Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ms. Siv · 11-10-2002, 07:48 PM

The "right to life" includes the right not to choose life. Otherwise it wouldn't be a right ... it would be a commandment.

If a person does not choose to live, its upto him/her. And if he is unable to act on his decision, others can help him/her do it.

I'm 100% for legalising suicide and euthanasia.

- Sivakami.

The Other Michael · 11-10-2002, 07:56 PM

This is probably a good time to point out that everyone should have an advance directive on file with their doctor/attorney/HMO - just in case.

My HMO provided us with forms to fill out, and we also filed Medical Powers of Attorney for each other with the HMO at the same time

It's best to make your wishes known before it is too late.

I think that Nolo Press has kits that will let you do this, though they may not be valid in all states.

cheers,
Michael

winstonjen · 11-10-2002, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Other Michael:
<strong>This is probably a good time to point out that everyone should have an advance directive on file with their doctor/attorney/HMO - just in case.

My HMO provided us with forms to fill out, and we also filed Medical Powers of Attorney for each other with the HMO at the same time

It's best to make your wishes known before it is too late.

I think that Nolo Press has kits that will let you do this, though they may not be valid in all states.

cheers,
Michael</strong>

That is a VERY good point. The law should also punish doctors who usurp patients' rights and ignore these directives.

Richard1366 · 11-11-2002, 07:40 AM

The movie "Soylent Green" had the right answer..

Fr.Andrew · 11-11-2002, 12:02 PM

Really good subject! Thanks for the link, Janaya! I guess I posted my Didge essay to the wrong forum.
Winstonjen, I agree with almost all you say...particularly with respect to the rigidity of "pro-life" people. All this talk of the great slippery slope tires me out.
But rather than that they should have a terminal illness, they should volunteer at an ofo's home or help a hospice nurse.
Mad Kally, my hat's off to you and all your brothers and sisters who deal with the stress of constant crises. I honestly don't know how you do it. I wanted to be a hospital chaplain at one time, but didn't last long before being worn down by the daily depression.
Kuu, you make a good point that I've thought about from time to time--I wonder how many family farms are passed from father to son earlier than need be, because Dad, getting on in years, is guilted into ending it all? That may remove some of the "choice" angle.

I need some clarity on concepts.
I understand euthanasia to be person A ending the life of person B, who has a terminal illness, with or without the consent of person B or-in many cases-their knowledge. If person B wants to end his life, isn't that suicide, no matter the means or reason?
For instance, the sadness of Nancy Crick--that was suicide, wasn't it?

I haven't read the thread that you linked, The Other Michael--maybe that will answer some questions.

Re: Soylent Green--one of my favorite stories. It always made such good sense to me.

winstonjen · 11-11-2002, 12:14 PM

Thanks for all your support. Fr.Andrew, I agree with your points. I think that if you give consent for your life to be ended, that is still suicide. The Nancy Crick death issue in the media was about Nancy's desire to have friends and family around when she died. They made many copies of the key to her front door so that the police would have a hard time with the prosecution (They wanted to charge them with assisted suicide - JUST FOR BEING PRESENT!). Strangely, assisted suicide is the ONLY time in the law when it is a crime to help someone do somthing that is NOT a crime. The Law is an Ass: Reason #2462.

The case of Sandy Williamson is even more tragic. She had Motor Neurone Disease. She would lose control of her body, eventually being a 'living corpse' (her own words), and being unable to kill herself unaided. Thanks to the bigotry of pro-lifers, she died SOONER than she would have if she had been able to receive euthanasia.

Fr.Andrew · 11-11-2002, 01:41 PM

I wanted to comment on this, Winstonjen, but didn't want to bring the thread to the top of the Miscellaneous Forum. It didn't seem to generate any interest there.
You said, "That is truly, truly tragic, and you have my sympathy. If Didge had prepared a living will, she would not have to suffer because she could have instructed doctors to pull the plug and let her die in peace. How is it really life when they need a machine to even breathe?"
I'm sorry I was unclear. Didge had a living will. She was not on a machine...there was a tube that the nurses were using to clear her breathing as best they could by sticking it down her throat every so often. No plug to pull. She was in the final stages of Alzheimer's and her body was shutting down...simple as that.
That's one of the many sad things about the disease--it's not just that you forget stuff, your body forgets to do things. Like swallow. Didge would shovel food in her mouth like a chipmonk--chewing but never swallowing. We'd have to say, "Didgie! Swallow!!"--and then she would.

I have a good (Internet) friend outside of Sydney--goes by the name Dad of Sam, if you ever run across him.

winstonjen · 11-11-2002, 01:48 PM

Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for him.

Still, having a tube down your throat is very similar to being on life support - it's something artificial that the patient needs to stay alive. Surely they would've had to remove that because of the living will. Why do some Christians think it's "Playing God" to shorten life, but NOT "Playing God" to extend it?

