RUBY RUDNICK/daily bruin staff
A controversial bill to allow doctors to help terminally ill patients end their lives was condemned in the House of Lords on Friday as “morally indefensible.”
The assisted dying bill would let doctors prescribe, but not administer, lethal drugs to patients who are suffering unbearably and have less than six months to live.
Opponents, including religious leaders and sections of the medical profession, say its provisions could be open to abuse.
A poll on Friday for Dignity in Dying showed three-quarters of people are in favor of a change in the law.
Of 1,770 respondents questioned by YouGov for the survey, 76 percent supported assisted dying as long as safeguards were in place.
I’ve asked the question of friends or strangers a number of times — “Do you think you should have the right to die? The right to choose a self-controlled means of death if you’re already terminally ill?”
The answer is uniform. Most folks feel they have that right. They feel they should be able to assist a loved one who’s made the same choice. It’s only when you get to the professionally religious or political, folks who make a career of making decisions for us, you run into serious conflict.
I wonder if we’ll ever witness this debate — in Congress?
I live in Oregon, where voters have approved this [Death with Dignity] – at least twice – and we’ve withstood John Ashcroft’s threatened attempts to prosecute Doctors for violation of Federal drug laws…
Life, it’s the most terminal illness of them all.
I think our focus should be on finding cures and helping people live rather than helping people speed up what is already a natural process.
Thing is, it’s a very thin line between “right to die” and “responsibility to die”. Do you want Grandma killed off because she has a terminal illness and the doctors don’t want to pay for her last six months of life? Or your mentally handicapped cousin? There is value to all life, and I sincerely believe death is the worst-case scenario. I want a right to live, not a right to die.
#2 – Jim, I hope you don’t suffer a long and agonizing death.
Jim W: False choice. It’s not either-or. If someone’s “suffering unbearably and [has] less than six months to live” a cure isn’t going to be discovered in that time. And allowing them to die in no way interferes with the researchers looking for a cure.
So the question really is should they be allowed to die in that situation. I would say so, given the requirements of it. What our “focus” should be on is a completely independent issue and thus should have no bearing on it.
*Bang*
Bruce IV: No, there isn’t. One is someone making a decision for themselves about the end of their own life, and another is someone making a decision for the end of someone else’s life. No one has any right to tell anyone else to die (well, except in capital punishment cases.) I consider that a huge leap.
Now if you want to talk about someone making a decision for someone else who’s physically incapable of making any kind of decision for themselves, for example in a Terri Schiavo type situation, that’s another story. But I think those situations are already covered in existing law that this would have no effect on.
There have been heavy restrictions on all these laws. They must be “suffering unbearably and have less than six months to live.” Also, doctors cannot administer the drugs so the person must be capable of doing it themselves. Therefore it’s completely their decision because if they refuse to take it, no one can legally make them without getting hit for murder. The slippery slope examples people throw out have never been anything I’m convinced any majority of people would ever support, so I’m not swayed by those arguments.
I’ve asked the question of friends or strangers a number of times — “Do you think you should have the right to die? The right to choose a self-controlled means of death if you’re already terminally ill?”
The responses you got are not surprising at all – the question is worded in a biased way. Perhaps you should try asking: “Should doctors be allowed to prescribe medications and dosages that they know will kill their patients? Should there be a legal way for people to coerce their elderly relatives into the grave?” Somehow I bet the responses would be a bit different.
I see no reason to deny someone the right to choose death over what might be an excruciating alternative. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so too is the quality of life that makes it worth living. Someone with different beliefs than me should not be able to force me to stay alive in pain when I’ve made an informed choice to die.
For me, the only debate that should need to take place is concerning safeguards. For instance, we want to be sure that family members who might benefit through inheritance haven’t coerced or unduly influenced the decision.
Here’s an article about how the British House of Lords rejected a bill on this subject last week: http://tinyurl.com/r87pn
Oh for crips sake! I just realized that the article linked to in the post was about the same thing. Boy, do I need a vacation!
>
That’s the main point to reject such bills, however well-intended they are.
