The Right to Die -Case in BC courts now

[Ocean Breeze]

BC Woman contests the "right to die" laws.

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/clip567532#clip567532

Thoughts ???

IMHO.......I think that each case needs individual assessment and if the situation meets a certain criteria , Folks should have that right.

There are many situations where prolonging the suffering is inhumane.

Anyone that has worked in a health care setting will have had exposure to such situations and seen the horrors that some suffer . The quality of life is a major consideration here too.

Various cultures have different vews on this.

 

[Goober]

BC Woman contests the "right to die" laws.

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/clip567532#clip567532

Thoughts ???

IMHO.......I think that each case needs individual assessment and if the situation meets a certain criteria , Folks should have that right.

There are many situations where prolonging the suffering is inhumane.

Anyone that has worked in a health care setting will have had exposure to such situations and seen the horrors that some suffer . The quality of life is a major consideration here too.

Various cultures have different vews on this.

Poorly researched OP - You should do some research - post the info - Study how it has progressed in Holland for example - beyond what was intended.

Posting headlines is so - well enough said.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Poorly researched OP - You should do some research - post the info - Study how it has progressed in Holland for example - beyond what was intended.

Posting headlines is so - well enough said.

You have avoided commenting on the topic. Is there a reason for that?? The item is a current news item in BC. It is not a research article and that is not the intention of the thread.

as far as posting headlines.......followed by the link.......what is YOUR problem with that??

now before we derail this completely.........back to topic. Are folks in favor or not with modifying the laws so people can have the right to die under certain circumstances.

(seems many have no problem sending young and healthy people to be killed in wars of CHOICE (not necessity).....and then calling them heros. The whole death issue is a touchy one and yet no one can avoid it- death and dying .)

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I support a terminally ill's person's right to choose the time and place of their own passing. I do think their wishes need to be legally documented such that the person assisting will not be charged with homicide.

I believe should a person be in a permanent veggie state, they or their caregiver/next-of-kin or living will should have the right to choose to end their life .

In all other cases, no. Although laws against suicide are pointless but certainly nobody could legally help someone commit suicide.

 

[Goober]

I support a terminally ill's person's right to choose the time and place of their own passing. I do think their wishes need to be legally documented such that the person assisting will not be charged with homicide.

I believe should a person be in a permanent veggie state, they or their caregiver/next-of-kin or living will should have the right to choose to end their life .

In all other cases, no. Although laws against suicide are pointless but certainly nobody could legally help someone commit suicide.

Check Holland and what has transpired since this became law.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

I support a terminally ill's person's right to choose the time and place of their own passing. I do think their wishes need to be legally documented such that the person assisting will not be charged with homicide.

I believe should a person be in a permanent veggie state, they or their caregiver/next-of-kin or living will should have the right to choose to end their life .

In all other cases, no. Although laws against suicide are pointless but certainly nobody could legally help someone commit suicide.

well stated. Seems that in today's era a living will is paramount. as it can prevent confusion , (and dissention ) at a terminally ill situatoin )

I also think it is stupid to make suicide "illegal". Suicidal thoughts, are part of a mental disorder. An act is a product of a serious psychological condition. Some depressive states are so chronic and so incapacitating /debilitating they don't respond to treatment.

Check Holland and what has transpired since this became law.

why not provide a link to an article that describes the situation. Thank you. Seems that it all depends on the type of perimeters are set in place defining when such a decision can be taken.

 

[taxslave]

It is not very often that the BCCLA is on the right side of anything but this time I think they are. People should have the right to terminate their own life instead of being a guinea pig for the medical establishment. Your wishes should be stated clearly in your will long before you are ill. As for families getting to make that choice I'm not so sure without court approval of some kind since their are a lot of gold diggers out there that are wetting their pants at the thought of inheriting a bundle.
I stated in my will that I am not to be kept alive by artificial means if there is no hope of recovery. Also donated my body to science so they can slice and dice all they want after I am gone. Any leftovers to be dumped into the ocean.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

I stated in my will that I am not to be kept alive by artificial means if there is no hope of recovery. Also donated my body to science so they can slice and dice all they want after I am gone. Any leftovers to be dumped into the ocean.

