call for death-on-demand–it is refreshing that Appel has written so candidly. After years of focus group-tested blather from the political wing of the euthanasia movement claiming that legalizing assisted suicide would be strictly limited to the terminally ill, we finally have a clearer picture of where the right-to-die crowd wishes to take America.
There are two weight-bearing intellectual pillars that support euthanasia and assisted suicide advocacy: (1) a commitment to a radical individualism that includes the right to choose “the time, manner, and method of death” (often called “the ultimate civil right” by assisted suicide aficionados); and (2) the fundamental assumption that killing is an acceptable answer to the problems of human suffering. Appel describes these conjoined beliefs succinctly as the “twin goals of maximizing individual autonomy and minimizing human suffering” by avoiding “unwanted distress, both physical and psychological” through creation of a legal right “to control . . . when to end their own lives.”
Is anyone concerned that increased attention to (and support for) suicide comes at a time when there seems to be an increasing demand (or need) for socialized medicine? I can’t help but think that coercion will inevitably creep into the decision making process in end of life or potential end of life situations, in a state that where health care resources could well become increasingly scarce and/or rationed. Better, I think, to have the paternalistic state that fights to maintain life than a social order that *thinks* it wants free hand to die.
Isn’t all this group really after is some form of decriminalization? Better, I think, to keep the lawyers away from all this and perverting issues best left to doctors and patients only.
#2 Better, I think, to have the paternalistic state that fights to maintain life than a social order that *thinks* it wants free hand to die.
And
#2Better, I think, to keep the lawyers away from all this and perverting issues best left to doctors and patients only.
Did the same person write both sentences, or did the two of you switch-off between paragraphs? 🙂
the problem, as I see it, is we currently have a combination of both of your statements: A state that criminalizes suicide and assisted suicide, while I’m sure some Doctors and patients are taking matters into their own hands – as discreetly as possible, of course.
When the right to life folks pay attention to the right to quality of life as well, I might be willing to listen to them.
What I see instead is a cynical political ploy being used by people who want the right to lifer’s vote, so they can get power and then use it to steal the money that could offer some quality of life for elderly, children and the disabled.
People who are genuinely politically opposed to any termination of life, through abortion or assisted suicide, need to be consistent. No death penalties. No supporting wars. No death by malnutrition, or inadequate health insurance. No genocide ignored just because the victims are not white. No rabid opposition to gun control. That’s the price.
Basically pro-lifers need to include rather than fight against the agendas that would give victims a right to life. Otherwise it’s a hypocritical intrusion of political power by people who also argue against any political intrusion in their lives. In the world of players and the played, most pro-life folks are being played and ignoring the real consequences of the rhetoric used to play them.
Of course it should be up to the patient. I’m hard-pressed to ascertain ANY reason for outlawing this (other than hard-core religious trying to force their beliefs onto others).
If I ever come down with some dreaded incurable disease that will result in a horrible, slow, lingering death (even if that death doesn’t fall within the six-month window of opportunity), I sure hope that the option is open to me. Or to anyone I sign power of attorney over to. How quickly we forget Eric Burden and the Animals: “It’s my life and I’ll do what I want”. Even if that includes ending it.
Sheesh. I would have thought the Terry Schiavo debacle would have put this issue in the limelight for some informed discussion. I guess ideologues like “doctor” Bill Frist, who prefers to do his diagnoses by videotape, don’t want this issue brought to the public’s attention.
Many of the old laws against suicide are based on religion, and the needs to populate and create NEW followers into religion.
I have a rare genetic disease called Huntington’s disease in my family and it has currently crippled my mother both mentally and physically. I am not sure what she wanted, but if i have it, personally i would rather go before it gets to its worst stages.
#2 – seems to be an increasing demand (or need) for socialized medicine?
There is no demand for socialized medicine except in the deluded fantasies of far right wing nut bags.
There is a demand for, and an overwhelming need for, nationalized health care coverage, and when you learn the difference, please come back and sit in the grown up table.
Oh for the Love of is living up to his/her name today…
Instead of cowardly bitch slapping him with so supporting argument, you could have in very simple and genreral terms explained what you think the difference is. Or provided links.
Do we have adult discussions at the grown up table or just petty bickering?
