This was a very hard one for me. It was on the MA ballot.

On the one hand, I agree with you. It should be a choice for people.

On the other hand, I can see the potential for horrible abuse of the system, of pressuring people to off themselves to save inheritances or whatever.

I already know of someone who was taken off life support when she didn't want to be (she was able to communicate, barely, but not always and not in front of the right people) and slowly starved and dehydrated to death. I know it is an anecdote, but it is the sort of anecdote that shakes one up.

So I worry about the possible unintended consequences.

And yet, of course it should be up to the patient. If it really just is between the patient and doctor then sure. But I'm worried it wouldn't be.

It's been legal here in Oregon for a long time. I think you should have a right to choose what you do with respect to your own life, including ending it. A man I know made an award-winning documentary about assisted suicide in Oregon a few years ago. Boring as hell in my opinion, but it won best documentary at Sundance.

These cases are the exceptions. If assisted suicide were legal, people would be pressured into signing on to it by heirs and by care facilities.

Human life is become increasingly commodotized on both ends (and in the middle). So assisted suicide, euthaniasia, embryo and gamete commerce, not to mention prostitution may soon be widely accepted.

The thing is: we treat our pets better than we treat people. When an animal is clearly just not able to enjoy life anymore, we take it to the vet and have it put to sleep. At least, any pet owner with a heart does this.

People, on the other hand, are made to suffer through years, sometimes decades of just existing. Whether they are in pain, suffering from an incurable illness, or whether they are suffering from dementia and have all the awareness of a turnip - either way, there's no dignity in it.

Surely no rational reason can be given against assisted suicide in such cases! As long as the person themselves makes the decision, how can any feeling person object?

Sure, there is room for abuse in any human situation. Anything can be abused. Saying that the potential for abuse should eliminate the option makes no sense. A steak knife can be used to stab someone; instead of outlawing steak knives, let's outlaw stabbing people.

I think rational adults should be able to choose this. Rational, though. No offing people with dementia that you think have no life, even if it lasts decades.

Not very many people would have all this handled while they were still rational.

On the other hand, I can see the potential for horrible abuse of the system, of pressuring people to off themselves to save inheritances or whatever.

"or whatever", you mean like saving the government run health care system the costs of providing someone services?

When it becomes cheaper to plant you in the ground than keeping you alive, I know which way the bean counters will lean...

Yes, the "whatever" could include saving government run health care money, or saving a private business money, it could also include caregivers who are tired of the caregiving, it could include a lot of situations.

That is what worries me.

But I have very, very mixed feelings about it.

Not an easy solution (if there was an easy solution we wouldn't be talking about it, now would we?)

But, the one thing that does bother me is that the "right" to die could turn into a "duty" to die.

Not just pressured by family members who greedily want the inheritance early; but, government bureaucrates who want to save tax-payer money - "It's unpatriotic to use up more than you share" I can hear someone in the future saying.

One thing that I do find interesting is that the cases which make it into the news seem to fall into one of two categories:

First scenario, the family wants life support taken away from a patient. the hospital refuses claiming "life is precious." These cases there is insurance or something that foots the bill.

Second scenario, the family wants life support to continue, but, the hospital wants to cut off life support. The hospital claims that there is "no hope and that the patient is entitled to death with dignity." These cases are always (or seem to be) a situation in which there is no insurance or a clear cut way that someone, other than the hosptial, is footing the bill.

So, in one sense, "death panels" are already here - just follow the money.

I think rational adults should be able to choose this. Rational, though. No offing people with dementia that you think have no life, even if it lasts decades.

This. My father had dementia and thought 2 am was a good time to go out in his pajamas and buy some milk. If I couldn't trust him to be rational about grocery shopping, I wouldn't have trusted him to make rational decisions about his own death.

A few weeks before he died, when being handed his meds, he said, "I don't want to do this anymore." Then he died of natural causes. Sometimes people who really want to die can do it without any help at all.

I agree that people should be allowed to choose their own death. I also worry about people being coerced into killing themselves, directly or indirectly. "C'mon, grandma, keeping you alive is costing a fortune. Don't you want your grandkids to go to college?" Not saying we shouldn't do it, but we need to be very careful about this.

