I have had cancer and epilepsy with surgeries and long hospital stays to treat both conditions. I am 52 years old. By any measure I have had a wonderful, privileged, and fulfilling life. The seizures have returned recently. I will likely undergo brain surgery for a second time in the near future, but only after weeks of testing and new drug therapies that leave me exhuasted and out of sorts. There will come a time, I suspect sooner rather than later, when the prospect of additional treatment is no longer worth the sacrafice of my family and my own daily well being to continue treatment. When that day arrives, the decision on the most appropriate path forward is one for myself and my family in consultation with my very trusted physicians. The political winds of the state and the religious sentiment of others have no place in that discussion or my final decision regardless of the conclusion.
32
I am 85 and when I am no longer able to take care of my own physical needs, when I no longer have a life of quality, then I wish to die.
The right-to-die-with-dignity bill should be passed. Catholics and others who oppose it need not participate, but give the rest of us what we sorely need.
The right-to-die-with-dignity bill should be passed. Catholics and others who oppose it need not participate, but give the rest of us what we sorely need.
44
At the risk of sounding cold and non-compassionate, I wish we could get lawmakers to spend as much time/energy/ink on issues which affect a greater number of individuals. Given the statistics from Oregon, we are talking about legislation that may be used by a 100 people a year in a state with a population of 38 million. Issues like this which have dramatic stories, are like candy to legislators who can posture and take positions without really affecting their core constituency one way or another. It is irritating because there is so much else that needs to be done in the state of California and there is a limited amount of time in each calendar year to conduct the state's business. Having said that, all of us should have the right to self-determination.
10
When I was in London in 1978 I managed to see a production of the play "Who's Life is it, anyway?" The subject struck a chord in me. The writer made an incredibly emotional yet intelligent and reasonable argument for the main character's right to decide their own fate in the face of those who wanted it otherwise.
Over the years I've been perplexed by the difficulty individuals have in asserting and reasserting the same arguments.
I still am.
Gov Brown need's to sign this bill now, and should have sooner.
.
Over the years I've been perplexed by the difficulty individuals have in asserting and reasserting the same arguments.
I still am.
Gov Brown need's to sign this bill now, and should have sooner.
.
26
Also note how the promoters of assisted suicide cling to their verbally engineered polls that claim a majority is in favor. I polled thousands of Montanans one-on-one as I served 60 days at fair booths across the state. Once folks knew about the loopholes in all of the Oregon model bills, 95% were not for them. So much for their verbally engineered polls.
There were a few people (about 2%) that believed in the survival of the fittest who remained in favor of legalizing assisted suicide even after learning how these bills are written and can be administered to expand the scope of abuse. Their reasoning was that if one cannot control their family then their life should be cut short. 98% do not agree with that. Do you?
There were a few people (about 2%) that believed in the survival of the fittest who remained in favor of legalizing assisted suicide even after learning how these bills are written and can be administered to expand the scope of abuse. Their reasoning was that if one cannot control their family then their life should be cut short. 98% do not agree with that. Do you?
1
I'm 68, my wife is 63, and my mother is 90. We need this bill.
My own faith tells me a carefully-constructed and properly-monitored End of Life Option might one day be the compassionate and morally responsible path for some members of my family.
Others may disagree, but they are not of my family nor of my faith.
Under the law, no family can be forced to employ the Option. In a free society, those who want or need this assistance should have it.
It's my body and my life. Mind your own business and do what you think is best for you and your loved ones. I'll do the same.
My own faith tells me a carefully-constructed and properly-monitored End of Life Option might one day be the compassionate and morally responsible path for some members of my family.
Others may disagree, but they are not of my family nor of my faith.
Under the law, no family can be forced to employ the Option. In a free society, those who want or need this assistance should have it.
It's my body and my life. Mind your own business and do what you think is best for you and your loved ones. I'll do the same.
27
Californians and all Americans should have the "right to die" with dignity. There is simply no evidence that the vast majority of "end of life care" improves survival or quality of life.
"Of all the ghouls who feed on the bodies of the dead and the dying, the cancer quacks are most vicious and most heartless."
—Morris Fishbein, Editor Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 1965, Fishbein, "History of Cancer Quackery," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 8 (Winter 1965), 140
"Of all the ghouls who feed on the bodies of the dead and the dying, the cancer quacks are most vicious and most heartless."
—Morris Fishbein, Editor Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 1965, Fishbein, "History of Cancer Quackery," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 8 (Winter 1965), 140
5
What happened to my comment?
I find it incomprehensible that a country that wages wars, in which members of our armed forces are required to kill people and/or risk death, would attempt to prevent adult humans from dying when they find life insupportable. It appears that to me that a country that takes such a position is asserting ownership of people,who, for reasons of their own, prefer to die. We will all die and, perhaps, our deaths will cause sorrow for our loved ones. That's life.
21
If only these religious groups and zealots who are opposing this Right-to-Die Bill were to suffer the agony and excruciating pain themselves, they would be whistling another tune altogether. You can be supercilious, condescending to those you think are below your moralistic high ground. But the fact is making a fellow human being suffer with indescribable pain is being sadistic. No one has the right to impose their dictate on another. That is immoral, that is infraction of personal freedom afforded us by our Constitution.
17
Your source has done you a disservice. By Oregon and Washington law all family members are not required to be contacted. A single heir is allowed to initiate and execute the lethal process without a witness, thus eviscerating intended safe guards. Everyone involved in the lethal process gets immediate immunity. 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 these laws prohibit investigations or public inquiries leaving no recourse for surviving family members who were not contacted. Does that sound like good public policy to you? This is a very dangerous public policy that allows the exploitation of elders and people with disabilities of all ages. However, it serves the health insurance corporations very well.
All of these loopholes are embodied in California’s ABX2-15.
A veto is in good order.
Oregon and Washington should amend their initiative-sound-bite driven dangerous laws.
In addition these laws prohibit investigations or public inquiries leaving no recourse for surviving family members who were not contacted. Does that sound like good public policy to you? This is a very dangerous public policy that allows the exploitation of elders and people with disabilities of all ages. However, it serves the health insurance corporations very well.
All of these loopholes are embodied in California’s ABX2-15.
A veto is in good order.
Oregon and Washington should amend their initiative-sound-bite driven dangerous laws.
2
I would only add to assuage those who are opposed: this is a completely "opt-in" procedure. No doctor can euthanize you without going through this prescribed procedure.
7
This, I believe is where separation of church and state must come into play. To call a person's right to die in such a dire situation an "assisted suicide" is only unnecessary upon multiple accounts.
We live in a country where politicians like to claim we are free, but how free is that when there are not equal rights to every person? Nevermind LGBTQIAA rights, or racism at the moment, though it is extremely important, but why shouldn't a person be allowed to take their lives into their own hands?
I understand that life has meaning for everyone, that so many have potential, but if someone is suffering, and is practically guaranteed death in the most scientific, human way possible, they should not have to go to another state, or go through any argument at all to end that. To be in pain or to feel as though you are a burden to the doctors and/or family that are taking care of you must be an unbelievably dehumanizing situation. Everyone loves the idea and experience of being independent.
Why should anyone anywhere have to suffer because some people believe it's strictly a suicide, or a mere giving up on life?
Separate church from state as it should be, and grant people the right to take their own lives (no pun intended) into their own hands if they know they don't have much longer left as it is.
