Assisted suicide

should it be legalized?

what are the circumstances in which such practice is acceptable, if ever?

You mean euthenasia?

Hmm that's a tough one, I mean I think the concern is really about the state of mind of the individual at the time. I do know that you can have a "living will" whereby if you end up on life support you can have it built in that they switch the machine off.

actually i didn't mean euthanasia, but now that you mention it, that should be included too. assisted suicide is not the same as active or passive euthanasia, although it could be argued that it contains elements of both. it is simply when a physician prescribes a lethal dose of medication so that a patient may take it in their own time. currently it is legal in the netherlands, belgium, and one state-oregon.

active euthanasia is administering a lethal injection or giving a patient treatment (such as a substance which works gradually) which is deliberately intended to hasten the dying process. passive euthanasia is withholding treatment which would normally be helpful to a patient but that, because of circumstance, is deemed useless - thus allowing nature to take its course.

another question: involuntary euthanasia. this is legal in the netherlands, where a physician may kill a patient (regardless of intention, that's what it is) using either passive or active methods without that person's consent if it is deemed the best course of action. any thoughts on this?

"it is simply when a physician prescribes a lethal dose of medication so that a patient may take it in their own time. currently it is legal in the netherlands, belgium, and one state-oregon"

Wow I never knew that - I take it that this is only for the terminally ill then?

As for the latter I don't agree with that at all, I mean without the consent of the patient surely that's just wrong?

no, it's not only for the terminally ill, which tends to raise some concern. in the netherlands, even children who are 16 years old can request PAS (physician assisted suicide). physicians are required by law to go through a "filtering process" to assess the individual's psychological state, but whether this is a reliable method is questionable. especially because approximately half of the cases of PAS and euthanasia are not legally reported.

Wheels that is honestly mad beyond belief. I mean who is to say you can rely on some physician's assesment? People can and do make mistakes. And who exactly would qualify for this assisted suicide anyway?

"without the consent of the patient surely that's just wrong?"

that depends on who you ask. i'm definitely not trying to paint a picture of these evil doctors who just want to kill their patients; in fact, a lot of doctors who participate in either PAS or euth have to take a day off afterward as they feel the burden of making another life-altering decision (no matter how small) is too much to handle. one would think, is this practice even healthy for physicians? why do they do it if it takes such a toll? this is a complex matter that i really can't begin to understand.

"this is a complex matter that i really can't begin to understand"

Ditto, I didn't even know this existed until you mentioned it there!

"And who exactly would qualify for this assisted suicide anyway?"

someone who is deemed to be "psychologically stable and capable of making a rational decision". in oregon, people who submit a request in most cases - but not all - are referred to a psychiatrist to determine if they can make such a decision. however, with patients suffering from alzheimer's and other mentally debilitating diseases, things get a little fuzzy.

"Ahh, so only doctors would have the right to assist in ones suicide?"

legally, yes.

"There are so many money hungry people waiting for their family members to die so they can collect on their life insurance and what not. Countless other things that can go wrong as well. Not sure how they would regulate it."

this is true. the term euthanasia is greek, meaning easy death. with all the unhappy and depressed humans we have on this planet, it paints a grim picture. as for the money, these lethal medications cost around $ 50 in most cases, as compared to the massively expensive processes some people must go through to stay alive. but this is where the value of human life comes into question. and that is a messy subject.

"People can and do make mistakes."

that they do. is dying "before your time" a mistake? when is it not? how can anyone reasonably answer that question?

is controlling your own death the ultimate exercise in autonomy or the complete extinction of it?

does killing a patient or prescribing them drugs to kill themselves violate the ethical responsibilities of a physician?

I'm on the fence with this topic. On one hand I say yes because it is out of mercy but on the other hand there are so many complications that come with it and we're talking about killing (I know, I know. I'm a hypocrite when it comes to people compared to other beings).

But even with the filtering process how exactly would you determine if it is the right course of action to take. Who is to judge what is right and wrong for this person. Sure it's up to the individual whether or not they want to but really how do you even come with a legitimate reason to even take that route. Let's not forget big corporations sinking their mitts on other people's money helping them die.

But there is also the fact that this person is dying inside slowly in agonizing pain and the only way to end the suffering is to end it completely. and performing an act of mercy would be the right thing to do.

This is actually a question geared towards an individual as to and we cannot completely, collectively agree on one thing. I guess my answer would be maybe but you'd have to have a damned good reason to allow this to happen. I honestly can't come to a conclusion on this and I usually view things in black and white. There is just oo many things to weigh.

I remember reading a field report about this a few months ago about an unregistered doctor offering this for cheap to people who didn't know what they were going in for. Which probably changed my views on it a bit.

