I wish this person a peaceful, painless, pleasant passing.

39 years old.

Fuck.

Sad, sad, sad.

(PS- I had to look it up- AMA is ask me anything, I think.)

I wish my husband had that option. He suffered for two many months asking me to please help him go with some dignity. I did my very best. Peace be with you.

It used to be that most physicians in the United States would give you a bit more morphine than you needed which would suppress your respiration and carry you off.

Unfortunately the unholy "Baptist bootleggers" alliance of the drug warriors, the physicians and pharmacists lobbies, the FDA, and the tort lawyers have made this sort of compassion a career ending federal crime.

So, for a solution to a government caused problem and to protect the one in a thousand individual who wants to go out kicking and screaming all the way, we get "more" government, i.e. the death with dignity act.

Food for thought:

Since, at the point of death, most people want nothing more than painless sleep, why should there be any heaven other than death?

Even if there is a God, it would make things a lot simpler. (grin)

If I don't have to go, I won't, but I haven't seen everything yet. Just enough to make me ask why I should hang around.

She could come back.

If I'm ever in a situation of intolerable pain with no end in sight but The End, I'll just use my last shreds of will to drag myself to the top of a tall building and throw myself off.

Sure, it may not be dignified, but it would be a time of my own choosing. :-)

I'll just use my last shreds of will to drag myself to the top of a tall building and throw myself off.

A woman in Des Moines just did that a couple of months ago. She was beginning to show signs of dementia and had already watched her husband die a long and protracted death with his mind basically gone. She searched around, trying to find someone who would help her with an assisted suicide, but that is against the law here. So, while some of her mind was still intact, she jumped off a balcony and died instantly. I think she was very brave. It is heartbreaking, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ax9BqkjiPM

In my job, I've watched this happen too often. My feeling is that just because we CAN prolong life doesn't mean that we always SHOULD.

After watching my Nona die of Alzheimer's, I decided that if I was ever unfortunate enough to be diagnosed, I'd go party for 4 weeks, come home, take a bottle of diazepam and put a plastic dry cleaning bag over my head. I will not have my kids go through that.

We put dogs and cats down because they are suffering, but we'll let grandma go by inches, in dignity pants, with a feeding tube because it's the "right thing" to do. Uh huh.

His courage, and the understanding of those who are responsing to him, make me think humanity still has some grace after all.

Be at peace, son of the earth.

While the diazepam/bag idea has appeal, you need to work to make sure your kids don't have survivor's guilt about it. No fair doing that to them.

I am all for euthanasia of desiring adults. My mother is a good godfearing (yeah, Amy, I know) I mean genuinely good person. She's said that although it might kill her, she could never see someone she loved in pain with no hope of it ending, and not ease them out if they asked. You don't get bonus points for pain.

There was an interesting article on PJMedia last week written by zombie, about his uncle's death. The ending gist being he thought his uncle signed a DNR while depressed then for got to ever change it and he thought it should have been ignored. Sorry-no. If an adult signs a DNR, you honor it. I feel as strongly that adults should get to choose to die and how, as I do that the unborn should get a shot at life. And that's really, really strongly.

One word for someone near the end -- insulin.

We put dogs and cats down because they are suffering, but we'll let grandma go by inches, in dignity pants, with a feeding tube because it's the "right thing" to do.

This. We show more compassion to our pets than to our relatives. I think the cause is simple denial: a refusal to accept reality and face grief. Granny isn't really gone, as long as the ventilator is still pumping.

I think the cause is simple denial: a refusal to accept reality and face grief.
- - - - - - - - - -

Well there are also ethical issues about actively killing someone else, and how that has been, and will be, abused.

I have a hard time with this, "Life is precious" and "they are stil alive and that's what matters!" bullshit that the protesters of assisted suicide push. I do agree that if there are other options, then they should be tried first, but if the only thing that is keeping a person alive is a machine, how is that a "life"?

I have watched people slowly rot away from cancer and dememtia. It's worse than immediate death; it's a slow and painfully torturous process for not only the inflicted person but the families. How is it ethical to force a person to suffer because "life is precious"? What kind of life would I be living anyway if my body was rotting away from the inside out? Why is it "the right thing to do" to force someone to undergo expensive and painful treatment, then when they inevitably die, leave their families with that debt? It's incredibly selfish to force a person to suffer becuase you (general) believe that "life is too precious". Those people against Asst sucide aren't thinking about the inflicted persons suffering; they are thinking about themselves. But yet, they think nothing of putting down Fluffy when his time comes. How come Fluffy is granted death with dignity but I must be forced to suffer a slow and painful death because "life is precious"!?

If my doctor were to ever tell me that my brain is going to start rotting away and there is no cure, I would like the option to make my "death" appointment that same day, while my mind is still clear enough to do it and I stil have some dignity left. I am not saying it's an easy decision to make, and I am not saying that my family wouldn't grieve, but I do think it's better than the alternative.

