The right to die with dignity

I agree that ppl should have the right to choose when to end their own lives. I think that this issue will become more important as our population ages.

clersal wrote:

quote:

---

I'm old so it is extremely important to me.

---

Your age has obviously not dampened your spirit. You are an inspiration. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

As to the topic, I do fully support the right to die with dignity.

However, there clearly needs to be very clear and stringent standards on applying this right.

First, obviously, the choice must rest exclusively with the person in question.

Second, the person needs to be medically of sound mind when the decision is made.

Third, the person makes a commitment to die with dignity before actually before being incapacitated by getting sick or injured, this must be written in legal form, like in a will, and registered with a legal public agency.

Fourth, the person obviously should have the right to specify under what conditions their life should be terminated provided these conditions match those of a degenerative chronic or terminal disorder.

Fifth, the person, and only the person, should have the exclusive right to change those conditions or revoke the decision--not subject to any transfer of power to attorney. It must be that person and that person alone.

This should protect people from any shenanigans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
[b]clersal wrote:

However, there clearly needs to be very clear and stringent standards on applying this right.

First, obviously, the choice must rest exclusively with the person in question.

Second, the person needs to be medically of sound mind when the decision is made.

Third, the person makes a commitment to die with dignity before actually before being incapacitated by getting sick or injured, this must be written in legal form, like in a will, and registered with a legal public agency.

Fourth, the person obviously should have the right to specify under what conditions their life should be terminated provided these conditions match those of a degenerative chronic or terminal disorder.

Fifth, the person, and only the person, should have the exclusive right to change those conditions or revoke the decision--not subject to any transfer of power to attorney. It must be that person and that person alone.

This should protect people from any shenanigans.[/b]

---

Sounds good but very complicated. If someone in the family finds a loophole and for some misguided reason wants the person to go on 'in case' they find a cure......life will not be much fun for the dying.

There are all kinds of 'chronic' disorders that are not necessarily painful nor is the person in danger of imminent death. Their quality of life is shit.

Of course there should be certain guidlines however I doubt that there would be many 'shenanigans' with familes bumping off old Ma and Pa because they are tired of looking after them.

We can't avoid everything as the felon will find some way of removing the thorn in their side by looking up untraceable poisons on the internet or reading lots of Agatha Christie books. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Latimer's daughter was unable to make her wishes known, if she had even the knowledge of life and death.

I think what she did seem to know was a lot of pain. I'm not even sure whether the quality of her life was even relevent at least on how I see the quality of life.

I think the Latimer gets a 'free ride' as you put it Michelle because he really loved his daughter. There seemed to be no doubt on that side.

Right or wrong......I know my sympathies are with him in spite of it being against the law.

I didn't mean by the court, thank goodness - I meant he got a free ride by the public.

Sorry, but we're not going to agree on this. Unless someone has made the decision for themselves, or unless they're braindead, no one should be allowed to murder someone in the name of mercy.

[ 29 June 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Holy crap. I didn't even know that part. He didn't even consult his WIFE? Unbelievable. Of course, maybe he didn't want to make her an accessory, and was protecting her. But still. I'd find that pretty unforgivable.

Perhaps he wanted to protect her, or perhaps he didn't want to face objections. Really, why assume one way or the other?

What has bugged me all along about this case is Latimer's outright defiance at having to face legal consequences. His statements give the impression of someone operating under absolutely moral certainty. That level of certainty, when deciding whether to end a life, doesn't sit well with me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by clersal:
[b]

Even if it was his own life?[/b]

---

No.

I would say that when you are 12 years old and your brain is functioning at a three month level and never going to improve, it is pretty close to brain dead.

I realize it is illegal to murder a three month old child however remember the thread, 'Dying with dignity.'

It is illegal to commit suicide too if you are not successful!

quote:

---

Originally posted by clersal:
[b]

It is illegal to commit suicide too if you are not successful![/b]

---

Source?

I'm pretty sure this is not true.

Suicide is immoral

Bible says so.

Failed attempts should face capital punishment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by clersal:
[b]
It is illegal to commit suicide too if you are not successful![/b]

---

No it is not. Maybe you need to better inform yourself before engaging in this debate.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972, S.C. 1972, c. 13, s. 16.

[ 30 June 2007: Message edited by: pookie ]

Just curious - do we think it's somehow UNdignified to simply die of a disease instead of committing suicide beforehand?

I mean, I really don't like this whole "dying with dignity" phrase, because it implies that those who die by letting nature take its course are not "dignified".

As unpopular as my stance may be, I disagree with the concept of enabling suicide and or euthenasia. This is ironic because I have attempted suicide a number of times, but no longer believe in it, whatever the situation. I have come to believe in the traditional Cree understanding that suicide seperates the spirit from the natural course of the human cycle, and would then be lost and unable to move to the spirit world without particular intervention from healers. I now believe that pain and suffering in our final days brings us closer to understanding and that to seperate us from that final test is a loss to the spirit which is eternal.

And what if you die of something that has robbed you of your cognition long beforehand, like Alzheimer's disease?

Dunno if you would call it euthanasia, but in health care, sometimes people at the end of their lives are quietly given medication that relieves their suffering and hastens their end. I would be in favour of this practice being legal and out in the open so that people can openly discuss what they prefer (if they are able). And people with beliefs like Makwa's would see their beliefs respected.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
[b]As unpopular as my stance may be, I disagree with the concept of enabling suicide and or euthenasia. This is ironic because I have attempted suicide a number of times, but no longer believe in it, whatever the situation. I have come to believe in the traditional Cree understanding that suicide seperates the spirit from the natural course of the human cycle, and would then be lost and unable to move to the spirit world without particular intervention from healers. I now believe that pain and suffering in our final days brings us closer to understanding and that to seperate us from that final test is a loss to the spirit which is eternal.[/b]

---

The question for me is why you would believe, and that is the operative word, any of that? It's completely magical thinking. Of course, we're all entitled to our self-delusions, but that crosses a dangerous barrier when it informs your political stances. Same as if Adam and Eve and Noah and Jesus guided your life and led you to certain moral (immoral?) positions.

Just saw this. I suppose it is too much to expect there won't be an audit and request for repayment coming.

As well as follow up letters to all the donors.

Good thing men's rights are still afforded charitable status though.

This is so unfair. Why should hate-mongering, religiously affiliated organizations maintain their charitable status while a group so proven to provide beneficial help to those they serve be denied? Fletcher, the only Harper Con who is on board with right to die legislation and put forward a private member's bill, was quoted as not being disturbed by this. He is confident that those who need Right to Die services will pony up the $$$ regardless of a tax receipt. Perhaps we should use the same logic for all religious and right wing charitable organizations and demand that their status be revoked.

No, I thought that was what you meant, but really, it wasn't clear.

My father also died youngish from lung cancer, but he was a very heavy smoker. He had two heart attacks, phlebitis and incipient emphysema before the cancer finally did him in.

When he was a young man, long ago, cigarette smoking was the norm. And earlier still in the 20th century, producers played patriot to get young men hooked during the First World War, and I'm sure that crap still went on in the Second, as cigs became an important trading item.

My understanding is that Dying with Dignity plans to continue their good work, but without the benefit of charitable status.  This means that they will rely on the generosity of those supporters who believe in the cause, and do not require a tax deductible receipt to express that support. Hopefully that support will be broad enough and deep enough to maintain operations.

Another victory for Harper's bible-thumping Conservative base. It's astonishing how many lives can be affected by the narrow and rigid views of a small minority. How dare they presume to know what is best for others. Assholes.