PDA

View Full Version : Assisted Suicide


jonathan7
12-15-2008, 09:34 AM
Much has been in the British media this week about the topic of assisted suicide, do you think it should or shouldn't be allowed?

Example; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5337761.ece

Please don't make me regret creating this topic :xp: - j7

Achilles
12-15-2008, 10:25 AM
Yes, it should absolutely be allowed.

If an animal is suffering and can't be helped, the "humane" thing to do is help it die a quicker death. If an human is suffering and can't be helped, the "ethical" thing to do is prolong the suffering as long as possible. Logical disconnect?

Bee Hoon
12-15-2008, 10:28 AM
Good topic!

My feelings on this has always been ambivalent--on one hand, there is church dogma dictating that suicide is a fast track to hell and that life is sacred (which I still think it is). On the other hand, is it really right to be the one to dictate how a person should live the remainder of his/her life?

And the fact remains that it does boil down to a question of quality of life. For example, how happy can you be if you're bedridden? It's painful to watch, and presumably even worse to experience. How many people would like to lie inert, fed through a tube, diapered, being bathed by someone else?

As with all things, there is also the potential for abuse--I vaguely recall pressure from relatives being cited as an example. I recall that the answer to that was to smother it in regulations, e.g. counseling by a few independent psychologists/psychiatrists, being offered palliative care, etc.

Yet, in the end, my reluctant conclusion is that I would support it--if only because I fear the day when I will not be given this freedom to choose.

Astor
12-15-2008, 12:12 PM
I think it should be allowed, only so long as it is the person's choice (although, I guess it wouldn't be suicide then).

I for one wouldn't like to live like that, with no hope of cure, or treatment, just to waste away, and having to rely on others for basic things (hygiene, food, etc).

mimartin
12-15-2008, 12:27 PM
Most of my life I’ve been adamantly opposed to any type of suicide. I’ve always felt that life is the most precious thing and should not be squandered. However, as I have gotten older my view has changed. I still believe life is precious, but I have come to understand that the quality of life is just as important as the quantity of life.

I watched my father and stepmother waste away due to the ravages of cancer. I’m watching my stepfather slowly waste away with bone cancer now. While I find their battle noble and an inspiration to all, it is heart sickening to me to watch people I love and who have had the greatest influence on my life slowly become a shell of their former self. I watch my father go from a 230 lbs man that I thought was indestructible to a man I could pick up and carry with very little effort on my part.

My father battled colon cancer for the better part of 10 years. It spread from the colon to the lungs and finally to the brain. He submitted to the treatments even though at times they seemed worse than the disease. Finally after the cancer spread the fourth time to the brain he refused treatment. It was a decision which at the time I disagreed with, but since it was his decision I did not voice my displeasure with that decision. They gave him 7 months to live.

He lived 8 hours away from me, but I went to visit twice a month. We went hunting, fishing and camping every other weekend for those 7 months. For the first time in my life I got to know my dad. He ended up living 11 months.

The last two months are very difficult remembering, my last visit was Christmas. I arrived Christmas morning about 10 am. He had been complaining about the noise the ceiling fan had been making, so that is what I gave him for Christmas. I put it up, under his watchful eye. When I finished he told me to get a shotgun that I had killed my first deer with. I was afraid what his next request would be, but what he said even shocked me more. He told me to put it in my car. That was the moment I knew this would be my last visit with my father. He slipped in a coma that night and died 2:37 am the next morning. I set and watch him struggle for his last breath.

After witnessing someone I love suffer before finally succumbing to their illness I have changed my view of assisted suicide. While I still cherish life and would really have a difficult time ending another person’s life, I don’t really know any longer if that is more difficult than watching them suffer. I hope none of us are ever put in that position.

jrrtoken
12-15-2008, 12:28 PM
It should absolutely be allowed, but there should be a few qualifications. First, the "suicidee" should have a legal document showing consent. Second, the suicidee must be determined by a practicing doctor that he/she will eventually die within a certain time period, I.E., a physically healthy person cannot be allowed to be euthanized just due to his/her own will.

CommanderQ
12-15-2008, 12:53 PM
I would think such a procedure would have good intentions, but I'm probably against the idea. Good intentions like this can often be driven in the wrong direction. Who determines the euthanization? Yes, there could be a patients consent, but what if they're not in their right mind? Doctors could take this into their own hands and ultimately play god with people's lives, and decided whether or not the person's life is meant to end or continue. I'm probably against it, though, I like to study history, and in history, mankind has often made decisions like this, that were not often the best. I know that the Nazis did something similar, if not the same, all under the justification of "a life not worth living." When I believe in fact, that life is worth living, and you may be bedridden and in pain, but you make the most of it, you to rise above the crisis, and persevere. Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, I would think life is worth living, even in pain, sometimes that pain makes everything else more worthwhile. My opinion...

jonathan7
12-15-2008, 01:10 PM
I would think such a procedure would have good intentions, but I'm probably against the idea. Good intentions like this can often be driven in the wrong direction. Who determines the euthanization? Yes, there could be a patients consent, but what if they're not in their right mind? Doctors could take this into their own hands and ultimately play god with people's lives, and decided whether or not the person's life is meant to end or continue. I'm probably against it, though, I like to study history, and in history, mankind has often made decisions like this, that were not often the best. I know that the Nazis did something similar, if not the same, all under the justification of "a life not worth living." When I believe in fact, that life is worth living, and you may be bedridden and in pain, but you make the most of it, you to rise above the crisis, and persevere.

You seem to have entirely missed the point of the topic; if someone is terminally ill and in a considerable amount of pain (either physical or mental) - should they have the right to assisted suicide?

That is a very different proposition to the Nazi programmes of the 1930's which was just murder; while there is a slippery slope, I get the feeling, perhaps you didn't quite understand the question?

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, I would think life is worth living, even in pain, sometimes that pain makes everything else more worthwhile. My opinion...

But should your opinion effect others? You may want to live, but having not been there, how do you really know?

CommanderQ
12-15-2008, 01:37 PM
You seem to have entirely missed the point of the topic; if someone is terminally ill and in a considerable amount of pain (either physical or mental) - should they have the right to assisted suicide?

That is a very different proposition to the Nazi programmes of the 1930's which was just murder; while there is a slippery slope, I get the feeling, perhaps you didn't quite understand the question?


