Physician Assisted Suicide

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Physician Assisted Suicide

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

To quote a disabled rights activist, Harriet McBryde Johnson:

quote:

Choice is illusory in a context of pervasive inequality. Choices are structured by oppression. We shouldn't offer assistance with suicide until we all have the assistance we need to get out of bed in the morning and live a good life. Common causes of suicidality -- dependence, institutional confinement, being a burden -- are entirely curable.

Recently, in the USPol thread:

Stereotype posted:

NPR just ran a weird article (along with an audio piece on All Things Considered) interviewing a terminally ill opponent to Doctor Assisted Suicide. I wasn't even aware this was a current legislative debate, I just assumed that since Republican controlled branches oppose it outright it wont even be discussed.

The woman, who can speak freely and is heard in the audio, has decided that her opinions and decisions based on her specific medical condition and religious faith should be forced onto everyone. The article mentions several issues with doctor assisted suicide, including the possibility for "abuse" by, as is at least strongly implied, family and possibly insurers who do not want to pay expensive medical costs.

Sometimes NPR is a terrible wasteland of "truth is in the middle," "two sides to every issue" bullshit. Apparently since one particular woman diagnosed with a terminal disease wants to live, we should seriously consider and debate whether anyone in the entire nation should be allowed to end their lives peacefully in any instance. Instead of researching actual cases of abuse in places that already have doctor assisted suicide, like Oregon, they just report the oppositions insinuations as fact.

That's two strawmen identified here

quote:

Fallacy No. 1: We harbor unfounded fears that legalizing assisted suicide would embolden physicians who want to kill us.

This is one of several straw man fallacies that could be clustered into the paranoid ��They�re out to get us!�� genre. We hear it in response to the disability rights analysis of flaws in proposed assisted suicide statutes. Our policy experts have astutely pointed out that these statutes shift the balance of protections in favor of physicians, who are allowed to report on their own actions under the laws and who are virtually immune to legal consequences as long as they plead ��good faith��.

People with disabilities have more experience with physicians than most people. We know that medical mismanagement takes many forms and rarely is it flagrant or even deliberately malicious. Nonetheless, many of us have been harmed significantly by medical professionals who knew little about our lives, who thought incurable functional impairments were the worst things that could happen to a person, and who were confident they knew best. Research has shown for some time that many health professionals believe life with extensive disabilities is not worth living; however, malpractice sanctions have prevented most from acting on those misconceptions. Whatever a particular doctor may have thought about the quality of our lives, she/he has known that the court could punish any physician who provided less support for our lives than for anyone else�s life.

Those of us who face disability prejudice daily know how entrenched and destructive it is. Experience has purged us of illusions about it. We know that even when the laws were more clearly on the side of protecting our lives than they are now, some doctors and nurses quietly found ways to act on their beliefs about disability and let disabled newborns, new trauma victims, and ��frail�� elderly individuals slip away. However, they did so under the constant threat of whistle-blowers.

In the last 30 years, whistle-blowing has quieted significantly. Laws allowing death to occur through treatment withdrawal and withholding have blurred the lines of protection for the lives of people with disabilities. Since no one wants forced treatment imposed upon him/her, these legal changes potentially had an up side. Unfortunately, as it has turned out, the laws can be applied harmfully to hasten death for people with disabilities, such as David Rivlin. Disability advocates blew the whistle for Rivlin and other demoralized individuals with disabilities, but we found ourselves increasingly alone. Whatever their intended value might have been, laws permitting death through treatment withdrawal reinforced thinking in society and in medical settings that lives with incurable impairments are less worthy of support than other lives. Historically, these changes coincided with growing national concern over rising health care costs and with the circulation of schemes for restricting services.

I chose those last two words, ��restricting services,�� deliberately. Some may argue that the laws allowing refusal of treatment have nothing to do with restricting services and, instead, empower patients to determine what happens to their bodies in medical settings. Certainly, these laws were originally wrapped in autonomy arguments, but they have been applied in mostly one direction: to refuse unwanted treatment, not to secure wanted, or even needed, treatment. The bias toward restriction of services is clear to many people with disabilities facing devastating insurance denials of motorized wheelchairs, back-up ventilators, and personal assistance services. The bias is also clear when doctors, nurses, and social workers one-sidedly describe advance directives and living wills to their patients as documents that allow them to state ��what measures you would not want taken,�� and it is blatantly clear to people with extensive disabilities who are repeatedly asked by medical personnel if they have signed a ��do not resuscitate�� order yet.

Perhaps the bias in favor of foregoing services is most evident in the creation of the concept, ��futile treatment,�� which has allowed doctors to deny life-sustaining treatment - even to patients and their families who want treatment - if doctors judge the treatment ineffective or inappropriate. If anyone believes that futile treatment policies do not affect people with disabilities, consider the case of Leslie Burke, a British middle-aged wheelchair-user with a progressive neurological condition called cerebellar ataxia. Knowing that he would one day lose his ability to talk and use his muscles, Burke sought legal affirmation of the right to receive assisted nutrition and hydration until his natural death. He won his ��right-to-food�� from the British high court in 2004 - a landmark decision celebrated by disability rights groups. However, in 2005, the decision was overturned on appeal by the General Medical Council with support from the government�s Department of Health. Summarizing the government�s position in the case, The Times newspaper reported: ��The National Health Service should not have to give life-prolonging treatment to every patient who demands it because that would mean a crippling waste of resources, the Government said yesterday��.

