The right to stop living.

[Guest]

It's the first time I've heard of voluntary euthanasia being granted in these circumstances. I fully support their right to make the decision they did and I applaud the Belgian government for allowing medical services to act on their behalf.

I wonder what others here think.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/13/doctors-euthanize-belgian-twins-who-said-they-could-not-bear-the-thought-of-going-blind/

Identical twins have been killed by Belgian doctors in a unique case under the country’s euthanasia laws.

The 45-year-old brothers from the Antwerp region were born deaf and sought euthanasia after finding out that they would soon go blind. They told doctors that they were unable to bear the thought of not being able to see each other again.

[TimG]

I fully support their right to make the decision they did and I applaud the Belgian government for allowing medical services to act on their behalf.

I think the decision to commit suicide must be made by the individual. This means providing drugs and or medical apparatus that they control (i.e. press a button). The state only needs to allow such an apparatus to be made available. Doctors should not be actively putting people to death. Edited January 14, 2013 by TimG

[BC_chick]

I wonder what others here think.

I agree that people should be able to choose their moment to exit, but I don't know... don't we usually intervene when people want to commit suicide and offer them therapy and tell them how good life is?

It seems kind of strange that we'd do that if they're on a bridge but offer them an injection if they ask nicely.

Edited January 14, 2013 by BC_chick

[TimG]

It seems kind of strange that we'd do that if they're on a bridge but offer them an injection if they ask nicely.

There is a huge difference between a spur of the moment decision and a decision made after months of a consulting with medical professionals. The first response should always be to convince people not do it but if someone insists after a long process they should be entitled to make that choice. Forcing people to kill themselves using whatever ad hoc methods they can find causes unnecessary suffering for the people that wish to die and for the emergency responders that get stuck cleaning up a gruesome scene. Edited January 14, 2013 by TimG

[BC_chick]

The people who jump off bridges or take pills or shoot themselves often don't do it on a whim either. Most have been fighting suicidal thoughts for a long time.

When we talk the bridge jumper down and listen to the story we don't often agree that it merits death if the person had lost their house, their job, their spouse etc etc.

What about someone who was injured and is disabled and doesn't want to live in a wheelchair forever?

As I said before, I do believe people should be able to make their own decisions about when to end their lives but I'm just pointing out the inconsitency in the approach.

Where do we draw the line? Or are you saying there shouldn't be a line?

[jbg]

It seems kind of strange that we'd do that if they're on a bridge but offer them an injection if they ask nicely.

Admittedly it's a hard line to draw. If someone is seeking a "permanent solution to a temporary problem" they should be pulled off the ledge. In the case of illness, however, I believe that a patient, or where necessary a health care proxy, should be able to make the decision.

On December 30, 1972, with my consent and my mother's, the tubes were removed from my father. His brother and sister had them put back in. He died January 5, 1973. I cannot fathom the purpose of six days of comatose existence.

Similarly in this case the twins have made an apparently rational decision, and one that should not be interfered with.

[Moonlight Graham]

I agree that people should be able to choose their moment to exit, but I don't know... don't we usually intervene when people want to commit suicide and offer them therapy and tell them how good life is?

It seems kind of strange that we'd do that if they're on a bridge but offer them an injection if they ask nicely.

Have a waiting period, say 2 months after the initial request, give them access to free therapy in the meantime (or make it a requirement), then give them the button if they still want it.

[BC_chick]

Admittedly it's a hard line to draw. If someone is seeking a "permanent solution to a temporary problem" they should be pulled off the ledge. In the case of illness, however, I believe that a patient, or where necessary a health care proxy, should be able to make the decision.

On December 30, 1972, with my consent and my mother's, the tubes were removed from my father. His brother and sister had them put back in. He died January 5, 1973. I cannot fathom the purpose of six days of comatose existence.

Similarly in this case the twins have made an apparently rational decision, and one that should not be interfered with.

You've told me the story of your father and you were in my thoughts January 5th. And I agree with the right to make such a decision, but your family made it on behalf of your father who was incapacitated.

I'm talking about the people who have lost the will to live due to their own circumstances and who make the decision themselves.

I don't know which way I lean either, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

With terminal diseases, death is imminent. Otherwise, who are we do decide, really, who has a good enough reason to die?

So then do we euthanise anyone who asks for it if they have thought about it long enough and 'rationally' enough?

