Dying with dignity

On the surface, the idea of each person being allowed to make the choice to end their life is good. Even a bit beneath the surface. I have no real problem actually with a person making this decision as there are too many people who are forced into weeks, months and far too often years of suffering and difficulty.

I guess where the real concern comes in, is when a person is in the middle of a temporary depression. Is suicide the answer then? Maybe 24 hours later they would feel better. Hard call on that one.

Some would argue that the suicide option should only be for people with untreatable terminal illness. I cannot agree on that since as you have shown a person with paralysis and others who have partial body incapacitation are in a place where living is often very difficult. There are challenges in the day to day life which wear down the emotional resolve. Not everybody can bounce through life with big cheery smiles no matter what life hands them.

Where to draw the line... how, when, who.
How is it decided who is given the right to terminate their life? Is it reserved only for certain illness such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, persons with kidney failure but not including a person with other life altering disease and illness? When is the right time? Is there a time line where a person can be allowed after 1 year, or 2 years or maybe even 5 years to ask for the assist to terminate? Not particularly fair since each person reacts differently and if a person has several friends and or family who help out, they are in a different situation than the person living alone or with only one or two family members. Who decides? Government? Other family members? Medical community...including psychiatric professionals? The patient? It would seem the patient should but what if they are being steered towards the choice by family or friends eager to end their time of care-giving?

A lot to think about and no solid answer other than the fact that each person who wants the option should be allowed the option.

Sturgis - a considered response. And that's what needed. Instead we get reflexive responses to an in important policy consideration. It would be useful if various legislatures addressed the issue in that manner. So rather than the "no way" reponse we get the "what would we put in place if we wanted to allow this to happen?" response. Your questions are germane.

bookmark for now --

Do you know that Oregon's physician assisted suicide law is soon to go to the Supreme Court?

Sturgis,

Your response was very well put together, listing the various points to consider.

In the case of this story, the individual had been stricken with the disease for some time, but I see your point in the case of depression. In situations like that, there would need to be a "wait and see" period.

I think it will be a long time before many governments will do anything official. Right now, unofficially, doctors make decisions like this every day. Injections of morphine to relieve pain, etc.

Of course, there's the age-old point of who will make the decision (or allowed to make it) in the case of someone who is unable to make an "end of life" decision.

It's a complicated matter.

goodfielder,

It's my hope that governments will find a way to at least make some compromise and not have the reaction of which you mention.

I believe it imperative the some course of action be put in place.

Will doctors have to put an application forth to a medical panel, for example, to make formal end of life decisions?

boomer,

No, I had not heard of the Oregon situation being that far. Please keep us up to date if you hear more.

Thanks....

Well said, sturgis.

Reyn: What a sad circumstance!!! That is all the more reason for folks to consult an attorney,and draw up a living will,that states,in unbreakable legal terms,what the patient wants,and intends to have,in case they become terminally ill,or hopelessly vegetative and not able to communicate.
What are Canada's laws regarding such documents?

Well, as far as I know, and anyone who does know for sure and I'm wrong, please correct me, in Canada it is more considered as a person's "wishes". So, if a person has a specific idea of how they wish to be handled by doctors in a medical situation where the outcome is uncertain, it's better to have it all written down than not.

It probably could be legally contested, I believe, if it came down to a crunch by feuding relatives, etc.

I also believe that a spouse's input at a time of a situation where the other could not make a terminal decision may be honoured by a doctor.

Like in many jurisdictions, living wills are not written in cement.

My 98 year old grandfather became ill, and they could bring him back when he seemed to be slipping away. In fact, it appeared he could live on like that, indefinitely. Only thing, he was in pain 24/7. They couldn't ease that pain. At last, they determined to just let him slip away, instead of bringing him back again. I think it was the propper call.

Thank you for your story, Edgar. I would agree with you.

I agree,as well,Edgarblythe. One should insist on the right to have his family and care-givers follow a "do not resuscitate" or "no code" order,if one is in constant pain,or otherwise without quality in his/her life.