I thought this thread was on voicing your opinions on the subject, I thought I did that.

Well, if I did not properly understand the subject, I will try to get back on track.

I do not know for sure, but if the decision were forced upon me, I might say no, due to my opinions and beliefs. The right may work for the people, but still, one should not abandon life so easily, even while in pain. It is a very slippery slope as you said, it wouldn't be good if doctor's were allowed to practice such a thing freely, it would be very dangerous, and echoing of the 1930s of the Third Reich. When someone is in a great amount of pain and suffering, that is when people will fall back on the life not worth living motif. The Nazis did the same thing, and not just because they wanted to murder someone, they did it often to save time, and they justified it with those sayings. This isn't all that different, if you don't mind me saying. I'd be very much against it, once again due to my beliefs and opinions. The choice could be open, yes, but if the person wanted the pain to end, why end everything? Is it so worth suicide to destroy everything that you loved or loves you, and abandon everything that is good? Making a person continue in life may be the best way to go, because through it, they may find the true quality of life. My opinion on the matter, though, would have to be no, though I'm going to remain nuetral on the matter for now.

jonathan7
12-15-2008, 01:50 PM
I thought this thread was on voicing your opinions on the subject, I thought I did that.

Well, if I did not properly understand the subject, I will try to get back on track.

Okies, crossed wires perhaps, though I don't think what is being suggested is much like the Nazi example you are using, here's the difference;

In the proposed legislation, if someone is terminally ill and in a lot of pain and they want to die, they should have the right to choose.

What the Nazi's did was against people's will kill them - do you see the difference? One is a choice for the ill person, the other is forcing death upon an individual.

This isn't all that different, if you don't mind me saying. I'd be very much against it, once again due to my beliefs and opinions. The choice could be open, yes, but if the person wanted the pain to end, why end everything? Is it so worth suicide to destroy everything that you loved or loves you, and abandon everything that is good?

Are these not decisions the individual should be allowed to make? In one of the cases, the parents helped their son commit suicide even though they didn't want him to, as it was his wish. Personally, whatever my own religious inclinations, I think that this is a family decision.

Making a person continue in life may be the best way to go, because through it, they may find the true quality of life.

How, if your in pain and going to die, what quality of life do you have?

My opinion on the matter, though, would have to be no, though I'm going to remain nuetral on the matter for now.

Fair enough :)

Chevron 7 locke
12-15-2008, 02:46 PM
I feel that It should be allowed. if someone wants to kill themself but they can't do it by themselves, then they should be allowed to have help in doing so

Rathoris
12-15-2008, 03:07 PM
it's not suicide.... . Euthanasia is the word your looking for. And i'm glad to live in a country were it's legal. Obviously there should be strict control but it should be an option for people in extreme situations. imho anyway...

True_Avery
12-15-2008, 03:42 PM
My grandfather told us all that he would like us to assist him in his death if he were to ever have to be kept alive by machines due to his age, illness, etc. He had a fear of the whole concept of being kept alive no matter what by the hospital. Luckily, it never came to that as he died in his sleep, but it opened my eyes to a few things.

I'm not obligated by any moral code other than my own, and while I somewhat think that life is "precious", I also understand the hypocrisy that we hold for it. If I feel I should be able to do it, then I wont be a hypocrite by dening it to others, thus why I am in support of things like Abortion, Assisted "Suicide" by Doctor, etc.

Being completely helpless, trapped in my body possibly to the point of not even being able to move is my greatest fear. I have told my family that if I am ever in a situation where I am just a vegetable, injured beyond saving, being literally kept alive permanently by a hospital bed, etc that I'd like to be refused treatment instead of sitting a prison for the rest of my life.

If others wish the same, then I wont stop them.

Pho3nix
12-15-2008, 04:06 PM
Yes, it should absolutely be allowed.

If an animal is suffering and can't be helped, the "humane" thing to do is help it die a quicker death. If an human is suffering and can't be helped, the "ethical" thing to do is prolong the suffering as long as possible. Logical disconnect?
QFT.

We should have the right to decide what we do with our lives.
...When I believe in fact, that life is worth living, and you may be bedridden and in pain, but you make the most of it, you to rise above the crisis, and persevere. Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, I would think life is worth living, even in pain, sometimes that pain makes everything else more worthwhile.

That's easy for you to say. I don't think any of us who haven't lived through a sickness can imagine what it's really like.

Rev7
12-15-2008, 05:52 PM
This is a really hard, for me at least. I absolutely despise suicide, but if the person is in pain and wants to die who am I to stop him/her? The same thing is done with animals, but we are talking about humans, though technically we are animals. Really complicated.

One question though, say that you are in a hospice and your family wants to pull the plug on you, for legit reasons, isn't that similar to assisted suicide? Yes I know that there probably wouldn't be consent, but is this similar? (Hope I am clear enough...)

jrrtoken
12-15-2008, 06:00 PM
This is a really hard, for me at least. I absolutely despise suicide,That's why we've coined a friendlier term: euthanasia! :xp:
One question though, say that you are in a hospice and your family wants to pull the plug on you, for legit reasons, isn't that similar to assisted suicide? Yes I know that there probably wouldn't be consent, but is this similar? (Hope I am clear enough...)It depends on whether or not the person is greatly suffering, either physically or mentally. If one of those factors are met, and if it is in the patient's best interests, then I'd consider assisted suicide to be acceptable, in that scenario.

SW01
12-15-2008, 06:05 PM
A very, very awkward question...

Personally, I am a little dubious about a defence of euthanasia. Not because of any particular religious or moral ground, but because it is open to abuse if it is simply applied.

If there were conditions applied, it would be more acceptable. I am all for self-determination, but the last thing I want to see is a new situation that evil people can use for their own ends, as in, the outright murder of a person that happens to be seriously ill, then raising a defence of euthanasia.

I think that the following should be conditional: at least two doctors (at a more senior level), familiar with the case, should have to sign off to the fact that recovery is next to impossible. The person in question should make a statement to the effect that s/he wishes to die, witnessed, again, by at least two people - say a family member and a solicitor. Then and only then should the defence be available, where there can be little doubt as to its authenticity.

