I did a term paper on this subject back in my college days. I was in full support of it. I think we all have the right to die with dignity

Hawaii lawmakers approve medical aid in dying for terminally ill

Hawaii would become the seventh U.S. state to legalize physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients under legislation passed by the state Senate on Thursday and sent to the governor. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hawai...SKBN1H606J

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

I disagree. This is the first step in a very slippery slope.

1. Add to the terminally ill who are suffering the terminally ill who are not suffering, but just want it to be over.
2. Then add the ones who are not terminally ill, but have a poor quality of life. By law, or by self-inflicted terminal illness.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/qualifying-for-euthanasia-by-self-starvation-in-canada/

3. Next add the ones who's children are tired of taking care of them or find them a financial burden and bully them into claiming the need for assisted suicide.
4. Of course, some terminally ill patients are not lucid enough to make such a decision, so we'll euthanize them too.
5. What about the extremely mentally ill? "Spending money to keep them alive is such a waste."
6. Who decides whether the mental illness is extreme? Maybe we push the boundary towards the merely mentally handicapped.
7. We could solve the Federal budget deficit if we just euthanized everyone over 65 ... 64 ... 63 ...
8. Conservatives are a bunch of racists and a menace to society. Let's just euthanize all of them.

And it's not just a theoretical slippery slope. Many of the early steps have already been taken by the Netherlands.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

And it's not just a theoretical slippery slope. Many of the early steps have already been taken by the Netherlands.

By the way, I'm still waiting on whatever source you have that says there are people being euthanized without consent over here. Don't think I forget about that.

---

I disagree. This is the first step in a very slippery slope.

1. Add to the terminally ill who are suffering the terminally ill who are not suffering, but just want it to be over.
2. Then add the ones who are not terminally ill, but have a poor quality of life. By law, or by self-inflicted terminal illness.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/qualifying-for-euthanasia-by-self-starvation-in-canada/

3. Next add the ones who's children are tired of taking care of them or find them a financial burden and bully them into claiming the need for assisted suicide.
4. Of course, some terminally ill patients are not lucid enough to make such a decision, so we'll euthanize them too.
5. What about the extremely mentally ill? "Spending money to keep them alive is such a waste."
6. Who decides whether the mental illness is extreme? Maybe we push the boundary towards the merely mentally handicapped.
7. We could solve the Federal budget deficit if we just euthanized everyone over 65 ... 64 ... 63 ...
8. Conservatives are a bunch of racists and a menace to society. Let's just euthanize all of them.

And it's not just a theoretical slippery slope. Many of the early steps have already been taken by the Netherlands.

I don't know about the Netherlands part of your post but I completely understand where you're coming from on this and I agree with you on a good amount of it. A good lesson to remember is what happened when the Rockefeller foundation starting pushing for eugenics programs. And how NAZI like it was in nature when they started targeting mental patients for sterilizations and so forth. It's a very, very slippery slope.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

And it's not just a theoretical slippery slope. Many of the early steps have already been taken by the Netherlands.

By the way, I'm still waiting on whatever source you have that says there are people being euthanized without consent over here. Don't think I forget about that.

Check the other thread. I posted a link from the New England Journal of Medicine in response to your request shortly after you asked.

EDIT: Here's another link that cites specific cases:

Euthanasia in The Netherlands

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Good. Decisions at the end of life should be left to the person whose life is ending. I would rather die while I'm still here mentally than spend any length of time as a vegetable, and if I've got a life expectancy of six months and a world of ongoing pain ahead of me, I'd like the option to go out before that suffering becomes overwhelming.

---

Good. Decisions at the end of life should be left to the person whose life is ending. I would rather die while I'm still here mentally than spend any length of time as a vegetable, and if I've got a life expectancy of six months and a world of ongoing pain ahead of me, I'd like the option to go out before that suffering becomes overwhelming.

You can always opt out. Doctors should not help you do it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Good. Decisions at the end of life should be left to the person whose life is ending. I would rather die while I'm still here mentally than spend any length of time as a vegetable, and if I've got a life expectancy of six months and a world of ongoing pain ahead of me, I'd like the option to go out before that suffering becomes overwhelming.

You can always opt out. Doctors should not help you do it.

Why not?

As long as we the taxpayer aren't footing the bill for it, and the person has the money to commit suicide by peaceful drugs, go for it. From what I've heard lots of Doctors do it anyway.

