Right to die for terminally ill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The option of MAID has been a great relief to family member and a few friends of the family. I'm happy the option was available for them to seek out.

I was beyond angry when it was presented/suggested to another family member because they were about to become a wheelchair user in their 70s. Line crossed. Nothing terminal, they were well aware of MAID and not seeking it.

Now imagine that “option” being presented to a wheelchair user who is poor, uneducated, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe most here don't see the slippery slope. Once you decide whether you want to live is a balance of the pain vs happiness in life and all those who really suffer are eliminated from this earth, them even the mediocre sufferings of today will seem unbearable to you in the future. Because people look to others as sources of comfort and inspiration, once those who live hard lives are gone, the entire center shifts. If you get into an accident today and lose your legs but you see all these examples of people who have persevered and found fulfilling lives following similar accidents, that gives you strength to go on. If all these people offed themselves then you will also likely quickly decide to off yourself were you to suffer that accident.

Shouldn't people get the choice. Using one hardship for a select group of people means nothing. You have no idea the impact illness or mental illness has on others. I've been in my house for over a month now due to a simple cold.

It's about how society values human lives. Sometimes we have to say no because it's important for society to believe life shouldn't be easily disposable. There is a strong argument for the seriously sick and in pain people, but I do not agree that mental health falls into this category so easily. The former is terminal, the latter not always.

Who are you to decide what’s best for others? With serious mental health, they suffer terribly. Get out of our bubble. I don’t want to live homebound for years gasping for air. Most of these people are hidden in homes, nursing homes or other places rs so you never see the, so it’s easy to say tuff it out, but why should they? It’s not like someone like you is going around helping making peoples lives better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe most here don't see the slippery slope. Once you decide whether you want to live is a balance of the pain vs happiness in life and all those who really suffer are eliminated from this earth, them even the mediocre sufferings of today will seem unbearable to you in the future. Because people look to others as sources of comfort and inspiration, once those who live hard lives are gone, the entire center shifts. If you get into an accident today and lose your legs but you see all these examples of people who have persevered and found fulfilling lives following similar accidents, that gives you strength to go on. If all these people offed themselves then you will also likely quickly decide to off yourself were you to suffer that accident.

Shouldn't people get the choice. Using one hardship for a select group of people means nothing. You have no idea the impact illness or mental illness has on others. I've been in my house for over a month now due to a simple cold.

It's about how society values human lives. Sometimes we have to say no because it's important for society to believe life shouldn't be easily disposable. There is a strong argument for the seriously sick and in pain people, but I do not agree that mental health falls into this category so easily. The former is terminal, the latter not always.

Who are you to decide what’s best for others? With serious mental health, they suffer terribly. Get out of our bubble. I don’t want to live homebound for years gasping for air. Most of these people are hidden in homes, nursing homes or other places rs so you never see the, so it’s easy to say tuff it out, but why should they? It’s not like someone like you is going around helping making peoples lives better.

And the next step is to declare the mentally ill incompetent and have someone or a board make the decision of MAID for them. Easy peasy.

[Anonymous]

"But in the world according to Garp, we are all terminal cases."

[Anonymous]

We certainly should pass something similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe most here don't see the slippery slope. Once you decide whether you want to live is a balance of the pain vs happiness in life and all those who really suffer are eliminated from this earth, them even the mediocre sufferings of today will seem unbearable to you in the future. Because people look to others as sources of comfort and inspiration, once those who live hard lives are gone, the entire center shifts. If you get into an accident today and lose your legs but you see all these examples of people who have persevered and found fulfilling lives following similar accidents, that gives you strength to go on. If all these people offed themselves then you will also likely quickly decide to off yourself were you to suffer that accident.

Shouldn't people get the choice. Using one hardship for a select group of people means nothing. You have no idea the impact illness or mental illness has on others. I've been in my house for over a month now due to a simple cold.

It's about how society values human lives. Sometimes we have to say no because it's important for society to believe life shouldn't be easily disposable. There is a strong argument for the seriously sick and in pain people, but I do not agree that mental health falls into this category so easily. The former is terminal, the latter not always.

