Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia

[tech/a]

Suicide is evident in all age groups and is attached to a poor mental state.

I have a wonderful friend Kath who is terminally ill with cancer.
It is now in her spine in the area which carries the nerves.
It is a solid mass growing constantly.
The pain is un imaginable.
Even fulltime morphine pumps dont come close to relief.

The diagnosis is Paraplegia,highly likely quadraplegia---eventual death.
It is very slow growing and hasnt at this stage moved to other parts of her body.
Frankly I hope it does and quickly to the liver and all over!
It may not and will be a very slow painful death over years.

This is cruel,in humane and bloody heart breaking not only for Kath but her husband/kids/close friends.

Wysiwyg how would your mental state be???

 

[Wysiwyg]

That is sad to read Tech/A. I had minor surgery for BCC four months ago and will be seeing a specialist for a near eye operation next Monday at 9.15 am. What would my mental state be in this ladies circumstance? I don't know for sure, but I am a fighter.

 

[Ruby]

I have just come across this thread - have had a 'whizz through' read - and wish I had found it earlier because it is a subject about which I feel strongly.

Firstly, Julia, I would like to thank you for introducing the discussion and for your insight, balanced viewpoint and compassion. I am in complete agreement with you, and I have the greatest respect for Dr Nitschke and the work he is trying to do.

I firmly maintain my right to go at a time of my own choosing if I am old and life is no longer bearable. It is not death I fear; it is pain, loss of dignity, dependence, etc. Not all people wish to make that choice, preferring to allow nature - or medical science - to take its course, and I respect that; but I resent having the views of those same people imposed on me.

If I live to old age I will certainly be making preparations for the final exit, which I will determine (I hope). There is an organisation called "Dying with Dignity". The website is well worth a visit, and I believe they hold meetings in all capital cities.

Regards,

Ruby

 

[vincent191]

People talk about the quality of life but they avoid the question about the quality of death.

 

[pixel]

Firstly, Julia, I would like to thank you for introducing the discussion and for your insight, balanced viewpoint and compassion.

I wholeheartedly second that - Thanks, Julia.

WA has introduced a "Living Will", which also takes a step in the right direction. At least, the doctors are no longer obliged to prolong my agony if I don't wish to. Ever since an accident in the early '90s, when a particular operation was deemed necessary though risky, have I been carrying a document with me, instructing the medical staff to NOT force me to continue to vegetate in an undignified, passive state. While that was never enforceable, the new laws give it some more solid foundation.

We have also registered as organ donors, but getting to an age where major organs are rapidly approaching their use-by date. That's where body donation can plug in: we have registered with the Medical Faculty of UWA, who are most welcome to teach med students the basics of their handiwork, using our dead bodies for which we no longer have the slightest use.

Those three items in combination, we hope, will provide a little less incentive for medical staff to persist with unwelcome, useless treatment, and increase our chances of getting the necessary signatures when it's time to switch the life support off.

 

[Calliope]

If I live to old age I will certainly be making preparations for the final exit, which I will determine (I hope). There is an organisation called "Dying with Dignity". The website is well worth a visit, and I believe they hold meetings in all capital cities.

Ruby, as you are probably aware Philip Nitschke's book "The Peaceful Pill Handbook" is banned in Australia, thanks to Ruddock and the Right to Life organisation. I recently purchased it from Amazon from only to find out it could be downloaded on the internet.

It is well worth reading. If you are interested go to;

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Julia]

During my news rounds the other day I noticed Germany has most recently introduced euthanasia but for terminally ill and not personal reasons...

That article simply refers to the withdrawal of artificial life support. I can't see how that's 'euthanasia'. It is already a given throughout the world and happens all the time.
What do you mean when you say "personal reasons"?

I have a wonderful friend Kath who is terminally ill with cancer.

The diagnosis is Paraplegia,highly likely quadraplegia---eventual death.
It is very slow growing and hasnt at this stage moved to other parts of her body.
Frankly I hope it does and quickly to the liver and all over!

I'm so sorry to hear that, Tech. Has Kath given any consideration to taking matters into her own hands before she is incapacitated?
Certainly, such a thought should absolutely not be necessary, but until politicians get some sense about this, that would seem to be her only alternative.

That is sad to read Tech/A. I had minor surgery for BCC four months ago and will be seeing a specialist for a near eye operation next Monday at 9.15 am. What would my mental state be in this ladies circumstance? I don't know for sure, but I am a fighter.

Good luck for your surgery, Wysiwyg.
When I read comments like "but I am a fighter", I get very disturbed.
It implies that all it takes to cope with any sort of terminal and/or painful disease is a determined attitude. It's like the people who say when their treatment for e.g. cancer is successful that it was really all due to their having had a 'positive attitude'. It actually implies a choice on the part of the patient which is often absolutely wrong.

