Hitskin.com

Subject: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:59 am

Shale brought this up in the fear of aging thread. I wanna know where you all stand on a terminally ill person wanting a medical suicide. If I am diagnosed with Colon Cancer and am projected to have less than a year left and physically I'm painfully losing the battle, should I have the right to say to a doctor, "give me the shot to end my suffering" (that will end my life) ?

Opinions???

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:10 am

I don't believe in suicide. Most who kill themselves are suffering anguish of some kind. I can't say it's right for some people and not for others.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:48 am

I don't think "the shot" will ever exist. Some group will always be protesting & filing suits to put a hold on that whether it's one individual or the entire concept. I do not believe anyone has the right to interfere in a thought out conscious decision a person makes about their own life. We all own the title to our lives & people don't have any business intervening on anyone's "behalf".

I've seen this generally turn into a religious issue where people fear for the "eternal damnation in hell" because according to someone's book, it's unforgivable murder. It's religious values being forced on people which is my only real issue with religion in general. Another subject, but it still plays a part in regard to assisted suicide. I do believe some of the people against it mean well but it just isn't their business.

People have a right to make the decision for themselves because they are the ones who are experiencing the pain & suffering. It's a difficult decision but it has to ultimately be left up to the individual.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:09 am

I believe in assisted suicide and someday, in a more rational and less superstitious world, Dr. Jack Kevorkian will be seen as the visionary that he is.

But that is not the world coming to most of the US as Christian fanatics insist on foising their archaic belief that ppl must suffer in life for eventual salvation onto all of us in this supposed secular nation.

I have watched a couple of ppl die slow, debilitating deaths (even outside the many who did so with AIDS in the '80s). One was my wife who died of amyotropic lateral sclerosis. She often wished she could just die rather than live with a wasting muscle disease. Eventually she did. The disease is incurrable and prognosis is death and yet in Florida as most states, had anyone assisted her in a planned death they would have gone to jail for murder. You may recall a brain-dead Teri Schiavo which the Florida Governor and Legislation tried to prevent her husband from ending life support. The courts, both state and federal agreed that the Republican government, which lies and says it is not intrusive, cannot prevent his right to determine his wife's medical end-care.

How much better it would have been for the whole family to be with my wife as she took a final sleep - instead of dying of eventual respiratory failure or whatever finally silenced her heart.

So spare me some fucked up religious platitudes that you don't believe in suicide or that ppl who want to die may be suffering anguish of some kind. Yes, it is anguish when you can't even close your mouth to kiss a loved one, it is anguish when your thin wasting body loses muscle control and you need assistance in every activity of daily living.

I had thot about using CO to take my wife's life and my own at one point. And, that "murder/suicide" scene is played out all too often by older couples who are watching a debilitated mate suffer. So, I firmly support assisted suicide and those religionists who would rather suffer should be free to do so, but don't press your sick sadism on the rest of us.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:57 am

I still can't figure out why suicide is an illegal act, and the same goes for assisted suicide, if we want to get technical, isn't that what doctors do when they pull the plug on a life support patient?

I don't generally agree with suicide because I, like FM, think most of them are selfish and done for stupid reasons, but that's not the same as a person who is medically dying by inches and feeling every inch of it. But I'm confused, exactly what does 'the shot' mean? Is it like the lethal injection prisoners get or have they come up with a more painless procedure?

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:25 am

Supernova wrote:: ...But I'm confused, exactly what does 'the shot' mean? Is it like the lethal injection prisoners get or have they come up with a more painless procedure?

There are quite painless procedures. I worked for a veterinarian and assisted putting down a few dogs. You "hug" the animal so he can't bite or jump around and hold up one foreleg. The doctor would give the injection (barbiturate with some actual poison). By the time the doc got his stethoscope out the dog was dead, just peacefully fell asleep in my arms.

Pity we can't provide that same kind of humanity for humans.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:56 am

If someone is dying a painful death and is asking to be put out their misery, then I don't see why the law shouldn't oblige.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:14 pm

I don't agree with it because I believe in God and Him having say when we go.

