For 45 years I’ve been watching patients die horrifying deaths in Intensive Care Units. Their doctors just kept doing painful procedures and ordering nurses to perform treatments that would not make this patient’s life ANY better...but the doctor couldn’t let go. The patient was ready to die, so was the family. Then the patient, the person we’re theoretically trying to help loses the ability to make any decisions...has lost his higher brain functioning.
I was a critical care nurse before medical school. I remember working with one patient who pleaded daily--“Let me die-PLEASE-Let me die!” He had fallen and crushed his second cervical vertebrate, cutting through the spinal cord meaning he could never move again, never breathe on his own---sentenced to a lifetime of being on a ventilator--no family, no money, no health insurance. He had a tracheal tube put in his throat so now he couldn’t even talk. Every shift “Let me die, let me die” as tears rolled down his cheeks. He would alternate between anger and frustration. The nurses were developing PTSD; we wanted to help him, care for him...yet the neurosurgeon refused to let us take him off the ventilator.
Despite good nursing care he developed open pressure sores, non-healing wounds that enveloped his body...his own enzymes were seeping from his pancreas which burnt off all of his skin. He worsened every day.
His doctor finally put him on a regular floor, he didn’t have 1:1 nurses. Died of pneumonia after 4 months!!
I was a critical care nurse before medical school. I remember working with one patient who pleaded daily--“Let me die-PLEASE-Let me die!” He had fallen and crushed his second cervical vertebrate, cutting through the spinal cord meaning he could never move again, never breathe on his own---sentenced to a lifetime of being on a ventilator--no family, no money, no health insurance. He had a tracheal tube put in his throat so now he couldn’t even talk. Every shift “Let me die, let me die” as tears rolled down his cheeks. He would alternate between anger and frustration. The nurses were developing PTSD; we wanted to help him, care for him...yet the neurosurgeon refused to let us take him off the ventilator.
Despite good nursing care he developed open pressure sores, non-healing wounds that enveloped his body...his own enzymes were seeping from his pancreas which burnt off all of his skin. He worsened every day.
His doctor finally put him on a regular floor, he didn’t have 1:1 nurses. Died of pneumonia after 4 months!!
3
A California friend of mine, without children, was "assisted" into death by her niece. She took the frail aunt's meds away and left town. It was Christmas and no help was readily available so we couldn't stop her. Too much money was at stake for the niece and she wanted to inherit.
I hope there are some safeguards in this bill for people alone and without advocates.
I hope there are some safeguards in this bill for people alone and without advocates.
1
This is only good news if it makes the task less onerous. In the late 1990s I was trying to end my youngest brother's life who was in the captivity of a traumatic brain injury. He spent 13.5 years in the wait for his end. A misspoken wish @ the onset of injury, to take all measures to save him was carried out, to his deficit. He endured years of indignity, but also much care of many individuals my family came to love. Joel was a cool kid. It took years to orchestrate his end. I had to meticulously teach his Doc in communicating w/ him, I had to meet w/ around 40 of the caring community surrounding him. It took much effort over several years to carry this out. I think that at this point I recognize that it should not be too simple, but it should be made more recognizably humane.
1
What could be a more vital right than the right to freely choose to end one's existence if one's situation is deemed to be personally untenable? It is strangely undemocratic and coercive and, well, arrogant for well meaning strangers to seek to decide any individual's most personal choice of whether to continue to live or not to live. The Almighty has seen to it that we all have the choice of stopping our lives if they become untenable to us. Who are we to self-righteously decide that the Almighty is wrong and that we know better than he or she or you do whether you wish to pass on?
continuing to live or
continuing to live or
As a new nurse decades ago, physicians with their medical expertise, told terminally ill or critically injured patients or their families the options of medications and interventions, and prognoses. The choice for patients or family members making decisions for a loved one was often to "not suffer, minimize pain and die peacefully," sans invasive tubes, alarming monitors and by foregoing extreme surgeries, procedures and medications. Fast forward to malpractice fearing physicians- terminally ill or injured patients and their families are now presented with a menu of options for them to choose from, even if they are futile and expensive, and sometimes regardless if advanced directives (living wills) are signed. No stressed and grieving patients or family members (especially without medical backgrounds) are in a sound position to decide their own fate or that of loved ones, so many of them unknowingly opt for extreme, painful and cruel measures out of fear of the possible consequences of "not doing everything." Assisted suicide (how about using the kinder euphemism, euthanasia?) will bridge the gap between extraordinary medical care measures that may temporarily increase longevity, but not quality of life, and hospice, when extreme care is exhausted (as are the patients and loved ones). Legal euthanasia is a timely and kind option for some people to choose, while they are lucid, with the guidance of loved ones and medical care experts.
2
Your source has done you a disservice. Assisted suicide is a homicide in Montana. Our MT Supreme Court ruled that if a doctor is charged with a homicide they might have a potential defense based on consent. The Court did not address civil liabilities. No one in Montana has immunity from civil or criminal charges. Does that sound legal to you? Oregon model bills have been rejected by our legislature in 2011, 2013 and 2015 because of gapping loopholes that expand the scope of abuse of elders and folks with disabilities of all ages. Passage would have established dangerous public policy. In Oregon everyone involved in the lethal process gets immediate immunity and family members are not required to be contacted. A witness is not required to confirm the dose was self-administered so if they struggled and changed their mind who would ever know? In addition by law no investigations or public inquiries are allowed leaving no recourse for surviving family members who were not contacted. This is very dangerous public policy that does not serve the common good of the public. Oregon and Washington should amend their initiative driven dangerous law.
1
So much for states' rights.
1
Be thankful for morphine.
In principle, physician assisted suicide is a noble idea. This will give desperate terminally ill people to have a hope of reducing their misery. It may also become a routine procedure with very many choosing to die. Not many but some may change their mind later for whom it may be too late to reverse their earlier decision. Some or many would be coerced by relatives, or others to go that route, when it becomes too common. How can we avoid this predicament?
I have maintained an idea that a panel, like a jury, of peers and experts who have no vested interest should approve a patient's interest to end their life. Then a physician can prescribe the lethal dose. Still there may be occasional, but not routine malpractice in this. Nothing is perfect any way.
I have maintained an idea that a panel, like a jury, of peers and experts who have no vested interest should approve a patient's interest to end their life. Then a physician can prescribe the lethal dose. Still there may be occasional, but not routine malpractice in this. Nothing is perfect any way.
2
Have you or others actually read the death with dignity laws in Oregon or Washington??
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/access-acts
Legal for 21 YEARS! IN 2014 only 104 people hastened their deaths with this law. There are multiple steps to make sure this is what the person wants. Two separate doctors must approve of the decision. The patient MUST be of sound mind and be able to take the medications themselves! NO one...Let me repeat this..NO ONE is giving this person an injection as we see in death penalty cases. After many discussions with family and doctor included, the patient gets his own prescription filled. It is usually a large number of barbiturate capsules. Capsules that the patient can open and mix into water or other beverage. The patient makes the decision!
No one is forcing the medication on the patient. He can stop at any time!
Read the entire act, it’s easily understood, it has easy to follow directions. It’s been working for 21 years!
Or! Let’s look at the alternative. 21,000 people commit suicide EVERY year in the USA using guns! What a horrendous way to die! Done on the down-low as it’s illegal to kill yourself. People who may never have used a gun in any way now must buy a gun, load it and hope they do it right. 90% do complete suicide..10% DON’T. Horrific permanent injuries.
Then remember that the family is taken out of the picture...you can’t die in peace surrounded by family. They do get to clean up the blood, bone, and brains.
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/access-acts
Legal for 21 YEARS! IN 2014 only 104 people hastened their deaths with this law. There are multiple steps to make sure this is what the person wants. Two separate doctors must approve of the decision. The patient MUST be of sound mind and be able to take the medications themselves! NO one...Let me repeat this..NO ONE is giving this person an injection as we see in death penalty cases. After many discussions with family and doctor included, the patient gets his own prescription filled. It is usually a large number of barbiturate capsules. Capsules that the patient can open and mix into water or other beverage. The patient makes the decision!
No one is forcing the medication on the patient. He can stop at any time!
Read the entire act, it’s easily understood, it has easy to follow directions. It’s been working for 21 years!
Or! Let’s look at the alternative. 21,000 people commit suicide EVERY year in the USA using guns! What a horrendous way to die! Done on the down-low as it’s illegal to kill yourself. People who may never have used a gun in any way now must buy a gun, load it and hope they do it right. 90% do complete suicide..10% DON’T. Horrific permanent injuries.
Then remember that the family is taken out of the picture...you can’t die in peace surrounded by family. They do get to clean up the blood, bone, and brains.
3
I have always had a soft spot for Oregon and California.
Now I like California even more.
Now I like California even more.
1
Congratulations! I hope one day this will be nationwide. Several yrs ago, I watched a documentary on this subject by HBO and it was an eye opener needless to say heartbreaking. No one should have to suffer!
I strongly oppose any form of assisted suicide or euthanasia, calling it euthaNAZIa to identify it correctly.
Seeing the very bad conditions many people and patients are in, either in hospitals/asylums or outside, I think there has to improve many a thing in this field in the beginning.
First and foremost our relation to illness and ill people has to change, that means: to other people around us AND to ourselves, being and/or becoming ill. Therefore I recommend everybody the following text on the internet „The state of the world is illness. What is to be done?“
Seeing the very bad conditions many people and patients are in, either in hospitals/asylums or outside, I think there has to improve many a thing in this field in the beginning.
First and foremost our relation to illness and ill people has to change, that means: to other people around us AND to ourselves, being and/or becoming ill. Therefore I recommend everybody the following text on the internet „The state of the world is illness. What is to be done?“
"I've never heard ANY terminally ill people give testimony that they feel pressured and are being robbed of the option to extend their current treatment circumstances. Have I just missed this?"
I'm in favor of this new law, but I confess I hadn't considered an important point made in this article and some comments. If life-ending medication will cost a small amount, while life-extending treatment will cost a very large amount, I can easily imagine that a lot of terminally ill patients will make the first choice so that their surviving family members have more money left to live on. Frankly, I myself might make that choice if the circumstances arose.
That argument, valid or not, doesn't offset, for me, the reasons why terminally ill patients (and those who help them) should be allowed legally to end lives with dignity. But that argument nevertheless deserves a great deal of attention.
I'm in favor of this new law, but I confess I hadn't considered an important point made in this article and some comments. If life-ending medication will cost a small amount, while life-extending treatment will cost a very large amount, I can easily imagine that a lot of terminally ill patients will make the first choice so that their surviving family members have more money left to live on. Frankly, I myself might make that choice if the circumstances arose.
That argument, valid or not, doesn't offset, for me, the reasons why terminally ill patients (and those who help them) should be allowed legally to end lives with dignity. But that argument nevertheless deserves a great deal of attention.
The truth be known physician assisted suicide has been practice in California for a long time...Is it time to bring it out of the shadows?
Young people who watch their close relatives die and then conclude that they would not want to do the same and would rather take assisted assisted suicide have not the faintest idea of how they will feel themselves when the time comes.
Drollere makes the very same observation that occurred to me:
"what strikes me most about the comments up to now is the implicit belief that doctors and patients adhere to laws as written."
As drollere probably understands already, they don't.
For a very long time, terminally ill patients who want to die have been finding ways, regardless of whether it's legal. The terminally ill patient usually takes the lead and couldn't care less whether it's legal. The helpers -- usually family members or close friends -- usually try to persuade the terminally ill person NOT to do it, but may (or may not) end up helping if the terminally ill person persuades them that that's what he/she really wants. The helpers naturally worry about criminal liability if others find out, but there are ways to avoid that -- such as by not talking about it (other than in carefully worded comments posted on websites like this one).
"what strikes me most about the comments up to now is the implicit belief that doctors and patients adhere to laws as written."
As drollere probably understands already, they don't.
For a very long time, terminally ill patients who want to die have been finding ways, regardless of whether it's legal. The terminally ill patient usually takes the lead and couldn't care less whether it's legal. The helpers -- usually family members or close friends -- usually try to persuade the terminally ill person NOT to do it, but may (or may not) end up helping if the terminally ill person persuades them that that's what he/she really wants. The helpers naturally worry about criminal liability if others find out, but there are ways to avoid that -- such as by not talking about it (other than in carefully worded comments posted on websites like this one).
One significant reason to allow gun ownership that seems never mentioned. Until "they" allow me to choose when with drugs, I reserve the right however necessary.
I have never understood in the least how the kindness we extend to end the suffering of family pets, who do not have the ability to choose for themselves, is something we would deny those we love the most in the world when they do have the capacity to choose. All of the arguments against the right to die seem to me to modeled on the need to let the living feel less guilty rather than on the right of individuals to be an active participant in what might be said to be the most important and personal event of their own lives. Shame on anyone who steals this final right from anyone who desires it.
4
Watching my mother die from cancer, I realized there really are fates worse than death.
5
I'm 77 healthy , with money and I have had enough of life.
I will not qualify for a state deal so I'll have to rely on my friends Smith and Weston.
I will not qualify for a state deal so I'll have to rely on my friends Smith and Weston.
Ìt is about time. I hope that other States follow suit. This is a decision to be made by an individual, his/her family, and medical advice. This is NOT something to be decided by a bunch of people who continually stick their noses into other people business. Over the years I have watched people die, and in many of those cases it was NOT pretty. To know that one is in deep deep pain and is suffering in that pain, knowing that there is cure for the pain and not being able to take advantage of it is a tragady. Thank you California, other States PLEASE take note.
3
"Barbara Wagner, a cancer patient who said that her insurance plan had refused to cover an expensive treatment but did offer to pay for “physician aid in dying.” This says a lot about our extremely profitable insurance companies and our health care system. No one should have to die because they can't afford expensive medicine.
That said, I support this law. I had a friend in Oregon who had MS. She bravely continued her life until she was totally paralyzed. She developed serious complications in the hospital and finally died. It was assisted suicide. We often talked about it in the years preceding her death when she could still talk. She was very grateful for this law. She died in the hospital with her family and minister in the room. They all took communion and she was blessed. Then she died, just the way she wanted it. She was never coerced by he family or anyone in the medical profession. Those that think this is a bad law should spend time educating themselves.
Meanwhile my ex-husband committed suicide with a gun 5 years after we divorced. I didn't see or hear any public discussion about his freedom to commit this act. Certainly the NRA paid no heed.
That said, I support this law. I had a friend in Oregon who had MS. She bravely continued her life until she was totally paralyzed. She developed serious complications in the hospital and finally died. It was assisted suicide. We often talked about it in the years preceding her death when she could still talk. She was very grateful for this law. She died in the hospital with her family and minister in the room. They all took communion and she was blessed. Then she died, just the way she wanted it. She was never coerced by he family or anyone in the medical profession. Those that think this is a bad law should spend time educating themselves.
Meanwhile my ex-husband committed suicide with a gun 5 years after we divorced. I didn't see or hear any public discussion about his freedom to commit this act. Certainly the NRA paid no heed.
2
THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH: Too many patients in tragically sick conditions should not be force to end their lives in pain or a vegetable state with family and love one unable to bring relief and lasting peace. As long as a sensitive detail and responsible care procedure this life ending decision is not misused or abused by anyone, then I would want this option to be legally available for myself.
2
Writers on this post, be CERTAIN that you transcribe now exactly what your instructions are for your end of life. Let family members know where that instruction is located, as it should be with your advance directives, power of attorney, living will, financial will, etc. But, be fully descriptive in how YOU want your final days to pass, including suffering. Do your part now. This legal right is overdue.
2
One of my biggest heroes of all time was dr. Kevorkian. RIP.
3
At 71, nearing the last few days now of my life -- I live alone in New York City--have terminal pancreatic cancer, have chosen not to be treated.
I did not ask for this painful cancer.
Give me the right to chose when I die.
Give me the medical help I need to die.
Allow my friends and family to be by my side...instead of criminalizing them for not wanting me to die alone and in anguish.
Give me--not inadequate hospice or a pat on the head or a lecture about how suffering is redemptive. Give me not your computers, your goals and treatment plans.
Give me help and take away this terror and isolation...the help I want and need...right now.
Get up New Yorkers, off your self-satisfied, self-involved backsides.
SUPPORT AID AND COMPASSION IN DYING:
NEW YORK STATE SENATE BILL 3685-2015
CALL /write/buttonhole your legislators and tell them we want Death with Dignity, not fear and pain.
The deal Cardinal Dolan made with now-disgraced Dean Skelos, not to bring this bill to the floor, is bringing the murderous and medieval hand of the Catholic Church and its evangelical sympathizers to bear on my aching, sick body....I lay alone, in pain and that is how I will die
in New York State.
I did not ask for this painful cancer.
Give me the right to chose when I die.
Give me the medical help I need to die.
Allow my friends and family to be by my side...instead of criminalizing them for not wanting me to die alone and in anguish.
Give me--not inadequate hospice or a pat on the head or a lecture about how suffering is redemptive. Give me not your computers, your goals and treatment plans.
Give me help and take away this terror and isolation...the help I want and need...right now.
Get up New Yorkers, off your self-satisfied, self-involved backsides.
SUPPORT AID AND COMPASSION IN DYING:
NEW YORK STATE SENATE BILL 3685-2015
CALL /write/buttonhole your legislators and tell them we want Death with Dignity, not fear and pain.
The deal Cardinal Dolan made with now-disgraced Dean Skelos, not to bring this bill to the floor, is bringing the murderous and medieval hand of the Catholic Church and its evangelical sympathizers to bear on my aching, sick body....I lay alone, in pain and that is how I will die
in New York State.
6
The basic and profound issue is being obscured: that is the basic human right of every person to decide when, how and where to die, and with help so that, de facto, as the Canadian Supreme Court recently ruled, doctors and society-at-large cannot force people to go on living.
Choice...that is the key here. It is simple.
We don't need the ABA, the AMA, Hospice and Big Hospital and Big Pharma who all oppose and lobby against aid-in dying because it will profoundly affect their bottom lines, eventually.
We need to have the choice to die not alone, with help, and without any kind of suffering. Any suffering.
Choice...that is the key here. It is simple.
We don't need the ABA, the AMA, Hospice and Big Hospital and Big Pharma who all oppose and lobby against aid-in dying because it will profoundly affect their bottom lines, eventually.
We need to have the choice to die not alone, with help, and without any kind of suffering. Any suffering.
4
This is incredibly important, and good news to those of us who are up Life's creek without a paddle. Hopefully, Governor Brown will find the compassion to sign the bill, or the good sense to step out of the way and let it become law without his signature.
4
Is this the politicians' idea of one way to solve the water crisis? Either way, it is a good move. Hopefully, it will spread nationwide.
1
Brown could let the legislation become law without his signature. Of course, he then opens himself up to cowardice accusations.
This article omits a crucial fact. Must a physician certify that the patient is likely to die within a certain time limit, and what is that time limit? I believe in the Oregon case the time that is six months.
1
This is long overdue. Finally, some sensible legislation that focuses on personal choice and the quality of life rather than extending life for its own sake.
No one wants to discuss it, but given the enormous pressures on natural resources due to our western habits and global overpopulation, we are going to have to re-think how we can survive with a population that, for those of some economic means at least, is living longer and longer. There are no pretty or easy solutions, and there will be huge economic equality issues to deal with, among others, but this is a step in the right direction to at least get the discussion of end-of-life issues going.
No one wants to discuss it, but given the enormous pressures on natural resources due to our western habits and global overpopulation, we are going to have to re-think how we can survive with a population that, for those of some economic means at least, is living longer and longer. There are no pretty or easy solutions, and there will be huge economic equality issues to deal with, among others, but this is a step in the right direction to at least get the discussion of end-of-life issues going.
3
A patient is not offered a choice if an insurance provider will not cover treatment of the terminal condition but will cover a treatment which terminates the patient. My 89 year old mother-in-law broke her hip in February and developed recurring MRSA. A smart woman with a full life until the accident, had even joined the Hemlock Society decades ago with her husband to plan for a dignified end of life. After a third round of operations to fight the MRSA, SHE decided she had had enough. Fortunately, she had shared her end of life wishes over the years with her primary care physician, as well as my wife who understood, in her mothers words, what her mother wanted. She was taken from palliative care to hospice on a Tuesday and passed peacefully that Saturday with her family at her side. It was difficult to experience, but she made the decision to avoid a continued immersion in the frenzy of a hospital with tubes, machines, harsh lights and the aura of undignified trauma. The hospice was once of the most special places any of the family had ever been to. The facility was beautiful, the staff extremely competent, the place calm and serene and dignified. The community formed between the families of patients in the hospice facility was a remarkable spontaneous combination of support and comfort. We all got and gave hugs to strangers weeping quietly alone as their loved ones moved on. I encourage others to learn more about choices we already have. Hopefully there will be more.
6
I have been in the horrible position to have to turn off my father's and my husband's life support.
The decision was based of course on the likelihood of their recovery (zero) and in the case of one of them, it was "assisted" by the administration of extra painkillers.
It hurt me terribly. It eased the end for each of them. If we can do it to our pets (as a veterinarian said elsewhere on this comment page) we should certainly be able to, and encouraged to, do it for our human family.
The decision was based of course on the likelihood of their recovery (zero) and in the case of one of them, it was "assisted" by the administration of extra painkillers.