We live in a country where politicians like to claim we are free, but how free is that when there are not equal rights to every person? Nevermind LGBTQIAA rights, or racism at the moment, though it is extremely important, but why shouldn't a person be allowed to take their lives into their own hands?
I understand that life has meaning for everyone, that so many have potential, but if someone is suffering, and is practically guaranteed death in the most scientific, human way possible, they should not have to go to another state, or go through any argument at all to end that. To be in pain or to feel as though you are a burden to the doctors and/or family that are taking care of you must be an unbelievably dehumanizing situation. Everyone loves the idea and experience of being independent.
Why should anyone anywhere have to suffer because some people believe it's strictly a suicide, or a mere giving up on life?
Separate church from state as it should be, and grant people the right to take their own lives (no pun intended) into their own hands if they know they don't have much longer left as it is.
13
I live in California and have discussed this with my spouse. My mother-in-law did not have her wishes, as described in her advanced directive, followed. Her children could not bring themselves to end treatment for her, and she lived a vegetative, painful life for two years after support should have been withheld.
Obviously, I'm married to one of her children who does not think he could "pull the plug" on me, even though I've made it clear I want this done.
Therefore, I must have the right to determine my own demise: when and where, by what means. An interstate move is enough of a chore when you are healthy and I have no wish to do it when ill. I want my rights honored in the state where I live.
I am grateful to my husband for his honesty with himself and me on this very difficult subject. I now know where I stand and what I must do. It would be sad if I lived in a state which made that illegal. Not impossible. People will merely skirt the law if they are forbidden to end their suffering.
Obviously, I'm married to one of her children who does not think he could "pull the plug" on me, even though I've made it clear I want this done.
Therefore, I must have the right to determine my own demise: when and where, by what means. An interstate move is enough of a chore when you are healthy and I have no wish to do it when ill. I want my rights honored in the state where I live.
I am grateful to my husband for his honesty with himself and me on this very difficult subject. I now know where I stand and what I must do. It would be sad if I lived in a state which made that illegal. Not impossible. People will merely skirt the law if they are forbidden to end their suffering.
15
I disagree with the Right-to-Die bill simply because the power of putting someone to death is something humans are not capable of. We shouldn't be able to decide when a persons "time" is. We are taking the easy way out in doing so. The controversy and effort going into assisted suicide needs to be redirected to developing better ways to manage pain to prevent this "need" for an early death. I feel as though we haven't exhausted every possibility to develop knowledge in pain management and instead we would rather cut life short since "they're bound to die soon anyway." Imagine what it would be like if it was your loved one faced with this option. If they weren't in such pain, wouldn't you want them to continue fighting til the end? If nothing else, for you to be able to hold them a little longer? Developments in pain management could end the controversy and make a natural death more acceptable.
4
To ask a loved one who only 6 months to live, to "continue fighting til the end. If nothing else, for you to be able to hold them a little longer", is extremely selfish. Continually giving them more pain medication is just keeping the person doped up and prolonging the inevitable. Again, an extremely selfish act. The person who is dying should be the one calling the shots. It is their life and their death.
33
We are not taking the easy way out, the person is requesting it.
We are not going to solve the problems with how pain is managed in this country because we have great difficulty providing pain medication to people for fear of addiction. That is why the laws have become more restrictive in giving people pain medication. That truly is a separate problem.
And your statement,
"If it was your loved one faced with this option. If they weren't in such pain, wouldn't you want them to continue fighting til the end?"
Is horrible. Hell no!! i would want the person to be set free and relieved of such suffering.
We are not going to solve the problems with how pain is managed in this country because we have great difficulty providing pain medication to people for fear of addiction. That is why the laws have become more restrictive in giving people pain medication. That truly is a separate problem.
And your statement,
"If it was your loved one faced with this option. If they weren't in such pain, wouldn't you want them to continue fighting til the end?"
Is horrible. Hell no!! i would want the person to be set free and relieved of such suffering.
25
Irrelevant. It's none of your business.
12
Perhaps if we didn't threaten people with a dying process that was as long as they could afford, we wouldn't be having this discussion in this way. As long as we don't offer long-term care as part of being American, then we are asking families to spend all of their lifetime earnings keeping grandpa alive. Then what happens to grandma? and who pays for the the grandkids' college?
We are hardly in a position to insist that people stay alive to feed the medical-industrial complex.
We are hardly in a position to insist that people stay alive to feed the medical-industrial complex.
14
Death with dignity )DWD) must be the name of this bill. More people realize the
power of modern medicine to prolong life without quality for the patient. What is life if you are continually connected to tubes unable to use your faculties as a full human being. People are awakening to the realities of the end of life and wants to control their life as they desire That is liberty and pursuit of happiness.
power of modern medicine to prolong life without quality for the patient. What is life if you are continually connected to tubes unable to use your faculties as a full human being. People are awakening to the realities of the end of life and wants to control their life as they desire That is liberty and pursuit of happiness.
12
I have a friend with advancing ALS, he may have 6 months to one year left. He is losing control of his body slowly, and today can only move his torso and head. He feels his quality of life will be gone when he can no longer swallow food, and is considering moving to Oregon so he can choose to go peacefully without ending up with feeding tubes, breathing machines, etc. Sign the Bill for him and the thousands of others who also want this right!
70
Please have him call Compassion & Choices and speak to one of the end of life consultants (free of charge). They can best advise him on his trajectory and what options he has if he can't swallow. https://www.compassionandchoices.org/what-we-do/end-of-life-consulting/
4
A Right to Death with Dignity is the correct term to use.
46
In his book 'Being Mortal" Atul Gawande tries to explain how we, in healthcare, 'got it all wrong' in how we don't help people cope with aging and decline but resist it and frequently cause more suffering and prolongation of life than we should. I am a cardiologist and most of my practice is filled with elderly people who only wish for death with dignity. They want some autonomy. We should be able to define for ourselves what a 'meaningful existence' is and what it isn't. Passing this law will not result in a cascade of inappropriate deaths, rather it will allow us to honor people's wishes and rights
33
Yeah, and Dr. Gawande may be making a lot of money telling other physicians what to do in his book while also making a lot practicing surgery, not exactly the specialty that most helps people cope with end of life issues.
We just witnessed the Assisted Dying Bill fail in Parliament here in the UK by 330 against and 118 for the bill. A fear that robust safeguards were not in place and that doctors would be going against the medical cornerstone of “doing no harm” were the main objections. (I would argue that standing by and allowing someone to die in agony or of starvation could in fact be seen as “doing harm.”) I am interested to know more about the robust safeguards that the various state right-to-die bills include and will try to find out more because perhaps if we had had such safeguards here the Assisted Dying Bill would not have failed. One thing worries me about the provisions set out in this article. Unless I have misunderstood, what about the case of someone in the advanced stage of motor neurone disease, for example, who is fully cognizant but can no longer hold an implement and write?
15
Under the California law, the person would have to put the request in writing and have "the physical and mental ability to self-administer the aid-in-dying drug."
1
Thank you kindly for explaining that Steve.
"Californians deserve better." Editorial Board, we all deserve better.
