http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/10/19/assistedsuicide-estrie-sentencing.html

Andr

Most life insurance policies are bound by local and state laws to have a two year suicide clause, so as long as they pass that two year statute of limitations the policyholder can do whatever he wants to his own life.

Personally I believe that if the person is of sound mind at the time of his decision, who are we to deny him his desires?  :-\\

Yes, it should be.  The person being assisted must give full consent of the will.  Of course, there are a hundred hypotheticals to muddy the waters!

Have long been a supporter of patient suicide, as long as it meets the following circumstances:

1.  The illness is terminal.
2.  The pain is getting to the point where medication is no longer able to aleviate pain

In other words, cancer or AID alone is not enough.  Magic Johnson was diagnosed over 15 years ago, yet is still healthy.  However, if the person is in Stage 3 untreatable cancer, or in the final stages of AIDS, then I feel it is a person's right to stop their own suffering.  After all, we do it for animals.  Why should we be "less humane" to other humans?

I was a supporter of Dr. Kevorkian, until he started killing people simply because they had Cerebral Palsey and ALS.  While these diseases may be debilitating, they are not directly fatal, simply restricting in what the person can do.  Stephen Hawking came down with ALS in 1963, and think what we would have missed if he had decided to "end it all" back then.  His body may be a wreck, but that has allowed his mind to only get sharper.

However, I am 100% against the idea of "Euthenasia".  Nobody has the right to make that choice but the person themselves.  It is up to the individual themselves to decide how hard and for how long they want to fight.  The last thing I would ever want is for the government to step in and decide who can live and who can die.

Most life insurance policies are bound by local and state laws to have a two year suicide clause, so as long as they pass that two year statute of limitations the policyholder can do whatever he wants to his own life.

Personally I believe that if the person is of sound mind at the time of his decision, who are we to deny him his desires?   :-\\
usually the whole reason behind cases like this is hte person waited until they were physically unable to kill themself,and felt it was the partner's duty to carry out his or her wishes.many partners feel bound by this,especially after putting themself in the other person's shoes.

I believe in "Death with Dignity". But I feel that it should be that person's decision-not someone elses. The only time when I feel that someone else should make that decision is if the person has been a vegable for several years with no chance of improving.




Cat

I believe in "Death with Dignity". But I feel that it should be that person's decision-not someone elses. The only time when I feel that someone else should make that decision is if the person has been a vegable for several years with no chance of improving.


I agree there also, but under a few requirements:

1.  It is made by a family member
or
2.  The person left a "Living Will" stating that is their desire.

I would not want to see some Hospital, HMO, Judge, or Beaurocrat doing this, just as some kind of "money saving measure".  And there must be either substantial brain damage, or brain death.  After all, there are many cases of "vegitative" people comming back to life.  I remember one just earlier this year about a guy in NY that was out for like 15 years, and then woke up again.

I have faced this very decision myself.  And although it was hard, it is what she would have wanted.

Good points, 'Shroom!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumright.gif

The thing about terminal illness and pain medications is that pain meds have made leaps and bounds in the past decade alone.  Palliative care might be able to alleviate your suffering wth some real "advanced medicine for pain," but the meds might zombify you.  Quality of life may hit zero.  And you're still going to die.  Thus I can't make a one-size-fits-all decision.  It depends on the pain, the illness, and most importantly, what the patient wants.

What grossed me out about the Terry Schiavo case was the lies and the politics.  I think Sen. Bill Frist was lying.  He's an M.D. and he knew perfectly well Schiavo would never recover.  As an M.D. and a heart surgeon, if Frist was so delusional that he earnestly believed Schiavo could get better, then he is not psychiatrically fit to practice medicine!

Forgive the pun, but Schiavo's case was not a gray area of medicine.  Simple tomography demonstrated several times her cerebral cortex had been destroyed and replaced by cerebrospinal fluid.  In other words...her brain was mush!!!  (Of course, this did make her a perfect constituent for the Christian Right, and you know how adamant they are about getting every vote they can.)
:-\\
But I do not mean to hijack this thread into a Schiavo referendum...
::)

It just isn't fair that people should have to go to jail just for helping their loved one do exactly what they would have wanted to be done. I'm glad the judge showed he had some sense. If I were terminal, you bet your @ss I'd pull a Dr. K. And if I were comatose or in a vegetative state, I would trust someone close like my cousin to make the right decision, whether or not I had a will.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights, not obligations.