Litofsky
12-15-2008, 06:15 PM
Personally/morally/ethically, I've got no problem with "Assisted Suicide," so long as the proper forms have been completed, and such (for some reasons, I foresee many issues resulting with the paperwork/actual suicide), the person being interviewed alone included (no outside influences would help, as opposed to being with someone else during the final documentation).

If a person is suffering, or simply doesn't want to be on this planet anymore, I've got no problem if they remove themselves in a peaceful/orderly manner.

Of course, many 'false suicides' might occur, such as a person being killed when they didn't wish to go through with it in the end, someone's murder being covered up as an 'assisted suicide,' and more. The question remains, as it always has, 'Will the benefits outweigh the risks?' In order to ensure that the benefits do outweigh the risks, a large amount of regulation and oversight would be necessary, in my opinion. (note: oversight should not preclude someone from doing what they wish with their life)

Only a slightly similar topic: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21279/21279-h/21279-h.htm

EnderWiggin
12-15-2008, 07:15 PM
I'm going to enjoy this: I wrote a term paper on it in an ethics class so I've already done a bit of research :D

I would think such a procedure would have good intentions, but I'm probably against the idea. Good intentions like this can often be driven in the wrong direction. Who determines the euthanization? Yes, there could be a patients consent, but what if they're not in their right mind? Doctors could take this into their own hands and ultimately play god with people's lives, and decided whether or not the person's life is meant to end or continue.

For answers to all your questions and more: see the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Death_with_Dignity_Act)

The fact that it's not being abused and it's working currently should indicate that it can be properly regulated. Your slippery slope argument fails :xp:

BTW, Washington State passed an initiative that legalized it this past election.

I know that the Nazis did something similar, if not the same, all under the justification of "a life not worth living." When I believe in fact, that life is worth living, and you may be bedridden and in pain, but you make the most of it, you to rise above the crisis, and persevere. Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, I would think life is worth living, even in pain, sometimes that pain makes everything else more worthwhile. My opinion... Goodwin's Law, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law) well done. Actually, it's nothing like what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s-1940s. A few other countries (Belgium and Switzerland come to mind) also have working assisted suicide programs, and AFAIK Quebec will be soon following.

Also, I'd like to remind you that you can "think life is worth living, even in pain" but until you're dying slowly of cancer over 9 months with chemo/radiation treatments poisoning your body while the cancer causes it to shut down you can't judge.

You seem to have entirely missed the point of the topic; if someone is terminally ill and in a considerable amount of pain (either physical or mental) - should they have the right to assisted suicide?

That is a very different proposition to the Nazi programmes of the 1930's which was just murder; while there is a slippery slope, I get the feeling, perhaps you didn't quite understand the question?



But should your opinion effect others? You may want to live, but having not been there, how do you really know?

Of course, all that I just said is in agreement with J7's well-written post. Thanks Jon :)

This is a really hard, for me at least. I absolutely despise suicide, but if the person is in pain and wants to die who am I to stop him/her? The same thing is done with animals, but we are talking about humans, though technically we are animals. Really complicated.

....You don't seem to be making a point here :xp: Do you agree with the idea that euthanasia should be legal? is morally/ethically ok?

One question though, say that you are in a hospice and your family wants to pull the plug on you, for legit reasons, isn't that similar to assisted suicide? Yes I know that there probably wouldn't be consent, but is this similar? (Hope I am clear enough...)
You're on life support and you're in a vegetative state? Your family pulls the plug because that's what you wanted?

See passive euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia#Euthanasia_by_means). Not actually assisted suicide but yes, similar. In that case, you're just withholding something vital (id est food)

Personally/morally/ethically, I've got no problem with "Assisted Suicide," so long as the proper forms have been completed, and such (for some reasons, I foresee many issues resulting with the paperwork/actual suicide), the person being interviewed alone included (no outside influences would help, as opposed to being with someone else during the final documentation).

If a person is suffering, or simply doesn't want to be on this planet anymore, I've got no problem if they remove themselves in a peaceful/orderly manner.

Of course, many 'false suicides' might occur, such as a person being killed when they didn't wish to go through with it in the end, someone's murder being covered up as an 'assisted suicide,' and more. The question remains, as it always has, 'Will the benefits outweigh the risks?' In order to ensure that the benefits do outweigh the risks, a large amount of regulation and oversight would be necessary, in my opinion. (note: oversight should not preclude someone from doing what they wish with their life)

Only a slightly similar topic: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21279/21279-h/21279-h.htm

Of course regulation and oversight would be necessary. :D

Good points nonetheless.

_EW_

jonathan7
12-15-2008, 07:29 PM
Goodwin's Law, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law) well done.

The UK the only European country not to have some form of Eugenics program in the 1930's-1940's, many countries were sterilising the mentally infirm and disabled, fortunately in the UK it never happened. How I harken back for the days when we were a half decent country. Eugenics, however is very different to assisted suicide - the Nazis were doing the former, which forces things on people.

Of course, all that I just said is in agreement with J7's well-written post. Thanks Jon :)

Thanks. :)

There are some interesting points with regards Assisted Suicide, Gordon Brown claims to reject it on the grounds people could be pressured into it - however because the UK has the NHS (universal healthcare), the problem of treatment costs is not relevant, so I think this argument fails. However I think this could be a relevant concerns in countries where relatives may have to end up taking the health care costs of a loved one.

As I'm sure many of you know I am a Christian, several interesting questions arise.
a) Should my personal convictions affect others? For me no; you will find no-where in the Bible do non-Christians have to live under Christian "law". Also as Christianity is a minority in the UK, how much of a say should they have over the lives of others? Who am I to force another individual as to how they should live or end their life?
b) Further more medical care has complicated the matter as often these people had they been alive in their state even 50 years ago would not have made it - they are artificially kept alive. My dad is a GP, and while he will not give abortion's he does struggle with this, as he has seen various degenerative diseases and quite frankly some of them involve drowning in your own bodily juices; not a pretty picture.
c) However the interesting thing is that in the UK 85% of doctors would refuse to perform assisted suicide - does this cause a problem, and also who are the most qualified people to speak on this topic?
d) In terms of the people the overwhelming swing in the UK seems to be changing the law to allow assisted suicide. If democracy represents the will of the people, should it not be passed?

Where do I stand on this? Let individuals and their families decide.