And terminally ill Californians deserve a better bill than this one with its "robust safeguards." Seven years as a hospice nurse taught me a little about pain and how it can go from zero to excruciating in a matter of days if not hours. The restrictions and delays built into this document do not make any accommodation for those whose disease progresses rapidly. It is not rare that a patient has little or no pain when first told by the physician that his condition is terminal. Death planning is not yet part of reality for the newly informed. As for the six-month time frame for death's arrival, it is pure speculation. There is no scientific way to predict, let alone determine, one's remaining days. They may number only six or stretch to 600. There is also no way to scientifically measure one's pain, be it physical or otherwise.
Though intended to prevent "premature" suicide (and I have no problem with this intent), these safeguards need to be re-examined and restructured to allow for accelerated disease progression.
By all means, sign this document into law, effective before the ink dries on the paper, and begin immediately working on a better law.
And terminally ill Californians deserve a better bill than this one with its "robust safeguards." Seven years as a hospice nurse taught me a little about pain and how it can go from zero to excruciating in a matter of days if not hours. The restrictions and delays built into this document do not make any accommodation for those whose disease progresses rapidly. It is not rare that a patient has little or no pain when first told by the physician that his condition is terminal. Death planning is not yet part of reality for the newly informed. As for the six-month time frame for death's arrival, it is pure speculation. There is no scientific way to predict, let alone determine, one's remaining days. They may number only six or stretch to 600. There is also no way to scientifically measure one's pain, be it physical or otherwise.
Though intended to prevent "premature" suicide (and I have no problem with this intent), these safeguards need to be re-examined and restructured to allow for accelerated disease progression.
By all means, sign this document into law, effective before the ink dries on the paper, and begin immediately working on a better law.
25
Despite the fact that you seem to indicate that all of those concerned about these bills do so based on religious objections, in fact there are those of us who have concerns because of science.
I am a physician who specializes in pain management and every study of which I am aware has shown that all forms of pain including those in the terminally ill is poorly managed. This is because most physicians receive little training in pain management. However, all these right-to-die bills make the assumption that all patients will have received expert management of their pain before making their requests yet make no provision for how this will come about.
As with the climate change denier, you can pretend that what you're saying is true but that doesn't change science.
I am a physician who specializes in pain management and every study of which I am aware has shown that all forms of pain including those in the terminally ill is poorly managed. This is because most physicians receive little training in pain management. However, all these right-to-die bills make the assumption that all patients will have received expert management of their pain before making their requests yet make no provision for how this will come about.
As with the climate change denier, you can pretend that what you're saying is true but that doesn't change science.
5
As someone who has experienced poor pain management via a team of doctors' advice, I can understand why you feel as though proper pain treatment would act as a solution to this issue, however I completely disagree.
I don't think the only reason these people are choosing to die with dignity is because they are in pain. In cases of degenerative diseases such as ALS, those who are suffering experience much more than just pain. They have to watch their bodies slowly lose the ability to function. These people go from being able bodied to completely reliant on the care of others. They slowly become trapped in their bodies, only to reach a point at which they become completely handicapped. I'm sure the immense fear of knowing that you'll end up a prisoner in your own body is enough to drive anyone to seek out an alternative ending for themselves. I can only imagine how horrible it is to know that one day you'll have little to no independence, and have to rely on people you love to take care of you around the clock. It'd be terribly guilt inducing, and a blow to anyone's confidence and sense of self.
I really believe that if someone who is fated to come to an untimely and mind wrecking death wants to choose the less mentally (as well as physically) painful option, then they should have that right. Why shouldn't a person be able to decide their own fate? Why shouldn't a person who is being subjected to their own body failing them not be able to choose when enough is enough for them?
I don't think the only reason these people are choosing to die with dignity is because they are in pain. In cases of degenerative diseases such as ALS, those who are suffering experience much more than just pain. They have to watch their bodies slowly lose the ability to function. These people go from being able bodied to completely reliant on the care of others. They slowly become trapped in their bodies, only to reach a point at which they become completely handicapped. I'm sure the immense fear of knowing that you'll end up a prisoner in your own body is enough to drive anyone to seek out an alternative ending for themselves. I can only imagine how horrible it is to know that one day you'll have little to no independence, and have to rely on people you love to take care of you around the clock. It'd be terribly guilt inducing, and a blow to anyone's confidence and sense of self.
I really believe that if someone who is fated to come to an untimely and mind wrecking death wants to choose the less mentally (as well as physically) painful option, then they should have that right. Why shouldn't a person be able to decide their own fate? Why shouldn't a person who is being subjected to their own body failing them not be able to choose when enough is enough for them?
15
How many "Libertywill be prevented by this "rational-and-comprehensive" legislation?
BTW: Is there any study of how many "gun suicides" actually fall within the "it's-O.K.-to-check-out" parameters of this doctor fee generating legislation?
BTW: Is there any study of how many "gun suicides" actually fall within the "it's-O.K.-to-check-out" parameters of this doctor fee generating legislation?
1
The top three reasons given by those who have chosen physician-assisted suicide in Oregon and Washington are consistently the loss of autonomy, the diminished ability to engage in life's enjoyable activities and the loss of dignity. Pain and the fear of pain ranks SIXTH.
And yet we spend only 2 percent of the Medicare budget on hospice care (which focuses on pain relief) and are doing little to address the devastating shortage of doctors and nurses in the coming years, although dignity is largely dependent on appropriate and adequate patient care.
Can't we listen to patients' true concerns and offer them something other than the opportunity to die sooner?
Jo Kline Cebuhar, J.D.
author of 2015 Edition -
The practical guide to Health Care Advance Directives
And yet we spend only 2 percent of the Medicare budget on hospice care (which focuses on pain relief) and are doing little to address the devastating shortage of doctors and nurses in the coming years, although dignity is largely dependent on appropriate and adequate patient care.
Can't we listen to patients' true concerns and offer them something other than the opportunity to die sooner?
Jo Kline Cebuhar, J.D.
author of 2015 Edition -
The practical guide to Health Care Advance Directives
14
Most religions have dogma that is dead set against taking one's own life based on ideology. For believers of a Creator, it amounts to desecrating the intelligently designed piece of work. The LORD gives, and the LORD takes away. Believers are resign to sickness and disease as an Act of God.
Non-believers see it differently. For atheists who happened to follow the Buddhist teaching and have faith in causality, the efficacy of karma and rebirth, there are choices to make, though difficult ones. The First Precept is the rule to abstain from taking life. At first glance it seems to forbid taking one's own life. However, it implies the virtue of treating all beings with kindness and compassion, including oneself. There is another guiding principle set out in the second factor of the Eightfold Paths: Right Intention. Its three focus are the intention of Renunciation (to let go, to be generous and charitable), Good Will (free from hatred and ill-will), and Harmlessness (free of cruelty). Right-To-Die get a more nuanced assessment when one believes "I'll be back" - rebirth. The American monk Bhikkhu Bodhi (another Ju-Bu) wrote an essay "A Buddhist Response to Contemporary Dilemmas of Human Existence" (1994) and a book "the Noble Eightfold Path" that gave the right-to-die issue plenty of food for thought.
Non-believers see it differently. For atheists who happened to follow the Buddhist teaching and have faith in causality, the efficacy of karma and rebirth, there are choices to make, though difficult ones. The First Precept is the rule to abstain from taking life. At first glance it seems to forbid taking one's own life. However, it implies the virtue of treating all beings with kindness and compassion, including oneself. There is another guiding principle set out in the second factor of the Eightfold Paths: Right Intention. Its three focus are the intention of Renunciation (to let go, to be generous and charitable), Good Will (free from hatred and ill-will), and Harmlessness (free of cruelty). Right-To-Die get a more nuanced assessment when one believes "I'll be back" - rebirth. The American monk Bhikkhu Bodhi (another Ju-Bu) wrote an essay "A Buddhist Response to Contemporary Dilemmas of Human Existence" (1994) and a book "the Noble Eightfold Path" that gave the right-to-die issue plenty of food for thought.