If I ever reach the point where I can't take care of myself and have no assets or means by which I can get care, I'm going out Tom Petty style -- free falling from an airplane. (In an area where the landing won't hurt anyone on the ground, natch.)

So, in one sense, "death panels" are already here - just follow the money.

My experience in this area has been that hospitals want to do everything they can to keep a patient alive, maybe because that's where the money is, but I think there's also something ingrained in them as medical professionals. They're trained to keep people alive, not let them die. I don't see money being a huge motivation as far as doctors and nurses go. There's no shortage of people needing care, so when one patient dies, another takes his bed.

Not just pressured by family members who greedily want the inheritance early; but, government bureaucrats who want to save tax-payer money - "It's unpatriotic to use up more than you share" I can hear someone in the future saying.

My mom just recently had to put my dad in assisted living; the sale from their home is paying for his keep there, for now. In a couple more years, she's going to have to sell the house she's in now, and either join him at the assisted living facility or buy a small condo for herself. At the rate the facility is eating up their savings, and with the way the housing market is, there will be no inheritance for my brothers and I. I wouldn't dream of asking them to check out early just for us. They deserve to live out their years as best they can. If I have to help them financially, even though right now I'm not able to, so be it. Unless and until they ask to be left to die, or be assisted with it, I will do no such thing.

MonicaP - sorry, I certainly didn't mean that quip about the caring staff - rather it was aimed at the bean counters (although, I'm sure many of them are nice folks too).

You and I are on the same page when you say: "C'mon, grandma, keeping you alive is costing a fortune. Don't you want your grandkids to go to college?" I can just see some politician saying this, maybe not in those exact words - but not far from it. (seriously, how often do they say "it's for the children" when it has nothing to do with children?)

So, yea, it is a concern of mine that the right to die could change into the duty to die. Once that happens, it will be hard to change back. So, it would be far better to never go that route in the first place.

Lastly, for whatever its worth, I have watched/helped family members go through that awful route of a long, slow, painful death - it does seem like assisted suicide would have been easier/better.

However, after it was all over I, and other family members, felt better that we did everything possible to help make the transition to death as painless as possible. Looking back I think a "quick and easy" exit would have left me feeling like I did less than what was possible. So, assisted suicide shouldn't just be about those dying, it needs to help those left after the death of a loved one. There does need to be some sort of balance addressing everyone's needs/desires. Certainly, there are no easy answers.

So Charles, rather than a duty to die, you support a duty to live, but not for the benifit of the person suffering, but so the surviers can feel less guilty knowing they were 'good people'?

How is that any less horrifying?

Whenever I hear/read assisted suicide is wrong/right it aggravates the hell out of me.

If I'm no longer home (dementia/accident/health issue) please just hit me with a batch of potassium chloride.

I was also disgusted by the Terri Schiavo case. They let her die by dehydration. If you are a coherent person that is about the worst way to die. They should have just anesthetized her.

Realistically -- if you are comatose or permanent vegetative state for ten days -- I think the recovery chances are in the 1% range.

I was talking to someone the other day and she made a comment how, when she was working in a nursing home, one of the residents had a stroke at 50 that left him in a nursing home.

I reflected on it and realized that I luckily, live alone and the chances of being found before I die of an acute event are highly unlikely. Believe it or not I am happy about that.

How is that any less horrifying?

I won't speak for Charles, however, it isn't any less horrifying. It's just as horrifying. There's no easy answer here.

Putting the burden of helping you carry out your suicide is an enormous one to put on people you love. Some people will see it as an act of love. Others won't be so philosophical. The dying process is as much about the family and friends as it is about the dying person.

Not to mention that people who say, "Off me if I can't wipe my own ass!" at 40 often aren't quite so ready to die, even with significant health issues, at 80. Without a detailed health directive, we have no way of knowing what people would want when they are incapable of speaking for themselves.

Actually, MonicaP, you have spoken for me and much better than I could for myself. Thank you!

I do believe that there are no easy answers and that those who take a definitive stance - one way or the other - are not looking at all the facts/issues surrounding this very emotional topic.

Question:

If assisted suicide has a benefit, should it be part of ObamaCare?