I don't judge people who are fine with it, but I think as soon as multiple Kavorkians are around, legally assisting suicide, we are going to have people not putting as much thought into it before hand. It is "easy" to make decisions to end it when one is in the middle of the worst pain and illness that they ever suffered. If legalized, there would be middle aged people doing it, or weak minded young people doing it, when they would have otherwise made a recovery after more time passed.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:44 pm

I believe in pain management to the best possible ability. If that results in the unintended side effect of expedited death, I can morally accept such a decision. But most often I find assisted suicide does not meet such criteria.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:55 pm

And what if the pain can't be managed? This is the case much more often than you might think.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:02 pm

CeCe wrote:: And what if the pain can't be managed? This is the case much more often than you might think.

Relieving pain is not a justification for suicide.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:19 pm

Forgiveness_Man wrote:: Relieving pain is not a justification for suicide.

For you. But forcing someone to endure unbearable pain is inhumane. We don't even do this with animals. The right to die is a choice people should be able to make for themselves. I'm not mocking anyone's religion or beliefs but if a person doesn't "believe" in it then they should feel free to suffer through it. But not to deny it to anyone else. I don't believe anyone should be forced to end their lives if they are in agony or some other tragic situation. It has to be a personal choice. But the choice needs to exist.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:22 pm

CeCe wrote:: For you. But forcing someone to endure unbearable pain is inhumane. We don't even do this with animals. The right to die is a choice people should be able to make for themselves. I'm not mocking anyone's religion or beliefs but if a person doesn't "believe" in it then they should feel free to suffer through it. But not to deny it to anyone else. I don't believe anyone should be forced to end their lives if they are in agony or some other tragic situation. It has to be a personal choice. But the choice needs to exist.

Then anybody should be able to kill themselves for any reason and get legalized help to do it. You can't go around saying that one person's reasons for wanting to die are less valid than others.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:40 pm

Forgiveness_Man wrote:: Then anybody should be able to kill themselves for any reason and get legalized help to do it. You can't go around saying that one person's reasons for wanting to die are less valid than others.

How many ppl have you personally watched die a slow, agonizing death? How many that you loved and knew in happier times, but watched them waste away to a skeleton and loss of mobility? Do ya think that might be a valid reason to want to die?

And just who the fuck are you to decide valid reasons to die for anyone but yourself?

You are probably one of the worst guys for Catholic Church public relations (other than all those lying, perv, hypocrit priests) by spouting all these entractable platitudes condeming others to agony, as if it were some academic issue. I am talking about real ppl in pain and the real religious fanatics that literally raise hell when someone tries to alleviate that pain. Disgusting.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:49 pm

^^^^Truth isn't contingent on bias.

Why is it you always get so damn upset whenever I give an honest answer to a question that is asked? You can't even have any honest disagreement anymore.

I am not saying anybody has a valid reason to die. I am saying that there is no valid reason for suicide. Because if one reason is valid, any reason is valid. Therefore, I don't support suicide.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:51 pm

I know TMI! But if you do read more than a Tweet, here is an essay I wrote about a young man I cared for with MD. This took place in 1980, before we had Advance Directives for Medical Treatment or Do Not Resusitate orders.

Mark's Coming of Age
by Shale Stone
July 1990

New Orleans, 1980

It was just last month that I first met Mark. We only spent the day together but it feels like we knew each other longer. Maybe it was the intensity of one-to-one that day I stayed with him.

I was working for a respite care agency, staying in peoples' homes and caring for their handicapped dependents while they got away for a while. And so it was that I met Mark, 19 years old and wasting away with muscular dystrophy. His only mobility was the electric wheelchair to which he was confined and which he could still operate with the remaining motion of one hand. Otherwise, he had to be lifted in and out of the chair, the bed, and onto the toilet. He had to be bathed and fed by others. His mother usually provided this personal care and on the day that I stayed with him, feeding was the only task required. On the only occasion that I had to place his penis in a urinal, I gathered that he was quite self-conscious of having others, or at least strangers, attend to these personal needs. Although Mark lived with his condition of personal dependence on a daily basis, he was still a self-conscious teenager.