7
Republicans and all those pretending to be conservative should champion assisted-suicide movement. The gubmint needs to get out of our lives and, to the extent possible, stop telling us what is good for us. I want FREEDOM and dignity, not more regulations. Perhaps we should call this "Peace with Honor".
5
Maybe one day we'll provide terminally ill patients with a range of options, not just physician aid in dying but also palliative sedation, voluntary stopping eating and drinking, even voluntary active euthanasia or suicide which are not illegal in various countries outside the U.S. Wouldn't a bit of choice be nice...
As Seneca the Younger wrote ages ago: "Just as I choose a ship to sail in or a house to live in, so I choose a death for my passage from life. . . . Nowhere should we indulge the soul more than in dying. Let it go as it lists: if it craves the sword or the noose or some potion that constricts its veins, on with it, let it break the chain of slavery. A man’s life should satisfy other people as well, his death only himself, and whatever sort he likes is best."
As Seneca the Younger wrote ages ago: "Just as I choose a ship to sail in or a house to live in, so I choose a death for my passage from life. . . . Nowhere should we indulge the soul more than in dying. Let it go as it lists: if it craves the sword or the noose or some potion that constricts its veins, on with it, let it break the chain of slavery. A man’s life should satisfy other people as well, his death only himself, and whatever sort he likes is best."
19
I agree with the editorial but not with the description: " allow some terminally ill patients to hasten their death". Such changes in the law allow people to determine, when, where, and how they will die. To simply say "hasten" mis-states the true meaning for the people involved.
1
This will sound glib - it's not:
If you don't want an abortion - don't have one,
If you don't want same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of your sex, and, if you don't want the right to decide on when you will die, then just don't avail yourself of the options for that.
I have just put my beloved son and my beloved sister into their ash-jars. Six years ago it was my mother. All died of cancers, but that's where the similarities ended.
My mother received her palliative care from the State of Maine. I was awed by the care, both personal and medical, that she received. My sister, in the State of Georgia, got neither personal nor medical care. It turned out the hospice care was faith-based. They would be glad to pray over her 24/7, but their supplies didn't extend to a tiny, little old lady. Since she was atheist, it turned out they really didn't have a program at all. I know my son's care went well over the million-dollar mark, but he was in California, had union insurance and then more when he went onto 'experimental' options.
The pain meds offered to all three were spectacular but that was the only commonality. Everything else was dependent on what the individual states offered or what their insurance company 'allowed'.
Ultimately, it came down to blind luck.
All three fully supported Oregon's Right To Die laws. They saw it as a Right To Choose, a right that any person had, a right that no other person on this planet had a right to deny them.
Sign the bill, Jerry.
If you don't want an abortion - don't have one,
If you don't want same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of your sex, and, if you don't want the right to decide on when you will die, then just don't avail yourself of the options for that.
I have just put my beloved son and my beloved sister into their ash-jars. Six years ago it was my mother. All died of cancers, but that's where the similarities ended.
My mother received her palliative care from the State of Maine. I was awed by the care, both personal and medical, that she received. My sister, in the State of Georgia, got neither personal nor medical care. It turned out the hospice care was faith-based. They would be glad to pray over her 24/7, but their supplies didn't extend to a tiny, little old lady. Since she was atheist, it turned out they really didn't have a program at all. I know my son's care went well over the million-dollar mark, but he was in California, had union insurance and then more when he went onto 'experimental' options.
The pain meds offered to all three were spectacular but that was the only commonality. Everything else was dependent on what the individual states offered or what their insurance company 'allowed'.
Ultimately, it came down to blind luck.
All three fully supported Oregon's Right To Die laws. They saw it as a Right To Choose, a right that any person had, a right that no other person on this planet had a right to deny them.
Sign the bill, Jerry.
122
"If you don't want an abortion - don't have one,"
The difficulty is that BOTH the woman and the fetus are "having" an abortion, which amounts to freedom for one and death for the other.
To me, this is far too close to "If you don't want to beat your wife then don't beat your wife. But what I do with MY wife is my business."
And the answer in both cases is, "No, it isn't JUST your business. Another human being is involved."
Liberals who (rightly) accuse Republicans of being illogical, are pretty illogical themselves. Their position amounts finally to, "Killing is OK only when WE liberals approve of it and otherwise not."
And that is not a principled position. It is absurd to protest the less than hundred executions that take place in the US each year while turning a blind eye to the million or so abortions which take place.
The issue is complex and I do not in fact agree with the hard line Republicans. But ultimately the pro-choicers do not make sense either.
The difficulty is that BOTH the woman and the fetus are "having" an abortion, which amounts to freedom for one and death for the other.
To me, this is far too close to "If you don't want to beat your wife then don't beat your wife. But what I do with MY wife is my business."
And the answer in both cases is, "No, it isn't JUST your business. Another human being is involved."
Liberals who (rightly) accuse Republicans of being illogical, are pretty illogical themselves. Their position amounts finally to, "Killing is OK only when WE liberals approve of it and otherwise not."
And that is not a principled position. It is absurd to protest the less than hundred executions that take place in the US each year while turning a blind eye to the million or so abortions which take place.
The issue is complex and I do not in fact agree with the hard line Republicans. But ultimately the pro-choicers do not make sense either.
1
Rohit: I've made this point a dozen times before, so I'll give you a chance to give your opinion: From first to last, my childbearing years spanned 37 years. My paternal grandmother had 15 children. My potential was 37. Now, you give that a moment's thought and then get back to me with one number: What is the number of children that I must have borne to satisfy YOU? One? Twelve? Twenty-three? Thirty-four? Or thirty-seven? I had one. That was all I could afford. Now, be aware that any number over that 'one' will be the number that I expect YOU to care for, maintain, educate and house. And, change it's diaper. So, feel free to tell me that number.... Put your money where your mouth is... I'm already aware you have no hesitation on throwing out your opinions on what I should have done with MY uterus. Number please.
2
Tell the god squad to butt out. Exercise your 2nd amendment right to a firearm and keep it in the bedside table. When the time comes, take one and don't bother calling in the morning.
13
Jerry Brown should sit on the bill (I believe it is for 12 days) and let the law go into effect without his actually signing the bill. By doing this, he can be true to his Catholic faith and still allow the will of the people to go into effect.
9
"Opponents of right-to-die bills, including the Catholic Church, have called them immoral" In truth, much of the resistance to these laws comes from organized religion. For a group of people who say they believe in heaven, they seem to have a terrible of fear of death. The people who want to end their lives on their own terms have made their peace with God. Their faith is their testament of courage over fear. God bless them and supporters of this bill!
34
"...allow some terminally ill patients to hasten their death"
Really? How hasn't this always been an option? The NYTimes even printed an (excellent) article about the Cornell professor who ordered Nembutal online and took control of her exit. No one needs Jerry Brown's approval. Or the Catholic Church's either (does anyone listen to those people anymore?)