Me too. almost to the word. (neglected to include feeding the fishes....8O

In addition to a LEGAL LIVING WILL. (with all relavent people having a copy)

 

[Goober]

well stated. Seems that in today's era a living will is paramount. as it can prevent confusion , (and dissention ) at a terminally ill situatoin )

I also think it is stupid to make suicide "illegal". Suicidal thoughts, are part of a mental disorder. An act is a product of a serious psychological condition.



why not provide a link to an article that describes the situation. Thank you. Seems that it all depends on the type of perimeters are set in place defining when such a decision can be taken.

Lets get a few things straight from the get go

1 - I do my research. I have also done this for you in the past.

2 - There is a substantial amount of info on the net.

3 - I only gave a tad of info - Did you bother to check it - Or did you decide to delegate.

4 - When I was in the Army some Officers would try to dump things on me to get her done as they say - I would at times decline - Yes I had the gumption to do that - Rascally bastard I am.

5- Your research of OPs would not be what I would expect from a good but average Corporal.

6 - So get at it Private and when you research an OP properly I and I alone will then decide if you move up to Corporal. Posting a headline and nothing else on such a controversial topic is utter BS.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Lets get a few things straight from the get go

1 - I do my research. I have also done this for you in the past.

2 - There is a substantial amount of info on the net.

3 - I only gave a tad of info - Did you bother to check it - Or did you decide to delegate.

4 - When I was in the Army some Officers would try to dump things on me to get her done as they say - I would at times decline - Yes I had the gumption to do that - Rascally bastard I am.

5- Your research of OPs would not be what I would expect from a good but average Corporal.

6 - So get at it Private and when you research an OP properly I and I alone will then decide if you move up to Corporal. Posting a headline and nothing else on such a controversial topic is utter BS.

You are most certainly entitled to your opinion. When I offer up a suggested item.....I include a link so folks can get started. Each to his own.

This is an item about the law in Holland.

BBC News | EUROPE | Dutch legalise euthanasia

I post it as it indicates some of the criteria to satisfy legal requirements.

Only a reference.......as not directly related to the case in BC.

 

[VanIsle]

I watched them discussing this on the news tonight. It was really thought provoking. My husband and I also have a "living will" to spare our sons the difficulty of making that choice. But - there was a doctor speaking and what he said made good sense. There were also protesters there to protect the aging population. Gold diggers is what it's all about but while it was not stated, I suspect it's also about people no longer wanting to take the time nor spend the money to care for their aging parents. People quickly forget that they too will one day grow old. The doctor's fear was that there would be far too many deaths simply because people would find it an easy means to an end for too many reasons. He rightly felt that family members (or well meaning friends) would talk people into taking their own lives. There was also a man who was diagnosed with a very large brain tumour while in Afghanistan and had it removed. He was well for a year after that but his cancer returned. I don't remember at which point it was but he said that had the option to kill himself been there he would have used it. He was happy it was not an option. Even though his cancer returned, a month after his diagnosis, a new medicine came on the market that has completely turned his life around to one where he went from looking at a short life to a whole new life. He appears as healthy as can be and talks of how, had that not happened, he would have used the option to kill himself and he's only in his 40's. He stressed again how easy it would have been to use it if it had been available to him and how happy he is it was not. Naturally, not everyone is going to have such a happy ending but his point was that there is hope out there. I think on a personal level, it gives too many people the ability to commit murder. Right now they are asking for doctor assisted suicide. Everything changes and how long will it take before it's just "assisted" suicide without the word doctor in front? My son and I have spoken about this and he has not seen the news I saw. I think it would give him a different outlook on it. He sees it as a "how can you not do something to help" situation. He would not do the act but feels he would be obligated to help provide the means for the person to assist themselves. I feel none of us has the right to put a friend or a family member in that position.

 

[Omicron]

Deep, deep issue.