Mike V, I know it sounds contradictory, and it seems this is the state we’re in. But I think it in fact *should* be this way.
The decision should stay between the doctor and the patient. But if the state feels the need to involve itself I’d rather think it was there to preserve life. If the state is in a position with limited resources at hand it would likely side with doing the patient in to save money. And this is the situation we need to avoid at all costs. We need to LIMIT the states power by forcing it’s hand toward preserving life. We can’t make the state take a Hippocratic Oath (can we?) so do the next best thing; don’t give the state a choice in such matters, outside of the choice of staying out of the matter. I want to guard against the possibility of giving the state a choice in the matter, AND having the power to interfere in a doctore patient decision which could go against the wishes of both. This is a situation I believe is entirely plausible and which right to die crowd, I think, isn’t paying enough attention to. If I want to *live* and the costs will involve the state covering it, the state shouldn’t have a choice in the matter.
isn’t the reason murder is illegal because someone’s life is taken from them against their will? So why is it illegal for someone to take your life if you can provide proof that you are in a sound state of mind and wish to die? I’ve never seen a satisfactory explanation for that.
To the question asked up top – Yes.
Oh, come now Lauren, you have a point. But lets leave the Gimme Gimmes out of this. Awesome cover band.
I always thought it would be cool to have a cover band like them named Percale. Or 300 Thread Count.
#9 – Google it yourself… This is tired ground. Anyone who doesn’t know the difference has chosen to ignore the difference.
@2
I’m sorry but your argument is a straw man. There are lots of nations with some form of public heath care, Canada, France, the UK, ect and I doubt that the state has ever off’ed someone to save money. I’ve never heard of this happening, and I bet people would have a hard time of finding a case of this.
I think it’s much more likely for someone living in America, without insurance, facing huge bills to commit suicide. I wouldn’t want to leave my family poor fighting something that I may not win.
To answer the question, it should be up to you if you want to die. But it shouldn’t be encouraged and there should be support for people to find other options.
{back from a quick google search}
Wikipedia uses the two terms interchangablly. A lot of the other links I found did too.
So you admit you add nothing at all ot the conversation – only derision, name calling, and ad hominem attacks.
I would tell you why you suck, but you should just go google it instead.
#9, This has been covered several times already. While a worthwhile topic and sure to raise the passions, this thread is about SUICIDE. Lets not confuse or cloud the issue with off topic crap.
#10 We can’t make the state take a Hippocratic Oath (can we?) so do the next best thing; don’t give the state a choice in such matters, outside of the choice of staying out of the matter.
Legally require the state to preserve life, but depend on it “looking the other way” when people die?
How could that possibly work?
How could the state not investigate every death to ensure it is not the cold-blooded murder of someone who wanted to continue living?
Oh I see. Its a fair subject when OFTLO brought it up with a nasty reply to a post with a substantive opinion on the matter at hand, but not when i chide him / her for being a dick. I see.
Demading someone back up a cowardly potshot – bad.
Being a Jerk – good.
Ok. Got it now. Sorry about that.
The terminally ill should not be restrained from prematurely ending their life. If there is a reasonable medical certainty that the patient will die as a direct result of his condition, they and they only should have the option of ending it.
A chronically depressed person is not capable of making the rational decision to end it. To suggest they should be allowed to commit suicide would be the same as aggravating their illness. A person depressed because of their illness, such as Parkinsons or Huntingtons, is in an entirely different situation.
Huntingtons has taken a grandfather, three aunts and an uncle in my immediate past. I have seen what it does. If I were to be diagnosed with it then I would not want to subject my family to the hell it wrecks.
>>How could the state not investigate every death to
>>ensure it is not the cold-blooded murder of someone
>>who wanted to continue living?
Umm, now about by requiring the individual who wanted to die (or his or her appointed designee) to attest to the fact?
I really don’t understand this resistance to allowing people freedom to live (and end) their lives in way of their own choosing.
Assisted suicide is already being done all the time. With something like 20% of all health care expenditures being wasted in the last 6 months, assisted suicide would be a great first step in lowering health care costs for everyone.
That is what not being looked at here, the cost of caring for the terminally ill. if I were dying and had no quality of life left, I would want my health care dollars spent on those whom could actually benefit.
