Do we ALL have a "right to die"?

[Rhea]

Of course, as you can see, I have not avoided any of the issues brought up. Indeed, I have highlighted them and brought them up again for discussion. Since anyone can see that, we are all welcome to discuss those points.

Personal stories of real people who grappled with this issue are provided here, including quotes from real people having this real discussion.

As for me, I believe I will get involved in the group, Not Dead Yet. They seem to be serious about protecting the lives of the disabled from death fundamentalists.

The discussion has been about whether the disabled are the only group seeking death with dignity, and whether there is any indication outside of Nazi Germany that “death fundamentalists” is a thing that exists.

No one has seen any evidence of it, and when offere the opportunity to present some, you have admitted that you are not able.

And again the issues of the disabled, the terminally ill, the post-life brain dead and the despondent are different groups with different needs and very VERY different laws governing their access to an assisted, painless death.

Unknown Soldier has reiterated his desire to speak ONLY about the disabled and ONLY in the context of Nazi Germany, so indeed I think you are making the right choice to go to another forum to discuss that issue.

 

[Rhea]

As part of the discussion here, for those who are participating in all the replies, not just a one-way shouting of an opinion without hearing any of the replies…

A visit to the website linked above shows that this is a group of people who is looking to put legal barriers in the way of people who do want a dignified death. This group is advocating, according to their website, that NO ONE AT ALL should be allowed to be in control of their death. That this group wants to dictate to you that if your disease is going to suffocate you over many days - that is your only choice, and be happy about it. Your death is going to be monstrous. They insist.


I can fully understand and support the idea that very strong safeguards need to be in place to make sure abuse cannot happen wherein person A forces or coerces person B’s use of assisted suicide. I think everyone here on this thread agrees with that.

I object, however, to this group’s claim that THEY are entitlted to tell me that I can’t do it. I find their stance unethical that forces people to die by suffocation rather than elective induced coma and heart failure. They may prefer the “natural” suffocation, but I am terrified of it and do not want it. It seems beyond monstrous that they should be able to dictate my choice in this.

 

[abaddon]

Do I have a right to live my life how I want to? If I have that right then the right to die naturally follows.

The rights of the disabled are important for the same basic reason - their right to live as they would prefer. So, no doubt, any abuses should be guarded against. But how does that reasonably entail removal of all people's right to live and die as they want?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The discussion has been about whether the disabled are the only group seeking death with dignity, and whether there is any indication outside of Nazi Germany that “death fundamentalists” is a thing that exists.

No one has seen any evidence of it, and when offere the opportunity to present some, you have admitted that you are not able.

That is not correct. The Terri Schindler case is but one tragic example of how the disabled are being targeted for death.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

A visit to the website linked above shows that this is a group of people who is looking to put legal barriers in the way of people who do want a dignified death.

That is not correct. Not Dead Yet like anybody else wants everybody to live with dignity and when their time comes, to die with dignity. It's just that they, like I, don't buy into this "assisted death with dignity" tripe so many people are falling for these days.

This group is advocating, according to their website, that NO ONE AT ALL should be allowed to be in control of their death. That this group wants to dictate to you that if your disease is going to suffocate you over many days - that is your only choice, and be happy about it. Your death is going to be monstrous. They insist.

Let's see a direct quotation and a link for that.

I can fully understand and support the idea that very strong safeguards need to be in place to make sure abuse cannot happen wherein person A forces or coerces person B’s use of assisted suicide. I think everyone here on this thread agrees with that.

Then you better get working on those safeguards. They're sorely lacking.

I object, however, to this group’s claim that THEY are entitlted to tell me that I can’t do it.

Again, where do they claim that they can dictate policy to anybody? You keep making stuff up. I agree that Not Dead Yet does not enforce law, of course. What they and I and other good people can do is join forces to let legislatures know that laws need to be passed and enforced against PAS. I plan to see my US congressman, Fred Keller, to discuss this issue. I will print out some of these posts, including yours, to take to his office to let him know what's behind PAS. I don't think he will be as biased in favor of PAS as many here are.

I find their stance unethical that forces people to die by suffocation rather than elective induced coma and heart failure. They may prefer the “natural” suffocation, but I am terrified of it and do not want it. It seems beyond monstrous that they should be able to dictate my choice in this.

Again, that's a lot of nonsense. Not Dead Yet doesn't want anybody to suffocate. Again, you make stuff up.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Do I have a right to live my life how I want to?