CommanderQ
12-15-2008, 07:37 PM
I think what I would fear from such a program would be if Doctor's began to take matters into their own hands. I wouldn't want them to have the authority to take my life without my consent {makes going to the doctor even worse}. Which is why, as others have posted, that rules and boundaries should be set. Many have already have posted on the boundaries, it wouldn't help if Docs started killing off large numbers of patients, which is why I'd probably agree on the consent laws. If the option is there, families and patients should have a consent and choice, and not be have that prevented that from them. Technically a repeat on what others have posted here, though. I still don't really agree on an assisted suicide, though, but if it should be allowed internationally, the choice should be given. Oh, and thanks E_W for the input on my posts.

EnderWiggin
12-15-2008, 07:43 PM
There are some interesting points with regards Assisted Suicide, Gordon Brown claims to reject it on the grounds people could be pressured into it - however because the UK has the NHS (universal healthcare), the problem of treatment costs is not relevant, so I think this argument fails. However I think this could be a relevant concerns in countries where relatives may have to end up taking the health care costs of a loved one.

Good point. While there are those in the US who perhaps could not afford to keep their relatives alive and in pain, it might be better for the family financially to agree to assisted suicide. However, even if it is the case, the person should, and likely will still weigh all the options and choose what they feel is the best course of action for their personal circumstances.

If the US refuses to pass Universal Healthcare >:| that's what will have to happen.

As I'm sure many of you know I am a Christian, several interesting questions arise.
a) Should my personal convictions affect others? For me no; you will find no-where in the Bible do non-Christians have to live under Christian "law". Also as Christianity is a minority in the UK, how much of a say should they have over the lives of others? Who am I to force another individual as to how they should live or end their life?
Agree, I'm a Christian too. However, this should not and does not affect the legality of the action. If those of us who are Christians don't want to use the option, fine. But allow those who don't disagree with it to choose it if necessary. (Same reasoning I use for gay marriage).

b) Further more medical care has complicated the matter as often these people had they been alive in their state even 50 years ago would not have made it - they are artificially kept alive. My dad is a GP, and while he will not give abortion's he does struggle with this, as he has seen various degenerative diseases and quite frankly some of them involve drowning in your own bodily juices; not a pretty picture.

Again, a good point. The fact that we're already using "unnatural" means (and don't 'naturalistic fallacy' me, I'm not committing one) to keep people alive means that we must reexamine our views of "unnatural" death.

c) However the interesting thing is that in the UK 85% of doctors would refuse to perform assisted suicide - does this cause a problem, and also who are the most qualified people to speak on this topic?I wonder why so many UK doctors feel this way?
Because it's illegal? Or because they disagree with it?

d) In terms of the people the overwhelming swing in the UK seems to be changing the law to allow assisted suicide. If democracy represents the will of the people, should it not be passed?

IMHO, certainly. As long as it can be kept so only euthanasia that is in the spirit of the law is carried out, I say let the option exist.


Where do I stand on this? Let individuals and their families decide.

Amen.

_EW_

EDIT:: I think what I would fear from such a program would be if Doctor's began to take matters into their own hands. I wouldn't want them to have the authority to take my life without my consent {makes going to the doctor even worse}. Which is why, as others have posted, that rules and boundaries should be set. Many have already have posted on the boundaries, it wouldn't help if Docs started killing off large numbers of patients, which is why I'd probably agree on the consent laws. If the option is there, families and patients should have a consent and choice, and not be have that prevented that from them. Technically a repeat on what others have posted here, though. I still don't really agree on an assisted suicide, though, but if it should be allowed internationally, the choice should be given. Oh, and thanks E_W for the input on my posts.

I understand your sentiment, but because it's so well handled (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/), I think we have nothing to fear.

Further:
The Law

Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed by a physician with a terminal illness that will kill them within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life. Use of the law is voluntary and the patient must initiate the request. Any physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider opposed on moral grounds does not have to participate.

The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, one of whom cannot be related to the patient, be entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, be the patient's physician, or be employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to not suffer from a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time. Should either physician have concerns about the patient’s ability to make an informed decision, or feel the patient’s request may be motivated by depression or coercion, the patient must be referred for a psychological evaluation.

Q
12-15-2008, 07:51 PM
A person should have the right to terminate their life regardless of health. It is theirs, after all, is it not?

zelda 41
12-15-2008, 08:51 PM
This is an awkward question for me.

I think maybe if a person is dying of a terminal illness and/or are in great pain, then yes, assisted suicide should be allowed under those circinstances.

I remember I had to watch my sister's fiancee's mom die of lung cancer. For six months, I would go to her home, cook, and clean for her, as she layed dying in a pained sickness. Her son was begging for her to stop fighting. He didn't want her to die, he loved her; she was just in so much pain, it was heartbreaking to see. After the end of May, she finally died peacefully in her sleep. In some ways, it was relieving. But still depressing.

A person shouldn't have to endure that kind of pain for over six months. If they choose, they should be allowed the choice to die painlessly than live strained for months, in constant pain.


A person should have the right to terminate their life regardless of health. It is theirs, after all, is it not?

But, if that person has nothing wrong with them, they should respect their life and live it. For the people who didn't have that chance.

Emperor Devon
12-15-2008, 09:05 PM
But, if that person has nothing wrong with them, they should respect their life and live it. For the people who didn't have that chance.

yeah i'm sure that's going to make someone who's terminally ill feel way better 'hey this guy could kill himself but hasn't cause he wants to live his life for you oh and btw you're still dying hahaha'

Pho3nix
12-15-2008, 09:05 PM
A person should have the right to terminate their life regardless of health. It is theirs, after all, is it not?
I believe so, yes.
But, if that person has nothing wrong with them, they should respect their life and live it. For the people who didn't have that chance.
That's a nice thought. Sadly though, I really don't think a severely depressed person finds the will to live simply because others didn't have the chance to live.

Endorenna
12-15-2008, 09:21 PM
Depends on the situation, IMO. I'll remain neutral. :)

Q
12-15-2008, 09:23 PM
But, if that person has nothing wrong with them, they should respect their life and live it. For the people who didn't have that chance.
Who are we to judge the people who would disagree with this view; the people who believe that life is basically pointless?