If there was a "Yes, for moral reasons", I'd have clicked it. But there wasn't, so I settled for "Yes".

What grossed me out about the Terry Schiavo case was the lies and the politics.  I think Sen. Bill Frist was lying.  He's an M.D. and he knew perfectly well Schiavo would never recover.  As an M.D. and a heart surgeon, if Frist was so delusional that he earnestly believed Schiavo could get better, then he is not psychiatrically fit to practice medicine!


As I have said, I think the biggest problem with the Schiavo case is that her parents found some Judge that allowed her to over-rule her husband's decision to let her die a decade before.  When she got married, all decisions like this (unless she spelled them out beforehand) automatically moved from her Parents to her Husband.

Her husband faced reality, and made some hard decisions.  He grieved, and then moved along with his life.  Her parents instead deluded themselves into living in a fantasy, where Terry would someday rise out of her bed and go on living as before.  What they did was morbid and disgusting, and should never have been alowed to happen.

And just like any other case, you had politicians and sycophants cling to it, bringing in even more publicity and trauma.  I was disgusted with the slanders thrown at her husband, and at how a personal tragedy was turned into a 3 ring media circus.  She should have been allowed to die with grace in dignity in 1998, when her husband first requested the removal of the tubes.

If you consider that she had the heart attack in 1990, the fact that he waited 8 years shows that he waited quite a while before making the decision.  The real crime here is that it took another 7 years to happen.  If her parents could only have been more realistic, like the parents of Karen Ann Quinlan.

I voted "Yes".  Like everyone else, I think there needs to be guidelines in place to ensure it is not used frivolously.  I think it needs to be in writing, witnesses/notarized/whatever.  Also, I'm concerned with making a sweeping "you must have disease X, Y or Z" because one can never know how someone else with whatever disease is feeling.  My mother is currently fighting a losing battle with cancer.  She is terminal, but chemotherapy is allowing her to live some semblance of a life.  If, however, the chemo stops working or she decides to quit because of the side effects, I'd like to be able to let her die in peace and with some dignity.

As I have said, I think the biggest problem with the Schiavo case is that her parents found some Judge that allowed her to over-rule her husband's decision to let her die a decade before.  When she got married, all decisions like this (unless she spelled them out beforehand) automatically moved from her Parents to her Husband.

Her husband faced reality, and made some hard decisions.  He grieved, and then moved along with his life.  Her parents instead deluded themselves into living in a fantasy, where Terry would someday rise out of her bed and go on living as before.  What they did was morbid and disgusting, and should never have been alowed to happen.

And just like any other case, you had politicians and sycophants cling to it, bringing in even more publicity and trauma.  I was disgusted with the slanders thrown at her husband, and at how a personal tragedy was turned into a 3 ring media circus.  She should have been allowed to die with grace in dignity in 1998, when her husband first requested the removal of the tubes.

If you consider that she had the heart attack in 1990, the fact that he waited 8 years shows that he waited quite a while before making the decision.  The real crime here is that it took another 7 years to happen.  If her parents could only have been more realistic, like the parents of Karen Ann Quinlan.



What makes me so angry about the Schiavo case is that Bill Frist and Congress got involved in it which was not their right. It was up to her husband and her parents. I do agree that her parents were unrealistic about it but I can also understand their point of view-they were trying to cling to hope when hope was not there. But what really bothers me about what they did was they turned it into a media circus rather then just having it a private matter between them and her husband. I'm sure there are many cases just like it around the country but you never hear about them-which is the way it should be. It is a PRIVATE matter.




Cat

What makes me so angry about the Schiavo case is that Bill Frist and Congress got involved in it which was not their right. It was up to her husband and her parents. I do agree that her parents were unrealistic about it but I can also understand their point of view-they were trying to cling to hope when hope was not there. But what really bothers me about what they did was they turned it into a media circus rather then just having it a private matter between them and her husband. I'm sure there are many cases just like it around the country but you never hear about them-which is the way it should be. It is a PRIVATE matter.


