Right to Die

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION]

re: rep: Thanks. That's all I wanted really.

I'm sorry if I came off shitty. I don't mean to. This is sensitive for me. That was really really it... I don't play games. If I say I'm hurt, I'm hurt. Some times I don't act right when I'm hurt and for that I'm sorry.

 

[AJ_]

Worth the 8 minutes: (the author includes writings of individuals who attempted suicide - just another perspective)

[video=youtube;UsIVoKUi-bc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsIVoKUi-bc[/video]

 

[Free]

This subject hits very close to home with me. Not only because once in my life I had also lost the will to live, but also because dementia became something I have devoted my life to.

Some already know that when I was younger my fiancé died in my arms. The car accident also left my right leg in need of 11 surgeries to repair the damage. Whatever physical pain I felt then and whatever chronic pain I am left with now was nothing compared to the mental torment I felt at the time. For years after the accident, I wished I had died along with him. I wished for death on a daily basis and even attempted it on my own. My state of mind then would have gladly allowed me to accept assisted suicide. I was in complete agony, both physically and mentally, and I just wanted the pain to end. I wanted to cease to exist. When I reflect on those moments, and see my life now, it's horrifying to think that had I begged a doctor to help me die, they possibly would have had me evaluated and perhaps implemented that as a plan of treatment.

Now, I do agree with doctor assisted suicide for those that are terminally ill. Recently we had a case in the US of a young mother dying from untreatable cancer who chose to end her life instead of prolonging the inevitable, as it were. She wanted to die with dignity, free from pain, and to leave her children with an image of her as young and healthy- not sick and dying. And I think that is perfectly within an individual's rights to also choose how they wish to die. However, [MENTION=13730]PintoBean[/MENTION] hit the nail on the head for me when she brought up the fact that people suffering from depression or progressive dementia are not of sound mind. It should be a person's right, yes. But I feel that the decision to die should be made when you are able to make clear and rational decisions.

Living wills and advanced directives would be helpful with this, but the laws that are in place to protect patients who "cannot think for themselves" would greatly inhibit assisted suicide for someone suffering from depression or dementia. Especially if there was no legal document expressing an individual's wishes prior to the person's onset of mental illness. In the US, when you cross a certain point with depression or dementia and are no longer considered able to care for yourself, you become a ward of the state with doctors and lawyers making your decisions for you. If you are lucky enough to have someone such as a family member appointed, then they can make these decisions for you. But they will always be made in your best interest to prolong your life and always attempt to increase your quality of life. This is a very grey area where I think the problems would arise. What criteria would be in place to determine a perpetual decrease in quality of life? How would one be able to be evaluated and deemed to be of sound mind for this decision? How would the laws be changed to protect a person's right to choose to die?

My father has severe Alzheimer's and PTSD. I have worked in many nursing homes and mental hospitals, which is why I chose to take leave from work and be his full- time nurse at home. My biggest concern was to preserve his dignity and increase his quality of life. Some nights he wakes up completely terrified of himself and his surroundings. Emotional and physical outbursts are a normal occurrence. It's difficult to see him in constant mental torment. Even in those rare but wonderful lucid moments he has, he has expressed a wish to die. But who determines that? And when that moment has passed, I see his face light up at the sight of our cat jumping into his lap for cuddles. Is that wish still there? Or was it eaten up with the rest of his memories? If a doctor could evaluate him for assisted suicide, who then determines that's the best treatment, myself or my father who can't remember his own name? And it also begs a bigger question, do we as caregivers even have that right? This subject brings up very difficult questions that I agree we should attempt to find the answers for. But I already know that there is no right answer for everyone. Therein lies the struggle.

Depression and especially dementia are very difficult to understand, and more so to "cure", but that will not stop me from at least trying.


<3

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=13729]Free2be[/MENTION]

There are no right answers. We just have to get close enough.

As I said earlier, destigmatizing suicide would go a long way. Making it obvious that we're forcing someone to exist can often indirectly make them more miserable. I hate to use the term 'animal' in this context but people who are not of sound mind can be very animal like, in that they can't fully reason but they know how they feel. You don't want to make an animal feel cornered - it will break their spirit, or even worse cause them to full out attack you.