Amy said: "You know how people say "She was so brave?" about the terminally ill? I'm a baby if I get a cold. Nobody will ever say that about me."

Me either. In fact, I'd probably whine about it the whole time, assuming I could even speak. I can't even take bad mentral cramps without curling up in the fetal position and wishing vengence on my uterus. I'm no hero. If I am diganosed with a deadly and incurable conditions, put me out of my misery, (and everyone elses for that matter...)

My husband thinks I am a walking conundrum. He says that he finds it odd that I will fight for my life if I am being attacked, but I won't fight for it if I am diagnosed with untreatable cancer or dimensia. I responsed that the difference is that an attack is quick and if I fight back, there is a chance for survival. Those bruises will heal, the pain is temporary, and I will walk away mentally intact, if emotionally scared. There is no long term phyical suffering with an attack and my dignity remains afterwards. With untreatable cancer/dimensia, I am going to die either way and likely with no dignity left. There is no chance for survival and its going to be a slow and painful process, put us in serious debt that he will get left with after my passing, and in the end, I will only be a shell of myself. I also said that at least in both scenarios, *I* get to make the choice about how I go out, not other people, and that is what matters to me.

>> If it comes to that, I don't want to suck medical resources that could be used to give somebody who's just starting out in the world a chance at life when I'm just some shell of a person in a bed.

My Mom, with Alzheimer's, is in the "wasting" stage, down to 75 or so pounds. Mentally she is in a vegetative state, recently had a very painful broken pelvis, and is shuttled back and forth to the hospital and convalesence care center via ambulance, all while paying $7,500 a month for her room and board at the Alzheimer's center that she hasn't been to in a month.

The costs must be staggering so far this year (two months), easily topping $60,000 to her insurance and Medicare. We wait every day for the phone call, which has already come twice in the form of "you need to book a flight because it's any minute now".

And speaking of wasted resources, she also has glaucoma, and her yearly prescription for eye drops ran out. In order to get a renewal, she has to go in for an eye exam!!! The only way to get her to the eye exam is via ambulance, so instead of some damn doctor just renewing her prescription, she is either going to go without eye drops or cost Medicare a few thousand dollars to get to the opthamologist.

Eric, my heart goes out to you...

To all those who have lost (or will lose) someone in a long term situation -- may your future be brighter.

At my age -- about Amy's -- I'd do about one round of chemo/radiation to try. But if I'm stage four -- it is the CHIPs program. Cocaine, Hawaii, Ice cream, Percocet.

If Alzheimer's or dementia, please put me down.

There is no dignity in death. But if I can go out with some self-respect, yes. My current stage in life, if I were to have an accident, fire, flood, etc. I believe in DNR lite. Give me about thirty minutes to an hour depending on the situation. Some CPR, epi, paddles. But if my brain is gone, PVS, quad -- just let me go.

Sabrina:

How is it ethical to force a person to suffer because "life is precious"?
Why is it "the right thing to do" to force someone to undergo expensive and painful treatment?

There is a big difference between continued, invasive treatment and actively killing a patient. Killing is kinda invasive, dontcha think?

The posts here are very heartfelt, but rely on subjective judgments - which make it very difficult to put into practice with proper safeguards.

Front and center is a comment like:
Goddess:

I don't want to suck medical resources that could be used to give somebody who's just starting out in the world a chance at life

... a comment who's flip side - withholding of care by those who pay for healthcare, for not-exactly-compassionate reasons - is already a reality in Europe.

Every time a culture gives permission to kill in this situation, we have seen corrupting secondary considerations creep in.

And despite the Goddess' attempt to label this a "religious" issue it's a general, ethical issue. Try it this way:

You all claim the right to kill yourselves
because your culture has taught you independence.

But the actual implementation of "mercy killing" ultimately leads to a powerful few making literally life-and-death situations for others - the exact opposite of independence.

Ben David said:
"There is a big difference between continued, invasive treatment and actively killing a patient. Killing is kinda invasive, dontcha think?"

Not anymore invasive than loading my body with chemicals and sticking me with needles and shoving pills down my throat that may only "prolong" my "life". There is still consent required the patient, whether its treatment or death. If treatment isn't working, and my only option is to go home and die, why is is so bad that the last needle I asked the doctor to stick me with is REALLY the last needle? I agree that should this become a law, then there should be some checks and balances, but the way you make it sound is that doctors are gonna start offing patients left and right.

Ben David said:
"But the actual implementation of "mercy killing" ultimately leads to a powerful few making literally life-and-death situations for others - the exact opposite of independence."

