It's My Life. I'll Kill Myself If And When I Want To.
I would also like to be put out of my misery (or turnip-like state) if I am lying brain-dead in a bed, thanks.
A 66-year-old woman in Washington named Linda Fleming, diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer, was the first to die under the state's new "Death With Dignity" law. Kudos to Washington for passing this law, and to the heroic Jack Kevorkian, who helped put a number of people out of their misery when they asked him to, at great personal cost.
Sandi Doughton writes for The Seattle Times:
Rather than die in agony or spend her final days in a drug-induced haze, Fleming swallowed a fatal dose of barbiturates in her apartment Thursday night -- becoming the first person in Washington to end her life under the state's new "Death with Dignity" law.Family members, her beloved Chihuahua, Seri, and a physician were with her when she died, according to Compassion & Choices Washington, the organization that sponsored the measure adopted by Washington voters in November.
...She said she was grateful that Washington's law provided her "the choice of a death that fits my own personal beliefs."
One opponent of the law called Fleming's death a "sad day" and criticized her choice as "egotistical."
"It's saying: 'I want to go out of life on my own terms, even though the vast majority of us accept the natural conclusion of our lives,' " said Chris Carlson, of the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide, one of the groups that raised $1.6 million to fight the measure.
You "accept the natural conclusion" of your life, asshole, and I'll take a handful of pills, thanks. "Egotistical"? Yes, that's right. It's my life, and I'll decide when to end it. You don't get to decide that I have to continue suffering -- especially if I no longer have the physical capacity to end my life myself.
My worry is what to do if I get Dementia or Alzheimer's. If they don't have a cure by the time I'm old, I'd like to be sure I off myself before I totally lose my mind, but not too soon. The problem is, possibly missing the window before you totally fall out mentally.
And finally, one problem with this law (as you'll see if you read the whole piece, which you should, at the link), is that it's not an assisted suicide law. You have to be able to administer the pills (or whatever) yourself. There are people who are unable to do so, who would like to end their lives, and this doesn't cover them. Some of the other limitations -- that you must have only six months to live, according to your doctor -- are troubling as well. I think people should have autonomy over their lives and deaths, and the ability to ask to be helped to die if they can't kill themselves.
This is about telling people what to do. The same argument surfaced in gun-control arguments, as a gun owner, once things are horrible enough to overcome the natural fear of death, has a swift, though messy solution that other people cannot "dial back".
The only thing that worries me about this is that some who have not elected to die will be hurried along.
But if you think assisted suicide is a new thing, well, no. Family doctors have been easing the pain of people's final moments for centuries. People just think it's their business what you do now because of trends in information transfer. If they didn't know you, they wouldn't try to tell you what to do.
Radwaste at June 7, 2009 10:31 AM
Is it really necessary to call people you disagree with names like "asshole"? What is accomplished by that except to weaken your argument.
Marvin Kornblau at June 7, 2009 11:02 AM
>> Is it really necessary to call people you disagree with names like "asshole"?
The arguments around here kinda have an "around the pub table" quality to them. And I think in this case the term applies perfectly.
Eric at June 7, 2009 11:36 AM
"Is it really necessary to call people you disagree with names like "asshole"? What is accomplished by that except to weaken your argument."
Blah blah blah. Somebody who tells somebody else by force of law what they can and can't do in areas of life that are really none of their damn business and don't affect them *is* an asshole - this isn't just an abstract point of disagreement in an intellectual debate, it's *real life* with *real effects*. Let society call assholes for what they are - pretending that the objectively morally correct side is "weakened" by not giving due consideration to those who block freedoms unjustly is just crazy. To push it a bit far, it's a little bit like telling a rape victim she needs to be polite to her rapist or her case against him is weakened.
Mouse at June 7, 2009 11:48 AM
> one problem with this law [...] is
> that it's not an assisted suicide
> law. You have to be able to
> administer the pills (or whatever)
> yourself
Listen, uh... Humility, OK? Stoicism. Not everything that's wrong with this world is going to be fixed or ameliorated by changing policies. (The presumption that it is is called fascism, and it sucks major hose.)
No one ever entered this world carrying the guarantee of a pleasant death. That's just not how it works.
There's a much greater benefit to a firm principle forbidding the taking of another's life than would come from the exception you're considering. There are forces of savagery at loose on this globe who are quite happy to embrace your suggestion with an eye to expanding it in unacceptable ways.
No matter what happens and no matter what our laws dictate,lots of people –maybe most of us, including you and me– are going to die horribly. It's a biological law, not the Constitutional one.
