> The rather obscene assertion, by
> a couple posters here, that there
> was some service owed to society
> by terminally ill, suffering people

Who said that?

[A] Reading comprehension failure or [B] calumnious slander.

I've always said that if one is faced with a difficult decision regarding a human life, if one is to err, then one ought to err on the side of life, rather than death.

However...a rational person has every right to choose the time and place of an early passing for themselves.

If it is my right to practice an extremely dangerous sport or try and climb everest how can religious fundies deny me the right to end my life at the time of my choosing? Christians cant even resolve the purpose of suffering/evil within their own theology how dare they seek to have a say on other peoples life or death.

I see a few problems here.

First, as with the legalization of marijuana debate, euthanasia debates always center around medicine. Why should I have to have a terminal illness or be in pain in order to commit suicide? Why can't I do it just because I want to? Two reasons: 1) people will assume I must be crazy; or 2) doctors would probably find their assistance repugnant.

Secondly, on a related point, doctors take an oath to do no harm (and a lot of other things that may preclude assisted suicide-I have not read my Hippocratic Oath in a while). So, doctors must be able to rationalize the distinction between a healthy young person who wants to die and an older terminal patient in a lot of pain. As the Rand quote suggests, the doctor must be free to help (or not help) whomever the doctor wishes.

Third, medicine is regulated by the state. This takes away some of the doctor's freedom to decide whom to help and how. If a terminally ill patient is allowed to have a doctor's help in commiting suicide, why must a 25 year-old healthy male resort to blowing his head off. The state can come in and say this, too, is a proper function for a physician.

Fourth, now that the state is involved in regulating medicine, there is always the (legitimate) concern that the state could use this technique to rid itself of the deadwood of society. And, the regulation of medicine by the state could be used to force a doctor to do performed assisted suicides.

Of course, Rand would never have imagined that the state would do ANYTHING to harm the inherent dignity of the individual. (Note: Irony.)

These are real problems that arise when you open that Pandora's Box (particularly if you are using Rand to justify it). And you will notice, I did not mention God once (except just now).

-Jut

It is frequently said that otherwise-healthy people who want to die are not rational, but I disagree. If certain things are true, then to want to die is a logical consequence. Frequently those things are not actually true but that makes a person mistaken, not irrational. I especially object to the characterization of suicidal people as "insane" or "crazy"; their thought processes are frequently quite rational, and it is their assumptions or beliefs that are inaccurate.

That said, in my opinion suicide that does not minimize net suffering in the world is morally wrong.

Just a guess, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who believe assisted suicide is wrong have never gone through the experience of watching a loved one die in excrutiating pain over an extended period of time.

A good friend of mine died from pancreatic cancer and despite the morphine shunt she suffered intolerably for several weeks. Her two young children had to go live with their grandparents during their Mom's last days because the screaming was exceedingly upsetting to everyone involved and there was absolutely nothing we could do to help her. You couldn't touch her without causing her enormous pain and if an hour with her seemed like an eternity to me, I can't even begin to imagine what it felt like to actually be her. Her oldest son still has nightmares about it.

I am not pro-life, but it makes little sense to me that we have the right to terminate a viable pregnancy but no rights to terminate the life of a person who is not going to recover from their illness and who is in agony.

Nice try at Bait and Switch - but the original post was not about people's right to kill themselves.

It was about letting other parties help things along.

In scenarios where the sufferer - for all their previous statements - may not be able to convey their wishes or consent.

In other words: situations open to tangential motives and influences beyond the patient's wishes - or benefit.

There's a loooong distance between a speculative, philosohical Randian essay and practical law in this world of messy motivations.

... and turning to Ayn Rand to explain how religious people think may confirm your own views - but there's no end to the mistakes you and she will make...

MEANWHILE BACK ON PLANET EARTH societies make all kinds of claims on people, and cause them to endure all kinds of deprivations.

And many people - without hoping for pie-in-the-sky-when-they-die - see those limitations (such as marriage) and sacrifices (such as army service) as net gains, net fulfillment of self.

'Cause they're grownups rather than selfish children.

To prevent further straw-man arguments:

Judaism PERMITS suspension/withdrawal of treatment, including feeding tubes and respirators.

Judaism PERMITS decisions not to treat or resuscitate.

- not arguing about that "vegetable" scenario.

Judaism DEMANDS pain relief. Including self-sedation as practiced in many hospices.

Judaism NEVER ALLOWS active killing of another person - which has been proven by horrific historical precedent to be a slippery slope.

JutGlory touched on some of the issues. How to set up a legal and ethical system to make it work, and avoid abuses? It's important to protect the people who participate in the process. Doctors have taken an oath to not do this sort of thing. Even if a loved one administers the dose, the doctor still has to prescribe it. And if the area has an over-zealous prosecutor, the loved one could wind up facing a murder rap. There have to be explicit protections for these people.

There also has to be an absolute, no-doubt-about-it protection that assures that the government has absolutely no role whatsoever in making the decision. Historically, that's a fine line.

I think I'm getting a headache from this topic. Can someone pass the morphine? Seriously, Amy, I think I actually love you now! It is obscene that anyone thinks that people who are suffering and dying owe anything at all to society. And you don't need to name names. If they don't know who they are let them scroll down yesterday's comments.

I forgot to add to my post as far as the legalities go that there are varying statistics about assisted suicide depending on whether it comes from a right to life group or advocates for assisted suicide. I don't have them in front of me though I could locate later, but neither set of numbers showed an abuse of assisted suicide or that it led down that slippery slope as predicted by some in places where it had been legalized.

I'm bringing this over from the other post, in case people stopped reading that one...

"Period.
Yes, society can make those demands - and those who shirk them are selfish children." - Ben-David

Hey - I'm sorry but I don't think I am following your arguments, even after reading a few times.

How exactly is society obtaining a benefit by preventing a person from ending his/her own life earlier when death is impending and that person is suffering?

Or how is it harmed?

Ben-David --

Enough with your interpretation of Jewish law. You are welcome to follow it. I wouldn't dream of stopping you. But I'm not Jewish, and I couldn't care less, thanks. I presume you don't care to be bound by Catholic or Islamic doctrine. The idea that the rest of us should be bound by your religious law is just infuriating.

Speaking of straw men, stop claiming that allowing assisted suicide would mean that society could kill whomever it wanted, whether they wanted to go or not. As a number of us detailed in the other thread on this topic, there are millions of things that we're allowed to do ourselves, or, more to the point, to ask people to do to or for us, that would be illegal and wrong to have forced on us. I can ask the doctor to remove my kidney and give it to my brother. He can't just yank it out of me, no matter how much it would benefit my brother. It's my choice, but hey, I actually can't do it without the doctor's help.

"It was about letting other parties
help tings along. In scenarios where
the sufferer - for all their previous
statements - may not be able to convey
their wishes or consent. In other
words: situations open to tangential
motives and influences beyond the
patient's wishes - or benefit"

First, you can make your wishes known before you become a turnip by leaving a written legal document stating that if you're a turnip, you'd prefer to die. What, the turnip changed his mind about it? How? He no longer has a mind to change. That's just the point.

Second, if you're not a turnip, just in horrible pain, you may be too incapacitated to put an end to yourself, but not too incapacitated to communicate your wishes for help in doing it. That situation isn't open to "tangential motives and influences beyond the patient's wishes - or benefit".

I said this on the other thread -- my apologies to those who are reading both, and for double posting. But I'd really like to hear a response from the people who are arguing a "societal benefit" from allowing people to suffer.

You can donate organs after death. I have a nice little thing on my driver's license saying I want to do it. My corpse won't look so pretty, but that's my gift to society. If more people did it, more lives could be saved or improved. Isn't that nice? So should we force everyone to do it, even if it's against their religion or it just freaks them out?

Regardless of the obvious societal benefit, I do NOT favor forcing everyone to be an organ donor. It may be against Ben-David's religion to be chopped up for parts, however much it would benefit the rest of humanity. If so, we'll just have to do without his organs. But there would be a damn sight more benefit to society by an enforced after-death organ donation program, than there is to forcing suffering terminally ill patients to stay alive.

