California passes right to die law

[TomFoolery]

I imagine this topic has been discussed on these forums before, but California is now the fourth state in the U.S. to allow end-of-life options to terminally ill patients.

http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2015/10/05/california-becomes-the-fourth-state-with-a-death-with-dignity-law

It brings an interesting facet to the idea of religious and moral objections in healthcare.

Thinking about it has exposed me to some of my own biases and hypocrisies about that very subject and I'm still trying to reconcile. Maybe some of you can help me with this.

Obviously many religions are against suicide. Many religions are against contraceptives. I feel like any doctor practicing medicine in this country should be required to grant access to birth control if a patient requests it and there are no medical contraindications. I feel like women (and hopefully soon someday men) should have the right to decide if and when they become parents.

I also feel like people should have the right to end their own lives in the most dignified way possible to end their suffering. I think many people would associate suicide as being a religious issue, but it's not really. Everyone dies, and I imagine it's one of the few things about humanity regardless of religion, culture or creed that we can all agree on: we all wish we could die quickly, painlessly, and hopefully at the end of a fulfilled life. Physicians can opt out of prescribing medication for euthanasia if it violates religious or moral convictions they have. I find it strange that I don't feel angry about that in the way that I do over birth control. Maybe it's because I know secular medical professionals that would wrestle with the ethics of such a responsibility of directly, intentionally causing someone's death.

Then I think about laws that are on the books about not resuscitating people who are terminally ill or removing them from life support and "letting nature take its course." Not many medical professionals take up qualms with that because by doing nothing, you're not causing more harm. I guess I personally disagree with this, and I wonder if it's some flaw in my own ethics. I find it such a strange paradox that we wouldn't even treat a stray dog that way. If a dog is hit by a car and is clinging to life in a mangled body, most would agree euthanasia is the kindest thing. If the same thing happens to a person and brain scans show the person is basically a vegetable, we would prefer to remove life support so they can slowly starve to death, a process that could take weeks rather than deliberately end their life through medical intervention.

I guess I don't know.

[Munch]

Good for them. Its always been a difficult issue, but I strongly believe if either someone wishes to die who is terminally ill, or if they can't and their nearest family members need to make the choice, it should be so,

[Baruch]

Best to have a living will and resuscitation paperwork, so that if you are incapacitated, then no problem.

The only problem is ... with the government, this tends to evolve from voluntary to mandatory (see health insurance).

[stromboli]

I plan to die by driving off a tall cliff into the Snake River, but my wife and I also have living wills and insurance. You never know. My survivalist past taught me to have contingency plans.

[Solitary]

If I want to die I don't need a law giving me that right, if I have my gun rights.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think this is a great idea. I'm going to sign up my hex-wife today!

[TomFoolery]

If I want to die I don't need a law giving me that right, if I have my gun rights.

But not everyone wants to go by shooting themselves. It's messy, and though it is quick, it's probably not as painless as taking medication. Having never died myself, I couldn't personally say but it's obvious method is a personal choice.

[drunkenshoe]

Congrats. Sounds good.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If I want to die I don't need a law giving me that right, if I have my gun rights.

Why not shoot yourself now and avoid the rush? ;)

[Baruch]

I plan to die by driving off a tall cliff into the Snake River, but my wife and I also have living wills and insurance. You never know. My survivalist past taught me to have contingency plans.

Uncle Fred died in his sleep, unfortunately he was driving the car and the passengers died screaming ;-)

[SGOS]

Thinking about it has exposed me to some of my own biases and hypocrisies about that very subject and I'm still trying to reconcile. Maybe some of you can help me with this.

I have absolutely no problem with right to die laws, probably to the extent that I don't really understand your dilemma.   Nor do I understand those who are opposed to letting others choose for themselves.  It's just one of those things that relies on a long tradition, rather than reason.

Here's an analogy that may be flawed.  It's not hard to find a flaw in an analogy if you really want to find one.  But what just popped into my mind is the fact that many states give condemned criminals the right to choose between say the electric chair, or lethal injection.  It's a macabre choice that actually adds to the horror of being executed.