If this unpleasant truth troubles you so deeply that you can't make peace with it and you feel compelled to stop the madness, then don't have kids... You'll have done your part.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 7, 2009 12:00 PM
After watching my father suffer through liver cancer, it sickened me to think that it was not his choice to end his misery. I have a close friend who is also terminal and she was petrified to order a book on assisted suicide. As she put it, "if I don't want to be stuck in a bed in excruciating pain and shitting myself possibly unaware of anything but my pain, who the hell has the right to make me?" If it is against someone's beliefs to die in their own way then they do not have to end it, but don't make it illegal for those who choose to die with dignity when they choose.
Kristen at June 7, 2009 12:13 PM
> Is it really necessary to call
> people you disagree with names
> like "asshole"? What is
> accomplished by that except to
> weaken your argument.
Not necessary, but:
1. It's fun!
2. It often snaps people out of their somnambulant presumption; the man on the street walks through his day presuming that everyone around him shares his petty opinions... Or at least ought to share then. But this is not true, and a quick lil' bitchslap can wake people up and cause them to present their case more thoughtfully (if, upon awaking, they still believe their case to have merit).
3. It's not the case the name-calling per se diminishes and argument. A well-substantiated argument will prevail whether or not you admire the demeanor of the person who makes it. There's more to life than being cute 'n cuddly.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 7, 2009 12:55 PM
Upon waking woulda been better than upon awaking, and I feel bad about that
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 7, 2009 12:59 PM
There's a fine line between advocacy and persuasion. Kevorkian crossed that line, and he did it to satisfy his disgusting desire to kill.
Back on topic, the problem with "assisted" suicide laws is the same as the abortion laws that certain politicians favor - no way out for doctors who are unwilling to perform the procedure. In that case, advocacy leads to coercion.
And when you have the law forcing doctors to end people's lives, you've got a problem.
As an interesting aside, I'd like to know how many people who are either pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia are anti-death penalty. Because some recent proposals in New York will make for interesting conversation fodder.
brian at June 7, 2009 1:54 PM
Really, how can they stop you now? There are plenty of ways to get pills, and plenty of other ways to die. It's not like you have to worry about going to jail afterward, so who cares about the law? I think that my right to life includes the right to end it.
The easiest way to get pills-listen up addicts-is have 2 or more drs. See each for the same problem (ooo, I strained my back!). Fill each script at a different pharmacy chain. Done.
I just spent 4 days in the childrens hospital with my 3 week old. Fevers at that age are a bad bad thing. There were some super sick kiddos there. If my kid were terminally ill and in pain and tired of it, no law would keep me from easing that.
momof4 at June 7, 2009 1:57 PM
>> no way out for doctors who are unwilling to perform the procedure.
>> And when you have the law forcing doctors to end people's lives, you've got a problem.
These statements are simply not true. Nobody is coerced or forced in any way to participate, and the person who is seeking to end their suffering must have two doctors agree to the grave diagnosis and lethal prescription.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jBmxy9NjETAMLk3i4zReo5KVlV8w
Eric at June 7, 2009 2:09 PM
There might be something missing here that needs to be said, again:
There are ways to end your life now.
You might be squeamish, you might be mindful of being trapped in a body that doesn't work from the neck down, you might be thinking of the stigma dogging your survivors.
But alcohol and a bunch of other drugs works just fine right now, so preventing you is just not realistic.
About Kevorkian: you don't want to see him, don't call him. Easy enough, I hope.
Radwaste at June 7, 2009 4:43 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/06/07/its_my_life_ill_1.html#comment-1652443">comment from RadwasteIf you are physically incapacitated, you are screwed. If somebody helps you out of your misery, even if you document to the nth degree that this is your desire, they will surely be prosecuted for it, and lose their freedom.
Amy Alkon
at June 7, 2009 5:06 PM
If you are physically incapacitated, you are screwed.
Yep. That's the gap that this law fills in and it seems to have been sensibly done, too. I mean they seem to have come up with a pretty good balance between safeguarding against murder and making the things reasonable for people who want to use it.
Somebody who tells somebody else by force of law what they can and can't do in areas of life that are really none of their damn business and don't affect them *is* an asshole
Exactly. And in this case I'd say maybe sociopath. How can a person with functioning empathy not support this?
Shawn at June 7, 2009 6:06 PM
Eric - you weren't paying attention. There is talk in New York of making residents perform abortions as a condition of completing their requirements. There is also talk of making it unlawful for a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion with the penalty of loss of license.