How 'bout it Ben-David? Should we all be forced to be organ donors after death?

Re: Hippocratic Oath

There are doctors in both Oregon and Washington that don't have a problem prescribing life ending meds (within the law). They made it so that any one person or group can opt out (and a lot of Catholic hospitals did), but made it so that you are required to recommend the patient someone that WILL prescribe it for them.

So far you have to take the pills yourself, someone else is not allowed to do it. You have to ask you doctor for it once in person, once in writing, then go and get a psych evaluation. Once you get the prescription, they even allow pharmacists to opt out of prescribing the pills, as long as there is SOMEONE at the place that will fill it for them.

GAAAAHH! I'm triple posting! Stop me, Amy! But I have to point out that here's a pretty clear example of the slippery slope fallacy. The fact that many of us are organ donors has not led to a law mandating a whole-sale automatic removal of everyone's organs.

The fact that many of us are organ donors has not led to a law mandating a whole-sale automatic removal of everyone's organs.

The fact that such a thing has been proposed and discussed kinda points out the error of calling "slippery slope" a fallacy.

"The fact that such a thing has been proposed and discussed kinda points out the error of calling "slippery slope" a fallacy."

Absolutely not, Brian. A lot of things are proposed. A lot of things are discussed. And some of them are downright insane. I mean come on, people propose and discuss sex with children (and some people act on it, unfortunately). That doesn't mean that we're going to make it legal.

The test is -- do the proposed measures get accepted as law?

We got plenty of people in this world. What's the big deal with some of them obtaining help to do away with themselves? And if you have to resort to religious laws for your arguments, you've pretty much admitted you don't have a point. Your flying spaghetti monster doesn't persuade anyone not touched by his noodly appendage.

> The argument that there might be
> abuses or that you might change
> your mind while suffering terribly
> and incapacitated is no reason to
> remove the right from others to
> have someone assist them in killing
> themself.

Um... Yes it is.

just out of curiosity... why is this a "conservative" or a "fundy" thing? Are there any religions that actually approve of this? BUT when it comes down to it, this is ENTIRELY an individual decision, so there probably shouldn't be a law against or for, the government should Stay Out Of It. In terms of assistance, we have a stickier Q? but I think the idea of "not holding responsible" for assistance when the individual themselves are the one to authorize and finalize it, should be written into law.

This is such a case by case thing, I think a national law is too generalized. But somebody mentioned abortion being legal... and THAT would be how I would start on this one... The opinion of SCOTUS on roe v. wade was predicated on "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." - Blackmun.

I think ending your own life, or procuring the means to end it, shouldn't be the govts. call.

Personally, I believe this is between you and your God, god, dog, or the person who is going to find your body. It is a purely self possessed act, but that doesn't make it wrong of necessity.

Gretchen:
How exactly is society obtaining a benefit by preventing a person from ending his/her own life earlier when death is impending and that person is suffering?

Or how is it harmed?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
It is not helped by the suffering.

But it is deeply harmed by allowing doctors to cross a bright moral line and actively kill people - as history has already shown.

In this situation, equally important values are in opposition. That's the challenge. And despite the expectations engendered by our drive-thru culture, there is often no perfect solution in extremis.

So we relieve pain, we don't unnaturally prolong life - but we must keep a clear moral distinction by not killing, just letting nature run its course.

Now here are 2 questions for you (and others):

1) Exactly how common is it for someone to be incapable of ending their own life - say, by pushing a button on a morphine drip - yet strong enough to linger without medical intervention (remember - my moral code allows withdrawal of treatment, including nourishment if not actively taken)?

2) How many people really think that suicide leaves no scars on the survivors - at least as deep and painful as the wounds of a lingering death?

This option has been bandied about with shallow bravado. "Hope I die before I get old"
is a great song lyric - but not so great in reality if you're at all connected to other human beings.

Way too easy, Ben-David. At least give me a challenge.

"(1) Exactly how common is it for someone
to be incapable of ending their own
life - say, by pushing a button on a
morphine drip - yet strong enough to
linger without medical intervention
(remember - my moral code allows
withdrawal of treatment, including
nourishment if not actively taken)?"

Well, let's take someone who is paralyzed from the neck down, for example. Or someone who had both arms and legs severed. Or someone who is brain dead, but who left a living will stating that they wanted their life ended if they were incapacitated. How often do these things happen? I'm not sure, off the top of my head. But does it happen? You betcha.

"2) How many people really think that
suicide leaves no scars on the survivors -
at least as deep and painful as the
wounds of a lingering death?"

Well, as with many people here, I've watched loved ones slowly and painfully die. I can tell you it would have been a lot less painful to have them end it peacefully when they chose, IF (and only if) that was what they wanted. Stop judging for all of us. It's always painful to have a loved one die. To me, it's less painful to have them die in the way they prefer. Suicide leaves huge scars when your teenage kid hangs himself for a problem he would have outgrown. For my dying friend, in horrific pain that will never end except in death? Count me among those who would find it less "scarring" to see him be able to end it peacefully when he chose.

So, Ben-David, when are you and Crid et al. going to take on my arguments? If you just don't have it in you to handle taking on all of them, just take on this one --- Should everyone in a society be forced to become an organ donor after death, regardless of what they want or if it is against their religion? It would benefit society tremendously, much more than forcing terminally ill patients to remain alive and in pain.

"(remember - my moral code allows
withdrawal of treatment, including
nourishment if not actively taken)?"

Have you ever actually watched someone die this way, by the way? I did, a close family friend. He lasted a very, very long time, despite no nourishment. The doctors had predicted he'd last a few days. It took weeks. It was horribly painful, for him and for all of us who loved him.

On one of his last days, he said that if he'd known it would take so long, he would have thought twice about his options. He was so weak he could hardly talk -- you had to put your ear to his mouth and struggle to understand him. He didn't want to keep living under artificial support systems. He wanted to die, as comfortably and painlessly as he could. He didn't get his wish.

You and Crid et al. assume that those of us who favor assisted suicide just haven't thought about it. How dare you.

Crid must still be percolating over my comment from yesterday because his comment, Um... Yes it is, is not as well thought out and articulate as usual. C'mon, Crid, you have slammed me quite a bit for not articulating my arguments well enough for you or having enough fact to base them. Can we please hear an argument against assisted suicide from you that is worthy of you. While we often disagree, I do find you to be quite intelligent, and that is not just because you said I was egotistical, cowardly, or generous. But no, I hold no grudge.

"1) Exactly how common is it for someone to be incapable of ending their own life - say, by pushing a button on a morphine drip - yet strong enough to linger without medical intervention"

I don't know if anyone's done that kind of study. But I know that my maternal grandfather, Papa Hughey, died of ALS at 54 almost one year from the day of diagnosis. He was "lucky": while all ALS sufferers have their mental faculties until the bitter end, the vast majority are completely paralyzed. He was still a little mobile, but he moved like he was thawing out from a deep freeze.

Your body basically kills itself because everything freezes - and you are completely cognizant of it. So in that case you are paralyzed and dying a torturous death and yet cannot press a button. Your heart and lungs are the last thing to stop working - yet you're subjected to painful side effects of the disease the whole time.

That disease is the perfect example of what you asked: you're completely cognizant and your body is horribly slow in dying yet causing great agony at the same time. Most can live years in that state with almost no medical help. And nearer the end you cannot even press a button.

Most folks who prolong their lives while they have ALS do so in the hopes that a cure will be found before their body just stops.

Also, I have a problem with saying: "ok fine, KILL yourself, you brat! But no one is helping you!". Dying from a painful disease sucks. Having to shoot yourself in the head sucks. Why can't we just do it the same we do for murders who get capital punishment? A shot, but not from a gun, silly. Or are we at this juncture again: doing it the gross way is more laudable because you might suffer a little? Overdosing is too easy! That's for stupid junkies who don't care about what they owe society anyway! Sorry to mock but...

