RoR: Forum

Post 0

Tuesday, February 26 - 5:12pm

Link

Edit

It's staggering how utterly evil it is for a woman in such a condition to even have to ask for permission to die. Altruism has reached an incredibly ugly height in this case. Not only does she sacrifice her right to die for the government, but her friends, family members - the whole lot - all of them clearly support this disgusting display of altruism by their omission of granting what a dog would've recieved a long time ago: a dignified death. And at this point, she has sadly been robbed of any dignity to even die with. This is just mindnumbingly ridiculous.

Post 1

Tuesday, February 26 - 8:39pm

Link

Edit

Poor woman. Her chances would be better if she could get herself moved to one of those non-airconditioned senior facilities during the hottest period of July. Unfortunately, some dignity is already lost when you've asked for permission from gov't to kill yourself. There are plenty of less-than-legal free-market options out there if her family were truly supportive. I wonder what the French public response has been like?

Post 2

Tuesday, February 26 - 9:54pm

Link

Edit

Umm ... why is she asking the French government for permission to commit suicide, instead of just walking into a drugstore and legally buying a combination of drugs that would end her life, such as alcohol and downers? Why doesn't she go on a fast, and not end it? Are there no high bridges anywhere in Europe that she could jump off of, or train tracks she could lie down on in black clothing on a moonless night? Is it possible that she wants pity, not death, since she has various means at her disposal and chooses to not exercise them?

I remember when the Hawaii legislature was debating physician-assisted suicide, and I was listening to a man complain about how the government was keeping him from killing himself -- while we were leaning on the mid-belly high railing of the fourth floor balcony, which either of us could have simply climbed over in about a second and tumbled to a certain death on the pavement about 60 feet below.

Post 3

Tuesday, February 26 - 10:48pm

Link

Edit

Jim, she's blinded by her tumor. She would require assistance in suicide, hence is literally at the mercy of others.

Post 4

Wednesday, February 27 - 4:50am

Link

Edit

Could someone legally escort her to a country where the procedure is legal?

Post 5

Wednesday, February 27 - 8:40am

Link

Edit

"Jim, she's blinded by her tumor. She would require assistance in suicide, hence is literally at the mercy of others."

Really? A blind person needs assistance to stop eating and drinking? Is it illegal in France for someone else to buy you hard alcohol and sleeping pills, and then leave the room? Is it illegal for them to buy you a knife, or a gun? And if it IS illegal for her to buy a gun, are there no black markets for pistols? What, is she afraid the French government will prosecute her corpse for violating gun control laws? Is it illegal for a friend to escort her to a high bridge or the roof of a tall building, then leave once she's at the railing?

It takes constant decisions to stay alive -- the default is death. Every day you have to choose to eat and drink, or you start dying. It's legal for someone to walk even a blind person right up to the brink of death in a multitude of ways, then leave the room so they aren't held responsible for the individual's decision to end their life. Does an independent, self-owning person need to cringe at the feet of the state and beg leave to end their life, when they are perfectly capable of doing so on their own?

Somebody who insists that they need to have another person kill them is arguably not really ready to die, they're pleading for attention, or they're having second thoughts and want someone to do what they're too afraid to do to themselves.

Post 6

Thursday, February 28 - 9:42am

Link

Edit

Jim, some of what you say has merit but you are being a bit too harsh. It is not easy to kill one's self - it is against natural instincts. The assistance allows someone to do it in a pain free and dignified manner, rather than create yet more pain and anguish for her by trying some painful suicide on her own.

Post 7

Thursday, February 28 - 3:24pm

Link

Edit

Kurt, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that I am being too harsh. I am arguing for a policy that would result in fewer people dying an early death that they arguably weren't quite ready to accept -- how is trying to preserve life while still respecting each person's right to own their body harsh?

Note that I am not saying that a person who wants to end their life shouldn't be allowed whatever assistance they need to prepare for this act -- I am in favor of removing these legal barriers strictly limiting the degree of assistance allowed. Rather, I am saying that the person must clearly and unequivocally show that they were not coerced or pressured into suicide, by personally taking the final step, rather than delegating that to anyone else. I'm sure you're aware of that creep Kevorkian -- do you really want laws on the books that would allow sociopaths like him to kill other people, and then claim that the dead person asked them to do so?

