Terminally ill Woman Fighting for Others’ Rights to End Their Own Lives

a reply to: maybee

I don't know enough about her case, what treatments she has and hasn't tried. The 1st of November seems a little soon, with the amount of treatments available and progresses being made in the treatment of these tumours. At the moment I'd rather give it more time and keep struggling on, but I don't know how she feels physically or mentally, but putting a specific date on it seems a little too presumptive, when I was originally diagnosed I was told 14 years ago I only had 3 years left. If I had made a plan to end it all the way back then, I'd have missed out on 11 or more years. such a tough decision. I'm sure she has thought long and hard about it.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
I'm not apposed to ending a life early in certain situations. Easing pain is definitely one of those situations. Things will start getting blurred when dementia and als patients come into the mix.

the thing is, you should have exactly zero say in the matter. your opinions on it should not matter.
people are going to do it no matter what...i dont think i need to show links to prove that.
im sure all you have to do is pick up your local paper and there ill be a suicide.

a reply to: woodwardjnr
She was diagnosed with 14 months to live. She's more than 1/2 way through the 14 months and she was told the end would be very, very ugly.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Nice post. I'll add it's sort of odd we can't end our lives in a legal fashion. The elite seem to want us dead with debt slavery, a corrupted food supply, polluted water, air and land, plus a "health care system" run by drug lords that is more akin to a casino and we can't end our lives gracefully? Even when near death and in great pain?

Yep. Makes perfect sense.

originally posted by: AutOmatIc
This is an easy one. It will never be allowed because governments need slaves. Can't just have the slaves offing themselves left and right, who would pay taxes then? Simple really.

a reply to: FlyersFan

There are four States in the US that allow "Death with Dignity" and a few other Nations as well.

(OR, VT, and WA) legalized physician-assisted suicide via legislation

(MT) has legal physician-assisted suicide via court ruling

People are moving to Switzerland to do this as well.

Listening to lots of Alan Watts is a great comfort to me, more than anyone, he has made me accept death.

As somebody that suffers from an icurable brain tumor myself, I can feel myself going backwards day by day. I think people that think assisted suicide is a coward's way out, are cowards themselves. They are too scared to go into the future by themselves. Heck, who cares about the pain, suffering and in the end total humilation the person that is dying has to go through, as long as I can have fond memories of that person and can tell everybody in the vincinity how 'bravely' I supported them right to the end.....

a reply to: TDawgRex

Robin zWilliams didn't die, he' invisible now! He became too awesome, and only true believers can see him.

Flame me if you want, but i like that sweet lie

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Can you show that in the pre Christian era suicide was encouraged and acceptable in society? Thanks

Hi, Mr. Confusion again.

Of course everyone has a right to die. The courts of this world would have no one to punish, and God's courts are merciful and just. As has been noted, people do it all the time. It would be no big deal for a friend or family member to deliver the means for suicide. I'm sure there are many recipes on the web.

But that's not what you're looking for, is it. You want "physician assisted" suicide. Imagine a doctor who has scruples against suicide. You know he will be forced to perform that procedure by the government, the medical association, or by law suit from the family whose great aunt Tilda you refused to bump off.

You're asking for the power to order physicians to do something they may not want to do.

Next,

Commenting on the new sedation-and-dehydration regimes, in 2008 Jacqueline Laing, a legal academic at London Metropolitan University, warned that "

n the context of changing positive law, however, it is important to understand the considerable financial, scientific and medical interests there are in controlling death. These interests need not be illicit in themselves. The interests of hospital and state efficiency, freedom from unnecessary compensation claims, scientific research and increased supplies of organs for transplant are not in themselves wrongful. When understood in the context of law that invites bureaucratised homicide and serious mutilation of the non-consenting or ill-informed vulnerable, these interests introduce new extrinsic concerns."

en.wikipedia.org...

That article goes on to report that hospitals received financial bonuses if a certain percentage of people died while on the Liverpool Care Pathway.

Forgive me, but I want my doctors to have no other option than keeping me alive if all I need is food, water, and some pain pills. I don't want to hear "We're sorry, but the ration of treatment drugs for this hospital has been reduced. You've been chosen to lose your treatment drugs. Now, do you want to die smoothly, comfortably, happily, or do you want your death to be an eternal agony, with every second a fiery torture where you're gasping for even the faintest bit of air? I'm not trying to influence your decision, but which do you choose?"