Who are you to decide what’s best for others? With serious mental health, they suffer terribly. Get out of our bubble. I don’t want to live homebound for years gasping for air. Most of these people are hidden in homes, nursing homes or other places rs so you never see the, so it’s easy to say tuff it out, but why should they? It’s not like someone like you is going around helping making peoples lives better.

DP but we as a collective decide what is good for others (society) all the time. We decide there are certain lines we do not cross. We decide that the ends do not justify the means. We decide the message we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren about the meaning and worth of human life. We decide how to set an example to them about how to confront suffering.

So yes, while there are many specific cases where many people can agree to allow euthanasia, I hope it never becomes actually legal or widespread. You can find examples to support basically any position on the planet, so while I sympathize with the very real stories and situations people here have brought forth, I do not believe the are grounds for public policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason MAID is used and preferred largely by wealthy white men in places where it is allowed. They are the only ones that can have the confidence that they’ll control the process.

Uh, cite please. I know of two elderly WOMEN who have availed themselves of MAID due to debilitating conditions. Believe me, they were in control of the process.

Look at the published numbers.

Wealthy, privileged white women are the second most common, on average.

MAID is utilized primarily by those who do not have to fear coercion or discrimination by the medical establishment.

DP here. All this tells me is that is needs to be more widely available and doctors need to talk about it.

DP. And how do you propose to do this ethically? How do you propose to have healthcare providers do this who are part of a medical system that has systematically and widely discriminated against poor, non-white, and/or uneducated patients and that has discarded them and treated them badly their whole lives? How do you think they can possibly trust the medical system at this critical juncture when they have a lifetime of extremely reasonable skepticism?

I’m the Canadian PP who posted above and there are already serious issues in Canada with privileged and educated providers suggesting euthanasia to people whose greatest problem appears to be that they are poor, or have unstable housing. This is not a theoretical issue; this is happening now.

What I see in Canada is that the wealthy and privileged who want access to this in their own lives don’t particularly care if the system coerces poor and vulnerable people into ending their own lives, so long as those privileged people retain that access for when they want it. They seem to consider that a few eggs broken to make an omelette. To me, that is an utterly immoral position.

Well if you are poor and unhoused is it better to suffer and die under an overpass or die warm and comfy and cozy. If society isn’t going to provide for these people, the least we could do is let the ones who want to go have a nice exit.

Let’s also not forget the trauma to family members and first responders when people who have no other choice put a gun in their mouth.

Yikes. Yeah, maybe you had better stay out of this discussion. You are entirely irrational at best, and a eugenist at worst.

I’m a realist. We aren’t in any capacity willing and in some cases able to care for many of the homeless and mentally ill. I’m not saying we shouldn’t but if we aren’t gonna, we can at least give people choices. Seems to me like you are comfortable with people suffering and dying slowly in the streets. You must be Catholic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason MAID is used and preferred largely by wealthy white men in places where it is allowed. They are the only ones that can have the confidence that they’ll control the process.

Uh, cite please. I know of two elderly WOMEN who have availed themselves of MAID due to debilitating conditions. Believe me, they were in control of the process.

Look at the published numbers.

Wealthy, privileged white women are the second most common, on average.

MAID is utilized primarily by those who do not have to fear coercion or discrimination by the medical establishment.

DP here. All this tells me is that is needs to be more widely available and doctors need to talk about it.

DP. And how do you propose to do this ethically? How do you propose to have healthcare providers do this who are part of a medical system that has systematically and widely discriminated against poor, non-white, and/or uneducated patients and that has discarded them and treated them badly their whole lives? How do you think they can possibly trust the medical system at this critical juncture when they have a lifetime of extremely reasonable skepticism?

I’m the Canadian PP who posted above and there are already serious issues in Canada with privileged and educated providers suggesting euthanasia to people whose greatest problem appears to be that they are poor, or have unstable housing. This is not a theoretical issue; this is happening now.