Mad Kally · 11-11-2002, 02:03 PM

Winston,
That sounds like a tube for suctioning only.
What a horrible way to go..

winstonjen · 11-11-2002, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Kally:
<strong>Winston,
That sounds like a tube for suctioning only.
What a horrible way to go..

</strong>

Yeah, I know, it's horrible. Without the tube, she would've died sooner.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-10-2002, 07:48 PM	#21
Ms. Siv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: India Posts: 2,340	The "right to life" includes the right not to choose life. Otherwise it wouldn't be a right ... it would be a commandment. If a person does not choose to live, its upto him/her. And if he is unable to act on his decision, others can help him/her do it. I'm 100% for legalising suicide and euthanasia. - Sivakami.

11-10-2002, 07:56 PM	#22
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	This is probably a good time to point out that everyone should have an advance directive on file with their doctor/attorney/HMO - just in case. My HMO provided us with forms to fill out, and we also filed Medical Powers of Attorney for each other with the HMO at the same time It's best to make your wishes known before it is too late. I think that Nolo Press has kits that will let you do this, though they may not be valid in all states. cheers, Michael

11-11-2002, 07:40 AM	#24
Richard1366 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 1,260	The movie "Soylent Green" had the right answer..

11-11-2002, 12:02 PM	#25
Fr.Andrew Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Betsy's Bluff, Maine Posts: 540	Really good subject! Thanks for the link, Janaya! I guess I posted my Didge essay to the wrong forum. Winstonjen, I agree with almost all you say...particularly with respect to the rigidity of "pro-life" people. All this talk of the great slippery slope tires me out. But rather than that they should have a terminal illness, they should volunteer at an ofo's home or help a hospice nurse. Mad Kally, my hat's off to you and all your brothers and sisters who deal with the stress of constant crises. I honestly don't know how you do it. I wanted to be a hospital chaplain at one time, but didn't last long before being worn down by the daily depression. Kuu, you make a good point that I've thought about from time to time--I wonder how many family farms are passed from father to son earlier than need be, because Dad, getting on in years, is guilted into ending it all? That may remove some of the "choice" angle. I need some clarity on concepts. I understand euthanasia to be person A ending the life of person B, who has a terminal illness, with or without the consent of person B or-in many cases-their knowledge. If person B wants to end his life, isn't that suicide, no matter the means or reason? For instance, the sadness of Nancy Crick--that was suicide, wasn't it? I haven't read the thread that you linked, The Other Michael--maybe that will answer some questions. Re: Soylent Green--one of my favorite stories. It always made such good sense to me.

11-11-2002, 12:14 PM	#26
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	Thanks for all your support. Fr.Andrew, I agree with your points. I think that if you give consent for your life to be ended, that is still suicide. The Nancy Crick death issue in the media was about Nancy's desire to have friends and family around when she died. They made many copies of the key to her front door so that the police would have a hard time with the prosecution (They wanted to charge them with assisted suicide - JUST FOR BEING PRESENT!). Strangely, assisted suicide is the ONLY time in the law when it is a crime to help someone do somthing that is NOT a crime. The Law is an Ass: Reason #2462. The case of Sandy Williamson is even more tragic. She had Motor Neurone Disease. She would lose control of her body, eventually being a 'living corpse' (her own words), and being unable to kill herself unaided. Thanks to the bigotry of pro-lifers, she died SOONER than she would have if she had been able to receive euthanasia.

11-11-2002, 01:41 PM	#27
Fr.Andrew Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Betsy's Bluff, Maine Posts: 540	I wanted to comment on this, Winstonjen, but didn't want to bring the thread to the top of the Miscellaneous Forum. It didn't seem to generate any interest there. You said, "That is truly, truly tragic, and you have my sympathy. If Didge had prepared a living will, she would not have to suffer because she could have instructed doctors to pull the plug and let her die in peace. How is it really life when they need a machine to even breathe?" I'm sorry I was unclear. Didge had a living will. She was not on a machine...there was a tube that the nurses were using to clear her breathing as best they could by sticking it down her throat every so often. No plug to pull. She was in the final stages of Alzheimer's and her body was shutting down...simple as that. That's one of the many sad things about the disease--it's not just that you forget stuff, your body forgets to do things. Like swallow. Didge would shovel food in her mouth like a chipmonk--chewing but never swallowing. We'd have to say, "Didgie! Swallow!!"--and then she would. I have a good (Internet) friend outside of Sydney--goes by the name Dad of Sam, if you ever run across him.

11-11-2002, 01:48 PM	#28
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for him. Still, having a tube down your throat is very similar to being on life support - it's something artificial that the patient needs to stay alive. Surely they would've had to remove that because of the living will. Why do some Christians think it's "Playing God" to shorten life, but NOT "Playing God" to extend it?

11-11-2002, 02:03 PM	#29
Mad Kally Banned Join Date: May 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 3,764	Winston, That sounds like a tube for suctioning only. What a horrible way to go..

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.