Really? How hasn't this always been an option? The NYTimes even printed an (excellent) article about the Cornell professor who ordered Nembutal online and took control of her exit. No one needs Jerry Brown's approval. Or the Catholic Church's either (does anyone listen to those people anymore?)
14
" (does anyone listen to those people anymore?)"
I am a Buddhist and I certainly listen. I don't need to follow the Catholics blindly, but sometimes what they say makes sense.
Of course a lot more people will listen to THIS Pope and a good thing too!
I am a Buddhist and I certainly listen. I don't need to follow the Catholics blindly, but sometimes what they say makes sense.
Of course a lot more people will listen to THIS Pope and a good thing too!
But Nembutal is virtually unavailable in U.S. And "do-it-yourself" self-deliverance too often fails--leaving patients worse off, stuffed with wires and tubes or in a persistent vegetative state that many think worse than death itself.
Doing it right fairly calls out for loving assistance: from a doctor or experienced
lay person. Try Final Exit group.
Doing it right fairly calls out for loving assistance: from a doctor or experienced
lay person. Try Final Exit group.
1
For many years I worked with elder citizens. When the subject of death and dying came into the conversation, the great majority of them inevitably stated they didn't fear death as much as the prospect of living years in pain, dementia or other illness that ruined their quality of life.
Advances in medical technology have extended the lives of countless individuals who in the past would have died when their bodies and minds failed beyond a certain point. A visitor to any "convalescent" facility will find rooms inhabited by persons living "non-lives."
I wish I had a dollar for everyone who's said to me, "We treat our animals better than human beings. When their lives are no longer worth living, we put them to sleep."
This bill is a beginning. I hope the time comes when each person debilitated by age or illness has the right to choose when they leave this world.
Then people would no longer have to fear the dying process much more than death itself.
Advances in medical technology have extended the lives of countless individuals who in the past would have died when their bodies and minds failed beyond a certain point. A visitor to any "convalescent" facility will find rooms inhabited by persons living "non-lives."
I wish I had a dollar for everyone who's said to me, "We treat our animals better than human beings. When their lives are no longer worth living, we put them to sleep."
This bill is a beginning. I hope the time comes when each person debilitated by age or illness has the right to choose when they leave this world.
Then people would no longer have to fear the dying process much more than death itself.
107
How about first trying to improve pain management which every study that has been performed in this country has shown to be poor in many patients including the terminally ill.
And, it should be noted, neither the California bill or those in the other states that already have similar laws allow for these to apply to those with dementia. The person has to be both cognitively intact to make the request and not be a passive receiver of the death providing medications, neither of which are possible in people with dementia.
And, it should be noted, neither the California bill or those in the other states that already have similar laws allow for these to apply to those with dementia. The person has to be both cognitively intact to make the request and not be a passive receiver of the death providing medications, neither of which are possible in people with dementia.
No, Governor Jerry Brown should NOT sign the right-to-die bill into law. The only thing such a law does is given physicians legal cover to kill us. It is bad for society and bad for medicine to codify this message into law. Doctors should not be in the business of helping kill their patients. It IS that simple. There is no way to make this slope less steep, or less slippery than it already is.
We talk to ourselves as a society by the laws we pass. This talk is that people should be given the right to kill themselves if they can get 2 doctors to certify it is okay that they do this. There are plenty of cases of people living past the 6 month mark after a doctor said they were going to die. In fact, it is a cliche of self-help literature to include such stories in them. Such laws further empower physicians to play god. If there is one group of professionals who don't need any more pride, or power in American society, it is our doctors, who are already put on a pedestal, and who already make too many life-and-death decisions as it is. Don't give physicians the legal right to kill you. This is a bad idea.
4
where is the quality of life in "living past the six month mark" in utter misery, pain, and mental deterioration?
9
No. They don't get to "kill" "us." They don't get to play God. I do about me, and you do about you. Are these safe guards sufficient to protect me? I think they are.
5
Leicaman in San Francisco, CA: I didn't say anything about quality of life in my remarks. All I'm is saying don't empower doctors to be able to kill us with legal covers. The other stuff is up to the individual and his family and friends to figure out.
1
If a women can abort her own child then an adult should be able to abort their own life.
4
But in all fairness, the Catholic Church is consistent. They object to both abortion and suicide (and for that matter the last Pope also objected to the Iraq war).
I support the bill and perhaps letting it sit and thus become law is the simplest way for Brown to go. But my support for the bill does not translate into dissing the Pope. He is clearly a great man and great men are allowed to be wrong at times.
I support the bill and perhaps letting it sit and thus become law is the simplest way for Brown to go. But my support for the bill does not translate into dissing the Pope. He is clearly a great man and great men are allowed to be wrong at times.
1
Californians deserve better? We ALL deserve better, or at least to have our wishes, expressed in sound mind with the support of family, friends and medical practitioners honored and respected, free of political interference.
The Roman Catholic Church is not the only religion in town, and even if it were, legislating to impose any creed on all Americans is a clear violation of the First Amendment. It's astonishing how big a government the small-government folks can tolerate when it suits them.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
The Roman Catholic Church is not the only religion in town, and even if it were, legislating to impose any creed on all Americans is a clear violation of the First Amendment. It's astonishing how big a government the small-government folks can tolerate when it suits them.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
45
Gov. Brown, I urge you to sign this bill today. Seventy percent of Americans support aid in dying, and California has always been at the forefront of American society.
41
In the end it is my body, is it not? No matter what Jeb Bush says, or any church or religious organization. How can some lawmakers claim that government has too much power, yet to the very end they want to dictate what can happen to one's own being? The availability of guns permits almost 20,000 suicides a year. Conservatives shrug. But let an 80 year old terminally ill patient opt out of life to escape from his or her terminal pain - not so fast. I often wonder how much influence the "medical machine" has on this particular issue.
109
Thank you for this Editorial. As I have similarly argued in the NYT, allowing Aid in Dying (AID) protects patient autonomy and liberty. And voluminous evidence supports safety of the practice. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/06/expanding-the-right-to-d...
Still, I would caution that the alternatives are not so bad as the Editorial implies. For example, substantial evidence suggests that Voluntarily Stopping Eating and Drinking (VSED) is a comfortable and peaceful way to hasten one's death.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1689049
Still, I would caution that the alternatives are not so bad as the Editorial implies. For example, substantial evidence suggests that Voluntarily Stopping Eating and Drinking (VSED) is a comfortable and peaceful way to hasten one's death.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1689049
2
Yes. You're wrong to characterize voluntary stopping of eating and drinking as starvation. With proper palliative care can be a good alternative, used since antiquity.
I would love to see this right to an "easy death" expanded to include those diagnosed with dementia or any long-term debilitating illness.
Making us run the clock down to 6 months before expected death is still rather cruel.
Making us run the clock down to 6 months before expected death is still rather cruel.
43
The problem is who would decide whether those with dementia are candidates. Their doctors? Their family members? The insurer paying for care? Or do we simply assume no one with dementia would want to live with it and kill them all?
Quite so. But first things first, and better something than nothing. In time we'll have the larger scope as in Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and, it appears, shortly in Canada.
1
I lost both my parents to cancer three months apart, I took care of them at home. We are all Catholic. My poor parents. My father kept asking when was it going to end. All I could do was give him the morphine drops - it wasn't enough. Finally after weeks of agony he mouthed "I love you" - and he left as my brother and I kissed him. Death is never how they portray it in film. I've seen it naturally twice. There is a reason death is taboo in many cultures. It's not an easy road and it can be barbaric and cruel. I wish so hard with all my heart that people who loved life so much, won't have to die in such pain if they don't want to, that my Church will see the mercy in this bill. I respect life - I respect death more.