Edited January 14, 2013 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

Have a waiting period, say 2 months after the initial request, give them access to free therapy in the meantime (or make it a requirement), then give them the button if they still want it.

I kind of agree but I don't know. 2 months especially is not long enough.

[Guest]

So then do we euthanise anyone who asks for it if they have thought about it long enough and 'rationally' enough?

I can not understand why we would not. If somebody wants to stop living, how can we, in all good conscience, force them to live on?

[BC_chick]

I can not understand why we would not. If somebody wants to stop living, how can we, in all good conscience, force them to live on?

I know, I want to agree so badly. We should all have that right.

It's just that so often you see people come back from the brink of suicide and find joy in life when it seemed impossible before.

I suppose I could see your view if the waiting period was long enough that we know there will not be a recovery. Then I could agree.

Edited January 14, 2013 by BC_chick

[TimG]

It's just that so often you see people come back from the brink of suicide and find joy in life when it seemed impossible before.

The fact is many people succeed in suicide using methods that cause harm to others around them. The methods include alcohol and drug abuse to guns, ropes or knives. So it is really not a question of whether we should allow it because we already do. The question is do we provide a more humane path to the end? Edited January 14, 2013 by TimG

[Topaz]

In my view, when I get to a point were I'm EXISTING and not LIVING, that is when I want the right to die, with agreements among my doctor, appointed family member.. Many people who want to die are more mental ill and can be treated and help vs someone with cancer or brain disease, where there is no help.

[jbg]

You've told me the story of your father and you were in my thoughts January 5th. And I agree with the right to make such a decision, but your family made it on behalf of your father who was incapacitated.

Thanks for remembering.

There is nothing in my view wrong with the members of a close family making those decisions when the ill person cannot.

[dre]

For obvious reasons we dont want the government or doctors encouraging this kind of thing or presenting is as an official option. But people in pain or routinely given enough morphine to overdose if them or their families choose this route and I know a few people who have.

I dont think this is a big enough problem to warrant any changes

[TimG]

But people in pain or routinely given enough morphine to overdose if them or their families choose this route and I know a few people who have.

This op is not about people in pain. It is about people facing serious disability where death is a preferable option - people who may not be able to procure the supplies needed on their own and need help.

[Guest]

I dont think this is a big enough problem to warrant any changes

Probably because you want to live.

It wouldn't take much of a change. Just give people the right to end their lives whenever they want for whatever reason they want, and give doctors the option to help them if they want.

Parliament could do all that before coffee break if they put their mind to it.

[Guest American Woman]

I can not understand why we would not. If somebody wants to stop living, how can we, in all good conscience, force them to live on?

Forcing them to live on is one thing, but actually doing the killing is quite another. Not 'pulling the plug,' as that person is only being kept alive by medical intervention, is forcing the person to stay alive, and I don't agree with that - but that's a different matter from the situation in the opening post. The doctor actually killed two healthy human beings. I find that a dangerous precedent, and I think it sends the wrong message - that the medical field agrees that life is not worth living if facing a handicap. Not forcing them to live on doesn't have to include actually doing the killing.

Edited January 16, 2013 by American Woman

[TimG]

The doctor actually killed two healthy human beings. I find that a dangerous precedent, and I think it sends the wrong message - that the medical field agrees that life is not worth living if facing a handicap.

I don't like doctors doing the actual killing but if someone decides that a life with a serious handicap is not worth living then they should be entitled to end it. I see it as inhumane to force someone who has made that decision to kill themselves using messy methods like a gun to the head or hanging. They should be given the tools to do the job efficiently - and more importantly - they should be able to have loved ones attend their last moments without fear that they would be charged with murder. Edited January 16, 2013 by TimG

[Guest]

Forcing them to live on is one thing, but actually doing the killing is quite another. Not 'pulling the plug,' as that person is only being kept alive by medical intervention, is forcing the person to stay alive, and I don't agree with that - but that's a different matter from the situation in the opening post. The doctor actually killed two healthy human beings. I find that a dangerous precedent, and I think it sends the wrong message - that the medical field agrees that life is not worth living if facing a handicap. Not forcing them to live on doesn't have to include actually doing the killing.

If you want to die and and are not allowed to, you are being forced to live on. There are alternatives, tall buildings, lakes, etc, but if a Doctor is willing to help, and you have clear, unambiguous instructions, I don't see why it should concern anyone else.