And yes, of course it is against natural instincts to kill oneself. We are all products of an unbroken line of ancestors who managed to stay alive long enough to reproduce. Thus, most people are inevitably very tough, and embued with a strong survival instinct. I would argue that there is nothing dignified about committing suicide, but this is a matter of personal ethics and I understand others can respectfully disagree with me and also make compelling arguments to support their POV.

It is possible for a person to commit suicide in a pain free manner, using the exact same methods of a physician assisted suicide. The question is, should the suicidal person be the one to take the final step, or should they delegate it, and risk loosing sociopaths on this world who will game this law and gleefully kill people who are not ready to die?

Post 8

Thursday, February 28 - 4:07pm

Link

Edit

Jim

Really? A blind person needs assistance to stop eating and drinking?

You are being too harsh. Stopping oneself from drinking water to commit suicide is an extremely painful way to kill oneself and the time it takes to die from dehydration is over several days. A physician knows how the human body works, he knows what is the least painful way to die through suicide. And a person asking for assistance from a physician is because an individual has a right to die on their own terms, and to die if they so choose with their family by their side. If your life was so full of pain would you think your family would like to be by your side if you chose to kill yourself by blowing your brains out with a pistol and your brain splatters against the wall?

It is possible for a person to commit suicide in a pain free manner, using the exact same methods of a physician assisted suicide.

Most people do not know which is the least painful chemical to inject into their bodies nor do they know how to even set up an IV. In fact instances of physician assisted suicide were usually carried out by the patient pushing a button that injected the chemical into their IV when they were ready to go. Is that any different than selling a gun to the person according to your logic Jim? Usually the physician isn't the one actually carrying out the suicide, he just helps the patient get there by setting up the IV and setting up the appropriate chemical, just as a gun owner could sell you the gun of your choosing and the ammunition that you want to use to commit suicide. Plus some people no longer through their disease and pain have the physical ability to kill themselves and assistance is needed.

The question is, should the suicidal person be the one to take the final step, or should they delegate it, and risk loosing sociopaths on this world who will game this law and gleefully kill people who are not ready to die?

This is a red herring. If this was a problem we could set up court proceedings to make sure the patient wants the suicide with a signed will and contract. Witnesses could be called, and a judge can make a determination if the patient was of rational faculty to make the decision to commit suicide.

I would argue that there is nothing dignified about committing suicide, but this is a matter of personal ethics

Right, so I would argue it is if far more dignified to commit suicide peacefully through painless means rather than have to rot away and die a slow and painful death. Let's get something straight, there is no dignity to death period. The whole point is to die of your own choosing to avoid a slow and painful death.

Have you seen someone suffer from cancer? I've personally taken care of my wife's grandfather when he had weeks left to live, it was awful, he was a shell of the man he used to be and was in constant pain always pumped full of morphine, he was a grown man that could no longer defecate on his own and had to have a nurse change his diaper. Do you think that's dignified? The pain that he went through and my wife's constant crying was certainly not my idea of dignity Jim.

Post 9

Thursday, February 28 - 4:48pm

Link

Edit

Kurt, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that I am being too harsh. I am arguing for a policy that would result in fewer people dying an early death that they arguably weren't quite ready to accept

So your policy is to make people suffer as much as possible because *you* don't think it should be too easy for *them* to take their own life? How much pain ought a person suffer from their death, whatever that would be that would 'naturally' occur? Who exactly are you to decide when and how another person should take their own life?

You seem to be taking the typical position liberal paternalists take on just about every other issue, that of frustrated social tyrant. Apparently you are so upset that people don't decide what you think they ought to decide that you are content to force them to make that decision. Is that a correct assessment?

Post 10

Thursday, February 28 - 5:52pm

Link

Edit

This poor woman is starting to look like Admiral Ackbar but without the joys of interstellar victory against evil.

Her plight reminds us all to get our copy of The Peaceful Pill Handbook and grasp an exit of choice thoroughly so as not to depend upon others when that time comes.