If someone really wants to die and they aren't in control of their mind fully, I think it is best to direct their attention elsewhere and elevate other things. Help them think they want to live rather than making it obvious that you're forcing them. And we definitely shouldn't scold or reprimand them like some people do.

 

[Free]

[MENTION=13729]Free2be[/MENTION]

There are no right answers. We just have to get close enough.

As I said earlier, destigmatizing suicide would go a long way. Making it obvious that we're forcing someone to exist can often indirectly make them more miserable. I hate to use the term 'animal' in this context but people who are not of sound mind can be very animal like, in that they can't fully reason but they know how they feel. You don't want to make an animal feel cornered - it will break their spirit, or even worse cause them to full out attack you.

If someone really wants to die and they aren't in control of their mind fully, I think it is best to direct their attention elsewhere and elevate other things. Help them think they want to live rather than making it obvious that you're forcing them. And we definitely shouldn't scold or reprimand them like some people do.

Agreed. <3

 

[j654dgj7]

There are no right answers. We just have to get close enough.

It's like we're not perfect and just left with our opinions, or something.
How about we use that realization to let people in pain do what they want with their lives?

 

[Cornerstone]

It makes me uneasy too to see an institution having that kind of control over a patient... Even if it is in the name of respecting "basic" human rights. Also mental institutions have been for a long time under scrutiny when it comes to respecting one's rights and unfair use of power over their patients.

Is the right to die a 'basic' human right? Where has this come from?

What is there in any culture in any time or any location where the idea that someone can end their life as and when they want to suggest that this is true? There isn't any. War is the closest parallel. Life is usually too fragile to begin with to get the point where this is debated. It is an issue very specific to our culture of materialism and scientific rationalism which is an anomaly when it comes to human attitudes toward life and the universe and by no means definitely 'progress', even if it was named 'the enlightenment'.

There is no evidence to show that other than the existence of free will, which is not as independent of other psychic factors as we like to think. Until the general public in the West are as aware of their own unconscious psyche, which includes figures that deliberately mislead the ego, as they are of their physiology (e.g. basic maintenance of organs) then this should not be an option for psychiatric patients. The people who really are determined to commit suicide do it. Parasuicide is extremely common and it is very common for the person not really trying to end their lives to be utterly convinced that they are.

I realise you were agreeing with me. I quoted mostly to comment on the idea of this being a 'basic human right' which it seemed like you were questioning too.

 

[SpecialEdition]

I never trust institutional decision making. Why should we?

I say if people want to be dead, let them be dead. I don't really see the problem.

 

[j654dgj7]

I say if people want to be dead, let them be dead. I don't really see the problem.

Yep. It's either helping them, or pushing them to commit suicide, which is infinitely more sad and painful for everyone involved.

 

[PintoBean]

I say if people want to be dead, let them be dead. I don't really see the problem.

Maybe if it was someone near and dear to you, someone young with a significant chance of healing, you would see the problem. Also, the problem to me is not that they want to be dead, but rather that institutions are given the power to let mentally ill people sign their lives away. That is the crux of the matter and the deadly slippery slope. Mentally ill people are not bound to or even allowed to negotiate many other contracts, why one in which they sign their own death warrant?

 

[Eventhorizon]

I find this story exceptionally hard to swallow. In short I simply cant believe it. If the diagnosis is that the best option in this situation is to end the persons life, they need to get them to an establishment that can give a 3rd, 4th and 10th opinions if needed.
I know that depression for some can be suffering on the most profound level but to prescribe death as a cure is so insane...

 

[SpecialEdition]

Maybe if it was someone near and dear to you, someone young with a significant chance of healing, you would see the problem. Also, the problem to me is not that they want to be dead, but rather that institutions are given the power to let mentally ill people sign their lives away. That is the crux of the matter and the deadly slippery sloap. Mentally ill people are not bound to or even allowed to negotiate many other contracts, why one in which they sign their own death warrant?

I am not selfish enough that I would want someone with life long mental illness who has made several attempts on their own life and who is in perpetual psychological agony to continue with life just to make me feel better.

 

[sprinkles]

Maybe if it was someone near and dear to you, someone young with a significant chance of healing, you would see the problem. Also, the problem to me is not that they want to be dead, but rather that institutions are given the power to let mentally ill people sign their lives away. That is the crux of the matter and the deadly slippery sloap. Mentally ill people are not bound to or even allowed to negotiate many other contracts, why one in which they sign their own death warrant?