From what I read about Leslie Burke, he did not demonize individual physicians or believe they were eager for his early death. Neither did he feel assured, however, that his life would be supported and his treatment wishes heeded in medical settings. He knew that medical practice and health care allocation policies had already moved in a direction biased against supporting expensive and dependent lives. I suspect he will not feel better if the push for legalized assisted suicide succeeds in his country. When countless people with disabilities die every day from treatment withdrawal, in a legal procedure that is now so routine that it rarely reaches a court, when our lives are weighed in terms of the resources we consume, and when the law protects our right to refuse life-sustaining treatment but not our parallel right to request it, it is reasonable to believe that things will get worse when doctors are given more license to judge the hopelessness of incurable conditions and more impunity to act on their judgments.

I am personally acquainted with many persons with disabilities who oppose assisted suicide, yet I do not hear any of us voicing fears about cold-blooded doctors out to get us. We are, in fact, much more frightened by the doctors who are out to help us but who see our lives as burdensome and who know little about options that make life with disability valuable. We know that the misplaced pity and pessimism of such doctors is reinforced by the medical institutions surrounding them, the policies that guide them, the health care funding system that rewards them for holding costs down, and the prevailing culture that influences their thinking about disability. That constitutes a formidable amount of bias against our lives. We not only understand this intellectually but we feel it daily in response to the way we are treated now in comparison to how we were treated before the ��right to die�� campaign.

Fallacy No. 2: We are afraid that families will pressure vulnerable disabled people to commit assisted suicide because of money or because the families want to be free of burdens.

This version of the ��They�re out to get us�� straw man fallacy manages concurrently to malign our families and to trivialize our deep concerns about the economic and social pressures associated with long-term illness and disability. In a for-profit health care system, even the best insurance does not insulate families against the mounting price of health services in the United States, and families with less than the best insurance can be crushed by out-of-pocket charges for long-term health care. Home health services, although often less expensive than nursing home placement, are rarely covered completely, leaving families financially drained in short order. The options are unjust and tragic. If families want to remain intact and avoid institutionalizing a loved one with an incurable condition, they must choose between bankruptcy and the stress of providing personal assistance services (and sometimes even nursing care) on their own, on top of their usual responsibilities.

Consider how that feels to the individual needing services. Not many people in our individualistic culture want to be reliant on family members for personal assistance. Nor do they want to see their families impoverished by the cost of hiring assistants out-of-pocket. In our current social system, people with incurable conditions are morphed into burdens simply because they experience changes in their health and functioning that are part of being human.

Most disability rights advocates who oppose legalized assisted suicide are not afraid that our families are out to get us. We are afraid that a society that refuses to expect and to provide for incurable conditions will abandon us and our families after we are no longer of apparent value to society. That prediction is not a paranoid fantasy or a groundless anxiety. The social and economic pressure to institutionalize incurably ill and disabled individuals plays out across our country everyday, often leading to premature deaths from complications of institutional treatment. Insidiously, there are no laws explicitly requiring nursing home placement; the system is simply set up to push people there by default. In this context, if assisted suicide gains wider legal reach, it will have a deadly double effect. It will not only advance the idea in our culture that it is reasonable for certain people to be helped to a hastened death, but it will also offer an alternate destination, assisted suicide, for socially abandoned individuals floating down the river toward the nursing home. The former effect is potentially more deadly than the latter. Expanding our culture�s comfort with letting go of ��suffering�� people will ultimately lead to less support for our lives - whether it involves an antibiotic that is withheld, a ventilator that is withdrawn, or a message about being a burden that takes away one�s will to live. The decriminalization of assisted suicide has already begun to increase the broken body count far beyond countable incidents of assisted suicide.

# ? May 21, 2015 03:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 23:15

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

It seems to me that the disabled argument against the Right to Die movement has many similarities to the moral argument against abortion. Indeed, Johnson's argument seems to be much along the same lines of saying "we cannot and should not legalize abortions until we solve the problems women cite in choosing to not carry their fetus to term (like child support or sincere quality of life issues for mother and child, or even more nebulous/distant, yet still decisive, issues like equal access to quality education)".

In the same way that such an argument about abortion effectively discounts the independence and agency of the mother, Johnson's argument effectively discounts the independence and agency of the disabled and sick and presumes that every individual would prefer to have every effort made to survive, even with reduced quality of life (particularly when that reduced quality of life is specifically determined to be in consistent and terminal decline leading to certain death according to our current medical knowledge)

Yes, just as there are women who agonize over the decision to abort because they truly want to bring a life into the world but the circumstances are not right for it, there are plenty of people who would prefer some level of life if their agency and mobility is not suitably reduced, but I do not think for a moment that this is universally true, and to say, point blank, that those individuals who do not accept a sufficiently reduced quality of life should be forced to stay alive because they have somehow been denied the right to maximize their independence (even if that maximal independence is below a level they find tolerable) is, in my opinion, wrong.

Just as there is no contradiction between making abortion legal AND minimizing the need to use it by maximizing support for those children who are born, seeking a right to die is not in and of itself incompatible with seeking to minimize the number of people who choose to exercise that right. Johnson's fear, while well-founded, is similar to the fear of the rational anti-abortion parent who might perceive that services for parents and children and (stretching the analogy) access to birth control will be restricted in order to encourage people to use abortion instead of bringing a child into the world.