The only person who is qualified to decide if a life is worth living is the person living it. I have to admit I was shocked when I first read the article I posted. I thought it would be a long time before that kind of action would be allowed, thinking instead that the euthanasia of terminally ill patients in pain would be the limit for the foreseeable future, but I think it can only be a good thing that these people were allowed to choose the time of, and the reason for, their deaths.

If there's a slippery slope, let's address that when we come to it.

Edited January 16, 2013 by bcsapper

[dre]

If you want to die and and are not allowed to, you are being forced to live on.

Its not a matter of not allowing them... Its just that the medical establishment and the government shouldnt be in the business of helping them. There would end up being a huge beaurocracy required to figure out who should be given suicide kits and for what reason, and theres simply no justification for it and nobody that wants to pay for it.

[TimG]

I thought it would be a long time before that kind of action would be allowed, thinking instead that the euthanasia of terminally ill patients in pain would be the limit for the foreseeable future, but I think it can only be a good thing that these people were allowed to choose the time of, and the reason for, their deaths.

Terminally ill patients is really too limiting. I know that if am diagnosed with something like Alzheimers I could live 20 years or more as a vegetable. I have no intention of living like that but I would want to be able to live as long as possible - but that would not be an option if the state forces me to kill myself alone while I am still able bodied. Edited January 16, 2013 by TimG

[Guest American Woman]

I don't like doctors doing the actual killing but if someone decides that a life with a serious handicap is not worth living then they should be entitled to end it.

The problem is, life is a series of ups and downs, and sometimes we don't know what we are capable of overcoming. "Unable to bear the thought of not seeing each other again" is hardly a reason to die, IMO. They didn't even actually go blind - of course the "thought" is scary. That goes without saying.

Many people have times in their lives, tragedies that occur, that make them feel as if they don't want to go on; when the thought of living is too much to bear. But we provide counselling, not death, in such situations. What message does that send to kids? That when life gets rough, death is the answer? And at what age do we allow people to make that decision? What if a young adult can't bear the thought of life without their boyfriend/girlfriend who just broke up with them - should a doctor be available to kill them?

I see it as inhumane to force someone who has made that decision to kill themselves using messy methods like a gun to the head or hanging. They should be given the tools to do the job efficiently - and more importantly - they should be able to have loved ones attend their last moments without fear that they would be charged with murder.

I disagree. If we provide the means for healthy people to kill themselves, there's going to be a rash of people killing themselves. It's going to be 'the easy way out,' and by providing the means, the medical world is saying that 'killing yourself is an accepted solution.' Many people who have a rough time of it for awhile go on to find happiness. I'm not saying we should force people to live if they want to commit suicide, but if that's their decision - it should be only their decision. "Allowing" the family to be there is scary - 'But officer, I didn't kill him/her - he/she wanted to die.'

[TimG]

There would end up being a huge beaurocracy required to figure out who should be given suicide kits and for what reason, and theres simply no justification for it and nobody that wants to pay for it.

People killing themselves early saves money. Cost is not an objection.

[Guest American Woman]

If you want to die and and are not allowed to, you are being forced to live on.

Who's not allowing you to do it? There's a difference between "allowing it" and actually doing it - it is allowed.

There are alternatives, tall buildings, lakes, etc, but if a Doctor is willing to help, and you have clear, unambiguous instructions, I don't see why it should concern anyone else.

For one thing, because it does concern other people. If my 19 year old wanted to die because he/she couldn't bear the thought of living after a break up, that certainly would be a concern.

The only person who is qualified to decide if a life is worth living is the person living it.

Sometimes they are not "qualified" for various reasons.

I have to admit I was shocked when I first read the article I posted. I thought it would be a long time before that kind of action would be allowed, thinking instead that the euthanasia of terminally ill patients in pain would be the limit for the foreseeable future, but I think it can only be a good thing that these people were allowed to choose the time of, and the reason for, their deaths.

Choosing the time and reason is one thing - carrying it out for them is quite another. As I said, providing the means for people to kill themselves is going to put a lot of emotionally distraught people at risk; people who would otherwise get past it, and live good lives.

If there's a slippery slope, let's address that when we come to it.

There's already a slippery slope.

Edited January 16, 2013 by American Woman