Mentally ill people are not necessarily incompetent. It takes a hearing to be rendered incompetent and a lot of people check themselves in and retain their full rights.

I know because it's happened to me several times. I've been hospitalized so called "voluntarily" which means they expect you to check yourself in - with the alternative being they throw you in anyway and take it to court.

Legally I am of sound mind and have never been otherwise even though I've been in institutions several times. I retain my full rights to make and negotiate contracts.

 

[invisible]

i agree with it completely. i apprehend depression as a complex illness that makes life unworthwhile and is not always treatable. i myself have been lucky that i respond so well to medications, but people do not always respond to treatment, and i think that kind of existence is a hell that no one can comprehend unless they are in it. i just think it is very difficult to implement this sort of thing.

i will certainly commit suicide when i am older. i do not want to be incompetent to direct my engagement with my own life, and im sure there will be a certain point of incompetence i will cross at which life will no longer be worthwhile to me. if i am not able to kill myself after that point, i hope someone in my life will drag me out the back and shoot me, as they say. my mother has made it clear that she expects the same thing of me and if and when the time comes i will comply with her wishes. i will not be twiddling around with legal institutions, although it would be helpful if they could be cooperative. i will make sure she goes out on a super high, surrounded by her loved ones.

 

[sprinkles]

i agree with it completely. i apprehend depression as a complex illness that makes life unworthwhile and is not always treatable. i myself have been lucky that i respond so well to medications, but people do not always respond to treatment, and i think that kind of existence is a hell that no one can comprehend unless they are in it. i just think it is very difficult to implement this sort of thing.

i will certainly commit suicide when i am older. i do not want to be incompetent to direct my engagement with my own life, and im sure there will be a certain point of incompetence i will cross at which life will no longer be worthwhile to me. if i am not able to kill myself after that point, i hope someone in my life will drag me out the back and shoot me, as they say. my mother has made it clear that she expects the same thing of me and if and when the time comes i will comply with her wishes. i will not be twiddling around with legal institutions, although it would be helpful if they could be cooperative. i will make sure she goes out on a super high, surrounded by her loved ones.

Yes. The scary thing is losing agency.

As it stands now, no matter how messed up I get I can still do something. Even if it's wrong, even if it is round about, I have the power of imagination and will. I can reason for myself. I can defend myself. I can ultimately change my position. If I lose that ability then I completely fall upon the mercy of the world and just have to hope that people are nice enough to me because I won't be able to do anything about it if they aren't. With the way things have been lately, I don't have that hope.

 

[invisible]

Yes. The scary thing is losing agency.

As it stands now, no matter how messed up I get I can still do something. Even if it's wrong, even if it is round about, I have the power of imagination and will. I can reason for myself. I can defend myself. I can ultimately change my position. If I lose that ability then I completely fall upon the mercy of the world and just have to hope that people are nice enough to me because I won't be able to do anything about it if they aren't. With the way things have been lately, I don't have that hope.

yes and i fear that if someone were to assume control of my agency and to exercise it for me, that my existence would effectively be defined as an aspect or extension of the agency of that person, that i would in some sense be living only as a part of them. of course i recognise that they would probably see it in a much more caring way than that, and that there would (hopefully) be truth that it would be an expression of caring.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I am not selfish enough that I would want someone with life long mental illness who has made several attempts on their own life and who is in perpetual psychological agony to continue with life just to make me feel better.

I don't think the "issue" of bystander's feelings about suicide are relevant, whether they feel better, or worse, about someone taking their life. It really shouldn't be relevant to the discussion.

The three areas that need to be more central imho are:
1. Legal/moral issues of assisting others to die; especially if a right exists to suicide, there is an implied obligation on others to render assistance. Ie. can anyone and everyone realistically be obliged to help someone die? If not, there is an implied problem with the action; because people cannot be obliged by the argument of necessary assistance for what is a legal right, if what they are being obliged to do is something bad. (Following the law, or orders is never a defense in wrongdoing).
2. Philosophical acceptance of hopeless situations. While medical impossibilities are real, psychological impossibilities are arguable. To accept suicide on the grounds of impossible improvement in suffering/depression enshrines a philosophical outlook, which contradicts the implied outlook of medicine, including psychiatry - that treatment should be attempted.
3. The legal/moral issue of enshrining a right to suicide. A right should be universal; that if it is acceptable for anyone to do something, it is right for everyone to do something. Obviously, if a large number of people are suffering (eg. during times of war, recession, ecconomic depression, etc.) it would not be right for a vast percentage of the population to suicide.