A maximally free society would aim to achieve both goals, without favoring one or the other, and preferring one or the other does the whole of society a wrong by denying either the just seeker of an abortion (or their death) or the living their rights.

# ? May 21, 2015 04:07

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Triage triage triage
triage triage triage
triage triage triage
triage triage triage
triage triage triage
triage triage triage

Now that that's out of our systems, I think this raises some good points about the psychology that legalizing euthanasia involves. I do think that the main emphasis shouldn't be on reversing euthanasia laws where it has been legalized, but rather on emphasizing the absolute power of the individual to affirm their desire to live or to die, and the purpose of society in fulfilling those desires as much as is possible. Because the central problem here is that the desire of the disabled to live, not just in the crude sense of survival alone but also in the sense of fulfillment and agency, is denied, shut down, and carefully kicked aside.

Effectronica fucked around with this message at 04:17 on May 21, 2015

# ? May 21, 2015 04:15

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

ComradeCosmobot posted:

It seems to me that the disabled argument against the Right to Die movement has many similarities to the moral argument against abortion. Indeed, Johnson's argument seems to be much along the same lines of saying "we cannot and should not legalize abortions until we solve the problems women cite in choosing to not carry their fetus to term (like child support or sincere quality of life issues for mother and child, or even more nebulous/distant, yet still decisive, issues like equal access to quality education)".

In the same way that such an argument about abortion effectively discounts the independence and agency of the mother, Johnson's argument effectively discounts the independence and agency of the disabled and sick and presumes that every individual would prefer to have every effort made to survive, even with reduced quality of life (particularly when that reduced quality of life is specifically determined to be in consistent and terminal decline leading to certain death according to our current medical knowledge)

Yes, just as there are women who agonize over the decision to abort because they truly want to bring a life into the world but the circumstances are not right for it, there are plenty of people who would prefer some level of life if their agency and mobility is not suitably reduced, but I do not think for a moment that this is universally true, and to say, point blank, that those individuals who do not accept a sufficiently reduced quality of life should be forced to stay alive because they have somehow been denied the right to maximize their independence (even if that maximal independence is below a level they find tolerable) is, in my opinion, wrong.

Just as there is no contradiction between making abortion legal AND minimizing the need to use it by maximizing support for those children who are born, seeking a right to die is not in and of itself incompatible with seeking to minimize the number of people who choose to exercise that right. Johnson's fear, while well-founded, is similar to the fear of the rational anti-abortion parent who might perceive that services for parents and children and (stretching the analogy) access to birth control will be restricted in order to encourage people to use abortion instead of bringing a child into the world.

A maximally free society would aim to achieve both goals, without favoring one or the other, and preferring one or the other does the whole of society a wrong by denying either the just seeker of an abortion (or their death) or the living their rights.

Johnson's in the fetus's position in the argument, not the mother's.

# ? May 21, 2015 04:17

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Johnson's in the fetus's position in the argument, not the mother's.

Well that's the fundamental limitation of the abortion analogy (and where it breaks): the abortion analogy hinges on the agency and independence (and perceived value thereof) of two individuals: the mother and the fetus. Right to die only hinges on one: the individual seeking assisted suicide. So depending on whether you feel Johnson is the fetus in some nebulous relationship with the mother/doctor or that some prospective right to die supporter is the mother in some nebulous relationship with their privileged life-force/fetus will make a significant difference in your interpretation of my analogy.

Yes, you're right that, in Johnson's case, she perceives herself in the fetal role, subject to the beliefs, expectations and whims of her doctor, and thus uniquely vulnerable (which is absolutely true!) but I do not deign to extend that assumption to all individuals who would prefer to choose to die.

There's another crucial element to the disability campaign against right-to-die as well that I did not mention but deserves some consideration, which is that there may (or may not!) well be a distinction that can be drawn between the individual whose existence and qualia have always been shaped by disability and one whose existence and qualia have changed due to some accident or illness later in life such that, to them, their existence has lessened. This is one reason why the absolute right of the individual to choose to live or die is an intensely personal one and cannot necessarily be governed by the experiences of others.

In this respect this particular opposition to right-to-die movement has a strong similarity to movements like those within deaf culture which seek to refuse to seek or deny treatment to individuals in the interest of refusing to denigrate the value of their own lives. For those who have chosen or never even considered choosing to live as disabled individuals, the right for people who are, to them perfectly well, to choose to die implicitly devalues their lives, which is naturally a threat! After all, if these individuals choose to die in lesser circumstances, doesn't that mean that, in a utilitarian sense, that these disabled people should also die, even though, unlike the more fit individual, they still have a sincere desire to live?

# ? May 21, 2015 04:36

Smudgie Buggler: Feb 27, 2005; SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

This all sounds very reasonable until you reframe it as what it is - some disabled and terminally ill people opposing the right of some other disabled and terminally ill people to die because they are not satisfied with the strength of their own right to live.

The reasons why people like Dr. Gill want what they want are valid, but they're not reasons to deny disabled and terminally ill patients who don't want the same thing what they want either. It doesn't matter if they don't think doctors and family are "out to get them" because their argument still boils down to, "No, you can't die with dignity when you want because I don't trust the medical profession." That their mistrust centres on doctors' and nurses' judgement and (potential) inability to divorce personal values from professional obligation rather than suspected malevolence is irrelevant.

Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 05:22 on May 21, 2015

# ? May 21, 2015 05:19

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

Smudgie Buggler posted:

This all sounds very reasonable until you reframe it as what it is - some disabled and terminally ill people opposing the right of some other disabled and terminally ill people to die because they are not satisfied with the strength of their own right to live.

The reasons why people like Dr. Gill want what they want are valid, but they're not reasons to deny disabled and terminally ill patients who don't want the same thing what they want either. It doesn't matter if they don't think doctors and family are "out to get them" because their argument still boils down to, "No, you can't die with dignity when you want because I don't trust the medical profession." That their mistrust centres on doctors' and nurses' judgement and (potential) inability to divorce personal values from professional obligation rather than suspected malevolence is irrelevant.

While I agree with you, it's also worth considering their complaints, which is that today's society, with its focus on profits and trying to determine the worth of an individual purely through their ability to perform meaningful work rather than considering them and their desires and wishes to be equal to any other human, similarly dehumanizes disabled individuals and creates an incentive to end one's life (especially given the cost of end-of-life care). As Effectronica said, any movement which seeks to recognize an inherent and inalienable right to die must necessarily also support an inherent and inalienable right to live the best life possible, without needlessly tilting the tables to try to coerce individuals into making one choice or the other. The freedom to choose is not really freedom if someone is pointing a gun at your head telling you to "choose wisely."

# ? May 21, 2015 05:33

Xibanya: Sep 17, 2012; Clever Betty

If I'm understanding it right, there's a bit of a slippery slop argument going on here. Most of the time I hear about someone who desires physician assisted suicide, it's someone who has been given a set timeline and they're choosing between "suffer for 6 months or OD painlessly on morphine now," while the article in the OP is taking about old/disabled people in general. Seems like totally different situations to me, a little disappointed that the woman in the article doesn't seem to touch much on that.

Of course, being a frequent visitor to TCC I do sometimes wonder how people reach old age without eventually meeting someone who can hook them up with some heroin but that's a discussion for a different thread.

# ? May 21, 2015 09:34

Smudgie Buggler: Feb 27, 2005; SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

ComradeCosmobot posted:

While I agree with you, it's also worth considering their complaints, which is that today's society, with its focus on profits and trying to determine the worth of an individual purely through their ability to perform meaningful work rather than considering them and their desires and wishes to be equal to any other human, similarly dehumanizes disabled individuals and creates an incentive to end one's life (especially given the cost of end-of-life care). As Effectronica said, any movement which seeks to recognize an inherent and inalienable right to die must necessarily also support an inherent and inalienable right to live the best life possible, without needlessly tilting the tables to try to coerce individuals into making one choice or the other. The freedom to choose is not really freedom if someone is pointing a gun at your head telling you to "choose wisely."

I can't imagine how horrifying it must be to literally live at the mercy of physicians, but it's really not a good enough reason to advocate the denial of painless death to people who want it. Being vulnerable and scared isn't an excuse for solipsism. Saying "you may want X, but I don't and I'm afraid that if you're allowed to have it that it'll be forced on me" quite frankly isn't a good way to treat fellow humans and isn't an argument that should be treated seriously.

Also, "an inherent and inalienable right to live the best life possible" is pretty over-the-top. Everybody has an absolute right to be as happy as they possibly could be for as long as they can possibly live? A cursory glance at reality should tell any thinking person that's simply not possible.

# ? May 21, 2015 16:05

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

Smudgie Buggler posted:

Also, "an inherent and inalienable right to live the best life possible" is pretty over-the-top. Everybody has an absolute right to be as happy as they possibly could be for as long as they can possibly live? A cursory glance at reality should tell any thinking person that's simply not possible.

Sorry, my phrasing was a bit loose. A more precise wording might have been "an inherent and inalienable right to live a maximally independent and autonomous life (in line with those exercised by fit individuals) that is as free of hardship (both imposed on the self and imposed on others) as possible".

ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 16:16 on May 21, 2015

# ? May 21, 2015 16:13

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

From the original NPR article:

quote:

She and husband Brian, 36, are devout Catholics. They agree with their church that doctors should never hasten death.

"We're a faith-based family," he says. "God put us here on earth and only God can take us away. And he has a master plan for us, and if suffering is part of that plan, which it seems to be, then so be it."

I find this justification for the continued suffering of others to be rather sickening.

# ? May 21, 2015 16:15

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

If you're against euthanasia, you can go gently caress yourself.

# ? May 21, 2015 16:17

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

wish somebody would euthanize your posting, OP

# ? May 21, 2015 16:28

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

R. Mute posted:

If you're against euthanasia, you can go gently caress yourself.

Seriously, if I hear I'm going to have Alzheimers or MS or one of those fuckers where you won't have any control over your body and/or mind and die miserably after years or confusion and pain, I'm going to do the things I want to do and end it. I'll let you live in pain, you'll let me die without it, seems like a fair deal to me. I don't know why there even is a debate. Depression or tragedy are curable/pass by and you shouldn't end your life over them, but if I'm going to 100% die anyway, why the gently caress should I do it barely conscious, wracked by pain, lying in hospital bed? What's the worth in that? Why is suicide automatically wrong?

