The right to stop living.

[TimG]

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.

You have no right to judge.

If we provide the means for healthy people to kill themselves, there's going to be a rash of people killing themselves.

We already provide the means. Ropes are available at any hardware store. Bridges are numerous. Guns can be obtained relatively easily. The only thing that changes is people can exit in a more civilized manner. Coming home and finding someone hanging from a rope or with the brains on the wall is traumatic for the survivors. Edited January 16, 2013 by TimG

[dre]

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

I doubt it would save any money at all. Most people that want to commit suicide now already can. Theres a bunch of different fairly dependable ways to do it.

[dre]

You have no right to judge.

We already provide the means. Ropes are available at any hardware store. Bridges are numerous. Guns can be obtained relatively easily. The only thing that changes is people can exit in a more civilized manner. Coming home and finding someone hanging from a rope or with the brains on the wall is traumatic for the survivors.

Pretty sure its traumatic for family members to find them dead at all.

[Guest American Woman]

You have no right to judge.

I have every right to an opinion, which is quite different from "judging."

As I said, I can't imagine the parent of a 19 year old wanting them to have the means to kill him/herself because he/she can't bear the thought of not ever being with their boyfriend/girlfriend again after a breakup.

Furthermore, sometimes people need the help of others, who can see things more rationally than they can. If someone is emotionally distraught, they are not in the best place to be making such decisions - and someone intervening is not "judging" so much as "helping them through it."

We already provide the means. Ropes are available at any hardware store. Bridges are numerous. Guns can be obtained relatively easily. The only thing that changes is people can exit in a more civilized manner. Coming home and finding someone hanging from a rope or with the brains on the wall is traumatic for the survivors.

Sure it is. Very traumatic. I just don't see providing an easy means for a lot more people to kill themselves as a solution. Furthermore, I think it's the death itself that is ultimately most traumatic - I can't see being less traumatized by my child's death if the means were only 'less messy.'

[jbg]

I agree with the idea of waiting periods before supplying someone the means to kill themselves, except for terminally ill people.

[Guest]

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.

I don't know so much. It seemed to work in the case in point. I don't know how much beaurocracy was involved, but it seems to me such a simple matter.

The government should be in the business of not stopping them. The medical establishment certainly should be in the business of helping them, because that is what they are for.

Edited January 16, 2013 by bcsapper

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know so much. It seemed to work in the case in point. I don't know how much beaurocracy was involved, but it seems to me such a simple matter.

The government should be in the business of not stopping them. The medical establishmet certainly should be in the business of helping them, because that is what they are for.

The medical establishment is for helping people die? I thought it was just the opposite ....

[Guest]

The medical establishment is for helping people die? I thought it was just the opposite ....

It's just helping people. It's up to the individual what that help entails.

Edit> Or should I say, it ought to be. It is in Belgium, I guess. Not so much in Alberta.

Edited January 16, 2013 by bcsapper

[dre]

I don't know so much. It seemed to work in the case in point. I don't know how much beaurocracy was involved, but it seems to me such a simple matter.

The government should be in the business of not stopping them. The medical establishmet certainly should be in the business of helping them, because that is what they are for.

No the medical establishment is not in the business of helping people die. Thats most certainly not what they are there for.

And I dont think its a simple matter at all. Suicide in many cases is a mental health issue. The medical establishment tries to help these people usually with pretty good success. They cant just pass out suicide kits to anyone that wants one, there would have to be a shitload of rules and criteria involved and a process to determine mental competency.

I just dont see this happening.

[Guest American Woman]

It's just helping people. It's up to the individual what that help entails.

Edit> Or should I say, it ought to be. It is in Belgium, I guess. Not so much in Alberta.

So if your 19 year old wanted to die because he/she couldn't bear the thought of living without their girlfriend/boyfriend, you think the medical field "ought to" be willing and able to kill him/her?

[Guest]

No the medical establishment is not in the business of helping people die. Thats most certainly not what they are there for.

And I dont think its a simple matter at all. Suicide in many cases is a mental health issue. The medical establishment tries to help these people usually with pretty good success. They cant just pass out suicide kits to anyone that wants one, there would have to be a shitload of rules and criteria involved and a process to determine mental competency.

I just dont see this happening.

Neither do I. I made that clear in an earlier post here. I just think it should.

No suicide kits. You just make it clear to the doctor what you want to do, and she/he helps you do it. I can't see why this most basic human right is denied people.

[dre]

Neither do I. I made that clear in an earlier post here. I just think it should.

No suicide kits. You just make it clear to the doctor what you want to do, and she/he helps you do it. I can't see why this most basic human right is denied people.

We dont even have enough doctors in Canada to heal the sick that want to live.

Listen bro... Things arent as bad as they seem...

[Guest American Woman]

Neither do I. I made that clear in an earlier post here. I just think it should.

No suicide kits. You just make it clear to the doctor what you want to do, and she/he helps you do it. I can't see why this most basic human right is denied people.

It's not "denied people." You seem to think that "not denying them" and "doing it for them" are synonymous.

[Guest]

So if your 19 year old wanted to die because he/she couldn't bear the thought of living without their girlfriend/boyfriend, you think the medical field "ought to" be willing and able to kill him/her?

I would be a bit of a hypocrite if I didn't, wouldn't I?

I didn't say that family members couldn't try and talk someone out of it. Just that in the end, it's a decision for the individual.

[Guest]

It's not "denied people." You seem to think that "not denying them" and "doing it for them" are synonymous.