No. There is no such right. For anybody. Obviously. All societies place limits on what people do. You are no different.

If I have that right then the right to die naturally follows.

Again, there is no such right.

The rights of the disabled are important for the same basic reason - their right to live as they would prefer.

We want to live free of threats to our lives. That includes PAS, of course. That is what we prefer.

So, no doubt, any abuses should be guarded against.

That's what I've advocated all along.

But how does that reasonably entail removal of all people's right to live and die as they want?

We don't need to remove what was never there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

those who promote the supposed right to die here on this thread show contempt for the dying rather than any real respect or compassion for them.

Can you please explicitly say which person on this thread at any time showed contempt for the dying?

Here's a choice morsel:

If they want to care for a pseudo-corpse that's their business, but they have no right to put the burden on anyone else.

Contempt for the dying? No. I consider what constitutes the person to be the mind. The body is a host for the person, it is not the person. A body that no longer hosts a person is to me dead. The body may linger on on automatic systems for some time even after the death of the person.

The law approximate agrees with me on this--look at "brain death". They don't look at the heart etc, they look at the brain. The law is very conservative about it and counts someone as still "alive" if the brain stem still works. As the brain stem does not host consciousness I do not consider this to be "alive." It's the brain-stem-only "people" that I am calling pseudo-corpses. There have been cases of families hauling them around to doctors despite a death certificate having already been issued.

Can you demonstrate that you have not made a false accusation against your fellow posters?

Just read what I've posted and fact-check all of it. The truth should be sufficient.

You chose to believe the family in a situation where their claims were utterly contrary to the autopsy findings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wasn't going to reply to any more of your posts because of the hate-filled insults you made about Terri Schindler and her family, but I can't resist this one:

Plenty of people are unwilling to accept that a loved one is gone. She was not sentient--the part of the brain that houses consciousness was gone. People see random reflex movements that sometimes happen in relation to what they said and interpret it as a response to what they said.

If it's true that Terri's brain could not produce awareness, then why did that condition mandate that she be put to death? I see no logical or moral reason to do so. She could feel no pain or discomfort of any kind, and there's no way she would have wanted to die. The Schindler's offered to fully support Terri's life so no burden would have been placed on anybody else. They feared greatly for her life and wanted to save her. But Michael Schiavo, fully aware of these facts, still demanded that Terri be put to death.

So you defeated many of your arguments in that assertion of yours. So I'd recommend you think a bit more before asserting as fact that which you don't know and cannot know.

By my measurement she was already dead. Her body lived on, that doesn't mean she was still around.

 

[Rhea]

Unknown Soldier seems to be arguing in circles. He wants everyone to have rights AND YET he is advocating for laws to remove others’ right to die by medication under the care of a physician if they rem suffering from a disease whose end case is painful or torturous like suffocation.

Since these diseases exist (this is a fact) and the end case of these disease can be excrutiating pain, suffocation or severe mental distress (this is fact) then any group or person who argues that a law should be enacted to deny the right to have a medically assisted death prior to this torture, then by definition, they are claiming that you MUST die by the progression of the disease and no other method.

This means they condemn people to pain, suffication or terror.

He tries to claim his position does not make this requirement, but since the only options are choosing to starve your self to death or risk an unsupervised suicide method that may not work, then yes, he is absolutely trying to dictate that others MUST die in a way HE determines for them.

It is cruel and wrong.

Oversight is critical in all cases. And it is well written into existing laws.

He keeps bringing up, as the only example of poor oversight, the case of a patient whose brain was not present (was dissolved, leaving an empty fluid space in her skull), and was given massive oversight through multiple courts over the course of 7 years. Her lack of brain activity made her the same condition as every organ donor in the land; body still functioning, all sentience gone. The Not Dead Yet people want to pass laws that would prevent organ donation from ever being possible by saying that no one can be declared brain-dead, and that artificial life support cannot be withdrawn.

While I agree 100% with the need for clear and effective oversight to prevent misuse, I also agree 100% with the fact that there are cases that, under that oversight, result in an appropriate situation of assisted death or removal of artificial life support.

He seems terrified that if I can write and make clear to my husband that I would want life support removed and my organs donated, then this means disabled but happily functioning people will be murdered.

He is conflating his fears with unrelated medical cases. And his solution is that others must have no rights that he would not want to use himself. If he does not want assisted suicide, then NO ONE should have asssisted suicide. I find his position to be one that will result in peple suffering against their own will on the alter of his fears, and therefore wrong.