# ? May 21, 2015 16:42

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

DarkCrawler posted:

Seriously, if I hear I'm going to have Alzheimers or MS or one of those fuckers where you won't have any control over your body and/or mind and die miserably after years or confusion and pain, I'm going to do the things I want to do and end it. I'll let you live in pain, you'll let me die without it, seems like a fair deal to me. I don't know why there even is a debate. Depression or tragedy are curable/pass by and you shouldn't end your life over them, but if I'm going to 100% die anyway, why the gently caress should I do it barely conscious, wracked by pain, lying in hospital bed? What's the worth in that? Why is suicide automatically wrong?

Why are you ignoring the cases in the actual OP, where people with disabilities like cerebellar ataxia, which does not impair cognition, are mistreated because it's too much work to keep them alive?

# ? May 21, 2015 16:50

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Effectronica posted:

Why are you ignoring the cases in the actual OP, where people with disabilities like cerebellar ataxia, which does not impair cognition, are mistreated because it's too much work to keep them alive?

These aren't mutually exclusive issues, and if you're going to be in favor of letting no one have access to death with dignity policies, you're going to have to justify the continued suffering of those who are terminally ill, in untreatable pain, of sound mind and wish to end their lives.

Forcing someone to chose between that sort of existence and starving to death is incredibly cruel, don't you think?

# ? May 21, 2015 16:58

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Effectronica posted:

Why are you ignoring the cases in the actual OP, where people with disabilities like cerebellar ataxia, which does not impair cognition, are mistreated because it's too much work to keep them alive?

Euthanasia is legal here in Belgium and the system in place has several safeguards against this kind of situation (we also have a healthcare system where you don't go bankrupt every time you stub your toe and have to see a doctor) - aside from a clause which literally addresses this, you also have to endure unbearable physical or psychic suffering caused by some form of disease or disability, with no possibility of recovery. The actual procedure requires you to make repeated requests over several months, which have to be approved by two doctors and a psychiatrist. Is it still possible that someone will be pressured into it? Sure. Will people do it because they don't want to be a burden? Sure. Probably for the same reason suicide statistics for (mainly male) 70+ year-olds. It's an obvious failure on part of society, but it's a problem that exists outside of the euthanasia issue - and it's a problem that will exist even if euthanasia is illegal.

But our experience with euthanasia doesn't really seem to indicate this would happen on a noticeable scale. 93% of all euthanasia cases involved a terminally ill patient. 73% of those were cancer-related. That's out of 1800-ish requests a year. There's a yearly review of the practice and so far, nothing untoward has come up.

Ultimately, I can accept your argument as an argument for caution and for strengthening general (health)care, but not against euthanasia.

# ? May 21, 2015 17:18

Smudgie Buggler: Feb 27, 2005; SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

Effectronica posted:

Why are you ignoring the cases in the actual OP, where people with disabilities like cerebellar ataxia, which does not impair cognition, are mistreated because it's too much work to keep them alive?

Because those cases are being used as a basis for denying preference-satisfaction to others, and when the able-bodied living join in on that side of the argument I have a hard time entertaining the notion that it amounts to anything more than unjustifiable hand-wringing over what might be.

There are people who want to die but are forced to live in pain. I think anybody who wants to argue that particular state of affairs ought to continue had better have some pretty loving spectacular arguments up their sleeve, and "I don't personally want to die" quite frankly doesn't cut the mustard.

# ? May 21, 2015 18:02

Smudgie Buggler: Feb 27, 2005; SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

# ? May 21, 2015 18:02

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

Effectronica posted:

Why are you ignoring the cases in the actual OP, where people with disabilities like cerebellar ataxia, which does not impair cognition, are mistreated because it's too much work to keep them alive?

Because I live in a country with universal healthcare where to my knowledge that doesn't happen? People who want to live get poo poo on in the US, doesn't invalidate anything in my argument.

# ? May 21, 2015 18:03

Fritz Coldcockin: Nov 7, 2005

DarkCrawler posted:

Seriously, if I hear I'm going to have Alzheimers or MS or one of those fuckers where you won't have any control over your body and/or mind and die miserably after years or confusion and pain, I'm going to do the things I want to do and end it. I'll let you live in pain, you'll let me die without it, seems like a fair deal to me. I don't know why there even is a debate. Depression or tragedy are curable/pass by and you shouldn't end your life over them, but if I'm going to 100% die anyway, why the gently caress should I do it barely conscious, wracked by pain, lying in hospital bed? What's the worth in that? Why is suicide automatically wrong?

This has always been my position. A terminal diagnosis would make me an undue burden on my loved ones.

If I am going to die of a fatal disease, I want to clear my conscience, lie down in bed, and go to sleep, with my family around me. Why religious communities feel that people should be denied this right is beyond me.

# ? May 21, 2015 18:06

Pinch Me Im Meming: Jun 26, 2005

There is no reason why someone who has repeatedly ascertain his will to kill himself but is unable to do it himself shouldn't get help from a physician or some other medical profession.

The argument that states "But you see we're only maltreating you! We're gonna keep you alive until we treat you better! Just hang on buddy!" is disingenuous, paternalistic, removes agency, is bad.