"2) How many people really think that suicide leaves no scars on the survivors - at least as deep and painful as the wounds of a lingering death?"

Who said it didn't?

If my mom is dying of cancer, and it's painful and I have to watch her scream all day I am scarred, deeply and permanently, for life. I love my mom SO MUCH. Just thinking about it makes me well up. If she chooses to die sooner to end the pain I have to deal with her loss all the same but the loss is of equal weight and horrible-ness. I would, in fact, take solace in knowing she was able to easy her suffering. She doesn't live in either scenario, so suicide isn't causing a loss that wouldn't exist otherwise.

Conversely, my dad who is a bi-polar nutjob with whom I have no contact, threatened to kill himself during a fight because he beat up my sister and my mom kicked him out. I told him he was a monster and that I hated him. I get "I'm going to go hang myself!" I even saw the rope. Awesommmme.

That is psychological disturbance and over-reacting and not well thought out. It is tragic and sudden. It's also preventable - he isn't dying. He's mentally sick. I hate his guts but I don't want him dead. He doesn't die in one scenario, he does in another. Unnecessary death.

If I actually liked my dad it would be even worse. When people are mentally ill and kill themselves to end internal turmoil it's incredibly sad and people feel guilty for not "seeing the signs" and helping that person.

Again. ENORMOUSSSSS difference in how each case affects others.

But again. I don't think there are so many people out there who are simply holding off on killing themselves because they 1) don't want to disappoint society 2) don't want to get arrested/thrown into a psych ward. Regulating this stuff isn't really SAVING lives.

Medical intervention and psychological counseling and lithium do.

As far as the survivors having to deal with a suicide, aside from the argument "is it better to watch the extreme pain of someone you love", the laws in Washington and Oregon protect your privacy. If you want to kill yourself (and fit all of the other criteria I mentioned before), you don't have to tell anyone in your family. Health, insurance, inheritance, etc., will all react the same to the death as if it had been natural.

I too watched someone who had specified for no fluids and no medical treatment of any kind. I too watched someone take weeks to die, shrivel up, become delusional, and not be able to talk or communicate before he finally passed on. I know that he would have chosen to end it earlier if he could have.

I have something wrong with me that will possibly leave me hooked up to machines running my major organs, with no hope of recovery. I'd like to have options then, and I feel it's my right to have them, without having to put my friends, family, or doctor on the wrong side of the law.

Have you ever felt suffocated while watching the Oxygen Channel?

Kristen, I agree that I've seen some intelligent arguments out of Crid. He's often funny too, in a nasty kind of way. But unfortunately, when he runs out of answers, he stops trying to come up with reasonably good arguments and starts spewing venom instead. Or he says he's to0 tired to address your points, and you aren't worth his while anyway.

I can ignore his calling me and others stupid, pompous, selfish, cowardly etc. when it's in the middle of something that resembles an argument. At least there's some content there. A little heated argument never hurt anyone. If you can't take it, stay off the blog. But when it's just insults, and nothing but insults, and he accuses you of ignoring arguments when he's ignoring yours, it kind of makes you take his good arguments less seriously, doesn't it?

But hey, it gives me a good laugh, so maybe I should leave well enough alone. Actually, I totally need to do some work, so I definitely should leave well enough alone. I'll check in later tonight to see if Ben-David and Crid have popped up with some answers. Or some insults.

Look at the title of this blog post:

"The Right To Assisted Suicide."

The Right, she says.

Fer Chrissakes. Amy Alkon, you a freakin' liberal. Never deny it again!

Anytime you have a daydream about how the world might be made a just a little bit better for you, suddenly there's a new "right!" to be defended.

Gail, go away

Rights or no rights, I already have a private agreement with my fiance that if I'm in constant pain and living on machines, and there's no hope of recovery, he will put a bullet in my brain.

Actually, no, I asked him to put a bullet in brain. He refused, but he said he'd find another way to put me out of my misery. I suspect pills.

If this were a Nora Ephron movie, Crid and I would meet and fall madly in love.

Thank heavens, it's not.

OK. I really am going to go work now. But sorry, Crid, I certainly will be back to check in. I'm hoping Ben-David, at least, will address my points.

And when you get a little sleepy, you have the right to an espresso. And when you're in the mood for a vacation, you have the right to be flown to Paris.

You are anything but libertarian. Puh-leeeze.

Oh Crid, does one always have to be defined as liberal, conservative, etc? Is that a way of labeling someone to seem more pointed in your attack? How about just discussing the issue. If you are against the right to assisted suicide, please explain the reasons. I don't care if you are a Democrat, Republican, Catholic, Muslim, Conservative, or a Liberal. I don't care if you have green hair or 8 nose rings. I just would like you to define your position into an actual comment that does not include insulting or labeling others. How bout it, Crid? Pretty please?

so Crid, musta missed the memo, but isn't self-possession of your own body a "right"?

> You're very cute.

And you are so busted. Straight out of the Ted Kennedy playbook.

You're sittin' there in the office.

Somebody complains about something.

A whole bunch of arguments happen, but the only responses you offer are to the argument you want to have, not the ones on the floor.

At the end of the day, you put out a memo saying there's a "right" to such-&-such, and then you go to bed.

And in the morning, ta-da! A brand new right for everyone to defend!... And if anyone mentions any problems with this, then they're just a horrible person who likes suffering! They're mean-spirited!

Nancy Pelosi would be so fuckin' proud of you.

> Pretty please?

Your own sarcasm saps my strength. I'm just a man, K-girl... Flesh and blood, much like yourself...

> If this were a Nora Ephron movie

We'd be more like Ike & Tina.

We'd be more like Ike & Tina.

Itchy and Scratchy, minimum.

"> If this were a Nora Ephron movie
We'd be more like Ike & Tina"

You mean the one about the fabulously talented woman and the abusive asshole? Yeah, I can see that.

"2) How many people really think that suicide leaves no scars on the survivors - at least as deep and painful as the wounds of a lingering death?"

So, let me get this straight...it's better for someone to suffer through an excrutiatingly painful death because their loved ones may possibly suffer the same?

I'll say it again, I strongly doubt that you have ever been in a room with a terminally ill patient screaming from the pain, who cannot even hold your hand because the slightest movement on your part causes them absolute agony.

Are there really people so entitled who think that their potential pyschological damage is more important, or as important, as the person who is actually suffering?

How can that even be called love on the part of someone who would insist that a person they supposedly cared for suffer to such an extent rather than end their life while they were still somewhat pain free?

"Gail, go away"

Gail, that's his concession speech. Congratulations.

Amy, you may have to explain that libertarians insisits on individuals' right to make arrangements between themsleves, without outside interference. That appears to be what you mean bya right to assisted suicide. It appears to be unclear to some here.

"so Crid, musta missed the memo, but isn't self-possession of your own body a "right"?"

How can you claim a right on something, which you did not pay for it or create it?

Your body was given to you by the Mother Nature for a temporary use. SHE will always claim the ownership on the body, which you are allowed to use it for a while. Why? SHE created it. SHE worked very hard for it during the last millions of years and you cannot deny HER final say on HER creation.

If you think it is your body, which you have a total control, I challenge you to stop the flow of blood in your vein for two seconds.

""Gail, go away"

Gail, that's his concession speech. Congratulations."

WTF.

Your body was given to you by the Mother Nature for a temporary use. SHE will always claim the ownership on the body, which you are allowed to use it for a while. Why? SHE created it. SHE worked very hard for it during the last millions of years and you cannot deny HER final say on HER creation.

If Mother Nature wants my body, she can scrape it off the floor when I'm done with it. Or she can magically stop the pills from killing me when I swallow them all. If she doesn't do either, than I'm assuming she's OK with whatever I decide.

""Gail, go away"

Gail, that's his concession speech. Congratulations."

WTF.

Don't be all "WTF", Chang!
(I thought Jim's comment was rather good.)