We talked a lot that day. He told me of the progression of his disease, how it started at age 7 and how crutches gave way to a wheelchair by age 13. On the wall was a photo of Mark at about that age, looking quite the average, smiling, exuberant 13-year-old, except for the almost unnoticed handles of a wheelchair at the edge of the picture. The tragedy of it struck me for a moment, knowing the life of an active boy had been missed, but Mark was alive, here in his chair so I didn't dwell on what could have been.

As we talked of current events, and critiqued the popular movies, our different perspectives came into view. As a middle-aged man, I enjoy these few opportunities to talk with adolescents, to hear their fresh insights and discoveries, as well as their misconceptions and errors of logic. From a more steady position of maturity and experience you can observe the turmoil of thoughts being influenced by new input and fluctuations in hormones.

With Mark, there was not only our difference in age that gave us differing perspectives, but also our difference of mobility. He was a recipient of electronic age miracles and had the usual adolescent toys of video cassette recorder, personal computer and video games. We shared an appreciation of modern technology, but it was of particular interest to him as his very mobility and quality of life depended on it. This fascination with modern and future technology would naturally make him enjoy science fiction of the "Star Wars" variety, which we discussed and even trashed on scientific grounds, such as battle sounds in space. But, we both agreed it was a fun movie.

Mark was a young man with vulnerabilities of the heart. The young woman who had captured his fancy lived in another city and they only saw each other once a year at a summer camp for the physically disabled.

Mark was very preoccupied with thoughts of this girl, as it was nearing the time for summer camp. I can't recall her affliction but she was more mobile than him. Their relationship was an innocent adolescent one. He told me they had kissed. I suspected they had felt more. He was concerned that she would find another boyfriend, one with more movement, or that she wouldn't be there this summer. His were the normal over-inflated anticipations of an adolescent mind, oblivious to reality in the pursuit of love.

That was last month. Mark never made it to camp. I was called on this overnight job because he was seriously ill and his mother needed some rest. It was an unusual emergency assignment. Normally, when I stayed at peoples' homes it was for the primary care giver to get away. This time the mother would be at home in her bedroom while I stayed the night with Mark.

Mark had been bedridden for several days and was much thinner than when I saw him last month. His mother asked if he remembered me, and he feebly said yes, showing little attachment to his surroundings. He hadn't been eating or drinking and I was shown the water and the soda, which I was to try to get him to drink. His mother attempted cheerfulness, but the gravity of the situation was evident, as well as its toll on her. She went to her room and I sat by Mark's bed.

He was not the young man of a month past. Youth is measured physically by health and vitality, and not to be found in this emaciated nonfunctioning body. It is also measured by naiveté and innocence. Mark had experienced too much pain in his 19 years and somehow I felt he was now aware of his mortality, which is not the usual adolescent awareness.

We didn't converse that night. Mark was uncomfortable, continuously asking to be moved. When I changed his position it would be just a few minutes before he would complain again. I offered him liquids several times and he refused to drink, with a conscious determination.

I sometimes feel guilty for being so irritated throughout the night with Mark's constant demands to be moved. I had not slept that day and was not prepared to stay up all night. Was this what his mother had been living with for more than a week? Finally the demands came less frequently and Mark went to sleep. I must have had a couple of hours of sleep on the pallet on the floor next to his bed before being awakened at 4:30 a.m.

Mark was mumbling incoherently and I asked through the darkness, "Mark, are you alright?"
He simply said, "Are you kidding?"

I was immediately aware of both the inanity of my question and the biting sarcasm in his. Nineteen years old and dying from muscular dystrophy, and I ask if he's alright.

I turned on the light and saw that Mark was sweating profusely. The bed was already soaked. He was dehydrated and in shock, and most probably dying. I woke up his mother. She went to his side, held his hand and stroked his head, reassuring him and perhaps herself that this was the right course.