It hurt me terribly. It eased the end for each of them. If we can do it to our pets (as a veterinarian said elsewhere on this comment page) we should certainly be able to, and encouraged to, do it for our human family.
6
My sister-in-law died in Oregon 16 years ago of breast cancer at the age of 39. She was one of those who took advantage of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act to obtain the prescriptions to end her life if she so chose, with the people around her of her choosing.
Like many Oregonians who get the prescriptions, she did not end up using them, but died a natural, hospice-supported, relatively pain-free death. However, she spoke on many occasions of the peace of mind she had from knowing that if the time came when the pain of living was far outweighing the benefits, she was in charge of making the decision of when and where she would die.
I think a law like this needs many safeguards. But if those safeguards are in place, the ability to choose can be a great blessing. Those who fear negative consequences should look to Oregon and other states who have been keeping records on the results of laws like this one for many years. Although I'm sure you can find one or two outliers, the understandable fears have just not been born out.
Like many Oregonians who get the prescriptions, she did not end up using them, but died a natural, hospice-supported, relatively pain-free death. However, she spoke on many occasions of the peace of mind she had from knowing that if the time came when the pain of living was far outweighing the benefits, she was in charge of making the decision of when and where she would die.
I think a law like this needs many safeguards. But if those safeguards are in place, the ability to choose can be a great blessing. Those who fear negative consequences should look to Oregon and other states who have been keeping records on the results of laws like this one for many years. Although I'm sure you can find one or two outliers, the understandable fears have just not been born out.
6
If someone wants to end their life due to knowledge of agonizing and impending death, I am in full favor of letting them. However, I'm sure their are thousands of physicians who do not want the responsibility for that (or any) death. I wonder if practitioners will be forced to administer and dispense lethal drugs in these cases. I hope not.
2
If you are terminally ill -- which is the situation here -- why string it out beyond endurance? What stoic ethic are we satisfying? It seems to me that "when you know better, you do better" applies.
For those who are afraid of institutional overreach or greedy relatives spiking the punch, that has always been the case only in the case of institutions, often in the opposite direction fearing either lawsuits or lost revenues.
There are always "worst case scenarios" that can be conjured and will happen, however rarely. Your fears, religion, prejudices, etc. should not rule my life.
Choice is the point.
For those who are afraid of institutional overreach or greedy relatives spiking the punch, that has always been the case only in the case of institutions, often in the opposite direction fearing either lawsuits or lost revenues.
There are always "worst case scenarios" that can be conjured and will happen, however rarely. Your fears, religion, prejudices, etc. should not rule my life.
Choice is the point.
7
This is about money and protecting physicians. Whether or not this will 'help' people remains to be seen. I wish greater effort were invested in pain management and end of life care, making this drama less prominent, if not unnecessary.
Grandma is in assisted living complaining about the conditions and her children tell her that the $6,000 per month it costs to keep it there is draining her grandchildren's college funds.
Or, Medicare administrators wonder whether it's better to spend limited dollars on people who have six months to live or on people who have 30 years to live.
Or and elderly person with depression looks at all the expensive and painful treatment she's getting and feels she's not worth it.
Or a young person standing at the edge of the Golden Gate Bridge remembers all the people arguing about how liberal and progressive it is for people to take their own lives.
Or, Medicare administrators wonder whether it's better to spend limited dollars on people who have six months to live or on people who have 30 years to live.
Or and elderly person with depression looks at all the expensive and painful treatment she's getting and feels she's not worth it.
Or a young person standing at the edge of the Golden Gate Bridge remembers all the people arguing about how liberal and progressive it is for people to take their own lives.
Oregon, Vermont and California are three of the most progressive (pronounced lib-er-al) states but I was surprised to see Montana on that list.
2
The opposition that worries about "the old and the sick" should be more concerned with health care expansion and long-term care. Why doesn't Medicare cover dental care? or long-term care? Spending down the few bucks most families manage to save for retirement should not be the expectation of our health care system.
1
I hope that Governor Brown signs this legislation. My family and I were at my mother's bedside here in California earlier this year when my mother died. She asked us at that time to do something to hasten and ease her death, but we were unable to help her. Day after day we administered morphine to her — something she had explicitly asked us NOT to do. In her comatose state, she still struggled at times to breath, and the invevitable bed sores grew larger. My mother had chosen not to undergo blood transfusions that would have prolonged her life and opted instead to die at home in her own bed. She was a tough woman who always shunned the use of drugs, but she would have elected assisted suicide had it been available to her.
2
As a family physician I have had experience with dying patients.
This should not be called assisted suicide, it should be called pain and distress management. Physicians should be free to discuss choices for management of pain and distress. Patients with emphysema feel as though they are drowning. Morphine drip to control their distress does hasten death but it is not suicide but symptom control. Patients have the right to decide if they want treatment to prolong life. They should also have the right to decide they want symptom control even if it hastens death.
This should not be called assisted suicide, it should be called pain and distress management. Physicians should be free to discuss choices for management of pain and distress. Patients with emphysema feel as though they are drowning. Morphine drip to control their distress does hasten death but it is not suicide but symptom control. Patients have the right to decide if they want treatment to prolong life. They should also have the right to decide they want symptom control even if it hastens death.
3
Do agree wholeheartedly, especially as a dear friend of mine suffered in the same way and if was horribly painful to hear her practically beg for mercy to be "put out" of her misery, she tried and tried to commit suicide herself without achieving her aim, and remained fully lucid and in pain physically and emotionally which was so very distressing for her and all who loved her, and still love her dearly after morphine doses were finally increased as she was very closed to death she had wished for so long yet as she put it it took so long for her "to go" and too much unbearable suffering which is plainly inhuman,and robs individuals from their fundamental rights and freedom. Hight time everyone be restored they human rights to live and die freely as they may chose allowing each taking the responsibilities their choice entails.
As to the fear of coercion: since when has the possibility of a law being broken an excuse for not passing it?
2
I want a package of drugs to take which will end my life under the circumstances described in many of the posts here. I don't want to ask my doctor, religious, the posters here, or the state for permission to do so.
6
Well done California and I hope Gov Brown signs the measure into law. There have been no problems with similar laws in the Northwest. As for lower income patients feeling financial pressure to commit suicide when medical insurance won't cover them adequately, that fear, is I believe, exaggerated; but we know the answer anyway don't we? Replace our rubbish under-regulated private health insurance system with a better, preferably public, one.
3
Currently, terminal patients are wildly over-treated, often at the demand of the family. Elderly chronically ill patients are especially poorly served by this attitude, Such over-treatment is insane since it's futile, and it's also insanely expensive. And for nothing! The patients still die just as fast, often in excruciating pain.
This sentence hit me hard:
“As soon as this is introduced, it immediately becomes the cheapest and most expedient way to deal with complicated end-of-life situations,” Dr. Kheriaty said."
When will the medical community stop over-treating terminal patients and focus on pain relief? I am referring to chronically ill elderly people, not trauma victims.
I am a veteran of helping my family members die. Sometimes the most caring thing one can do as a child is ensure that Do Not Resuscitate orders are strictly enforced. I watched as my mother screamed and writhed in agony when hospice allowed her morphine to run dry five days before her death from lung cancer, earned by smoking more than two packs a day for more than 60 years. If the medical establishment would come to terms with its own limitations, and focus end of life treatment on palliative care, then we wouldn't need Death with Dignity laws.
But currently we most certainly DO need such laws. I deeply pray that California's proposed legislation passes, so mote it be!
This sentence hit me hard:
“As soon as this is introduced, it immediately becomes the cheapest and most expedient way to deal with complicated end-of-life situations,” Dr. Kheriaty said."
When will the medical community stop over-treating terminal patients and focus on pain relief? I am referring to chronically ill elderly people, not trauma victims.
I am a veteran of helping my family members die. Sometimes the most caring thing one can do as a child is ensure that Do Not Resuscitate orders are strictly enforced. I watched as my mother screamed and writhed in agony when hospice allowed her morphine to run dry five days before her death from lung cancer, earned by smoking more than two packs a day for more than 60 years. If the medical establishment would come to terms with its own limitations, and focus end of life treatment on palliative care, then we wouldn't need Death with Dignity laws.
But currently we most certainly DO need such laws. I deeply pray that California's proposed legislation passes, so mote it be!
7
I support the ability to end one's own life, but I'd be less concerned about the family applying pressure, and more concerned about the hospital applying pressure, especially when the insurance or cash runs out. That was exactly what happened to my aunt. I was actually in the room when they said the treatment "wasn't working" and there were complications and even if she lived she'd need a trach for the rest of her life. I was absolutely SHOCKED at how much pressure they put on her and us to stop treatment. Nurse even came out and said he wouldn't want to live with a trach. "Coincidentally" the insurance had run out a couple days prior. As it turned out, the doctors were wrong about what was actually wrong with my aunt anyways and she got better.
On the flip side of that, doctors were only too happy to keep treating my grandmother as long as she had insurance. Even as she was on her death bed, with no restriction on the morphine drip, a doctor came in, asked what her insurance was, then said he wanted to do a risky (and expensive) surgery... for a small chance at 6 more months of life.
Hospitals are a business, sad but true.
I would most certainly want to end my life at a time of my own choosing rather than suffer through 3 months of bedridden agony as I've seen someone else do. But that said, I think there needs to be some damn strict regulations in place to keep staff from influencing the patient one way or another. They need to just stick to the facts.
On the flip side of that, doctors were only too happy to keep treating my grandmother as long as she had insurance. Even as she was on her death bed, with no restriction on the morphine drip, a doctor came in, asked what her insurance was, then said he wanted to do a risky (and expensive) surgery... for a small chance at 6 more months of life.
Hospitals are a business, sad but true.
I would most certainly want to end my life at a time of my own choosing rather than suffer through 3 months of bedridden agony as I've seen someone else do. But that said, I think there needs to be some damn strict regulations in place to keep staff from influencing the patient one way or another. They need to just stick to the facts.
4
I think that the best way is to remove the politicians, doctors, and family from the equation, and let the patient decide on his own, as Hunter S. Thompson did.
4
What irks me the most is the Roman Catholic church always impeding on government measures. A large percentage of people in our country do not identify as Catholic so it is beyond ridiculous that the Catholic church only supports laws that are only suited well for Catholics and attempt to block ones that are not. I live under civilian law not religious law!
7
I am glad the Catholic Church is standing up against the culture of death and defending those who are unable to speak for themselves. The Catholic Church does more to assist those in dire straits both Catholic and non Catholic than any other organization. They are the voice of reason and truth. I am sure Pope Francis would agree and he is beloved by people of all religions. I am sure he will be speaking about this issue upon his upcoming visit to the US.
This bill specifically is for terminally-ill people to have some control over their deaths, before they ARE unable to make such a request on their own behalf.
Why should one person's religious beliefs be forced upon someone else? If you're against having this choice, or religion does not permit such a choice, don't make it, but to deny it to others over a subjectively-chosen religious belief is just plain cruel. There are worse things than death, and that includes the indescribable pain people must endure from the disease and/or the treatment.
I wonder how many people out there have held positions similar to yours only to change their minds as they writhe in utter agony.
Why should one person's religious beliefs be forced upon someone else? If you're against having this choice, or religion does not permit such a choice, don't make it, but to deny it to others over a subjectively-chosen religious belief is just plain cruel. There are worse things than death, and that includes the indescribable pain people must endure from the disease and/or the treatment.
I wonder how many people out there have held positions similar to yours only to change their minds as they writhe in utter agony.
1
I wonder how many people who have held opinions similar to yours change their minds as they lie writhing in pain.
If this choice isn't for you, then don't make it, but to try to sway government to uphold your religious beliefs by depriving the rest of us of such a choice is preposterous.
If this choice isn't for you, then don't make it, but to try to sway government to uphold your religious beliefs by depriving the rest of us of such a choice is preposterous.
1
It was the opinion of those who declared our nation’s independence from Europe that I was endowed with an “...unalienable Right.…” to life. I construe that right to have included freedom to influence the end of my own life.
But now, 239 years later, that right has been alienated by a coalition of well-intentioned people including those with religious beliefs different from my own and written into law by legislators who seem unaware of the preponderance of public opinion.
My friends, relatives and medical advisors should never be legally required to aid in carrying out my final wishes. But neither should they be legally barred from rendering assistance if they feel it morally acceptable to do so.
At my present age (mid-80s) I still retain sufficient cognitive function to make informed decisions about how I wish to enjoy my remaining years. However, current legal restrictions require me to wait until I can no longer think clearly nor act rationally to finalize crucial decisions.
I urge all those who wish to impose their own beliefs of how I should live and die on me to restore my freedom to make my own decisions.
But now, 239 years later, that right has been alienated by a coalition of well-intentioned people including those with religious beliefs different from my own and written into law by legislators who seem unaware of the preponderance of public opinion.
My friends, relatives and medical advisors should never be legally required to aid in carrying out my final wishes. But neither should they be legally barred from rendering assistance if they feel it morally acceptable to do so.
At my present age (mid-80s) I still retain sufficient cognitive function to make informed decisions about how I wish to enjoy my remaining years. However, current legal restrictions require me to wait until I can no longer think clearly nor act rationally to finalize crucial decisions.
I urge all those who wish to impose their own beliefs of how I should live and die on me to restore my freedom to make my own decisions.
6
Fully agree with you.
The article repeatedly uses the unfortunate phrase "assisted suicide" which the medical community has largely abandoned for the term "assisted dying". The difference is far from trivial. Someone who is in the dying process is dealing with a disease which is not curable, but one which may be managed in a number of ways, one of which is to accelerate the dying. Suicide, on the other hand, usually is a product of depression, an illness which is not only treatable but often curable. Conflating assisted dying with suicide muddies this very clear distinction.
9
I believe this article omits some crucial details and safeguards in the new law. The patient must orally request help in dying twice separated by 15 days. The patient must also submit a written request.
3
it seems laws are twisted by individuals to fix their agenda. with every law it seems it has been used far beyond the intended use. people are so devious and selfish if they want something they will figure out how to make the law work for them!
I have mixed feelings about this issue. If a person is mentally coherent and chooses to die with dignity it is their personal decision. My concern is if someone is on pain reducing medication and/or does not have the capacity to communicate how does one know they are giving the requisite consent.
2
We inoculate against disease, we use antibiotics to cure some diseases, we do all sorts of things to enable us to have a good quality of life. Some could say, that's playing god. Maybe I was meant to have smallpox, measles, mumps, etc. But, Science is preventing my problems, probably creating new ones, but moving me along to a longer and healthier life. In the future, however, I know my capabilities will diminish and I'll be vulnerable to more diseases. I've seen horrible deaths, as a nurse, and I've seen easy deaths. It does matter which way we expire. It matters to family, friends, and to the next generation, because I don't want to sap money from that next generation, if inevitably, I'm dying and I'm dying a very painful and expensive, death. What need to prolong the inevitable horror for all. There's abuse in everything, but the issue remains the right for a terminally ill person to die, not what might possibly happen. I opt for death with dignity, with as little pain as possible, and with all the assistance at hand to accomplish that end, when I'm ready to die.
9
I do have to qualify the sentence I wrote in haste, "...the right for a terminally ill person to die." I don't think anyone of us can prevent that,
but what I meant was, it should be the right of a terminally ill person to choose how to die.
but what I meant was, it should be the right of a terminally ill person to choose how to die.
I assume that the pending bill in California only covers those people who are terminally ill. But what about people who have to live with severe pain for years? What about people who face living in dismal nursing homes where clients are often mistreated? Why should a person have to exhaust his or her life savings to live a few more miserable days or months in a nursing home when that money would be better spent if it went to younger relatives or charity? I am 77 but not terminally ill and would like to be able to die on my own terms before being dumped in a nursing home. I would rather not shoot myself or botch a suicide attempt with inadequate drugs. It's time we shun religious dogma and think about dying with the dignity that we afford our pets.
14
If I am diagnosed with cancer, Alzheimers, or any other disease that causes me or my family unnecessary grief and pain, I will certainly kill myself BEFORE serious pain or incapacity starts.
I'd prefer to do it legally around my family. But if it's illegal in Colorado, I will, with great disdain for an inane, cruel, and barbaric law, do it illegally by myself.
I'd prefer to do it legally around my family. But if it's illegal in Colorado, I will, with great disdain for an inane, cruel, and barbaric law, do it illegally by myself.
7
If a person wishes to leave this life, that should be -- and is -- their personal choice. What the advocates on both sides are debating is offering a choice about the pain, terror and degree of bloodshed the patient wishes to inflict on family and self: virtually ANYONE can easily access a handgun if they want to take that way out. That, of course, is barbaric, but easily available. What's being debated is the degree of pain to be suffered by patient and loved ones.
5
I have no confidence that Jerry Brown, ex-Jesuit novice, will sign this bill.
1
Jerry Brown is pro choice when it comes to abortion, so it's reasonable to assume he would be in favor of aid in dying.
I think he will.
The numbers of those dying by PAS has increased in every place in the world where it is legal. Not only that, but the types of patients has broadened to the infirm and depressed. Welcome to the down side of the slippery slope.
1
"...the types of patients has broadened to the infirm and depressed."
Citation, please.
Citation, please.
This humane action could not have come too soon. Now, I hope to see the states fall into line, one by one. Thanks, California.
9
As a veterinarian in training, I have very often seen pet owners make the beautiful, selfless decision to let their beloved animal die before the pain of their chronic illness were to become unbearable. I say it is beautiful because, when someone (human or otherwise) is family, you want to do everything to get just one more week, one more day to spend together. But in the case of chronic diseases like terminal cancer, pain of the disease and any aggressive treatment become unbearable. We talk with owners everyday about what their animal is experiencing. The choice is theirs, but more often than not, they decide to let their loved pet go, knowing the devastating grief they will now face, to spare them any further pain. It is the most selfless thing an owner can do for their animal, and the pet gets to die peacefully, free of pain, with its last memory being held by its owner. This is euthanasia, which translates to "good death."
We afford this to our animals, isn't it time we do the same for ourselves?
We afford this to our animals, isn't it time we do the same for ourselves?
16
Yes. Yes. You identified the irony of our healthcare system. We allow animals to die with dignity, but expect human beings to endure long, protracted periods of pain before they die.
1
After helping my father go to endless rounds of doctor visits and medical procedures in his final months of life, I thought I;d never chose to endure that. It occurred to me that I would just step off a curb in front of a bus. What that would do to the driver of that bus and his passengers has given me pause. So why must legislatures withhold options for people faced with these situations? Why make the terminally ill chose to endure the pain themselves, lay it upon their family or splatter a bus load of strangers?
7
Some people may be willing to run through their life savings just to languish in bed for a few miserable weeks or months, wearing diapers and drooling, hooked up to tubes and wires, poked and prodded by an ever changing cast of healthcare workers, but I am not. When the time comes, I will say my goodbyes, make a quick exit, and pass my money along to my heirs.
13
A real problem, especially in California, is that the role of the physician has changed. He (or she) is no longer that fiercely independent individual whose sole purpose is to serve your best interests. Rather, your physician is more than likely employed by a large 'healthcare' entity whose primary concern is the cost of your care. And that employer has the power to control the professional behavior of its physicians, most of whom are young people with young families and lots of debt.
I shudder to think of what that physician thinks when he gets the memo from an administrator reminding him of the available options for this patient.
I shudder to think of what that physician thinks when he gets the memo from an administrator reminding him of the available options for this patient.
3
It could be a slippery slope. But if people are deemed to be in full possession of their faculties by experts and family, then maybe it's an idea whose time has come.
3
I support assisted suicide. I also distrust the legislation. I'd like to see the ABA do a Model Code, drawing on the best legal minds available nationally. This isn't for politicians or staffers drawing on lobbyists for help.
Yes, it is loving family members who push for one more attempt to save their loved one.
Sadly, I have seen in practice greedy family members whose concern is to inherit. I've even seen them misuse "family planning" to toss unwilling parents out of the family home in order to sell it and distribute the money early under a poorly written trust agreement. An outraged judge stepped in to stop that one, which is how I came to see it.
I have also seen insurance companies do disgusting things. In one instance the claims adjuster working the claim was recently hired from a cashier position in a grocery store, with no training at all. Her instructions were to say no, and refer hard cases to a supervisor. I know, because I sued them and questioned her.
My fears are family greed, but more.
People facing an insurance company or even government health plan that will only pay for death would be forced to choose the only way out under the time pressure of extreme illness. Insurance can leave a feeling of no hope. Pain or death, and time is pressing, would be a cheap way to "solve" the medical costs of end of life care. Just put on enough pressure, and people will "volunteer" to die "of their own choice."
This must be dealt with. It can't be pushed under the rug.
Yes, it is loving family members who push for one more attempt to save their loved one.
Sadly, I have seen in practice greedy family members whose concern is to inherit. I've even seen them misuse "family planning" to toss unwilling parents out of the family home in order to sell it and distribute the money early under a poorly written trust agreement. An outraged judge stepped in to stop that one, which is how I came to see it.
I have also seen insurance companies do disgusting things. In one instance the claims adjuster working the claim was recently hired from a cashier position in a grocery store, with no training at all. Her instructions were to say no, and refer hard cases to a supervisor. I know, because I sued them and questioned her.
My fears are family greed, but more.