But of all the problems with health care cost, insurance, and access, I sure am tired of talking about this one and abortion. I wish politicans were as obsessed about getting those 50 million uninsured coverage.
22—Perfect timing. WHY CARE? Yes, the sanctity of life is the cause celebe for a small group of “life is sacred at all costs” that has grabbed hold of the BushCo party. But that seeming good value in a vacuum has more general support because of the “SLIPPERY SLOPE” concern that the State once unfettered will initiate death squads to reduce the cost of whatever socialized medicine is pandered to the public. ((Like global warming, its already here and is only growing hotter.))
The slippery slope goes to my own preference for the old having a “DUTY TO DIE, AND GET OUT OF THE WAY.” By force?===NO. I see no value to people sitting in wheel chairs all day long in front of a TV they can’t hear and can barely see. They aren’t terminal, but they are only 10% there. What value is really being maintained by keeping them here? So, if they “want” to die, they should be allowed to die.
An hourly ad by half remembered movie stars should do the trick. “Remember me?—I’m Elizabeth Taylor, join me here in la-la land and along with 71 other Hollywood legions, we can get it on!”
Details to follow if I am criticized for things I didn’t say.
Some other points to consider…
Less people, MORE jobs…
Less people SHOULD force the corps to bring back Tech and Educational schooling. TEACH those you want to work, to do the jobs you wish.
We could go the way of China, and Curtail child raising, to 1 per family…
I had surgery performed on me over a year ago to remove a stone in my salivary gland. The surgeon put me completely out. It was one of the most remarkable experiences of my life. Like a nano-second switch I remember going from full consciousness to ??!!!???! OUT. From a 1 bit to a 0 bit. Now, what if someone invented a magic box– say the size of a Tic Tac box– with a shiny, plastic red button that as soon as it is pressed it would kill you instantaneously like that experience that I shared with you above (and probably you too). With something so easy wouldn’t it be criminal?
Suicide is out there. If someone is bold enough than they should go right ahead and jump over a bridge or fry themselves on the 3rd rail. If an old person wants to die there are easier ways than that. But, let the person make their choice. If we make it too easy like the magical death box i imagined then assisted suicide is a crime.
25—Exactly. Elizabeth Taylor wont work on the depressed but still functional. How about Angelina Jolie “You all know I love CHILDREN. Now that I have saved all the starving CHILDREN in the world, I find to my horror that the CHILDREN need jobs in order to feed themselves. If you have lost the sensation of taste in your taste buds, could you seriously consider the gift of your death to these CHILDREN so that others might live?”
There are no stressors on our gene pool folks. Gotta provide artificially or nature will just act in that directed random way that it does.
Are we not Devo?
Something tells me, if medically assisted suicide were allowed, we’d find out the vast majority of those being “assisted” in the U.S. would be the poor.
28—Of course that is true. Absent a decent education leads to less income. Less education and less money are both good reasons to want to die. We should (l)iberally support this wish for autonomy.
My personal opinion in cases like these are: when in doubt don’t involve the State. Don’t make a law if we aren’t certain how it should be written or whom really needs protecting. Thus, at the end of the day, unless there is a compelling evidence of true abuse, I side on leaving the decision between the doctor and patient. If abuse by doctor’s is the issue then add plenty of CYA red tape to ensure that the decision is made rationally.
( Oh and for the record, “nationalized health care” IS socialized medicine. That doesn’t necessarily make it a bad idea but let’s not play games by giving it a new name. )
30–Interesting point. Dont you think the current laws in 49 states making assisted suicide were passed and kept in force exactly for the purpose of protecting the patients?
Yes indeed they were.
The majority thinks a patient is best protected by life no matter what the consequences. Personal autonomy, a form of freedom, is not respected in this position. Life above all else is easier to enforce, its a clear bright line. A line wrongly drawn, but easier to enforce than the morass that would exist in allowing private decisions to take place. DUTY TO DIE would also draw a clearn simple line.
As in most things human, this does not go to right vs wrong, but values. Few people actually support FREEDOM–the right of other people to do things you would choose not to. Most people prefer using the power of the State to force their views on other people. Kinda like God, Kinda like the Golden rule. Funny that way.
With so many people having their health care paid for by the state, I imagine it would help the deficit to have more assisted suicide legalized. This is probably inevitable.