I asked if she wanted me to call Fire/Rescue. Almost imperceptively, as if it were a thought not spoken, she said, "I don't want them to resuscitate him." I understood.

I understood why Mark was still at home with his deteriorating condition. I understood his refusal to eat and drink, and although I was not a part of the private affairs of this family, I understood that Mark and his mother had anticipated this moment.

I sat on the bed by Mark and held his hand while his mother went to call his father. Mark was still vocalizing weakly, incoherently, and then he stopped. With one spasm of the chest it was over. Mark lay still on the bed, eyes open, pupils dilated.

Death has been relegated to professionals for so long in our society that it is rare to encounter it quietly in the comforting surroundings of home. We've even come to require an authority to pronounce someone dead, but it was my understanding that dilated pupils meant that brain function had ceased. Mark's dead stare was disquieting, so I stroked his eyelids gently with my fingers, as seen in countless dramas on the screen. It's not that easy. They refused to stay closed, betraying the illusion that a lifeless body is peacefully asleep.

I went to Mark's mother and told her that he had died. We went back to his bed. Were we sure? It's a guessing game with modern technology. At what point is it impossible for someone playing God with a machine to resurrect a person who's already gone through the ordeal of passing on. We waited five minutes, then I called the police to report a death after lingering illness. I described the signs of death and they agreed that only the Coroner would be sent. Mark's father arrived, so I left this family for a few minutes alone before the authorities came.

Guilt is a pervasive emotion that slips around the edges of rational thought. I know that the events of this story progressed to the only reasonable conclusion, but now and then I realize that we sometimes make decisions that involve the life or death of another. I feel the decisions here were right and ultimately were made by Mark's mother with my support.

She was a mother who made a tough decision, and I hope she knows she decided correctly whenever a feeling of guilt slips through. I'm just thankful that she was there, for I could not have made that decision on my own, and would have been required to call 911 as soon as I saw Mark in shock. (This was before "Do Not Resuscitate" orders were a legal option). They probably would have made it in time to disrupt the natural order of things and there is no telling how long Mark's feeble, wasted body would have suffered the indignities of assault before his degenerative disease finally, mercifully silenced his heart.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:01 pm

^^^^Nice writing. However, unless I missed something, it doesn't really speak to any of my own points. I see the point you were trying to make but said point ultimately doesn't stand against mine.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:07 pm

Forgiveness_Man wrote:: I am not saying anybody has a valid reason to die. I am saying that there is no valid reason for suicide. Because if one reason is valid, any reason is valid. Therefore, I don't support suicide.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? That seems to be saying if eating spoiled food will make you sick, any food will make you sick therefore you don't support eating. I'm really not following this logic. How does one negate the other?

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:10 pm

Forgiveness_Man wrote:: ^^^^Truth isn't contingent on bias.

Why is it you always get so damn upset whenever I give an honest answer to a question that is asked? You can't even have any honest disagreement anymore.

You're right, I did get upset. I have emotional baggage on some issues. It comes with having so much life experience, having seen so many ppl I know suffer die.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:: I am not saying anybody has a valid reason to die. I am saying that there is no valid reason for suicide. Because if one reason is valid, any reason is valid. Therefore, I don't support suicide.

It must be comforting to see everyting written out in a script in black and white. However, the real world is full of nuance and greys.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:13 pm

^^^^The nuances and greys are often people complicating or manipulating things. Many things are gray. But some are black and white. Bias doesn't negate that.

CeCe wrote:: Why does it have to be all or nothing? That seems to be saying if eating spoiled food will make you sick, any food will make you sick therefore you don't support eating. I'm really not following this logic. How does one negate the other?

