Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Do you think we should allow those who are suffering in pain with a terminal illness the right to a peaceful death?

missy

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
55,494
Sorry for the long title but wanted to make the topic clear and for those who might find it triggering please stop reading now. Thank you.
My thoughts below. Please share your thoughts too









My answer is yes. 100% yes. Why do we treat our animals more humanely than humans when it comes to dying with peace and dignity in a pain free way? In my mind there is no controversy. If someone is suffering and dying of a painful slow incurable disease why prolong their pain? If they want peace from suffering why not allow them the control to end their suffering?

It makes zero sense to me that this is illegal in so many countries and so many states in the USA. It is, in my mind, a travesty. A huge miscarriage of justice. Not allowing someone the right to end their suffering when we know there is absolutely no future for them.

My DH and I have advanced directives...a living will and power of attorney and DNR if the unfortunate circumstances arise. We know each other's wishes on this matter. If there is no hope of life, No hope of recovery, pull the plug. Life above all else means nothing in certain situations.

I know there are two sides to this story. Never is this an easy decision. Never. Even in the face of certain death it is still a challenge. For the loved ones remaining and for the person making this final decision.

What are your thoughts? If you feel the opposite please explain why.
 
An article that prompted my question this morning

"

Medical Aid in Dying Should Be Legal, Says Ethicist​

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD
DISCLOSURES
January 26, 2024





999172_start.jpg


www.medscape.com

Medical Aid in Dying Should Be Legal, Says Ethicist

Art Caplan discusses legislation to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans.
www.medscape.com


This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I'm Art Caplan. I'm at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.
Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they're terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.
Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, "I'm not going to do that." It's not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they're inevitably going to die.


There's not much we can do about that. It's up to the conscience of each physician as to what they're comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.



One thing that's taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don't have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It's legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.
New Jersey is also being sued. I'll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we've long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.
If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can't restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they're entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I'm not sure about foreign nationals, but I'm very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.
The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can't use this if you have Alzheimer's or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you're not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can't do that, say due to ALS, you're not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It's a pretty restricted intervention.
Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don't use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they're going to stick it out.
Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I'm going to say yes. We've had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it's an option that makes some sense. I'm well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they're dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let's continue to expand availability in each state. Let's also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it's used because they have protected us against abuse. Let's understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It's a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.




I think legalization is the direction we're going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it's something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I'm Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Thank you for watching.




"
 
Yes, I would like to see MAID legalized in CT. The bill has been introduced multiple times but has failed to pass as of yet.
I talked about it with one of our local state legislators recently and she said that her constituents want it so she will continue to try to get it passed.
 
YES!!!
 
mellowyellowgirl said:
Yes!!! 100% yes!!!

Why on earth should anyone get an opinion on someone else’s suffering!
Click to expand...

Yes! I feel the same. And don't get me started on the right to do what we want with our bodies concerning pro choice. Speaking of travesties. At least in the USA (I do not know about Australia) we are going backwards in terms of women's rights. I feel as if I am in the Twilight Zone most of the time now with all that is happening in the world and in the USA specifically. SMH all the time about the incredulous miscarriages of justice everywhere
 
pearlsngems said:
Yes, I would like to see MAID legalized in CT. The bill has been introduced multiple times but has failed to pass as of yet.
I talked about it with one of our local state legislators recently and she said that her constituents want it so she will continue to try to get it passed.
Click to expand...

We have so far to go but each state matters and makes a difference and perhaps makes it easier for other states to pass similar laws

finerthings said:
YES!!!
Click to expand...

!!! :appl:
 
Yes, always have.

Once again, I do not understand how the beliefs and values of others override one's own wishes with regard to *their own* body, life, and in this case, suffering.

Without legal and available resources for those who need & wish for a comfortable and planned end to their suffering, the options before them are either an excruciating, indefinite decline or finding a way to end it themselves with (mostly) unappealing means. I.e. worse and worse unimaginable suffering.