133
It sounds like your father received pretty lousy pain management if all he was given for his pain was morphine drops which I often ineffective.
Sadly, as most physicians receive little training in pain management, it's not surprising that there are many people like your father. Many of us have concerns that so many people have untreated pain which they are falsely led to believe can't be treated because their physicians are ignorant of proper care.
Sadly, as most physicians receive little training in pain management, it's not surprising that there are many people like your father. Many of us have concerns that so many people have untreated pain which they are falsely led to believe can't be treated because their physicians are ignorant of proper care.
1
Yes, Steve. I whole heartedly agree. And I had to beg hospice for that meager pain relief for him. The red tape was enormous. Also hospice only came by twice a week for four hours at a time - but that's another article. Dying at home is almost impossible without children to care for people and pain management was either the morphine drops or pills which he couldn't swallow. I despair for single people who wish to die at home.
2
Dear Jerry Brown, You've done so many wonderful things for our state! Please sign this very important bill. Last year I watched my father die a horrible, lingering death from cancer, and I know for a fact that I would follow Brittany Maynard's lead, leaving the state I love to die elsewhere if we don't get this right in California.
49
I agree with the editorial board. It seems odd that abortion is legal but terminal people in pain are not allowed to take their own lives. Surely this act would fall under "control over one's own body", a principle endorsed by the Supreme Court already in 1973.
Right now we have the odd situation that women are allowed control over the bodies of others (through the fiction, "it is my body") but are not allowed control over what are actually their own bodies.
Right now we have the odd situation that women are allowed control over the bodies of others (through the fiction, "it is my body") but are not allowed control over what are actually their own bodies.
8
California, Oregon, and Washington continue to blaze trails and set positive examples for the rest of the nation. As Republicans (and Republican states) continue circling the wagons and becoming more out of touch and insular, and struggling mightily to maintain the status quo, states in the Great West march onward toward greater progress and solidifying the civil and constitutional rights of their citizens. These are states that don't seek to pretend that just because something has always been done a certain way, that doesn't mean it's the best way.
Meanwhile, Republican states seek to maintain total control of their citizenry and legislate conformity; but eventually (after years and sometimes decades of dragging their feet and fighting progress) they come around too.
Thank you, California, Oregon, and Washington for leading the way on permitting people to die with dignity. This is an issue that most people don't have the ability to contemplate until they are in desperate need, and of course then it's too late.
Meanwhile, Republican states seek to maintain total control of their citizenry and legislate conformity; but eventually (after years and sometimes decades of dragging their feet and fighting progress) they come around too.
Thank you, California, Oregon, and Washington for leading the way on permitting people to die with dignity. This is an issue that most people don't have the ability to contemplate until they are in desperate need, and of course then it's too late.
36
You're right about a lot here. Reminds us of the wisdom of federalism: let us learn from other states. Still, the expansive West does not have a monopoly on efforts for liberty. Even now Republican NJ, long a leader in bioethics (do you remember Karen Ann Quinlan?), is on the verge of a law much like Oregon's. I predict that Gov. Christy, though a good Catholic, will sign it.
If this bill gets signed, it puts us on a slippery slope - FINALLY!
The anti-suicide movement is based on a spiritual belief that there is sanctity in every life. This nation's laws are to be free of religious influence. And in a country that allows the death penalty, abortion, not to mention, the horrors of ISIS, Boko Haram, etc to continue, this anti-suicide rhetoric is as hypocritical as it is anti-American.
Currently I have the freedom to choose where I live, what school I attend, what work I do, what family I do, or don't have, what faith, if any, I live - but not when, where, or why I die. This makes no sense. None.
I am, of course, not recommending that the rite to die be extended to those in acute anguish or pain, but absolutely to those who rationally decide that they have "had enough" - no matter the circumstance.
The anti-suicide movement is based on a spiritual belief that there is sanctity in every life. This nation's laws are to be free of religious influence. And in a country that allows the death penalty, abortion, not to mention, the horrors of ISIS, Boko Haram, etc to continue, this anti-suicide rhetoric is as hypocritical as it is anti-American.
Currently I have the freedom to choose where I live, what school I attend, what work I do, what family I do, or don't have, what faith, if any, I live - but not when, where, or why I die. This makes no sense. None.
I am, of course, not recommending that the rite to die be extended to those in acute anguish or pain, but absolutely to those who rationally decide that they have "had enough" - no matter the circumstance.
38
But you already do have the right to take your own life, in pills, by gun, slicing your veins open, gas, etc... what you want is to have someone else pull the trigger. That's not dignity. That's cowardly.
1
With respect, last paragraph is muddled. No right to die for those in acute suffering but yes for those who rationally decide to depart this vale of tears--??
Again, the Times uses obsolete and misdescriptive terminology with "Right to Die". For the last century in the West, since the abolition of suicide as a crime, we all have had the right to die. what we're advocating here is the right to enlist the aid of a compassionate physician to help one to exercise that right to die. The title of The Oregon, Washington and Vermont acts
is better: Death with Dignity.
Again, the Times uses obsolete and misdescriptive terminology with "Right to Die". For the last century in the West, since the abolition of suicide as a crime, we all have had the right to die. what we're advocating here is the right to enlist the aid of a compassionate physician to help one to exercise that right to die. The title of The Oregon, Washington and Vermont acts
is better: Death with Dignity.
2
Unfortunately this bill will do nothing to help those of us who are likely to suffer from Alzheimers or strokes or other diseases that leave us unable to give consent as the disease progresses. It should be possible for us to write a living will before we are incapable that allows us to have active help ending our lives when specific criteria have been met.
49
This kind of compassion is not new...family doctors have been helping people for generations! It is probably only since doctors stopped making house calls and people started dying in hospitals instead of at home that things changed. Sanctity of life used to mean something, when death was a part of every day life. Now "sanctity of life" is an empty slogan used by people who want to control other people and their lives, control but not support, comfort or ease. These laws should be universal.
97
What's different now is that all those diseases that once quickly killed the elderly who suffered from major underlying diseases are now treatable.
Before antibiotics were introduced in the 1940s, pneumonia was referred to as the old man's friend as it rapidly killed those suffering from severe heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.
Before antibiotics were introduced in the 1940s, pneumonia was referred to as the old man's friend as it rapidly killed those suffering from severe heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.
If it's good enough for Oregon, Vermont, and Washington...and now hopefully California, it is good enough for New York. It is a shame our NY legislature can't get this done. NY is behind the times...again...
16
"behind the times" is progressive talk and contains the hidden assumption that all change is good.
For instance African Americans forty years ago had only one third the rate of illegitimacy than they have now. Does that mean that they were "behind the times?"
Also, income disparity was less forty years ago than it is now. Does that mean that we were "behind the times"?
I favor the right to die bill and hope that it becomes law. But I certainly do not favor the naïve assumption that all change is good and anyone opposed to change is "behind the times".
For instance African Americans forty years ago had only one third the rate of illegitimacy than they have now. Does that mean that they were "behind the times?"
Also, income disparity was less forty years ago than it is now. Does that mean that we were "behind the times"?