What I see in Canada is that the wealthy and privileged who want access to this in their own lives don’t particularly care if the system coerces poor and vulnerable people into ending their own lives, so long as those privileged people retain that access for when they want it. They seem to consider that a few eggs broken to make an omelette. To me, that is an utterly immoral position.

Well if you are poor and unhoused is it better to suffer and die under an overpass or die warm and comfy and cozy. If society isn’t going to provide for these people, the least we could do is let the ones who want to go have a nice exit.

Let’s also not forget the trauma to family members and first responders when people who have no other choice put a gun in their mouth.

Yikes. Yeah, maybe you had better stay out of this discussion. You are entirely irrational at best, and a eugenist at worst.

I’m a realist. We aren’t in any capacity willing and in some cases able to care for many of the homeless and mentally ill. I’m not saying we shouldn’t but if we aren’t gonna, we can at least give people choices. Seems to me like you are comfortable with people suffering and dying slowly in the streets. You must be Catholic.

DP. I support involuntary institutionalization and treatment. Homelessness is not a lifestyle choice despite what people want you to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason MAID is used and preferred largely by wealthy white men in places where it is allowed. They are the only ones that can have the confidence that they’ll control the process.

Uh, cite please. I know of two elderly WOMEN who have availed themselves of MAID due to debilitating conditions. Believe me, they were in control of the process.

Look at the published numbers.

Wealthy, privileged white women are the second most common, on average.

MAID is utilized primarily by those who do not have to fear coercion or discrimination by the medical establishment.

DP here. All this tells me is that is needs to be more widely available and doctors need to talk about it.

DP. And how do you propose to do this ethically? How do you propose to have healthcare providers do this who are part of a medical system that has systematically and widely discriminated against poor, non-white, and/or uneducated patients and that has discarded them and treated them badly their whole lives? How do you think they can possibly trust the medical system at this critical juncture when they have a lifetime of extremely reasonable skepticism?

I’m the Canadian PP who posted above and there are already serious issues in Canada with privileged and educated providers suggesting euthanasia to people whose greatest problem appears to be that they are poor, or have unstable housing. This is not a theoretical issue; this is happening now.

What I see in Canada is that the wealthy and privileged who want access to this in their own lives don’t particularly care if the system coerces poor and vulnerable people into ending their own lives, so long as those privileged people retain that access for when they want it. They seem to consider that a few eggs broken to make an omelette. To me, that is an utterly immoral position.

Well if you are poor and unhoused is it better to suffer and die under an overpass or die warm and comfy and cozy. If society isn’t going to provide for these people, the least we could do is let the ones who want to go have a nice exit.

Let’s also not forget the trauma to family members and first responders when people who have no other choice put a gun in their mouth.

Yikes. Yeah, maybe you had better stay out of this discussion. You are entirely irrational at best, and a eugenist at worst.

I’m a realist. We aren’t in any capacity willing and in some cases able to care for many of the homeless and mentally ill. I’m not saying we shouldn’t but if we aren’t gonna, we can at least give people choices. Seems to me like you are comfortable with people suffering and dying slowly in the streets. You must be Catholic.

So you are a bigot and a eugenicist. Nice combo.

I’m a liberal atheist but I would convert to conservative Catholicism before I allied myself with someone like you. It’s shocking to see we are at the “No, killing the homeless is good, actually” stage of DCUM posters advocating for euthanasia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can think of nothing more satisfying for a person with a terminal illness than sitting in a glass-paneled room overlooking the Swiss Alps, taking medication, and just falling into an eternal sleep.

I'd take my family & close friends, have a few days of good meals and wine and enjoyable conversation (to the extent this is physically possible), and then exit the earth.

How is this less preferrable than suffering for months or years in a hospital or some under-staffed memory care center?

If you can travel, eat meals, drink wine and have a conversation, you shouldn’t be dying. And I don’t think you would want to. I think dying even a day too soon is selfish and will leave your loved ones in terrible pain and possibly regrets and a feeling of guilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can think of nothing more satisfying for a person with a terminal illness than sitting in a glass-paneled room overlooking the Swiss Alps, taking medication, and just falling into an eternal sleep.

