Your thoughts about "medical suicide assistance" law

[Noctosphere]

Hello
Today I bring a new subject to debate of : Medical suicide assistance (IDK if it's the right term though)
In short, Quebec voted a law few years ago about it
So people with uncurable diseases causing them pain and a future death can ask for suicide assistance
That way, that sick person can say good bye to his family and leave them together

Trudeau wants to make this law federal so that it applies to the whole country

Also, there are some debate so that impotent people who are just a weight to their family can also get it
Like, if that person have zero life quality, like people without any limbs and who can't adapt
Or tetraplegic people, you know, such condition that makes life too hard
And even a way so that you can sign something for future, so that if you become unable to make this decision, like if you get advanced Alzeihmer, someone close to you can make this decision for you

Personally, I agree with all these ideas
if life is just purely a pain, maybe ending it would be the solution
My mom even told us, to me and my sistra, that if she becomes impotent and have no life quality
She would prefer call for medical suicide assistance instead of being a weight to us

 

[Carnelian]

Québec should be independant to be honest.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Suicide should be legal for everyone.

 

[kuwanger]

Also, there are some debate so that impotent people who are just a weight to their family can also get it

There's an evil side to this. In the past and even today, people who are older are deemed mentally incompetent or otherwise incapable of caring for themselves and are sent away because family deems them a burden. Sometimes it's done for precisely that selfish reason. Sometimes it's done out of greed to acquire and control their assets. Sometimes it's done out a feeling that one is incapable of caring for that person.

My point isn't to argue against assisted suicide or the legality of suicide--I agree with Carnelian* that suicide should be legal for everyone**. I just think it's something which should be well considered to hopefully include enough documentation and safeguards to prevent it being used as a tool, as has happened in the past, where family is more interested in their own self-interest and pushing a person to comply rather than it being a genuine desire to end one's life. Greed sadly has a funny way of turning people towards some of their worst instincts and motivations.

* Not so much about the Quebec thing. Mostly, I'm not against the idea of Quebec being independent per se if the people truly desired that separation--I'm a big believer in self-determination. I just believe it'd be generally a mistake for Quebec which driven more by a certain degree of frustration with the rest of Canada and probably not based upon some well considered reasons. That frustration exists in near every country, and it's usually much worse when countries split to resolve their differences. Having said all that, it's invariably up to Quebecers to decide for themselves.

** A right to life means a right to choose one's own death within one's means. It follows just as we wouldn't deny a person the liberty to voluntary servitude or a masochist to seek pain for pleasure; certainly, we don't nominally deny people to due hazardous activities that could lead to death***. So long as it's clear a person knows the consequences, as much as they can be known, and chooses it freely, it seems pretty horrific to me to force life upon a person.

*** And yet another tangent, but I'm reminded about the history of no-fault divorces. Before laws allowing them were common, people who wanted a divorce would either have to perjure themselves in court or explicitly engage in activities like adultery to have sufficient grounds for divorce. Such a system was, eventually, realized to be absurd and foolish. For all the suicides and failed suicides that now occur by people in circumstances that cause such gruesomeness and suffering for all involved, there is nothing sane in a system that encourages secrecy, an unwillingness to plan for one's own end, nor really any of the closure that could come from being open and honest while seeking a peaceful end. It's something that to me encourages the absolute worst of all possible outcomes in some vain hope of prevention. If all of that is to come and people still choose suicide, clearly the path laid out is not the answer****.

**** And don't even get me started on all the politicians who keep arguing for ever increasing jail sentences as a deterrent to stop crime.

 

[FAST6191]

I don't know the specifics of this law and will skip that for now. As a general concept euthanasia is not something I have a problem with -- if you have the right to life it would seem to concordant that you have the right to end it as well.

Families arguing for it where capacity might be lacking... tricky. There are all sorts of things one can do as far as power of attorney, medical proxy, medical advocate and more besides. At the same time a lot of that has to kind of be set up beforehand, and while many might make a will there are fewer that will set up what are typically known as advance directives. Levels of "suffering" people care to endure also vary dramatically*, and in some cases if they can get through the adaptation phase then even better.

*in old school UK terms it is known as facing the wall where people will come in, do that and die in short order. Some do it when taken into a care home/nursing home, it has been seen for those after certain operations (a colostomy bag in one case), and others have trucked along for years. The colostomy bag** thing was a slightly strange one if you go purely by suffering but I am taken to understand that in their mind it was something of an affront to their dignity which, for them at least, was worse. Go have a chat with people working in those fields and ask about what they have seen people endure and people give up with.