No, that's not even close to being a comparable comparison. FORGIVENESS MAN

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Because it's SUICIDE! EVERYONE who commits suicide is doing it for what they at the time perceive to be a good enough reason. What are you supposed to do to differentiate, say that you have to be in a certain level of pain to make suicide valid? Suicide is either permissible or it is not permissible. Ending pain is typically the common reason for any suicide anyway. Usually if it gets to the point where somebody considers ending their own life, it's pretty bad. Should we start saying that suicide is okay? Apparently so?

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:34 pm

Forgiveness_Man wrote:: No, that's not even close to being a comparable comparison.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Because it's SUICIDE! EVERYONE who commits suicide is doing it for what they at the time perceive to be a good enough reason. What are you supposed to do to differentiate, say that you have to be in a certain level of pain to make suicide valid? Suicide is either permissible or it is not permissible. Ending pain is typically the common reason for any suicide anyway. Usually if it gets to the point where somebody considers ending their own life, it's pretty bad. Should we start saying that suicide is okay? Apparently so?

Equally as absurd as your own, which was the point. Your one reason/any reason does not make sense. Nothing in life is that simplistic or that black & white. And why doesn't a person have the right to decide what they want to do with their own life? We're not talking about breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend but being in a terminal irreversible state. People can pray for miracles, burn incense, cling to hope or any other gesture but there are illnesses that will reach a point where there will be no turnaround. No one should be forced to suffer in agony because it violates some religious dogma that the person involved doesn't even practice.

You say there is NO valid reason for suicide. What in your opinion is a valid reason against the right to die, other than not "believing in it"? How does one persons decision for their own life impact yours?

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:42 pm

CeCe wrote:: Equally as absurd as your own, which was the point. Your one reason/any reason does not make sense. Nothing in life is that simplistic or that black & white. And why doesn't a person have the right to decide what they want to do with their own life? We're not talking about breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend but being in a terminal irreversible state. People can pray for miracles, burn incense, cling to hope or any other gesture but there are illnesses that will reach a point where there will be no turnaround. No one should be forced to suffer in agony because it violates some religious dogma that the person involved doesn't even practice.

You say there is NO valid reason for suicide. What in your opinion is a valid reason against the right to die, other than not "believing in it"? How does one persons decision for their own life impact yours?

Well your point fails cause my point ain't absurd. Razz

A person does have the right to decide what to do with their own life. That doesn't mean that their decisions have to be or should be condoned.

A young woman being raped and murdered states away doesn't impact my life either. Yet I would still be appalled to hear about it.

Valid reasons against the right to die? Why, in your view, should anybody NOT commit suicide? Should we start making suicide a more valid option in your view?

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:48 pm

If someone is wasting away in a hospital bed, in agonizing pain, then I think the humane thing to do is to let them die; especially if they are asking for it. Should a severely injured dog that didn't die after being hit by a car be kept alive? No. Because his condition will never improve and he'll live out the remainder of his short time left in thriving, unbearable agony.

I definitely support a terminally ill person, who is in the advance stages of their infirmity, being allowed an assisted medical suicide–per their request.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:57 pm

Chris wrote:: If someone is wasting away in a hospital bed, in agonizing pain, then I think the humane thing to do is to let them die; especially if they are asking for it. Should a severely injured dog that didn't die after being hit by a car be kept alive? No. Because his condition will never improve and he'll live out the remainder of his short time left in thriving, unbearable agony.

I definitely support a terminally ill person, who is in the advance stages of their infirmity, being allowed an assisted medical suicide–per their request.

Exactly. I don't know of any other way to put it.

Subject: Re: Right to Die argument Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:03 pm

Chris wrote:: If someone is wasting away in a hospital bed, in agonizing pain, then I think the humane thing to do is to let them die.

And if that is ALL we did, that would be one thing. Actively ending life is different than not making excessive efforts to prolong it unnecessarily.

» In an argument with your significant other, do you stay mum, or get vocal?
» Bristol Palin Gets Into An Argument in a Bar After A Guy Calls Her Mom A Whore and Devil
» Exulam I. Holman, Joliet Man, Allegedly Gouged Out Uncle's Eyes In Argument Over Remote

Hitskin.com

Right to Die argument