I agree with critics on this thread who slam Jim Henshaw's position. Legalized suicide could be easily accomplished in the same manner as "living wills" are now. Questions of whether people are "tricked" or "coerced" into this option would largely vanish with a legal framework in place. I would certainly want that option open to me as the "living will" option is now and which my wife and I both have notarized in writing.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/28, 5:59pm)

Post 11

Thursday, February 28 - 6:18pm

Link

Edit

John and Michael -- Since you both seem to misinterpreted my post, let me repeat the salient point I made:

Note that I am not saying that a person who wants to end their life shouldn't be allowed whatever assistance they need to prepare for this act -- I am in favor of removing these legal barriers strictly limiting the degree of assistance allowed. Rather, I am saying that the person must clearly and unequivocally show that they were not coerced or pressured into suicide, by personally taking the final step, rather than delegating that to anyone else.

You seem to be attacking me for something I didn't say. I am OK with a doctor prescribing drugs that will kill the patient. I am OK with the doctor setting up the machinery to dispense the poison. Where I draw the line is the doctor pushing the button that will inject the poison into the patient's veins, because then the doctor is making the decision, not the patient. The patient would need to push the button.

Similarly, I am OK with a friend helping someone walk up to a high rooftop, and set up stairs for them to climb to the edge of the roof. Where I draw the line is the friend pushing the person over the roof. The potential suicide would have to make that tiny but crucial effort themselves, to show that they indeed consented to their death, and it wasn't some sociopath who made the decision for them.

And, in case I somehow still haven't made myself clear, I'm OK with a friend buying a suicidal person a gun, loading the bullets, and handing it to them with the safety off. Where I draw the line would be the friend pulling the trigger.

If you still want to misinterpet all that to mean:

So your policy is to make people suffer as much as possible because *you* don't think it should be too easy for *them* to take their own life?

well, I can't stop you from reading into my words something I disagree with and didn't say.

Post 12

Thursday, February 28 - 6:30pm

Link

Edit

Jim:

You seem to be attacking me for something I didn't say. I am OK with a doctor prescribing drugs that will kill the patient. I am OK with the doctor setting up the machinery to dispense the poison. Where I draw the line is the doctor pushing the button that will inject the poison into the patient's veins, because then the doctor is making the decision, not the patient. The patient would need to push the button.

Your proposing a dilemma that rarely exists, that the doctor is the one that "pushes the button" in lieu of the patient doing that himself. Most of the time it is the patient pushing the button. But there are instances where either a patient is incapacitated and unconscious, i.e. a brain-dead vegetable, and can have a living will that dictates suicide is what the individual wants. Nor are you taking into consideration people who are physically incapable of committing the act but are still conscious, for example a paraplegic or a cancer patient too weak to even go to the bathroom on their own. It seems what you're saying here is that under no circumstances should someone else under any context be the one that kills the patient that wants to die. This woman in question wants a physician assisted suicide, i.e. a physician that is willing to set up the IV in a hospitable bed and hook up the chemical to the IV for her to press the button, a painless and quick peaceful death with her family perhaps. France will not let her do this because any physician that will help her do this will be prosecuted for murder, hence her appeal to the French president to let her die on her own terms.

Now how you originally responded to that in this thread was "Why does she need the doctor to commit suicide, why doesn't she stop eating or drinking water" and I gave you a reason why, because they are trained in how to assist someone in committing suicide in the least painful way. Sure she could take her own life and do so in the most painfully excruciating way, but in no way does the French government have any legitimate power to stop a doctor from assisting her, and that is what is the issue here.
(Edited by John Armaos on 2/28, 6:35pm)

Post 13

Thursday, February 28 - 6:43pm

Link

Edit

Besides, like it or not, there is the bell curve in Darwinian survivability - some simply not fit to go on, and if one wished to self end it, so be it......

