Assisted suicide. . . . .legal or not?

[ColinEssex]

There is a TV soap in the UK that featured assisted suicide of a person with pancreatic cancer. She didn't want a long lingering painful death so arranged her own suicide.

There has been discussion about this in the papers as it is illegal to assist someone to die in the UK.

There was also mention that this process is legal in Oregon USA. Is this a good thing or not? What are the defining rules of doing this? Can anyone do it? Anyone from Oregon care to comment?

Col

 

[Brianwarnock]

I think that it should be legal, I do not believe that it is impossible to build in safe guards.

Brian

 

[Rabbie]

There is a case for legalising it but I have heard that in Holland where it is allowed some old people have been put under great pressure to end it all and stop being a drain on their families. There would need to be very strong safeguards in place

 

[Libre]

In any society that are governed by laws, there will be those that will try to game the system, abuse privileges, get away with a crime or apply pressure. This does not mean that the society should abandon all its laws, or refrain from creating new ones as the society changes and its needs evolve.
I think there is a need for legal assisted suicide.
"Primitive" societies have ways of dealing with it.
Why can't we?
End of life care is horrific.
People should be able to end it painlessly.
But in order to proceed a doctor, a lawyer and an accountant have to swear that it is legal. I say an accountant because you should not be able to just quit on your financial obligations by checking out.
There are a lot of details that would have to be worked out, but I think they could be.

 

[Rabbie]

It's not just people quitting on financial obligations by checking out - it's greedy inheritors that could pressurize people into checking out

 

[Libre]

It's not just people quitting on financial obligations by checking out - it's greedy inheritors that could pressurize people into checking out

Yes they could, Rabbie. That's why I said a lawyer would be needed. There will still be cases of abuse. One way to stop the greedy inheritors is to end inheritance. Of course that won't happen. But that didn't stop inheritance laws from being written in the first place. Same thing here. Just because there are those that will attempt to use the law for their own nefarious purposes should not stop the law from being written, because a great many people need it.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I hadn't thought of an accountant, but the detail of the law and the "panel" to give permission could be worked out, also as Libre said there will always be people willing to abuse a situation but that does not mean we should not have the law. If we accept that a percentage of people will be pressured it is still worthwhile for the majority that will be freed from a life of pain and suffering.

There came a time when my wife said "I've had enough, I want to go now" , fortunately she died only several days later, surely it would have been her right to die and not someone else's to keep her alive if that had been possible.

Brian

 

[Vassago]

I believe it should be legal, but only on the basis that:

1. The patient has chosen to do it themselves.
2. The patient has chosen to do so with a clear mind. This means they weren't coerced and they are at peace with the decision. Depression cannot cause you to make this decision.
3. You have all after death arrangements made so as not to be a burden on family. You've taken care of everything.

Proving these things I think will be much harder.

 

[Fifty2One]

My opinion has not changed since the last time the same thread was started...

If you truly love and respect the person you would be assisting, then it should be worth the risk of incarceration or what ever a government will offer up as the deterrent.

I case someone can not remember the thread to save rehashing the same old thing like some like to do, here is a link:
http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=243870

 

[Brianwarnock]

LOL, the same person started both threads, you would think he would remember even if some of us had forgotten.

Brian

 

[Vassago]

I thought we had discussed this before.

 

[ColinEssex]

My opinion has not changed since the last time the same thread was started...


I case someone can not remember the thread to save rehashing the same old thing like some like to do, here is a link:
http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=243870

I am well aware that this has been discussed before, I am not that senile.

If you take time to read both my starter posts, they are different.

This thread refers to the attitude in the UK, and the fact it was highlighted on TV, plus the fact it is legal in Oregon, the main question being, what are the defining rules in Oregon? Can anyone do it? Is it a good thing (for Oregon)?

It would be better if someone knew the answers to those questions, I'm not interested in what people's personal thoughts are.

Here's another question.

In the USA, is it possible for a state to make a law that is at odds with the main government law?
For example, can a state ban guns when it is legal everywhere else? Or can a state make it legal to assist suicide when everywhere else it is illegal? If so, what is the point in central government making laws if individual states can override it?

Col

 

[Vassago]

In the USA, is it possible for a state to make a law that is at odds with the main government law?
For example, can a state ban guns when it is legal everywhere else? Or can a state make it legal to assist suicide when everywhere else it is illegal? If so, what is the point in central government making laws if individual states can override it?