It's pretty easy for anyone who is basically healthy and never experienced devastating illness or disability to suggest to others who are less fortunate that they should just learn to cope with the pain, loss of dignity, and all round suffering. Why should they? Because you say so?

The thing that most upsets me about this whole debate is that those of us in favour of voluntary euthanasia absolutely do not want to imply that those who elect to endure their illness and die without assistance should in any way moderate such a view. But the anti-euthanasia brigade are so insistent that their way is the only right way. Why?

I have just come across this thread - have had a 'whizz through' read - and wish I had found it earlier because it is a subject about which I feel strongly.

Firstly, Julia, I would like to thank you for introducing the discussion and for your insight, balanced viewpoint and compassion. I am in complete agreement with you, and I have the greatest respect for Dr Nitschke and the work he is trying to do.

Thanks, Ruby. As is obvious, I also feel very strongly about the subject.
I've watched two loved family members suffer dreadfully before they both committed suicide in the most horrible way.

I wholeheartedly second that - Thanks, Julia.

WA has introduced a "Living Will", which also takes a step in the right direction. At least, the doctors are no longer obliged to prolong my agony if I don't wish to. Ever since an accident in the early '90s, when a particular operation was deemed necessary though risky, have I been carrying a document with me, instructing the medical staff to NOT force me to continue to vegetate in an undignified, passive state. While that was never enforceable, the new laws give it some more solid foundation.

Pixel, I think I heard recently that WA is also putting up some voluntary euthanasia legislation. Do you know any detail about this?

The "Living Will" is also known in some States as an "Advance Health Directive". It's important to be aware that this is a legal documentand the directions therein are binding on the medical personnel.

Few of us find it comfortable to think about the possibility of any sort of medical event - or even an accident - that could leave us incapacitated.
But it can happen to any of us. I found that once I'd completed the documentation and placed copies with all the appropriate people, local hospital included, I was able to stop worrying about what could happen.
Ideally, such a document should accompany a Will, and an Enduring Power of Attorney.

We have also registered as organ donors, but getting to an age where major organs are rapidly approaching their use-by date. That's where body donation can plug in: we have registered with the Medical Faculty of UWA, who are most welcome to teach med students the basics of their handiwork, using our dead bodies for which we no longer have the slightest use.

Those three items in combination, we hope, will provide a little less incentive for medical staff to persist with unwelcome, useless treatment, and increase our chances of getting the necessary signatures when it's time to switch the life support off.

Good to hear about the organ and body donation. Australia has one of the lowest rates of organ donation in the world.
You might be surprised at how many organs can still be used when the donor is old, perhaps not for a young person, but you could still extend the life of an older person.

 

[Ruby]

Ruby, as you are probably aware Philip Nitschke's book "The Peaceful Pill Handbook" is banned in Australia, thanks to Ruddock and the Right to Life organisation. I recently purchased it from Amazon from only to find out it could be downloaded on the internet.

It is well worth reading. If you are interested go to;

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thank you Calliope, I will check it out.

Cheeers,

Ruby

 

[Wysiwyg]

That article simply refers to the withdrawal of artificial life support. I can't see how that's 'euthanasia'. It is already a given throughout the world and happens all the time.

I can find more definitions but really it is definitive in bold print.

"According to the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, the precise definition of euthanasia is "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering"."

It can't be implied, construed, interpreted any other way, can it?

What do you mean when you say "personal reasons"?

Personal reasons such as sadness, depression, lonely, lost partner and want to go to, drug addiction.

Good luck for your surgery, Wysiwyg.

No sweat. These cancers have manifested in the last few years and this is the second visible one. Being 3 mm from my eyeball requires some finesse to remove and hence the specialist.

When I read comments like "but I am a fighter", I get very disturbed.
It implies that all it takes to cope with any sort of terminal and/or painful disease is a determined attitude. It's like the people who say when their treatment for e.g. cancer is successful that it was really all due to their having had a 'positive attitude'. It actually implies a choice on the part of the patient which is often absolutely wrong.

Really Julia it is fine if anyone wants to roll over and accept whatever happens. Several billion people have come and gone on this planet and while our personal journeys are unique to each and everyone, how people handle life experiences is for the most part up to them.

 

[Ruby]

I can find more definitions but really it is definitive in bold print.

"According to the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, the precise definition of euthanasia is "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering"."

It can't be implied, construed, interpreted any other way, can it?

Withdrawal of artificial life support is not the same as "a deliberate intervention". It is the absence of intervention, which then allows nature to take its course. In my view there is a difference.

 

[Logique]

The pain is un imaginable. Even fulltime morphine pumps dont come close to relief...This is cruel, inhumane and bloody heart breaking, not only for Kath but her husband/kids/close friends.
Wysiwyg how would your mental state be???