Post 14

Thursday, February 28 - 6:58pm

Link

Edit

And, in case I somehow still haven't made myself clear, I'm OK with a friend buying a suicidal person a gun, loading the bullets, and handing it to them with the safety off. Where I draw the line would be the friend pulling the trigger

You seem to be backpeddling now, what does it matter if the patient themselves actually expends the calories to initiate the action that results in their death, why is saying something really in different than moving a finger? Such as "do it" As John points out, in many cases the patient can't move at all. The most common example of this is Lou Gherig's disease, where essentially every single muscle in the body stops working, while the brain functions completely fine. The disease usually starts at the extremities, sometimes it never progresses from their, in the worst cases, a patient wouldn't be able to move their fingers and toes one week, their arms and legs the next, their head and back the next, then their diaphragms stops working and lastly their heart stops. Sometimes the disease stops at the arms and legs, other times at the diaphragm's, these patients need to be artificially respirated. What of these patients, who can't actually move anything in order to initiate their suicide? This is not a hypothetical, it happens all the time. One of my closest friends is a hospice nurse and tells me of these terrible events frequently. In many cases of the worse cases, the patients just insist on being pulled off the artificial respirators, but in many cases their diaphragms and hearts continue to work just fine, but nothing else does. Except in all cases their minds are still sharp and they are still fully present. Yet, they can't pull a trigger or press a button.

Post 15

Thursday, February 28 - 10:00pm

Link

Edit

"You seem to be backpeddling now, what does it matter if the patient themselves actually expends the calories to initiate the action that results in their death, why is saying something really in different than moving a finger?"

You really can't tell any difference between an individual choosing to shoot themselves with a handgun, and someone else shooting them because they think, or pretend to think, that they understand that this is what the person really wants? Given all the miscommunication and misconstruing of words that occurs on this site, and other sites, can you really say that no one will ever misconstrue a cry for attention by a lonely old person as an actual request to die? Are you saying that no one who has, in a moment of weakness, said they wanted to die, and actually meant it at that moment, ever changed their mind, and then run up against people who have a vested interest in their death occurring?

I've been excruciatingly sick on several occasions in my life, and had moments where I thought that I'd rather die than let the pain continue. Most recently it occurred when I was enduring chemotherapy for cancer. So far, these moments all have been fleeting.

I'm not backpedaling in the slightest. I've been trying to communicate the exact same thing all along, and I've phrased it several different ways because my meaning has been misconstrued, and I want my actual POV to be understood. I've been called a "libertarian paternalist", even though I've been passionately arguing for each individual to have final and absolute control over the choice whether to end their life or keep on living. That is the opposite of paternalism.

My point is that the person who claims they want to commit suicide needs to be the one that takes the final irrevocable step, not anyone else. It's a case of what is called "revealed preference" in economics -- someone may SAY they want to commit suicide, but not actually prefer death to living in pain when the actual decision is before them. If someone else makes the decision for them, THAT is paternalism, and all sorts of nasty things can happen if you let that principle get enacted into law. You'll get sociopaths going on killing sprees that are legally indistinguishable from "assisting" suicides, you'll have kids eyeing an inheritance trying to push old people into the act by calling them a "burden", if we get socialized medicine we'll have government officials trying to stay under budget by getting rid of people running up bills they consider excessive, etc. All of these nasty consequences are much less likely to happen if the final decision to act is always under the control of the individual.

Post 16

Thursday, February 28 - 10:45pm

Link

Edit

Jim

Given all the miscommunication and misconstruing of words that occurs on this site, and other sites, can you really say that no one will ever misconstrue a cry for attention by a lonely old person as an actual request to die?

Are you saying this is necessarily the case? Or are you saying we can't be sure if the lonely old person really wants to die or there was some miscommunication? That it's impossible to know for sure? We do have a legal framework Jim to sort these things out. I see no reason why a judge could not reaffirm someone is of sound mind (or a living will that states death is preferred) and that they really do want to die. Basically you are arguing one can never truly know what someone wants.

Are you saying that no one who has, in a moment of weakness, said they wanted to die, and actually meant it at that moment, ever changed their mind, and then run up against people who have a vested interest in their death occurring?