"Your body was given to you by the Mother
Nature for a temporary use. SHE will
always claim the ownership on the body,
which you are allowed to use it for a
while. Why? SHE created it. SHE worked
very hard for it during the last millions
of years and you cannot deny HER final
say on HER creation.

If you think it is your body, which you
have a total control, I challenge you to
stop the flow of blood in your vein for
two seconds."

WTF?

Mother Nature? What is this, a Parkay commercial? Mother Nature?

Anyway, SHE is welcome to my body when I'm done using it. I'm happy to contribute to HER compost pile. I see HER now, with a ring of daisies on HER head, raking in the corpses to grow beautiful oak trees in HER garden. However, you should not purport to speak for HER. SHE may be happy to have the extra fertilizer.

. . . . and by the way, thank you, Jim and Jody.

. . . . and by the way, thank you, Jim and Jody.

"SHE may be happy to have the extra fertilizer."

You stole it right from Stalin's book.

> she can scrape it off the floor
> when I'm done with it.

Agreed. (And she will, of course. The wormscrawlin the wormscrawlout, etc. ) You remind me of how Paglia talks about abortion, whereby women are at war with nature, and there ain't no Geneva conventions.

But Chang's at least reaching for a bigger picture in terms of responsibilities and connectedness, which I kind of admire. Did anyone read my comments yesterday? Or respond to them? No? Ah then.

> isn't self-possession of your
> own body a "right"?

Probably not: "Self-possession of your own body" is language new to me... It doesn't call up mental associations as does, say, "freedom to peaceably assemble."

It sounds great, though! And so does sloppy head from a Hollywood starlet. Can that be a right, too? Hel-loooo, Miss Alba!

"Did anyone read my comments yesterday? Or respond to them? No? Ah then."

WTF?

Hmm. Let me have a go at the three points. I want to do this because I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this.

"(1) Exactly how common is it for someone
to be incapable of ending their own
life - say, by pushing a button on a
morphine drip - yet strong enough to
linger without medical intervention
(remember - my moral code allows
withdrawal of treatment, including
nourishment if not actively taken)?"

Well, let's take someone who is paralyzed from the neck down, for example. Or someone who had both arms and legs severed. Or someone who is brain dead, but who left a living will stating that they wanted their life ended if they were incapacitated. How often do these things happen? I'm not sure, off the top of my head. But does it happen? You betcha.

I think Gail is referring to someone who is both suffering and paralyzed. To my mind, paralysis is not, in itself, a good reason to end a life. Stephen Hawking makes a pretty good counter-example.

I can think of a couple of other examples. My grandmother spent the past year of her life with severe Alzheimer's. It came on pretty suddenly. She had had problems on and off with various infections for years, but she always recovered, and she had a strong will to live. But after the Alzheimer's set in, she had another series of infections and it all went septic. She probably spent two weeks in intense pain, wasting away; we don't know for sure because the Alzheimer's took away her ability to communicate with anyone. Unfortunately, she had left no instructions prior to the Alzheimer's setting in. But she was still conscious. So they had to continue to treat until her body just shut down, even though the doctors recognized at the end that it was hopeless.

Here's an interesting thought experiment. Suppose I came down with ALS. Now, I know about ALS, and I know what's going to happen. So I might think about getting one of those buttons. But here's the thing: being the pig-headedly stubborn person that I am, I'm not going to press that button as long as my body is functioning at least a little. By the time it reaches the point where I might consider pressing that button, I'll no longer have the physical capability to do it. It isn't legal for a relative or a doctor to do it for me, regardless of how explicitly I might have stated my wishes beforehand. Doesn't seem right to me.

"2) How many people really think that
suicide leaves no scars on the survivors -
at least as deep and painful as the
wounds of a lingering death?"

Well, as with many people here, I've watched loved ones slowly and painfully die. I can tell you it would have been a lot less painful to have them end it peacefully when they chose, IF (and only if) that was what they wanted. Stop judging for all of us. It's always painful to have a loved one die. To me, it's less painful to have them die in the way they prefer. Suicide leaves huge scars when your teenage kid hangs himself for a problem he would have outgrown. For my dying friend, in horrific pain that will never end except in death? Count me among those who would find it less "scarring" to see him be able to end it peacefully when he chose.

I concur that we ought to be smart enough to design a legal regime that distinguishes between the terminally ill, and teenagers upset over being dumped. You don't qualify for assisted suicide if your condition is cureable. No doubt there will be boundary cases that will be controversial, but that's true of nearly every aspect of law. And as Gail points out, death itself leaves emotional scars on the survivors, regardless of the manner of death. So whether a terminally ill patient dies via assisted suicide or via the endgame of their illness, doesn't seem to make much difference. If I were the terminally ill person, I would certainly consider the emotional impact on my loved ones as to whether or when I take action, but ultimately the decision should be mine. And I don't, in principle, see a problem with entrusting a loved one to carry out my wishes if needed. We do it with wills all the time.

Where's 3? I thought there was a third one. Anyway: Here's the fly in the ointment. I don't think that the pro-assisted-suicide side is taking the slippery-slope argument seriously enough. If there's one thing that the recent health care debacle should have taught us, it's that if government can get itself involved in something, eventually it will, or at least try to. Consider how often government intrudes on everyday parenting decisions, as has been documented several times recently here. If government acquires the power to do something, never, ever believe anyone who says, "Oh, we would never do that." Yes they will, eventually. If an assisted suicide legal regime is to succeed, it must provide absolutely the strongest provisions to ensure that government has no say whatsoever in the decision of any person who meets the requirements.

"If an assisted suicide legal regime is to succeed, it must provide absolutely the strongest provisions to ensure that government has no say whatsoever in the decision of any person who meets the requirements"

I agree with that.

"How can you claim a right on something, which you did not pay for it or create it?
Your body was given to you by the Mother Nature for a temporary use. "

Good point. As Amy points out above, the Declaration of Independence specifically addresses this point by denying it. It is an issue of whether the individual really exists or not as fundamental and independent. The Declaration of Independence and all the legislation (most of English Common Law) based on the same principle basically set up and rest on individuality as a fundamental and necessary legal fiction, on par with citizenship or property. It is a cultural value that not all cultures share.

For instance a correlary of the point you make is that persons fundamentally belong to their families and are not free of them. This is the basic principle of the Xiao Jing, and Kong Zi also bases his entire social thoery on that priniciple. It makes for a vary stable social order, in fact the most stable social order in history. The question is whether or not that system is optimal, and at this moment in history people in China are facing that question.

hmmm, seems like the 9th would cover it:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

for my part, I'm not talking social constructs with family or society, I am talking about public policy with government involved. Plus to what Chang said... sure I can't stop the flow of blood internally, but I could externally... and I doubt that Gaia would care if I walked out into the desert and sat down, refusing to move until various scavengers were removing parts of my decaying body. Whose decision would that be?

I'm not sure about the whole Mother Nature thing, but if people want to talk about natural and remaining natural and going along as nature intends and blah, blah, blah, then tell me what is natural about chemo or pain meds, dialysis, open heart surgery, etc. Why not just follow the "plan" then and die of a heart attack because obviously that's they way you're supposed to die, or forget glasses because you weren't born with them on your face. I mean, c'mon, how far do you want to take that argument? Anyone that wants to suffer is welcome to it. I feel sorry for you, but that is your choice. My choice would be different and I don't give a rat's ass about any law or any person's opinion. I've seen too many painful deaths to know that that is not the way that I want to go.

> I don't give a rat's ass about any
> law or any person's opinion.

Sounds to me like we're pretty much done here, then.

Sounds to me like it was over before we even got started.

(And for the record, if you mean what you say and are going to take responsibility for your outcome in a grownup-kind of way, then I have no argument.)

A typically bad death is not a policy problem.

Excuse me, but I think you are not simply not thinking clearly.

First, justify this sentence, which is what I think some of you are saying, wishing for or otherwise expressing:

"I have the right to demand that someone else kill me, comfortably and non-violently, whenever I so desire."