---

I think euthanasia should've been legalized long ago. If a person is terminal with no hope of recovery and they are in constant, un-ending pain. They should be allowed to go out on their own terms. Who are we to tell them they have to ride it out?

---

And it's not just a theoretical slippery slope. Many of the early steps have already been taken by the Netherlands.

By the way, I'm still waiting on whatever source you have that says there are people being euthanized without consent over here. Don't think I forget about that.

If your medical POA says its alright, then you have consent. Nothing to do with the patient at that point, but you still have it.

As a healthcare provider, I would not assist in suicide. I have been involved in withdraw care/pallative care, but theres a big difference between giving someone a good death by removing pain etc, then actively trying to kill them. I have no problem with nature taking its course, but I will not actually engage in the killing. Also, it is still a federal crime, no matter what kooks in Hawaii say.

---

Good. Decisions at the end of life should be left to the person whose life is ending. I would rather die while I'm still here mentally than spend any length of time as a vegetable, and if I've got a life expectancy of six months and a world of ongoing pain ahead of me, I'd like the option to go out before that suffering becomes overwhelming.

You can always opt out. Doctors should not help you do it.

100% agree, its not like there aren't any guns in the US.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

I think euthanasia should've been legalized long ago. If a person is terminal with no hope of recovery and they are in constant, un-ending pain. They should be allowed to go out on their own terms. Who are we to tell them they have to ride it out?

Do you also think terminally-ill patients who are not in pain should be given euthanasia on request?
Do you also think patients who are in pain but not terminally-ill should be given euthanasia on request?
Do you also think mentally ill patients who are otherwise healthy should be given euthanasia on request?
How about those who are mentally-incapacitated and incapable of deciding? Should they be euthanized on the request of the family?
Do you also think doctors should be required by law to perform euthanasia on their patients if their patients meet the legal criteria?

All of those things eventually end up as part of the package when euthanasia is legalized.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

It's a short step from "I want to die with dignity" to "We want grandma to die with dignity."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

And now it's been soundly rejected by the NorthEast. If you've lost Connecticut you've lost the battle.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I know someone (in their late 30's) whose spouse is terminally ill with a brain tumor.  The slow evolution of pending death is something that I don't wish on my worst enemy.  There are some things that you just cannot reverse and for those, I applaud approval of such drugs to end the pain and suffering which extends much more beyond just the person that is terminally ill.

... very sad

---

I think euthanasia should've been legalized long ago. If a person is terminal with no hope of recovery and they are in constant, un-ending pain. They should be allowed to go out on their own terms. Who are we to tell them they have to ride it out?

Do you also think terminally-ill patients who are not in pain should be given euthanasia on request? Yes
Do you also think patients who are in pain but not terminally-ill should be given euthanasia on request? Yes
Do you also think mentally ill patients who are otherwise healthy should be given euthanasia on request? Yes
How about those who are mentally-incapacitated and incapable of deciding? Should they be euthanized on the request of the family? Yes
Do you also think doctors should be required by law to perform euthanasia on their patients if their patients meet the legal criteria? No, but there should be a doctor on duty at every hospital 24 hrs/day who agrees to be that person.

All of those things eventually end up as part of the package when euthanasia is legalized. Fine.

---

100% agree, its not like there aren't any guns in the US.

As someone who's lost a family member to a Beretta against the right temple, there is nothing peaceful or dignified about going out that way. If an adult who is terminally ill wishes to die rather than deal with two years of constant pain and massive medical bills for treatments designed to buy them another month here, another couple weeks there, then they should have the option of a peaceful death available to them. It's never going to be something allowed at the federal level, because big pharma will go thousands of miles out of their way to make sure they keeping getting $10,000 per month from someone who's going to die in three painful months anyway.

It's a short step from "I want to die with dignity" to "We want grandma to die with dignity."

No, it's really not. This is not Monty Python. The body collector is not going to club Grandpa on the head.

---

100% agree, its not like there aren't any guns in the US.

As someone who's lost a family member to a Beretta against the right temple, there is nothing peaceful or dignified about going out that way. If an adult who is terminally ill wishes to die rather than deal with two years of constant pain and massive medical bills for treatments designed to buy them another month here, another couple weeks there, then they should have the option of a peaceful death available to them. It's never going to be something allowed at the federal level, because big pharma will go thousands of miles out of their way to make sure they keeping getting $10,000 per month from someone who's going to die in three painful months anyway.