The state controls whether or not a doctor can practice. If a doctor refuses to perform a procedure, they can be held liable for damages. For the time being, assisted suicide is mostly illegal, and there are moral exceptions for both that and abortion.
New York wants to do away with those exceptions. So do the Democrats crafting the government takeover of the medical system.
Which leads to an interesting dilemma. What happens when the government controls all health-related decisions? If the prognosis is 50-50 shot you'll make 10 years with treatment, can they refuse it? You bet! And they will.
I'm not sure if this is really a joke, but I think this is how Obama plans to return Social Security to solvency - kill off all the people who would otherwise collect by denying them life-extending treatment.
brian at June 7, 2009 8:08 PM
> There is also talk of making it
> unlawful for a doctor to refuse
> to perform an abortion with the
> penalty of loss of license.
Where is this talk? I'm sincerely curious. Is this argument getting any traction?
Well, devil's advocate here... I'm not really making this argument, just offering something to think about.
In the past ten years, no one's ever changed my mind about anything as fast as Reynold's did when he talked about the availability of morning-after contraception.
I'd previously believed that a pharmacist ought to be permitted to decline to sell RU-486 as an abortifacient if he thought abortion was murder. Reynolds noted that the license we give to a pharmacist constitutes a monopoly; we grant that monopoly with the understanding the it will be operated according to our laws, not those of the pharmacist. The druggist has no similar latitude for any other medication, and can't deny someone hypertension drugs because he personally thinks those are immoral.
One sentence and it was over: This argument was instantly convincing to me. Can it be stretched to fit doctors as well?
Isn't your patronage of non-conventional practitioners already as legally limited as your patronage of illicit pharmacists?
Maybe this will be settled in the courts rather than by the medical boards... But there'd better be a short, convincing principle at hand if it's to be decided for the righteous.
——————
PS- I understand that people think RU-486 prevents implantation rather than aborting, but even then, in my (perhaps naive) patience with Christian zombies, I was prepared to cede the point.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 7, 2009 9:27 PM
I believe Holland has had assisted euthanasia since the 1950's.
David Maas at June 8, 2009 4:02 AM
understand that people think RU-486 prevents implantation rather than aborting, but even then, in my (perhaps naive) patience with Christian zombies, I was prepared to cede the point.
No, that's the morning-after pill (essentially a very high dose of birth control) that some think prevent implantation, not RU-486 (which is undoubtedly an abortifacient, and is used up to a couple of months into pregnancy).
There is also talk of making it unlawful for a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion with the penalty of loss of license.
Interesting. Link please! But even if this is the case, you're only talking about New York; I'm sure Mississippi would never have such a law. Hell, even with Roe in place, abortion is all but illegal there.
But alcohol and a bunch of other drugs works just fine right now, so preventing you is just not realistic.
It is actually be pretty tough to overdose successfully. You need a lot of the right kind of drugs; most drugs will just make you ill and damage your liver but not kill you. It's not like people are slinging barbituates on street corners. And while I suppose, one can head to Wal-Mart, get 12-gauge, and do the deed that way, but that's a pretty horrible thing to subject others to.
No matter what happens and no matter what our laws dictate,lots of people –maybe most of us, including you and me– are going to die horribly
But this is crazy. It doesn't have to be that way. We're kinder to our pets than our family members.
Cheezburg at June 8, 2009 7:02 AM
I am pro abortion - far too many people in the world as it is
I am pro euthenasia - its your body do what ever you want with it ( and for all you christinas out there - suicide was good enough for jesus, why not you?)
But I am anti death penalty in ist current incarnation - it takes too long, and is too prone to mistakes
I think the death pentaly to should only apply when you have two eyewitnesses or video survalince of the crime, or an incontrovertible amount of physical evidence
Barring that I say perment exile to some god forsken rock with no parole.
Regarding doctors being forced to preform aborions? I say they should have to learn it as a skill, most are done as a form of birth control, but what happens when one becomes a medical neccesity and the doctor who never learned it is the only one avalible?
lujlp at June 8, 2009 7:12 AM
Suicide is a moral issue, and therefore the government should not regulate it. Investigate it, yes, to ensure that it is voluntary, but assuming that everyone who wants to commit suicide is mentally ill and should be involuntarily confined is wrong (in more ways than one).
Pseudonym at June 8, 2009 7:32 AM
>>I am pro euthenasia - its your body do what ever you want with it ( and for all you christinas out there - suicide was good enough for jesus, why not you?)