This is one of the most moving things I have ever read, thanks tech/a. How can any person, with even the remotest shred of human compassion and basic decency, deny such sufferers a dignified end. It beggars comprehension.

Stand aside Kevin Andrews and all such religious demagogues. The 21st century has arrived, there is no place for you here.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Withdrawal of artificial life support is not the same as "a deliberate intervention". It is the absence of intervention, which then allows nature to take its course. In my view there is a difference.

German court opens door to limited euthanasia.

You really don't understand what the ruling is but if you wish to see it another way then so be it.

 

[Bushman]

I must say this thread has never registered with me before now but it is compelling and thought provoking reading.

From my own personal experience, I believe that the option for a peaceful and dignified death at one's choosing rather than a painful and pointless death should be a basic human right. Much is made of the fact that 'healthy' individuals could potentially opt out due to issues with anxiety and/or depression. Surely this is not an insurmountable challenge? In the case of cancer, the views of oncologists and/or psychologists could be taken into account to ensure the option is only available to those with temrinal conditions and in severe physical or psychological pain.

From my own personal experience, my grand parents resorted to using a rifle to end their suffering. My grandfather had been suffering from prostate cancer and my grandmother had suffered a stroke and was completely incapacitated. They were also caring for a great aunt of mine who was 97 and in the advanced stages of dementia.

The shock and pain my family experiened from having to deal with the sudden violent death of three adored family members is with me to this day. I wish they had had the legal euthanasia option open to them because then we could have seen them one more time to say good-bye and make our peace.

To be human is to be compassionate and have empathy for the suffering of others. It disgusts me that people with no prospect for a peaceful death should be forced to kill themselves in secret or suffer an excruciating and futile death.

 

[pixel]

It disgusts me that people with no prospect for a peaceful death should be forced to kill themselves in secret or suffer an excruciating and futile death.

Agree 100%, Bushman;
And while I've been spared the kind of trauma that you were subjected to, I feel a shadow of your hurt and despair by just reading about your experience.

It utterly disgusts me that total strangers, "out of the purest motives and most pious convictions" as they usually stress, want to subject me to their own way of thinking and force their views on life, universe, and morals on me.

Nobody asked my advive and opinion whether I wanted to be born - now there's a good reason for that not happening. But now I have been born and grown to be alive and presumed fully responsible for for my actions, that must imply that I'm also presumed capable of making my own decisions.

So, to all those well-meaning do-gooders and right-to-lifers (whom I rather refer to as "forced-to-sufferers"): I haven't asked your advice and opinion, and I never will! So bugger off and stick to your own affairs. Don't interfere with my freedom of choice.

 

[Julia]

Withdrawal of artificial life support is not the same as "a deliberate intervention". It is the absence of intervention, which then allows nature to take its course. In my view there is a difference.

Exactly right, Ruby. Surely you can see the difference Wysiwyg?
Without the intervention of artificial life support, the person would be dead.
Voluntary euthanasia refers to the active intervention toward ending a life which would otherwise continue in unbearable suffering.

I must say this thread has never registered with me before now but it is compelling and thought provoking reading.

From my own personal experience, I believe that the option for a peaceful and dignified death at one's choosing rather than a painful and pointless death should be a basic human right. Much is made of the fact that 'healthy' individuals could potentially opt out due to issues with anxiety and/or depression. Surely this is not an insurmountable challenge? In the case of cancer, the views of oncologists and/or psychologists could be taken into account to ensure the option is only available to those with temrinal conditions and in severe physical or psychological pain.

Bushman, I'm so sorry to hear about your family members. That is the sort of shocking event we should be able to prevent.

About a decade ago, there was perfectly functional legislation introduced by the Northern Territory government. I'm a bit hazy about the details now, but I think three medical opinions had to be obtained before a person was given assistance to die. It was Dr Phillip Nitschke who essentially engineered this legislation with the full assistance of the then Territory government.
The patient had to be referred by their GP or treating doctor, and then had to obtain two further specialist opinions, one of which had to be from a psychiatrist. Surely that's enough of a safeguard.

The legislation was working well, allowing a few people to die peacefully, when the federal government, inspired by ****** Kevin Andrews, intervened and wiped the law.

The anti-euthanasia lobby likes to portray right to die legislation as meaning every faintly depressed person will just rock up to their local pharmacy and buy some lethal medication and off they go to die. Little objectivity or common sense is applied. Empathy and understanding of the suffering of so many people is dismissed as able to be coped with by palliative care.

I think palliative care is certainly better than it used to be, but the best pain relief in the world (and that's essentially all it offers, if that) can't remove the loss of dignity in needing to have someone toilet and wash you, feed you etc.
Why on earth, in an overpopulated world, do we need to keep people alive in this condition, using up valuable and expensive resources, when they would give everything they have to be allowed to die peacefully?