We aren't giving the doctors the power to make the decision for us. We are saying that we would like to option to let the doctor help us die peacefully should we be on that road anyway. It's not any different than me signing a DNR. Besides, don't doctors make life and death decisions about the patients in Emergency rooms everyday anyway? Isn't that their job? And don't the families get to make a decision for us if we are hooked up to a machine and can't decide for ourselves? Why would this be any different? If there is a signed document by the person stating that they want the doctor to take only certain precautions, and if those treatments fail then they want the doctor to put them to "sleep" so to speak, how is that any different than a DNR or the family deciding to pull the plug? The way I look at it, this would actually provide me with more options about my own care. But that's my opinion.

Sabrina:

We aren't giving the doctors the power to make the decision for us. We are saying that we would like to option to let the doctor help us die peacefully should we be on that road anyway. It's not any different than me signing a DNR.

But it IS different - a DNR stops medical action, doctors "helping" is actively hastening death.

And we have seen in Europe that once this judgment is given over to doctors - or the even more bloodless bureaucrats who are supposed to oversee this activity - all kinds of other considerations come into play, and the mandate creeps beyond the scenarios painted here.

Which is why Holland with all its safeguards still deliberately miscounts euthanasia without consent. Google "Remmelink Report" for the staggering statistics about how doctors decide on their own whose life is worth preserving.

You loop back to certain scenarios to prove your point - but that just proves you are unwilling to see the complexities involved when this emotional impulse is scaled up to public policy.

Nice summary here - more than twice as many killed without consent as with:

http://www.euthanasia.com/hollchart.html

Well I believe in God, and value of life too for what it's worth. But I also believe that people have the right to choose. I am one of those Christians that doesn't believe that the bible is the end all be all of decision making. I don't believe that my suffering in life is a fast track ticket into heaven nor do I believe that an assisted suicide to ease my suffering is going to make me burn. I think God has a little more sense then that personally. I believe that merciful God that I read about and can't beleive that THAT God would want a person to suffer like that. (Can't prove a dang thing about it but that's what I believe any way) But that's neither here nor there since God should not be used in an argument about state laws. Separation of state and church and all that...

Ben David: "And we have seen in Europe that once this judgment is given over to doctors - or the even more bloodless bureaucrats who are supposed to oversee this activity - all kinds of other considerations come into play, and the mandate creeps beyond the scenarios painted here."

Ben David, I understand where your going with that and of course I agree it has to be considered, but the reality is, anytime you give bureacratic power to any agency, there are going to be people who abuse it. Health Care is not unique in that aspect. Elected govt officials abuse their power all the time. Should we ban politians? But I repeat, we are not giving the decision making power to the doctor in this case. It's up to the patient or the patients family. I would imagine there would likely be a process involved with lots of bureucratic red tape, paper work, additional recommended treatments, pych evaluations, lawyers, and the like. It would be pretty hard for a doctor to just up and "kill" a patient without a paper trail to back it up without it coming back to bite them in the ass. (I don't really know how the process works in states that do allow it though so if somone knows the facts, I am all ears.) At least, in this country. Europe is NOT a good comparison when you consider that thier economy and health care is worse than ours to begin with. That's apples to oranges.

And we have seen in Europe that once this judgment is given over to doctors - or the even more bloodless bureaucrats who are supposed to oversee this activity - all kinds of other considerations come into play, and the mandate creeps beyond the scenarios painted here.

Ben David,

I take it that you have never been actively involved in a mass casualty event, real or exercise. I have done the exercise as both the victim and triage. Trust me, the black tags go up in proportion to the greater number of victims to the number of doctors/techs. And the numbers change, for the worse, depending on the amount of available medical supplies.

Then there are the people who will say "Save my buddy (SO, spouse, child)," regardless of their own condition and the condition of the fellow victim.

This is just a mass casualty event writ large. Bureaucrats, families, the dying all will, and do, have a say in it. But forcing me to stay alive, regardless of known outcome, ranges toward cruel.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease and the mortality rate is one hundred percent. -- R. D. Laing

Look at all the pretty straw men:

Ben David's beliefs here are colored by his religious beliefs

That's the second time you've tried to slap this label on my in this thread - all my posts address unavoidable ethical and practical issues with these policies, and actual failures.

(And yes, when a policy is open to abuses when the stakes are high - as in life and death - we most definitely do ban the behavior. Does anyone doubt that Dutch doctors would not take matters into their own hands so freely if they were still subject to prosecution for actively hastening death?)

More straw:

I take it that you have never been actively involved in a mass casualty event, real or exercise.

You take wrong - as regular readers know, I live in Israel and know all about both triage situations and socialized medical care.

Did you actually read what's been posted here? Because your anecdote proves my point - in our imperfect world a whole lot of other factors skew many situations out of the "don't let me suffer" scenarios presented in this thread.

And changing public policy to allow active killing presents ethical dilemmas in the real world outside those pat scenarios.

Again - there is a large legal and moral difference between requiring/withdrawing invasive treatments and letting doctors actively kill patients.

Not that it makes a difference to the conversation here, but it turns out LucidEnding was a troll.

http://www.urlesque.com/2011/03/10/gawker-adrian-chen-cancer-lucidending/