I think that's nuts, because rights are not an obligation on someone else's part. I'm not surprised to see that approach, because I routinely see people assert that they have "rights" - distinguished solely by having the property of giving them what they want. How flexible that term is!

Second, I think you're skipping or are otherwise ignorant of a sober truth: family doctors have been "helping" senior family members step out when things are too bad for centuries. But now, your business is everybody else's because "other people" are total idiots, incapable of working within society without being told every moment what to do - eat this, say this when your kid's a brat, buy this car, yadda yadda. It's the price you pay for demanding that someone else deal with anything and everything unpleasant in your life.

Meanwhile, grow up. The odds are that you're not going to be able to say when and how you'll meet your end - and if you're planning for the end, as anyone in accident analysis knows, you should plan for the worst. You might be done tomorrow, by a virus that shuts off your spine, or by a misguided 168-grain hollowpoint 7.62mm round that missed that bad guy downtown.

Celebrate, learn, cheer, admire and discriminate between the things that suck and the things that don't, before that horribly unfair and apathetic Life decides to quit you. Murphy says you won't have a choice.

Got a living will? That's basic. Probably not, huh?

Cot-Tam! Lookit 'im go! Yeah, Daddy! (That Raddy, he's an ol' friend o' mine!)

Mostly, I want to accuse of you all of being excessively white. And coddled and average and self-centered. And of thinking that everyone else the world could, should and will aspire to your understanding of how things work. They can't, shouldn't, and won't, and I see no reason to broadly warp the meaning of what it means to take another person's life just to prevent you from having to worry about this one unlikely terror, one which you could do much to prepare for without involving the rest of us.

Some parts of your presence in this universe are just not going to be a tidy consumer experience.

Sorry!

PS- That "sorry" part, there at the end? Not really! Har!

OK, that shoulda been "the meaning of what it is" not "the meaning of what it means". I'm doing this during renders at work, people...

> Sounds to me like we're pretty much done here, then.

>Sounds to me like it was over before we even got started.

Oh, Crid, Welcome back! Well, sort of...It still doesn't take away from the fact that people do not really have the right to decide for themselves and they should. Would you really be against assisted suicide being legalized if there were regulations? And obviously we can never predict if we were to have an accident or some other thing, but in the case of a terminal illness, would you be against a person making a reasonable and informed decision to die in their own way with dignity? Or would you be against someone who is being tortured and suffocated while fully aware with ALS having help at a certain point? I know I was a little sarcastic earlier, but honestly I do not get the argument against such a thing. To me it seems so much more compassionate to help someone along in certain situations if they've asked for help. I cannot be alone here in knowing people, close people who have suffered terminal illnesses that were debilitating and excruciatingly painful. When my father was dying, there was no amount of medication that ever took away his pain. And as I said before, they were scheduling dialysis for a main who was terminal with liver cancer. Where is the morality or the logic in that? What could possibly be the argument against someone taking his own life at that point or being helped at that point?

Yeeeeeeeeeeee haw, Crid! Call people lazy, stupid, slave-whipping cowardly egotistical Nazis, throw Stalin into the mix, and you don't have to come up with any actual arguments, or answer anyone else's! Because you've proved your point with all them names! Damn, why waste time on logic, research, argument, analogies etc. when plain old-fashioned abuse is so much easier!

Radwaste -- "rights are not an obligation on someone else's part." Yes, agreed. But in this case, we're talking about a situation where the person who would be pulling the switch or administering the pills, is WILLING to do it. And the sick person is also WILLING. We're not forcing obligations on anyone who hasn't agreed to take them on. We're just asking the rest of you to stay the fuck out of it.

Folks in the "Fuck You, Live and Suffer" camp: I'm still waaaiiiiiiting for answers to my points way up above. Crid has tacitly conceded that he has no answers to them, and Ben-David has apparently scuttled away to another blog where people care more about Jewish law. Radwaste, wanna play?

> Would you really be against
> assisted suicide being legalized
> if there were regulations?

So you're saying there would be regulations...

Listen, I keep making the same point and you can't hear it, so maybe this isn't worth another lap around the circuit. To wit:

> would you be against a person making
> a reasonable and informed decision to
> die in their own way with dignity?

What do you think? Review the comments. What do you think the answer would be? I think you, and Amy, and Gail, and a few others are resolutely determined to imagine that there are Mean Bad Guys out there who enjoy having people suffer needlessly. Opening your minds to any other considerations or rhetoric isn't as much fun as being self-righteous, so you're not gonna do it. You want to sit up straight and spit and sputter and wheeze and be absolutely, indisputably, congestively right about this.

Go ahead then: turn blue. Knock yourselves out. I want and expect that any changes in laws about this will happen very, very slowly.

> Folks in the "Fuck You, Live
> and Suffer" camp:

You're Ivy league, right?

Crid, while there is emotion behind my argument, I am perfectly willing to listen to another point of view. I am an extremely open minded person. I also do not think that people who disagree are Mean Bad Guys. Some are opposed due to religious reasons, others because they fear abuses. I have read your comments and have yet to see an argument that you have laid out. You don't have to agree with me. I'm just asking why you don't. If you remember a few topics ago, I got pretty slammed for my opinions on Palin. You made a request that I articulate my point with facts rather than just state that I didn't like her. I did as you asked and took my knocks and continued to explain my point. I am just asking you to explain your point which you are refusing to do and instead you just keep talking in circles and insulting people. When you are ready to lay off the word games and insults and actually participate in the discussion, let me know.

"Not for you. But, for somebody else, it might be, and they should be allowed to have somebody do that for them."

Amy, I'm afraid this is where we disagree. I would support the right to assisted suicide for people who are terminally ill and in constant pain. I might be persuaded to support it for people who aren't terminal but are suffering constant, severe pain from an incurable condition. But I'm not willing to extend that to anyone, anytime. If we did that, each generation would lose half of its teenagers. Yes, the ones who are determined to kill themselves will find a way. But I don't see either social or individual moral good in making it easy for them. There are times when you have to tell someone to just suck it up.

One other point: "I have the right to demand that someone else kill me, comfortably and non-violently, whenever I so desire." I'm with Rad in that I completely disagree with this way of stating it. It needs to be re-stated in terms of contracts: I have the right to enter into a contract with someone to procure this service, from whomever is willing to provide it. I do not have the right to compel someone to contract with me.

"Folks in the "Fuck You, Live and Suffer" camp: I'm still waaaiiiiiiting for answers to my points way up above."

Mother Nature gave us two choices to exit from this life.

1. Quick and violent death and be eaten by your predators
2. Slow and painful death by old age or illness and be eaten by earth worms or virus.

Option number 1 is no longer available to us, so by default, we have only option number 2.
What did you say? You don't like option 2? Tough shit!!. They are HER rules. You either play by HER rules or you don't play it at all. You are here to push HER agenda and quitting on your own is not an option.

There are no such things as happy deaths. They are all 100 percent tragic deaths and that is exactly Mother Nature wanted. It is not for you decide how to end your life. If you think you are entitled a life or death without pains, you are set up for a failure.

>>There are no such things as happy deaths. They are all 100 percent tragic deaths and that is exactly Mother Nature wanted.

Chang,
That's an obnoxious & offensive statement (and it's unlike you).

Many of us here seem to have direct experience of a death that was both tragic and so pointlessly, horrifically drawn out it could've moved a stone to tears.

If I knew that in a similar situation I could rely, as Crid has described the ideal, on the presence of a doctor with the fortitude, the time, and the courage to say "enough, it's time," I - for one - wouldn't be discussing how freedom from criminal prosecution could best be managed in a mercy killing.

None of us deserve your "tough shit" comment.

Cousin Dave --

"I'm with Rad in that I completely
disagree with this way of stating it. It
needs to be re-stated in terms of
contracts: I have the right to enter
into a contract with someone to procure
this service, from whomever is willing
to provide it. I do not have the right
to compel someone to contract with me."

