Doctor Assisted Suicide

[77777777777777777777777777]

You can already kill yourself and it doesn't matter at all what other people think, since when you're dead nothing matters anymore. You're not able to observe anything, so there is literally nothing of relevance to you since you no longer exist

 

The core of OP's question doesn't lie in death and suffering; it's all about human entitlement. From an objective point of view, perhaps even universally subjective, we human beings aren't entitled to anything. Our superior cranial capacity and brain size distinguishes us from other species, that's it

Say doctor assisted suicide became legal tomorrow. What do you think would come out of it? Nothing of value. As said earlier, you can already end your own existence, there's nothing that's physically stopping you from doing so unless you're in an asylum. If anything, it'd simply mean leaders of the free world do not believe human life is to be cherished. How do you think this would be explained to kids? "Grandpa was hurting too much, so he had to die." sounds like a horrible lesson to someone who doesn't even understand the concepts of life and death, it makes life seem very expandable

 

Regardless of your religious or philosophical beliefs, from a scientific point of view when you die there's no heaven, hell or any of that. Your brain asphyxiates, your nervous cells are destroyed and you simply stop existing. That's it, that's you as a person.

If anything, we're more familiar with nothingness than we are with life-- after all, we've been in a state of non-existence for an infinity, and to that non-existence we will return in an objectively speaking very short amount of time-- 120 years from now, even with medical advancement.

 

I might have drifted off-topic a bit, and don't get me wrong, I believe anyone should be able to kill themselves under the necessary circumstances as one shouldn't allow for others to dictate their life's course. I just think it'd have more of a negative effect on society as a whole... and for what, in the end? Mere satisfaction that won't even matter when you do end your life?

[Utsoob]

Yes in certain cases, no in others.

 

Bob's awnser is dumb. Anything is worse than death? Bullshit.

[xG:CL Scootaloo]

My honest opinion on this is that it should be the patient's option. If someone is in immense pain and does not wish to continue living, they should have the opportunity to make that call, but ONLY if it is them making it, either preemptively in the form of a living will, or while they are still coherent enough to request death.

For example, my wife knows this well, but if I am ever found to be in a vegetative state, only living because of machines, I want that plug pulled. I don't want to live comatose attached to a machine in order to breath. That is no way to live. It would be miserable if I couldn't see my kids, run with them in our yard, play with them or spend time with them. It'd be miserable to not be able to talk with my wife or see her face. It'd be miserable to be there, breathing through a tube. If that ever happens to me, I want the plug pulled and I want to die. 

I don't think that any doctor who assists with a suicide request or allows it to happen deserves any punishment. The only time I could see that as a problem is if the patient in question is mentally or physically unfit to make such a decision. But if someone wants to die, they should have that right.

[Corey]

Look at it this way, if you're going to die anyway and live with huge physical pain, possible inability to do anything yourself, walk, talk, feed yourself, etc. You will also have to live the rest of your life not being able to tell your husband or wife that you love them, that you appreciate everything they're doing for you, that you don't want to live anymore, that's a huge mental burden for anybody to carry.

[funkle]

Ive done like 3 different papers on this for college courses. Ive always been for it. Living to suffer is no living at all. If I woke up every day knowing I was going to be fed with a tube down my throat and just the thought of being in such constant agony, I'd want to die. Not to mention besides the pain, the hospital bills add up and no one in your family wants to see you live through something so awful. It should always be up to the patient though (or the family if the patient is totally nonresponsive). 

[♠Derpeh♤]

It should always be up to the patient though (or the family if the patient is totally nonresponsive). 