So you're saying in the rare instance someone changes their mind, it's still not ok to allow others assisted suicide because someone may commit murder by killing someone who has reneged on his request to die? Remember someone has a right to change their mind, and ultimately others have to comply with their request if they want to renege. But listen to what you are proposing, that we force others against their will from choosing to end their life because there may be some miscommunication even if there is no reason to think there is. I find that remarkably paternalistic. Do we also stop people from undergoing risky surgical procedure to alleviate some pain because there is a chance they might die, and such there could be some miscommunication as to whether the patient really wanted the risky surgery or perhaps the patient changed their mind but the evil surgeon still wants to make money off the surgery so he proceeds anyways? You are creating hypotheticals to propose we ban people from choosing to end their own lives. Would you do the same for everything else because people can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves?

My point is that the person who claims they want to commit suicide needs to be the one that takes the final irrevocable step, not anyone else.

And what about someone who is too physically weak to do it themselves? You haven't really addressed that. You would condemn someone to live the last months, years, days of their life to excruciating pain because you're worried he might change his mind or there was some kind of miscommunication, imagined or not.

If someone else makes the decision for them, THAT is paternalism,

And no one disagrees with that, no one has said it would be ok if someone else makes the decision for them. You are confusing someone acting as your agent to mean they made the decision for you, and that is completely false. When you decide to have a risky surgery, do you have to perform the surgery since your life is at risk? Obviously you don't have to commit the act if you consent to someone else doing it on your behalf. As a free moral agent I have the right to hire someone as my agent to carry out my wishes. If I hire a contractor to build me a garage addition to my house, and they build the garage are they making the decision to build the garage for me? Obviously not because the contractor has my consent, just as a doctor assisting in suicide must have consent before carrying out the assisted suicide. So I don't know why you are saying this.

You'll get sociopaths going on killing sprees that are legally indistinguishable from "assisting" suicides

Oh no! Think of the horrors of letting someone be an end to himself! You're right we're not fit to be free. Better let the government make sure they stop us from doing what's best for us cause those sociopaths are going to start killing now (because sociopaths don't kill unless they can do it legally)

[ /sarcasm ]

Post 17

Friday, February 29 - 6:56am

Link

Edit

"And no one disagrees with that, no one has said it would be ok if someone else makes the decision for them. You are confusing someone acting as your agent to mean they made the decision for you, and that is completely false."

John -- It appears that we are not going to have a meeting of minds on this. I am not confused at all -- delegating your execution IS ceding that final decision making to someone else. It happens all the time -- someone says they want to die, and actually believes that they mean to go through with it, but when they put the gun to their head, either figuratively or literally, they have an epiphany -- they don't really want to die after all. They want to live. If this decision gets delegated, you don't get that epiphany, you get a corpse.

It appears that you don't see the huge potential for abuse or coercion of giving someone else, in particular a government agent, the power to interpret that someone else has resolved to die, and the power to carry out that execution. It appears that, in a country lurching toward government-rationed health care, with the inevitable pressures to contain costs, you don't consider this ceding of authority to government agents to be a tad bit disturbing and rife with unintended consequences.

Delegating the performance of a surgery, where the patient explicitly instructs the surgeon to make every effort to keep them alive, and where if the patient dies there is going to be a huge amount of scrutiny about why and how that death happened, is so very much not equivalent to delegating the performance of an execution.

Post 18

Friday, February 29 - 11:07am

Link

Edit

Jim:

John -- It appears that we are not going to have a meeting of minds on this. I am not confused at all

I think we are both operating from two very different standards of evaluation. While I am saying it is possible for someone to know what they want for themselves, and it is possible that this person is sure what they want, and that this person must live or die by the consequences of that choice, you are saying it's not possible for someone to know what they want, but you know better. You are more qualified to make the decision for someone else to say no one is permitted to seek assisted suicide. Even if you are either a brain-dead vegetable that has a living will or a paraplegic, or someone terminally ill and is too weak to even lift a finger.

-- delegating your execution IS ceding that final decision making to someone else

You've said this before but you haven't demonstrated why this is the case. Does a contractor who has a signed contract with you, that builds an addition to your home making the decision for you to build that addition? There is no difference morally speaking between committing the act yourself and consenting to someone they can do it on your behalf should you require physical assistance. Or if you are brain-dead and had a prior will stating death is what you prefer in that situation. This particular scenario happens all the time and did happen to my mother-in-law, who was brain-dead from an automobile accident, and the family asked she be taken off life-support because there was no hope for recovery, would you characterize the doctor and my in-laws as the "executioner"?

