In my opinion that person should be then kept alive. It should be done with consent. If the person changes their mind at any stage they should be allowed to.
B.C. judge makes assisted-suicide legal
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
In my opinion that person should be then kept alive. It should be done with consent. If the person changes their mind at any stage they should be allowed to.
This could turn into a very "slippery slope". There is no doubt SOME cases warrant it. An elderly person with A.L.S. comes close to fitting the criteria, as does an octogenian who has several organs shutting down. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. Do we accept that every doctor's knowledge is 100%? Should a relatively young person who is simply tired of on going operations and procedures qualify? It's a line once crossed there is no coming back. :smile:
I know it is not a cure all. But to take some personable responsibility is my take, hopefully one is not put in a position of being unable to due to sudden circumstances. In that case i have a DNR in my will. Now i may have to rethink some due to the new guidelines.
My brother was unlucky and lucky 10 years ago. He suffered from diabetes and looming kidney failure, he also had lost a leg to the diabetes the year before. In constant pain and fed up he elected to go on dialysis, then after one treatment refused further. They gave him 2 weeks and kept him full of morphine as he faded away.
Although devastated i very much respected his choice.
Well a DNR and euthansia are two very different things. And if I'm not mistaken even having a DNR on file will not prevent resuscitation if someone 'panics' and calls an ambulance. I believe they are required to try to revive you. At least, that's what I've been told. Perhaps someone else knows more about it.
At any rate, I think this should be, and more than likely will be, the exception rather than the rule. I don't think this means everyone is going to rush out and get their spouse or sibling or best friend to help them off themselves. This is an excellent moment to, in fact, create legislation that allows for that option after all other options have been exhausted, or as a medically reasonable choice, and allocate just who may perform these services. Obviously the best choice would be a medical practitioner of some kind.
I'm not sure that stockpiling sleep pills and then leaving your body for the kids or your spouse to find is any better of a choice than having them have to make that decision in hospital. In fact it's probably worse.
This would be where living wills come into play.
But I do take your point as far as personal responsibility goes. The last thing we want to do is leave this open ended, we need to have appropriate legislation so we have the guidelines in place for how this can and will be done.
That is so sad, I have a nephew now in his early 30s who has had type 1 diabetes since age 8. Luckily he is doing well as he follows the prescribed routine to the letter. It is just such a bastard of a disease and sadly the current generation just isn't taking it seriously enough............if they'd only exercise more and be fussier about what they eat!
As it should be, we just can't have random employees, making life ending decisions if they don't have all the facts. :smile:
I guess it will not matter what the decision is, there will be acrimony. Leaving it in the hands of doctors, probably the majority of which will be conflicted, will not solve the problem.
I think i will just do my own thing and stay away from the spotlight as i have never craved attention enough to be public about it and drag my family along to one more hurrah.
Will the long term implications include hired legal assassins? Will they be anonymous? Some will not and will revel in the notoriety like youtube attention wh*res. At one time "hangman" was mostly anonymous due to public perception, those days are gone.
From the time we were young kids my brother had a powerful craving for sweets. In those days (late 50's early 60's) my mother would warn us that we could get "sugar diabetes" if we overdid it.
I remember too well, we would go Moose hunting for a couple days with the usual grub sacks, he would however, buy 10-12 chocolate bars and a dozen Cokes (they were 10-15 cents in those days), i would buy 2-3 as i also had and have a sweet tooth, not as bad as him, but was perhaps luckier when the genes were mixed. He was diagnosed at age 33, had a triple bypass at age 37 and passed at age 56, the only one in the family to suffer from it, but also the only one to have a terrible diet and remain overweight.
I think i will just do my own thing and stay away from the spotlight as i have never craved attention enough to be public about it and drag my family along to one more hurrah.
Will the long term implications include hired legal assassins? Will they be anonymous? Some will not and will revel in the notoriety like youtube attention wh*res. At one time "hangman" was mostly anonymous due to public perception, those days are gone.
From the time we were young kids my brother had a powerful craving for sweets. In those days (late 50's early 60's) my mother would warn us that we could get "sugar diabetes" if we overdid it.
I remember too well, we would go Moose hunting for a couple days with the usual grub sacks, he would however, buy 10-12 chocolate bars and a dozen Cokes (they were 10-15 cents in those days), i would buy 2-3 as i also had and have a sweet tooth, not as bad as him, but was perhaps luckier when the genes were mixed. He was diagnosed at age 33, had a triple bypass at age 37 and passed at age 56, the only one in the family to suffer from it, but also the only one to have a terrible diet and remain overweight.