People facing an insurance company or even government health plan that will only pay for death would be forced to choose the only way out under the time pressure of extreme illness. Insurance can leave a feeling of no hope. Pain or death, and time is pressing, would be a cheap way to "solve" the medical costs of end of life care. Just put on enough pressure, and people will "volunteer" to die "of their own choice."
This must be dealt with. It can't be pushed under the rug.
5
I guess Jeb Bush, the dilettante child of privilege who became an intolerant Catholic after his family name did not deliver victory to him in his first campaign to become governor of Florida in 1994, is angry about this and will actively pledge to counter the preferences of people whose end-of-life decisions are nobody's business but theirs.
15
In a world in which autonomy from all manner of interference (governmental, corporate, electronic) is fast disappearing, the simple ability to make a choice, the ultimate choice, is something of inestimable value. We are sentient creatures who deserve the right to be able to say, "I have had enough."
25
People who want to die appear to be a very, very small percentage of the population. For them the solution is simple: stay at home, bring in hospice and let nature take its course.
The vast majority are in institutions which are paid to keep people alive. Family members are totally unequipped to deal with these institutions. They should question everything that is done, but frequently they have no background. Some day, everyone will bring a bring a smart phone to the hospital and will google everything that the doctor tells them. We do not need legislation for that.
The vast majority are in institutions which are paid to keep people alive. Family members are totally unequipped to deal with these institutions. They should question everything that is done, but frequently they have no background. Some day, everyone will bring a bring a smart phone to the hospital and will google everything that the doctor tells them. We do not need legislation for that.
2
If you had a loved one die of a chronic, painful fatal illness, you would understand that "letting nature take its course" is a cruel thing to say. We allow our pets to pass before the pain of their diseases becomes unbearable, why do we not afford our family members the same kindness?
10
Perhaps the movement to have police wearing cameras should spread to hospitals, only in reverse: have patients and their families wear cameras to keep an eye on treatment practices.
1
I wonder how well funded the opposition to death with dignity would be if patients could opt to stop all medical payments if they no longer wished to live. Hospitals, many doctors and most assuredly pharmaceutical and insurance companies would immediately become proponents of allowing people to decide when to end life.
16
These same, 'The government should have control over your pregnancy,' people are the same ones that think that control of your life is not yours, but theirs. Where do they think they get these rights?
20
I have recently seen what happens when someone chooses to take their life due to age and illness, and has no one to turn to for help. An elderly couple in Indiana (both 90+), both with diagnoses that meant months or years of suffering between them. Choosing to use a gun (more certain and efficient), his daughter found them both just after, and was completely unprepared for it. He guessed what this horrible sight might do to his daughter, but the sign he left on the door didn't stop her from coming in. She had an immediate heart attack, then long-term PTSD. She could not tolerate the meds normally given for PTSD, leading to recurrent alcohol dependence despite the best care, then leading to her own agonizing death four years later. We miss her terribly now. All this horror could have been avoided if her parents had access to the support they needed to end their lives quietly and with dignity.
So, congratulations to California for taking the steps needed to separate church and state, to give individuals the right to make their own choices, and to be kinder to each other, both to those who suffer and to the rest of us who love them.
So, congratulations to California for taking the steps needed to separate church and state, to give individuals the right to make their own choices, and to be kinder to each other, both to those who suffer and to the rest of us who love them.
24
It seems many if not most of the commenters here posting messages in opposition to assisted suicide either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that California’s law does not permit doctors or family members to make decisions about a person death. California’s law only permits the afflicted person to make that decision and only then to request a doctor’s assistance in carrying out their decision.
That people who oppose the law feel they must distort facts to effectively argue against it only goes to show they have no compelling case to make on the true merits of the issue.
Furthermore, it seems a majority of those who oppose the law and who do accurately characterize it, oppose it on the grounds of religious beliefs as to what their God permits, and they seem oblivious or indifferent to the fact that they are effectively seeking to have the secular state impose their religious beliefs on others who likely do not share those beliefs.
That people who oppose the law feel they must distort facts to effectively argue against it only goes to show they have no compelling case to make on the true merits of the issue.
Furthermore, it seems a majority of those who oppose the law and who do accurately characterize it, oppose it on the grounds of religious beliefs as to what their God permits, and they seem oblivious or indifferent to the fact that they are effectively seeking to have the secular state impose their religious beliefs on others who likely do not share those beliefs.
28
Likewise, Dan, to appreciate what most religious doctrine brings to the the table you should accept that being rational, moral and obedient to God are never mutually exclusive acts.
Keep in mind that many of us are not particularly interested in your god. Please keep the imaginary out of the reality of life and death.
Not enough of you, Mr. Tierney. Besides, what's not imaginary about creating a class of physicians who kill defenseless people?
"seem like an agonizingly decay.." ?
In many cases, it is clearly a slow and horribly painful descent. There's no "seems" about it. That's not my conviction, just an observation.
In many cases, it is clearly a slow and horribly painful descent. There's no "seems" about it. That's not my conviction, just an observation.
8
I believe people have the legal right to kill themselves. I don't believe the medical community backed by large insurance companies and tax dollars should be part of the process.
People are dying who can't get medical care or reasonably priced drugs in this country. Ironically they will now be able to be put out of their misery by the same medical industrial complex that has priced them out of treatment.
There are States and counties all across this country who employ professional executioners skilled in this kind of service. Perhaps it's time for a professional community of executioners who might provide this service for those who choose to end their lives.
Death with dignity should be legal. It's not medical treatment and it's not hospice care.
People are dying who can't get medical care or reasonably priced drugs in this country. Ironically they will now be able to be put out of their misery by the same medical industrial complex that has priced them out of treatment.
There are States and counties all across this country who employ professional executioners skilled in this kind of service. Perhaps it's time for a professional community of executioners who might provide this service for those who choose to end their lives.
Death with dignity should be legal. It's not medical treatment and it's not hospice care.
7
Are there no lovers' leaps, that we have to bring the medical profession into this?
1
I congratulate the majority of voters in California upon this clear evidence of their decency, common sense and compassion. Now, if I might make a leap - although I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty, since it exists thanks to a popular mindset which largely opposes assisted suicide, why is it that that death with vengeance crowd cannot learn from the death with dignity movement how to terminate a human life without the horrific tortures we see inflicted in the strapped down, painful, often hours-long intra-veinous administration of ludicrously complex chemical cockails?
7
As a physician who work with hospice patients, I would never participate in assisted suicide. My job is to heal as much as I can even at the end of life.
Assisted suicide is a legal issue. There is no reason to involve a physician in this act. The technology of painless death has been well worked out. Perhaps a mortician, policeman, clergy or a special technician can be trained for this.
Assisted suicide is a legal issue. There is no reason to involve a physician in this act. The technology of painless death has been well worked out. Perhaps a mortician, policeman, clergy or a special technician can be trained for this.
1
quell:
You get it, but for all the wrong reasons.
It's not about you.
I hope some day that aid in dying will be a choice for all patients and that NO ONE has to be "trained" to oversee my death.
Let each one of us makes choices about our deaths--and get the compassionate, swift help we need to "get dead" without pain and suffering.
We don't need to be tested or controlled or made to jump through hoops.
We just need to die, peacefully and swiftly...and not alone.
You get it, but for all the wrong reasons.
It's not about you.
I hope some day that aid in dying will be a choice for all patients and that NO ONE has to be "trained" to oversee my death.
Let each one of us makes choices about our deaths--and get the compassionate, swift help we need to "get dead" without pain and suffering.
We don't need to be tested or controlled or made to jump through hoops.
We just need to die, peacefully and swiftly...and not alone.
1
I am a psychiatrist who has consulted on medically ill patients for over 35 years. It is offensive to the use of the word suicide for the rights granted under the legislation mentioned in this article. Allowing terminally ill patients the right to decide where, how, & when their life will end is simply proper end-of-life care. It is literally adding insult to injury when we attach a stigmatizing word such as suicide to the already great suffering of the terminally ill patient.
The type of law passed in California, and others like it in Oregon & Washington, should become a model for the entire nation as soon as possible.
The type of law passed in California, and others like it in Oregon & Washington, should become a model for the entire nation as soon as possible.
30
Amen!
1
Thanks for a great post, Doctor B.
1
Perhaps the stigma is yours? The Latin roots – "sui-" meaning "self" and "cide" meaning "death" – carry no inherent meaning other than to describe the decision in the most succinct possible way. Language can change, and any negative connotations currently attached to the word "suicide" will shift with time as the choice of "self death" becomes culturally accepted. Fuzzy and Orwellian terms like "end-of-life care" are not needed.
1
End of life decisions can be very difficult for all concerned, including close family members who are torn by not wanting to lose a loved one and not wanting to see a loved one suffer any more than necessary. That being said, there is considerable opportunity for abuse in assisted suicide. It is a very slippery slope, and legitimatizing it will likely increase the opportunities for abuse.
Duffy:
I presume you may be Catholic.
I come from a Holocaust survivor family...and this "slippery slope" argument is nonsense to us. What abuse are you talking about. Follow the stats in states and countries where choice in dying is available--and number are absurdly low....few people actually exercise this precious right, but they demand it, nonetheless.
The Canadian Supreme Court has just reminded us that the real "slippery slope" is forcing people to go on living when they don't want to.
Put that in your "right to life" pipe ....and puff on it a little.
I presume you may be Catholic.
I come from a Holocaust survivor family...and this "slippery slope" argument is nonsense to us. What abuse are you talking about. Follow the stats in states and countries where choice in dying is available--and number are absurdly low....few people actually exercise this precious right, but they demand it, nonetheless.
The Canadian Supreme Court has just reminded us that the real "slippery slope" is forcing people to go on living when they don't want to.
Put that in your "right to life" pipe ....and puff on it a little.
1
"It's always the loved ones who want the dying person to try one more round of chemo..." Absolutely true!
12
The ability to end ones life is the unltimate point of self-determination. Everyone always has and has had the "right to die". This just provides the possibility of making that choice a humane and dignified end for people who are suffering beyond the point that they wish to or feel they can continue living.
13
I’m an in-shape sixty-five year old female who has chosen not to live past seventy. I want to go out before I get sick and feeble. No one, but no one, agrees with me, not even my doctor or therapist. My reasoning is simple: If I haven’t done what I wanted to do by seventy, then it’s time to get off of the planet and give someone else a chance. I will have left my ecological footprint on the Earth and now must give way to those who would step into my shoes.
1
Thanks for your comments and for your clear thoughts on the subject. The social and emotional aspects which dominate the discussion here affect only the individual and their immediate circle, whereas the ecological impact affects everyone and everything else on the planet.
If you have the 'right' to birth, then you should have the 'right' to death.
11
Funny thing, certain people insist that other people come in to this world and refuse to let them leave when thry want.
I'd like to see a survey of people like me, over 70. I'll bet you find a lot of support for death with dignity among those of us who have seen death and dying up close and often. Maybe some feel as I do that money and cost is a legitimate issue: What percent of Medicare is spent in the last 90 days of life on people who were absolutely going to die anyway? How many schools could we build with that money? I would rather take a pill and give away my last 90 days to help kids in a poor neighborhood live a good life.
24
For its generous spirit alone, ExitAisle's comment should be a highlight.
What a noble and kind gesture on your part, ExitAisle. Truly.
What a noble and kind gesture on your part, ExitAisle. Truly.
8
Six months ago I watched my 90 year old father gradually die ever so slowly from moderate dementia and Parkinson's. After this experience I am committed to dying on the day and time of my choosing for the exact reasons my father expressed 20 years prior to his death. He felt that the prolonged deaths that medicine has created with wonderful intentions has created a dilemma for our society and families. We cannot afford to care for debilitated loved ones. The burden is on the family who need full time jobs to financially survive and have children to raise and pay for. Society and the medical community does not have the resources needed to support struggling families. Younger employees do not understand and resent the time away for frequent phone calls and trips to the doctors or hospital. Long term care insurance only kicks in during the very last stages of full dependent care. The acute dying process may take weeks and is exhausting unless you can afford private help. I will not do this to my children; nor will I drain our bank account that can be better spent on education for our grand children. We need to allow patients the ability to choose the day and time of their death; just as we can now decide to have a child.
12
These bills should also be expanded to include those whose quality of life, be it because of stroke or other debilitating medical condition, has sunk far below a level they (or for that matter very few other people) wish to experience. In essence, life is a terminal illness because all things living will die (at least in this lifetime in the bodies they currently inhabit). In many ways, it is much more cruel to force someone who wishes not to live a miserable existence year after year, to do so, without having the same recourse to escape from misery that those with classified "terminal illnesses" have under the current right to die laws.
7
I live in CT and a while ago I went to a movie sponsored by Friends and Compassion. On the way out, I asked a couple what they thought of it. The woman literally screamed at me that "Christ died on the cross for us" and this was sacrilegious. This is what we are up against. CT failed once more to bring it before the legislature last year.
5
It's utterly bizarre how some people, indeed many people, insist on imposing their religious beliefs on other people who do not share them.
Connecticut finally got birth control right...and if enough of you in the State speak up, vote, work and protest in public, you will get this right, too.
It took years for the CMA (Canadian medical assn) to throw its weight behind assisted dying...and as soon as they did, presto, the Canadian Supreme Court finally found it's voice.
Don't be a sissy. Keep fighting.
It took years for the CMA (Canadian medical assn) to throw its weight behind assisted dying...and as soon as they did, presto, the Canadian Supreme Court finally found it's voice.
Don't be a sissy. Keep fighting.
1
A big issue in caring for dying patients is fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of pain, fear of isolation. Instead of rushing to the conclusion that choosing to assist in a patient's choice for death is the answer, we should be ensuring that the quality of their lives and death is part of that, is optimal. When the focus of cure becomes an obvious impossibility, as much energy and resources needs to be brought to assure pain control, physical assistance and family support. We need to put away our social fears of over medicating for pain and be willing to expend the funds necessary to provide good bedside care and home assistance. If would seem if funds are not going to physicians, pharmaceutical companies and research centers in pursuit of aggressive treatments, then the monies are trivial and expendable. But they are exactly what we need to extend dignity to our loved ones as they enter the last phase of their lives. Having worked as a nurse at both ends of the life spectrum, saying loving goodbyes to parents, siblings and friends is as important as welcoming newborn babies into the family. I believe that most patients, if reassured that their pain and anxiety will be managed and they and their families and friends will be given all the physical and emotional support needed to help them through the death experience would opt for a natural death and not an assisted suicide.
1
F. Scott Peck of "The Road Less Traveled" self-help fame, lamented that people shirk the final labor of life, which is dying. This opinion did not gain quite the popularity as did his earlier work.
Why would anyone want to reassure a dying person that "their pain and anxiety will be managed?"
Is there some particular redemption in pain an suffering?
Perhaps for you...and if so, go for it...suffer and be in pain all you like.
There is no such thing as a "natural death." There is only death and the attendant horrors (almost inevitable--choking, withering pain, stinking stuck bowels, incontinence, inability to swallow...want a longer list?)....which you so love as "natural."
Aid in dying is not suicide. It is the same kind of decision that people stuck in the burning 9/11 Towers took when they jumped. They weren't suicide, as dying people who opt for aid in dying aren't either.
Is there some particular redemption in pain an suffering?
Perhaps for you...and if so, go for it...suffer and be in pain all you like.
There is no such thing as a "natural death." There is only death and the attendant horrors (almost inevitable--choking, withering pain, stinking stuck bowels, incontinence, inability to swallow...want a longer list?)....which you so love as "natural."
Aid in dying is not suicide. It is the same kind of decision that people stuck in the burning 9/11 Towers took when they jumped. They weren't suicide, as dying people who opt for aid in dying aren't either.
1
Brittany Maynard's credibility exceeds the Catholic church's like a Blue whale exceeds a nematode.
3
People should have the right to chose; it is their body and their life. More states will also approve a similar bill; I predict. There are too many people especially the baby- boomer population. Financially it will lighten up the federal responsibility for social security.
5
Nothing infuriates me more than people who blithely insist on denying other people the right and freedom to do as they please, despite the exercise of that right would harm no one else.
The issues vary across all manner of life and society, including but not limited to assisted suicide, gay marriage, drug use, sex work, gambling, etc.
Their arguments inevitably revolve around three things,
(1) someone somewhere might abuse that right,
(2) “the children,” or
(3) God opposes it.
Society’s default setting should be to err on the side of freedom, in the absence of a compelling reason to prohibit a given right or freedom.
The issues vary across all manner of life and society, including but not limited to assisted suicide, gay marriage, drug use, sex work, gambling, etc.
Their arguments inevitably revolve around three things,
(1) someone somewhere might abuse that right,
(2) “the children,” or
(3) God opposes it.
Society’s default setting should be to err on the side of freedom, in the absence of a compelling reason to prohibit a given right or freedom.
17
Let's hope Governor Brown signs this bill.
I will never understand the insistence of some people in keeping people alive who don't want to live. I can only think that doing so is an ego thing, or just politics. Disgusting.
Of course, there are other kinds of pain more potent than physical, and those are never addressed. Years of psychological pain can be as debilitating as physical, and yet other people think they have the right to tell us what to do with our lives.
At any age, in any condition, whether I live or die is up to me, and me alone.
I will never understand the insistence of some people in keeping people alive who don't want to live. I can only think that doing so is an ego thing, or just politics. Disgusting.
Of course, there are other kinds of pain more potent than physical, and those are never addressed. Years of psychological pain can be as debilitating as physical, and yet other people think they have the right to tell us what to do with our lives.
At any age, in any condition, whether I live or die is up to me, and me alone.
8
It's time to acknowledge the heroism of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, without which this progress would not have been possible.
15
The issue at the heart of suicide is about who has the right to make decisions about another person's life. No one should tell me I have to live if I choose not to; it is a private matter. We have laws to protect privacy in healthcare matters, yet here we violate privacy in one's most intimate health decision. Choosing death is an act of self-determination and freedom, and deserves to be considered an unalienable right.
5
I believe the choice to end my life should be mine and mine alone. The government has no right to impose other people's religous belief's on me. Period. No ifs. No buts. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself. Also, the idea of coercion in this arena is to me the same as the use of so-called voter fraud to limit voting rights.
Medical wills and other means of stating preferences should be expanded to allow patients to express their wishes in this area. If these are written before someone becomes ill by someone who is of sound mind then the person's preferences can be put forth. The specter of so-called coercion can be reduced.
Medical wills and other means of stating preferences should be expanded to allow patients to express their wishes in this area. If these are written before someone becomes ill by someone who is of sound mind then the person's preferences can be put forth. The specter of so-called coercion can be reduced.
57
• This bill should be vetoed. Its proponents dishonestly pushed it through a special session on finance, after they had claimed it was not finance related. The bill also lacks appropriate safeguards. Many who support assisted suicide rejected this bill, because it has no requirement for witnesses, so the "suicide" could easily become a homicide by misguided family, friends ... or greedy heirs. This bill also puts family and friends who "help" at serious risk for felony conviction. Cal Penal Code 401 is still good law and says, "Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony." A family member is immune if he/she prepares the poison, but faces felony conviction for advising, aiding (e.g., getting the prescription filled) or encouraging the patient to chose assisted suicide. Those are holes a herd of elephants could dance through! Also, while the Cal Med Association was pressured (by insurance companies?) into going neutral, all other physician groups OPPOSED it, including the liberal AMA! Most doctors want nothing to do with killing their patients. We are witnessing a slippery slope that has resulted in physicians in Europe killing patients without their consent and many other horrifying abuses. It's a deadly mix: combining our broken, profit-driven health care system with doctor-prescribed suicide. We deserve better than this ill-conceived junk law.
12
The easy fix: everyone should have a medical directive. Everyone.
Medical directives are almost useless. They are routinely ignored by all.
Molly: Is "Living Will" the proper document?
The only bad thing about this law is the sunset provision. The state has no business telling us whether we can end our own lives. The state already owns too much of me; it should at least allow me to decide when I want to depart.
2
This is bad for society, and is bad medicine. All we are doing is giving physicians a free legal pass to commit murder, and get away with it. Doctors should not be helping patients to kill themselves. This slippery slope will never be made less steep or less slippery by passing assisted-suicide laws. This is about control, whereas death should be about letting go and letting nature take its course. I disagree with this approach to so-called "death with dignity". Dignity is about accepting what is happening to you, not about having a doctor help kill you.
6
Slippery slope! This is the conservative argument against most ideas that involve some forward thinking.
Can we have the govt look into gun safety? No, that sounds like gun control and that's a slippery slope. Soon the govt will have all our guns and we will be defenseless against it.
Same sex marriage? Slippery slope. Soon people will start marrying their pets.
Slippery slope? Slippery slops.
Can we have the govt look into gun safety? No, that sounds like gun control and that's a slippery slope. Soon the govt will have all our guns and we will be defenseless against it.
Same sex marriage? Slippery slope. Soon people will start marrying their pets.
Slippery slope? Slippery slops.
1
You have obviously never had the wrenching experience of seeing a loved one suffer for weeks or months with a terminal illness and the physical and mental pain and anguish it brings, wishing every day to die and not being able to end the suffering. I am a physician and I can tell you, I've had families BEG for their parent's/sister's/brother's, etc. agony to be ended. I always felt awful that I could do little to alleviate the suffering other than administer a morphine drip, which is, in its own way, a living death.