I favor the right to die bill and hope that it becomes law. But I certainly do not favor the naïve assumption that all change is good and anyone opposed to change is "behind the times".
1
The Democrats are so in the camp of the health care providers that they won't sign this bill, because it will lower their "friends" revenue base.
1
That is ridiculous.
1
watch and see, ms Zejee
"Painkillers" is a sensational and non-specific word, often used to simply mean non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs but also potentially meaning opiates. A short-acting barbiturate, which does not control pain, has been the end-of-life drug of choice, except for supply problems. I wonder what you mean?
3
I completely disagree with the board. They are trying to paint this as anything but what it is. People playing God. I realize I will be criticized for this but I am speaking from experience. My mom died from a brutal 12 year battle with breast cancer on Feb 17 1982. She had 2 radical mastectomies, 5 years apart. There was no lumpectomies where they kept the breast or any type of reconstructive surgery. She worked in a clinic and would go and have her chemo on her lunch hour and go right back to work. She worked until 10 days before she died and she died on the unit I worked on at the hospital.
My dad lost a 6 month battle with lung cancer on July 10, 1979. The type of cancer he had basically ate threw his spine and the last 6 weeks he was paralyzed from the waist down. For a period, the pain was unbearable. And neither of my parents once expressed an interest to do what the board suggests. And if you follow what the board says they had as much reason as anyone who will post. That was just now who they were. They were both terminal, and they both fought till their last breath
Finally in Dec 2010 I was dying of renal failure, or so they said. They said I would not leave the ER but yet here I am. I chose the name I have because I believe God healed my body. I don't care if you accept it or believe it. But if I can come out of a deadly situation anyone can. And I was told there was nothing they could do for me. They were wrong. Doctors should not play God nor should liberals
My dad lost a 6 month battle with lung cancer on July 10, 1979. The type of cancer he had basically ate threw his spine and the last 6 weeks he was paralyzed from the waist down. For a period, the pain was unbearable. And neither of my parents once expressed an interest to do what the board suggests. And if you follow what the board says they had as much reason as anyone who will post. That was just now who they were. They were both terminal, and they both fought till their last breath
Finally in Dec 2010 I was dying of renal failure, or so they said. They said I would not leave the ER but yet here I am. I chose the name I have because I believe God healed my body. I don't care if you accept it or believe it. But if I can come out of a deadly situation anyone can. And I was told there was nothing they could do for me. They were wrong. Doctors should not play God nor should liberals
Your dear, brave parents had no choice, but with this bill you would have a choice. No one is playing God except the ultra conservatives who are blocking the God-given free will of a human life. Fighting to one's last breath is admirable, but it is a choice. This bill is a choice - nothing more, nothing less. Godspeed to you.
3
Nothing in the right-to-die bills denies anyone the right to tough it out, wait for the miracle or spend massive amounts of Medicare money to eke out a few extra months. They are not "death panel" laws. To blame "liberals" for expanding out personal freedoms, however, is fair.
4
Opponents of right-to-die bills...have called them immoral.
What is immoral is the opponents forcing pain and suffering onto other individuals who are in the terminal phase of life!
What is immoral is the opponents forcing pain and suffering onto other individuals who are in the terminal phase of life!
97
As a physician who specializes in pain management and has spent much of the last 25 years trying to improve physician education in pain management which is still often poor, I find it immoral for people not to be receiving proper care for their pain before being allowed to request death as a result of the pain. Or do you believe that people with cancer who aren't receiving proper care for their illness should also be allowed to die if they had doctors who were ignorant about its treatment.
11
I believe a doctor of 25 experience would be cognizant that not all suffering is pain induced and would have refrained from using a ginned up highly improbable scenario.
1
Steve - the point of the bill assumes that proper pain management was employed before a choice is made. It is terribly obvious to me as a first hand caretaker that pain management in the US, and its ensuing red tape, is causing so much suffering needlessly by its absence. Yet, even if pain management was used properly - there are certain painful and extremely uncomfortable aspects of death, that no matter the quality of pain management can not be assuaged. There are also people who don't desire to be drugged into a near coma for fear that they won't be able to communicate their needs. This bill is a choice for those people. I whole heartedly applaud your work, you are so needed and appreciated by so many. But there are severe limits to pain management.
1
When my dad was getting up in years, he, like many of his age mates, thought and talked a lot about what would be a "good death." They misted up when talking about an elderly friend of theirs who didn't return from hunting as planned one day. He was eventually found in the woods, sitting under a tree, with his rifle by his side and his faithful dog next to him keeping vigil. Their friend appeared to be sleeping, but had in fact simply sat down and died -- doing what he loved most. We don't all get that kind of "good death," but surely we should be able to choose not to have a horrific death characterized by the kind of prolonged pain and suffering that strips us of our very dignity. I hope Governor Brown signs the bill.
86
That is great death story. Beautiful.
1
As a physician, I could not agree more with the Editorial Board that this should be passed in California and, frankly, in all other states as well.
I suspect the immense push-back from religious groups and other opponents comes from the labeling of the bill as a 'right-to-die.' The truth is, we ALL have a right to die and, in fact, we will. Nobody escapes that part of life. Rather, if the terminology had been more carefully thought out, perhaps by more accurately describing the legislation as a "right to define goals of care" (which, parenthetically, we all have) there would be less hue and cry. When faced with the dichotomous "right to life" vs "right to death," the Catholic Church will always choose life, even if the 'life' in question is filled with insufferable pain and anguish.
The quantity of life should never (my opinion) be outweighed by the quality of life. However, that is an INDIVIDUAL decision, not a legal one. And it should be made the way all medical decisions should (including abortion): between a patient and their physician,
I suspect the immense push-back from religious groups and other opponents comes from the labeling of the bill as a 'right-to-die.' The truth is, we ALL have a right to die and, in fact, we will. Nobody escapes that part of life. Rather, if the terminology had been more carefully thought out, perhaps by more accurately describing the legislation as a "right to define goals of care" (which, parenthetically, we all have) there would be less hue and cry. When faced with the dichotomous "right to life" vs "right to death," the Catholic Church will always choose life, even if the 'life' in question is filled with insufferable pain and anguish.
The quantity of life should never (my opinion) be outweighed by the quality of life. However, that is an INDIVIDUAL decision, not a legal one. And it should be made the way all medical decisions should (including abortion): between a patient and their physician,
128
California should let "some" terminally ill patients end their lives earlier? Of course. Even this statement in the NY Times in the not-so-distant future will sound like Jim Crow proposals to let negro males use the sidewalks on non-busy market days. In other words, ludicrously inadequate but long overdue.
EVERY state should have right-to-die laws immediately in place, giving strong, natural rights to adults to oversee their own lives, and deaths, as they see fit, and as do not cause harm to society at large.
EVERY state should have right-to-die laws immediately in place, giving strong, natural rights to adults to oversee their own lives, and deaths, as they see fit, and as do not cause harm to society at large.
12
Remember that there was a time in the U.S. when there were many people who were considered enlightened who joined the eugenics movement that believed that through science we could end future generations from suffering from mental retardation. Sometimes things that seem progressive and forward thinking in their day don't always turn out to be so.
The Catholic church is wrong. It is not immoral to assist with ending a life when the individual decides its time. Denying assistance to someone ready to go probably is.
This is an individual rights issue.
Sing the bill. Lets move on.
This is an individual rights issue.
Sing the bill. Lets move on.