Personally, I think you cannot implement a "right to die" legally, without opening too many contentious issues. Rather, I think that, as at present, if someone wants to kill themselves they're gonna do it. And if someone is too incapacitated to do it, palliative care - even with a superabundance of pain killers, or even semi-illicit drugs should be the go-to option. Perhaps, the legalisation of certain drugs in palliative care could be explored.

 

[SpecialEdition]

I don't think the "issue" of bystander's feelings about suicide are relevant, whether they feel better, or worse, about someone taking their life. It really shouldn't be relevant to the discussion.

The three areas that need to be more central imho are:
1. Legal/moral issues of assisting others to die; especially if a right exists to suicide, there is an implied obligation on others to render assistance. Ie. can anyone and everyone realistically be obliged to help someone die? If not, there is an implied problem with the action; because people cannot be obliged by the argument of necessary assistance for what is a legal right, if what they are being obliged to do is something bad. (Following the law, or orders is never a defense in wrongdoing).
2. Philosophical acceptance of hopeless situations. While medical impossibilities are real, psychological impossibilities are arguable. To accept suicide on the grounds of impossible improvement in suffering/depression enshrines a philosophical outlook, which contradicts the implied outlook of medicine, including psychiatry - that treatment should be attempted.
3. The legal/moral issue of enshrining a right to suicide. A right should be universal; that if it is acceptable for anyone to do something, it is right for everyone to do something. Obviously, if a large number of people are suffering (eg. during times of war, recession, ecconomic depression, etc.) it would not be right for a vast percentage of the population to suicide.

Personally, I think you cannot implement a "right to die" legally, without opening too many contentious issues. Rather, I think that, as at present, if someone wants to kill themselves they're gonna do it. And if someone is too incapacitated to do it, palliative care - even with a superabundance of pain killers, or even semi-illicit drugs should be the go-to option. Perhaps, the legalisation of certain drugs in palliative care could be explored.

I do not agree with keeping someone alive for the sake of keeping them alive.

I imagine they don't grant euthanasia requests lightly and there are certain protocols that are adhered to before making that decision.

In my opinion, I believe that all avenues should be sufficiently exhausted before granting someone their wish to die, but I do not think that a human being needs to be treated like a medical experiment by pumping them full of different chemicals just to see if they can finally find the right combo of meds which they themselves will have negative side effects.

I find preserving life against the wishes of a person is terrible.

 

[invisible]

those are meaningful difficulties FA, but not insurmountable. for example, in 1, i dont think it necessarily follows that just because a legal right exists, that every person should be described as legally competent to assist in executing the legal right. in 2, depression is in fact considered to be a medical condition, that is treated in mainstream medical hospital facilities, staffed by medical professionals and fully equipped for the purpose - but that as with other medical conditions, treatment options are not unlimited. im not sure about 3, but i think what we are talking about here is not the desperation of poverty, but rather diagnosable medical problems, not reasonably ascribable to situation or other similar factors, that resist resolution by available means. or maybe it is to do with a quality of life?

i see myself that there are difficulties implementing it, but not that all attempts to make it possible should be abandoned just because it is difficult.

people will commit suicide unofficially through administration of overdose quantities of pharmaceuticals. but what is the purpose of lying about it officially, when we recognise it as a humane necessity? wouldnt it be better to provide safe and understanding facilitation and assistance?

 

[invisible]

i find myself wondering seriously about the need to actively preserve life. it seems almost to be a difference between on one hand, THEIR right to THEIR life, and on the other hand, SOCIETY'S right to THEIR life. i think that maybe if society is willing to take responsibility for withholding that individuals right to dispose of their life as they choose, then society should be willing in some significant way to responsibly provide for the life of that person. yet, if that person themselves, due to considerable pain or other interference of some variety, is unable to contribute in any meaningful way to society, how can the state justify the burden of the life of this person to taxpayers?