3
It sounds to me that you haven't known someone who's family and loved one has gone through this process. It also sounds to me that you don't trust the people who wish to reclaim their agency over these issues. Nor does it appear that you trust people like those whose sentiments are expressed here. These problems were not uniquely yours, but they are yours. Perhaps you should look to them.
OMG! This news shocked me. It's still a murder. I have a question! Where is the respect of life? Will you kill your loves one because he is too sick? Very heartless. Too cruel!
This will put Brown's Catholic faith to the test. Choose life Jerry, not death.
1
Oh great, with millions of abuses senior citizens around, a final solution.
When I was younger, assisted suicide, euthanasia, etc. Were foreign ideas to me, and the politically correct answer seemed to me was that these were not right. Now that I am older, and have witnessed personally the deaths of relatives, my view has changed.
My cousin died a few hours ago in a hospice, she is 40, diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. Fighting for it for two years, she knew she was not going to make it. But there is no such option where I stay, so I saw her body being ravaged by the disease. Every 6 days, she would lose weight, got weaker, by the last two weeks of her life, her eyes were rolled upwards, she was 30kg,all skin and bones, her legs were swollen, fluid coming out of her legs, etc.
I asked all those who oppose assisted suicide for truly terminally ill patients to empathise with the person, and the pain that the whole family has to endure.
We are not talking about disabled babies, or people who are sick of life and want out. We are talking about terminally ill fellow humans who have lived a wonderful life and they wish to go in a dignified way.
Maybe if you have personally experienced this similar situation, you might consider this view too.
My cousin died a few hours ago in a hospice, she is 40, diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. Fighting for it for two years, she knew she was not going to make it. But there is no such option where I stay, so I saw her body being ravaged by the disease. Every 6 days, she would lose weight, got weaker, by the last two weeks of her life, her eyes were rolled upwards, she was 30kg,all skin and bones, her legs were swollen, fluid coming out of her legs, etc.
I asked all those who oppose assisted suicide for truly terminally ill patients to empathise with the person, and the pain that the whole family has to endure.
We are not talking about disabled babies, or people who are sick of life and want out. We are talking about terminally ill fellow humans who have lived a wonderful life and they wish to go in a dignified way.
Maybe if you have personally experienced this similar situation, you might consider this view too.
11
Rick, Thank you for sharing such heartache. 72 hrs ago my dad, a titan in life, finished out in similar fashion as your cousin. During this 2-year+ saga, I, too, have seen my view on this topic has greatly shift: Suffering reduced, family present (at the end instead of all over the country), agony curtailed. I grasp that it's not a simple solution. But I'm sure many of you understand the RELIEF I feel (& guilt over this relief) now that his race is run. I have been so drained for so long that there's no grief (maybe later, I guess), just gratitude that the lion is free of his cage.
I would encourage people to talk about this with their doctors and their local hospitals on an individual basis if they feel concern about this issue. My personal practice philosophy is to try to listen to patients and families and do what I can to support their choices ahead of whatever personal views I may have. However, friends and family have encountered physicians and hospitals, especially religious ones, that have not agreed with them. This can run the whole spectrum -- from staff who insist on extensive futile care regardless of quality of life to those that undertreat the elderly because "it's their time." Best to know ahead of time and pick a doctor/ hospital that you feel comfortable with.
26
Maybe some of it is about money. It has been reported that a huge amount of our medical costs are spent in the last six months of life. So why wouldn't doctors and hospitals and drug companies and medical device companies lobby against such a sane plan? They stand to lose billions.
I completely agree with you in picking a hospital and/or doctor that agrees with your philosophy. Unfortunately many people do not have a choice in choosing which hospital or doctor they go to.
I once spent a week in the hospital listening all day and all night, 24/7, to the elderly woman in the room next door screaming incoherently in pain and fear as she headed toward death. It was harrowing to hear it. She finally died the 6th day I was there. I asked my nurse if she had passed and she said "Thank God yes, she was suffering so much."
Best wishes to the wise members of the California State Legislature.
Best wishes to the wise members of the California State Legislature.
11
Thank you, Brittany Maynard. You made a difference.
8
How ever we see this isue it is murder with asistence.
No. It is not. Murder is homicide with malice aforethought. Aid in dying is not even homicide (the killing of a human by another human). It is aid in dying. If you do not want to avail yourself of it, that is your prerogative. It is not your prerogative to deny me that option should it be available to me.
1
My mother's been in hospice-at-home for months. She's being well cared for by a hospice provider, as far as I can tell without living there, and it's costing Medicare a small fortune I'm sure, but her quality of life is next to nil. She broke her arm and hip, she's been bedridden for 4 months, she's deaf, she's suffering from senile dementia, terrible skin ulcers, she still knows me but believes she is in some sort of "torture chamber" away from her own home, and I can no longer have a coherent conversation with her about anything. I sit with her at her bedside, hold her hand until she nods off from infusions of pain meds.
IMO, the many thousands if not millions of Americans in hers, or a similar state, have been commodified by the hospice industry as a consistent source of revenue, kind of like the DOD budget. As we justify no real scrutiny of that budget year to year, on the grounds of "national security", regardless of $billions spent on obsolete, redundant, often counter-productive materiel, we also justify the expenditure of $billions on prolonging the lives of human "potted plants", with little or no quality of life, no hope or recovery, no
IMO, the many thousands if not millions of Americans in hers, or a similar state, have been commodified by the hospice industry as a consistent source of revenue, kind of like the DOD budget. As we justify no real scrutiny of that budget year to year, on the grounds of "national security", regardless of $billions spent on obsolete, redundant, often counter-productive materiel, we also justify the expenditure of $billions on prolonging the lives of human "potted plants", with little or no quality of life, no hope or recovery, no
8
DON"T sign it Jerry! California leads the way in many cultural areas.. This bill is the beginning of a slippery slope to a dismal future for the elderly, as youthful society will seek to rid itself of the "old ones."
1
Why bother the poor doctors? I suggest lawyer assisted suicide.
2
Last May I was diagnosed with a terminal brain stem glioma, and so this issue is not an academic one for me. You (whoever you are and whatever group you represent) have absolutely no right at all to tell me how I will manage the last part of my life. it is the ultimate intrusion.
This step cannot be evaluated in the absence of the larger context. It can and will be part of a general approach. I have tried some treatments to help extend my life and I am grateful for those and the time that I suspect it has given me to spend quality time with loved ones. But at some point when it is nothing but suffering, I will be glad for that choice.
This step cannot be evaluated in the absence of the larger context. It can and will be part of a general approach. I have tried some treatments to help extend my life and I am grateful for those and the time that I suspect it has given me to spend quality time with loved ones. But at some point when it is nothing but suffering, I will be glad for that choice.
103
Hi there in Menlo Park. I am sorry to hear of your predicament. I lived in Menlo Park quite a long time ago.1955 onward...now in Cape Town, South Africa
I applaud your anger & ultimate acceptance but could you tell me your name?
all best,
Michael Fulton
I applaud your anger & ultimate acceptance but could you tell me your name?
all best,
Michael Fulton
In caring for those dying, I've noticed that those leaving behind their life's savings and material possessions is similar to the market crash....they totally lack value, they just are no more, you can't take them with you. All one's hard work, and it just does not matter now. I could see the separation. The body is free of here to go on and that is all that matters now.
5
“I’m not going to push the old or the weak out of this world,” Senator Ted Gaines, a Republican, said on the floor. “I think that could be the unintended consequence of this legislation.”
The GOP already pushes the old or the weak out. By refusing to establish a single payor universal access healthcare system they are contributing to the ill health of all United States citizens. By refusing to establish a decent financial and social safety net for handicapped, or unemployed, or otherwise unlucky people in the US, they are contributing to the distress felt by the middle and working classes here. When they talk about tax cuts they don't talk about the accompanying decrease in services that follows and the distress it causes as people can no longer afford the user fees that pop up. The GOP, while not admitting to it, is the party of corporations and the very, very rich. That means that the rest of us don't matter. It also means that, as far as the GOP is concerned, we can drop dead. The Democrats need to organize and stand up to this nonsense. They need to point out, at every opportunity, how the GOP has hurt the middle and working classes. When they don't, they are enabling the GOPs lies to continue unchallenged.
The GOP already pushes the old or the weak out. By refusing to establish a single payor universal access healthcare system they are contributing to the ill health of all United States citizens. By refusing to establish a decent financial and social safety net for handicapped, or unemployed, or otherwise unlucky people in the US, they are contributing to the distress felt by the middle and working classes here. When they talk about tax cuts they don't talk about the accompanying decrease in services that follows and the distress it causes as people can no longer afford the user fees that pop up. The GOP, while not admitting to it, is the party of corporations and the very, very rich. That means that the rest of us don't matter. It also means that, as far as the GOP is concerned, we can drop dead. The Democrats need to organize and stand up to this nonsense. They need to point out, at every opportunity, how the GOP has hurt the middle and working classes. When they don't, they are enabling the GOPs lies to continue unchallenged.
16
For 16 years my Mom has battled one medical malady after another. At 86, she is in the final stages of life nearly blind, mostly deaf, unable to walk, in renal failure with an inoperative heart valve and in constant pain from an inoperative gallbladder. She has other medical issues and her meds list is two typed pages.
I'm her caregiver and its a 24/7 job and there are few "good" days. The strain and toll on me and family is intense. She will die at home as our commitment to her. She is a fighter and will fight death till the end. This is her way. Its a horrific process but her life. I would NEVER mention self-determination. This law is NOT for her.
However when my time comes and I'm given word its 6 months or less I'll sign up. When my quality of life is diminished to a point I decide is too little and death inevitable I want the option.
I'm her caregiver and its a 24/7 job and there are few "good" days. The strain and toll on me and family is intense. She will die at home as our commitment to her. She is a fighter and will fight death till the end. This is her way. Its a horrific process but her life. I would NEVER mention self-determination. This law is NOT for her.
However when my time comes and I'm given word its 6 months or less I'll sign up. When my quality of life is diminished to a point I decide is too little and death inevitable I want the option.
79
Beautiful thinking and feeling!
I care-gave my mother's year long death from lung cancer, it makes you face the real things in life. Slogans don't suffice in the face of death. More like lets sit and talk about life and death. Dying people need to know they are in control of their own passing. My mother got a "don't take these all at the same time" prescriptions when she expressed hers fears to her oncologist . She never used it it but it was a comfort to her to the end. Hopefully Jerry will ratify what is already happening in CA and everywhere in terminal illnesses and bring compassion and support to the isssue.
This is right for California and the rest of America.
This is right for California and the rest of America.
83
What a comfort to know that this choice will be available if wanted.
11
This is great news for so many reasons. One of the most significant is the fact that this law allows a dying person to save his/her family from having to funnel all their assets to hospitals and insurance companies and go bankrupt in the process. Instead of burning through whatever is left in the last weeks of life a person can end it with dignity while keeping their money safe from the wolves.
3
It's about time. I look forward to seeing this the law of the land across the country.
7
At last! Too late for my poor parents and grandmother, who were forced to starve to death, which is apparently the American way to get rid of old people who don't have terminal illnesses. My dad's doctor and his hospice nurses kept telling us he was dying, his body was shutting down, etc. Any day now. Well, it took 3 months. Actually it took 5 months from the 30 pound weight loss in July that his doctor didn't notice, till his death at maybe 80 pounds in November. (How much does a 5'10" skeleton weigh? )My mother also lost 30 pounds in a month in her nursing home, without a peep from her doctor or nurses. She died skeletal about 3 months later. Starvation is not a painless death, not even for the old. That's a lie.
We have long treated animals more compassionately than humans in this regard. When my 18 year old cat was euthanized he had a quick and painless death - and I was grateful I could do that for him. I wish my father could have authored a quick and painless death for himself. After a lifetime serving his country and his family, he deserved that compassion and respect.
My plan had been to move to Oregon or Washington when I become old or ill, especially if I get Alzheimer's. Now I don't have to move.
We have long treated animals more compassionately than humans in this regard. When my 18 year old cat was euthanized he had a quick and painless death - and I was grateful I could do that for him. I wish my father could have authored a quick and painless death for himself. After a lifetime serving his country and his family, he deserved that compassion and respect.
My plan had been to move to Oregon or Washington when I become old or ill, especially if I get Alzheimer's. Now I don't have to move.
10
At least you will have these rights in California. The British Parliament has this week rejected overwhelmingly any chance it can happen here.
5
What's so interesting is the religious are so zealous about suffering people at the end of their lives, trying to deny them choice, and suffering pregnant mothers who they also want to deny choice. Such concern for zygotes and (frequently warehoused) terminally ill, yet these same will deny healthcare for kids or adults the ages in between.
Medicare will save billions as most boomers, having watched our parents die horrible, protracted deaths, want none of it.
Don't choose it if you don't want it.
But it will be a relief just to know it's legal if anyone's suffering gets too great.
Medicare will save billions as most boomers, having watched our parents die horrible, protracted deaths, want none of it.
Don't choose it if you don't want it.
But it will be a relief just to know it's legal if anyone's suffering gets too great.
14
Quadruple access, not triple.
1
When my time comes to leave this world, as surely it will, I would like the option of being able to leave with some dignity on my own terms - something my father was denied. The horror of what he went through so pointlessly haunts me to this day. It is sorrowful enough to die, but what virtue is there to die in prolonged agony?
Those who oppose assisted suicide are opposing the reality of our mortality. Let us deal with reality - we are all here on borrowed time. I choose to accept it, embrace it, make the most of it, and when time to leave then leave with whatever grace and dignity is possible. Amen.
Those who oppose assisted suicide are opposing the reality of our mortality. Let us deal with reality - we are all here on borrowed time. I choose to accept it, embrace it, make the most of it, and when time to leave then leave with whatever grace and dignity is possible. Amen.
10
My wife had dementia for 10 years before we took her off of life support. She couldn't eat, drink or breathe on her own. Her mind was gone. It was time to go. But, I had to watch her dehydrate to death. It took 5 days. It was gruesome. We don't do that to animals because it's not humane. So, why do we do that to people when we take them off of food and water? There are 4 million Americans with Alzheimer's disease. Many will be taken off of life support and they will dehydrate to death, because that is the law. It is a horrible way to go. Even if the patient is heavily sedated, it is still cruel. We need to be able to legally terminate life when we make the decision to take them off of life support.
117
Food and water is not a medical treatment . OK to pull the blog on machines that might be keeping people alive, but death by dehydration should not be legal. Otherwise I will expect my health insurance to pay for my restaurant meals!
so in your scenario who makes that decision, the patient or the concerned family members? The slippery slope becomes apparent.
The current "Death with Dignity" laws would not have allowed you to give your wife "the pill" to end her life. She would have had to be of sound mind and taken it herself.
Living will people. And make sure that those closest to you have a copy. When you are terminally ill and in severe pain, we should all have that basic right to die. It's the most humane way out. It also can take the guilt that many families face away, knowing this is your final wish.
3
So just when pharmaceutical companies have refused to sell life-ending drugs and thereby hobbled capital punishment nationwide, we now have a "humane" reason for their continued manufacture. Lovely.
This law will kill more than it intends
This law will kill more than it intends
1
People don't seem to get what this is about. It isn't about freedom. It's about state-issued standards regarding how to commit assisted suicide. This is a matter way beyond the expertise of government. State issued standards directing doctors how to decide when suicide is legal are absurd. Suicide is the ultimate personal decision and I don't want idiot legislators telling me when it's ok. If I ever decided it was appropriate, I'd go about it with my closest confidantes, not with a state senator or a doctor who may not know me at all.
14
Without this law, your close confidants might be arrested in some states if a person in your family or friend reports them after your death.
"Suicide is the ultimate personal decision and I don't want idiot legislators telling me when it's ok. If I ever decided it was appropriate, I'd go about it with my closest confidantes..."
------------------------
...who could be held liable in your death according to law.
THIS law nullifies THAT law; as such, you should be cheering it, as it gets your confidants off the liability hook should you decide to free yourself of the horrific effects of a terminal illness. Indeed, the law mandates the decision to be your and yours alone. It cannot be made by family members or physicians or anyone else, and, as referenced above, you can inform others about such a decision without their being legally bound to share that information with authorities.
A lack of awareness is what knee-jerk reaction against government gets you.
------------------------
...who could be held liable in your death according to law.
THIS law nullifies THAT law; as such, you should be cheering it, as it gets your confidants off the liability hook should you decide to free yourself of the horrific effects of a terminal illness. Indeed, the law mandates the decision to be your and yours alone. It cannot be made by family members or physicians or anyone else, and, as referenced above, you can inform others about such a decision without their being legally bound to share that information with authorities.
A lack of awareness is what knee-jerk reaction against government gets you.
Absolutely right. Why is it anyone's business what you decide to do with your life? Especially politicians or lobbyists. The problem is that you can't involve your closest confidants or they will be charged with murder. Or being an accomplice or some such stupid law. Fot most, this issue is about religious beliefs. So let those who have those beliefs live in misery and let those of us who don't share their religion make a decision based on common sense.
The choice of an assisted death should remain a decision between a doctor and his patient. The State should have no role in this. For years, a doctor would offer morphine knowing that the patient's respirations would slow and the patient would drift off. My fear is that old and sick people will become inconvenient for the state or for a family, and be dispatched against their will, which happens with the agreement of two physicians in some Scandinavian countries.
5
"..The choice of an assisted death should remain a decision between a doctor and his patient..."
To be clear, California's law creates no authority for the doctor to decide whether a terminally ill person lives or dies. Doctors have only two rolls to play in assisted suicide. One is in making the medical determination that the afflicted person is terminally ill. The other is to assist the patient in carrying out his or her decision to terminate thier life. It is technically inaccurate and ultimatrly misleading to say the assisted suicide decision is made between a doctor and patient. The "decision" belongs exclusively to the patient.
To be clear, California's law creates no authority for the doctor to decide whether a terminally ill person lives or dies. Doctors have only two rolls to play in assisted suicide. One is in making the medical determination that the afflicted person is terminally ill. The other is to assist the patient in carrying out his or her decision to terminate thier life. It is technically inaccurate and ultimatrly misleading to say the assisted suicide decision is made between a doctor and patient. The "decision" belongs exclusively to the patient.
Do you believe that the doctor who pushes the morphine has obtained the consent of the patient? It's not " a decision between a doctor and his patient". It is well known that doctors and nurses nudge dying patients over the edge with morphine, but it is not legal. That is why the State must get involved....to provide legal choice for doctor and patient. It's the compassionate legal option and puts the power of the timing in the hands of the dying person. It is not administered by a doctor.
"dispatched against their will, which happens with the agreement of two physicians in some Scandinavian countries. " Which countries? Specific examples of people being dispatched against their will, please.
2
We advanced so much in medicine. Now we think suicide is the best option for illness. Just like abortion law changed to abortion on demand, this law is gonna change to death on demand. Tomorrow is someobody wanna die because people trolled him/her on facebook, the option is assisted suicide.
1
I can respect the deeply held conviction that some people want to spare their loved ones what must seem like an agonizingly decay into pain and slow death. I read these stories and I sympathize, even as I vehemently disagree that assisted suicide is anything close to rational, constitutional, or ethical.
But, please, please show some respect. The pictures of the smiling parents holding up the picture of their dead daughter. The lady with oversized earrings showing her "SUPPORT" for the "End of Life Option Act." The countless comments I've seen proclaiming the "Wonderful news!" These are peoples' lives you're toying with and this act will have very real consequences. Even if you believe in the bottom of your heart that it's for the very best, it's still a matter of life and death - how about a little more dignity on behalf of the deceased?
But, please, please show some respect. The pictures of the smiling parents holding up the picture of their dead daughter. The lady with oversized earrings showing her "SUPPORT" for the "End of Life Option Act." The countless comments I've seen proclaiming the "Wonderful news!" These are peoples' lives you're toying with and this act will have very real consequences. Even if you believe in the bottom of your heart that it's for the very best, it's still a matter of life and death - how about a little more dignity on behalf of the deceased?
12
I'm not sure you know anything about rationality, constitutionality, or ethics. After watching the extended suffering of my father and my family over an unnecessarily extended hospice, your suggestion that he, or I, or my family, or the kind medical and hospice providers were irrational or unethical for wanting a legal alternative is deeply offensive.
I can argue that assisted suicide is completely rational.
If you had a terminal disease that will cause agonizing pain over many months that causes you to have zero quality of life, assisted suicide might look appealing.
It is when quality of life is gone, and there is no hope of improving, that is when assisted suicide might be looked at.
If you had a terminal disease that will cause agonizing pain over many months that causes you to have zero quality of life, assisted suicide might look appealing.
It is when quality of life is gone, and there is no hope of improving, that is when assisted suicide might be looked at.
Obtaining dignity for the dying is a political act. Sometimes there is simply no way to avoid such confrontations with those in power.
If you have spent weeks in an ICU with a dying parent or grandparent (I have done both) you will understand why these death with dignity laws and a measure of personal choice is needed. Our technology has outpaced our moral reasoning, and as I look back on how my loved ones' deaths were prolonged (in the name of prolonging their lives) I grieve for the horrible, final weeks that I cannot separate in my mind from the idea that they were needlessly tortured. The over-medicalized, death-is-the-enemy, ignore-the-DNR culture of end of life care is no way to treat people who are dying. Suffering is the enemy, not death. Suffering is preventable, death is not.