"They are available, but sometimes people need to be led to them."

in all places where these practices have been legalized, physicians are also legally required to discuss alternatives with the patient prior to writing a prescription or administering an injection. many people say that focusing on providing better palliative care (psychological as well as physiological) would eliminate the perceived need for assisted suicide or euthanasia. however, this does not alleviate the glaring financial benefits of PAS/euth that HMOs tend to focus on.

as for court intervention in these cases, for someone who truly is suffering so badly that they want to end their life, this may slow down the process quite a bit. also, what is considered legal is not always considered ethical. is the court any better authorized to say who is ready or allowed to end their life than a medical professional or psychiatrist?

in cases of active and passive euthanasia, this also creates some problems for court intervention. sometimes doctors accidentally OD patients, sad but true. how do you distinguish between what is deliberate and what is accidental?

as for court intervention in these cases, for someone who truly is suffering so badly that they want to end their life, this may slow down the process quite a bit. also, what is considered legal is not always considered ethical. is the court any better authorized to say who is ready or allowed to end their life than a medical professional or psychiatrist?

^ Exactly. It's a judgement call. Which is why this will always be a controversial subject. You'd be wasting a ton of taxpayers' money too trying to figure out whther or nto a person should die.

something else for thought: if assisted suicide or euthanasia are legalized, will there be any incentive to improve palliative care at all? or will the quality degenerate until cheaper options become, not just an alternative, but the best option?

the policies in the netherlands are much more liberal, but in oregon the "death with dignity act" requires that the patient submit a signed written request in the presence of two witnesses, and then submit another request no earlier than 15 days later (i suppose to ensure that they're certain). so, it is reasonably strictly regulated. but are these safeguards (or whatever you'd like to call them) truly reliable? there have been incidences of "physician/psychiatrist shopping" done by relatives of patients who have alzheimer's. if the patient is rejected by one psychiatrist as being mentally incapable of making such a decision, they are taken to another one until they get an approval. that person signs a request in the presence of witnesses and submits a request two days later. that person is killed, and the court says, legally so. but was it really their choice?

*two = 15

on the other hand, we have people with lou gehrig's disease, who physically can not sign, and yet may rather die than live without being able to move.

Justice at what cost? We are talking about a person's life and money. Morality plays a huge part into this also and throwing out the book on ethics makes it wrong on so many levels. I guess I'm weighing the masses over the individual. But do we honestly need to add to an already stacked pallet of problems that we already have at the cost of the general populous. It's just too easy to manipulate the system like Wheels had stated. If it were limited to private practices it would probably reduce the likeliness of this but then you'd be disallowing a "treatment" to the general public. It might also lead to major malpractice suits against said practices. We cannot just go in feeling that justice needs to be served for the sake of it. Let's not forget all the anti death protests that would arise if the situation were to come up. this would cause another nuisance. We need to carefully weigh everything into the equation and the equation cannot be answered correctly because there are just too many variables that would change the end. Why did I bring money into the argument? Stupid, stupid, stupid!

I get that it's a choice on the individual's part but which choice is the right choice. Would that person be making the right one even though it is their choice to do so. Even with the consent how much of a burden would it actually be if you could have actually saved that person. I'm thinking way ahead now with magic pills and special treatments which would be pointless to bring up now. What if the vote of the courts were to deny the request due to a backlash from the people or personal issues against said treatment or by some shadowy figures working in the background because sometimes the courts could be swayed to choose the option of saying either yes or no. Say the courts rule nay on it and they find an alternative source to perform the act. Again it is their choice. But really it's a matter of choice over everything else. Also wouldn't having the courts side with the person be sort of a mob mentally saying it's alright to somewhat take your own life leading to the person choosing an action because they saw it acceptable in the eyes of the courts where really it wasn't necessary. Anyone vying for this option must seriously weigh the consequences and ask themselves do I really want to die? Or must I suffer and let nature take it's course or wait for something to save me. It's just too easy to lead someone on when their state of mind is to end it all.

Let's not forget that someway, somehow someone will find a loophole in the legal system which could possibly lead to a wrongful killing of a person who unjustly got what they wanted without thinking it through.

With consent of willing patient and willing physician.

people are willing to do a lot of things. and this means it should be done?

not "attacking" your view, just trying to stimulate some thought here.

scenario: i go to the doctor. he prescribes me pills that will kill me. i buy them, swallow them, and fully believe i'm going to die. however, instead, i am put into a drug induced coma because the drugs did not work as expected. what happens next?

one possibility is that i come out of this coma. after narrowly escaping death, i decide i don't want to die after all.