I'd take my family & close friends, have a few days of good meals and wine and enjoyable conversation (to the extent this is physically possible), and then exit the earth.

How is this less preferrable than suffering for months or years in a hospital or some under-staffed memory care center?

This is such a rich, privileged outlook. My God. Nearly all people can’t afford to fly to Switzerland to die like this. They are in horrible nursing homes in the US, with bad insurance and low regulation.

Isn't that all the more reason that the right to die should be available to all? So it's not the people with means who can afford to die in a humane manner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can think of nothing more satisfying for a person with a terminal illness than sitting in a glass-paneled room overlooking the Swiss Alps, taking medication, and just falling into an eternal sleep.

I'd take my family & close friends, have a few days of good meals and wine and enjoyable conversation (to the extent this is physically possible), and then exit the earth.

How is this less preferrable than suffering for months or years in a hospital or some under-staffed memory care center?

If you can travel, eat meals, drink wine and have a conversation, you shouldn’t be dying. And I don’t think you would want to. I think dying even a day too soon is selfish and will leave your loved ones in terrible pain and possibly regrets and a feeling of guilt.

You’ve clearly not watched someone suffer. Stay blessed. You don’t force someone to stay alive for you. How about the terrible pain the person choosing to die is in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can think of nothing more satisfying for a person with a terminal illness than sitting in a glass-paneled room overlooking the Swiss Alps, taking medication, and just falling into an eternal sleep.

I'd take my family & close friends, have a few days of good meals and wine and enjoyable conversation (to the extent this is physically possible), and then exit the earth.

How is this less preferrable than suffering for months or years in a hospital or some under-staffed memory care center?

If you can travel, eat meals, drink wine and have a conversation, you shouldn’t be dying. And I don’t think you would want to. I think dying even a day too soon is selfish and will leave your loved ones in terrible pain and possibly regrets and a feeling of guilt.

You’ve clearly not watched someone suffer. Stay blessed. You don’t force someone to stay alive for you. How about the terrible pain the person choosing to die is in?

Let's say we withhold pain medication and then give them a choice of living with the pain or choosing to die? Was that really a choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason MAID is used and preferred largely by wealthy white men in places where it is allowed. They are the only ones that can have the confidence that they’ll control the process.

Uh, cite please. I know of two elderly WOMEN who have availed themselves of MAID due to debilitating conditions. Believe me, they were in control of the process.

Look at the published numbers.

Wealthy, privileged white women are the second most common, on average.

MAID is utilized primarily by those who do not have to fear coercion or discrimination by the medical establishment.

DP here. All this tells me is that is needs to be more widely available and doctors need to talk about it.

DP. And how do you propose to do this ethically? How do you propose to have healthcare providers do this who are part of a medical system that has systematically and widely discriminated against poor, non-white, and/or uneducated patients and that has discarded them and treated them badly their whole lives? How do you think they can possibly trust the medical system at this critical juncture when they have a lifetime of extremely reasonable skepticism?

I’m the Canadian PP who posted above and there are already serious issues in Canada with privileged and educated providers suggesting euthanasia to people whose greatest problem appears to be that they are poor, or have unstable housing. This is not a theoretical issue; this is happening now.

What I see in Canada is that the wealthy and privileged who want access to this in their own lives don’t particularly care if the system coerces poor and vulnerable people into ending their own lives, so long as those privileged people retain that access for when they want it. They seem to consider that a few eggs broken to make an omelette. To me, that is an utterly immoral position.

Well if you are poor and unhoused is it better to suffer and die under an overpass or die warm and comfy and cozy. If society isn’t going to provide for these people, the least we could do is let the ones who want to go have a nice exit.

Let’s also not forget the trauma to family members and first responders when people who have no other choice put a gun in their mouth.

Yikes. Yeah, maybe you had better stay out of this discussion. You are entirely irrational at best, and a eugenist at worst.