Todd: I disagree. I think your questons are incredibly biased because they leave out key facts.
Should doctors be allowed to prescribe medications and dosages that they know will kill their patients?
Completely leading as its framed in a malpractice point of view. Has no mention of the critical fact that the patient wants that dose for that exact reason. Doesn’t mention that the patient is suffering or has six months to live, which are also key as they’re requirements of the law.
Should there be a legal way for people to coerce their elderly relatives into the grave?
Completely separate. If someone wants to write in safeguards against these sorts of abuses be my guest. Still missing the key facts that the individual has the final say, must be suffering, and is predicted to be dead in six months anyway.
Reminds me of something I read from Rush where he railed against the supposed bias in some poll questions, then proceeds to substitute hideously biased versions of the same questions. It was quite amusing.
Bruce IV: “There is value to all life…” Hmmm. Seems to me that human life is one of the cheapest commoditieson the planet. I can think of at least half a dozen areas of the world where it’s being treated as totally valueless.
We get life, liberty and the persuit of happiness (allegedly) so its our life, should we have the liberty to end it in our persuit of happiness?
And why only 6 months? why not a year, why limit the time at all, if at 30 im diagnosed with a disease which will kill me over the course of 30 more years of unbearable pain and being a burdon on everyone, why shouldnt i be able to end it now.
Id much rather get the death penalty style lethal injection then have to be forced to shoot myself in the face with a shotgun and have the possibility to just end up making it worse.
So if someone has a horrible disease they cant have a doctor kil them with dignity, but if they went on a killing spree the government would do it for them?
Futurama had the right idea with suicide booths, people shouldnt be forced to live so that people who dont know them, will never deal with them, or really care in the least can stroke themselves at night for having satisfied their ego and by establishing that they know better then everyone else.
a healthy person is able to go and kill themselves, even though a lot of people aren’t too good at it, suicide is a fact of life, it will happen. I know there’s a lot of difference between the two, mental health etc. For a disabled person they should have the same choice, as long as things are controlled properly with a system that is as tight as it can be, so that it only happens in the right situations. No abuse of system
I’m be way more against the death penalty than assisted suicide, at least when it’s clear it’s what the person says they want. Offtopic but the electric chair, how arcane is that
> I wonder if we’ll ever witness this debate — in Congress?
Why? Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to pass or even debate such a law? This is an issue that should be left to the States.
Yes it happens alot. But making it legal would make it happen more often in less extreme cases. Take a look at the Netherlands, where they are killing babies too.
As stated earlier in the first post. We here in Oregon voted the “Death With Dignity Act” in, what 10 years ago. The heavily Republican legislature sent it back to the people for a re-vote a couple years later. With the excuse of “We dont think the voters had a good understanding of what they were voting for”
Voters overwhelmingly reapproved the law by even a wider margin than before. Even though they used tactics to confuse voters on the ballot, wording it so voting would be interpreted as Yes meant No and No meant yes.
Then the Bushite’s got ahold of it and challenged it in the courts. In the final ruling it was upheld.
All the gloom and doom predictions have never materialized. I think it holds steady at 200 or so uses since its inception. Not really all that many use this option each year.
The thing is, can you guarantee x person will only live 6 months? That’s the trouble with all these plans … I’d actually support the death penalty if the justice system was infallible … but still – find someone who can prove to you that death is better than life (a hint, you can’t – dead people don’t come back)
Thomas is right, this is a states issue, not the Feds. Of course THAT has never stopped them before.
AB CD….yep…the Netherlands does allow for euthenasia for infants as well as adults…..but the criteria for both is so tough to meet, it hasn’t been widely used and hasn’t been used at all in the case of infants.
Oregon has had only 250 total assisted suicides since the law was enacted, showing the only thing here thats slippery are the politicians.