I wish they had had the legal euthanasia option open to them because then we could have seen them one more time to say good-bye and make our peace.

This is an aspect of suicide which is little discussed, but so very important.
To be able to be with the loved person, just to perhaps hold their hand as they die, would make so much difference both for the dying person and the remaining family.

To be human is to be compassionate and have empathy for the suffering of others. It disgusts me that people with no prospect for a peaceful death should be forced to kill themselves in secret or suffer an excruciating and futile death.

Bushman, you may like to become a member of Phillip Nitschke's "Exit".
The annual subscription is very modest, and it helps to support his continuous travelling all round Australia holding meetings to assist and advise people.
Ruby has also brought up "Dying with Dignity" which I gather performs a similar service.

The government's internet filter will, I gather, render some of these sites inaccessible. I have no words for Conroy et al.
I see today Ms Gillard has declared she is an atheist. Perhaps she will also display an enlightened view regarding voluntary euthanasia.

 

[pixel]

I see today Ms Gillard has declared she is an atheist.

Subtle difference, Julia:
Ms Gillard said she does not believe in God and won't pretend a faith she does not feel. Rather than A-theist = "god-less", I'd call that attitude A-gnostic = "no definite knowledge".
While the difference may not matter much to someone, who professes to know the one and only Deity (variously called Allah, Jahwe, Rainbow Serpent, Wotan, or Ishtar, Isis, Kali), it does matter to someone who has approached the subject with an open and critical mind.

All I can say with certainty is "I do not know whose concept of a superior being is coming the closest." That, I've been taught, makes me an Agnostic. I do not say, and neither (to my knowledge) did Julia Gillard, that we're sure there is no God. That would make us indeed Atheists.

btw, even if such hypothetical beings existed, gifted with equal parts of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence, I fail to imagine that they nevertheless depend on humans' sacharine adulation; even become petulant and vindictive if someone fails to believe in the apparently impossible.

Back to the subject of this topic: Given the assurance that "All men (and women) are free and equal", I therefore deny any fellow man (or woman) the right to decide for me how I continue my life or end it - all under the guise of their specific idea of a mythical Ubermensch.

 

[Julia]

Subtle difference, Julia:
Ms Gillard said she does not believe in God and won't pretend a faith she does not feel. Rather than A-theist = "god-less", I'd call that attitude A-gnostic = "no definite knowledge".

I'm going to disagree, pixel, on this. If she has said she does not believe in God, then that renders her an atheist, i.e. she does not believe a God exists.
She didn't say: "I don't know whether or not a God exists" which would have made her agnostic.
It would be interesting to have her define herself as one or the other perhaps.

 

[pixel]

I'm going to disagree, pixel, on this. If she has said she does not believe in God, then that renders her an atheist, i.e. she does not believe a God exists.
She didn't say: "I don't know whether or not a God exists" which would have made her agnostic.
It would be interesting to have her define herself as one or the other perhaps.

Good suggestion Let's ask her to define herself.

Apparently, she was asked by an Anglo-Keltic journalist with an implied tendency to postulate only one specific Capital-Gee God. That's why I took her admission to mean "I don't believe in this single one."

Seems we both interpret her statement on the basis of our personal make-up. Meaning you interpret "... don't believe in God" as "... don't believe a(ny) God exists"; whereas I leave the question of "any" open and read it as "... don't believe in (this particular) God's exclusivity".

Whichever opinion the PM may hold in this matter, I feel very strongly about segregation of State and Church matters. Consequently, the debate whether she is "a fit and proper person to serve this country as a Prime Minister", should be answered without the slightest regard of her religious beliefs or non-beliefs. You mentioned Kevin Andrews overruling a democratically created Law in the NT. That stinks to high heaven and is exactly the kind of bigotry that I detest as vehemently as any unilateral usurption of superiority.

 

[Julia]

Whichever opinion the PM may hold in this matter, I feel very strongly about segregation of State and Church matters. Consequently, the debate whether she is "a fit and proper person to serve this country as a Prime Minister", should be answered without the slightest regard of her religious beliefs or non-beliefs. You mentioned Kevin Andrews overruling a democratically created Law in the NT. That stinks to high heaven and is exactly the kind of bigotry that I detest as vehemently as any unilateral usurption of superiority.

I couldn't agree more, pixel. Her agnosticism/atheism is a real plus for her imo.
There will be a lot of people who will not vote for Tony Abbott because they believe his personal religious views will determine policy.

 

[Ruby]

Whichever opinion the PM may hold in this matter, I feel very strongly about segregation of State and Church matters. Consequently, the debate whether she is "a fit and proper person to serve this country as a Prime Minister", should be answered without the slightest regard of her religious beliefs or non-beliefs.

I'm with you and Julia here Pixel. Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are purely personal, and should not be allowed to impinge on political, business, or any other public matters.