NZ woman starves herself to death

NZ woman starves herself to death

au.news.yahoo.com

A disabled New Zealand woman who sparked a debate over the right for people to commit suicide has died after refusing to eat for 16 days, her carers confirmed.

Margaret Page, a 60-year-old who used to love scuba diving, kayaking and teaching karate to children, had been severely disabled since suffering a brain haemorrhage in 1991.

Page, who lived in the capital Wellington, needed help to eat and shower and had moved into a care centre in 2001.

Australian euthanasia campaigner, Philip Nitschke, said on Wednesday that Page's death was a tragedy.

"It is disgusting that the only opt

(visit the link for the full news article)

A sick world we live in.
I'm sure this debate will rage for a long time. I'm a fence sitter when it comes to the issue of euthenasia because i do believe people should not be made to suffer more then they should have to, but I also understand that some people may opt for euthenasia for reasons not befitting.
It cost me $80 to have my dog put down when he developed severe arthritis in his pelvis. Why do i have the right to do that to another being when i don't have the right to do it to myself?

au.news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 31/3/10 by spearhead]

It is a scandal that the woman had to literally starve to death in order to die

It's evil. Any administration which presumes to prevent people from dying if they choose, is evil

Until governments are prepared to legislate regarding the right to be born (in the form of licences to breed) then how can they possibly justify legislation which denies people the right to die ?

To me the issue of euthanasia comes down to simply this: freedom. If a person if not free to make the decision concerning the most basic circumstances of their lives, i.e. whether to continue to live or die, then they have no real freedom at all, period.

The right to die w/ dignity is no one's bloody business other than the person who must make that decision. Just be glad it's not you.... yet (not to the OP, but for those who refuse to recognize the sovereign right of the individual over their own life).

Some may elect to spend every day in pain with tubes in every orifice and zero self defined quality of life with no hope of recovery; I sure as all hells wouldn't.

reply to post by spearhead


DEATH BY STARVATION IS VERY COMMON IN THE USA.

HOW DO YOU THINK PEOPLE WITH CANCER DIE?

THEY STOP EATING AND STARVE TO DEATH.

Happened to my 60 year old lady neighbor who got
pancreatic cancer. Yeah, she was given drugs for the pain
but it is a disgusting drawn out way to go. It can take months
as you eat less and less.

My mothers friend who was about 80 and tired of living
just stopped eating and eventually died.

Its always about money and power.

To a lot of people suicide is not the answer. Many people may think people who thinking about wanting commit suicide are just depressed and can and will get over it soon. But many people are not in consent pain, bed ridden or the like of. Life is hard for many and there are few opportunity's for people to make a living and enjoy life.

Euthanasia is a difficult subject. Even if you take out the "religious objections" factor, there are still many questions that challenge our own sense of morality and ethics. I am also more of a fence sitter on this issue. I am all for people having the freedom and right to end their own lives. I do not believe the Government or Religion should dictate when one ends their own life. But there are problems that need to be examined.

One of the major problems is the consideration of when a person is deemed competent enough to make the decision to end their own life. There have been many stories of people at rock bottom that wanted to ends their lives, but a few years down the track they have learned to cope with their circumstances and appreciate what they do have. The strain and stress appeared unbearable in the short term, but they were able to overcome this. Also the factor of whether a "cure" for their suffering might be found in the near future is one that would prevent them from wanting to end their lives at the time.

But regardless of those issues, I think it is very sad that this poor woman had no other choice than to torture herself and extend her own suffering just to escape her circumstances in this physical world.

[edit on 31/3/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Dock9


Dear Dock9

Just have a think about this side of the matter.

There is a 93 year grandmother that is loved by her family. She is getting old and not able to do all the things she could in her younger life. Through her life she has selflessly looked after everyone in the family.

Now she is getting on she is forced to live with her grandchildren, but she feels that she is getting in the way. She may feel obliged to end her life if euthanasia where made legal.

Yes I hear stories, and indeed I am so close to people who are living in desperate pain with little relief and only a future of more pain and death. However I feel that the law on this very difficult choice is correct.

I think first and foremost that they should be required counciling. After that then they should have the option for a death of there choosing. This woman surely wanted to die and she did and it is horrible. But on the other end are people who may just not be thinking straight and decide to die. As I said it should be a last resort but the option should be there.

Good input people.
Again i'd like stress this is a difficult subject to condone but seems also inhumane to ignore.