No, but by denying them a service that all concerned want to provide, it seems to me that they are being denied the right. I'm not advocating forcing doctors to provide the service. Just saying that if everybody involved is on the same page, they should be allowed to go ahead.

[Guest]

We dont even have enough doctors in Canada to heal the sick that want to live.

Listen bro... Things arent as bad as they seem...

No, but I am an England fan, and there is a World Cup every four years...

[dre]

No, but I am an England fan, and there is a World Cup every four years...

[Guest American Woman]

I would be a bit of a hypocrite if I didn't, wouldn't I?

Absolutely, but the reality that you would promote it is not only mind boggling to me - but makes me question if you really understand how emotions can temporarily cloud one's judgement and/or capabilities to make such decisions.

I didn't say that family members couldn't try and talk someone out of it. Just that in the end, it's a decision for the individual.

I agree. The "individual," not the medical field.

Edited January 16, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

CO poisoning used to be really easy before those damn catalytic converters. You used to be able just leave your car running in the carage with the window open and take a few lorazapam, and off to sleep you go. You can still kill yourself with CO but its just a bit harder to get the stuff now. CO2 will kill you as well but you might experience convulsions so its not as painless as CO. You could burn something like charcoal in a small hibachi in a smallish room. It bonds to your hemoglobin and you can breath it just as easily and painlessly as air... except you die.

Nitrous Oxide is also very certain and painless, and will actually feel pretty damn good before you die. Problem is not everyone can buy the stuff.

I would definately recommend the nitrous oxide.

Edited January 16, 2013 by dre

[Guest]

Absolutely, but the reality that you would promote such a is not only mind boggling to me - but makes me question if you really understand how emotions can temporarily cloud one's judgement and/or capabilities to make such decisions.

I agree. The "individual," not the medical field.

I would imagine that the doctors who agreed to the suicide of the twins in the OP did not do so flippantly. I doubt any doctor would aid my daughter's suicide because she broke up from a boyfriend. But if she had good reasons for her decision, could I in all good conscience force her to live on because of how I felt?

Now, if it wasn't a relative, I'd let them go for a hangnail.

[Guest American Woman]

I would imagine that the doctors who agreed to the suicide of the twins in the OP did not do so flippantly. I doubt any doctor would aid my daughter's suicide because she broke up from a boyfriend.

So now you're changing it - it appears as if you think doctors have the right to deny someone who wants to die.

Why should someone be allowed to die because "they can't bear not to see each other again," as in the case cited - but not in the case of your daughter? If neither wants to live - why should the doctor be making that decision?

But if she had good reasons for her decision, could I in all good conscience force her to live on because of how I felt?

Could you, in good conscience, send her to the doctors to die? You seriously don't think the fact that most people get over such things might, in good conscience, make you believe such an option shouldn't be available?

Now, if it wasn't a relative, I'd let them go for a hangnail.

Which makes no sense at all regarding your beliefs. If you truly believe what you've been advocating, then you should be letting a relative go for a hangnail, too.

[Guest]

So now you're changing it - it appears as if you think doctors have the right to deny someone who wants to die.

No, they have a right to not be involved.

Why should someone be allowed to die because "they can't bear not to see each other again," as in the case cited - but not in the case of your daughter? If neither wants to live - why should the doctor be making that decision?

The Doctor would decide if they wanted to aid the suicide. Like I said before, I was surprised when I read the article. I doubt the doctors came to the decision lightly. I'm sure those doctors would not have done the same in a case of unrequited love.

Could you, in good conscience, send her to the doctors to die? You seriously don't think the fact that most people get over such things might, in good conscience, make you believe such an option shouldn't be available?

I wouldn't send anyone to die, but I wouldn't want anyone to stop me, so how can I stop anyone else?

Which makes no sense at all regarding your beliefs. If you truly believe what you've been advocating, then you should be letting a relative go for a hangnail, too.

I was kidding about the hangnail. Toothache, at the very minimum.

Seriously, though, even if it was a relative, given a serious wish to end their lives, much as I would be grief stricken, I couldn't force them to not go through with it.

[Guest American Woman]

I was kidding about the hangnail. Toothache, at the very minimum.

I realize that, but I was making a point. So were you kidding about the doctor not letting your daughter go for breaking up with her BF, too? Do you believe that people can be denied the right to take their own life - that it's up to doctors to decide if their life is worth living or not?

Seriously, though, even if it was a relative, given a serious wish to end their lives, much as I would be grief stricken, I couldn't force them to not go through with it.

It's a fact that you can't force them not to go through with it. The question is whether or not the medical field should provide the means to do it.

[Guest]

I realize that, but I was making a point. So were you kidding about the doctor not letting your daughter go for breaking up with her BF, too? Do you believe that people can be denied the right to take their own life - that it's up to doctors to decide if their life is worth living or not?

I would imagine that would be based on whether or not you could find your own Dr Nick. If the medical establishment is going to help a person end their life, said person would have to convince them it was the right thing to do. Or no help.

It's a fact that you can't force them not to go through with it. The question is whether or not the medical field should provide the means to do it.

Again, if they can convince the medical establishment that it's the right course of action...

I believe there ought to be no law preventing a doctor from helping.

[Guest American Woman]

Again, if they can convince the medical establishment that it's the right course of action...

I believe there ought to be no law preventing a doctor from helping.

So you don't believe that people have the right to decide if they want to live or not - you think doctors have the right to decide it. In other words, you do think that people should be denied the right to die if that's what they want to do - if the doctor doesn't agree.