8
There are situations much worse than death. My father writhing in pain with end state prostrate cancer, bed sores, crying because he wanted to die. When he developed pneumonia his compassionate doctor withheld medication and we let him go (this was the late 70's, before advance directives). What's happening in California is heartening.
10
what strikes me most about the comments up to now is the implicit belief that doctors and patients adhere to laws as written. this seems to misunderstand the importance of hospice care in ensuring choice at the end of life, and to misinterpret the role of hand guns, and the second amendment, in making assisted suicide laws fundamentally cosmetic.
the first point is illustrated by the comments expressing fear that now the floodgates of euthanasia and elder murder will open. this is really a belief that human nature is errant and bad unless restrained by edict -- always a dominant premise in monotheistic morality.
to the second, if these moralizing folks really wanted to corral suicide, they'd outlaw alcohol and firearms tomorrow.
what these commentators misunderstand is that very often simply having the freedom to choose and knowing the means are available makes the burden of suffering more tolerable and the decisions of the family less distorted by the profit motives of hospitals and some doctors.
it's just a great day for a humane understanding of individual freedom and the realities at the end of life.
the first point is illustrated by the comments expressing fear that now the floodgates of euthanasia and elder murder will open. this is really a belief that human nature is errant and bad unless restrained by edict -- always a dominant premise in monotheistic morality.
to the second, if these moralizing folks really wanted to corral suicide, they'd outlaw alcohol and firearms tomorrow.
what these commentators misunderstand is that very often simply having the freedom to choose and knowing the means are available makes the burden of suffering more tolerable and the decisions of the family less distorted by the profit motives of hospitals and some doctors.
it's just a great day for a humane understanding of individual freedom and the realities at the end of life.
71
The term "assisted suicide" is somewhat misleading. It should be called "passing in dignity". It's not about killing oneself. It's certainly not about helping someone kill him/herself. It's about appreciating the dignity of life and human existence.
106
Whoever coined those words probably also invented the term "pro-life," Entirely misleading.
1
Thank you Kevin. EXACTLY! Assisted suicide is inflammatory and INCORRECT!
1
Yes, but let's be fair, your platitude obscures the fact that objectively it IS about assisting someone in taking their own life.
It's the right thing to do. No one has the right to tell another person how or when to end it all for whatever reason whatsoever !
Bottom line, it's their life and it should be their choice alone !
Bottom line, it's their life and it should be their choice alone !
7
If you disagree with it, don't do it. It's that simple.
Don't be judgmental and tell others not to do it, just take care of yourself.
Don't be judgmental and tell others not to do it, just take care of yourself.
15
I think it can be merciful if done for the right reasons.
1
Assisted suicide: coward meet murderer.
Ah, yes, let us sit back and observe the dying wrench and and writhe and shriek as they marinate in indescribable pain.
After all, there is the principle of not being a coward to uphold.
After all, there is the principle of not being a coward to uphold.
As a registered nurse for over twenty years I have witnessed all this but your poetic descriptions and judgements do not come close to justifying the proposed remedy.
Good news. Too many suffer needlessly for no reason.
5
I would be curious to know what was negotiated with the insurance industry regarding policy payouts...
4
There are worse things that can happen to you and your body besides dying.
4
The Christian religions that are against this law(s) simply because they believe that everyone needs to "suffer" in life just like their "christ" did. No other reason, just like the reason they go around proselytizing throughout the world, particularly the 3rd world countries. How many lives have they destroyed? My count is in the billions over a 2 thousand year period. No more!! Just say "No"! to manipulative, controlling and threatening "religions".
5
All we need is a Congress that respects the Constitutional law that delimits is powers.
Thank you, California. At the forefront of everything, as usual. May all the other States follow your lead.
5
This is progress? St. Augustine said, the further we turn from God the more our logic deteriorates. Doctors should be concerned about saving lives not ending them. Very Sad.
3
The progress has been in the technology to prolong life and the ethics haven't caught up. Death is inevitable. We are able to keep people alive today by all kinds of extraordinary means that would have been unimaginable to someone like Augustine, or even someone 50 or a hundred years ago. But should we? At a certain point we are not saving life but prolonging suffering, and doing do only because we can. Helping a life end with dignity and with suffering relieved is, I believe, a logical extension of palliative medical care.
What other culture tells its citizens to drop dead like this one?
4
Always heartening to witness Dignity ascending a level.
Acceptance of Death, especially any desirability for it, is never conceded when young, hardly recognized in early maturity, barely acknowledged by the middle years, maybe acknowledged by early senior, accepted in middle senior and anticipated, even if not eagerly, by late senior. Accepting and even desiring death is one of many ‘life experiences’, like love, sex, orgasms and parenthood that is impossible to accurately describe to anyone who has not experienced it for themselves… then it becomes unnecessary.
'Jolly Good Show' Californians for granting the option of dignity in your state.
Acceptance of Death, especially any desirability for it, is never conceded when young, hardly recognized in early maturity, barely acknowledged by the middle years, maybe acknowledged by early senior, accepted in middle senior and anticipated, even if not eagerly, by late senior. Accepting and even desiring death is one of many ‘life experiences’, like love, sex, orgasms and parenthood that is impossible to accurately describe to anyone who has not experienced it for themselves… then it becomes unnecessary.
'Jolly Good Show' Californians for granting the option of dignity in your state.
5
Great! When do they plan to do it?
There are thousands of senior citizens rotting away in hospice care who will benefit from this ruling immediately. God Speed!
Is it just not being covered because whenever the "fair" media covers the side AGAINST passing such a law, they cite that people will be pressured ... yet I've never heard ANY terminally ill people give testimony that they feel pressured and are being robbed of the option to extend their current treatment circumstances. Have I just missed this? As Brittany Maynard said it's not that terminally ill people don't WANT to live, they do! It's just that particular option is not being offered by their body, so they can either live a bit longer suffering whatever they're suffering, or make their own exit choice.
63
I think you just said it all " It's just that particular option is not being offered by their body, . . ."
I want to be able to make my own exit choice.
I want to be able to make my own exit choice.
Hurray ! We're making progress, albeit slowly.
Despite our constitution's intention to separate church & state, we seem to be a "religious" country.
This was brought home to me after seeing pictures in our local newspapers of first graders putting their hands over their hearts & pledging allegiance to "one Nation, under God" (1954). This propaganda saddened me.
I wish that more people would take agency, choose & complete their Health Care Proxy forms, their POLST/MOLT Advanced Directive forms, have their health care providers sign them ("the discussion") & put them in their office & hospital charts. Copies & "discussions" can be shared with as many family, friends, lay & medical as one thinks is necessary to assure success.
I'd like more people to "educate" themselves.
www.compassionandchoices.org is a good place to start.
I admired Robin Williams. He decided when he wanted to exit & did.
Despite our constitution's intention to separate church & state, we seem to be a "religious" country.
This was brought home to me after seeing pictures in our local newspapers of first graders putting their hands over their hearts & pledging allegiance to "one Nation, under God" (1954). This propaganda saddened me.
I wish that more people would take agency, choose & complete their Health Care Proxy forms, their POLST/MOLT Advanced Directive forms, have their health care providers sign them ("the discussion") & put them in their office & hospital charts. Copies & "discussions" can be shared with as many family, friends, lay & medical as one thinks is necessary to assure success.
I'd like more people to "educate" themselves.
www.compassionandchoices.org is a good place to start.
I admired Robin Williams. He decided when he wanted to exit & did.
1
We live in a country where the Congress assumes power the Constitution explicitly denies it. Faith based legislation is illegal here, but the Congress is full of scofflaws.
Congratulations to the California legislature and to Compassion & Choices, the national group that is working hard to make aid in dying an option for residents of all states.
https://www.compassionandchoices.org/
https://www.compassionandchoices.org/
4
If Gov. Brown vetoes the bill, he is, in effect, killing it, no? Curiouser and curiouser.
Please sign this bill Gov. Brown. I work in health care. Please. Give folks a choice. With choice, it may be easier to say yes, you can try this or that, because I know if I change my mind I have a choice.
3
I hope Jerry Brown signs this bill. We all need this option at the end.
4
Can I participate immediately?
Good .
1
A good step for reason, compassion and a little intellectual maturity overriding religious superstition. Good news.
3
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! As a happy and healthy native Californian - I am so happy that we are now blessed with a choice! Now when the time comes, I can choose to leave this world at home, in my own bed, with all my friends and family around me, with my dignity, without the unending suffering that I watched my Mother and Father endure. My gratitude to the California Legislature for approving this bill is vast and deep. Thank you for this freedom to choose. I hope I won't have to think about this for a very, very, very long time - but it's such a gift to know the choice will be mine.
9
This has got to be set-up so that it's about very ill people getting what they want, not doctors and courts deciding what they need or should have.
When I read these types of news reports I can't help but think about the Terri Schiavo case in Florida. What Govenor Jeb Bush and Christian conservatives put the Schiavo family through was despicable. May it never happen again.
10
Excellent. Another step away from religious "morality" which is so often cruel and barbaric. The prohibition against assisted dying is a classic example of cruel and barbaric religious "morality." It may be painfully slow, but we are waking up. Witch burnings used to be mandatory; they're now illegal. Human slavery is illegal. Women can vote. Let's keep progressing.
5
To title this assisted suicide is a misnomer and a negative connotation. We are striving for the right to have death with dignity.
8
Wrong headline. It is not "assisted" suicide. It is allowing terminally ill people to have access to drugs to peacefully end their lives. It still requires two doctors to approve in order to get the medication. But they do not "assist" the person but merely get out of the way and allow a patient access to life ending drugs. As a proponent of "death with dignity" it is apparent that we need to be careful how we use language. Physician Assisted Suicide is how opponents of the law characterize this bill. The title of the bill is "End of Life Options Act." That is what it is. A majority of people who go through the process in Oregon to get the medication end up not using it. It is an "option" if the pain a suffering become to great to bear.
Watch the HBO film, "How They Die in Oregon" if you want to know what is going on here. That film made me a believer in the right to have a choice.
Watch the HBO film, "How They Die in Oregon" if you want to know what is going on here. That film made me a believer in the right to have a choice.
9
It's about time that the State of California passed a law that made sense.
3
Aside from terminal, regular hospice patients can linger on. My Mother was in Hospice for 3.5 months. She did not want to die and fought it to the end. A very strong lady, walked and ate until days before her death. Morphine is the med of hospice, as though all hospice patients are in pain. She wasn't in pain, perhaps until the end, at which time she should have gone FSSSSSSSSSSST! I watched her have a stroke, heart attack, and drown in her own fluid, all in a short period of time just before her death. She lit up like a tomato on morphine, so they discontinued that and pushed oxycodone down her throat to stop any pain. Some people don't have pain, but I'd say my Mother suffered pain in the end. I will not do that, except the pain I cause myself while I can take care of the situation. Poor Dr. Korvorkian! He was so right. Doctors pretty much know when the end is coming. I've held the hand of 7 dying people, I know when the end is near. I've had animals all my life and not a one died on their own, along with their Vets, we've always had to make the decision when it was time for them to go on.
31
And that sums up the concerns that those who oppose this scheme have, that "we" will be making the decisions about putting the elderly and disabled to death just as we do with pets.
I have held a number of dogs when the Vet put them down. Never a whimper or sign of discomfort as they died. The vet agreed with me in not being able to understand the horror of the botched executions of prisoners.
1
Unfortunately, death -- like a lot of things in life -- cannot be "gamed". Nobody, not even doctors, know when the end is coming. I am sorry about your experiences; they were sad and perhaps unfortunate. But I've seen both pets AND people die on their own, die peacefully -- die in pain, die miserably -- die in hospice (or for a pet, put to sleep at a vet clinic). There is no "one way" that is right or EVEN POSSIBLE for everyone in every situation.
Nobody in hospice will force morphine on a patient who is cognizant and can refuse it. Your mom clearly wanted to live every day allotted to her, no matter what -- surely you are NOT arguing to taking those days away from her, on the grounds that her death was upsetting to YOU?
Dr. Kevorkian was a nut, and he was obsessed with death to the point of mental illness. And he influenced some people to commit suicide in a highly questionable way -- for example, people who were not dying, but depressed! or who had treatable conditions.
What you are arguing for her is not "assisted suicide" (which is only for those patients like Ms. Maynard who are entirely in their right mind, and physically capable of taking the drugs) but for euthanasia -- for "putting down" an unfortunate relative when they are very sick or very old. That is NOT this bill, and I don't ever want to see human beings treated as if they were animals.
Nobody in hospice will force morphine on a patient who is cognizant and can refuse it. Your mom clearly wanted to live every day allotted to her, no matter what -- surely you are NOT arguing to taking those days away from her, on the grounds that her death was upsetting to YOU?
Dr. Kevorkian was a nut, and he was obsessed with death to the point of mental illness. And he influenced some people to commit suicide in a highly questionable way -- for example, people who were not dying, but depressed! or who had treatable conditions.
What you are arguing for her is not "assisted suicide" (which is only for those patients like Ms. Maynard who are entirely in their right mind, and physically capable of taking the drugs) but for euthanasia -- for "putting down" an unfortunate relative when they are very sick or very old. That is NOT this bill, and I don't ever want to see human beings treated as if they were animals.
Thank god , early medicine pioneers and scientists didn't think about suicide, instead finding a way to treat illness. Hope this decision will not deter other scientists to find medicines to cure illnesses.
5
What makes you think that these two situations are mutually exclusive?
John, at one time or another, it's just time TO GO! And lingering on may not be the best option for some people. They may want to end the suffering posthaste.
Well, John, I do hope the scientists find a way to treat and cure old age before I hit a hundred. Of two hundred. Or three hundred. Or ...
2
Amen.
Liberty if it means anything, means a right not to be strapped to wires
or to a bed or to a life no longer worth living,
after a wonderful life.
Wisdom descends.
Liberty if it means anything, means a right not to be strapped to wires
or to a bed or to a life no longer worth living,
after a wonderful life.
Wisdom descends.
40
Marty, as a citizen in a democracy you also have an obligation to learn the laws. There is no law saying a person must be strapped to wires or to a bed. Patients can reject death-delaying treatments. Also, suicide is legal in California. [I am not advocating that for anyone.] There's no need to drag doctors into suicide. Doctors don't want to kill their patients. Your liberty should not endanger the poor, the elderly, and disabled people, as this bill terrifyingly does. Its a deadly mix to combine our broken, profit-driving health care system with doctor-prescribed killing.
I have news for the doctor citing 'a cancer patient who said that her insurance plan had refused to cover an expensive treatment but did offer to pay for “physician aid in dying"' as reason to oppose this bill. Insurance companies will STILL refuse to cover expensive treatments - that's what they do, to lower costs and increase their profit margin. In the absence of this law, that won't change. What the law will change, however, is the inescapable fate of dying after days, weeks, months and even years of unnecessary pain and enfeeblement. Those of us who have watched our loved ones suffer through this, begging for help no one could give them, fear the same fate more than anything.
44
It's a deadly mix: combining our broken, profit-driven health care system with doctor-prescribed suicide. We deserve better than this ill-conceived junk law. If a patient wants to kill him/herself, suicide is legal in California. [I am not advocating that for anyone]. Assisting in another's suicide is illegal. Don't drag doctors into it.
People ought to have the choice to end heir lives when they are ill instead of slowly dying in a hospital or wherever--in pain or demented. It's worked well in Oregon, so what's all the fuss about?
32
The comment about the poor people being pushed by their families to take the easy way out surprises me. Most people I know (I work with hospice folks) do not want to prolong their lives. They would like to take the "easy way" out. A great deal of it has to do with dignity. They do not want to suffer, and the last few months and weeks of life can be and often is miserable. I know I would like this option when it is my turn to leave this earth--leaving peacefully, lovingly, and as my choice.
41
Right now, assisted suicide is rare and not an option for most people. But in The Netherlands, it is common and has been around for a long time. Frail seniors in nursing homes or Assisted Living there, report that doctors and nurses strongly encourage them to end their lives, because they are taking up resources and their lives have no value to society. They are not literally forced, but encouraged and even psychologically "pushed".
This is a bit like the American woman whose insurance would not pay for cancer treatments, but she was told "they would pay for assisted suicide". Rich people do not have make this financial calculation; the poor do. On the other hand, it is rich people whose greedy heirs may be promoting suicide so they can get their money faster.
This is a bit like the American woman whose insurance would not pay for cancer treatments, but she was told "they would pay for assisted suicide". Rich people do not have make this financial calculation; the poor do. On the other hand, it is rich people whose greedy heirs may be promoting suicide so they can get their money faster.
In 1987, my father committed suicide in California. His death was considered a Murder under law and his remains were butchered by the medical examiner who missed his stomach ulcers or cancer that drove him to it. He was sent back here to New York for a proper Funeral and was cremated. I could not view his remains and now his bones will not lie in eternal rest. My mind has been heavily scared by his death, a long lasting 28 year nightmare for me and my family.
Now you want to legalize suicide? Don't you care for the spirits of your fellow people? This is truly a nightmare about to unfold for millions.
When someone commits suicide for whatever reason, it destroys the minds of the living.
Now you want to legalize suicide? Don't you care for the spirits of your fellow people? This is truly a nightmare about to unfold for millions.
When someone commits suicide for whatever reason, it destroys the minds of the living.
4
Suicide has never been considered a murder under any US jurisdiction. Homicide, a felony defined by statute, or a common law crime, yes - murder not.
1
For those of us who do not believe in spirits it is not an issue.
4
No one has to opt for suicide if they don't personally want it. You don't need to be afraid that you or someone you love will have to cut short their life based on someone else's desire. It's for the individual to make that decision - in writing. What happened to your father was intolerable and outside the law, even with the new law.
1
While California legislature approves assisted suicide for terminally ill, Indian judiciary is working hard to take away an age old right to leave the body behind when one is very old or terminally ill.
Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/world/asia/sects-death-ritual-raises-c....
Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/world/asia/sects-death-ritual-raises-c....
2
My father was a dignified and private man. He was dying of cancer. He did not want to do the last 2 weeks of lying in diapers unable to walk or bathe, slowly dying of dehydration and renal failure being exposed and touched by strangers. When bathing was too painful, he tried to overdose. Unfortunately he was unsuccessful. Inpatient hospice forced him to do his 2 weeks of dying. He was confused and delerius, embarrassed and in pain. Hospice was so freaked out about his attempted suicide they refused to adequately medicate him. We had to watch him suffer. Medicare had to pay for his two weeks of inpatient hospice care. I hope this comes to Colorado. It is cruel to not have an option of assisted suicide
106
I understand that people want to have freedom and choice about their lives. But I am thankful for the Church as a voice for the dignity of human life in whatever stage that is. It can be easy to rationalize anything away in one's mind, including someone's life. Whether that's because they are mentally disabled, sick, or as yet still growing, I hope that the voice of human dignity and preciousness will not be lost in the cacophony of public discourse on these issues.
7
It IS a choice. One can choose either to live and to die. NO ONE is forcing someone to die. However, it seems many are wanting to FORCE people to live who are more than ready to die.
1
Not much dignity in being in a nursing home where at least fifteen percent of patients are abused. Not much dignity in diapers, pain that doesn't respond to legal drugs and senseless tubes and needles because "it's procedure."
My son just died in North Carolina, it was a long sad spiral to the end. A very robust, athletic, articulate and curious young man of 28 was at the end unable to speak, see, walk or control his body functions. It was humiliating for him and wrenching for us to watch him dying so cruelly with everything that he cherished taken away from him.
Your Church is not the government. I hope for your sake that you or a loved one will never go through what we did, but if you do, you can make your own decisions, we would have liked to have known that we had a choice in how this ended.
Your Church is not the government. I hope for your sake that you or a loved one will never go through what we did, but if you do, you can make your own decisions, we would have liked to have known that we had a choice in how this ended.
5
Bans on suicide are a hold over from the middle ages, where landowners, including monasteries, bowed to nobles demands to prevent suicide when their peasants saw no other relief for their lives. Deny them funerals and burial in consecrated ground, established by a man with a water spreader.. Suicide used to be noble, in the Greek tradition. It's the Church that criminalized it
24
Suicide was not noble in the Classical Greek tradition, certainly not in the Attic tradition. I'm not sure about Sparta and Thebes. Where there was no other choice, dying gloriously in battle fighting against the odds was seen as heroic, of course, but the Greeks generally also admired craftiness, so running away from your enemy in order to ambush him later was also seen as an admirable tactic. The suicide of the Athenian Socrates was offered to him instead of execution. There's little to suggest in the contemporary account that his suicide was seen as heroic.
It was the Romans, and their great adversaries the Carthaginians, for example Hannibal and his father, who tended to see suicide as noble. We see this, for example, in the story of Mark Anthony and Cleopatra. Disgraced Roman generals would often fall on their swords because it brought considerable benefits to their families.
Later, the early Fathers of the Church incorporated Greek (not Roman) values and traditions into Church dogma. When early Christianity started to take off amongst aristocratic Roman women, their children and their slaves, eventually to become the official religion of Rome, Roman values started to play an increasingly important role, but the sin of suicide remained in place.
It was the Romans, and their great adversaries the Carthaginians, for example Hannibal and his father, who tended to see suicide as noble. We see this, for example, in the story of Mark Anthony and Cleopatra. Disgraced Roman generals would often fall on their swords because it brought considerable benefits to their families.