"Christinas" - love it, lujlp!
(Tho' I've been wondering about your spelling recently. It seems, in the main, improved out of all recognition?)
Re: your "suicide was good enough for jesus" line. Do you mean something akin to "suicide by cop"?
Jody Tresidder at June 8, 2009 7:37 AM
It sounds to me as if the problem is caused by the monopoly.
Forcing people to do something that they believe is morally wrong is really bad. Society should minimize the extent to which that occurs.
Since in those terms people are not equal is it fair to say that you would prefer to abort people who consume more than they produce?
Pseudonym at June 8, 2009 7:43 AM
Re: your "suicide was good enough for jesus" line. Do you mean something akin to "suicide by cop"? -Jody Tresidder
Depends, from a trinitarian point of veiw jesus and god are the same person and he came here to with a plan to die. As an all powerful being who knows everything he created a situation which lead to his death - suicide
From a non trinitarian point of veiw jesus commited suiced, more like standing in front of a bullet, he knew what was to happen and did nothing to save himself - not a direct suicide at his own hands but suicide none the less
Since in those terms people are not equal is it fair to say that you would prefer to abort people who consume more than they produce?
- Pseudonym
Yes I would, but thats just my personal preference. Take welfare for example, give out more, and more people start sucking it up, give out less and people start working for themsevles.
Take Romneys solution to the hotel vouchers for over flowed homless shelters. Rather then giving hotel rooms to those who showed up once the shelter was full, they started giving them to thise in the shelter the longest. The result, shelters rarely over filled anymore.
Personally I'd love to see a worldwide pandemic, wipe out the weak and infirm, and stupid - give society and humanity a chance to get back on track
lujlp at June 8, 2009 8:10 AM
> No, that's the morning-after pill
OK. Being an old guy, it's no longer a matter of personal interest
> Forcing people to do something that
> they believe is morally wrong is
> really bad.
We forced him to take chemistry class and get into the drug business? They probably do that in North Korea.
> improved out of all recognition?
What have you done with him? WHAT!?!?!
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 8, 2009 8:18 AM
"Regarding doctors being forced to preform aborions? I say they should have to learn it as a skill, most are done as a form of birth control, but what happens when one becomes a medical neccesity and the doctor who never learned it is the only one avalible?"
There is no reason that an abortion can't wait a few days until another doctor is available. All doctors need to know how to treat urgent problems like heart attack and stroke, but not things that can wait.
If you need any kind of operation, you do not want a doctor who was forced to do a proceedure a couple of times in medical school and has not done one since unless you have no other choice. Surgery is a skill that you need to practice. If my daughter was to have an abortion, I would want a doctor that does at least a few every week.
Steamer at June 8, 2009 8:30 AM
The statement that suicide is somehow egotistical does make that person an asshole; Amy wasn't mistaken, that is for sure.
It's a really revealing adjective when used in this way. It's a concise way of saying "Man is but a stupid pile of cells that happens to be self-aware and thinks he is sentient. But it's really God in charge, here, and to try to take power away from God is just uncivilized!" I don't understand why "christinas" (haha) don't come to the same conclusion as I do: if an all-powerful being created us why did it give us the power to 1. Realize suicide is possible 2. Give us the tools to do it (we can make guns, pop some pills, etc.). Is this really all a series of tests - like god made you sick with cancer that causes unbearable pain while you die and the only way to win him over is to just take it? So taking morphine to dull the pain must also be against this being.
Because that would make god the egotistical totalitarian power fanatic.
If christinas could just get over it and use the word "asshole" maybe I'd snap out of it!
It's a lot easier to make decisions based on some set of beliefs that clearly defines all the hard choices for you with a series of knowable consequences. Like, "I can't commit suicide because it's against god" it so much easier than thinking it through and deciding what is best for you. If suicide is egotistical then not committing suicide because it says it's wrong in some book is a cop out for people who would enjoy being dominated if their religion allowed for naughty play.
Gretchen at June 8, 2009 8:46 AM
>>What have you done with him? WHAT!?!?!
Seriously, Crid - you haven't noticed the change in lujlp?
(I was wondering if it was a new keyboard - but I thought I recalled some stray info about a more organic cause of lujlp's idiosyncrasies?)
Jody Tresidder at June 8, 2009 8:48 AM
You think my spelling is bad when I get agitated, you ought to hear me speak.