Controls must be inplace to control euthenasia if it were legislated.
Terminal illness and the resulting pain and suffering or perhaps uncontrollable pain do to injury or disability in my opinion are the only reasons that euthenasia could even be considered.

People would not be able to opt for death just out of pure 'freedom'.
People with mental disabilites who could or psychological disorders would not be given the option.

At the same time, anyone without the ability to give clear and concise individual consent would be unelligable and the decision would not be passable by a carer or guardian.
Insurance policies would be null and void.

This really is a sticky topic, I wanted to start a thread about it myself but just couldn't put it all into words properly.

It is so sad that this woman had no other choice, it is so wrong.

This is close to the heart for me as my dad is trying to do the same thing. He is 99 and has just had enough, he and my mum were together 72 years and when she died he lost the will to go on.
Now 4 years later, much longer than he expected to live, he has had time to adjust to life alone and he doesn't like it, he spends his time listening to music they both loved and crying.
He is just tired of it all and wants to go, so he's stopped eating.
He is very frail, but only has one medical problem, which is not treatable (not really life threatening either) and is in quite good mental health.

It is soooo not fair that he can't call his doctor, talk to any pschyc they send in and have them give him something so he can just go to sleep and go join his wife..

(in tears now --sorry)

.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Euthanasia is a difficult subject. Even if you take out the "religious objections" factor, there are still many questions that challenge our own sense of morality and ethics. I am also more of a fence sitter on this issue. I am all for people having the freedom and right to end their own lives. I do not believe the Government or Religion should dictate when one ends their own life. But there are problems that need to be examined.

One of the major problems is the consideration of when a person is deemed competent enough to make the decision to end their own life. There have been many stories of people at rock bottom that wanted to ends their lives, but a few years down the track they have learned to cope with their circumstances and appreciate what they do have. The strain and stress appeared unbearable in the short term, but they were able to overcome this. Also the factor of whether a "cure" for their suffering might be found in the near future is one that would prevent them from wanting to end their lives at the time.

But regardless of those issues, I think it is very sad that this poor woman had no other choice than to torture herself and extend her own suffering just to escape her circumstances in this physical world.

[edit on 31/3/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Being from the country that became the first to legalize euthanasia, I can report that we experience very little problems with it. General practitioners judge whether a situation is dire enough to allow the commitment of euthanasia, not the person who desires it. Reality has shown that there are very few situations that are deemed disputable.

In order to commit euthanasia in a legal way, a number of due diligence requirements are specified in the law review euthanasia and assisted suicide (Article 2) and imply that the physician:

1. The belief has been that there was a voluntary and informed request of the patient,
2. The belief has been that there was hopeless and unbearable suffering of the patient,
3. the patient is informed of the situation it was in and about his prospects,
4. the patient has come to believe that the situation it was in no other reasonable solution,
5. at least one other independent physician consulted, the patient has given his opinion in writing and has given the due diligence provided in sections 1 to 5, and
6. The euthanasia or assisted suicide medical care performed.

I know that we are one of the most progressive countries in the world while the the US of A is relatively conservative, but much of the fear people have on delicate issues like this is proven ill-founded.

The same applies for the legalization of soft-drugs. Statistics have shown that despite the fact that soft drugs have been legalized, has not lead to an excessive or increased use of it among our population. In fact:''In the Netherlands 9.7% of young adults (aged 15–24) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%). I'll not further elaborate on this as it's behind the scope of this thread.






[edit on 31-3-2010 by Mdv2]

reply to post by Mdv2


informative... it shows how anally retentive the governance of the west has become.
AusCaNZUKUS are nations driven by corporatization and coin. Not so much Canada though.

Through legalization control can be relinquished to the population, where it belongs. We in Australia live in a Nanny State of affairs. It is becoming repugnently ugly with references now on commercial radio and news. The high ranking police are always the first to defend it.
Unfortunately when you treat the population like children that is exactly what you will get.
People need to be allowed to accept responsibility for their own lives and in this country, as a fact, we aren't even trusted with that!

[edit on 31/3/10 by spearhead]

Originally posted by spearhead

A sick world we live in.
I'm sure this debate will rage for a long time. I'm a fence sitter when it comes to the issue of euthenasia because i do believe people should not be made to suffer more then they should have to, but I also understand that some people may opt for euthenasia for reasons not befitting.
It cost me $80 to have my dog put down when he developed severe arthritis in his pelvis. Why do i have the right to do that to another being when i don't have the right to do it to myself?

au.news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 31/3/10 by spearhead]

YOUR clearly not a fence sitter dude, as demonstrated in your post

i agree with what you say , it is crazy people will put down an animal and not a human who asks.

my only problem with euthinasia are the people that think its the only option when it clearly is not, take that kid rugby player from who became paralysed and decided he couldnt live any more and went to switzerland... personaly i think thats wrong as he wasnt going to die from his injurys.. Its the kind of thing that should only be used in cases where the sufferer has a terminal illness and really cant do anything except wait it out till death!