I’m a realist. We aren’t in any capacity willing and in some cases able to care for many of the homeless and mentally ill. I’m not saying we shouldn’t but if we aren’t gonna, we can at least give people choices. Seems to me like you are comfortable with people suffering and dying slowly in the streets. You must be Catholic.

So you are a bigot and a eugenicist. Nice combo.

I’m a liberal atheist but I would convert to conservative Catholicism before I allied myself with someone like you. It’s shocking to see we are at the “No, killing the homeless is good, actually” stage of DCUM posters advocating for euthanasia.

You extrapolating. I’m not advocating rounding them up and you know that. I’m advocating for them the have agency. If they want to go they should be allowed to. Everyone should have that option. If you’ve been struggling with mental illness all your life and you are done, you should be able to go. Allowing people to suffer because of an ideal isn’t noble, it is cruel. I know it’s fun for you to use words like eugenics but clearly you don’t understand it very well. Suffering is horrible and ugly. If we cannot cure someone’s suffering and they don’t want to endure it anymore then we should respect them and their humanity enough to allow them peace and dignity in their exit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason MAID is used and preferred largely by wealthy white men in places where it is allowed. They are the only ones that can have the confidence that they’ll control the process.

Uh, cite please. I know of two elderly WOMEN who have availed themselves of MAID due to debilitating conditions. Believe me, they were in control of the process.

Look at the published numbers.

Wealthy, privileged white women are the second most common, on average.

MAID is utilized primarily by those who do not have to fear coercion or discrimination by the medical establishment.

DP here. All this tells me is that is needs to be more widely available and doctors need to talk about it.

DP. And how do you propose to do this ethically? How do you propose to have healthcare providers do this who are part of a medical system that has systematically and widely discriminated against poor, non-white, and/or uneducated patients and that has discarded them and treated them badly their whole lives? How do you think they can possibly trust the medical system at this critical juncture when they have a lifetime of extremely reasonable skepticism?

I’m the Canadian PP who posted above and there are already serious issues in Canada with privileged and educated providers suggesting euthanasia to people whose greatest problem appears to be that they are poor, or have unstable housing. This is not a theoretical issue; this is happening now.

What I see in Canada is that the wealthy and privileged who want access to this in their own lives don’t particularly care if the system coerces poor and vulnerable people into ending their own lives, so long as those privileged people retain that access for when they want it. They seem to consider that a few eggs broken to make an omelette. To me, that is an utterly immoral position.

Well if you are poor and unhoused is it better to suffer and die under an overpass or die warm and comfy and cozy. If society isn’t going to provide for these people, the least we could do is let the ones who want to go have a nice exit.

Let’s also not forget the trauma to family members and first responders when people who have no other choice put a gun in their mouth.

Yikes. Yeah, maybe you had better stay out of this discussion. You are entirely irrational at best, and a eugenist at worst.

I’m a realist. We aren’t in any capacity willing and in some cases able to care for many of the homeless and mentally ill. I’m not saying we shouldn’t but if we aren’t gonna, we can at least give people choices. Seems to me like you are comfortable with people suffering and dying slowly in the streets. You must be Catholic.

So you are a bigot and a eugenicist. Nice combo.

I’m a liberal atheist but I would convert to conservative Catholicism before I allied myself with someone like you. It’s shocking to see we are at the “No, killing the homeless is good, actually” stage of DCUM posters advocating for euthanasia.

You extrapolating. I’m not advocating rounding them up and you know that. I’m advocating for them the have agency. If they want to go they should be allowed to. Everyone should have that option. If you’ve been struggling with mental illness all your life and you are done, you should be able to go. Allowing people to suffer because of an ideal isn’t noble, it is cruel. I know it’s fun for you to use words like eugenics but clearly you don’t understand it very well. Suffering is horrible and ugly. If we cannot cure someone’s suffering and they don’t want to endure it anymore then we should respect them and their humanity enough to allow them peace and dignity in their exit.

DP. If we can't cure someone's mental illness, they can't be mentally competent. So we would appoint someone to handle their affairs, or a relative would come forward to ask for PoA. Since continued care for someone incurable is a waste of resources, what do you think will happen?