Rev7
12-15-2008, 10:40 PM
....You don't seem to be making a point here :xp: Do you agree with the idea that euthanasia should be legal? is morally/ethically ok?
Gotcha. :) My parents believe that euthanasia should be illegal, but I think that it just matters on the circumstances, and we talk about these kind of things around the dinner table. There is, and will always be, that religious side of me to say no, it is not right, don't take your life, life is precious. Indeed life is precious, but in no way can I tell someone to do something or not, neither am I in the position to make a law for it or against it. But I really don't know where to solidly stand on this.
You're on life support and you're in a vegetative state? Your family pulls the plug because that's what you wanted?

See passive euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia#Euthanasia_by_means). Not actually assisted suicide but yes, similar. In that case, you're just withholding something vital (id est food)

Alright then. Thanks for the help Ender! :)

I think maybe if a person is dying of a terminal illness and/or are in great pain, then yes, assisted suicide should be allowed under those circinstances.

I remember I had to watch my sister's fiancee's mom die of lung cancer. For six months, I would go to her home, cook, and clean for her, as she layed dying in a pained sickness. Her son was begging for her to stop fighting. He didn't want her to die, he loved her; she was just in so much pain, it was heartbreaking to see. After the end of May, she finally died peacefully in her sleep. In some ways, it was relieving. But still depressing.

A person shouldn't have to endure that kind of pain for over six months. If they choose, they should be allowed the choice to die painlessly than live strained for months, in constant pain.

But, if that person has nothing wrong with them, they should respect their life and live it. For the people who didn't have that chance.
+10 :) I am leaning more towards what you agree with. Good post. :)
Who are we to judge the people who would disagree with this view; the people who believe that life is basically pointless?
Even though this wasn't directed towards me, I wouldn't be judging them. I merely disagree with them. Just because I don't agree with something that (lets just figuratively say you), that doesn't mean that I am judging you.

Life has a point--> to be lived

EnderWiggin
12-16-2008, 05:12 AM
Indeed life is precious, but in no way can I tell someone to do something or not, neither am I in the position to make a law for it or against it.

Exactly. That's my sentiment on it, for sure.

Alright then. Thanks for the help Ender! :)


Anytime.

_EW_

Q
12-16-2008, 05:48 AM
Life has a point--> to be lived
And I agree with this statement. I was merely pointing out that there are those who don't. ;)

vanir
12-16-2008, 06:41 AM
My personal opinion is that euthanasia, abortion and homosexuality do not relate to the law in any greater sense than regulation in the strictest sense of health and safety (in the case of homosexuality subject only to common decency laws irrespective of sexuality, such as public copulation).

I believe direct legislation is passed on these topics either by religious conservatives or those wishing to pander to religious conservatives. These are some of the greatest railroading of justice we have in the world today and surprise, surprise they are obviously entirely political in nature. This is why you separate governing and legislative bodies.

Ethics, morality, whatever you want to call it, the very substance of faith is the personal choice. There is no value unless you came by nature.

J7-Anglican or Catholic and very confused :D, I got that loud and clear. EW, which denomination? (you did open the table by finding it relevent, it's not off topic).

Salzella
12-16-2008, 07:02 AM
There are more votes for 'yes' than I expected actually. My word. Not many votes for 'Yoda' though. hmm...

jonathan7
12-16-2008, 11:01 AM
J7-Anglican or Catholic and very confused :D

I'm not confused; I know exactly what I think :xp: Nor am I Anglican or Catholic - I just happen to have an IQ of 147, and to of read an awful lot of Philosophy, (as well as theology and science) because of which my opinions on 'liberty and freedoms' come from John Stuart Mill. I don't find Jesus forcing himself on anyone in the Gospels; hence my points above, I'd appretiate not attempting to analyse me as even the professionals epically fail (I broke the last official personality test I did). :D

Vaelastraz
12-16-2008, 01:36 PM
d) In terms of the people the overwhelming swing in the UK seems to be changing the law to allow assisted suicide. If democracy represents the will of the people, should it not be passed?

Only if it's a direct democracy.. which the UK is not. :D

Arcesious
12-16-2008, 02:43 PM
Here's my opinion:

If an animal or human is suffering with a serious problem that cannot be cured or fixed, yes. If it is a human who is depressed or in some sort of bad mental state who wishes to commit suicide, no. People who are depressed or mentally ill need to get help.

For the most part, no. But if a person is in a permanent coma or in extreme untreatable pain/an incurable disease that causes extreme misery, yes. If its a disease that is tolerable, no suicide, if its a condition physical or mental that is tolerable or even minutely treatable, then no suicide.

Just IMO.

EnderWiggin
12-16-2008, 03:14 PM
J7-Anglican or Catholic and very confused :D, I got that loud and clear. EW, which denomination? (you did open the table by finding it relevent, it's not off topic).
Lutheran, in fact :D
Only if it's a direct democracy.. which the UK is not. :D

Doesn't mean the law shouldn't be passed for that reason :rolleyes: Just means it won't be passed for that reason.

If it is a human who is depressed or in some sort of bad mental state who wishes to commit suicide, no. People who are depressed or mentally ill need to get help.


Luckily the legislature would not include those who have psychological symptoms, see what I posted re: the Death With Dignity Act, post 22.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
12-16-2008, 03:17 PM
I'm against this because it violates the oath doctors take to "Do no harm." Killing someone is not only doing harm, it's killing the patient.

EnderWiggin
12-16-2008, 03:47 PM
I'm against this because it violates the oath doctors take to "Do no harm." Killing someone is not only doing harm, it's killing the patient.

Two Problems:

1. Not all doctors take the oath (at least in the US) anymore.

2. I'd argue that letting a dying person live through cancer against their will would in fact be doing harm - much more harm than ending their suffering.

_EW_

mimartin
12-16-2008, 03:55 PM
2. I'd argue that letting a dying person live through cancer against their will would in fact be doing harm - much more harm than ending their suffering. QFT!

However, from past observations of family members dying of cancer, I see EnderWiggin’s comment as the truth and not any type of argument.

Astor
12-16-2008, 03:58 PM
Also, who says it has to be a Doctor that is the person who would assist such a thing?

GarfieldJL
12-16-2008, 04:00 PM
1. Not all doctors take the oath (at least in the US) anymore.

Which is quite frankly quite sad.


