Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 2166627)

I'm for it, not just in terminal illness cases but in severe disability which precludes any quality of life such as quadraplegia at the C1 or C2 level, severe stroke impairment that will not improve, etc. It isn't really possible for all patients to do it by themselves because some are physically unable to obtain the means.

I'm also pro-hospice, but have seen people suffer up until the very last minute, even while hospice was trying to keep them comfortable. If pain is so great that no pain meds can touch it and a patient is terminal and conscious, it's a pretty awful situation.

I also think "do no harm" can be interpreted a lot of ways. I also struggle with the religious arguments against it. The argument I usually hear is that it is "playing God" and such things should be left up to God. But I never hear that argument go in the other direction. Most (not all) are ok with taking all kinds of medical extreme measures to prolong a life. Isn't this playing God too? Where do we draw that line? People used to die from all kinds of infections that we now treat easily with penicillin. People died of heart problems that are much more easily treated now. If our time and manner of death is all predetermined, then why treat anything? For these reasons, I don't buy into that argument. I just can't understand where the line is. It's one of my first questions for Him when I die. (I have a whole list of these types of questions)

These are all reasons why it is important for people to have patient advocates and Living Wills, if they feel strongly about not being in certain circumstances.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2170875)

Man with locked-in syndrome, Tony Nicklinson, dies at home week after losing euthanasia court case


This could perhaps explain why assisted suicide is sometimes frowned upon for conditions such as locked-in syndrome.

Originally Posted by aggieAXO (Post 2171033)

From the article I gathered that he wanted to live no matter what-that is his choice. He recovered quickly compared to the guy in the other article who had been a prisoner in his own body for 5 years-maybe Mr. Marsh would have a different opinion if he had been unable to lead a normal life for years, maybe not? The point is we should have a choice-it is my life. I do have a clause in my will to give me 6 months if on a ventilator (my firend talked me into this I was going to give myslef a maximum of 3 months). But overall, if I cannot lead a normal life-meaning get up and got to work, live independently, then I don't want to be here anymore.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2171050)

I use "made" in reference to Richard Marsh because he was unable to express his desire to live. They could have very well turned off the ventilator which some interpret as a family-doctor-consent assisted suicide (some would consider it murder) for which Marsh was unable to consent.



Correct and Marsh believes that people have a right to live or die if they so choose. He wanted to live but he was unable to express his choice either way.

My point is that:

1.) Some people who are opposed to assisted suicide are opposed because they believe in the potential for someone to recover as Marsh did.

2.) There are instances where taking someone off life support is "making them die." People can rationalize and word it however they choose but it is what it is in these instances. If they had turned off Marsh's ventilator before his body was able to recover on its own, that could have "made" him die.

Originally Posted by carnation (Post 2171069)

My uncle died of AIDS several years ago. He was a physician, as was his partner, and we're pretty sure that a group of their friends had a pact to help anyone in the group die should they begin to suffer hugely. He had almost no symptoms for years and suddenly, everything descended on him. His partner called my mom and said, "Your brother died a few hours ago and he was cremated a couple of hours later so you guys don't really have to come if you're busy." :eek:

I forgot what hints we got over the years but the death pact theory really began to make sense after awhile. Part of me gets why they did it and part of me is horrified by the idea of putting a lucid human to death. I really, really have mixed feelings.

Originally Posted by aggieAXO (Post 2167614)

I don't understand why we do not allow euthanasia for people. It is my life-if I want to die I should be able to chose this and die with diginity. If I have a terminal disease or I am in chronic pain or even mental anguish (severe depression) and I want to end my life I should be able to do it painlessly and safely. That being said, I will definitely have a bottle of beuth stashed away (or maybe some phenobarb and valium or propofol) if the time ever comes and I am in a situation where I can no longer lead a productive, happy life. For me it is about QUALITY, not quantity. I have dealt with hospice (my father passed away 2 years ago) and frankly there is no way I am going to go through that. I will not go to a nursing home. We all are going to die someday-you cannot escape it-why not make it peaceful and painless??

I suppose vets see it differently than most people b/c we perform euthanasia everyday-and I thank the lord we can.