RE: do you have the right to die? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

do you have the right to die?


yes
  93% (30)
no
  6% (2)


Total Votes : 32
(last vote on : 3/14/2012 11:36:00 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message


MasterSlaveLA -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/12/2012 7:59:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

...as somebody who is mentally ill and has had and is capable of again having issues of psychosis, I really hate when people declare that the mentally ill shouldn't be permitted to do this or that.



So in your opinion, knowing full well the severity of certain mental illnesses (which often include being suicidal, in the case of Depression, for example), that you don't view extra consideration given to the mentally ill with regarding death?!!  I mean... it's not like a "do over" (that'd be Ctrl+Alt+Del for the younger folks out there) is an option at that point, yanno?!! [:(]





erieangel -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/12/2012 8:23:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

...as somebody who is mentally ill and has had and is capable of again having issues of psychosis, I really hate when people declare that the mentally ill shouldn't be permitted to do this or that.



So in your opinion, knowing full well the severity of certain mental illnesses (which often include being suicidal, in the case of Depression, for example), that you don't view extra consideration given to the mentally ill with regarding death?!!  I mean... it's not like a "do over" (that'd be Ctrl+Alt+Del for the younger folks out there) is an option at that point, yanno?!! [:(]





I have been suicidal. I have also psychotic. But, no, I still don't think "extra consideration" should be given to me. If I want to die, I want to die. The fact that I have survived my suicide attempts and have gotten past the desire to die is of no consequence, the way I see it. Truth be told, after my last suicide attempt, the desire to watch my kids grow up, the feeling of awe that I brought these two amazing people into the world is what has made me not become suicidal again. Now, I think it will be my granddaughter, and whatever other grandchildren my daughter may grace me with. However, should I once again that dark place and attempt suicide and end up in coma because of it, I would not want any medical attention beyond "comfort" care. I do not want to live if I can not be who I am and I refuse to fight my way back from insanity again. The last time it took me the better part of 15 years. I'm getting too old to do it again.






MasterSlaveLA -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/12/2012 8:46:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

...as somebody who is mentally ill and has had and is capable of again having issues of psychosis, I really hate when people declare that the mentally ill shouldn't be permitted to do this or that.



So in your opinion, knowing full well the severity of certain mental illnesses (which often include being suicidal, in the case of Depression, for example), that you don't view extra consideration given to the mentally ill with regarding death?!!  I mean... it's not like a "do over" (that'd be Ctrl+Alt+Del for the younger folks out there) is an option at that point, yanno?!! [:(]





I have been suicidal. I have also psychotic. But, no, I still don't think "extra consideration" should be given... Truth be told, after my last suicide attempt, the desire to watch my kids grow up, the feeling of awe that I brought these two amazing people into the world is what has made me not become suicidal



Ahhh... but you see, your post actually shows WHY "extra consideration" should be given.  Had Euthanasia been an option, then death would have been CERTAIN -- and the desire to live for your kids would have NEVER been realized.

Excuse the pun, but I'd think failing to give "extra consideration" to the menally ill on this issue a bit C-R-A-Z-Y. [;)][8D]





kdsub -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/12/2012 9:01:53 PM)

Dear Lockit...What pain and heartbreak you must endure. If there is a God you will surely be rewarded as a saint. If not at least you know in your soul that you did your best for your son...Maybe, no matter what happens, he will understand that you did too.

Butch




MasterSlaveLA -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/12/2012 9:16:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lockit



I'll simply say... my heart goes out to you.





DaddySatyr -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/13/2012 12:22:22 AM)

Lockit, being a parent, your words struck me at my very core. Being a parent of a child who had ODS, I shuddered at the similarities (I prefer to identify rather than compare). You and your son will be in my prayers.



Peace and comfort,



Michael






erieangel -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/13/2012 12:31:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

...as somebody who is mentally ill and has had and is capable of again having issues of psychosis, I really hate when people declare that the mentally ill shouldn't be permitted to do this or that.



So in your opinion, knowing full well the severity of certain mental illnesses (which often include being suicidal, in the case of Depression, for example), that you don't view extra consideration given to the mentally ill with regarding death?!!  I mean... it's not like a "do over" (that'd be Ctrl+Alt+Del for the younger folks out there) is an option at that point, yanno?!! [:(]





I have been suicidal. I have also psychotic. But, no, I still don't think "extra consideration" should be given... Truth be told, after my last suicide attempt, the desire to watch my kids grow up, the feeling of awe that I brought these two amazing people into the world is what has made me not become suicidal



Ahhh... but you see, your post actually shows WHY "extra consideration" should be given.  Had Euthanasia been an option, then death would have been CERTAIN -- and the desire to live for your kids would have NEVER been realized.

Excuse the pun, but I'd think failing to give "extra consideration" to the menally ill on this issue a bit C-R-A-Z-Y. [;)][8D]





Ah, but see, that desire was years in coming. Was it worth it? Yes. Would I be upset if I had never had the opportunity to even have that desire? No. Because I would be dead.