Actually, I think either Rad misunderstood or was setting up a straw man. Unless I'm very wrong, I think Amy and I and the rest of the "Fuck You, Let Me Die Already" camp (I gave us a fun nickname too, just to please my little Criddie-Widdie) are all talking about situations where you've got two willing people, one who wants to die, and one who is willing to help them do so. We weren't talking about compelling anyone -- at least, I wasn't. (I'm sure if I'm misstating someone's view, he or she will pipe up.)

"But I'm not willing to extend that to
anyone, anytime. If we did that, each
generation would lose half of its
teenagers. Yes, the ones who are
determined to kill themselves will find
a way."

I absolutely don't think we extend assisted suicide to love-sick teenagers! But I do think that if a paraplegic were absolutely miserable in his condition, I'd extend it to him. Yeah, I'd agree that Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeves are fantastic examples of people who live productive and apparently happy lives in that state, but not everyone does or can. A tremendously strong intellect and/or lots of money, love etc. can make a life like that worth living. But a formerly athletic person who has little in the way of intellectual interests and little money for his care, perhaps no one who's willing to stand by him like Reeve's wife did -- maybe not so much.

What I'd recommend is that any legislation we adopt limit the right to assisted suicide to situations where *ALL* of the following is true: (1) there is a permanent physical condition that cannot be cured, and which places the person in chronic pain or otherwise, in his sole discretion, does or would significantly impair his quality of life, (2) that condition must prevent or significantly impede the person from taking action to end his own life. (3) the person with the condition must have expressed a clear desire that his life be ended under such circumstances. (Here I'm with Rad, everyone should have a living will, and yes Rad, I do have one.) (4) If revoked in any manner by the person with the illness or condition, the expression of a desire to die becomes null and void. (5) If it is not a current expression (e.g., it's in a living will), the person with the condition or illness must now be in a state where he is no longer capable of re-affirming his expressed wish to die. (i.e., he's a turnip or in severely Alzheimers). (5) The person who is requested to take action to end the life has agreed to do so.

And the legislation should include a paragraph expressly stating that the right to assisted suicide is a private contract between two parties, and that neither the government nor any third party has the right whatsover to intervene if all of the above conditions are met. (That's to prevent the government or evil Count Olaf from stopping the contract from being carried out.) Nor does the government or any third party have the right to make any decision regarding an individual's right to die in the absence of a clearly expressed, unrevoked expression of a wish to die by the individual with the physical condition. (That's to prevent the government and Evil Count Olaf from deciding that someone should die for their own nefarious purposes.)

That should eliminate lovesick teenagers, anyone who could just take the damn pills himself, people who've changed their mind, and the whole forcing other people to cooperate thing.

I didn't bother to work up formal legal language, and I'm sure I'm missing some twiddles, and I'm sure I've got some typos, but that's the gist of what I'd like to see. What do you think, Cousin Dave? Amy? Kristen, Feebie, Gretchen et al.?

And Chang -- you cite my "I'm waiting for someone to answer my points", but didn't actually answer any of them. At all. In any way. If you're going to sputter around quoting me, at least bother to scroll up and see what my points are and address them. Don't just pretend that jumping in and talking about "Mother Nature" does the trick.

Although I have to admit I'm way interested in your conception of Mother Nature. I understand where people are coming from when they talk about God, and why, if they believe in Him, they think it's important to abide by his rules. (Not that I think it gives them the right to tell me what to do, of course.) But I don't get your conception of Mother Nature at all. To the extent I think of "Mother Nature" as a concept, I think of biology, going on doing what it's doing without caring at all about we think or do. From your point of view, sound like she has a pretty hard-assed point of view that we'll take what she gives us and like it, although it doesn't sound like she's willing to do a damn thing for us one way or the other. I wonder if SHE objects to my contact lenses or my friend's pacemaker?

Right now you just sound silly, to be honest. I don't know you and am not familiar with your comments, but Jody (who posts sensible, rational comments, and thus gets trust points from me) seems to think you usually do better. OK, then. Can you stop raving and thrashing and post something the rest of us can follow? At least explain who Mother Nature is and why we should care what she thinks.

"I absolutely don't think we extend assisted suicide to love-sick teenagers! But I do think that if a paraplegic were absolutely miserable in his condition, I'd extend it to him. [...] But a formerly athletic person who has little in the way of intellectual interests and little money for his care, perhaps no one who's willing to stand by him like Reeve's wife did -- maybe not so much."

Gail, you raise a good point, and I'll have to go think about it. Thanks for the well thought out and reasoned response.

You're very welcome. And thank you for raising rational and thoughtful arguments, and actually listening to and considering the responses.

> I am just asking you to explain
> your point which you are
> refusing to do

The fuck you are. How many thousands of words need to be typed before you'll read some? Give some evidence –any, Kristen– that you've read the earlier comments. You're so fixated on these tragic scenarios... But what if there's a cute puppy who's been hurt and things are really sad....

> If I knew that in a similar
> situation I could rely [...]
> on the presence of a doctor with
> the fortitude, the time, and
> the courage

Yeah yeah, but nobody wants to cultivate that arrangement with a caregiver (or anyone else) beforehand, right? Complainers in this thread are demanding that the vast legal and medical structures in the world's most flexible and rewarding nation be warped, in this moment of (very) personal crisis, to conveniently serve their impulses, as if by a drive-thru window. The fortitude of the doctors is not the problem here.

> None of us deserve your
> "tough shit" comment

True, but remember, he's still in high school.

> I'm sure I'm missing some twiddles

A woman who thinks children don't need mothers and fathers, claiming to be grown and educated, but appearing before us with a clay mind and a coal heart, wants to change the law so that people can be more readily killed.

We'll take that under consideration.

"At least explain who Mother Nature is and why we should care what she thinks."

Mother Nature is the reason why we are here on earth and none of us figured it why yet. What does SHE get out of it at the end this circus? No one knows.

However, we should care what SHE thinks as SHE could do some serious damages to you and your loved ones if you don't play by HER rules.

One of HER rule is very clear. Don't kill yourself in any circumstances. Births and deaths share the same rule. You do not have a say in the deal. The fact that you are not happy with your life cannot be a reason to kill yourself. You cannot do that. You are breaking HER rules.

Yeah, but Amy's right: She's just a metaphor. And besides -

> One of HER rule is very clear.
> Don't kill yourself in any
> circumstances. Births and deaths
> share the same rule. You do not
> have a say in the deal.

There are lots of organisms that, some task (usually reproductive) having been accomplished, crawl off to die without struggling.

Chang made me laugh.
Thanks Chang!

Have i been had again?

Kristen -- please don't defend yourself to our Cuddly Crid. Even if you did have something to apologize for (and I sure don't see it), the beam in his eye is way too big for him to legitimately criticize the mote in yours. It is silly for him to tell you that you're not listening or paying attention to his points until he pays attention to mine and yours and everyone else's. He knows it too, but he sees that he's upsetting you, and he gets off on it, so he's attacking you. Give Criddums a big mental hug, blow him a kiss, and ignore him the way he's ignoring me.

Chang -- I . . . oh, never mind.

Emma -- You've got absolutely the right idea about Chang, and I'm adopting it from this point forward.

> the way he's ignoring me.

You look fat in those pants!

Thanks Gail,but Crid actually isn't upsetting me. I love when he says my name. It just turns me to jelly. Now Crid, I'll give you evidence that I've read ALL of your earlier posts if you would just give one clear argument. And of course things would be sad if a really cute puppy was hurt. I mean, c'mon!

"and a few others are resolutely determined to imagine that there are Mean Bad Guys out there who enjoy having people suffer needlessly. "

Mind reading, or any other kind of reading, are clearly not your strong points. People here are concerned that there are Selfish Officious People out there who want to meddle in an agreement between two free people. Period.