9
>
"allow some terminally ill patients to hasten their death."??
It should be allow any "terminally ill patients to hasten their death."
Just who would decide some? A Dr.? A Dr. who may not believe in assisted suicide and/or the reduction of income they may suffer due to your early death.
Only the patient can and should decide.
“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.”
Arthur Schopenhauer
"allow some terminally ill patients to hasten their death."??
It should be allow any "terminally ill patients to hasten their death."
Just who would decide some? A Dr.? A Dr. who may not believe in assisted suicide and/or the reduction of income they may suffer due to your early death.
Only the patient can and should decide.
“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.”
Arthur Schopenhauer
8
Despite feeling that a reasonable case has been made for right-to-die, I still cannot help feeling there is a problem with the practice in our need to seek it. We are born in pain and without faculty, yet something about having once held mental faculty makes individuals proud. They rule out that the experience of the individual outside of their capacity to reason matters, or even exists. They perceive, in the inability to seek cause and effect, a world of suffering in which every appetite roams in chaos, desperately seeking its end. But this is not a capacity we are born with. We teach ourselves that our passions matter above all else, and understand reason to be the means of their execution. This is a choice, both on the part of the society and the individual.
And so, I do not see a problem with someone taking their own life in times of illness. I see flaws in the reasoning which lead individuals to such a course of action.
And so, I do not see a problem with someone taking their own life in times of illness. I see flaws in the reasoning which lead individuals to such a course of action.
Why should Jerry Brown decide whether I live or die?
Why should any government toadie or any courtier? My life is just that: Mine. Today I can get up out of bed, get dressed, walk to the nearest intersection, and throw myself in front of a tractor-trailer. Nothing Jerry Brown thinks can prevent this. The difference between me and the terminally ill in the USA is that the terminally ill have fewer options and less chance of perambulating to their deaths. Denying them this right is Discrimination - and worse, it's discrimination on behalf of either fear (that they might not be fully cognizant of what death holds) or religious beliefs (that some invisible Old Man of the Sky might be offended).
Sign the bill. Better yet, remove any laws against suicide, so that there is no legal prevention. Get the government out of deciding whether you live or die. Because government is populated by people whose only skill is at winning popularity contests. Not in deciding what's right for your life.
Why should any government toadie or any courtier? My life is just that: Mine. Today I can get up out of bed, get dressed, walk to the nearest intersection, and throw myself in front of a tractor-trailer. Nothing Jerry Brown thinks can prevent this. The difference between me and the terminally ill in the USA is that the terminally ill have fewer options and less chance of perambulating to their deaths. Denying them this right is Discrimination - and worse, it's discrimination on behalf of either fear (that they might not be fully cognizant of what death holds) or religious beliefs (that some invisible Old Man of the Sky might be offended).
Sign the bill. Better yet, remove any laws against suicide, so that there is no legal prevention. Get the government out of deciding whether you live or die. Because government is populated by people whose only skill is at winning popularity contests. Not in deciding what's right for your life.
6
Jerry Brown is a governor who must sign or not sign passed legislation. Your first statement implies he's playing God, and it sounds hysterical.
2
@DH: I hope you do understand that the first line is both hysterical (now that you mention it) and on point - Jerry Brown is attempting to decide whether I should be permitted to kill myself, if I so choose. I barely trust him to win a popularity contest, I don't trust him at all to know better than I do whether I should be granted state-sanction and not prevented from taking my life, should I choose to do so.
We Americans have such an infantile view of both life and death. Life is supposed to be one positive experience after another, followed by a 'natural,' painless death. Being born is not painless, nor is dying. A natural death is very rare in our age of modern medicine, and unnatural longevity is the enforced modus operandi. Religionists claim that to 'hasten death' is to act as god, and therefore wrong, but conversely, to prolong life, also acting as god, is 'right.' They can continue to believe that way, but their beliefs are theirs, and should not be foisted on those whose beliefs, religious or not, that are in accord with assisted dying. The worst situation for any individual and his or her family is to be struck with a terminal illness and be forced to endure interminable pain and incapacitation that will continue until one's inevitable death.
Governments should not determine the amount of heroic intervention we must endure. Individuals should decide when it's their time to pass on and, should they wish to desist in prolonging the painful death process, that should and must be their human right.
Governments should not determine the amount of heroic intervention we must endure. Individuals should decide when it's their time to pass on and, should they wish to desist in prolonging the painful death process, that should and must be their human right.
29
I have always been for a rational death with dignity law. After watching an elderly aunt die at nearly 100 after 6 months or so suffering in a nursing home because her heart kept pumping and brain kept working long after the rest of her body had wasted away though she had wished for death for many years, I am even more so. Death can be a rational choice. It takes courage and the government should not make it more complicated by creating not just penalties, but a powerful stigma against it where it is appropriate. Obviously, it is something that needs to be done carefully. Obviously, like all human efforts, there will be error and controversy. Possibly even criminal behavior on some occasions. But, mostly, it will be a great relief for some people and their families/friends. As far as I'm concerned, Dr. Kervorkian was a hero and I hope some day he is generally recognized as a civil rights leader, because that's what he was.
39
This law provides state guidelines for committing assisted suicide. Government should stay out of this decision and keep it as simple as possible. Pass a law that protects those who assist suicide in good faith. And let those on their death beds and their closest confidantes make the decision. Having to get signatures from two doctors is particularly onerous. They should call this the assisted suicide law for those who can pay for lawyers and lawyers for their doctors.
8
It's time to honor Dr. Jack Kevorkian without whom this enlightened progress wouldn't be possible. He once said correctly: "Dying is not a crime."
19
Dr. Kevorkian whose medical specialty was pathology also said that he had the expertise to diagnose mental illnesses in his patient and provide proper pain management despite his complete lacking of training in either field.
And if dying is not a crime, practicing medicine without a license is which is what Dr. Kevorkian did.
And if dying is not a crime, practicing medicine without a license is which is what Dr. Kevorkian did.
Inasmuch as opponents of right to die bills are largely religious, I would simply point out that humanity long ago intervened in the life-death equation, and now retains an ability to forestall the inevitable to a point far beyond that anyone could have imagined even 100 years ago. For some this intervention has been a blessing - but for others it has constituted a curse.
We cannot (and should not) undo that which we have already done - but we can and should restore a measure of dignity and autonomy to the process by which the never-to-recover are able to take their leave of us, and this earth.
Again, for those who argue that humanity has no right to intervene, I argue that we already did, long ago - and by conferring a right to die, society would simply be owning up to the darker implications of our technological advances.
We cannot (and should not) undo that which we have already done - but we can and should restore a measure of dignity and autonomy to the process by which the never-to-recover are able to take their leave of us, and this earth.
Again, for those who argue that humanity has no right to intervene, I argue that we already did, long ago - and by conferring a right to die, society would simply be owning up to the darker implications of our technological advances.
51
We allow persons of sound mind to create a living will which specifies a future wish not to have extraordinary measures taken to preserve their lives. Such allowable wishes include "do not resuscitate", no respirators, pacemakers, or even tube feeding, but they do NOT include assisted suicide under any circumstances.
If I suffer from dementia late in life to the extent that I am unable to care for myself and do not recognize friends or family, it is my wish to die as soon as it is established that the condition is irreversible. In the near future, this is likely to become the most common of terminal deaths. Why can we not be allowed to specify assisted suicide in a living will?