Those who insist life - of any quality - is more important than any other consideration, should be required to spend theirs in this condition.

Probably a day, maybe two, would be enough to get their attention.

While I agree that no one is guaranteed happiness or a pain-free existence, if there is help to end the suffering, it's criminal (or it should be) to require that the help be withheld if the suffering person wishes to be helped.

Sane adults should have the right. I am seriously considering hospice nursing. I feel pretty strongly about those who can make the choice for themselves about how they want to die, being allowed to do so.

SHould not be the Drs choice, though. And there obviously needs to be paperwork signed and witnessed, and probably we need to require legal representation for the wants-to-be-deceased as a protection.

what is with the over-reliance on govt? With this one and the guy and his laptop... who doesn't realize that best intentions count for nothing with government. Govt. is always like an avalanche, once you get the first pebble rolling, you can't stop it. On the other hand, they are oddly reticent on certain types of death, while meting out some other kinds without care...

I suppose the problem in Tony N.'s case is that insurance and whatnot frown on taking your own life, and you can't ask your wife to do it, can you?

The issue is, there is a lot of liability to be dealt with for that... best bet is prolly to take a trip somewhere in S/E Asia, give him something that will make his heart stop, and pay off the local police to not investigate closely.
'Course, how difficult is it to ask your loved one to kill you? The whole thing is ugly hard, and no good answers.

The whole thing is ugly hard, and no good answers.

This is true. So sad. Even the "better" answers are painful.

Wonderful quote from King Lear.

>> On the other hand, they are oddly reticent on certain types of death, while meting out some other kinds without care...

Exactly on the money. I have put down several dogs I have loved with all my heart out of mercy and dignity. I wish we could put my Alzheimer's destroyed mother, who has no cognition left but went through months of agony with a broken pelvis. (PS- at a cost of $7,000 a month plus medical expenses.)

My great-grandfather in England was euthanized peacefully at home. It should be anyone's right to go peacefully, and for those who can't think or respond for themselves the choice should go to pre-designated loved ones. Why prolong the inevitable?

Lots of differing thoughts about this sort of thing, depending on circumstances. For myself, I think someone who wants to die and is otherwise of sound mind should be allowed to do so. If done "properly" (e.g. self-disembowelment or falling upon one`s sword) some societies have actually honored the person.

Most, however, are against it. Probably from the time humans were small groups, and the loss of a person could conceivably put the whole tribe at risk. But that, after all, was about able-bodied people - anyone who was very sick would die quickly anyway...

But even if self-termination were legal, what to do about someone who is physically incapable of it? More complications.

If you have read this far, you know I have no solution[s], just an attitude that people should mostly br allowed to make such choices for themselves and get help if needed.

-------------
If he wins, any doctor who kills a profoundly disabled person can say: "But he wanted me to end his life, your Honour."

I see "silly season" is still upon us.

I've made it very clear to my children that if I'm that position and I'm on life support, they're to pull the plug. My grandmother insisted on the same thing after watching my grandfather get repeatedly resuscitated against his will, extending his life by a very agonizing three weeks. (Several times, he pulled his IVs out and tried to walk out of the hospital so he could die in peace.)

I've made it very clear to my children that if I'm that position and I'm on life support, they're to pull the plug.

I'd suggest you do more than tell them.

You would not believe how hard it was for me to let my parents die. Not emotionally: I knew it was the best thing for them. The system is really stacked against people who want to let their loves ones go, though.

Get a health care proxy and a living will, and give copies to multiple people, including one person you trust who is not named in these papers -- a personal attorney, if you have one. Get these papers done by a lawyer, even if it costs you more. Carry something in your wallet with information on who has these papers, too.

Even all of this might not help you if people are determined to keep you alive.

Thank God for the ER docs and nurses in my neighborhood, who had more of a grasp on what the death process looks like than primary care and specialist docs.

I just had to say goodbye to my cat, Pete. He was in agony and our choices were to let him continue in agony and die a slow, painful death that could have lasted weeks or months OR to go the veterinarian and ask them to end his life quietly and peacefully.

Why does a cat have the right to a more peaceful, dignified death than a person does? I am not in favor of forced euthanasia by ANY MEANS. And I believe that if we do not know the person's wishes, we should do everything we can to save them because we can't un-kill them. However, a sane and rational man whose wishes to die should be allowed to.

I am reminded of the book "Johnny's Got a Gun," which is the fictional account of a young man who was horrifically wounded by a bomb or landmine, and was "saved" despite the fact that he lost his arms, legs, and FACE. He was "fed" intravenously, was absolutely aware, and when begged for death by banging his head (the only part of himself he could move) against the bed in Morse code, he was denied that and forced to live a life of silence, darkness, and loneliness.

This is like making suicide illegal.

But as far as it goes, I don't have much money or assets, but I'd rather let my family have it than to be spent keeping a turnip going.

As for the suicide clause -- I would want it written something along the lines:

For two years after the policy is issued, your beneficiaries can't collect. We will pay off after that if you commit suicide and a minimum of two doctors agree that you are/were in a significantly degraded health status and the expectations for return to normal levels is not expected.

Basically, you were in a car accident, you are now paralyzed from the neck down. You don't want to live that way, you opt to go out. The insurance company needs to pay out. But that is really a private contract matter.

The law about collecting on a life insurance policy varies from state to state. Here in Colorado, if the policy was taken out a certain number of years before the death, the beneficiaries can still collect the proceeds.

I totally agree with Original Kit. We show more compassion to animals at the end of their lives than to humans. And yes, get a living will if you don't want to be a head in a bed.

Society does not need to drag doctors into the mercy killing business. But people do to attempt to legitimize what they are advocating for. If courts legalize mercy killing hire killers who want to do the deed.

How about Mr. Nicholson choosing to do it himself by stopping eating or drinking. My 99 year old granny did this after a serious stroke. She died of her own conscious choice like that.

Nicholson demands government intervention into very private matters.

Sound familiar? E.

Sane folks shold have the right to end their own lives; but, if they are NOT of sound body how can we be sure that they are truly of sound mind?

Charles,

That is a big question. Oh, you don't want to die... your just depressed that you have terminal cancer!

I think at that point, if your terminal an asking to go early I don't think it matters if you're depressed. But I would hope someone asked if your affairs were in order.