Right, no thanks.

this is only a small step away from families that have doctors pull the plug on family members that are on life support...

thinking that doctors will be forced to is just silly. this country cant even get pharmacists/docs to give out birth control/morning after pills if it is against their 'scruples' as you put it and you really think docs will be forced to kill people?

gods courts are merciful and just.....uuhhh, wow

a reply to: CardiffGiant

Dear CardiffGiant,

Thanks for your reply, it is interesting. The "day after" birth control pill is no longer an issue and hasn't been for a year or so. Rather than give pharmacists the option of refusing to fill the prescription, the government said "They don't need a prescription any more, you can put it next to the aspirin."

Many doctors were concerned about that, because it's a pretty powerful pill, but there's no longer any choice, pharmacists have been taken out of the loop.

Now, about doctors being forced to aid in suicide. Consider a regulation which might be passed by the Dept. of Health and Human Services. Congress doesn't have to approve regulations, the Executive Branch just writes them up and every body has to follow them. Suppose this one says "Medicare and Medicaid dollars can only be paid to a hospital with a full-service staff. A full-service staff means that every member of the hospital staff is willing to and prepared to assist in physician assisted suicides."

There, it's done. Hospitals already have requirements they have to meet to get federal dollars, why not one more? Doctors who refuse will be fired by the hospital which can't afford to jeopardize millions of dollars over the conscience of one staffer.

This is only one step away from pulling the plug? What a giant step you must have! Pulling the plug means stopping extraordinary treatment and allowing nature to take it's course while making the dying as comfortable as possible.

Aiding a suicide is refusing to let nature take it's course, jumping in with both feet, upsetting the table and taking a very definite step intended to kill.

You object to the concept that God's courts are merciful and just? I'm counting on that as my biggest hope. You might consider it too. "Thou shall not kill."

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: charles1952


Suppose this one says "Medicare and Medicaid dollars can only be paid to a hospital with a full-service staff. A full-service staff means that every member of the hospital staff is willing to and prepared to assist in physician assisted suicides."

i guess in that very unlikely situation if a doctor does not agree with assisted suicides then they need to seek employment at another hospital


You might consider it too. "Thou shall not kill."

you might consider that not everyone on the planet lives by the 'thou shall not kill' code.

the situation you brought up is so unlikely i dont even think it is worth discussing but im bored so i will.

getting your medical license does not guarantee you employment anywhere.

if that highly unlikely situation actually does happen then i guess those docs that dont agree with the policy need to seek employment elsewhere or open their own practice where they can make the rules they wish.

edit*
i hit the button twice.

also, dont doctors take an oath to 'do no harm'?

i can argue that not helping someone in physical/mental pain to end it is doing harm

a reply to: FlyersFan

I fully support terminally ill patients being able to make the decision of when to end their lives. Why should their lives be drawn out only to endure suffering and misery? We put our sick pets down because it's the best things for them, why can't a human be able to make that decision too?

Just saw a segment on the news about the young woman and her plan to be surrounded by family and end her life in her bedroom on November 1st. The fact that she's using her terminal illness to speak out about dying with dignity is so inspiring.

Everyone with a terminal illness should have the option to die at home and with dignity.

This woman is a hero. She's brave, and what she is doing is so very, very important.

Having watched a very close, dear friend die last year, of a glioblastoma that jumped lobes, sixth months from diagnosis to end, and seeing the choices my friend faced, the torture she endured, and how horrible it really was at the end for her due to those choices, I can't tell you how very, very important it is to follow your gut like Brittany Maynard has.

My friend desperately wanted to make the same choice that Brittany Maynard has made, but under pressure from the physicians and family, in the face of a terminal diagnosis, took another route. Suffice it to say, she suffered horribly for every one of those last five months.

I wish she had been able to have it her way, this way.

It's not a cliche to say that it's the quality of life that matters in the end because it really is.

[Update Story]

Brittany Maynard, advocate for 'death with dignity,' dies

RIP, Brittany.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I entirely agree. Quality of life and a person's right to make sovereign choices are way more important than political lip-service. If somebody is terminally ill, or even facing a debilitating condition, they should be allowed to die with the minimum of fuss. Their loved ones usually support them and the State should have next-to-no say about it.

We've been having this debate in the UK for years and it always comes down to the PM expressing his regrets, 'But no.' Instead of adding legal clauses to accommodate sound medical advice and the consent of families, they will prosecute relatives who enable people to seek euthanasia.

There's no compassion when we leave people to die horribly rather than changing the law.

I was a bit surprised to see that she decided to end her suffering this weekend. I thought she had decided to delay it for a few weeks. But it's her choice and I'm glad she's no longer suffering. She left with dignity and on her own terms. I'll be keeping her and her family in my thoughts.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I was surprised to see the news too, last I heard she was going to wait a bit longer. At least she was able to pass at home surrounded by her family, the way she wanted, on her own terms and is no longer suffering through life. Her story is both extremely sad and uplifting at the same time. She is truly an inspiration.

RIP Brittany...