2. I'd argue that letting a dying person live through cancer against their will would in fact be doing harm - much more harm than ending their suffering.

You do realize that people have been told that their cancer was terminal and they actually managed to beat the cancer and live.

jrrtoken
12-16-2008, 04:16 PM
You do realize that people have been told that their cancer was terminal and they actually managed to beat the cancer and live.Yeah, and there's several terms for that including "misdiagnosis", "strange coincidence", or if you're more faithful, a "miracle".

GarfieldJL
12-16-2008, 04:21 PM
Yeah, and there's several terms for that including "misdiagnosis", "strange coincidence", or if you're more faithful, a "miracle".

It can be any of the above, but a strange coincidence is sometimes the signs of a miracle.

EnderWiggin
12-16-2008, 07:34 PM
Which is quite frankly quite sad.


Whether or not it's sad is irrelevant. The fact stands, and is directly contradictory to your argument. Good day.


You do realize that people have been told that their cancer was terminal and they actually managed to beat the cancer and live.

:words:

So we should make everyone suffer in pain for the 0.0001% chance of being one of cases who come back from terminal cancer?

_EW_

vanir
12-16-2008, 11:29 PM
I'm not confused; I know exactly what I think :xp: Nor am I Anglican or Catholic - I just happen to have an IQ of 147, and to of read an awful lot of Philosophy, (as well as theology and science) because of which my opinions on 'liberty and freedoms' come from John Stuart Mill. I don't find Jesus forcing himself on anyone in the Gospels; hence my points above, I'd appretiate not attempting to analyse me as even the professionals epically fail (I broke the last official personality test I did). :D

Omg, I've gone cross-eyed at the very suggestion of analyzing you, J7 :xp:

Lutheran, in fact

No wonder. You remind me of that uncle I liked having around, but was always nervous about having around just the same ::

Jae Onasi
12-17-2008, 03:34 AM
Working in hospitals for a number of years now, I've seen enough people die that I can't recall how many I've seen anymore, and likely far more than most of you here will ever see. I held my grandmother's hand while she took her last few breaths. I've watched children terminally ill from brain cancer and leukemia pass away. I've seen people with terminal emphysema who didn't have any air movement in their lungs even with a ventilator pushing air in die (want to cure your urge for smoking? Watch someone with emphysema die). I've seen people who were on the road to recovery from heart attacks or strokes take a sudden turn for the worse and die within a couple hours or even a couple minutes.

There are some things that I've learned.
1. People die. All of us will die, some sooner, some later. That may sound trite on the surface, but for those of you who are young and have never experienced death, it's something for you to think about. We have made great medical strides, but we can't save everyone from everything, nor should we try once it becomes clear that someone's body can no longer function to sustain life.

2. Some deaths are very fast, some are agonizingly slow, most happen within a few days of whatever health condition is the mortal one--heart failure, pneumonia, infection, etc. My godfather had terminal lymphoma, but had quite a good quality of life until the last 48 hours when he developed pneumonia and couldn't fight it off. My grandmother developed a massive infection from a leg injury, and due to her age just couldn't fight it off, even with the aggressive drug therapy and wound treatment. She died a few days after that as well. Most of the people who I saw die in the hospital had been admitted only a few days, and sometimes only a few hours, prior to their deaths. While a number of people do linger a long time with cancer (ever-improving treatments being both a blessing and a curse in this case), we have for the most part decent treatments to keep pain under control, which for many would be the chief reason for wanting to die.

3. Death in the US, and I suspect in a lot of 'modern' countries, is very sanitized. We rarely see people actually die, and I think a lot of Americans have almost an irrational fear of death. We don't want any part of it--don't want to see it, don't want to be near someone dying, don't even want to talk about it. We hide our kids from seeing their elder relatives dying so that they aren't 'traumatized'. However, it's as major a life event as a birth, and while it's tremendously sad to lose someone close to us, it's still an important life event not only for that person but for their loved ones and friends. It should not be hidden away. Death and the process of dying is an integral part of our humanity, and we need to embrace it and give it dignity and respect instead of shunning it. Part of our American rush to pass assisted suicide laws in the US is because we want nothing to do with death and we want it over as quickly as possible.

4. Assisted suicide is not the same as putting suffering animals down. I put my favorite cat ever to sleep in June because putting him through a major stay in an animal hospital for an extra month or two of life with kidney failure when he clearly was in pain would have been cruel to him. We would have been keeping him alive for us to his detriment and without any say on his part. However, he was not a rational, thinking being with complex interpersonal relationships and life experiences. He had a pretty darn good life for a cat, but it pretty much consisted of eating, drinking, using the litterbox (insisting it was clean of course), lounging in the sun, and sitting in my lap whenever possible to get scritched under his chin. However, this is not the same kind of rich life that humans experience, even dying humans, or even toddlers dying from leukemia who haven't lived a very long life. Equating the experience of our pet dog or cat to the experiences of humans is an insult to humans, frankly.

5. We need to be looking for ever-better ways to manage pain and other uncomfortable experiences that may happen during the dying process to maximize people's quality of life even in their last few hours or days. We have a lot of good medications to deal with pain, but as always there's room for improvement.

6. We use a lot of medications and devices in the hospitals in order to sustain life artificially. Many times discontinuing the treatments keeping someone alive artificially allows death to happen without the need to actually use a killing agent. My mother-in-law was on a respirator and on a medication called dopamine to keep her blood pressure artificially at a more normal level. When it was clear that her infection was so severe that she wasn't going to survive more than 24 hours or so, we made the call to discontinue the dopamine and let her blood pressure fall naturally until she passed away peacefully.

7. After the Schiavo case, it's clear we need better laws on advanced directives, and we need to use advanced directives a lot more often. If you don't want to be kept alive artificially with feeding tubes and such long term, then you need to let your family know that, and get an advanced directive signed as soon as you're of legal age to do so.

8. I could not willingly participate in an assisted suicide, or knowingly allow someone to commit suicide without taking action, because it violates the oath I took to 'first do no harm', and the commandment not to kill.