"Complainers in this thread are demanding that the vast legal and medical structures in the world's most flexible and rewarding nation be warped, in this moment of (very) personal crisis, to conveniently serve their impulses, as if by a drive-thru window. "

This conversation would go very much more smoothly without this kind of flaming drama queen verbiage, complete with bitch-ass shaming language. What vast legal structure is being subverted? Indeed, the trend in American law over the centuries has been towards rather than against greater indivudual soveriegnty. And how the fuck does medicine come into this argument? Assited suidicide doesn't have to involve anything more than a good sharp kitchen knife. (There was a time when a man's kin were expected to slip the spear to him just as the last breath left, since a natural death was such a hideous shame for someone who had been a warrior back in his prime.) Back to medicine - how does giving someone and overdose of morphine or heroin even intrude into the realm of medicine? Sounds more like a misuse of recreational substances to me.

"One of HER rule is very clear. Don't kill yourself in any circumstances. "

What bullshit. Where is this supposed rule written?

If on the other hand you mean biology or nature when you say "Mother Nature", then I am here to tell you that Mother Nature does not give a flying fuck about anyone or anything once it reproduces. She cares sweet fuck all about individuals, because individuals are nothing more than a very temporary vehicle for this or that genetic lineage, and once that individual assures the survival of the next generartion of that leineage to where it is likely to reproduce, then that individual suddenly becomes completely irrevelant to any purpose of Mother Nature's. That's how nature works, in a garden, in a forest or in the sea.

Jim, will you marry me?

> This conversation would go very
> much more smoothly

Smooth is the goal?

"Actually, I think either Rad misunderstood or was setting up a straw man."

No, Gail. Here's the opening post:

"The argument that there might be abuses or that you might change your mind while suffering terribly and incapacitated is no reason to remove the right from others to have someone assist them in killing themself."

That people suffer a long time before death does NOT translate to a "right" to die, at anyone's hand.

Consistency alert!
Statements are being made about passing yet more laws and regulations about "assisted" death. Be sure you are not one of those expressing doubt about the state of the health care industry. If you insist that doctors are influenced by "Big Pharma", you must admit they will be influenced to achieving a rapid solution to the problem a suffering patient presents.

If I'm reading things correctly, there is apparently no personal problem, however dire, that cannot be solved by involving government. WTF?

A government agency is NOT more "fair" or even smarter than the average individual. Further, it has no duty to you in any case. See the Supreme Court case Warren v. DC, which is tangentially related and showed that a public agent is NOT required to protect your person.

Mickey Mouse Roll Call: Living Will ready? (Y,N)

Rad said:
"A government agency is NOT more "fair"
or even smarter than the average
individual. Further, it has no duty to
you in any case. See the Supreme Court
case Warren v. DC, which is
tangentially related and showed that a
public agent is NOT required to protect
your person"

Rad, I'm a lawyer (and an experienced one, not just out of law school). Warren v. DC isn't "tangentially related". And we're not talking about asking government agencies to do anything at all. We're discussing a private contract between two individuals, one that the government or any other third party would have no say in. That's why I suggest legislation to expressly say just that. Where would an agency come into it, exactly? And which one are you envisioning?

For the record, I do care if there are abuses and if the suffering person changes his mind (which, of course, assumes he or she has a mind left to change, and is not a turnip). If you'll scroll up above, I suggested some ideas on how we could draft legislation that would narrowly protect a contractual right to assisted suicide, yet ensure that the two parties are willing and remain willing, and that no third party, including the government or the doctor, had any right to intervene.

"If you insist that doctors are
influenced by "Big Pharma", you must
admit they will be influenced to
achieving a rapid solution to the problem
a suffering patient presents"

Sigh. Lather, rinse, repeat. The doctor is a third party. She won't have anything to do with the decision, unless the patient left it in her hands. Well, I suppose the doctor will verify if the patient is brain dead and can't make a decision, or confirm whether or not there is a cure for his condition. But she won't be saying who gets the lethal injection. The sick person himself will make that call, or if he is both a turnip and has left a clear living will that was not revoked, the person who has contracted to assist the suicide will make sure the wishes expressed in the living will are carried out. (And assuming there was a living will, that person will be named by the sick person, and thus by definition is someone the sick person trusts.)

And don't go complaining that there'd be legislation involved. There is legislation about trillions of things, and although of course some of it is stupid, much of it is necessary to protect people's rights and interests, and to prevent abuses. If there were no legislation at all, there would be chaos. The key is to ensure that any legislation is narrowly tailored to accomplish what it is supposed to accomplish, no more and no less. If you want to live in a wild west world with absolutely no rules and no goverment at all, well, good luck with that. To my mind, I'd rather have some rules -- rules that ensure that my individual rights are protected and can't be tramped on by other individuals or the government.

And on the straw man thing: I understood you (and so did Cousin Dave) to be saying that Amy and our "right to die" camp were arguing that we had the right to compel someone to contract with us -- in other words, to demand that whether they are willing or no, they have to give us a lethal injection. And if you were saying that, it's a straw man. No one was arguing that we could demand that an unwilling person assist our suicide. This is a discussion about a private contract between two willing people.

> We're discussing a private contract
> between two individuals

Right. One that involves the taking of human life. There's no reason to think this would be opening up a can of worms, or billable hours, or anything like that.

Criddy baby! I've missed you. Are you ready to give an answer to my questions yet? How 'bout just the organ donation/benefit to society question? It's up there, just scroll up!

I'm waaaaiiiiiting.

"People here are concerned that there are Selfish Officious People out there who want to meddle in an agreement between two free people. Period."

What bullshit. Where is this supposed rule written? Are you telling me that homicide is an arrangement between two free people and the rest of us should stay hell out? I don't think so.

Let me put it this way. Once you have an unprotected baby making sex, it is no longer a private romance any more. It is a public affair. The rest of society is now forced to get involved. Remember that the rest of society do not share the same feeling how you felt about your first love.

"What bullshit. Where is this supposed rule written?"

All over the place on earth. Do you want it to be written in English?

"that individual assures the survival of the next generartion of that leineage to where it is likely to reproduce, then that individual suddenly becomes completely irrevelant to any purpose of Mother Nature's. That's how nature works, in a garden, in a forest or in the sea."

I cannot agree no more. However, the survival of the next generation involves many generations. Especially for humans, the grand parents play vital parts as care takers in many different cultures. The decision to kill your grand parents when they are no longer useful to you or Mother Nature, should not be in your hand.

The rest of us believe that you are not that "decent" to make that decision considering the size of your grand parents' estate. Or you might be too emotionally involved to make that decision. Remember that the rest of us do not feel the same pain of the willing dead and willing killer.

We rather let Mother Nature to take its course.

Gail, Esq., even though I'm sure the legal profession regards the theory that police must act to prevent injury or death to be totally different from the theory that government agents in between the patient and a hospital must act to kill someone "correctly", the public agency always has goals completely different from those of the individual. Terry Schiavo, anyone?

If you can't recognize Amy's words for what they are, you've just left Strunk & White in favor of legalese. I'm sorry to see that.

"Private contract"? You're kidding - or you're eligible for a refund for your law school tuition. The State will be waiting to imprison the party acting in error.

You know, I hate crap like this:

"The political influence of religious conservatism has thwarted passage of similar legislation, leaving terminal patients to select from a macabre menu of frightening, painful, and often violent end-of-life techniques universally regarded as too inhumane for use on sick dogs or mass murderers."

This is so mixed up it doesn't mean anything.
The sick dog or mass murderer will be joyfully shot dead, left to the Bible-thumping folk around here - and they will be confident that they have saved tax money and ensured that the disease or crime spree has been stopped.

"Macabre menu"? Nice, flowery language to jazz up, "he shot himself", because that's so messy. We want to go cleanly. We can't use a gun, because those are evil things inappropriate for use on sick dogs and mass murderers (well, until the bad guy comes to our house, when we'll scream for the underpaid police pig to machine-gun him because we're scared).

You're choosing between two things:

1) Fate - which the faithful will call God™ - picks the time and method of your demise;
2) Some other person picks that time and method.