Originally posted by boaby_phet
Its the kind of thing that should only be used in cases where the sufferer has a terminal illness and really cant do anything except wait it out till death!

And really, really old people that can do nothing but sit and wait for the end.

.

reply to post by boaby_phet


perhaps not a fence sitter as you would view it.

I do support euthenasia but under 'uber strict guidelines.
I do not support euthenasia for its not a religiously & politically correct process, as there are many influences that could inhibit the correct execution of the process. Such as 'unethical euthenising' people who could make trouble for the powers that be....

a very very delicate issue indeed.

[edit on 31/3/10 by spearhead]

Originally posted by boaby_phet
...take that kid rugby player from who became paralysed and decided he couldnt live any more and went to switzerland... personaly i think thats wrong as he wasnt going to die from his injurys.. Its the kind of thing that should only be used in cases where the sufferer has a terminal illness and really cant do anything except wait it out till death!

But looking from that kid's POV, perhaps being paralysed *was* a death sentence. I know for me it would be.

If I lost the ability to walk, move my arms, etc - I wouldn't want to live any more. And it's not to do with anger at the world or hatred or a temporary emotional imbalance. I simply do not want to have to live when I cannot move. Simple as.

So in that case, I'd still fully support his decision to end his life.

Sure, there is the argument of, "What if tomorrow a cure was found.." but you cannot live on a "what-if" possibility.

I say, to each their own. If they are in some form of illness or physical incapacity then I can fully see and suport the reasons for wishing to end one's life. I certainly don't want someone tell me what I am/am not allowed to do with my life.

Had a bad day at school, couldn't find the right colour black for your emo haircut or you couldn't buy the latest album from JLS? No. Definitely not.



[edit on 31-3-2010 by noonebutme]

reply to post by noonebutme


BAM!

still being a compete vegetable I wouldn't want to live being a burden on those who would have to carry me through the rest of my life....
....having to sit/lay there competent in the mind but not in the body. being able to watch the time tick by but not being able to influence it.

I'd likely go for a swim....

Originally posted by Dock9
It is a scandal that the woman had to literally starve to death in order to die

It's evil. Any administration which presumes to prevent people from dying if they choose, is evil

Until governments are prepared to legislate regarding the right to be born (in the form of licences to breed) then how can they possibly justify legislation which denies people the right to die ?

It isn't preventing people from dying, nothing can prevent that, it chooses to make it illegal- neither option, ie legal or illegal, produces a perfect situation.

As for your comparison with "licences" to breed- people cannot be prevented from giving birth anymore than they can be prevented from dying, but to compare the birth of a child with death is one of the oddest things I have read on here

The day that I become so sick or incapacitated that I lose my dignity is the day I lose my will to live.

People have many reasons for wishing to die and I see no reason why the loss of all hope or comfort or independence shouldn't be included among those reasons.

I had a housemate recently who worked in a residential care home for the elderly. I had to ask him to stop telling me his tales of what went on in that home because they upset me so much.

I am not suggesting that all elderly people would choose to die rather than be confined to residential homes and being mis-treated by indifferent staff. I only know what I would rather do.

It's all very well to refuse people assistance to die when they are incapable of taking a quick and painless action themselves, but how can any government justify allowing members of their population to live in appalling conditions which they have no hope of extricating themselves from?

I can see where there must be some measure to protect the elderly when there is a chance that their mental faculties might not be all that they were, but perhaps Living Wills should be more publicised?

A campaign to make people more aware that they have an opportunity to register their wishes before an accident, mental incapacity or old age befell them could be handled sensitively.

Euthanasia societies issue cards which indicate which medical procedures a person would object to in the event of an accident. More people could be encouraged to carry those as well as lodging a Living Will with their doctors.

I don't know how well they would stand up if a case went to court, but at least there would be a clear indication of what a person wanted when they were sound enough to make a decision.

Going back to the residential home I mentioned. There was one old lady there who didn't like to be hauled out of bed in the morning. The staff, being busy with many residents, would insist on getting her up. Every morning she would say 'In a minute' and every morning she would be denied her 'minute'.

Not for me, thanks very much.