Do you support physician-assisted suicide?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No right is more inherent than to do what they want with their body, including taking their own life.

This is absolutely correct.  However, the decision to end one's life should not involve a medical professional.  People may and must act to kill themselves through their own devices. 

Why not use a physician as one of those devices?

Why must physicians be the ones to provide dignified means of death?

Why not? In the US, where you pay your doctor anyways, why shouldn't you have the option to pay your doctor to kill you?

Because physicians are healers not killers, and I'd like to keep it that way. Placing physicians in the role of gatekeepers means that in a real sense they have to sign off on whether a life is so bad as to be worth ending, which I don't think they should be doing.  Or conversely if they aren't judging whether a life is so medically awful as to be suitable for termination, why involve physicians at all in the process?

[Hatman 🍁]

No right is more inherent than to do what they want with their body, including taking their own life.

This is absolutely correct.  However, the decision to end one's life should not involve a medical professional.  People may and must act to kill themselves through their own devices. 

Why not use a physician as one of those devices?

Why must physicians be the ones to provide dignified means of death?

Why not? In the US, where you pay your doctor anyways, why shouldn't you have the option to pay your doctor to kill you?

Because physicians are healers not killers, and I'd like to keep it that way. Placing physicians in the role of gatekeepers means that in a real sense they have to sign off on whether a life is so bad as to be worth ending, which I don't think they should be doing.  Or conversely if they aren't judging whether a life is so medically awful as to be suitable for termination, why involve physicians at all in the process?

Well, many would argue that by allowing someone in severe pain to die would be healing them of their severe pain, so your argument is moot.

I mean, we have vets (animal doctors) to humanely put down animals, why can't we have people doctors to be humane to people?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

My mother-in-law passed away Tuesday after suffering for years.  She never wanted to suffer but that's the hand that was dealt.  If given the choice she would have opted for an easy passing instead of a long torturous one.  She wasn't given that choice, sadly.

[Ebowed]

My mother-in-law passed away Tuesday after suffering for years.

I'm sorry to hear that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No right is more inherent than to do what they want with their body, including taking their own life.

This is absolutely correct.  However, the decision to end one's life should not involve a medical professional.  People may and must act to kill themselves through their own devices. 

Why not use a physician as one of those devices?

Why must physicians be the ones to provide dignified means of death?

Why not? In the US, where you pay your doctor anyways, why shouldn't you have the option to pay your doctor to kill you?

Because physicians are healers not killers, and I'd like to keep it that way. Placing physicians in the role of gatekeepers means that in a real sense they have to sign off on whether a life is so bad as to be worth ending, which I don't think they should be doing.  Or conversely if they aren't judging whether a life is so medically awful as to be suitable for termination, why involve physicians at all in the process?

Well, many would argue that by allowing someone in severe pain to die would be healing them of their severe pain, so your argument is moot.

Not really.  Not when in most cases proper pain management would alleviate the suffering, albeit in extreme cases with the risk of dying from overdose.  Not something to be looked for, but not the ethical problem that having physicians intentionally killing someone causes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since when did the animals give their consent to be put down?  Shall we also do as with animals and put down humans when we'd rather not pay to give them proper medical care?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

My mother-in-law passed away Tuesday after suffering for years.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Thanks my friend. I found the subject timely.

Best ,

Grumps.

[Hatman 🍁]

No right is more inherent than to do what they want with their body, including taking their own life.

This is absolutely correct.  However, the decision to end one's life should not involve a medical professional.  People may and must act to kill themselves through their own devices. 

Why not use a physician as one of those devices?

Why must physicians be the ones to provide dignified means of death?

Why not? In the US, where you pay your doctor anyways, why shouldn't you have the option to pay your doctor to kill you?

Because physicians are healers not killers, and I'd like to keep it that way. Placing physicians in the role of gatekeepers means that in a real sense they have to sign off on whether a life is so bad as to be worth ending, which I don't think they should be doing.  Or conversely if they aren't judging whether a life is so medically awful as to be suitable for termination, why involve physicians at all in the process?

Well, many would argue that by allowing someone in severe pain to die would be healing them of their severe pain, so your argument is moot.

Not really.  Not when in most cases proper pain management would alleviate the suffering, albeit in extreme cases with the risk of dying from overdose.  Not something to be looked for, but not the ethical problem that having physicians intentionally killing someone causes.

Umm, no. "Proper pain management" is not always enough for people, and may not be affordable (especially to Americans).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since when did the animals give their consent to be put down?  Shall we also do as with animals and put down humans when we'd rather not pay to give them proper medical care?
[/quote]

Do people put down animals to end their suffering, or because they can't afford proper medical care? Because, it's likely either/or. Are you arguing that's wrong? Because the fact that people CAN consent is all the more reason for people to have the right to physician-assisted suicide. At least moreso than animals.

Considering the outrageous costs of health care in the US, it might not be a bad idea to end it all to avoid burdening your family with massive health care debts.

[politicallefty]

My mother-in-law passed away Tuesday after suffering for years.  She never wanted to suffer but that's the hand that was dealt.  If given the choice she would have opted for an easy passing instead of a long torturous one.  She wasn't given that choice, sadly.

