I would find it more harmful to allow that person to remain in pain and further deteriorate.

And yes, I have euthanized many animals from rodents to dogs and cats to horses. While it is sad, watching the peace come over their face as they're released from their pain is more powerful than the grief.

I would still support any human to have the right to die. No one should be able to tell you that you can't end your suffering.

In many ways, I find our treatment of animals more humane than our treatment of other humans.

The question was should licensed healthcare workers be allowed to assist in a human's right to die... If someone wanted to kill himself, guess what! He will find a way to do that by his own hand. It doesn't make it "ethical" or "sound", but the finality of dying is so permanent.

Sure, one suffers and has pain, but life is suffering and painful and for some people it is everyday...

What makes humans different from animals--which is not saying that much--is that animals cannot directly communicate their feelings to humans--we just do not understand them to that point. Animals that cannot live upto expectations will be gleaned from the gene pool by predation.

At this time, humans do not have active predators that hunt us...

ETA: Even if one worked for a slaughterhouse, there are still rules that govern euthanasia of animals and what to do with the carcass afterward...

I think that the fact that humans can communicate their feelings makes more of a case for allowing human euthanasia.

And not all humans that want to die, can actively participate in killing themselves. There are certain situations and conditions that trap a sane mind in a body that is not capable of ending themselves.

I'm really not sure of what the edit to your post is supposed to mean? I've worked in labs mass euthanizing rodents for medical testing, and in a vet hospital (mixed practice) as an RVT, but I have no clue what you're getting at about slaughterhouses.

If you have inspected slaughterhouses for foodstuff meats, they have animal carcasses and blood and organs all of over the place. Yet, no matter how much "gore" is in that area, there is still rules that are followed when killing these animals... One cannot just slam conscious animals bodies against walls.

And even in research laboratories, you still have to be approved to use animals, take classes to handle the animals and you cannot do some euthanasia techniques because it is against OLAW regulations--such as killing mice by slamming their heads against the counter... Hayle it's getting to the point that you cannot toe tag mice that much...

As far as being trapped in a immobilized body unable to communicate. The disabled cannot speak for themselves and require others to speak to them--and I am talking about paraplegics with the unicorn or laser guided writing on a computer. That is illegal to euthanize someone in prison who committed heinous crimes... Why would it be legal on the outside?

But folks who grow old or get into a severe accident or know they have a severe genetic disorder--like Huntington's Disease--then arrangements can be made with appropriate forms. But I do not think they should ask healthcare workers to ASSIST them in dying because of too much pain/suffering...

We will just have to agree to disagree...

Believe me I know about the endless hoopla dealing with both medical testing and euthanasia, it is part of the schooling to become an RVT. I'm still not getting what, if anything, that has to do with human euthanasia.

It is illegal to put someone to death who is in prison who is disabled because of the 8th amendment.

However, I'm not speaking people that are simply disabled, I'm talking of people who are in constant pain and are losing their quality of life. Dying with the little dignity they have left should be afforded to them. And if they are to the point where they are not physically able to do it themselves but are mentally sane, then I see no point in disallowing a humane, caring physician to ease their suffering and let them pass.

Note: I am not saying that healthcare workers should be made to help them die, just that there should be no penalties for the ones that do, provided the patient's intentions are known and communicated.

How will human euthanasia be done? Like lethal injection as a capital crime punishment? Is that the "Humane way" to kill a human being? Will drug overdose be enough?

Killing a steer or pig for its meat is done humanely, yet provides decent cuts of meat. But we are NOT euthanizing humans for meat--we are basically putting a person out of their misery or cost to the healthcare system.

Maybe I just don't trust people enough to do the right thing by people without violating "humane euthanasia guidelines and actions" with agreed procedures... Maybe I have more belief in the research scientists and workers trying to cure human ailments.


No matter what happens, there will be a personal penalty for any person who does participate in this process that is not worth it. Even "death rows" are having problems doing lethal injections because some death row inmates have other physical issues that prolongs the difficult process.

Also the United States signed the Geneva Conventions which state that we just cannot euthanize people who are deemed not needed.

To me, dying is hardly EVER dignified, and mental sanity during a chronic illness inherently does not allow for a caring from a physician who actually meant their oaths. Some people would say: "NEVER AGAIN"... We, humans think we can justify killing all kinds of people, but that still does not make it right, ethical or moral for that matter.

And yes, I have seen the slow debilitation of 2 loved ones and the pain they suffered. But the finality killing someone because of ANY reason, it is just not me. That just means hospices will become slaughterhouses and I do not want my country to get involved with that fascism...

For setting up standards for human euthanasia, we should look to Belgium and the Netherlands, where they have legalized human euthanasia (including physician assisted), or even Oregon's Death with Dignity Act (which is death by overdose.) There were no cases found with a cursory search that indicated that there are major problems with these policies.

When it comes to the Geneva Conventions:
1) The Geneva Conventions are speaking of people that are euthanized against their will, but the people we are talking about are asking for the right to die.
2) The US didn't have a problem breaking the Geneva Convention when it comes to the rights of the "detainees" (really prisoners of war) in Gitmo.
3) Other Geneva Convention signers have legalized euthanasia, Belgium and the Netherlands.

My grandmother survived the Holocaust at Dachau, then Bikenau, she survived fascism. It still didn't stop her from asking to die with dignity. There is a huge difference between murder and euthanasia. It seems that you can't separate the two.