It's a short step from "I want to die with dignity" to "We want grandma to die with dignity."

No, it's really not. This is not Monty Python. The body collector is not going to club Grandpa on the head.

Lol, you couldn't be more wrong. How long do you think, in this era of corporate and government-funded healthcare, it will take the bill payers to figure out that you can bend the cost curve significantly downward if you only offer the Death Pills once a terminal diagnosis is given? 

UniteBluCigMana Rep: "Sorry, that treatment protocol is no longer on the Medicare benefits schedule and we follow federal medical policy. You want to appeal? Ok, so why should we spend $10,000 per treatment to keep you alive for an additional few years?  Authorization denied, but we'll cover the cost of your Nembutal, that only sets us back thirty bucks. Oh, you wanna live? Ok, but it's all out of pocket for you. Good luck finding the doctors, facilities, and drugs you need."

For someone who doesn't trust corporations or the government you sure are eager to give them the power to kill you.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

As someone who's lost a family member to a Beretta against the right temple, there is nothing peaceful or dignified about going out that way. If an adult who is terminally ill wishes to die rather than deal with two years of constant pain and massive medical bills for treatments designed to buy them another month here, another couple weeks there, then they should have the option of a peaceful death available to them. It's never going to be something allowed at the federal level, because big pharma will go thousands of miles out of their way to make sure they keeping getting $10,000 per month from someone who's going to die in three painful months anyway.

No, it's really not. This is not Monty Python. The body collector is not going to club Grandpa on the head.

Lol, you couldn't be more wrong. How long do you think, in this era of corporate and government-funded healthcare, it will take the bill payers to figure out that you can bend the cost curve significantly downward if you only offer the Death Pills once a terminal diagnosis is given? 

UniteBluCigMana Rep: "Sorry, that treatment protocol is no longer on the Medicare benefits schedule and we follow federal medical policy. You want to appeal? Ok, so why should we spend $10,000 per treatment to keep you alive for an additional few years?  Authorization denied, but we'll cover the cost of your Nembutal, that only sets us back thirty bucks. Oh, you wanna live? Ok, but it's all out of pocket for you. Good luck finding the doctors, facilities, and drugs you need."

For someone who doesn't trust corporations or the government you sure are eager to give them the power to kill you.

A policy that requires those with a terminal illness to commit suicide or lose health insurance.

Yeah, that'll make it past the legislature.

---

Lol, you couldn't be more wrong. How long do you think, in this era of corporate and government-funded healthcare, it will take the bill payers to figure out that you can bend the cost curve significantly downward if you only offer the Death Pills once a terminal diagnosis is given? 

UniteBluCigMana Rep: "Sorry, that treatment protocol is no longer on the Medicare benefits schedule and we follow federal medical policy. You want to appeal? Ok, so why should we spend $10,000 per treatment to keep you alive for an additional few years?  Authorization denied, but we'll cover the cost of your Nembutal, that only sets us back thirty bucks. Oh, you wanna live? Ok, but it's all out of pocket for you. Good luck finding the doctors, facilities, and drugs you need."

For someone who doesn't trust corporations or the government you sure are eager to give them the power to kill you.

A policy that requires those with a terminal illness to commit suicide or lose health insurance.

Yeah, that'll make it past the legislature.

Requires no, but pays for anything else? Absolutely.

85 cents of every Health care dollar spent in America is spent on someone in their last 12 months of life. You give the payer the option to save that by early termination then they will certainly take it.

Get used to authorization denials on the front and denials for medical necessity on the back end. You're going to die no matter what, so save us all the trouble (and more importantly the cost) and just take the pill already.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

A policy that requires those with a terminal illness to commit suicide or lose health insurance.

Yeah, that'll make it past the legislature.

Requires no, but pays for anything else? Absolutely.

85 cents of every Health care dollar spent in America is spent on someone in their last 12 months of life. You give the payer the option to save that by early termination then they will certainly take it.

Get used to authorization denials on the front and denials for medical necessity on the back end. You're going to die no matter what, so save us all the trouble (and more importantly the cost) and just take the pill already.

Never looked at it like that, huh I could totally see that happening. I was doing some Google checking on the topic and found all kinds of articles about people being put down around the world over very controversal circumstances some even without consent.

---