 

I agree with everything you said only thing which is the "grey area" which I think only you have touched upon is when the patient is unresponsive. It's easy to make a decision when the patient is suffering without any real chance of getting better and prefers being dead as everyone else has pointed out but there arn't many out there who can "decide" for their loved ones to die. Then that brings us into:

- Family members "deciding" the dead of a family member for inheritance

- Family members who are "giving up early"

- Option of patients to be required for prior instructions on what to do if X happens but then no one can ever make a proper instruction until they are actually in that situation. The response to want to die if in coma for X days can change depending on their life, they might have family now, grand kids?...etc

 

One thing I do want to point out is I hate the "moral high ground" those who refuse to allow a suffering patient to die. When a patient is forced to live purely because ideals have been forced upon them so that they have to live days or months in pure agony how can you look down on others who support suicide? That is like trying to justify torturing someone :l

[sulker]

Any amount of suffering is better than death.

Very inspirational.  Please Bob, enlighten those who are suffering from terminal cancer and or painful, debilitating disabilities how to cope with endless, pointless and yet constant pain.  I am sure you must have had to cope with even more pain than they have ever faced.  #TruHero

[funkle]

I agree with everything you said only thing which is the "grey area" which I think only you have touched upon is when the patient is unresponsive. It's easy to make a decision when the patient is suffering without any real chance of getting better and prefers being dead as everyone else has pointed out but there arn't many out there who can "decide" for their loved ones to die. Then that brings us into:

- Family members "deciding" the dead of a family member for inheritance

- Family members who are "giving up early"

- Option of patients to be required for prior instructions on what to do if X happens but then no one can ever make a proper instruction until they are actually in that situation. The response to want to die if in coma for X days can change depending on their life, they might have family now, grand kids?...etc

 

One thing I do want to point out is I hate the "moral high ground" those who refuse to allow a suffering patient to die. When a patient is forced to live purely because ideals have been forced upon them so that they have to live days or months in pure agony how can you look down on others who support suicide? That is like trying to justify torturing someone :l

I agree, there's some issues when it comes to inheritance and giving up early. Depending on how unresponsive they are (brain dead to coma), I'd say a few months at most for severely brain dead patients. The ones who lost multiple senses and mostly likely will never do basic human actions ever again. People in a coma, however, should have a few years before making a decision. There are plenty of people who woke up years later from a coma so there's always that chance. 

As for inheritance and other legal aspects it's really hard to say. Being influenced by gains from someone's death is obviously fucked up and I'd hope close family wouldnt let someone die based off that alone. But I'd say you'd need to have some sort of "majority rules" from multiple family members. That way if one person only wants to money from inheritance, the other family members could rule against that one person. 

[Captain Caboose]

likely another topic will pop up so ill just leave this here still http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/apnewsbreak-canada-assisted-suicide-bill-precludes-tourists-38391238

[=TNW= Maximus™]

I mean, I don't think anyone should ever end their life, only in extreme circumstances.... So wether its slitting your wrists or having a doctor assisted suicide, I think its generally wrong

[=TNW= Maximus™]

My honest opinion on this is that it should be the patient's option. If someone is in immense pain and does not wish to continue living, they should have the opportunity to make that call, but ONLY if it is them making it, either preemptively in the form of a living will, or while they are still coherent enough to request death.

 

For example, my wife knows this well, but if I am ever found to be in a vegetative state, only living because of machines, I want that plug pulled. I don't want to live comatose attached to a machine in order to breath. That is no way to live. It would be miserable if I couldn't see my kids, run with them in our yard, play with them or spend time with them. It'd be miserable to not be able to talk with my wife or see her face. It'd be miserable to be there, breathing through a tube. If that ever happens to me, I want the plug pulled and I want to die. 

 

I don't think that any doctor who assists with a suicide request or allows it to happen deserves any punishment. The only time I could see that as a problem is if the patient in question is mentally or physically unfit to make such a decision. But if someone wants to die, they should have that right.

I agree about the vegetative state. I don't agree with the doctor part

[Tako]

I personally think as long as they give them at least some mental evaluation to determine if they are at least somewhat sane. If the outcome says they are, then the person should have the right to end it.

 

Though this should usually only apply when the person is surely going to die and is in great pain/suffering