BruceIV…..thats a bit asinine…*life is better than death*…..until you have suffered the way so many of these people have suffered on a daily basis, where even Demoral dosen’t touch their pain, you couldn’t possibly make a credible statement to that effect. Damn right life is good, but unfortunatly, not for all of us. If you had an inoperable brain tumor, you better pray that your pain and nervous centers are eaten away before you get to the really painful stage. You should be able to handle the *good* life while your body feels like it’s being imersised in 14000 degree molten metel every hour on the hour, and THATS before the REAL pain starts.
Yes it happens alot. But making it legal would make it happen more often in less extreme cases. Take a look at the Netherlands, where they are killing babies too.
Comment by AB CD — 5/12/2006 @ 6:50 pm
Or how about in Texas where a Hospital can end care if the parents can’t afford it and there is no expected quality outcome. Gee, while Bush, Delay, and Frist were trying to keep Terry Schiavo alive (against her expressed wishes) the poor black parents of a severely handicapped baby in Texas were begging the baby NOT be pulled from life support because no one would pay for her care. Ya, it already happens here, legally too.
Bruce, but the bottom line is, why are you making the decision? Shouldn’t the person to decide whether death would be better than life, or whether they want to challenge the odds in the hope of a better outcome be that person? If someone was deciding for someone else whether they should live or die based on these criteria you’d have a point, but all these laws do is allow certain people to make their own decision.
It seems much better to me than a one size fits all policy. The person can factor in anything and everything they want: the prognosis, the pain, their family, their personal moral and/or religious beliefs, and their general comfort with the idea. All we’re doing is giving them the power to make that decision if they want to. The pain/six month criteria isn’t for whether they should die, but whether that choice is simply available to them. For that reason whether the six month diagnosis is ironclad or merely probable isn’t really grounds for abuse.
“…I will give no deadly medicine if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give a woman a pessary to produce abortion.” Hippocratic Oath
Even Hppocrates was a pro-life religious fanatic!
http://members.tripod.com/nktiuro/hippocra.htm
“Mercy killing” is the result if complete loss of will to live, a complete loss of hope, a complete loss of love. If somebody near and dear to you was dying in a hospital bed, wouldn’t you want to spend those last few weeks at their side with some soft music playing, telling jokes, talking about all your happy memories, telling them you love them, and enjoying their presence while you still can??? I would never say to the doctor, “This is just too hard; she’s a pain in the ass; I’m too flaky to be there while she needs me the most; give her a lethal injection.” If they’re so miserible, give them pain killers! I would never want to die knowing that my family didn’t care.
And if, heaven forbid, you are ever the one with a dying spouse or relative, and the doctors give a zero percent chance of survival, I hope you will take them home to be with their family, instead of left to face their demise alone. And, read Natural Cures They Don’t Want You To Know About. As they say in the commercial for Cancer Treatment Centers of America, “It’s never too late. As long as you’re breathing, it’s never too late to seek a second opinion. It-it’s worth everything!”
Oh, and Don (re #15) just because human life is being devalued all over the globe doesn’t make it right.
No, it isn’t a matter of a “right to choose.” In New Zealand, anybody under the age of 12 with a “noncurable” life-long disability can be euthanized with consent of the parents. Think about it: in New Zealand, it is legal to KILL A HANDICAPPED CHILD!! What 12-yr-old “chooses” to die?? What senior citizen in a coma “chooses” to be taken off Life Support? They don’t; the heirs make that “choice.” What pregnant woman “chooses” to have an abortion? She doesn’t “choose”; she’s afraid of losing her job, her boyfriend, her money, and her mind! No PP “counseler” tells her about her choices. They are merely abortion sales rep, telling her that she has no choice; she must kill her baby. There is no other option. Don’t tell anybody, don’t ask for help. Why do you think these “pro-choice activists” try so hard to fight parental notification laws????
> And, read Natural Cures They Don’t Want You To Know About.
Once you used this book as a reference, the bozo bit flipped on. Referencing anything from this idiot as any sort of validation puts you in the same camp with dowsers and voodoo witch doctors. Read this carefully: Kevin Trudeau is a SALESMAN not a doctor. He doesn’t know jack shit about medicine. Go learn some real science and real medicine.