There is room to talk about making sure the oversight protects against coercion. But he is absolutely wrong that any case of assisted suicide is by definition coercion or murder. He is flat wrong. People have given personal stories here and he has called those people liars. He is wrong. We are not liars, we are real humans with wishes different than his.

 

[abaddon]

Do I have a right to live my life how I want to?

No. There is no such right. For anybody. Obviously. All societies place limits on what people do. You are no different.

No right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then?

Is there a reason for limitations on killing disabled people if they don't have rights which justify the limitations?

So, no doubt, any abuses should be guarded against.

That's what I've advocated all along.

The question was, how do you accomplish that by denying people their rights?

But how does that reasonably entail removal of all people's right to live and die as they want?

We don't need to remove what was never there.

So why not kill disabled people if they don't have a right to live and die as they want?

I shouldn't have to add "with limitations on what I can do to other people" at the end of "I have the right to live and die as I want". It just kind of goes with the right that I can't kill people since, if I have the right, so do they.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1. People who are disabled
   1. You say people in this thread are pushing death on this group. And that these people should be prevented from accessing assisted death
   2. No one advocates pushing death on these people.
      • Most of us know disabled people who are happy to continue the life they are living.
      • The existing laws states that they are not eligible to access assisted death.
   3. I can, however imagine some cases of disabled people who may be unwilling to continue life under their disability due to its severity.
      • I don’t know that I would choose the same but I can imagine someone saying, “It’s too much. I hate this life,” and I would want them to have a humane off-ramp.
      • This is absolutely not “contempt,” however, because that is a choice only they can make, not me. And while I would first want to ensure they had every possibility of overcoming whatever makes their life untenable, such as additional services, medications, or support; I honor their choice.
      • I advocate for assisted death with dignity to be available to them if they choose it. Key - THEIR choice.
2. People who have terminal diseases
   1. You say people in this thread are pushing death on this group. And that these people should be prevented from accessing assisted death
   2. No one advocates pushing death on these people.
      • We are aware of the excrutiating torture that some diseases can visit upon their victims before death occurs. I consider it monstrous to force a person to endure a painful death when a pain-free one can be given. I consider it monstrous to ask a dying person to choose between starving themselves to death or waiting to lose their minds.
      • I am absolutely an advocate for assisted death with dignity for those who face months or years of torture from their disease, if they choose it. Key - THEIR choice.
      • I will absolutely, definitely, and unequivocally ask for this path if I am diagnosed with the same disease that killed my grandmother and is killing my mother. No hesitation, and I will rain epic chaos down on any self-righteous prick who tries to force years of torture onto me by dishonoring my wish.

There are also those in between 1 and 2--people with progressive disabilities. Generally not terminal but eventually will rob the patient of all meaningful life. In this group euthanasia can actually be life-prolonging: People who would otherwise have chosen suicide while they were still able to do so reliably aren't forced into a choice between dying early and dying miserably.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Btw I have edited my post above to include the following:

I will absolutely, definitely, and unequivocally ask for this path if I am diagnosed with the same disease that killed my grandmother and is killing my mother. No hesitation, and I will rain epic chaos down on any self-righteous prick who tries to force years of torture onto me by dishonoring my wish.

Seconded. I saw what happened to my mother. I don't have all of her problems but I've got a big chunk of them. I'm not going as far down the road as she did. No meaningful diagnosis so I only know the general path, not how fast I will proceed down it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rhea, you're skipping over the issues I raised earlier regarding the character and the credibility of those who espouse assisted death for the dying. I must include you among those I don't believe. I don't trust any of you any farther than I can throw a Mack truck. Posting a lot of assertions won't change my mind.

There is nothing in her post to be believed, she's simply enumerating the obvious and addressing each case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's a better screenname for you: Bubble Boy. The self-enclosed person with a mirror on the inside of his bubble and armor against information outside.

I'm really bad.

Let me tell you about my "bubble." I used to believe that physician assisted suicide (PAS) was literally "the way to go." I read Prescription Medicide by Jack Kevorkian and agreed with much of it. I even went so far as to phone The Hemlock Society to inquire about PAS. The woman I spoke to was very nice to me, and after listening to my story she gently and kindly talked me out of it. I got the impression that she felt a bit guilty that people were contacting them to ask for help committing suicide.