As to you "pun"...In essence are you saying that because I have a mental illness, can actually become psychotic and/or suicidal at any time, I should have no voice in my own destiny, in whether I live or die?





MasterSlaveLA -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/13/2012 12:51:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Ah, but see, that desire was years in coming. Was it worth it? Yes. Would I be upset if I had never had the opportunity to even have that desire? No. Because I would be dead.



True... you'd be dead, and your kids would never have been born -- which likely would have been a shame.

quote:


As to you "pun"... In essence are you saying that because I have a mental illness... I should have no voice in my own destiny, in whether I live or die?



No, what I was stating is that those charged with the task of ending life (assuming Euthanasia is ever legalized) take extra care with those who have a history mental illness/suicide to ensure (as best as one can, anyway) that it's what the person truly wants, is not just a reaction to a life-event.  What I mean is, I know several people that AREN'T considered "mentally ill", but were at such a low point in their life at one time, that I think if Euthanasia was available, they'd have taken it -- which would have been a TERRIBLE mistake.

Honestly, this entire discussion is likely moot, as I'm assuming there'd have to be extraordinary circumstances (i.e., a terminal illness and a certain, long, painful demise) before Euthanasia would even be considered a medical option -- again, should it ever be legalized.





erieangel -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/13/2012 12:58:09 AM)

Suicide attempts are usually a reaction to some sort of life event, even for the mentally ill.

As to my last attempt, my daughter, who is my youngest, was a baby. I was suffering, in part, from post postpartum depression, along with the bipolar disorder that has been a part of my life since I was too young to know I had a problem. When I was 15 a counselor asked me if I was depressed, I said no. 6 months later, I was telling my group that I was there because of depression and mania. I had suffered from mood swings for so long, I thought it was normal.







xssve -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/13/2012 7:08:10 AM)

Only if you're on medicare.




xssve -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/13/2012 7:10:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I voted yes. We had a thread that kind of wandered into this area, a short time back (I think). I said, then that I would limit the decision to people of sound mind either of their own volition or by honoring a living will. No third-party decision making.

This would be an area that is rife with dangerous potential to be exploited for sinister purposes but I think it is cruel to demand that people that just feel like they can no longer go on should feel "forced" to do so. After all, who but the person, living that life, should be the judge of whether or not it is one of "quality"?



Peace and comfort,



Michael


That's about the size of it.




DaddySatyr -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/13/2012 7:41:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
That's about the size of it.


That's what ladies usually say about me while holding their thumb and forefinger curiously close together. Hmmmm ...



Peace and comfort,



Michael




MrBukani -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/13/2012 7:59:35 AM)

Its legal here in Holland. The terms active and passive are used. Passive as in quiting lifesupport and active in giving a deadly agent.
There is still some debate on active.
But when the patient is not able to decide anymore the family has to decide when the point is reached, where the quality is left.
Hard choice.
A living will for those who want to decide themselves is a good thing. We shouldnt burden our loved ones too much with makin that decision.

Depression should never be included in euthanasia and its not done here either in any way.
Suicide is the only option for them if they want to die.
There has been debate on this as well, but most agree that can be no option to include in euthanasia.




fucktoyprincess -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/13/2012 7:59:42 AM)

I think we each, as individuals, deserve to have this right.

Although I think it should be restricted to certain types of circumstances. Final stages of a terminal disease regardless of one's age. The very aged (who might still be functioning, but are simply not interested in living anymore). I think those are the easy cases.

Separately, I think decisions around what level of medical intervention is appropriate is something that needs to be discussed more. Simply because medicine can do certain things, should it? If a life can be saved, but quality of life severely affected, whose decision is it to either medically intervene, or to not. I think this is where the difficult situations are and it is a lot harder to know what is right or wrong here.

All I know is that I would never criticize any family or person for whatever decision they made or make in this type of situation. I think it's complicated and people and their families need some freedom to make some tough choices. I don't think these are decisions that society should be making one way or the other (i.e., it is not helpful to have blanket statements like "every life is worth living", "every life is sacrosanct".) I think people need more freedom than that in order to sort through the tougher situations. And sometimes the decision ought to be that less (intervention) is more, rather than taking the attitude that every effort MUST be made every time for every life.

These are tough problems that require nuanced thinking, and I think the only way to achieve that is to give greater latitude to patients and families.

Also, separately, I do think that it is interesting to view some ancient practices in this regard. We've all heard about how many ancient peoples would leave extremely disabled newborns to die. While on the surface this may seem harsh, I think in ancient times, when survival was much more difficult, and everyone had to be able bodied to allow a community to thrive, you simply could not afford to have able bodied adults take their time to take care of the severely disabled or severely impaired because it meant others in the community would ultimately suffer. That was simply the reality. I don't think this makes ancient people unenlightened. They simply had to practice an extreme form of practicality given the way in which they lived. Imagine being a nomadic tribe. How many disabled people can you manage before it becomes too much of a burden on a family or on the community because part of your survival means moving around a lot?