Why wouldn't we offer ourselves the relief of knowing that if we should find ourselves or our loved ones in such a situation, there is a controlled, kind, and gentle alternative.
 
Last edited:
I would not only like to see this, but to see people in the very early stage of Alzheimer's able to choose this down the line. I fear dementia far more than pain.

My motto is: I don't want to outlive my brain or my sphincter.
 
Yes, and I've made clear to both children that this is my wish if available. I will get this added into the legal writ at some point. I also hope it will be an option if one is given a diagnoses of dementia related disease. I don't want to go through that. I would choose to shuffle off this mortal coil with a glad heart and save the ruinous cost, both monetary and emotional to the people I love. It would be my last gift.

They also know I would love a Viking funeral, if they can swing it. Oh, and a bench at the house, so that I can always be a PIA.
 
empliau said:
I would not only like to see this, but to see people in the very early stage of Alzheimer's able to choose this down the line. I fear dementia far more than pain.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It is devastating losing one’s memories and everything that makes that person who they are. It’s a horrible disease


rainydaze said:
Yes, always have.

Once again, I do not understand how the beliefs and values of others override one's own wishes with regard to *their own* body, life, and in this case, suffering.
Click to expand...

Agreed



ItsMainelyYou said:
Yes, and I've made clear to both children that this is my wish if available. I will get this added into the legal writ at some point. I also hope it will be an option if one is given a diagnoses of dementia related disease. I don't want to go through that. I would choose to shuffle off this mortal coil with a glad heart and save the ruinous cost, both monetary and emotional to the people I love. It would be my last gift.

They also know I would love a Viking funeral, if they can swing it. Oh, and a bench at the house, so that I can always be a PIA.
Click to expand...

That’s the way to do it. Now. While all is good and well
 
Yes. We have MAID in my state for which I’m grateful. The law is tightly written and I would like to see it expanded to allow those with dementia to end their lives before they are mentally incapacitated. Dementia is not considered a terminal illness in my state.
 
Definitely!
 
Yes!
 
Absolutely, 100% !!!!!
 
Yes, I certainly do.
 
Yes, 100%.

I actually don't think they should have to be suffering in pain; personally I think if they have a terminal illness with life expectancy less than a year, they should be able to choose death at timing of their choice.

California's End of Life Option Act went into effect on 6/9/2016 and revised 1/1/2022. It allows California residents who are at least 18 years old and have a terminal illness with a life expectancy of 6 months or less to request a medication that will hasten their death.

This practice is also known as "death with dignity" or "physician (doctor) aid in dying." It is not the same as euthanasia, which involves a doctor actually administering drugs to end a patient's life. Euthanasia is not legal in the U.S.

People who wish to exercise this aid in dying option must maintain their decision-making capacity and must independently make this request to a physician. They also must be able to ingest the medication on their own.

Under this law, people who choose to end their lives this way, and who carefully follow the steps as outlined by the legislature, will not be considered to have committed suicide. Rather, they will be considered to have died of the underlying terminal illness. Physicians who prescribe the aid-in-dying medication and follow all the steps of the law, will not be subject to legal liability or professional sanction. Participating in this end-of-life option is voluntary for both patients and physicians.

As a California resident, I really take a lot of comfort knowing this option is available to me should I be diagnosed with a terminal illness.
 
marymm said:
Yes, 100%.

I actually don't think they should have to be suffering in pain; personally I think if they have a terminal illness with life expectancy less than a year, they should be able to choose death at timing of their choice.

California's End of Life Option Act went into effect on 6/9/2016 and revised 1/1/2022. It allows California residents who are at least 18 years old and have a terminal illness with a life expectancy of 6 months or less to request a medication that will hasten their death.

This practice is also known as "death with dignity" or "physician (doctor) aid in dying." It is not the same as euthanasia, which involves a doctor actually administering drugs to end a patient's life. Euthanasia is not legal in the U.S.

People who wish to exercise this aid in dying option must maintain their decision-making capacity and must independently make this request to a physician. They also must be able to ingest the medication on their own.