# ? May 21, 2015 18:17

Gantolandon: Aug 19, 2012

Effectronica posted:

Triage triage triage
triage triage triage
triage triage triage
triage triage triage
triage triage triage
triage triage triage

Now that that's out of our systems, I think this raises some good points about the psychology that legalizing euthanasia involves. I do think that the main emphasis shouldn't be on reversing euthanasia laws where it has been legalized, but rather on emphasizing the absolute power of the individual to affirm their desire to live or to die, and the purpose of society in fulfilling those desires as much as is possible. Because the central problem here is that the desire of the disabled to live, not just in the crude sense of survival alone but also in the sense of fulfillment and agency, is denied, shut down, and carefully kicked aside.

At the point where you're completely dependent of someone, there is very little power you can wield. Assuming you're even able to make a conscious decision, because some diseases (like AD, or schizophrenia) can make you unable to even do that. The concerns of the author of the article are not unfounded - we definitely don't want impressionable old people guilt-tripped by the rest of the society into authorizing their own euthanasia when caring about them becomes too much a burden.

Euthanasia should be possible for terminally ill patients who have no hope of ever recovering or living even a semblance of a normal life. Leaving this decision only in the patient's discretion is not going to solve the problem. There should be clear criteria when physician assisted suicide is available.

# ? May 21, 2015 18:24

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Gantolandon posted:

There should be clear criteria when physician assisted suicide is available.

Have you even bothered to examine the laws set up in Oregon and Washington State? Just like in the minimum wage thread, people fret over hypotheticals without bothering to compare them with real world results.

# ? May 21, 2015 18:31

Gantolandon: Aug 19, 2012

Solkanar512 posted:

Have you even bothered to examine the laws set up in Oregon and Washington State? Just like in the minimum wage thread, people fret over hypotheticals without bothering to compare them with real world results.

As far as I realize, the topic is not about the laws in Oregon and Washington, but euthanasia in general. If the thread's scope is a specific place, it should be denoted somewhere. Not everyone in these forums lives in US and knows exactly how the legislation in the specific states looks like.

# ? May 21, 2015 18:36

Cocaine Bear: Nov 4, 2011; ACAB

Doctors and nurses in the US murder patients all the time. Criminologist call them Angels of Mercy or Angels of Death. The hosed up hospitals-for-profit system in the US does a great job of encouraging the practice. It's also really loving difficult to track because, among other more obvious reasons, hospital administrators sure as hell aren't going to tell the cops and deal with the inevitable " :supaburn:

nurse kills 4, possibly countless more at White Oaks General! :supaburn:

" headlines. It's presumed that if they do get caught they usually get the catholic priest treatment and just shuffled off to another hospital or quietly reassigned.

e: for clarification, I don't mean with patient consent; I mean they feel in their demented minds that they are doing good and casually snuff patients out one way or another.

# ? May 21, 2015 18:36

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Alter Ego posted:

This has always been my position. A terminal diagnosis would make me an undue burden on my loved ones.

If I am going to die of a fatal disease, I want to clear my conscience, lie down in bed, and go to sleep, with my family around me. Why religious communities feel that people should be denied this right is beyond me.

They think you're literally condeming yourself to hell if you do it. They're trying to save your soul. As misguided as it is, it's not malice, but love.

# ? May 21, 2015 18:57

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

Talmonis posted:

They think you're literally condeming yourself to hell if you do it. They're trying to save your soul. As misguided as it is, it's not malice, but love.

Generally the reaction of religious communities to people trying to break "God's plan", whatever it is, is the opposite of love. I guess they might be restrained by the fact that the people whose rights they are trying to restrict are terminally ill, but I would doubt it.

"I'm saving your soul by forcing you to live the rest of your days in unbearable pain" sounds like insane psychopathy to me anyway,

DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 19:40 on May 21, 2015

# ? May 21, 2015 19:37

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

JoelJoel posted:

Doctors and nurses in the US murder patients all the time. Criminologist call them Angels of Mercy or Angels of Death. The hosed up hospitals-for-profit system in the US does a great job of encouraging the practice. It's also really loving difficult to track because, among other more obvious reasons, hospital administrators sure as hell aren't going to tell the cops and deal with the inevitable "nurse kills 4, possibly countless more at White Oaks General!" headlines. It's presumed that if they do get caught they usually get the catholic priest treatment and just shuffled off to another hospital or quietly reassigned.

e: for clarification, I don't mean with patient consent; I mean they feel in their demented minds that they are doing good and casually snuff patients out one way or another.

This is why organ donors are regularly run over by doctors.

# ? May 21, 2015 20:03

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Gantolandon posted:

As far as I realize, the topic is not about the laws in Oregon and Washington, but euthanasia in general. If the thread's scope is a specific place, it should be denoted somewhere. Not everyone in these forums lives in US and knows exactly how the legislation in the specific states looks like.

This is a cheap copout, nothing more.

If you're going to hypothesize that death with dignity laws are going to be abused yet neglect to look for such abuse in the areas where such laws are already in place, you're doing little more than concern trolling.

EDIT:

Talmonis posted:

They think you're literally condeming yourself to hell if you do it. They're trying to save your soul. As misguided as it is, it's not malice, but love.

Forcing someone to needlessly suffer does not become a kind act just because a person is convinced otherwise. You might as well justify parents who starve their children or refuse them access basic healthcare for the same reasons.

Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 20:29 on May 21, 2015

# ? May 21, 2015 20:26

Gantolandon: Aug 19, 2012

Solkanar512 posted:

This is a cheap copout, nothing more.

If you're going to hypothesize that death with dignity laws are going to be abused yet neglect to look for such abuse in the areas where such laws are already in place, you're doing little more than concern trolling.

Stating that I don't live in the US and never been there, therefore I shouldn't be expected to know specifics of US law and how they apply to the topic is not a copout, even though some American posters outright refuse to discuss anything that doesn't apply to their own country.

I once got laughed off in D&D for not knowing what a Surgeon-General is. The topic was about direct democracy.

quote:

EDIT:

Forcing someone to needlessly suffer does not become a kind act just because a person is convinced otherwise. You might as well justify parents who starve their children or refuse them access basic healthcare for the same reasons.

Sometimes you are unable to get consent from a person who might want to be euthanized, because their brains no longer function properly. In other cases, disease leaves them impressionable - either because of their mental capacity decreased, or that they are completely unable to lead a normal life without another person helping them. How the gently caress are you going to judge if the person with Alzheimer's really wants to be euthanized when they are unable to recognize what a chair is for is beyond me. Could you resolve my doubts, preferably without requiring me to study the law code of Bumfuck, AR?

# ? May 21, 2015 20:51

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Gantolandon posted:

Could you resolve my doubts, preferably without requiring me to study the law code of Bumfuck, AR?

The answer to this is "We will write laws that aren't stupid." If you aren't willing to reading any pre-existing laws, I don't see how you can expect a satisfactory answer.

# ? May 21, 2015 21:01

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Gantolandon posted:

Stating that I don't live in the US and never been there, therefore I shouldn't be expected to know specifics of US law and how they apply to the topic is not a copout, even though some American posters outright refuse to discuss anything that doesn't apply to their own country.

I once got laughed off in D&D for not knowing what a Surgeon-General is. The topic was about direct democracy.

It has nothing to do with you knowing the specifics of the US, since there were even already non-US examples brought up! You can even address the issue brought up while continuing to know nothing about the US by saying "Well, they do it here in this way and it DOES have problems".

It merely has to do with you knowing something about anything, instead of dealing in the pure hypothetical.

# ? May 21, 2015 21:28

Talmonis: Jun 24, 2012; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

Solkanar512 posted:

This is a cheap copout, nothing more.

If you're going to hypothesize that death with dignity laws are going to be abused yet neglect to look for such abuse in the areas where such laws are already in place, you're doing little more than concern trolling.

EDIT:

Forcing someone to needlessly suffer does not become a kind act just because a person is convinced otherwise. You might as well justify parents who starve their children or refuse them access basic healthcare for the same reasons.

I never said it was justified by it, simply explained their reasoning is based in well meaning ignorance and superstition, as opposed to malice.

# ? May 21, 2015 21:33

Stereotype: Apr 24, 2010; College Slice

My quote in the OP wasn't meant to entirely dismiss the possibility that legalized physician assisted suicide would be abused, especially considering the incentives money gives to emotionally detached insurance companies who hold a lot of power in the situation.

However, there are many cases in which someone deciding to end their own life is entirely justified and not a product of coercion, and I find myself routinely disgusted by our society's predilection to outlawing practices because they may be misused by immoral people, instead of actively prosecuting or even preventing the offense.

Oregon has had a "death with dignity act" for nearly two decades. Their website has detailed reports from every year the law has been in effect. Of note, 92% of the 155 patents who received DWDA prescriptions in 2014 cited "loss of autonomy" as a reason for their choice, something that is often impossible to restore.

# ? May 21, 2015 21:34

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

I'm all for it, of course there would have to be a lot of legal protections put in place for both the doctor and the patient first.

# ? May 21, 2015 21:35

sat on my keys!: Oct 2, 2014

Should euthanasia be available for people without terminal illnesses? In Belgium it is possible to request it for psychiatric conditions, although apparently it can be difficult to find a doctor willing to administer it for depression.

# ? May 21, 2015 21:42

lonelywurm: Aug 10, 2009

Gantolandon posted:

Sometimes you are unable to get consent from a person who might want to be euthanized, because their brains no longer function properly. In other cases, disease leaves them impressionable - either because of their mental capacity decreased, or that they are completely unable to lead a normal life without another person helping them. How the gently caress are you going to judge if the person with Alzheimer's really wants to be euthanized when they are unable to recognize what a chair is for is beyond me. Could you resolve my doubts, preferably without requiring me to study the law code of Bumfuck, AR?

Well you could in fact have simply read some of the legislation involved in various areas, but I guess since you're too lazy to bother, I'll give you a hand with it and quote the most relevant sections.

The Washington Death with Dignity Act posted:

RCW 70.245.010
Definitions.

...

(3) "Competent" means that, in the opinion of a court or in the opinion of the patient's attending physician or consulting physician, psychiatrist, or psychologist, a patient has the ability to make and communicate an informed decision to health care providers, including communication through persons familiar with the patient's manner of communicating if those persons are available.

...

(7) "Informed decision" means a decision by a qualified patient, to request and obtain a prescription for medication that the qualified patient may self-administer to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner, that is based on an appreciation of the relevant facts and after being fully informed by the attending physician of:

(a) His or her medical diagnosis;

(b) His or her prognosis;

(c) The potential risks associated with taking the medication to be prescribed;

(d) The probable result of taking the medication to be prescribed; and

(e) The feasible alternatives including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care, and pain control.