Given a long look at history, just which choice can be abused?

Radwaste, I am not following you. Explain exactly what "government agents" and what "public agency" you're talking about. Which agency or agencies do you see being involved here, and in what capacity? And explain what "error(s)" you're anticipating (specifically, taking into consideration the contracts and legislation I'm proposing, and assuming they were implemented) that you think are going to end in people being imprisoned.

Chang -- oh never mind.

Cousin Dave, come back. If you see something in these arguments that I'm missing and that hasn't already been addressed (and addressed and addressed) in this thread already, will you pipe up?

Gail, this is pointless.

If you cannot realize that a person's dying is of interest to society as a whole, then you're completely out of reach.

Suffice to say that the police will be involved when I unplug you, whether you have a living will or not, whether you asked me to or not, and that this will not change if it becomes public policy to let a stranger unplug you upon discovery of a notarized slip of paper.

Unplug Mommy without dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" and you violate the law. Unless you're in that "zone" where the law means what you want it to say with each reading.

Rad-Gail in't talking about just unplugging Mommy for the hell of it. And, Chang, you make it sound like we're talking about exterminating our dear loving grandparents for their money. We are discussing excruciatingly painful and debilitating illnesses, terminal illnesses. We aren't talking about getting rid of grams cause she's getting up there and there'll be no inheritance left. We are talking about watching a loved one whether it is a friend of a member of our family suffer to a point that is just inhumane. The truth as stated by someone earlier is that we don't let dogs suffer like that, we put them to sleep. Why can't we have the same compassion for our human counterparts?

Rad, I know I'm not going to convince you or Crid, or even make you think twice. You're not even listening to the arguments on the other side. I've listened to and responded to the "society" argument at length, by the way, but I'll bet money you didn't read any of it. Even when you guys realize that someone else points out a flaw in your argument that you didn't initially recognize, you can't admit it or even respond to it. You just keep jogging along.

Throwing the word "mommy" into an argument doesn't convince anyone who isn't already convinced. Saying "suffice to say" and throwing out an unsupported generality instead of answering a direct, specific question would get you tossed out of court, or logic class or anywhere else where people are weighing the merit rather than the emotional content of your argument. And you're not going to win over any converts to your argument.

And frankly, that's what I'm trying to do. I'm not aiming my arguments at you -- or for that matter, at Amy, Jim, or Kristen, who already agree with me. The main reason I've continued on this thread (besides the fun of pissing off Crid, of course) is because there are Cousin Daves out there who haven't made up their minds on this issue, or at least are open to arguments. Since I feel very strongly about this issue -- having actually watched loved ones die slowly and painfully (have you, by the way?) -- I want to make sure that we've carefully laid out the best arguments for assisted suicide, and discussed the points on the other side. I may or may not convince them in the end, but if I can at least make them stop and think a bit about my arguments, I'm happy.

"The truth as stated by someone earlier is that we don't let dogs suffer like that, we put them to sleep. Why can't we have the same compassion for our human counterparts?"

The compassion is on the both side, you and myself.

I rather have 100 people to suffer painful and slow death at the end to prevent thousands of people to be killed too early because they were "suffering".

You have a right to take your dog's life as your dog is your property. I have been arguing that you just simply don't have that right to kill grand mother even if she begged for it.

You do not own any human's life including your own.

I rather have 100 people to suffer painful and slow death at the end to prevent thousands of people to be killed too early because they were "suffering".

In this case, I wish you a fast, painless death.

I hope you realize that, if you are one of the unfortunate 100 you have discarded their suffering so easily, the hypothetical thousands you are "Saving" from death will be of little comfort for you.

I'm done here. It's too time-consuming to beat down all the things I have not said but are being represented as if I had, and even with a presence of an attorney on the thread, there's too much fiction about what happens when people die.

I'll see you on another topic.

> And don't go complaining that
> there'd be legislation involved.

That batshit sentence hounded my imagination all weekend.

Again... This is all about coddled, insulated, richly-provided-for people hoping to stave off that one last threat of bad news by insisting that the rest of the world march to their drummer. Rather than thoughtfully prepare for this grim fate that they fear so terribly, they'll insist that the rest of society warp its habits... So that when crisis comes, our darlings will be able to defend themselves from discomfort impulsively, much as a teenager defends himself from hunger with a drive-thru cheeseburger.

They'll demand that whole culture think and behave as they themselves expect to think and behave in such a moment, an hour of unfathomable distraction. Legal systems will get distorted, medical systems will get twisted, religious values will be trounced, whatever, man.... Middle-class (upper-income?) white girls want it to happen, so it has to happen.

And just for a cherry on top: An attorney insists that we not fear new lawmaking. Insists! Sure, that's kind a contradiction in terms, but that's where her head's at (and where her financial interests lie). Ivy league attorneys have a lot of personality invested in thinking of themselves as the center of human decency, and they're sure not gonna let go of that perspective during a discussion like this: A life of privilege can't fathom a death in discomfort.

Raddy's right:

> It's too time-consuming to beat
> down all the things I have not
> said but are being represented
> as if I had

This entire thread was about the princess mentality. But again, I'm confident you'll never get anywhere with this during my lifetime, for entirely practical reasons. As government is doing so much to fuck things up for our health care (and most other public policy matters) this year, I expect the bright-eyed optimism lefties have enjoyed about taking command of civilization in recent times is about to be profoundly diminished without further comment from folks like me.

But if your arguments ever did need refutation in a truly public sphere, it will be comforting to remember that you said this, without irony:

> And don't go complaining that
> there'd be legislation involved.

I'm reminded of Phyllis Schlafly's devastating (and triumphant) rejoinder when women asked how she –who was almost the first woman to attend Harvard law– could be against the Equal Rights Amendment: "Read the second half."

Gee, Crid,

There you go again.

Once I wade through all of the insults, I see you're still seeing assisted suicide as a form of selfishness that will hurt society.

But although I spent some time and trouble refuting your point about assisted suicide hurting society, and asked you some direct questions, you've continued to ignore them.

Does this last rant mean that you have some answers for me? Or does it mean that you still think that insulting me somehow makes your assertions more convincing?

I'm waiiiiiiting.

> although I spent some time and
> trouble refuting your point

You did it badly... Unconvincingly... Inaptly.

> I'm waiiiiiiting.

As well you ought.

If I did it so badly, then it should be easy for you to answer. But hmmm, I notice you never denied the assertion made by Jim, Jody, me and a few others that you simply have no answer.

Don't say you're too tired. You've come back again and again to write pages worth of pointless insults. Why don't you take a few minutes to refute my "inapt" and "unconvincing" arguments? Scroll right up -- they're all still there.

By the way, Crid --

Insult me as you will, I won't respond again in this thread unless you, or someone else (Ben-David? Where aaaaarrrrre you?), directly refute my actual arguments (as opposed to your characterization of my arguments) with actual substantive answers. If you're looking for them, my "unconvincing" points and my questions are waaaaaaaay up there now, starting maybe three-quarters of the way up this thread chain. I'll check back now and then, just to see if you've come up with anything good, but otherwise, it's time for me to get on with my life.

So have a field day, call me whatever you want. And I hope you have a good day for it.

Love and kisses, Gail

> Insult me as you will

What you describe is all about you... We work with what you bring to us.

> my questions are waaaaaaaay up there

You bored us once, and were yourself so unimpressed with your points that you apparently can't recall what you had in mind. But you're ready to slam this through anyway: "Don't go complaining"!

I think I've been pretty clear. As noted: Getting the whole of modern medicine to move in the direction of responsibly defending health has been a 200,000-year project. Government and law haven't always helped, and as we see this summer, often continue to hinder. As noted with the link the other day, not every culture is thinking as you are about the meaning of pain at the end of life. But you're ready, nay, eager to gum up the works in order to be sure that you don't suffer any inconvenience in this fundamentally human moment.

> call me whatever you want

Well, if you find that you left your ringer off after a movie or something, don't freak out.