My issue starts when her parents ignored the wishes of her husband.  Under the law, he is her immediate next of kin, not her parents.

And this battle had been going on for years.  I remember first hearing about it in the late 1990's, when her parents first got a Judge to ignore the husband's wishes in the matter.  After that, it faded into the background while the case wound it's way through court.

In almost every appeal, the parents lost.  They would then simply find another judge to issue another stay.  This happened over and over again.  And towards the end when they saw that they were going to loose, they went to very extreme measures, even trying to get Terry into the witness protection program!

One of the plans to try and save her was to have her served a subpoena, then to hold Terry in "Contempt Of Congress".  This would have kept her alive as the courts fought to untangle the mess.  Thankfully, the US Supreme Court choose to let the lower cout decisions stand, and allowed her to die.

To me, this is part of the interesting dichotomy of the extremes of both parties in reguards to life and death.  The far left has no problem with people dying, as long as the government does not kill murderers.  The far right does not want to see anybody die, unless they do the killing.  You can see this in how each group approaches abortion, capitol punishment, and "right to die" issues.  I make no judgements here, it is simply an observation.

We both want to see death, we just can't agree on the way it should be allowed.  :-\\

What makes me so angry about the Schiavo case is that Bill Frist and Congress got involved in it which was not their right. It was up to her husband and her parents. I do agree that her parents were unrealistic about it but I can also understand their point of view-they were trying to cling to hope when hope was not there. But what really bothers me about what they did was they turned it into a media circus rather then just having it a private matter between them and her husband. I'm sure there are many cases just like it around the country but you never hear about them-which is the way it should be. It is a PRIVATE matter.


A certain political party got so arrogant with power it believes it can do anything it wants, and it does because no one has stopped them for 13 years.  As I said, Frist is either a liar or a quack.  He's most certainly a religious crank and a corporate greed-head like his fellow partisans.  A medical doctor knows better.  Even a PA-C could look at those radiographs and see Schiavo had no chance of ever regaining consciousness.  Reading x-rays, CT scans, PET scans, and MRIs is basic medical training.  What do you think they do in med school all those years?  Play tiddly-winks?



I voted "Yes".  Like everyone else, I think there needs to be guidelines in place to ensure it is not used frivolously.  I think it needs to be in writing, witnesses/notarized/whatever.  Also, I'm concerned with making a sweeping "you must have disease X, Y or Z" because one can never know how someone else with whatever disease is feeling.  My mother is currently fighting a losing battle with cancer.  She is terminal, but chemotherapy is allowing her to live some semblance of a life.  If, however, the chemo stops working or she decides to quit because of the side effects, I'd like to be able to let her die in peace and with some dignity.

Well, yes, AND the insurance industry must be legally forbidden to have any say in the matter whatsoever.

A certain political party got so arrogant with power it believes it can do anything it wants, and it does because no one has stopped them for 13 years.  As I said, Frist is either a liar or a quack.  He's most certainly a religious crank and a corporate greed-head like his fellow partisans.  A medical doctor knows better.  Even a PA-C could look at those radiographs and see Schiavo had no chance of ever regaining consciousness.  Reading x-rays, CT scans, PET scans, and MRIs is basic medical training.  What do you think they do in med school all those years?  Play tiddly-winks?

Well, yes, AND the insurance industry must be legally forbidden to have any say in the matter whatsoever.

Agreed 100%. 

I have a "living Will".  The last thing I would want is for some dork like Bill Frist or Rick Santorum getting involved.  The thing with Terri S., if she was a black lesbian or something other than a white woman who's parents are good conservative Catholics.  There would have been no debate, no media.

As I said, Frist is either a liar or a quack. 


Wait, wait, wait.  Nobody said this was an either/or thing!

Wait, wait, wait.  Nobody said this was an either/or thing!

You're right.  With Frist, it's a both/and thing!

i vote for the creation and legalization of suicide booths. FUTURAMA LIVES ON!!!

but seriously, if she wanted to die, then i don't see any reason not to have helped her. kudos to him for having the courage.

where'd everybody go? did i scare them away? i hate it when this happens. oh well.

  BUMP!!!!