9. We haven't begun to completely think out the ramifications of assisted suicide, as the Barbara Wagner case (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492) clearly shows. It takes a cold heart to say 'we're not going to cover your medical treatments, so here, take this drug to kill yourself so you quit costing the state money.' The people who end up needing palliative care are more often than not elderly with few if any resources, and thus reliant on the federal Medicare and state-administered Medicaid programs. I see this having a potential for widespread abuse by states so that they don't have to pay the high costs of endstage disease treatment. I also see this as wide open for abuse by family members arguing over who should Grandma give her prized Chia-pet collecton to when she dies. We need to look at this and its ramifications to boot. I'm extremely uncomfortable with any assisted suicide laws because of this last point.

EnderWiggin
12-17-2008, 06:06 AM
No wonder. You remind me of that uncle I liked having around, but was always nervous about having around just the same ::
Wow, that's extremely rude.

Judge me by my religion, that's great.


8. I could not willingly participate in an assisted suicide, or knowingly allow someone to commit suicide without taking action, because it violates the oath I took to 'first do no harm', and the commandment not to kill.


You would not be killing anyone... and we've already discussed the 'do no harm' point.

_EW_

mur'phon
12-17-2008, 08:08 AM
Good points Jae just some things I'd like to comment on.

While a number of people do linger a long time with cancer (ever-improving treatments being both a blessing and a curse in this case), we have for the most part decent treatments to keep pain under control, which for many would be the chief reason for wanting to die.


I used to live in the same house as a cancer doc, and while she said it was possible most of the time to keep the pain under controll, she has still had to watch a lot of people die painfully over several days, while being forced to continue treating them, knowing full well she'd only prolong their suffering. Personally, I have a hard time finding reasons why we should deny such people the choice.

7. After the Schiavo case, it's clear we need better laws on advanced directives, and we need to use advanced directives a lot more often. If you don't want to be kept alive artificially with feeding tubes and such long term, then you need to let your family know that, and get an advanced directive signed as soon as you're of legal age to do so.

Agreed, and become and organ donor while you're at it, you never know pherhaps the you'll be on tubes before your organs vaste away:)

8. I could not willingly participate in an assisted suicide, or knowingly allow someone to commit suicide without taking action, because it violates the oath I took to 'first do no harm', and the commandment not to kill.

The cancer doc I spoke of is not a christian, and find herself in a rather nasty posittion due to the oath. On one hand, she harms by keeping people in pain alive, on the other she would harm if she assisted a suicide. By placing doctors in such a dificult position, it forces the doctors to consider rather carefully, and so work as a check on needless suicides.

Point 9 is my main concern regarding legalizing assisted suicide.

mimartin
12-17-2008, 11:40 AM
2. Some deaths are very fast, some are agonizingly slow, most happen within a few days of whatever health condition is the mortal one--heart failure, pneumonia, infection, etc….Most of the people who I saw die in the hospital had been admitted only a few days, and sometimes only a few hours, prior to their deaths. While a number of people do linger a long time with cancer (ever-improving treatments being both a blessing and a curse in this case), we have for the most part decent treatments to keep pain under control, which for many would be the chief reason for wanting to die. While I have in no way seen the number of deaths you have seen I have been unfortunate enough to witness 6. Three were very fast due to a train/car accident. I held the hand of two Catholic Priest while my friend comforted another Priest in the front seat, the forth occupant (the driver was dead on impact). I was seventeen, their deaths even though the scene was horrific was very peaceful. I tried to stop the blood loss, but there was just too much damage. Finally all I could do was hold their hands while lying that everything was going to be alright. Those deaths were fast and even though I know it had to be agonizingly painful neither Priest seem to show much pain or fear.

The other three deaths were long agonizingly slow processes. However, I believe this is because all three had a goal. My father wanted to live to see another Christmas. My stepmother and uncle were to see another birthday. All three made their goals and died shortly after.

While pain medication is a blessing, not everyone can or will take it in a dosage that will stop the pain. My father refused to take any until the last few weeks of his life. I can only guess, because I never asked him why, but I usually refuse it to because I do not like being robbed of my senses. I’ve broken a leg, severely sprang ankles and dislocated shoulders without using pain medicine. However, this year a kidney stone made me beg for either a shot or a baseball bat to the head.


3. Death in the US, and I suspect in a lot of 'modern' countries, is very sanitized...I think this all depends on the family. In my imitate family (on both sides) we believe in the comfort of the dying loved one first, even over our own needs. All three of the deaths I’ve witnessed of family members have been in their own homes. Once we know there is nothing more that can be done medically we follow our loved ones wishes and those three wanted to go home. Even beyond those three we do not allow our loved ones to die alone with strangers. A family member has been with my all my grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles when they have died except in the case were a cousin that drowned in an auto accident and an aunt died on the operating table. Even as a child I was not sheltered from my grandmother’s illness (cancer). It would have been difficult seeing how I lived in the same household. I was taught death was a fact of life and my grandmother always said “don’t ever put flowers on my grave. Give me my flowers while I’m alive.” I’m told that is what my grandfather use to say and that is how my family lives and dies.

Even at an early age I remember attending the funnels of uncles that passed away. I was taught that you did this out of respect for the deceased, but more importantly it was done to support the living.

I don’t believe any of the three family members I witnessed die would have request assisted suicide because they all had goals, but especially in my father’s case, I could see how someone could. He went three months unable to eat anything beyond choking down an Ensue or two a day. I would not blame anyone for wanting to end their suffering in that condition with no hope of any improvement.

Bee Hoon
12-17-2008, 11:57 AM
you may be bedridden and in pain, but you make the most of it, you to rise above the crisisAs others have said, easier said than done.

Other more experienced and more eloquent people have said their pieces, but above all->
5. We need to be looking for ever-better ways to manage pain and other uncomfortable experiences that may happen during the dying process to maximize people's quality of life even in their last few hours or days. We have a lot of good medications to deal with pain, but as always there's room for improvement.This is true.

But I believe pain is not the only issue--for the last year of his life, my grandfather was immobilized, and that naturally sent his quality of life in a downward spiral. He had been active right up to the fall that resulted in his immobility, and while I don't think he was in any pain, I doubt he was happy either.

Endorenna
12-17-2008, 12:18 PM
I've thought about this more, and I was going to post, but I will simply refer you to Jae's post, as it states my views perfectly. :)

Darth Avlectus
12-28-2008, 06:43 AM
I really am not sure. Apathy is death, and I guess non-apathy is death too.