Anyway, I forgot to ask: Did you come to your conclusions regarding assisted suicide by watching some YouTube videos and/or reading what some people posted about it in an online forum? I'm sincerely concerned that you might make a very serious mistake that I almost made.

Sounds like she realized that you were not someone who should take that route.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm really bad.

As usual you miss the point. I was commenting on your epistemic standard.

No. You called me a name out of frustration with my not agreeing with you. That kind of behavior reminds me of religious fundamentalists I've debated who take shots at me when they realize I'm an unbeliever. Fundamentalism can evidently impact the nonreligious as well as the religious.

But you're coming at this from a faith-based position. You're determined that you're right and that everyone who opposes you is lying and the facts that oppose you are false.

I've heard stories of "screwed up" suicide attempts. One girl ended up permanently blind as a result of her suicide attempt. That's the kind of insanity I want to prevent.

A much better idea is to see a doctor to discuss disease and disability prevention as well as palliative care.

But you continue to assume the doctors can do something useful. The problem comes when they can't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The discussion has been about whether the disabled are the only group seeking death with dignity, and whether there is any indication outside of Nazi Germany that “death fundamentalists” is a thing that exists.

No one has seen any evidence of it, and when offere the opportunity to present some, you have admitted that you are not able.

That is not correct. The Terri Schindler case is but one tragic example of how the disabled are being targeted for death.

And we've already pointed out that you've got it wrong about her.

 

[TomC]

And we've already pointed out that you've got it wrong about her.

It's also one murky case out of millions, ones that aren't so difficult to understand.

Like the one Rhea described. Like ones I could describe from my years volunteering with AIDS patients decades ago.

I could tell y'all some horror stories about what went on back in the AIDS epidemic 30+ years ago.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

One of my dear friends died from AIDS in 1983. It was too early in the epidemic and I was too naive to know what a hellscape it was at the time. He is still missed.


From AIDS timeline:

May 25 1983: The New York Times publishes its first front-page story on AIDSExit Disclaimer: “Health Chief Calls AIDS Battle ‘No. 1 Priority’.” The article reports on the federal response to the growing AIDS epidemic. By the time it is published, 1,450 cases of AIDS have been reported and 558 of those individuals have died.

He was one of those in bold.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Do I have a right to live my life how I want to?

No. There is no such right. For anybody. Obviously. All societies place limits on what people do. You are no different.

No right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then?

No such rights exist.

Is there a reason for limitations on killing disabled people if they don't have rights which justify the limitations?

Yes. The protection of innocent life is the responsibility of any government that rules over a civilized society. So the protection of any innocent people in that society on the part of its government is actually a privilege granted to the innocent rather than a right.

So, no doubt, any abuses should be guarded against.

That's what I've advocated all along.

The question was, how do you accomplish that by denying people their rights?

Again, we have no rights. Those of us who wish to live in a civilized society that values human life must ask the government for protection against all those who would destroy that life. That's what I plan to do.

But how does that reasonably entail removal of all people's right to live and die as they want?

We don't need to remove what was never there.

So why not kill disabled people if they don't have a right to live and die as they want?

I suppose because all the disabled people I've known want to live, and I have no desire to see them dead.

I shouldn't have to add "with limitations on what I can do to other people" at the end of "I have the right to live and die as I want". It just kind of goes with the right that I can't kill people since, if I have the right, so do they.

So who actually kill the dying? I understand that you want doctors to do it. Should they be trained to kill the dying in medical school? Should we make such killing a specialty that select physicians practice? Are there any age limitations on who seek PAS?

Anyway, I plan to support Not Dead Yet with donations, and I will try to see my congressman to warn him about this threat to the public health. I will ask him to outlaw PAS in all fifty states.

 

[Rhea]

So who actually kill the dying? I understand that you want doctors to do it. Should they be trained to kill the dying in medical school? Should we make such killing a specialty that select physicians practice? Are there any age limitations on who seek PAS?

Oh, are you unfamiliar with how this works?

Well here’s what happens; the “assist” part is assistance in acquiring humane life-ending medications. The applicant first goes through a counseling session, and then is reviewed by a multi-person panel for self-determination and to guard against coercion.

Only then, does a physician create an appropriate prescription for the applicant, and the instructions for how to take it.

And at the point, the applicant administers to themself the lethal prescription of medication. The killing is done by the person who asks for the death, and who receives the death. It is a suicide.