**part of your intestine gets diverted into a hole in your waist, essentially meaning you crap into a bag. Not a procedure I imagine anybody would do for vanity or as a preventative measure of sorts but I have met people that had them young (20s), worked hard manual labour and lived... actually are still living now in their 50s and 60s.

One might also view it as a continuum from the DNR (do not resuscitate) type orders where the levels of medical care get to be specified, and this says nothing of the weirdo religious stuff that various religions will not allow.

It should also be noted that wherever I have been in the world there are certain "alternative" paths. Probably the most common being chest infections (common in extreme medical scenarios, and old age) being allowed to progress to pneumonia, despite being readily treated with antibiotics (for every case a coroner might look at here there are probably hundreds or thousands they pointedly overlook). Another more dubious one being some fun with opiates.

If active medical measures are to be taken though I am quite OK with it being a multiple doctors signing off and extensive talks type thing.
Following on from the DNR stuff this is probably where we come back to families where they have to make calls based on their knowledge of the person, any writings they might have from them and so forth. No easy answers but at the same time I don't want to remove it as an option entirely. I would be happy with placing burdens in some ways higher than individuals themselves might be able to allow for.

 

[Taleweaver]

To me, it sounds like Trudeau is doing the right thing.

I'm all for euthanasia. I was a bit too young to receive the details, but it's likely my grandfather was assisted. The thing was: due to a complication in an operation, he was very unlikely to wake up from a coma. It's also likely that there was some debate in the family (my uncle's a doctor, so I can imagine he was all but okay to lose his father that way), but my grandfather had made things clear beforehand. He was blind for as long as I knew him, yet always managed to get on in life. Yet there's a difference between being blind and being a vegetable.

My girlfriend is a nurse in a retirement home, and...let's just say that those who are all "pro life" probably never had to deal with some of the implications that that life policy brings. Maybe on paper you can make it sound as if a family is acting "selfish" when they decide that one of their family members needs to let go, but it's all but reality. She has never seen a family that took the matter lightly, and I should ask but I think a large part of them feels guilt even if the decision was the best one.

Also: put yourself in someone else's shoes: do you want to keep living if living means being in constant pain, in total immobility and having to be taken care of for everything? (heck...I would already consider committing suicide if I couldn't control my bladder and had no chance of really contributing to society. Being off worse I'd sign up for suicide straight away).

 

[chrisrlink]

i always wonder why euthanasia is only legal for pets and inmates but not for zqof people double standard of ethics there

 

[kuwanger]

Maybe on paper you can make it sound as if a family is acting "selfish" when they decide that one of their family members needs to let go, but it's all but reality. She has never seen a family that took the matter lightly, and I should ask but I think a large part of them feels guilt even if the decision was the best one.

I don't know how common it is, and really my little rant wasn't to paint all families that choose death for a family member as selfish rather than looking out for what's best for the person. The problem is it gets a lot more dicey when you're talking about people who aren't so clearly near death and in pain. Even if it happens relatively infrequently that it's the wishes of the family more than of the person, it does seem important to try to establish some clear guidelines to at least document the decisions made to make it easier to review in the aftermath to make sure euthanasia isn't being used by some as a means of murder and inheritance. Maybe after some years of review it'll be clear it really is incredibly uncommon and then those sorts of rules could be relaxed, but I think at least as a first step it's pretty reasonable.

i always wonder why euthanasia is only legal for pets and inmates but not for zqof people double standard of ethics there

I've heard some arguments, from government not wanting to lose a potential tax payer, potential voter, or just generally thinking they have the power of life and death over people. I imagine it's also in part to avoid looking too inclined to murder people.

 

[FAST6191]

i always wonder why euthanasia is only legal for pets and inmates but not for zqof people double standard of ethics there

In addition to what kuwanger said a lot of it is also a bit of a holdover from when religion had some power worth noting. Much of the argumentation and debate reasoning could almost be lifted directly from various opinions of churches on suicide (I don't know if it is true but some places apparently considered attempted suicide a capital crime, though even without that there were often severe punishments handed out, and within living memory people in the UK have been jailed for it), and as there are other means (Dr Pneumonia I mentioned before, the option to push painkillers further than a person in that condition might ideally tolerate, a general observation that those which truly want to die will do so) few politicians are willing to delve into the matter.

 

[J-Machine]

i'm ok with the entirety of it. not only is it a persons right to dictate their life ad it's choices therein but it would lighten the load on our struggling health care system. my hospital has long term patients taking up short term beds to the point they put beds in bathrooms and called them "spa rooms" or shoved them in hallways and linen closets. It would also help the burn out/compassion fatigue problem that makes health care jobs like DSW's have a high turn around.