Under this law, people who choose to end their lives this way, and who carefully follow the steps as outlined by the legislature, will not be considered to have committed suicide. Rather, they will be considered to have died of the underlying terminal illness. Physicians who prescribe the aid-in-dying medication and follow all the steps of the law, will not be subject to legal liability or professional sanction. Participating in this end-of-life option is voluntary for both patients and physicians.

As a California resident, I really take a lot of comfort knowing this option is available to me should I be diagnosed with a terminal illness.
Click to expand...

Yes they have a good law. I think (but could be wrong) one can go to a state where you are allowed "death with dignity" and you no longer have to establish residency in that state to partake in the right to die. As long as you meet the criteria of terminal illness with a life expectancy of 6 months or less. I wish all states would adopt this civilized ruling instead of making those who are suffering travel to find the peace they deserve. It is a hardship (for the individual and their loved ones who might want to be there for them at the time) in a time where not one more thing should be made difficult :(
 
Agree 100%.
 
We treat animals better than humans. Y'all know my answer on this one.
 
I just wanna make it clear, I would never delete myself.
I don't care what they say, under no circumstance I would delete myself.
No matter what you see, what you hear, I didn't delete myself.
 
Yes!

I support a charity called Dignity in Dying in UK, and am signing up to Dignitas for myself.

DK :))
 
Yes, I cannot bare to see any suffering, but do believe there should be some check and balances, like a family member with a power of attorney in place.
 
I’ve always been supportive of this, whether it’s a terminal disease or a condition that would wipe away any ability to maintain autonomy and dignity.

My stance has further strengthened when I watched my father in law take 2 weeks to die after he became bedbound due to pancreatic cancer. I would never ever want someone to have to go through that for themselves.
He had no dignity left. He had a Foley catheter, was wearing a diaper, was jaundiced from head to toe including the whites of his eyes, and was so emaciated. His skin was mottling and turning doughy. He was completely unresponsive because he was receiving so much opioid medication for his pain.
I’ll never forget when he wept in front me and told me he was going to be okay the moment we knew he was going to die in that bed.
 
I have said this before: we are kinder to our pets than we are to the people who are dear to us.

DK :confused2:
 
Absolutely YES. We should be the only ones who determine when and where our life should end. As long as the decision is made when one is of sound mind, then no one should be able to interfere with that.
 
Yes.

Important to not misinterpret this as "euthanasia" since these are two very separate things that seem to get muddled in end-of-life conversations. I am only answering to the question in the thread title. What could be the possible justification for denying someone a peaceful and pain-free death? Of course, we seem to do remarkably little to ensure that people have a peaceful and pain-free life but that, too, is a separate question.

The harder questions, imo, are about people who want to die and have a "good" reason (but maybe not one we agree with) or want to pursue a behavior that will lead to certain death and our forced intervention may be worse than the poor path they are on. Some of these hard gray-area cases have been highlighted in NYT recently -- like mental health and anorexia.

The real abomination -- and one that is fairly new over the past few decades -- is the endless and mindless pursuit of low-yield treatments at the end of life and for only limited marginal gain (i.e., few more weeks in the ICU or months in a nursing home). Somehow this became the benchmark against which rational and compassionate care is now measured -- "You're withholding what?!" No, we are not withholding anything; we are emphasizing the reasonable things.
 
Absolutely! I've been sitting here writing and re-writing my response, but it would be some rambling tirade about letting me die how, when, and where I want.
 
I donate monthly to "Compassion and Choices". Their mission statement is to improving care, expanding options and empowering everyone to chart their end-of-life journey. They also offer incredible informational talks with doctors and support staff on zoom, all you need to do is register to attend. Really incredible resource.

www.compassionandchoices.org

Compassion & Choices | End-of-Life Resources

Compassion & Choices improves care, expands options and empowers everyone to chart their end-of-life journey.
www.compassionandchoices.org www.compassionandchoices.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top