Is anyone on this forum going to believe me if I were to say I don't have a clear opinion on the subject? I didn't think so, but i don't.

All I can do is toss in a couple things as consideration... maybe fuel to the fire... maybe a wet blanket... I don't know, but here goes:

1) I know someone who was a rabid pro-abortionist. Then she found out that she was conceived by accident, and that if it had been legal at the time, she would have been aborted. Her parents raised her dutifully in a Christian home, so she didn't experience the trauma some unwanted kids go through. In fact, her childhood was perfectly normal, and her parents split the day after she turned 18. Now she doesn't know what to think about the abortion issue.

What's the point? The point is, I also know people who were in such dire straits that they would have killed themselves if it had been easy enough. They didn't because they didn't know how to do it effortlessly, painlessly, and legally. Now they are okay... somehow they climbed out of their crisis to re-achieve a stable existence, such that now they are happy to be alive, but they wouldn't be here today if it had been easy to kill one's self.

2) Suppose we had the technology to keep a brain alive in a tank, with the nerve-sensors attached to wires in order to feed an artificial reality into that brain.

Technically, it would be possible to have the mind generated by that brain feel like it is living a normal life, or maybe even in heaven. Brains are made of post-mitotic cells, so they can live almost forever. It's when something goes wrong with the body that brains die.

If we have the technology, do we have a moral duty to keep a brain, with its mind, alive when the body can no longer support it?

 

[bluebyrd35]

Quote: If we have the technology, do we have a moral duty to keep a brain, with its mind, alive when the body can no longer support it?

..No, we do not. There is a difference between withholding heroic measures to keeping someone alive and deliberately administering death.

Very often in a pain filled existence, the medications to relieve the pain become ineffective and it is a choice of leaving the person in intolerable pain or upping the dosage, even though it could perhaps become an overdose.

There are medical protocols that are followed in cases of what appears to be a vegetative state. A certain time limit is established to allow the brain to recover from an injury (accidental or stroke) and when the time expires, the patient is taken off life support. The body takes over or doesn't. In the meantime, all efforts go to minimizing the damage.

There is, where I live palliative care. While a patient is perfectly capable of stating their wishes, it is offered in cases where a long and painful death is inevitable,, ie generalized cancer, this ensures, as much as possible a pain free and comfortable end to life within comfortable surroundings. As long as the patient is capable of choosing, this option is open.

 

[VanIsle]

Yes but to a lessor degree - when a person is dying in a hospital environment, I think we all know there is a kind of assisted suicide. When you hear that a person is getting stronger and stronger doses of morphine, you know that person is passing within hours. That is a hospital's way of "assisting". We also know that isn't done until a person is already down to a couple of days. I think the fear some doctors have is of families making the elderly feel like they are a nuisance and that their own family wants them gone so they will ask to die. Or when doctor assisted suicide just becomes assisted suicide it could easily turn to legal murder.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Quote: If we have the technology, do we have a moral duty to keep a brain, with its mind, alive when the body can no longer support it?

No we don't. Also, it is the brain that supports the body functions. Without the brain......as in severe/massive brain damage the body no longer functions and literally becomes "useless".

Seems that each situation must be assessed on an individual basis.......and must include mainly..the patient''s wishes ( imperative to have a living will or someone in the family aware of the patients wishes) It is imperative to discuss this issue while a person is fully aware and fully functional....so a reasonable decision can be made for the person in question. Cultural factors need to be considered too. (some rituals etc are very important to people and those must be respected )

the fact is : death is a part of the life cycle. Nothing escapes it. It is not something to be afraid of ......even if "fear of the unknown" factors in for some. Accepting it as a fact of life and accepting the fact that death with dignity is more important than other considerations. Most people are so afraid of doing something they will feel guilty about or will be looked down on by others, they handicap themselves and forget the person in question and HIS/Her needs and wishes. All that should matter is the persons dying wishes.

It might well be that our own culture needs to re evaluate our views about the dying experience. Don't think there is one answer.....as each case must be considered on its own merits.