 

[EmanueleBGN]

Inform about: the "Aktion T4" program and see the films: Opfer der Vergangenheit and Ich klage an.
The Nazis had laws so democratically advanced - we are only copying them.

Paradoxically, the Countries are abolishing the capital punishment for prisoners but they want to apply it to innocents.
To kill a man is always a crime.

 

[FAST6191]

To kill a man is always a crime.

A crime is a crime as defined by the laws of the land, or possibly larger bodies in some cases. Similarly where does self defence fit into this?

 

[ShadowOne333]

I think the correct term for this is "Euthanasia".
As for my stance on this, I'm not quite sure what to think.
Maybe if the person itself specifies that in the case of an accident which leaves the person in a vegetative state, or any other state, then Euthanasia can be considered.
Sometimes it's just better for all parties involved to just leave the person go have a peaceful death instead of a nightmare of a life.
I'm all in for it, if it's treated properly and not misused.

Though as for the act itself, it's something very hard to relate to, much less try to wrap your head around.
To me, in order to consider Euthanasia as something plausible, something incredibly horrible would have to happen to even think about doing so.

 

[Xzi]

I don't have any issue with assisted suicide. In most cases it should only be considered as a last resort, but sometimes there's just nothing to be done, and the person should be able to end things on their own terms instead of suffering for years on end.

It's actually legal here in Colorado and all of the West coast states (as well as Montana) already.

 

[chrisrlink]

I've heard some arguments, from government not wanting to lose a potential tax payer, potential voter, or just generally thinking they have the power of life and death over people. I imagine it's also in part to avoid looking too inclined to murder people.

cant pay taxes or vote in a coma now can you? the idea also that most laws (abortion,Euthanasia Polygamy ect) are based on church views (99% of this Christan) now if i recall isn't it the 1st amendment to prevent the church and state line of separation? from being blurred? i guess our lawmakers must brush up on how the bill of rights work they can't pick and choose

 

[pasc]

For as long as the person in question is absolutely ok with the measure (check, double check, triple check, let time pass etc):

I don't see a problem. Leaving one the freedom of choice is important, especially if they have little else left.

 

[kuwanger]

cant pay taxes or vote in a coma now can you? the idea also that most laws (abortion,Euthanasia Polygamy ect) are based on church views (99% of this Christan) now if i recall isn't it the 1st amendment to prevent the church and state line of separation? from being blurred?

Your executor of state still can pay taxes, not to mention cover all the medical spending which could be taken as good for the economy; even if you aren't paying for it but the state is, that thread of the state supporting you is something a lot of people want in government and further supports a politicians position of not pushing for death panels or the like. That's the ghoulish view of it, anyways.

As for the church view and the 1st amendment, the purpose was to not allow any one church/religion to have substantial power over governance. It doesn't prevent many different people from listening to many different churches/religions and deciding that if they like the ideas expressed to enforcing them in law, barring some property of law that prevents that; it's the same logic on how we justify the many effective person rights of companies because in action a company is a collection of people, and they all have a right to engage in their rights even where those actions tend to further the agenda of a company. This is why I tend to argue over "right to life/death" as it'd seem an inalienable right and doesn't try to delve into some argument of others right to force their will on you and where compromise should be reach. The 1st amendment is not as simple as arguing that when churches are for something it can't be made law.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

What are the specifics of the law?

OP mentions assisted suicide and others mention euthanasia but as far as I'm aware there's a difference.

• Assisted suicide: you will be provided means that can kill you (poison) and will be assisted in putting the needle in veins but you will have to turn it on yourself (i.e. kill yourself / suicide)
  • This requires that you are still able to "pull the trigger" so to speak. You will also have to be of clear mind to get assistance.
• Euthanasia: as I understand it this is the act of another person killing you, in this case a doctor, to end pain and suffering.

I'm all for assisted suicide. Euthanasia on the other hand opens up a can of worms, @kuwanger described them well. I won't say euthanasia is wrong in all circumstances but I don't know how I feel about it if there's not clear proof that it's in the patients interest.

 

[dAVID_]

EDIT: Sorry for bumping.

 

[Hanafuda]

100% in favor, assuming a well-thought out set of preconditions being met before the procedure could be carried out. Doctors want to keep your brain-dead carcass pumping blood as long as possible for a reason, and it ain't compassion.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Québec should be independant to be honest.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Suicide should be legal for everyone.

I agree Quebec should be its own country than stuck to Canada, it's like Catalunya and Galicia are part of Spain but they have their own language and cultures.

But "suicide should be legal for everyone" really? Can't agree with that. I'd only concur with those who have health issues without a curable cure and it pains them too much to live each day with it.

There's already Euthanasia but I assume this is different from Medial Suicide Assistance, somehow.