Although I do recall one time my mother, who also has dyslexia, read out a phone number to me, got the order wrong, I read them back to her, got her order wrong as i was writting them down, yet somehow wrote the number down correctly
Dont know how get the squence wrong twice over
lujlp at June 8, 2009 10:00 AM
Personally I'd love to see a worldwide pandemic, wipe out the weak and infirm, and stupid - give society and humanity a chance to get back on track
Lujlp, since we are both remarkably sick...I guess that would be the end of the both of us!
-Julie
Julie at June 8, 2009 10:06 AM
Amy,
Right on the money as usual. I have noticed MOST of the people whiining about assisted suicide is the medical industry that stands to gain if its defeated. How many times in the news have we saw where a judge forces a family to keep someone on life support at ENORMOUS cost just because some quasi-religious wingnut decides its against "thier" moral values.
Thats one of the many problems facing our country today. We have too many people sticking thier nose where it doesnt belong. If you are not part of my family then "butt the f**k out".
I dont want my family bankrupt because some liberal judge,backed by some rich "non-profit",represented by some millionaire attorney to dictate to my spouse or children that I should be kept alive simply because the hospital wants thier 10k a day to keep me that way. Dont kid yourself folks hospitals are a business.They would rather treat you then cure you.
If I know theres no possibility of being cured and the condition I have is terminal with no hope then I would love to be able to go get a 100mg of morphine..have a nurse start an IV, gather my family and friends around me, say my goodbyes then push the plunger. I fall alsleep, pass away and my family is able to move on with closure.
So the moral is if it is not your family member then keep your morals and opinions about how they should be able to die to yourself.
The Other Mike D at June 8, 2009 11:34 AM
Here in the 31st century, our handy sidewalk suicide booths offer you a choice of deaths:
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=136575&title=suicide-booth
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 8, 2009 11:38 AM
"I dont want my family bankrupt because some liberal judge,backed by some rich "non-profit",represented by some millionaire attorney to dictate to my spouse or children that I should be kept alive simply because the hospital wants thier 10k a day to keep me that way."
You forgot to add flying monkeys, the coming UN invasion, our departure from the Gold Standard, and Obama is the Communist Muslim Anti-Christ.
For a look at what happens when "liberal" judges get involved, see the Schiavo case, where the husband transferred his decision rights to the court - and the woman was finally allowed to pass on against the wishes of the vociferous conservative Christian protestors.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 8, 2009 11:49 AM
For a look at what happens when "liberal" judges get involved, see the Schiavo case, where the husband transferred his decision rights to the court - and the woman was finally allowed to pass on against the wishes of the vociferous conservative Christian protestors.
But look how long it took, and at what cost? It took 15 years to remove her feeding tube to allow her to die. How much expense and agony occurred in that family while they fought it out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo
Julie at June 8, 2009 12:35 PM
"But look how long it took, and at what cost? It took 15 years to remove her feeding tube to allow her to die. How much expense and agony occurred in that family while they fought it out?"
Agreed, the conservative Christians certainly dragged it out for a very long time.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 8, 2009 12:42 PM
Actually Schivo didnt give up his rights. he gfought for them vs Terrys parents,Jeb Bush,GW Bush,the Florida legislature and Congress.
The parents in the case didnt get involved until the husband decided enough was enough. he had already spent all of the insurance and then some and honestly just couldnt see subjecting Terry to further tests when every specialist said there was no chance of recovery.
I applaud the husband for what he did even if I didnt agree with the way the state handled the final solution. They basically starved her to death when 100mg of morphine would have done it much quickly and without pain.
What always amazed me about that whole affair was that we cant get congress to stay in Washington and handle our business but they can sure have a special session for Terry Schivo. If only they were so dilligent about Congrssional oversight LOL!!
The Other Mike D at June 8, 2009 1:44 PM
"Actually Schivo didnt give up his rights. he gfought for them vs Terrys parents,Jeb Bush,GW Bush,the Florida legislature and Congress."
I meant to say transferred them, not gave them up, but that's incorrect as well. Thanks for the correction!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 8, 2009 2:26 PM
> you haven't noticed the change in
> lujlp?
He's sui generis. It never takes more than two lines for the quintessence of his identity to make itself felt. He's just not like other people....
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 8, 2009 10:23 PM
What can I say, I'm 1 in 10 billion.
It really sucks when I go home to visit familly. People who I'm fairly certain I didnt know in jr high and high school will stop me on the street to chat abou old times like we were the best of freinds, and I cant for the life of me recall most of their names
lujlp at June 8, 2009 11:24 PM
Leave a comment