Your family has my condolences. I firmly do not believe the manner and time of a death does anything to change the impact on loved ones, but it can ease the pain of loss knowing that the pain and suffering of the deceased is over when dealing with a long-term illness.

As for the issue, I'm a strong supporter of physician-assisted suicide. When faced with a terminal illness, I believe one should have the right to end their life on their own terms. I'm less sure on how the law should be crafted when it comes to non-terminal cases. No one should be forced or persuaded toward such an option, but it should be available as an end-of-life option. However, no one should also be forced to endure the pain and suffering of a terminal illness against their will.

[Peeperkorn]

Yes.

[Del Tachi]

No right is more inherent than to do what they want with their body, including taking their own life.

This is absolutely correct.  However, the decision to end one's life should not involve a medical professional.  People may and must act to kill themselves through their own devices. 

Why not use a physician as one of those devices?

Quite simply because there is no reason to.  To get physicians involved does nothing more to complicate a process than should be relatively easy.

[RedSLC]

Yes. If you have a terminal illness, or a nasty disease with no hope of recovery, then you should have every right to die on your own terms. If you need a physician to do so, who is the government to say no?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No right is more inherent than to do what they want with their body, including taking their own life.

This is absolutely correct.  However, the decision to end one's life should not involve a medical professional.  People may and must act to kill themselves through their own devices. 

Why not use a physician as one of those devices?

Quite simply because there is no reason to.  To get physicians involved does nothing more to complicate a process than should be relatively easy.

Yeah, because scraping the remains of a loved one off of a sidewalk or your living room wall is "relatively easy."

That's only because at present we make physicians the gatekeepers to the drugs that could do it easily.  If we either had someone other than physicians perform that role or didn't have a gatekeeper, that is what would be best.  I do not want physicians judging whether a life is a "life unworthy of life" and thus is eligible for euthanasia.  If we're going to have legal suicide, then it should be freely available to all mentally competent adults, regardless of their reasons.

[Mordecai]

If we're going to have legal suicide, then it should be freely available to all mentally competent adults, regardless of their reasons.

Could this inadvertently create a loophole where terminally ill patients might not be judged mentally competent because of their condition?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If we're going to have legal suicide, then it should be freely available to all mentally competent adults, regardless of their reasons.

Could this inadvertently create a loophole where terminally ill patients might not be judged mentally competent because of their condition?

Potentially, but I imagine that under such a scheme people could include the circumstances of when they wish to commit suicide under an advance directive as they can for medical decisions.

[The Dowager Mod]

Yup.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

No right is more inherent than to do what they want with their body, including taking their own life.

This is absolutely correct.  However, the decision to end one's life should not involve a medical professional.  People may and must act to kill themselves through their own devices. 

Why not use a physician as one of those devices?

Quite simply because there is no reason to.  To get physicians involved does nothing more to complicate a process than should be relatively easy.

Yeah, because scraping the remains of a loved one off of a sidewalk or your living room wall is "relatively easy."

That's only because at present we make physicians the gatekeepers to the drugs that could do it easily.  If we either had someone other than physicians perform that role or didn't have a gatekeeper, that is what would be best.  I do not want physicians judging whether a life is a "life unworthy of life" and thus is eligible for euthanasia.  If we're going to have legal suicide, then it should be freely available to all mentally competent adults, regardless of their reasons.

Critically assessing whether the remainder of one's life will be composed of suffering or happiness is not declaring how worthy someone is of living or not, especially if that determination is made by the patient.  I think the doctors should, of course, be free to abstain from administering the drugs, but not be able to decide if someone dies without written consent.

[New_Conservative]

Yes (R), as long as that person passes a mental health examination when they make the decision.

I watched my aunt suffer from cancer for 6 months, and it was horrible for her.

[Repub242]

No, it should be illegal.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Yes (R), as long as that person passes a mental health examination when they make the decision.

I watched my aunt suffer from cancer for 6 months, and it was horrible for her.

Im very sorry to hear that. My Great Uncle went through the same thing.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No right is more inherent than to do what they want with their body, including taking their own life.

This is absolutely correct.  However, the decision to end one's life should not involve a medical professional.  People may and must act to kill themselves through their own devices. 

Why not use a physician as one of those devices?

Why must physicians be the ones to provide dignified means of death?

In an ideal world, a physician would have the right to decline to perform such an act on a patient if requested, but there are plenty of physicians who are willing to help people in this manner. I rather trust a doctor to bring about a painless and peaceful end than a bottle of ambien or a shotgun in the garage.

[AggregateDemand]

ITT Awful, selfish people who have never had old relatives in extreme pain

It doesn't matter what the law says. When it comes down to the final days, the doctors usually defer to the family members. Unfortunately, the families often keep their dying loved ones alive for days or weeks, though they couldn't survive without medical assistance.

The legal question is about terminally ill people who could survive without medical equipment, but have no interest in enduring intense pain or risky end-of-life surgery.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes (decent person)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yes, because no one has a right to force another person to endure suffering without any hope of recovery.

Obviously it must be a concious, individual decision.