RCW 70.245.020
Written request for medication.

(1) An adult who is competent, is a resident of Washington state, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication that the patient may self-administer to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner in accordance with this chapter.

RCW 70.245.070
Informed decision.

A person shall not receive a prescription for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner unless he or she has made an informed decision. Immediately before writing a prescription for medication under this chapter, the attending physician shall verify that the qualified patient is making an informed decision.

Oregon Revised Statutes relating to Death With Dignity posted:

127.800 s.1.01. Definitions.

...

(3) "Capable" means that in the opinion of a court or in the opinion of the patient's attending physician or consulting physician, psychiatrist or psychologist, a patient has the ability to make and communicate health care decisions to health care providers, including communication through persons familiar with the patient's manner of communicating if those persons are available.

...

(7) "Informed decision" means a decision by a qualified patient, to request and obtain a prescription to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner, that is based on an appreciation of the relevant facts and after being fully informed by the attending physician of:

(a) His or her medical diagnosis;

(b) His or her prognosis;

(c) The potential risks associated with taking the medication to be prescribed;

(d) The probable result of taking the medication to be prescribed; and

(e) The feasible alternatives, including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care and pain control.

127.805 s.2.01. Who may initiate a written request for medication.

(1) An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897.

127.830 s.3.04. Informed decision.

No person shall receive a prescription for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner unless he or she has made an informed decision as defined in ORS 127.800 (7). Immediately prior to writing a prescription for medication under ORS 127.800 to 127.897, the attending physician shall verify that the patient is making an informed decision. [1995 c.3 s.3.04]

And no, I didn't copy/paste anything twice. Oregon and Washington use shockingly similar, if not identical terminology through much of their respective legislation.

Similar wording is found in Quebec:

Bill n�52 : An Act respecting end-of-life care posted:

26. Only a patient who meets the following criteria may obtain medical aid
in dying:
(1) be of full age, be capable of giving consent to care and be an insured
person within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act (chapter A-29);
(2) suffer from an incurable serious illness;
(3) suffer from an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; and
(4) suffer from constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain
which cannot be relieved in a manner the person deems tolerable.
The patient must request medical aid in dying themselves, in a free and
informed manner, by means of the form prescribed by the Minister.

In short, in the three jurisdictions in North America that I know, off-hand, allow for some form of doctor-assisted suicide, all would prevent someone who is mentally incapable of providing informed consent from requesting or receiving said care.

# ? May 21, 2015 21:50

GAINING WEIGHT...: Mar 26, 2007; See? Science proves the ~~Jews~~Muslims are inferior and must be purged! I'm not a racist, honest!

Gantolandon posted:

Stating that I don't live in the US and never been there, therefore I shouldn't be expected to know specifics of US law and how they apply to the topic is not a copout, even though some American posters outright refuse to discuss anything that doesn't apply to their own country.

It's not that we're all so Amero-centric we think all peoples everywheres oughta know the minutiae of our laws, it's that you are throwing out what-ifs that have already been addressed by, among others, American versions of this practice. The "cop out" is the fact that you could find answers to your what-ifs if you researched a bit, but no, you "don't know" US law!

# ? May 22, 2015 02:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 23:15

Cockmaster: Feb 24, 2002

Is it just me, or do these "disabled rights activists" bear an uncanny resemblance to the people getting into heated arguments on the internet over each other's choice of game console (or other mundane crap)? I mean, they sound as though they feel threatened by people wanting to make the opposite choice they did, as if they see that as an attack on their beliefs.

Stereotype posted:

Of note, 92% of the 155 patents who received DWDA prescriptions in 2014 cited "loss of autonomy" as a reason for their choice, something that is often impossible to restore.

Yeah, this is why the whole "You just need better treatment" argument against euthanasia is more or less total crap. What treatment could those people possibly have in mind that would make someone suddenly okay with having no real control over their life, or being unable to do much of anything they might enjoy?

I've heard of experiments in robotics which might offer some help there, but it'll be years before that sort of technology is widely available, and more years before it's capable enough to meaningfully restore autonomy. Even then, not everyone will necessarily count the end result as a life worth living.

Xibanya posted:

If I'm understanding it right, there's a bit of a slippery slop argument going on here. Most of the time I hear about someone who desires physician assisted suicide, it's someone who has been given a set timeline and they're choosing between "suffer for 6 months or OD painlessly on morphine now," while the article in the OP is taking about old/disabled people in general. Seems like totally different situations to me, a little disappointed that the woman in the article doesn't seem to touch much on that.

The question is, is it different enough that the arguments against legal euthanasia would be that much stronger? If 6 months of effectively untreatable suffering can be counted as a rational reason to self-terminate, why not several decades of effectively untreatable suffering?

I suppose one might make the case that it's harder to justify suicide if there's a real chance of living to see a cure for whatever it is. The problem there is that for some degenerative neurological conditions, potential cures may be limited to either stem cells or Singularity-level cybernetics.

Cockmaster fucked around with this message at 03:50 on May 22, 2015

# ? May 22, 2015 03:37

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Physician Assisted Suicide

«‹›9 »