Later, the early Fathers of the Church incorporated Greek (not Roman) values and traditions into Church dogma. When early Christianity started to take off amongst aristocratic Roman women, their children and their slaves, eventually to become the official religion of Rome, Roman values started to play an increasingly important role, but the sin of suicide remained in place.
1
The flip side of this is cryogenic preservation of the barely living at a huge cost ( do people actually do that?)
The way I see it, if your time is up, then it is time to go I know not where, but just go with dignity and unbowed. No need to hang on and if the good doctor can help with a send off, that's a bonus. I am for it.
The way I see it, if your time is up, then it is time to go I know not where, but just go with dignity and unbowed. No need to hang on and if the good doctor can help with a send off, that's a bonus. I am for it.
13
When it concerns someone with a terminal illness, I don't quite understand the opposition to this. When your life is a living hell and all you're doing is suffering, death is an escape. When it comes to assisted suicide for mental health problems, that's another story for a another day; but I think when you're suffering, and your family members are emotionally suffering, it's only right that you be allowed to make the choice to stop living on. To deny this to people seems to me nothing but out-and-out cruelty.
21
But see how quickly you went from "someone terminally ill" to "anon who wants to kill themselves because they are really depressed"? It's a slippery slope. First you say it's just people choosing to die, who are in terrible pain. Then it's the depressed. Then it is those who just don't want to see their relative die, but want to "put them down" like a dog or a cat. Then the insurance company decides to deny you treatment, but happy to pay for assisted suicide.
Ms. Ziegler: You watched your daughter struggle at the end of her life. However Brittany and others may have endured even more discomfort had there not been the law in Oregon to assist her wish - to humanely live and die in the comfort she had the freedom to use.
Thank you for your courageous advocation to help others. You have learned compassion and have utilized that compassion to go one step forward in Brittany's wish - to expand end of life comfort to others, not only through a hospice experience, but bringing peace in an end of life decision to the dying, to actually die as wished. As a nurse of decades, I can tell you your passion and work has not been done in vane. You have touched the lives of others in a way that is a treasure for humanity.
Now let us hope this does not stop in California, but reach further to meet the needs of others in other states as well, until every single person in this country does not have to unnecessarily suffer and prolong the end of their lives if they do not wish that to occur; that every person will have the freedom to choose their end humanely through their own decision.
Thank you for your courageous advocation to help others. You have learned compassion and have utilized that compassion to go one step forward in Brittany's wish - to expand end of life comfort to others, not only through a hospice experience, but bringing peace in an end of life decision to the dying, to actually die as wished. As a nurse of decades, I can tell you your passion and work has not been done in vane. You have touched the lives of others in a way that is a treasure for humanity.
Now let us hope this does not stop in California, but reach further to meet the needs of others in other states as well, until every single person in this country does not have to unnecessarily suffer and prolong the end of their lives if they do not wish that to occur; that every person will have the freedom to choose their end humanely through their own decision.
33
I don't believe it's right for us to kill ourselves, or for another person to help us — except in the most extreme of circumstances. Nevertheless, when those circumstances apply, I believe it's equally wrong for the state to interfere. Adult humans in our own right minds do not need to be protected against ourselves. The question then becomes how much the rest of us should have to contribute to help assisted-suicide take place in as humane a way as possible.
7
The answer to concerns about pressure on the un/underinsured is to get health coverage for _everyone_. People without sufficient insurance suffer more all along the way; they are actually more likely to die, or die sooner, of diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. because they can't afford to get early diagnoses, preventative care, or good care when they get the disease. So at the moment, they are facing a two-sided dilemma: more likely to get and suffer from disease, but forced to endure it because people want to "protect" them from being pressured. Give them health care, and they are less likely to be in the position where they need to consider suicide.
18
I agree, which is why I support universal health care -- CARE, not just "insurance" -- and why I do not support Obamacare, which is all about insurance coverage at the expense of giving real care to EVERY American citizen.
You can have all the health care you want but when you can still get a painful incurable illness or become helpless. There's no such thing as preventive medicine, just early detection and risk reduction. Early diagnosis doesn't guarantee a cure. Risk reduction is just that; your odds might be lower but usually not by much.
When my hospitalized mother-in-law learned she was dying, she requested to be sent home. Her doctor denied her request and screamed at her (as well as us, her family) for suggesting it. Further screaming he declared, "I don't let my patients die!"
He solicited her preacher who convinced her that hooking up to machines was god's will. She lived painfully for 2 more days. That meant 2 more days that the doctor and hospital raked in more money from medicare.
Ever since that experience, I have vowed to never be at a doctor's mercy. It is certainly my right to determine when it is the right time for me to die. Being hooked up to machines and drugged to make money for the medical industrial complex is a ghastly outcome i plan to avoid.
He solicited her preacher who convinced her that hooking up to machines was god's will. She lived painfully for 2 more days. That meant 2 more days that the doctor and hospital raked in more money from medicare.
Ever since that experience, I have vowed to never be at a doctor's mercy. It is certainly my right to determine when it is the right time for me to die. Being hooked up to machines and drugged to make money for the medical industrial complex is a ghastly outcome i plan to avoid.
98
I think you're confused. Choosing to not accept medical treatment or extraordinary measures, to continue your life, to "pull the plug" and let nature take its course is entirely legal. The question here is different, whether doctors should be allowed to put people down in the manner veterinarians do to pets. No, doctors should not be killing people.
8
My great-great aunt was 99 years old when she died. Being herself a physician, she kept pulling out and turning off all the wires, needles, and myriad paraphernalia that were prolonging her life. During my visit, I heard her argue abusively with the nurses to let her die in peace....then she showed us the coffin catalog, pointed out what she had chosen, and proudly proclaimed that she had already made arrangements for her funeral.
The nurses were hoping to keep her alive for her 100th birthday, and the good old doctor thought it was a joke and actually stupid to put old people in hospitals and hook them to artificial life supports. She didn't make it to 100. Had she been stronger, I'm certain she would have checked out on her legs, not bothering to stop by the nurses' station to bid goodbye.
The nurses were hoping to keep her alive for her 100th birthday, and the good old doctor thought it was a joke and actually stupid to put old people in hospitals and hook them to artificial life supports. She didn't make it to 100. Had she been stronger, I'm certain she would have checked out on her legs, not bothering to stop by the nurses' station to bid goodbye.
9
Your mother-in-law always had the right to refuse care, and to leave the hospital.
What you describe is more in the nature of a doctor bullying a patient. Nobody is obligated to keep any particular doctor, and you can always change doctors or dismiss a doctor you don't like.
It is troubling you say the doctor SCREAMED at your mother in law -- for ANY reasons. It is totally inappropriate behavior and close to malpractice.
BTW: the Medicare reimbursement not remotely as generous as you assume -- it isn't enough that 2 more days would have made someone so wealthy it was worth causing pain or misery.
What you describe is more in the nature of a doctor bullying a patient. Nobody is obligated to keep any particular doctor, and you can always change doctors or dismiss a doctor you don't like.
It is troubling you say the doctor SCREAMED at your mother in law -- for ANY reasons. It is totally inappropriate behavior and close to malpractice.
BTW: the Medicare reimbursement not remotely as generous as you assume -- it isn't enough that 2 more days would have made someone so wealthy it was worth causing pain or misery.
Many centuries of humans battled suicide with many prevention efforts based on alleviating depression and hopelessness. Now California wishes to assist those who lost hope or are depressed.
This is an abomination.
This is an abomination.
8
Maybe an abomination your world, but certainly not in mine. For one thing it is often not just depression or hopelessness but mind numbing pain with no relief in sight.
I don't care if you are not interested in assisted suicide, but stay out of my life and my decisions.
I don't care if you are not interested in assisted suicide, but stay out of my life and my decisions.
76
Have you never stood beside the bed of a dying parent or relative?
There is no hope for them and their 'depression' is a rational acceptance of their situation. They have no desire to continue living in excruciating pain with no quality of life or happiness. Who are you to refuse them that last dignity?
There is no hope for them and their 'depression' is a rational acceptance of their situation. They have no desire to continue living in excruciating pain with no quality of life or happiness. Who are you to refuse them that last dignity?
60
The root cause of suicide is mental illness. Terrifying, not terminal, and treatable. The purpose of aid-in-dying is to improve quality of life and reduce the terminal patient's sense of powerlessness. "California" is not assisting anyone in dying; it is returning a freedom to the individual where it belongs. Save "abomination" for the church or State demanding that we all should be told what to do.
33
Peter Goodwin, M.D. has been referred to as the father of the assisted suicide law enacted in Oregon. Suffering from a terminal brain disease, he ended his own life according to his wishes. He spent his last years in an enlightened retirement community in Portland where my father resided for several years. I was privileged to be able to hear this extremely articulate doctor speak about control over one's death. This link provides an example of his view on this fundamental right of all humans beings: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/03/13/dr-peter-goodwin-father-of.... It's worth watching.
28
I am very happy that we Californians will be able to die in my own familiar surroundings with my family at my side. It is very comforting to know that if I need assisted suicide, my family and I will not have to move to another state, etc. Thank god I am a Jew and don't have to worry about Catholic dogma.
49
It's a sin in the Jewish religion to take your own life.
I was surprised to see nearly 70 percent of those polled nationally supported physician-assisted death with dignity -- and then I wasn’t. We have all seen the faces of loved ones trying to hold on to a sense of self, of a life fully lived, while having to endure pain, a body crashing into failure, and prolonged chaos, when there is medically no hope at all. Is it too much to ask for a peaceful ending, at the time of one’s choice? I would argue that this is not only civil, but shows a highly mature understanding of life and the passing of life.
My message to the Roman Catholic Church and other religious organizations in opposition: I respect your right to believe as you wish. But please stay out of my life. I do not presume to force you to see things as I do, and I expect the same.
My message to the Roman Catholic Church and other religious organizations in opposition: I respect your right to believe as you wish. But please stay out of my life. I do not presume to force you to see things as I do, and I expect the same.
177
It wasn't the same in the 1600s ... The Inquisition . They have improved their tactics. Even children are somewhat safer. The dying should be made as comfortable as possible. Inpatient cases its easy
What you are describing is a failure of hospice, and I am saddened to read this is happening to people. Hospice exists precisely to AVOID what you describe -- to give people a pain-free, peaceful death at home or in a comfortable care setting.
It is not just the Roman Catholic Church in opposition to this. It's a lot of people who worry about the dehumanizing effect of promoting suicide to desperate, depressed people with serious illness, even those who are young.
It is not just the Roman Catholic Church in opposition to this. It's a lot of people who worry about the dehumanizing effect of promoting suicide to desperate, depressed people with serious illness, even those who are young.
No religion has any right to force it's beliefs on Americans, just as no law can curtail the rights of people of any faith from practicing their religion. The religious community must take a breath and recognize that their violations of anyone's free choice jeopardizes their own religious prerogatives.
1
What next - killing disabled babies? We already kill them in the womb. Assisted suidice is one more road down the road to eugenics.
20
What is the moral reasoning behind forcing a person to scream in utter pain day in and day out from a terminal illness and the horrific effects of its treatment?
There are worse things in life than death. What I have described above is one of them. Objectors should go volunteer their time in a cancer ward and lecture those patients about eugenics. Yes - see that well THAT goes over.
There are worse things in life than death. What I have described above is one of them. Objectors should go volunteer their time in a cancer ward and lecture those patients about eugenics. Yes - see that well THAT goes over.
2
Babies - by definition, those who have been born and survived the birth - will certainly not have the legal status to chose to die. This is just a red herring.
Anyone who doesn't want to take advantage of the law will not have to, nor can s/he be forced to do so.
Anyone who doesn't want to take advantage of the law will not have to, nor can s/he be forced to do so.
4
I feel that is a long stretch that you made there. No one should have the right to tell you, myself or anyone that they can not take their own life. Although people have a stigma about suicide (mostly due to religion) we need to keep in mind, that most people who wish to go forth with an assisted suicide path are already in enormous amount of pain, they are suffering and their loved ones are watching them slowly die a painful death. And with assisted suicides, death is always inevitable. I would like to hear you think assisted suicide should not be an option.
1
"Great! I'm sure I can convince my mother to sign all the necessary paperwork - and if not my doctor, lawyer and I will find a way around it and get an authentic-enough signature. This way when taking care of her starts to cramp my lifestyle I can just neatly dispose of her while convincing myself I was relieving her suffering, or something like that, and then I can get her inheritance in time to take that cruise next summer! Woo-hoo! Death rocks!"
Or perhaps this scenario:
"Treating this patient is such a pain, and she doesn't have many relatives of friends. No one will notice or care if I just stop treatment - and now with this new law I'm covered."
Or perhaps this:
"I'm so tired of my taxes going to pay the enormous end-of-life costs for these pesky poor people. With this new law we'll just kill them the moment they get sick. Improves the bottom line."
I'm a liberal Democrat: pro-choice, gay marriage, legalized marijuana. I don't see how assisted suicide fits into this ideology. Do we really need this to be the next bitterly divisive social issue? Is this a crisis we need to solve? Yes, dying is painful and sometimes involves wrenching choices - but if you really want to kill yourself it's not that hard, and death will eventually come in any case. It's those who want to live who face the greater challenge: costs, medical errors, hospital conditions, challenging regimens. That seems like the worthier issue to focus on.
This may be the ultimate First World Problem.
Or perhaps this scenario:
"Treating this patient is such a pain, and she doesn't have many relatives of friends. No one will notice or care if I just stop treatment - and now with this new law I'm covered."
Or perhaps this:
"I'm so tired of my taxes going to pay the enormous end-of-life costs for these pesky poor people. With this new law we'll just kill them the moment they get sick. Improves the bottom line."
I'm a liberal Democrat: pro-choice, gay marriage, legalized marijuana. I don't see how assisted suicide fits into this ideology. Do we really need this to be the next bitterly divisive social issue? Is this a crisis we need to solve? Yes, dying is painful and sometimes involves wrenching choices - but if you really want to kill yourself it's not that hard, and death will eventually come in any case. It's those who want to live who face the greater challenge: costs, medical errors, hospital conditions, challenging regimens. That seems like the worthier issue to focus on.
This may be the ultimate First World Problem.
10
People have a right to choose.
2
No the First World Problem, here in the US, is the utter lack of true, across the board, need blind health care. Put that in place first and assisted dying will shrink away.
On the contrary, it is rather difficult to kill yourself even if you want to. I have had friends who were brave or desperate enough to jump off hotel roofs or fire a shotgun into their mouth, but some of us would prefer to have a less violent or messy alternative. It should be our decision; not yours, or some doctor's, or some politician's, or someone who proclaims to speak for our so-called creator.
I have generally been in favor of dying with dignity laws. Many comments here attest to how such laws can help patients avoid unnecessary pain and ease some of the anxiety about dying. It gives people choice and options at a time when medical science says there are no options.
This article, however, mentioned the role of insurance and that gave me pause. What provisions are in place to keep insurance companies from seeking out the cheapest course of treatment (i.e. aid in dying) rather than the one that is best for the patient? Where is the balance between allowing people to die with dignity and maintaining choice for our most vulnerable people?
This article, however, mentioned the role of insurance and that gave me pause. What provisions are in place to keep insurance companies from seeking out the cheapest course of treatment (i.e. aid in dying) rather than the one that is best for the patient? Where is the balance between allowing people to die with dignity and maintaining choice for our most vulnerable people?
67
Are there not already laws that prevent insurance companies from engaging in this type of behavior? If not, there should be, and immediately. Overall, this is just another reason to transition to a universal healthcare model -- the health industry should not be run for a profit, for obvious reasons.
8
Here in Oregon, it is your decision. Your health plan is guided by best practices. There may always be a physician prepared to offer more treatment than you may want. With this posssibility myself, the insurance issue I wondered about is cancellation of a life policy due to suicide. The Oregon drafters thought of everything though. If you choose death with dignity, your policy is safe.
8
As a helicopter son armed with durable powers of attorney for health care, I am "the provision in place" seeing to it that both of my parents are brought in for landings as soft as possible. They are currently in at-home hospice, and as their last days and hours slowly approach their needs and their comfort are my priority and my responsibility. It takes a village, but I am the one in charge.
2
Thank goodness for this vote! I actually purchased property in Oregon just so I had a place to go where this is legal. Now I can sell that property and stay here in California where I prefer to be.
I am so glad that I will not have to leave my home and travel at a time when I am ill just to get the right to end my life when I am ready to go...
I am so glad that I will not have to leave my home and travel at a time when I am ill just to get the right to end my life when I am ready to go...
39
Is your Oregon property for sale? Living in Texas is not where I want to be in what may well be the not too distant future.
My mother died from a morphine overdose to hide an adverse reaction to a tranquilizer. The toxicologist wrote, "The cause of death of Mrs. ***** was due to morphine which was in the decedent's blood at level know to cause death."
My mother said she had "zero/ten" pain level. The doctors called the morphine overdose, "Comfort Care For The Dying Patient." The only "dying" was from the intentional morphine overdose.
My advice is: Do not give doctors any more power over death than they presently have. Do not blindly trust them.
My mother said she had "zero/ten" pain level. The doctors called the morphine overdose, "Comfort Care For The Dying Patient." The only "dying" was from the intentional morphine overdose.
My advice is: Do not give doctors any more power over death than they presently have. Do not blindly trust them.
7
You did not make clear the circumstances and your mother's wishes in your example.
For all those in those in support of this - why?!
As of a recent study, 2/3 of deaths by euthanasia in Belgium, Switzerland and Netherlands were involuntary. Do we realise what this means? The old get sick. Doctors don't feel like looking after them anymore. There aren't enough beds in the hospital. Insurance doesn't feel like paying for them. So they get killed, whether they want to die or not.
For me, it is not so much about whether they make it legal to sell drugs that perform suicide. Personally I do not think it is a good idea as it contradicts the whole healthcare system - the system is set up to help people get well, to help them not to die. So selling pills that will kill them? It doesn't make sense. Put that aside, while in some cases this law will make sense to some people and apparently benefit them, passing this law is opening the door to murder and is basically a warrant to kill people. Right now this law may seem innocent, but there is too much room for loopholes and as I stated at the beginning of this comment - 2/3 of the deaths by euthanasia in Belgium, Switzerland and Netherlands were involuntary.
Think that over before you nod your head with "death by dignity."
As of a recent study, 2/3 of deaths by euthanasia in Belgium, Switzerland and Netherlands were involuntary. Do we realise what this means? The old get sick. Doctors don't feel like looking after them anymore. There aren't enough beds in the hospital. Insurance doesn't feel like paying for them. So they get killed, whether they want to die or not.
For me, it is not so much about whether they make it legal to sell drugs that perform suicide. Personally I do not think it is a good idea as it contradicts the whole healthcare system - the system is set up to help people get well, to help them not to die. So selling pills that will kill them? It doesn't make sense. Put that aside, while in some cases this law will make sense to some people and apparently benefit them, passing this law is opening the door to murder and is basically a warrant to kill people. Right now this law may seem innocent, but there is too much room for loopholes and as I stated at the beginning of this comment - 2/3 of the deaths by euthanasia in Belgium, Switzerland and Netherlands were involuntary.
Think that over before you nod your head with "death by dignity."
5
And people die in Canada, because their single payer, universal care system fails them. another "conservative", argument not backed up with facts.
4
This law is modeled on the one in Oregon - what does the evidence from Oregon say? My understanding is that there has been very little evidence that there are lots of involuntary deaths; in fact, many people who request the medication do not in fact take it.
1
I don't support this bill or the system they have in the Netherlands, but where is the evidence that anyone there was killed involuntarily? Please don't engage in such exaggerations.
1
I've struggled for many years with depression and anxiety, and have contemplated suicide many times along the way. To hear that the state now endorses taking one's own life... well that's deeply disheartening and I fear for the many people, young and old, who will understandably see this is an "official," "legitimate" way to release their pain.
6
I am sorry about your situation, but I am repelled by the idea that any Authority should have such importance or influence over individuals in these cases. The State? In place of the Church, whose legitimacy has been minimized? People whose religious beliefs forbid this can adhere to their beliefs.
You believe it's better to suffer and live, and you and like-minded can preach this to anyone who will listen. But there is no basis for elevating your belief to a duty or mission of the State.
]
You believe it's better to suffer and live, and you and like-minded can preach this to anyone who will listen. But there is no basis for elevating your belief to a duty or mission of the State.
]
4
Again, it's worse than that. It's not that the state is endorsing you killing yourself, but that you can hire someone to legally murder you. It is simply wrong.
1
I've worked with the elderly as well as younger people with terminal illnesses. I have two friends who committed suicide due to chronic, disabling illnesses; they loved life and weren't anxious people but lived a very restricted life due to physical illness. Depression and anxiety should be addressed and treated if it is present and current physician-assisted suicide laws in place have safeguards for these issues. But they should not be confused with someone's lucid decision to have control over their own deaths. There are patients who are physically suffering and wish release from it who are not depressed or anxious. Don't confuse your own situation with others'.
