High court upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law

[Martin]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10891536/

A little tiny glimpse of sanity in the United States.

Cuss and discuss.

[Boo-chan]

Unfortunately, assisted suicide is still illegal in Canada

Its rather amazing that Canada, which sees itself as much more progressive than the US, is behind on an issue like this.

CBC report

from the article wrote:

The Criminal Code of Canada outlaws suicide assistance, with penalties of up to 14 years in prison - but opponents have recently challenged the law's constitutionality in court.

In the most famous case, Sue Rodriguez - a 42-year-old B.C. woman who suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease - asked the Supreme Court of Canada in the early 1990s to be allowed to kill herself with a doctor's help.

She argued that the ban on assisted suicide violated the Constitution, by curbing her rights of personal liberty and autonomy guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court rejected her argument in 1993, ruling 5-4 that society's obligation to preserve life and protect the vulnerable outweighed her rights.

I find it rather disturbing that it is Canadian's society viewpoint that the rights of the individual can be infringed upon to protect them from harm. For if a good reason is enough to allow such an infringment, then a slightly less good reason will soon be accepted as well... Canada's approach to suicide and mental health is draconian to say the least. As a Canadian you have a long list of rights, unless they think your suicidal in which case you no longer have any protection under your rights since society believes that the need to protect you from yourself overrules them.

Of course there is the potential of abuse under this program, where older patients could be enrolled in the program against their wishes but Oregon seems to have been very careful to prevent this from happening. The guidelines seem to make this unlikely to occur. So in short, if people who are going to die soon want to commit suicide and a physician is willing to help them then I see nothing wrong with it. Unfortunately, some religious people seem to disagree...

[codemage]

I think there would be less of an issue with AS if it were regulated (like abortion is now) or at least decriminalized. As it is now, it's not really punished in Canada even though it's illegal.

I shudder to think of some of the discreet, under-the-table assisted suicides that must take place. I don't think suicide is ever the right answer and you wouldn't catch me helping someone to 'off themself', but if someone is of sound enough mind to go through due process - it's unproductive to try and stop them.

[Tony]

codemage wrote:

it's unproductive to try and stop them.

seeing as how the requirements filter out all but those who could off themselves, but don't want to make a mess.

[Dan]

I think that there deftaly has to be some laws aigsted suiced. In the case of some one who is not mentialy stable or has a metal disbality and is unable to make a rational choice they should not be alowed to kill them self (or any one help them do so). The real question comes in when peoleop in there right mind whont to end there life (witch could be controditory since some whould say if u whont to kill your self you are not in the right state of mind). Ether way laws whould be pointless since the person in question about killing them self whould not care. So as the case above the goverments go affter the peoleop helping them.

In my option it is not right to just help some one kill them self, 1st you whould have to be shure they are sain and full understand what they are doing. I think that some kind of system should be put in place where the goverment whould do the asisting in the suices affter a thougher review of the persons mential condition.

[Martin]

Of course there would have to be laws about it. You can't have people who just 'want to die' getting help from doctors, but that's not what the law is about. The term suicide is a bit misleading. It's about whether someone with a terminal illness and in great pain has the right to die rather than wait it out, should they choose.

The other issue that I have with assisted suicide is the possibility that it be used for hospitals to cut costs. A patient with a terminal illness should have the option of a doctor assisted suicide, but not the requirement of one.

Finally, the doctors should have some say in it too. I imagine it would be emotionally pretty difficult for a lot of doctors, so they shouldn't be required to comply with a patients wishes for an assisted suicide.

[md]

In my mind suicide, assisted or not, isn't right and people should be prevented from doing it. Not a thing is gonna change my mind about it either.

However, ignoring that, I must point out that terminal illnesses are only terminal given the current state of medicine (really not even the current state, but a couple of steps behind). So while you may think you're gonna die in a year and it'll be painful, in that year things may change and perhaps they will find a cure.

[Martin]

But what if it wasn't a year; what if it was six weeks at the most and you were going to spend that six weeks stoned out of your mind on painkillers, half aware of your surroundings and a huge financial drain on your family, followed by dying painfully?

Wouldn't you prefer your dignity over that? We're not going to find a cure for Lou Gehrig's disease any time soon.

[chrispminis]

IMO, suicide is wrong. I don't really understand why anyone would commit suicide. I, if given the choice between peaceful death and 5 excruciating more minutes of life, would choose the pain just for those 5 minutes of life. It's not just whether a cure might come, or whether theres hope, i just want to evade death for as long as possible. Procrastinating death i spose. Anyways on the subject of euthanasia, what do you guys think of assisting suicide when the subject did not choose to be killed. Ex. Man is a vegetable, and has very little chance of recovery, he has been in this state for many years, and is beginning to tax on the families finances, forcing them to live in squalor. Then, even if the man cannot speak for himself, should the family be allowed to authorize the euthanizing of the man? Or any other situation where the subject can't express their themselves, and if kept alive may cause much harm.

[rizzix]

It's simple really. If the man is a vegetable, but is surviving only cuz of the machines (as in pumping oxygen, pumping blood etc), basically most of his autonomic systems are replaced my machines and there's potentially no way to save him, then stop the machines. OTOH if he's a vegetable, but there's very little need for life support system, other than food supply systems, you shouldn't be allowed to kill him.

[Martin]

This isn't about being a vegetable. The question at hand is whether or not a person with a terminal disease who is in severe pain has the right to end their own life.

Also, the question here isn't whether you would do it or not, but whether you think that other people should be given the choice to do it.

If you were in nearly unbearable pain, and were going to die within two months anyway and were costing your family $1000 a day to keep you alive, what would you choose?

[rizzix]

Martin wrote:

If you were in nearly unbearable pain, and were going to die within two months anyway and were costing your family $1000 a day to keep you alive, what would you choose?

$1000 a day.. lol (be reasonable.. painkillers cost that much!!). There's no choice there. geez. I doubt the family can afford it. I'd die in pain then.

[Martin]

No, but in the US that's what your hospital bill would be weighing in at about.

[chrispminis]

Martin wrote:

This isn't about being a vegetable. The question at hand is whether or not a person with a terminal disease who is in severe pain has the right to end their own life.

Also, the question here isn't whether you would do it or not, but whether you think that other people should be given the choice to do it.

If you were in nearly unbearable pain, and were going to die within two months anyway and were costing your family $1000 a day to keep you alive, what would you choose?

Oh i realize all that, but just merely adding an extra question to this discussion, along with do you think people should be given a choice to euthanasia, do you think other people should be given the choice to euthanize a subject if the subject is unable to express his/her will, and also who would be allowed to give the go-ahead for euthanasia if you believe it should be allowed.


EDIT: GASP! Martin 2500 posts exactly?!

[Dan]

Martin wrote:

No, but in the US that's what your hospital bill would be weighing in at about.

And soon to be in canada too if the conrsitive win. VOTE DAM IT!