You also can't seem to see that while you don't want it for yourself, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be available to others. Hospices would NOT become slaughterhouses because those that choose to deteriorate and lose what little dignity they have will be allowed to do so, and those that want to retain their dignity and die would also be allowed as they wish. No, dying isn't dignified, but to allow people to die with what dignity they have left is the ultimate in humane, "do no harm" treatment. People shouldn't have to live in pain.

Maybe you do have faith in medical research, but until that research is in action and people DON'T suffer, then human euthanasia should be an option.

But given my ancestors who were brought over here in slave ships, I am sorry, but I just do not trust this government system enough to enact any kind of law fairly and equitably.

People can be coerced to agree to anything and make it sound like it is what they want given the circumstances. A free people who are informed to make those choices would choose differently. A wise people would know that it is in their living that makes all the difference in the world.

Beloved,

I am asking you to walk along a path of serenity when you seek these ideas. My life has been fraught already with indignation. Institutionalized racism did that to me.

I have also done unsavory acts against my own life and I know what feels like when one is helpless, alienated, and forsaken. And I am here today to tell anyone willing to listen, to request dying with dignity--assisted or otherwise--is still suicide, which makes it a mental health issue at its core.

And because it is well known in the scientific literature that most chronic illnesses and some treatment actually do cause major clinical depression which is seen in rodents--meaning the molecular pathways have evolved similarly--that allowing someone to come to the conclusion that death is their only option, then I would say, wait something new and better, because one's death is not going to solve these ailments of humanity.

In the very near future, it is already predicted that those people who have HIV and full course of treatment will reach drug failure. The cocktails will not work anymore. And the disease will progress. Some people, those who are ignorant, would say that is the moral price one pays for contracting HIV. However, we as humans have to get beyond that level of thinking.

Beloved,

We will not get a second chance at this--our humanity. If we do not solve these major health care issues with humanity, is death with dignity an evolved option--given the breadth and depth of all our human knowledge?

I am sorry, but I have to do an invocation, because I believe in a higher power and spirit that I call my God in The Universe, I cannot agree to those terms... I would not want to be a part of a government that condones it. To me, that is not a freedom but a curse and trying to buy a way to get out of the costs of using Carbon--especially, when there is so much poverty in this world, so much hunger and strife--folks who have a very good life here in the States would think it is okay to die?

Also, we, in the US will have to pay a price for the infractions at Gitmo. It has already started in the courts.

The problem is that healthcare and researchers are still TRYING to find ways to manage pain, diseases, etc. I don't see why my bf's mom, with cancer nearly everywhere in her body, who was going to die no matter what, had to suffer through the pain of that cancer. She couldn't walk, sit up by herself or control her bodily functions. I think that is a pretty inhumane way of "living."

If you KNOW you are going to die from a diesease and there is no way to prevent it, why not allow that person to make their own decision about it?

Why not allow a person to make their own decision on how long they want to live with a disease like alzheimers? My gpa is 90 and has been dealing with it for several years. His older brother died about 8 years ago and had the disease as well (death not related to disease). My gpa said he never wanted to be like his brother and guess what, he's 10 times worse.

If HE doesn't want to live like that (little clue of what is going on around the world or even in his head-ie he thinks he's a teenager) and HE doesn't want to burden his wife and family with caring for him (if you haven't cared for a family member in this state, you just can't understand), then why can't HE make that decision early on his life, before the disease takes away his ability to make that kind of decision?

It's hard for me to understand why people can't make their own decision to end their life when there are valid medical reasons involved AND not have it be illegal, which denies the family the benefits of life insurance to cover their medical costs. I'm not saying minor things, but big problems that will cause pain and suffering down the road. I'm not saying suicide just b/c someone is depressed or going through a tough time should be OK, either.

What part did you not understand about what I said? It is in my will which is a binding contract that any judge will abide by. He has to because it is The Law!

This is my last will and testiment no matter what.

It is written in stone, notorized, period.:D

Yes, it is done by a Lawyer who is a Brother of mine.

It was my decission and he abided by the Law of the area.


Sorry mot to be snide as there is a difference than snarky!

What MC is saying is that you should have a living will which documents those end-of-life decisions. That's great that you have it in your last will & testament but that doesn't kick in UNTIL you are dead. It has no bearing on what happens to you when you are alive. No doctor is going to ask to see your will if you are coding in a hospital!!!!

You might have signed a lot of things in your lawyer's office when you did your estate plan. I'm pretty sure it couldn't be in your Will. As Mysticat said, Wills typically aren't effective until after death and after being admitted to the probate court.

What you probably signed was an Advance Directive for Health Care -- sometimes called a "Living Will."

These things typically describe what measures can be taken to keep you alive and/or vest the responsibility of determining what to do in another person. It would probably look something like this (although, this is an Oklahoma form):

http://www.okbar.org/public/brochure...ective2006.pdf

*The above is not legal advice.

Calm down - MC was asking a very reasonable question, for the reasons that he and Kevin explained. A lot of people think that they're signing certain documents, when in actuality those documents don't have the power they would like or prefer.

What you signed does sound a lot more like an Advanced Directive.

*Also not legal advice - just the impressions of a law student who has taken courses in trusts & estates and elder law.)*