Col

This is actually a very good question that has been coming into scrutiny lately. With some states making laws banning certain parts of the Affordable Healthcare Act and other states making marijuana use and possession legal for personal and recreational use, it's blurring the line between federal laws and state rights. My understanding so far is that marijuana is still federally illegal, so you take your risks if the FBI were to decide to bust you for walking down the street with a bag of weed and a pipe, but state employees will no longer be interested.

We'll see what happens.

 

[Bladerunner]

Dr. Jacob "Jack" Kevorkian: killed (assisted) 130 patients in the 90's. Convicted of second degree murder served 8 years. died without assistance in 2011.

have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Vassago]

Dr. Jacob "Jack" Kevorkian: killed (assisted) 130 patients in the 90's. Convicted of second degree murder served 8 years. died without assistance in 2011.

have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

I think we are all well aware of his case, but what does this have to do with the question? He obviously broke the law, but should the law be changed? Would we be able to reverse and posthumous pardon to him?

 

[Bladerunner]

I think we are all well aware of his case, but what does this have to do with the question? He obviously broke the law, but should the law be changed? Would we be able to reverse and posthumous pardon to him?

Why change the law when I feel it is next to murder which is why I brought him up.

Your going down a slippery slope. We already kill babies in their womb legally, why not go ahead a get rid of the elderly. we don't need them anyway!

Now don't get me wrong, I have been around sick people for the biggest part of my life and have seen death many times over. I really don't know what I would do if my wife of many years was in constant pain. Probably anything I could do to relieve of pain short of suicide. I guess if it come down to it, I would commit murder rather than let her commit the only ' unforgivable sin ' suicide.

Another truth! Weed (M) started out for medical patients only. Then every body got a pain they could not get rid of and now they walk around with a bag under their belts. If assisted suicide is legalized, we will in a very short time period be simply killing people so the younger ones can have more.

Have a nice day:>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

It's not just people quitting on financial obligations by checking out - it's greedy inheritors that could pressurize people into checking out

Not worried about the inheritors, its the gov. that will get most of it. here if you do not have a will, the gov. about 60%


Have a nice day:?)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

I believe it should be legal, but only on the basis that:

1. The patient has chosen to do it themselves.
2. The patient has chosen to do so with a clear mind. This means they weren't coerced and they are at peace with the decision. Depression cannot cause you to make this decision.
3. You have all after death arrangements made so as not to be a burden on family. You've taken care of everything.

Proving these things I think will be much harder.

Good evening Vassago:

What about the patients with dementia or mental problems, Who is going to vote for them or do we leave them with the pain?

Have a nice day:>)
Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

I am well aware that this has been discussed before, I am not that senile.

If you take time to read both my starter posts, they are different.

This thread refers to the attitude in the UK, and the fact it was highlighted on TV, plus the fact it is legal in Oregon, the main question being, what are the defining rules in Oregon? Can anyone do it? Is it a good thing (for Oregon)?

It would be better if someone knew the answers to those questions, I'm not interested in what people's personal thoughts are.

Here's another question.

In the USA, is it possible for a state to make a law that is at odds with the main government law?
For example, can a state ban guns when it is legal everywhere else? Or can a state make it legal to assist suicide when everywhere else it is illegal? If so, what is the point in central government making laws if individual states can override it?

Col

I think I qualify to answer that question since I am a conservative. The constitution is what guarantees our right to carry arms. It is a right. Now the liberals are trying to say everything is a right. NO. Weed is not a right. It is against Federal law and if we had someone in office of the pres. with Balls then Oregon might just loose some of that money we taxpayers are sending them. Some of the ones that carry the weed around would get a little federal time. Yes, they can go into the state and get them no less than what they did to the moonshiners.

Have a nice day:>)
Bladerunner

 

[Libre]

I think I qualify to answer that question since I am a conservative. The constitution is what guarantees our right to carry arms. It is a right. Now the liberals are trying to say everything is a right. NO. Weed is not a right. It is against Federal law and if we had someone in office of the pres. with Balls then Oregon might just loose some of that money we taxpayers are sending them. Some of the ones that carry the weed around would get a little federal time. Yes, they can go into the state and get them no less than what they did to the moonshiners.

Have a nice day:>)
Bladerunner

Why do we need a constitution at all?
Isn't the bible enough to tell us all what's right and wrong?
But we do have a constitution and it was first drafted a few centuries ago.The drafters were smart enough to realize that things could change over time so they made it flexible and changeable - unlike the bible which never changes. And if the constitution is changeable, then they can go and make assisted suicide and weed legal, free the harmless stoners from prison, and make guns illegal for civilians who don't need them except to shoot up schools and movie theaters.
See? Good thing we run things with the constitution instead of the bible, which would have us stoning the stoners. Then they would be both stoners and stonees at the same time!