California passes assisted suicide

But what if someone has zero motor function, and can't even reach for 'the sleeping pills' never mind having the dexterity to unscrew the cap? Hold that thought?

 

I don't concede my right to life or death to the State. I 100% support the right to die.

Bottom line, some people reach a point where they can't end their own life. By denying the right to die, people innocent of any crimes are sentenced to untold suffering and misery, sometime for years. The State does not have a right to torture people but that is the net effect.

 

This is a major step in a controversial topic throughout the United States.

 

At the end of the day, you have to ask, Who owns you and your body?

If you own your body/yourself, then suicide is your right.

If you believe the government or some other entity owns your body, then you're a slave, and your request for assisted suicide can be denied.

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by the appointment of Jesus, and...


It's god's will that governing authorities institute assisted suicide.

No, Euro-States Delay, Deny or Dilute medical treatment, in lieu of death panels.

Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on. Heart Disease and Cancer

Read it, learn it, embrace it, love it.

Because only a doctor can write the prescription for the drug/s necessary to end life.

 

That's an easy fix, one stroke of the pen.
So legality asside, why does a physician have to be involved?

- - - Updated - - -

That's an easy fix, one stroke of the pen.
So legality asside, why does a physician have to be involved?

- - - Updated - - -

That's an easy fix, one stroke of the pen.
So legality asside, why does a physician have to be involved?

- - - Updated - - -

That's an easy fix, one stroke of the pen.
So legality asside, why does a physician have to be involved?

 

Perhaps because in many States, only physicians can pronounce death. There's also the issue that its a medical procedure and part of the continuum of care, requiring a physician. Presumably, only a physician can pronounce a person mentally competent to ask for termination of their life.

There's also the legal definitions, for example, euthanasia is defined as 3rd Party intervention.

 

Agreed. My only problem with these laws is that they firmly entrench the medical profession into the death business. An issue especially if medical care is collective or public, seeking to trim costs. Let the medical profession make the determination the patient is terminal, or whatever standard the statute requires, then remove the process from the medical profession.

 

Except the opposite was what was argued: that an increase in individual rights would lead to compulsion for the collective good.

 

Which in turn would necessitate a decline in individual rights thereby creating the salient argument.
It's an 18 month old thread. Try to keep up.

 

I think a rational person should be able to choose to end his own life. This has been a relatively common practice never mind the law. Books have been published about the methods available. Just as folks who don't believe in abortion should have one, folks who don't believe in suicide shouldn't. Let the rest of us alone.

 

Physicians are not present on the vast majority of deaths, yet "pronouncement" occurs. This is a non issue.
This can easily be defined as a non medical procedure through legislation.
Physians are trained to heal not to kill. The killing is easy. Not killing you while treating you is the skill

 

Sick pets are also "given an out" because it can be expensive to heal them or keep them.

 

Didn't realize how old this thread was. Hate replying to someones 1.5 year old quote.

 

. It is my illness, my suffering to define, my lack of dignity to define. It is my vomit, my ulcers, my catheter, my confusion, my weakness, my seizures, my skin sores, my diarrhea, my anorexia, my isolation, and my grief. no one else is going to share it. I have no duty to live for any ideal, or for society, or for any principle. I just need a prescription and a pharmacy, and to be left alone to end this in a clean, orderly, pain-free and compassionate way either with my loved ones, or alone. This really isn't any more complicated than that.

 

I have, but now one has demonstrated how this individual right would "necessitate" any such thing. A slippery slope argument doesn't establish necessity.

 

Every state should allow assisted suicide. Why is it the government's decision how you live and die? I'll tell you why. God and money. BS.

 

Food for thought:- well-known Brit actor Sir Brian Rix died this year aged 92 of a terminal illness; I can't find out what it was except that he was in pain and wished he could be given "assisted dying" to get out of it, but Brit law doesn't allow it.
Ironically he voted against assisted-dying in 2006 when he was fit and healthy..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Rix

 

Why does anyone have a duty to live?

 

Actually I personally would like to have the right forbasdisted suicide if there is no hope for my recovery and my ongoing existance is just going to be suffering and a butden on my family.

 

Probably because most of the methods allowing a peaceful death require medicines not readily available
without a doctor's perscription.

 

I certainly see a possible duty to live for those who have minor children dependent on them for income, and parenting. Under normal circumstances, a parent who commits suicide, leaving minor children behind to cope, with no thought about how those kids will be fed, diapered, sheltered and educated, commits an incredibly selfish act. I recognize that there will likely be mental illness behind, that significantly alters and impairs perceptions and mood, but there is a duty to protect, defend and care for ones offspring. Its a responsibility and it is not just reflected economically.

I suffered from severe depression for some of my early parenting days with suicidal ideations. I had a six year old little girl and a three year old boy dependent on me to be their dad. That was enough to keep me going and seeking help. I can't imagine the devastation a child feels when their parent, chooses death over him or her, let alone the economic insecurity.

 

I agree. But, the insurance companies will no doubt take advantage. Once assisted suicide becomes legal, the insurance companies can claim it's now a valid medical procedure and deny payment for a needed heart operation or other costly medical procedure. Do we think they'll continue to shell out big money for needed medical procedures, or will they simply deny the claim by saying a more affordable "approved" treatment is available.

 

legislatures currently address the insurance lobby's self-interest by regulating the industry and its practices in a hundred ways. We already have ample precedent for insurance companies rewriting their policies to avoid expensive treatments. nothing new here. they already require that mammograms and pap smears be insured. A simply worded bill requiring a minimum of treatment options in any health insurance policy is an easy and obvious remedy regardless of assisted suicide. they can require that insurers fund both prescriptions designed for treatment and perscriptions designed to facilitate death. They can require insurance companies fund the Pill and barrier methods of contraception too.

 

I think most have had a loved one they had to let go through morphine in the very last throws of life. It really is weird that the notion is still argued, when really we should just be discussing a benchmark for immunity.

 

This has already been addressed. Drugs are restricted by the government that makes the laws.
It can authorize any one it wants to authorize to dispense the meds for this use