My point is simply that our lifestyle today has allowed us the ability to take care of a wider range of physical (and even mental) issues than the ancients were able to do. But as the population increases, and resources become more scarce, at some point more nuanced decisions will have to be made. The families I know who have severely impaired children (whether as a result of genetics, disease, accidents, etc.) are able to manage through a combination of tremendous effort on the part of the parents and through a variety of assistance that they receive through insurance, and other sources. If something in our current structure changed, and these parents were no longer capable of taking care of these children themselves, I'm not sure what happens at that point.

And of course, what to do about an adult who has no surviving immediate family to take care of them? What responsibility does extended family have to take care of them? Are people obligated to take care of siblings, nephews/nieces, cousins, uncles, aunts? What if there are no extended family members? Whose responsibility does it become, particularly if the individual is not even interested in being alive any more?

I don't claim to have any answers to these. But I do think these sorts of questions will become more and more important going forward because resources are going to become more scarce. And families, of whatever structure, will have to confront these issues in a more stark way.






deathtothepixies -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/13/2012 4:28:35 PM)

thank you ftp. It is horrible to think that people might have to make decisions based on resources available, they probably already do sometimes.
I am slightly surprised that more religious questions haven't been posed here. Yes I am an atheist and I suppose the OP(?) didn't lean that way but deliberate killing usually raises some questions in that area
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

I think we each, as individuals, deserve to have this right.

Although I think it should be restricted to certain types of circumstances. Final stages of a terminal disease regardless of one's age. The very aged (who might still be functioning, but are simply not interested in living anymore). I think those are the easy cases.

Separately, I think decisions around what level of medical intervention is appropriate is something that needs to be discussed more. Simply because medicine can do certain things, should it? If a life can be saved, but quality of life severely affected, whose decision is it to either medically intervene, or to not. I think this is where the difficult situations are and it is a lot harder to know what is right or wrong here.

All I know is that I would never criticize any family or person for whatever decision they made or make in this type of situation. I think it's complicated and people and their families need some freedom to make some tough choices. I don't think these are decisions that society should be making one way or the other (i.e., it is not helpful to have blanket statements like "every life is worth living", "every life is sacrosanct".) I think people need more freedom than that in order to sort through the tougher situations. And sometimes the decision ought to be that less (intervention) is more, rather than taking the attitude that every effort MUST be made every time for every life.

These are tough problems that require nuanced thinking, and I think the only way to achieve that is to give greater latitude to patients and families.

Also, separately, I do think that it is interesting to view some ancient practices in this regard. We've all heard about how many ancient peoples would leave extremely disabled newborns to die. While on the surface this may seem harsh, I think in ancient times, when survival was much more difficult, and everyone had to be able bodied to allow a community to thrive, you simply could not afford to have able bodied adults take their time to take care of the severely disabled or severely impaired because it meant others in the community would ultimately suffer. That was simply the reality. I don't think this makes ancient people unenlightened. They simply had to practice an extreme form of practicality given the way in which they lived. Imagine being a nomadic tribe. How many disabled people can you manage before it becomes too much of a burden on a family or on the community because part of your survival means moving around a lot?

My point is simply that our lifestyle today has allowed us the ability to take care of a wider range of physical (and even mental) issues than the ancients were able to do. But as the population increases, and resources become more scarce, at some point more nuanced decisions will have to be made. The families I know who have severely impaired children (whether as a result of genetics, disease, accidents, etc.) are able to manage through a combination of tremendous effort on the part of the parents and through a variety of assistance that they receive through insurance, and other sources. If something in our current structure changed, and these parents were no longer capable of taking care of these children themselves, I'm not sure what happens at that point.

And of course, what to do about an adult who has no surviving immediate family to take care of them? What responsibility does extended family have to take care of them? Are people obligated to take care of siblings, nephews/nieces, cousins, uncles, aunts? What if there are no extended family members? Whose responsibility does it become, particularly if the individual is not even interested in being alive any more?

I don't claim to have any answers to these. But I do think these sorts of questions will become more and more important going forward because resources are going to become more scarce. And families, of whatever structure, will have to confront these issues in a more stark way.








sirsholly -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/13/2012 4:59:17 PM)

Do i have the right to end my own life? Yes.

Do i have the right to hurt my loved ones by committing suicide. No.


Sooooo.....tough call.

But the more i thing about it, if faced with a debilitating illness my feeling would be if they cant watch me live they will not watch me die.




sirsholly -> RE: do you have the right to die? (3/13/2012 5:03:17 PM)

quote:

Now... would I be able to determine what was right to do?
You did just what i, and any other loving mother would have done, Lockit. You did not give up on your son.

You really are my hero.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875