2
My husband died a tåortured death. His treatment was truly worse than his disease, and his disease was horrible; a glioblastoma brain tumor. He was finally allowed to die in June of 1983, after his surgeon in charge refused to let me transfer him to hospice, and would not allow a DNR. This was before a living will law existed in PA, so he did not have one. I got a medical ethics consult, and she said his was the most appropriate she had ever seen for a DNR. Surgeon still wouldn't budge. Finally, after being brought back from a diabetic coma to suffer some more, the Chief Resident & I got together for action. The CR was so horrified by what was going on he announced to all that he would quit if he was forced to resuscitate my husband. When we knew the monstrous surgeon was gone from the hospital, we called hospice & got an ambulance to take him there. Like heaven from hell -- he finally got some morphine (the surgeon would not grant him any pain relief in the hospital) & had the useless antibiotics &feeding tube removed. He had a peaceful death at last. Our oncology nurse said it was the worst thing she had ever seen in her decades of nursing. My husband was enrolled in an experimental treatment run by the maniacal surgeon, who got a lot of media attention for it. That could be why he forced the awful suffering on my sweet husband. I will never know the answer, but I hope California will make sure no one else has to go through this.
89
Nothing in this law would have prevented the abuse your husband suffered at the hands of what sounds like a crazy surgeon -- but why didn't you dismiss the surgeon? and call another doctor, perhaps an oncologist? Nobody is obligated to use any particular doctor, or clinic, or hospital.
Also: I cannot speak for 1983, but today hospice is enormously effective in advocating for patients and families. They can cut through red tape, and get patients moved out of the hospital and into hospice facilities (or home, under hospice care). But you do need to CALL THEM FIRST.
Also: I cannot speak for 1983, but today hospice is enormously effective in advocating for patients and families. They can cut through red tape, and get patients moved out of the hospital and into hospice facilities (or home, under hospice care). But you do need to CALL THEM FIRST.
2
I am compelled to write: to express my sorrow at this unimaginable situation, for you, your husband and your family, and to hope that somehow there was a professional reckoning for such a poor excuse for a health professional.
1
again, this is not about DNR, but medical homicide. It should be opposed.
1
I am in favor of physician-assisted death, but I hope we will avoid referring to this as "death with dignity." Many people who hold on to the bitter end die with dignity, despite the pain and suffering they and their loved ones endure. With safeguards in place, including careful discussions with patients as to their wishes, dying peacefully and when one is ready to should be attainable. My only concern is that these careful discussions will be held differently in the case of people who are the least economically privileged. Physician assisted death is already available to the rich and powerful; we all know that.
6
I am not in favor of physician-assisted suicide in general, but think exceptions can be made for physician-prescribed suicide medicine. I agree with your concerns. People have different definitions of dignity. Natural death can hardly live up to the definition of dignity among the healthy and alive.
1
This is too big a responsibility for one man to assume responsibility for, be it a Governor, or a Doctor. I believe the Governor would understand that God endowed man with an instinct to survive and survive they must until the very end. Those in pain can be medicated to alleviate that pain. Their real pain is in their soul, weakened by disease and circumstance. If you want to die with dignity, make it real dignity with a spirit of lust for life and if so inclined, with a love of God for every day alive.
Thank you.
Thank you.
5
Too big of a responsibility of one man? It isn't just "one man". The legislature 23 of them voted for the proposal. So that makes AT LEAST 23 persons or maybe they were all women.
And the individual who chooses suicide is another person.
The bill is a choice. No one is forced to do it.
Can be medicated to alleviate their pain. Some pain is very difficult to eliminate. Go visit a place or places where the terminally ill reside. Listen to them and care for them.
And the individual who chooses suicide is another person.
The bill is a choice. No one is forced to do it.
Can be medicated to alleviate their pain. Some pain is very difficult to eliminate. Go visit a place or places where the terminally ill reside. Listen to them and care for them.
I live in California, and this may be the only real positive development for the state in quite some time. I think Governor Brown will do the right thing. I can think of no worse nightmare than suffering from some hideous disease with no possibility of improvement and then having to either die a painful death or commit some primitive form of suicide. This really is an amazing expansion of liberty.
22
For folks who think this is a good idea, see the article in the New Yorker from June 22. Other thoughts:
1. Death has no more dignity than does birth or conception, neither of which tends to be considered an especially dignified process.
2. The 'dignity' actually translates to 'sleep'. We already have an epidemic of otherwise-capable people dying this way, without doctors' assistance.
3. It is very clever that advocates frame the issue as one of autonomy, when in fact they are ceding it to someone else.
4. I have had a number of patients who have lived what they themselves deemed fulfilling years primarily because when they were at their worst mentally, they were too inhibited to kill themselves, and they didn't have a doctor readily available who was interested in killing them, so they had to resort to working at treatment, and ultimately, that work paid off, as hard work occasionally does. If they had had a euthanizer readily available, they'd have died earlier, and we'd never know whether they would've gone on to have fulfilling times or not.
5. If you assist suicide in someone who physically is capable of doing it himself or herself, then that's actually a homicide. And if you're assisting a suicide in someone who is physically capable but not mentally capable of doing it himself, then there's probably a good reason that that person isn't mentally capable, and you can treat that person until they decide to live or die for themselves.
1. Death has no more dignity than does birth or conception, neither of which tends to be considered an especially dignified process.
2. The 'dignity' actually translates to 'sleep'. We already have an epidemic of otherwise-capable people dying this way, without doctors' assistance.
3. It is very clever that advocates frame the issue as one of autonomy, when in fact they are ceding it to someone else.
4. I have had a number of patients who have lived what they themselves deemed fulfilling years primarily because when they were at their worst mentally, they were too inhibited to kill themselves, and they didn't have a doctor readily available who was interested in killing them, so they had to resort to working at treatment, and ultimately, that work paid off, as hard work occasionally does. If they had had a euthanizer readily available, they'd have died earlier, and we'd never know whether they would've gone on to have fulfilling times or not.
5. If you assist suicide in someone who physically is capable of doing it himself or herself, then that's actually a homicide. And if you're assisting a suicide in someone who is physically capable but not mentally capable of doing it himself, then there's probably a good reason that that person isn't mentally capable, and you can treat that person until they decide to live or die for themselves.
10
Your comments in general, and your specific charge that "assisting a suicide" could be a homicide indicates that you don't even know how the process is carried out in Oregon, which is the model for California's law. No lay person "assists" the suicide. The patient asks the doctor for aid in dying, and if two doctors agree, the patient is given a prescription for a fatal dose of a sedative. The patient then decides when or whether to fill the prescription.
For 17 years, the Oregon Department of Health has kept careful records on the program and releases an annual report. Interestingly, about one third of Oregon patients who obtain the drugs never use them, presumably because they are satisfied that they now have control of the situation and don't need to go the final step.
For 17 years, the Oregon Department of Health has kept careful records on the program and releases an annual report. Interestingly, about one third of Oregon patients who obtain the drugs never use them, presumably because they are satisfied that they now have control of the situation and don't need to go the final step.
4
As a chaplain, I have witnessed peaceful deaths and terrible deaths, both in hospital and at home. To deny someone who is mentally competent and has a confirmed terminal condition access to medication that they can take themselves, should they choose to do so, is indeed to "do harm," which violates the medical oath. None of us have the right to insist that someone who is dying suffer beyond what the individual would choose for him- or herself.
6
I'm well aware of Oregon's law, as well as the Belgian version. Some people asking physicians for help dying are (a) physically capable of ending their own lives without a doctor's prescription, and (b) psychiatrically ill. While I appreciate your trust in physicians, being one myself, I witness daily that most clinicians are not skilled at diagnosing nor treating depression, and as such are likely to interpret a plea for death as a reasonable request, rather than as a opportunity for treatment. There is little that remains of doctor-patient relationships, so the evaluating clinicians rarely know the patient all that well. Please see the New Yorker article I mentioned for the unfortunate consequences of these laws on the mentally ill.
4
Any religious person would believe that only God has the right to take away the life that He has given and no one else can do that. But I welcome this move by California with a heavy heart. Seeking for assisted suicide is a very tricky situation where lot of emotions would come to play. While the friends and relatives of a patient may feel that it would be better that their beloved one is given a peaceful sleep instead of he/she suffering due to illness, they will have to live with a guilty feeling for the rest of their lives that they have helped in assisted murder.
My only request is this. No patient should be put to assisted suicide for want of money i.e., inability to pay medical bills. It would be against humanity. Insurance Companies are laughing all the way to bank every day. Therefore, out of humanitarian consideration, in cases where the patient hails from economically weaker section, they will have to waive medical bills. Only in cases where there is no hope of the patient recovering and in cases where the patient is seriously suffering every second due to his illness, should assisted suicide be recommended.
My only request is this. No patient should be put to assisted suicide for want of money i.e., inability to pay medical bills. It would be against humanity. Insurance Companies are laughing all the way to bank every day. Therefore, out of humanitarian consideration, in cases where the patient hails from economically weaker section, they will have to waive medical bills. Only in cases where there is no hope of the patient recovering and in cases where the patient is seriously suffering every second due to his illness, should assisted suicide be recommended.
3
It's more than that. For the frail elderly, continuing to live means nursing homes -- home health care -- and the contributions of spouses, adult children, relatives -- who all may be very sick & tired of taking care of that person and wish to move on with their lives.
A recent article in Modern Love was about a elderly couple, who did not marry because the woman "didn't want to care for sick husband". The adult children didn't want to care for their dad either! They were each trying to push the other into caring for the old gentlemen! and get him off of their hands. Imagine how HE felt, being rejected by everyone. (Fortunately, he passed away shortly in a natural manner.)
Patients who require a lot of care -- put demands on family -- are soaking up all the financial resources of a couple -- are KEENLY aware of this, and feel guilt and this may push them to want to use assisted suicide.
A recent article in Modern Love was about a elderly couple, who did not marry because the woman "didn't want to care for sick husband". The adult children didn't want to care for their dad either! They were each trying to push the other into caring for the old gentlemen! and get him off of their hands. Imagine how HE felt, being rejected by everyone. (Fortunately, he passed away shortly in a natural manner.)
Patients who require a lot of care -- put demands on family -- are soaking up all the financial resources of a couple -- are KEENLY aware of this, and feel guilt and this may push them to want to use assisted suicide.
1
Your argument is disingenuous. More often it is the patient who is ready to go and the family who cannot and will not let go and so participate in a man's extended suffering just so they can not be bereft. Sad in other words.
4
My 104 year old aunt lives in a state where "assisted suicide" is the law. Everyday she asks me "why am I still here?" She is nearly blind and has hearing problems. She can't watch TV, do her crossword puzzles, crotchet or even walk to the garden to listen to the birds sing. She no longer knows the voices of friends or most family members. I'm sure she would tell you that "dying isn't just when you stop breathing".
2
Concerns of opponents such as Ted Gaines that “Society will take a different view of life” as a result of this legislation are surely correct, but perhaps that's not such a bad thing. In fact, that such legislation is increasingly being approved suggests that the world is moving past ancient views about life and its value to more informed and well-founded views. First, that a human life is not the gift or property of a god, but something intrinsically that of the person living the life, who should have the right to determine when and how that life ends.
There are also very real questions raised as to what it is that makes a life valuable, and this, too, is perhaps a long overdue discussion. If the liver of a life does not highly value living in pain and indignity at great cost, financial, emotional and otherwise, to his loved ones, should he be forced to continue living because others, who are not living his life, do place a high value on such things?
There are also very real questions raised as to what it is that makes a life valuable, and this, too, is perhaps a long overdue discussion. If the liver of a life does not highly value living in pain and indignity at great cost, financial, emotional and otherwise, to his loved ones, should he be forced to continue living because others, who are not living his life, do place a high value on such things?
20
Not ancient, Christian. The ancients, including Marcus Aurelius. Epicurus, and Zeno all viewed death as part of the natural order. Not to be wished but unavoidable and not something to be postponed when it arrived.
4
Physician assisted suicide is a slippery slope. In many cases Doctors are not accurate in predicting that a patient will even die from an ailment much less estimate when. Many of us know people who were suppose to die within months of a diagnosis but instead lived for years.
We already have palliative care with pain management and hospices for the those with actual terminal diagnosis within a few months. Most of us already know that, with family permission, hospitals induce death at the end with comfort care(morphine overdose).
The death certificate does not require that physician assisted death be entered on it only the underlying terminal illness and many times the MDs are under the direction of corporate managers.
One medical abuse is the standard of care stroke clot-buster TPA in the ER has a history of deadly failed test trials and controversial if any benefit modest benefit for a non-life threatening ischemic clot stroke. Search: AAEM TPA position, The NNT TPA stroke, or in emergency medicine blogs for the stroke TPA drug controversy.
A better legacy for the Maynard family would be to advocate for a prominently displayed warning label on cell phones and cordless phones warning on the increased risk of brain cancer from using those devices. The brain cancer risk for cell phone use is especially increased for those who start using it as a child, Search: BioInitiative, Lennart Hardell and EU Interphone studies on cell phone risks.
We already have palliative care with pain management and hospices for the those with actual terminal diagnosis within a few months. Most of us already know that, with family permission, hospitals induce death at the end with comfort care(morphine overdose).
The death certificate does not require that physician assisted death be entered on it only the underlying terminal illness and many times the MDs are under the direction of corporate managers.
One medical abuse is the standard of care stroke clot-buster TPA in the ER has a history of deadly failed test trials and controversial if any benefit modest benefit for a non-life threatening ischemic clot stroke. Search: AAEM TPA position, The NNT TPA stroke, or in emergency medicine blogs for the stroke TPA drug controversy.
A better legacy for the Maynard family would be to advocate for a prominently displayed warning label on cell phones and cordless phones warning on the increased risk of brain cancer from using those devices. The brain cancer risk for cell phone use is especially increased for those who start using it as a child, Search: BioInitiative, Lennart Hardell and EU Interphone studies on cell phone risks.
3
What started with a logical fallacy then morphed into advocacy for a discredited scientific position. Thanks. I'll use this to show my students an example of a bad argument.
5
Reliable prediction of date of death is completely irrelevant to this argument. When you have more say over my existence than I do, I am no longer recognized as a sentient, independent being. I am less than a person; I am your slave.
Forcing a terminally ill person to "die naturally" is a far cry from allowing that person to die peacefully.
This may be ugly, Ronald, but may you die on someone else's terms and not your own.
Forcing a terminally ill person to "die naturally" is a far cry from allowing that person to die peacefully.
This may be ugly, Ronald, but may you die on someone else's terms and not your own.
3
My dad had stage 4 colon cancer, and the oncologist came to him after emergency surgery (his enormous tumor had burst through the colon wall, creating massive peritonitis), and told him that he had 2-3 months to live -- to go home, put his affairs in order and say goodbye to his loved ones. Dad had barely survived the peritonitis, was in his late 70s and somewhat weakened shape to begin with. He had other health issues. They had to give him a colectomy on top of everything else.
Guess what? he went home -- recuperated -- had his colon reattached -- and lived for TWO MORE YEARS. If he had agreed to radiation and chemo (he refused), I believe he would have lived twice that long.
The truth is that nobody knows. It's in God's hands. Second guessing such things is a fool's errand.
Guess what? he went home -- recuperated -- had his colon reattached -- and lived for TWO MORE YEARS. If he had agreed to radiation and chemo (he refused), I believe he would have lived twice that long.
The truth is that nobody knows. It's in God's hands. Second guessing such things is a fool's errand.
1
I hope that this move in California will foster more understanding that death is part of life, not a failure of medicine or of an individual's will.
68
I really hope that Jerry Brown signs it. We belong to the same health club, so maybe I will lobby him if I see him in the locker room soon. The one legitimate objection stated in the article is that this law could be used to pressure people to forgo treatment if they are uninsured or underinsured. I would think that there would be some data about this issue from states and countries where similar laws have been in place for some time. I doubt this "pressure" is a big issue and could be prevented through careful implementation of the law. On the other hand, this law would help thousands of Californians every year who wish to control the final chapter of a disease and minimize their own suffering.
19
In The Netherlands -- which has had these assisted suicide laws for many years -- it is now common to pressure older people in nursing homes to commit suicide, on the grounds that "they are using up too many national resources for their expensive care". They report feeling distinct pressure to "move along" and stop malingering.
4
it is false to think we can put our relatives "to sleep" in California. Thee statute says the patient must be able to administer the drugs themselves, after lengthy consultation and paper.
8
@hchapot: I agree -- and I am not sure they will allow "death tourism" where people travel to CA simply to be allowed to kill themselves.
However, some posters here think it would allow them to bump off an elderly Alzheimer's patient. That's why it is a very slippery slope.
I do agree there are awful cases, where someone like poor Brittany Maynard faces a horrible painful death with no alternatives. However, that is not always the case. Sometimes it is greedy adult children who want an elderly parent or grandparent to "move along" so they can get an inheritance (or stop paying for a nursing home).
Another poster here suggested it was appropriate to allow depressed people to legally commit suicide, bypassing treatment. Where does it end? Someone with a broken heart after a romance ends? Someone who doesn't get into the college of their choice?
However, some posters here think it would allow them to bump off an elderly Alzheimer's patient. That's why it is a very slippery slope.
I do agree there are awful cases, where someone like poor Brittany Maynard faces a horrible painful death with no alternatives. However, that is not always the case. Sometimes it is greedy adult children who want an elderly parent or grandparent to "move along" so they can get an inheritance (or stop paying for a nursing home).
Another poster here suggested it was appropriate to allow depressed people to legally commit suicide, bypassing treatment. Where does it end? Someone with a broken heart after a romance ends? Someone who doesn't get into the college of their choice?
Perhaps you should read the law before jumping to those conclusions.
So long overdue in any state.
It is beyond senseless, selfish, and cruel to force someone to endure an excruciatingly painful end when that person and his or her family just want peace.
Well done, CA. Now that's what progress - and kindness - looks and feels like.
It is beyond senseless, selfish, and cruel to force someone to endure an excruciatingly painful end when that person and his or her family just want peace.
Well done, CA. Now that's what progress - and kindness - looks and feels like.
51
Now would be a good time to write to your state representatives so that the people of New York may some day have the choice that Oregonians have had since 1997. It should be noted that Oregonians passed this law TWICE before it finally became law.
1
I have read elsewhere that this remedy is not available to people who cannot swallow. My Mother after seven years of Alzheimers had a stroke and could not swallow. What an arbirary and capricious exemptionn. What is the basis of that?
20
Point well made, Thomas. Should humanitarian sanity ever prevail in this country, one is well advised to put as many contingencies in writing as they can.
In Oregon, in order to meet the concerns of opponents to assistance in dying, the law was carefully crafted to ensure that an individual with terminal diagnosis is the one consciously choosing and actively ending their own life. This was considered a safeguard against someone who is unable to make that decision being given lethal medication that they might not consciously choose. It isn't a perfect system, and there is no easy resolution for a situation like your mother's. We live in an imperfect world, and the law in Oregon, and hopefully soon in California, is significant progress toward compassionate respect for the dignity of those who are nearing death. None of us has yet crossed that threshold ourselves, but we should all cherish our innate human right to live and to die in humane, conscious ways.
6
The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Initiative 1000, codified as RCW 70.245, requires individuals to be both mentally competent and able to voluntarily ingest the medication either by swallowing or administering the medication, themselves, into a feeding tube.
4
I hope Governor Brown can remove any hesitation he has because of his Jesuit upbringing and sign this bill.
It is Catholic dogma that anyone who commits "suicide" is a sinner and cannot be buried on holy ground. Anyone who doubts that can refer to a number of articles on the death of Pavarotti - he who had multiple wives, affairs, and children out of wedlock. Yet the Catholic Church buried him with full honors.
From his same parish, an elderly man dying of cancer killed himself to stop the pain, having attended mass faithfully for some 60 years, and was denied a Catholic burial because he took his own life.
The Separation of Church and State in this country must be upheld. Hopefully, since Brown is a lawyer, he will understand the importance of that now.
It is Catholic dogma that anyone who commits "suicide" is a sinner and cannot be buried on holy ground. Anyone who doubts that can refer to a number of articles on the death of Pavarotti - he who had multiple wives, affairs, and children out of wedlock. Yet the Catholic Church buried him with full honors.
From his same parish, an elderly man dying of cancer killed himself to stop the pain, having attended mass faithfully for some 60 years, and was denied a Catholic burial because he took his own life.
The Separation of Church and State in this country must be upheld. Hopefully, since Brown is a lawyer, he will understand the importance of that now.
86
It is hardly just Catholics who oppose assisted suicide -- I'd bet nearly every major religion would either prohibit this, have serious reservation -- or consider it ONLY in the case of untreatable, agonizing terminal illness.
Someone above is suggesting assisted suicide be permitted for depression! so it really IS a slippery slope. The potential for abuse is enormous.
Someone above is suggesting assisted suicide be permitted for depression! so it really IS a slippery slope. The potential for abuse is enormous.
3
Many, many Catholics support death with dignity.
One also hopes that the privacy afforded by HIPAA may extend to this aspect of viatical medicine, and that those who choose assisted suicide may do so in complete privacy, outside the knowledge of their clergy, or in many cases, even family members and friends who do not hold power of attorney,
2
A progressive and humane move by the CA legislature that will allow for honorable departure from this world for those who have fought to live against their will. Assisted suicide will allow the end of miserable existence either due to a terminal physical or mental illness without having to resort to shooting themselves, or poisoning themselves or jumping off a high rise building or any of the many cruel ways to end ones life. Hope rest of the states follow the lead of California and approve assisted suicides. This vindicates Jack Kevorkian who was ahead of his times.
30
doctor Kervorkian was a courageous, compassionate, brilliant revolutionary who was persecuted by the religious governor who imprisoned and silenced him for 8 1/2 years-purely political reasons.