But don't give a terminal cancer patient who is facing a long and painful death, which sometimes lasts for years and makes the electric chair seem like a trip to the spa, or a chance to simply be put to sleep for good.  I just can't find any sense in not allowing people that option.  How about laws against suicide in general?  Someone might make a case for not allowing a despondent teenager to commit suicide (as though you could even prevent a determined teenager from killing himself), but that's not what right to die laws are for, nor do I accept that right to die laws are the beginning of some hypothetical slippery slope toward government ordered euthanasia.

But good for California.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

People who are terminally ill and want out should be allowed to get out.

With regard to capital punishment, authorities seem to want to make it difficult.  Botched electrocutions, botched injections.  Why not use carbon monoxide?  Many people have died in front of the TV with no apparent discomfort because they had a dodgy boiler.  A woman down the road died halfway up the stairs as a result of the same.  No fuck-ups there.

Sorry, I digress.... 

[TomFoolery]

I have absolutely no problem with right to die laws, probably to the extent that I don't really understand your dilemma.   

My dilemma stems from the fact that I don't think doctors should be able to opt out of prescribing birth control based on moral or religious principles. Like if you're going to be a doctor, be a fucking doctor and quit telling women what to do with their bodies.

Yet in a way I sort of agree with doctors being able to opt out of helping someone commit suicide. The best I can reason for the double standard is that I've never encountered anyone who hated birth control for non-religious reasons. But I've met people who didn't believe in suicide for purely secular, ethical reasons.

Nor do I understand those who are opposed to letting others choose for themselves.  It's just one of those things that relies on a long tradition, rather than reason.

I'm not opposed to letting anyone choose for themselves either.

Yet some of my feelings about physician assisted suicide are actually similar to abortion. It's sad when both become too convenient (for society, not the people involved) or people feel like they have no alternative, because then it's not really about choice, it's about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I've had an abortion so I'm familiar with the thought process behind it. I was 22 and just had to drop out of college again because I was super poor, my boyfriend had just broken up with me and then bam, my birth control pills failed. I never wanted to be a mother anyway so it wasn't really a hard decision for me, but I did consider the possibility of keeping it. Then I thought, I can either have this baby and be broke the rest of my life and struggling as a single mom like mine did, or I can have this abortion and get on with my life. I chose the latter. Our American society is not kind to poor working mothers, and having a baby when you're young or single or working a job with no maternity leave often amounts to economic suicide. Many women feel forced into abortion for financial reasons, and to me, that's not really choice.

There are similar cases in the right-to-die argument. In the documentary How to Die in Oregon, Randy Stroup is told by his state health insurance that they won't pay for a second round of chemotherapy but they will pay for life-ending drugs. Stroup wasn't particularly religious, but he had a mindset that didn't really support giving up without a fight. Yet the state would rather pay $1000 for euthanasia than $100,000 for cancer drugs. Is it really a right-to-die if we tell people you can either pay for medicine out of your own pocket and financially bankrupt your family, or you can just kill yourself?

I know that both abortion and suicide are deeply personal experiences and that everyone is going to have their own standard for what they think is right for them. They should. I guess I just worry in the right-to-die argument that society and the government will compel people into decisions about actually going through with it that they didn't necessarily want to make but felt they had no other choice. I worry because it has happened with abortion.

[SGOS]

I'm not opposed to letting anyone choose for themselves either.

Yet some of my feelings about physician assisted suicide are actually similar to abortion. It's sad when both become too convenient (for society, not the people involved) or people feel like they have no alternative, because then it's not really about choice, it's about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

OK, I see the dilemma, I think.  You are not opposed to anyone's right to choose, but yet you kind of are, because you don't want it to be "too" convenient.  The word "too" is important in that it adds to the dilemma (at what point does it become too convenient I'm not sure, and it sounds like you aren't either).  I avoid the convenience problem all together, and favor letting the person affected face the dilemma on their own terms.

The case in Oregon, as presented, creates a nightmare because it essentially takes away an innocent person's autonomy.  I keep thinking there's information missing in the story, but maybe not.

[Solitary]

Why not shoot yourself now and avoid the rush? ;)

Because I enjoy annoying you!