 

[WLDB]

If I was dying I'd like the option available. If a person wants to live, let them live. If they want to die, let them die.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

If I was dying I'd like the option available. If a person wants to live, let them live. If they want to die, let them die.

Indeed.

 

[VanIsle]

If I was dying I'd like the option available. If a person wants to live, let them live. If they want to die, let them die.

I completely agree with you as long as it's a decision made by you, for you. If your decision is made based on what you think others want you to do - you shouldn't do it.
When a family member was dying, the doctors asked his wife if she wanted to keep him on life support. He obiviously did not have a living will. I doubt it was something they ever talked about and it is a subject that all couples should talk about. If you can't talk about it - write it down. The doctors helped her form her answer without pressure by asking her one simple question. They asked if her husband preferred quality over quantity of life. She agreed to un-plug him.
I say that we need living wills because it helps to remove the guilt your loved ones have. She took several years (and I'm not sure she's okay with it even yet) to get over that decision because to this day, she feels like she killed her husband. He had a burst embolism in his brain. He was never going to get well or even wake up. She gave the right answer.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

I completely agree with you as long as it's a decision made by you, for you. If your decision is made based on what you think others want you to do - you shouldn't do it.
When a family member was dying, the doctors asked his wife if she wanted to keep him on life support. He obiviously did not have a living will. I doubt it was something they ever talked about and it is a subject that all couples should talk about. If you can't talk about it - write it down. The doctors helped her form her answer without pressure by asking her one simple question. They asked if her husband preferred quality over quantity of life. She agreed to un-plug him.
I say that we need living wills because it helps to remove the guilt your loved ones have. She took several years (and I'm not sure she's okay with it even yet) to get over that decision because to this day, she feels like she killed her husband. He had a burst embolism in his brain. He was never going to get well or even wake up. She gave the right answer.

she most definately did make the right decision. The other question that might be asked is : If it was YOU.....what would you want your spouse to do to facilitate a dignified departure . The quality of life question is excellent too.

She has no need to feel guilt. One would feel more guilty if one chose to extend that kind of situation because of ones own feelings. As you say.........the only person that matters here is the one this decision affects. Would have he liked to be kept alive this way with no hope of recovery and just to make the surivivors avoid their own feelings. When folks feel that kind of guilt , they are thinking of themselves and not the one that is no longer living a true life and exists in a vegetative state or close to it.

that might sound a tad harsh.....but that is also a fact. One might reconcile this with the knowledge that they did the very best for their loved one and took responsibility for the person to die with a dignity that other forms of death don't allow. ( car crashes, shooting victims etc )

No one ever stated this was "easy" ......for anyone. Folks find it hard to even discuss this phase of their life...even though it is all a part of the living / passing experience. What is amazing is that when they do....the whole cloud of death seems less intimidating and a certain form of peace comes with "taking care of the most critical part of life's business. Just knowing that loved ones know what to do and will take care of it responsibly , caringly , respectfully is a big relief for a person.

On this subject: it is also wise to have this discussion prior any major surgery ......for obvious reasons.

 

[JLM]

I completely agree with you as long as it's a decision made by you, for you. If your decision is made based on what you think others want you to do - you shouldn't do it.
When a family member was dying, the doctors asked his wife if she wanted to keep him on life support. He obiviously did not have a living will. I doubt it was something they ever talked about and it is a subject that all couples should talk about. If you can't talk about it - write it down. The doctors helped her form her answer without pressure by asking her one simple question. They asked if her husband preferred quality over quantity of life. She agreed to un-plug him.
I say that we need living wills because it helps to remove the guilt your loved ones have. She took several years (and I'm not sure she's okay with it even yet) to get over that decision because to this day, she feels like she killed her husband. He had a burst embolism in his brain. He was never going to get well or even wake up. She gave the right answer.

Yep, if there is zero chance of recovery then by all means the plug should be pulled. If a person's heirs are a bunch of greedy bastards, then the subject while able and of sane mind should stipulate the proceeds of the will shall be held in obeyance for 10 years, with the exception of the spouse.