1
zula Z. Thanks for adding your words praising the late Dr. Kervorkian. It was a grave travesty of justice that he was cruelly persecuted in the sunset of his life a country that calls itself a progressive democracy.
This has been far too long in coming. I sincerely hope all states adopt such a law soon. I know it's what I would wish for myself and my loved ones.
32
Thanks to today's victory in California, I now know I can safely spend my last days in a state where I previously lived, a state that I love. What a beautiful choice, to die in peace and free of pain, somewhere in the picture postcard land of Mendocino County. Or overlooking the Pacific from the beauty of Carmel. Time to start saving as I now have the choice and privilege to spend my final days in this wonderful, remarkable state.
That is, if I don't lose my life here prematurely due to a car accident or gun violence.
New business idea: serve as a travel and arrangements concierge for people who would like to gently pass on in comfort and in the legal security of our most progressive state.
That is, if I don't lose my life here prematurely due to a car accident or gun violence.
New business idea: serve as a travel and arrangements concierge for people who would like to gently pass on in comfort and in the legal security of our most progressive state.
20
I doubt California will allow "death tourism". You'll probably have to be a resident at least six months. Are you going to be healthy enough to move across country 3000 miles -- alone -- at the same time you are so terminally ill and in pain that you absolutely have no choice but to end your life? That would be unusual, to say the least.
You might also consider that the average home in CA is about 10-12 times as much as in Georgia, and oceanfront property probably 25 times as much.
You might also consider that the average home in CA is about 10-12 times as much as in Georgia, and oceanfront property probably 25 times as much.
Thank goodness. As I help my aging father deal with health issues, I've come to believe that I want to have this option available to me if I face a terminal illness. I heard a young woman suffering from terminal cancer speaking against this measure on the radio. She spoke movingly about how she has grown as a person as she deals with her painful situation. I'm happy that she has been able to deal with her sad circumstances in such a positive manner but it's not right for her to choose how I should deal with such a fate.
228
I agree. The problem is this law won't help me if I get dementia, can't change my own diapers, can't walk, have no dignity left, but don't have a terminal disease such as cancer or ALS. Don't I have a right to die with dignity rather than live in a nursing home. If I were not sick, I could go into a pharmacy with a gun and demand the pills that will painlessly end my life. I think about doing that all the time due to numerous health problems and severe depression and anxiety and I have decent health insurance. What stops me? Certainly not fear of imprisonment -- you can't put a corpse in jail. It is my moral values...thou shalt not commit murder. God wants me to learn from adversity, not just give up to end the pain so I will live as long as I must live. I recognize that other people don't believe in God and don't want to continue suffering, but in a free country, assisted suicide should be an option for a patient and insurance companies should not be allowed to not cover life saving procedures if the patient wants them.
1
Good. A giant step toward civilization.
153
Finally, a good reason to move to California!
36
considering who you have for governor, I think you now have 2
3
If Brown signs it, this will obviate having to move to Oregon if my health fails badly. This has been a long time coming. Bravo.
111
Fortunately he does not even need to sign it. If he does not veto it, and does not sign either (i.e., "pocket veto"), then it will become law in 30 days. Many suspect this is how it will play out.
1
I'm not sure it should be called suicide, since suicide tends to connote someone who has given up on life. In the case of the terminally ill, they have usually fought like demons and still lost to, say, cancer.
Maybe we should call it end of life management or something less charged :)
Maybe we should call it end of life management or something less charged :)
106
Perhaps "assisted dying" would work better.
1
For centuries, and perhaps for millenia, it has been called the "coup de grace." This means something like "merciful cut." It was the duty of war band leaders to perform this function for those left dying on the battlefield with no hope of survival. It was known and used in the time of Alexander the Great, and through the Middle Ages in Western Europe. It was never seen as wrongful, but as a human, merciful act for one's men and comrades.
Bravo! It would be a great comfort if New York State would follow suit. Neither I at age eight one and ten months nor my husband, age ninety-two and a half, have any intention of ending our lives but it would be an enormous relief if we were suffering great pain that we could die with dignity, Congratulations to the California Legislature for taking a courageous position.
115
There is no time like the present to write to your state representatives and let them know of your support for this legislation. Good luck.
2
The option to die on ones own terms in the face of certain death should be left ONLY to the individual who's life is ending. Freedom is an absolute.
96
yes but here it's not just the individual, but the assistance of another, a medical professional, that is sought to carry out this deed.
2
tcquinn – Agreed; as with abortion, no Dr should be forced to comply.
Pro-choice, all the way, is the right way. Nobody else's business what we do with our own bodies.
207
Between this and medical marijuana, California is leading the way in patient access to important choices for pain management and the right to pass with dignity, on one's own terms.
66
It should be noted that Oregonians were the first in the nation to have this legislation, passed by the voters on two occasions and finally became law in 1997.
2
>
I'll take good news where I can get it.
My life is mine and nobody has the right to tell me to live it or not.
As Schopenhauer concisely put it: “They tell us that suicide is the greatest piece of cowardice... that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person.”
"No church, no civil institution has as yet invented a single argument valid against suicide. What answer is there to the man who can no longer endure life? . . . Suicide is one of man’s distinctive characteristics, one of his discoveries; no animal is capable of it, and the angels have scarcely guessed at its existence; without it, human reality would be less curious, less picturesque: we should lack a strange climate and a series of deadly possibilities which have their aesthetic value, if only to introduce into tragedy certain new solutions and a variety of denouements."
Cioran
"Life was given to me as a blessing; when it ceases to be so I can give it up: the cause ceasing, the effect ought also to cease"
Montesquieu
I'll take good news where I can get it.
My life is mine and nobody has the right to tell me to live it or not.
As Schopenhauer concisely put it: “They tell us that suicide is the greatest piece of cowardice... that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person.”
"No church, no civil institution has as yet invented a single argument valid against suicide. What answer is there to the man who can no longer endure life? . . . Suicide is one of man’s distinctive characteristics, one of his discoveries; no animal is capable of it, and the angels have scarcely guessed at its existence; without it, human reality would be less curious, less picturesque: we should lack a strange climate and a series of deadly possibilities which have their aesthetic value, if only to introduce into tragedy certain new solutions and a variety of denouements."
Cioran
"Life was given to me as a blessing; when it ceases to be so I can give it up: the cause ceasing, the effect ought also to cease"
Montesquieu
50
'My life is mine and nobody has the right to tell me to live it or not.'
Only if you do not cause harm to others. If you do cause harm, then the rest of us have every right to tell you to change your ways, and make you do so if you refuse.
Only if you do not cause harm to others. If you do cause harm, then the rest of us have every right to tell you to change your ways, and make you do so if you refuse.
2
Scalia in his majority "Right to Die" opinion not too long ago, said, there is "No Constitutional Right to Die". How wrong he is and won't you know it, he's a conservative "catholic", whatever that is.
1
It is telling that the Gallup poll "found that nearly 70 percent of Americans now support physician-assisted suicide, up 10 percentage points from last year." If we can put our terminally ill pets "to sleep" to avoid suffering, surely we should be allowed to do the same for our family members and ourselves.
122
that's exactly the problem, that human beings will now be reduced to the level of pets who can be eliminated for the convenience of their families and society. It sounds like murder to me as the pet has no choice or say in the matter.
2
Your pet is an ANIMAL with absolutely no rights, and no moral agency to make such decisions.
You are speaking as if this law will allow you to simply kill off any pesky relatives whenever you don't want to keep caring for them.
BTW: people abuse putting pets to sleep, sometimes doing it because they are moving -- Fluffy is getting old and isn't fun anymore -- they want a new pet -- they are tired of walking the dog or cleaning the cat box. It is not always done because of suffering or disability.
You are speaking as if this law will allow you to simply kill off any pesky relatives whenever you don't want to keep caring for them.
BTW: people abuse putting pets to sleep, sometimes doing it because they are moving -- Fluffy is getting old and isn't fun anymore -- they want a new pet -- they are tired of walking the dog or cleaning the cat box. It is not always done because of suffering or disability.
2
We should only be 'allowed' to do that for ourselves.
As family members and proxy health care decision makers we can choose to not have 'heroic' measures for our family and loved ones. But I don't think anyone but the person who is dying should be able to give consent for euthanasia drugs.
As family members and proxy health care decision makers we can choose to not have 'heroic' measures for our family and loved ones. But I don't think anyone but the person who is dying should be able to give consent for euthanasia drugs.
1
These few states who have passed death with dignity laws are a start in the right direction. I am 82....if I ever receive a diagnosis of Alzheimers than I will travel to Belgium where that is a reason for assisted suicide.
137
I believe to do that in Belgium, you would need to be a resident for at least six months, perhaps longer. I doubt ANY nation or state wants to be destination for "death tourism".
1
Another bold step toward getting religion and abusive religious dogma out of the lives of ordinary Americans who choose to die with dignity. We're gradually making progress in this country toward becoming a nation that actually adheres to that little thing called the Constitution!
208
Oh, and where in the Constitution is that articulated?
2
The US Congress is the defier of the Constitution that prohibits it to enact faith based legislation.
well said Bill.
1
So grateful to Brittany Maynard and her family. I, for one, feel much safer in a world where I know that I would not be forced to stay alive under horrible and tortuous circumstances against my will.
175
I think this will be used by hospitals to eliminate poor patients. I hope Jerry Brown vetoes it.
1
Surely Big Pharma fights these bills tooth-and-nail. Many elderly patients receive a glut of pricey, unsafe, barely effective pharmaceuticals in the final months of their lives, needlessly prolonging the most painful part of their lives while siphoning billions from Medicare.
189
Now at least the California Corrections Department can use the same method approved for assisted suicides by the California Legislature if they decide to start doing executions for death penalty inmates. How can they argue it's inhumane when it's been approved as humane for terminally ill patients?
8
The difference is that the inmate, most likely, does not want to expedite death, and the terminally ill person may. Even worse, in some cases, is when the terminally ill person does not have the physical or legal ability to implement the choice, and a political figure injects himself into the family's most painful and intimate matters of life and death.
6
The US should abolish capital punishement and allw medically assisted suicide to people sntenced to life with no possibility of parole.
You're missing my point. On one hand, death by barbiturates is considered "death with dignity" and on the other hand, it is considered "cruel and unusual punishment ." Which is it? It seems like you can't argue both at the same time.
Death should be left in the hands of the termininally patient and their doctor. Hopefully Governor Brown will have the inter-strength to sign it into law. No one lives forever and no one should be forced to endure extreme pain of death if they choose to avoid it. Anyone's God should have no problem with this man made law. It is compassionate and respects a patients wishes.
54
One of my single greatest fears would be to have a catastrophic accident that would leave me brain dead or a paraplegic with other complications. People don't understand that we are not always able to end our own lives, even if we want to. In the case of brain death or paraplegia, one is completely unable to act in their own behalf to end their life, and would therefore need assistance in doing so. To the naysayers: if you're against assisted suicide, do not seek out assisted suicide. Let me, and others like me, have a choice on whether we'd ever want this assistance, should circumstances merit it.
Congratulations to California for making this historic move towards compassion.
Congratulations to California for making this historic move towards compassion.
162
@Regina Valdez - if you are "brain dead" you would have zero awareness of anything. Doctors do not keep brain dead folks alive. Talk with your family because sometimes the family wants "everything done" for the patient who needs a breathing machine to survive. Pulling the plug in that case is actually the action preferred by the medical community and society. That is not assisted suicide.
2
If you were brain dead, you would not be able to use this law, as you would not be able to direct your doctor or family to permit suicide.
It is not likely that simply being a paraplegic would qualify as a reason to commit assisted suicide. And few doctors would agree that simply being in a wheelchair was so awful as to be worth ending an otherwise meaningful young life.
NOTE: you might be meaning quadriplegia, but thats not what you wrote here.
It is not likely that simply being a paraplegic would qualify as a reason to commit assisted suicide. And few doctors would agree that simply being in a wheelchair was so awful as to be worth ending an otherwise meaningful young life.
NOTE: you might be meaning quadriplegia, but thats not what you wrote here.
Regina,
Think again. The laws in the states that have enacted them have quite strict rules about informed consent. If you are brain dead you cannot give consent. Paraplegia may not be on the list of things that constitute allowable conditions. Lots of people live with paraplegia and don't want to die. In fact, some of them worry that they will now be 'done away with'.
Your best option is to make a living will or some such other document, give copies to your doctor and anyone else you think might be around in your final days and hope for the best. That might be that you are unaware of what is happening to you.
Life is not a beach.
Think again. The laws in the states that have enacted them have quite strict rules about informed consent. If you are brain dead you cannot give consent. Paraplegia may not be on the list of things that constitute allowable conditions. Lots of people live with paraplegia and don't want to die. In fact, some of them worry that they will now be 'done away with'.
Your best option is to make a living will or some such other document, give copies to your doctor and anyone else you think might be around in your final days and hope for the best. That might be that you are unaware of what is happening to you.
Life is not a beach.
As someone who recently watched my father die in a hospital of pancreatic cancer and liver failure, under palliative sedation over an eight day period, I think this measure is long overdue. My dad had tremendous anxiety about how he would die and no one in our family was truly prepared for what came during the last two weeks of his life. He was in pain that could not be controlled by hospice so we ended up in a screaming ambulance to transport him to a hospital to die. We made him comfortable and let people that were close to him say their good-byes. I never knew if he would have wanted this but he frequently talked about wanting to have the power and choice. A few days of dying in a hospital or home hospice would have been sufficient to have closure and pay respects. The active dying process took a long time and was horrible to witness. His body started to smell and his tongue turned black, while his mouth hung open in a death rattle that was truly disturbing. I had medical power of attorney and he would have wanted a fatal dose of pain killers. It will take a long time to forget how he died instead of how he lived. His children never left his side - he was not alone but I can't say he had a good death. If I had terminal cancer like both of my parents who died tragically young, I would want the option of controlling my final days of life with my family, and to perhaps lessen the burden on my loved ones.
429
I am so sorry for your experiences and hereditary disposition, if it indeed will manifest itself in your life. What you describe is unthinkably cruel and should not happen in an "enlightened" Western world. I am absolutely for giving the patient and his family the option to decide together, and under strict medical supervision, whether to continue a life that has literally become unbearable and will doubtlessly end in the foreseeable future, or to choose a more rapid but dignified death in the company of one's loved ones and without any pain and long suffering beforehand. All the best!
2
I am so sorry for your father's experience. It is not the norm, and it represents a surprising breakdown of the hospice system. They normally have access to everything in terms of pain control that he would have in the hospital, plus it is a much pleasanter and quieter place to die than a busy noisy hospital (more nurses, too). The whole GOAL of hospice is to prevent exactly what you describe. Unfortunately for many patients, by the time they are in as bad shape as your dad, they entire lack the physical and mental ability to take their own lives.
The dying process can be frightening, especially if you are not prepared for it. Again, hospice really let you down. In most cases, they walk you through the entire process (the patient too, if they are conscious and able to understand). Some of these things may look scary and upsetting, but do not necessarily mean the patient is suffering. They are part of the dying process.
Cases are all different, but most hospice care I have seen personally at this stage -- terminal cancer -- involve doses of morphine that end up suppressing breathing and allowing the patient to slip into a deep sleep that leads to death in a few hours or days.
If it was recent, I would CALL the hospice director and convey your concerns, worries and emotional distress to that person -- write their Board of Directors, too. It should not have been like this. That is not the goal or result of most hospice care.
The dying process can be frightening, especially if you are not prepared for it. Again, hospice really let you down. In most cases, they walk you through the entire process (the patient too, if they are conscious and able to understand). Some of these things may look scary and upsetting, but do not necessarily mean the patient is suffering. They are part of the dying process.
Cases are all different, but most hospice care I have seen personally at this stage -- terminal cancer -- involve doses of morphine that end up suppressing breathing and allowing the patient to slip into a deep sleep that leads to death in a few hours or days.
If it was recent, I would CALL the hospice director and convey your concerns, worries and emotional distress to that person -- write their Board of Directors, too. It should not have been like this. That is not the goal or result of most hospice care.
4
My wife and I have reciprocal powers of attorney for health care, and we both understand that if either of us gets to the point of 'no reasonable quality of living' the other spouse will do everything in his/her power to keep the 'invalid' out of a hospital, which would almost certainly endeavor to 'prolong the agony' and drain all of our financial resources.
1
Wonderful news! I hope other states follow too. I am in full support of an Assisted Suicide as a surviving spouse of a person who died from terminal brain cancer and wished to have this choice, as a geriatric care manager who works with end of life cases, as a Buddhist, and as a human who wants to have a choice of an "individual liberty and freedom, freedom of choice."
Please note, most of the times people who have a prescription of assisted suicide medications don't use them, but have them available, should they choose to use them.
No one should suffer from a painful death. If I know I have a terminal disease I want to have a choice to end my life with dignity in a supported peaceful environment.
I hope state of Colorado will adopt this measure by the time I need it.
Please note, most of the times people who have a prescription of assisted suicide medications don't use them, but have them available, should they choose to use them.
No one should suffer from a painful death. If I know I have a terminal disease I want to have a choice to end my life with dignity in a supported peaceful environment.
I hope state of Colorado will adopt this measure by the time I need it.
117
Sometimes it can be tricky to tell if they "choose" to use them. It reminds me of an earlier report about someone who asked to use the bathroom before taking the suicide medications. She was talked out of the bathroom trip by people who were afraid the trip might mean she was no longer PHYSICALLY to take the medication herself. Had consciousness been so self-contained, we would not fall in love or have children or make friends.
Maybe it is time for you to write to your state representatives and let them know you support "death with dignity legislation".
I look at it this way, after watching some of my family suffer through terminal cancer, such a law law have eased the suffering. We treat our pets and livestock with more dignity than we do human beings. In other words, it is easy to put down Fluffy, but we let grandpa die a torturous, painful death.
Religion should not be part of this; but, our laws are based up religious precedent. In 45 states, assisted suicide is considered murder; some cases capital murder.
Of course, this should be properly supervised, and that the person requesting assisted suicide is terminal. As opposed to our current system of spending tens of thousands of dollars on medicines and hospice, paliative care.
When my sister was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, back in 2000, I read her medical report. The doctors gave her less than a month to live; she last six weeks, but her last week was horrific. She may not have gone fro assisted suicide, but at least if would have be good to have an option, if it was needed.
For those who scream "murder" and "death panels"; you do not know until you experience this. Finally, our for profit health care system is as guilty driving laws to disallow assisted suicide. Just think how many nursing homes that would actually operate for the good of the patient, as opposed to warehousing patients to collect Medicaid and Medicare payments.
Religion should not be part of this; but, our laws are based up religious precedent. In 45 states, assisted suicide is considered murder; some cases capital murder.
Of course, this should be properly supervised, and that the person requesting assisted suicide is terminal. As opposed to our current system of spending tens of thousands of dollars on medicines and hospice, paliative care.
When my sister was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, back in 2000, I read her medical report. The doctors gave her less than a month to live; she last six weeks, but her last week was horrific. She may not have gone fro assisted suicide, but at least if would have be good to have an option, if it was needed.
For those who scream "murder" and "death panels"; you do not know until you experience this. Finally, our for profit health care system is as guilty driving laws to disallow assisted suicide. Just think how many nursing homes that would actually operate for the good of the patient, as opposed to warehousing patients to collect Medicaid and Medicare payments.
234
Nick Metrowsky - "Religion should not be part of this; but, our laws are based up religious precedent. In 45 states, assisted suicide is considered murder; some cases capital murder."
Does the word religion or God appear in the legal definition of murder in any state in the US? Does the definition of murder contain any reference to religion in any law book in the US? Perhaps taking a human life is considered murder in some cases because it's simply wrong in a human sense not a religious one.
Does the word religion or God appear in the legal definition of murder in any state in the US? Does the definition of murder contain any reference to religion in any law book in the US? Perhaps taking a human life is considered murder in some cases because it's simply wrong in a human sense not a religious one.
3
From everything I read, most Oregonians who get the end of life meds from their doctors do not use them, but their last days/weeks are less stressful because they can relax in the assurance that if their suffering becomes more than they can bear, they will NOT have to bear it. This is compassion. Thank goodness our Cal. legislature has voted yet. I have confidence in our governor not to veto (though he may "pocket veto" and do nothing, in which case the bill will become law in 30 days. You are so right that no religion should dictate these sorts of decisions for everyone, though of course if one's OWN religion prohibits taking advantage of such end of life options, then one can choose not to use them.
93
"Thou shalt not kill" Is the basis for our laws on murder and suicide. So, it is not hypocrisy at all. Even though our nation executes prisoners, and fights wars, this type of killing is fine. But, for a terminally ill person to die with dignity; it is murder. And because it is murder, if the dying person has life insurance, the policy will not be paid to their benificiary. That is, insurance companies do not have to pay out; unless the insured dies by so called "natural causes" These causes include pain an suffering prior to death. A pet in pain, or a condemned prisoner, get more humane treatment. That is your hypocrisy.
11
Aside from the fact that there are many ways to safeguard against misuse of this much-needed right, I think that those who are in terrible pain, incapacitated, wanting to die yet pumped up against their will with drugs, hooked up to modern machines, completely powerless to stop any of their suffering are some of the most vulnerable members of society that we have!