It happens all the time -- someone says they want to die, and actually believes that they mean to go through with it, but when they put the gun to their head, either figuratively or literally, they have an epiphany -- they don't really want to die after all. They want to live. If this decision gets delegated, you don't get that epiphany, you get a corpse.

You are right Jim in that this happens a lot to people who are in severe psychological depression. But you assume someone can't have this epiphany and avert the suicide in the case of a physician assisted suicide. "Doctor, I'd rather not go through with this" "That's fine, we'll not do it then" And if they don't have that change before the suicide, they obviously never had that epiphany and must die by the consequence of their own choice. You presume society is over-run with sociopath doctors who want to just end lives. And then assume that there would be no required burden of proof to make sure the person was of sound rational faculty and consented to the suicide. Worried about someone changing their mind? Establish a burden of proof, have an officer of the court present to insure that is what the person wants or other duly appointed witnesses.

It appears that you don't see the huge potential for abuse or coercion of giving someone else, in particular a government agent, the power to interpret that someone else has resolved to die, and the power to carry out that execution.

And it appears you don't understand the guaranteed abuse of power by Jim Henshaw who wants to forbid anyone from seeking assisted suicide and force people against their will to live the remainder of their lives with a terminal disease in excruciating pain, even if that is what they want, because you don't feel any burden of proof can be met.

It appears that, in a country lurching toward government-rationed health care, with the inevitable pressures to contain costs, you don't consider this ceding of authority to government agents to be a tad bit disturbing and rife with unintended consequences.

I can see how you feel this way if you presume someone else besides the individual is making the decision to end their life. But that is not a philosophically coherent argument. The argument you are putting forth is that there is no way to have a burden of proof be met that someone gives consent to a doctor to go ahead with the assisted suicide, but if we grant this argument then no burden of proof can be met on any decision a person makes. If I decide to buy a car, to you there is no burden of proof that can be met that I really wanted the car rather than the car dealership initiating force against me by stealing my money. On the contrary you want government interference into what is a personal choice even if no initiation of force took place. You want men with guns, to force someone against their will from seeking a physician assisted suicide.

Delegating the performance of a surgery, where the patient explicitly instructs the surgeon to make every effort to keep them alive, and where if the patient dies there is going to be a huge amount of scrutiny about why and how that death happened

Just as there would be a huge amount of scrutiny to a a death as a result of surgery, so to would be the case for a physician assisted suicide. You presume in such a case there is a burden of proof that can be met by the doctor in the case of the risky surgery, but for some reason a burden of proof is not possible in the case of a physician assisted suicide. Why is this different conceptually?

Post 19

Friday, February 29 - 5:59pm

Link

Edit

John -- I think we understand each other's arguments, but have a basic philosophical difference about which approach would lead to more freedom. That's fine. Perhaps in time I will come around to your POV, or vice-versa. I have been mulling over what you said, and I think there might be a narrow technical area where we might agree regarding government involvement in assisted suicides:

Would you consider it an increase in freedom if the Communist Chinese government announced that they will permit political prisoners to delegate their suicides to the state, and then they start publicly executing hundreds of these prisoners who they allege have voluntarily signed these statements, and they release copies of these signed statements -- but don't allow any reporters to interview the prisoners?

Would you consider it an increase in freedom if the British National Health Service announced that they fully endorse the Armaos doctrine of assisted suicide, and announce that they will fully cover the costs of carrying out these suicides, and unlike all their other expenditures on health care there will be no waiting list, they will promptly carry out all requests within hours of getting the signed documents? Would it make any difference to you if, in a separate news article, it was disclosed that the NHS has been ordered to cut costs, and that the costs of these assisted suicides will be considerably less than the costs of keeping these patients alive, and that certain decision-makers at the NHS will receive sizable bonuses if they exceed their cost-cutting targets, and may lose their lucrative jobs if they fail to meet the targets?

You may have deduced that I would consider both of these developments a sizable setback in achieving greater freedom.