One reason I might think that I oppose this is the door it opens to the whole attitude "oh, you're terminal, so just go off and die".
Also, because it gives dispassionate soulless people people the option of comfort while running away from facing their family member's death.

On the other hand I know that it's about them, and not myself. There have been instances where I had wished another's end would come easily because it was what they wanted.

Also, I believe it unethical to keep someone alive to make some extra $$$.
Not accusing anyone of doing it, but, I do find the notion disturbing and think such a thing ought to be prevented. If quality of life is lousy and won't get better, and nothing else can be done to improve their remaining life, it's time to let go. Regarding wills or such, this ought to be taken care of before death. Sooner the better. If they want to live long enough to take care of it, not a problem with me.


1. People die. All of us will die, some sooner, some later. <snip> We have made great medical strides, but we can't save everyone from everything, nor should we try once it becomes clear that someone's body can no longer function to sustain life.

Agreed.
2. <snip> While a number of people do linger a long time with cancer (ever-improving treatments being both a blessing and a curse in this case), we have for the most part decent treatments to keep pain under control, which for many would be the chief reason for wanting to die.
A family friend I know has lymphoma right now--highly progressed. He goes through certain means to ease the pain (I won't specify due to their dubious legality or lack thereof). Although he is often a grumpy guy and an @$$hole, he's one of my favorite @$$holes and there is a funny likable part of him. At this point his life it's the bucket list and seeing his grandkids for however much longer time he has. His mother will probably outlive him. He's doing whatever he can to keep on living okay and to make sure his family will be taken care of. Worse came to worse, he's an aggressive enough clever guy with lots of space. I'm sure his .45 will give him all the help on his own that he'll ever need.

3. Death in the US, and I suspect in a lot of 'modern' countries, is very sanitized. We rarely see people actually die, and I think a lot of Americans have almost an irrational fear of death. We don't want any part of it--don't want to see it, don't want to be near someone dying, don't even want to talk about it. We hide our kids from seeing their elder relatives dying so that they aren't 'traumatized'. However, it's as major a life event as a birth, and while it's tremendously sad to lose someone close to us, it's still an important life event not only for that person but for their loved ones and friends. It should not be hidden away. Death and the process of dying is an integral part of our humanity, and we need to embrace it and give it dignity and respect instead of shunning it. Part of our American rush to pass assisted suicide laws in the US is because we want nothing to do with death and we want it over as quickly as possible.

George Soros comes to mind. He's a Gann'eiff that I wouldn't mind suffering to live until the very bitter end. However I would never force the issue.
4. Assisted suicide is not the same as putting suffering animals down. <snip> However, this is not the same kind of rich life that humans experience, even dying humans, or even toddlers dying from leukemia who haven't lived a very long life. Equating the experience of our pet dog or cat to the experiences of humans is an insult to humans, frankly.
False equivocation or moral equivalence. People often do.

7. After the Schiavo case, it's clear we need better laws on advanced directives, and we need to use advanced directives a lot more often. If you don't want to be kept alive artificially with feeding tubes and such long term, then you need to let your family know that, and get an advanced directive signed as soon as you're of legal age to do so.

Nope, and leave my remains alone.

8. I could not willingly participate in an assisted suicide, or knowingly allow someone to commit suicide without taking action, because it violates the oath I took to 'first do no harm', and the commandment not to kill.
A friend of mine has committed suicide on his own at 17 due to how utterly screwed up his life was. I heard all about it long after the fact. I suspected something was wrong but had no idea HOW wrong. However, he gave no hint, not even on is final day. The next day, my class hears about it. I was angry at him for doing it, and I was angry at myself because I thought I could have prevented it. Ultimately I have decided, I never knew enough then, and knowing what I know now...if I had it to do again, I am not so sure I would stop him...I've long since let it go, anyway.

9. We haven't begun to completely think out the ramifications of assisted suicide, as the Barbara Wagner case (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492) clearly shows. It takes a cold heart to say 'we're not going to cover your medical treatments, so here, take this drug to kill yourself so you quit costing the state money.' The people who end up needing palliative care are more often than not elderly with few if any resources, and thus reliant on the federal Medicare and state-administered Medicaid programs. I see this having a potential for widespread abuse by states so that they don't have to pay the high costs of endstage disease treatment. I also see this as wide open for abuse by family members arguing over who should Grandma give her prized Chia-pet collecton to when she dies. We need to look at this and its ramifications to boot. I'm extremely uncomfortable with any assisted suicide laws because of this last point.
Agreed.


The other three deaths were long agonizingly slow processes. However, I believe this is because all three had a goal. My father wanted to live to see another Christmas. My stepmother and uncle were to see another birthday. All three made their goals and died shortly after.

Similar was the case of my great aunt. At 92 she was in a hurry and wound up shattering her hip. 10 years later in Feb 2004 she died of complications from it. She was very religious AND spiritual. In the last month of her life, she wrote me a letter and wished me well. She didn't indicate anything in her letter that she was in agony. Just that at 102 years old, she has done and seen everything she would ever care to. I guess she hung on for those 10 years to see just how long she'd last.
Though she'd have loved to see me again that she was joyus because "we'll see each other again regardless". Though she died of complications and suffered a bit, she was still active as she could be and happy. I appreciate that not everyone has the same quality of life in those circumstances, though.

As far as seeing her again...Lately I'm in the red on my LS/DS points continuum... Plus I still must figure it out for myself

Her brother died a few years before that at 105 of natural causes. Her little sister (my great grandmother) is still kicking nearly 100, if more than a bit slowed down.

The 3 of them said, "Life is beautiful, so don't waste it or throw it away." I'll abide that in whatever way that I can.

I pay my final respects because I believe in it.

I'm not opposed to letting someone die with dignity. However...
If my friend or family member in question wants to be alone for it because they don't want me to see them like that...I'm conflicted. They can only die once. It's their honor, however, I would still want to be there somehow.

I won't know about myself until I get there I guess. I suppose if an arc welder nearly did me in once, that a microwave transformer + capacitor would do a better job. The feeling of getting zapped wasn't initially bad, it was waking up and recovering that was agony. Which I still feel the effects of nearly 7 years later. I'm glad I'm okay.

There is still merit of eeking through to the very end too, I guess. I don't know.

With preciousness of life, though, I would never want to impose my will on another. No matter how much I hated them.