Massachusetts May Soon Change How the Nation Dies

Hugh Pickens writes "Lewis M. Cohen reports that this Election Day, Massachusetts is poised to approve the Death With Dignity Act, a modernized, sanitized, politically palatable term that replaces the now-antiquated expression 'physician-assisted suicide.' Oregon's Death With Dignity Act has been in effect for the past 14 years, and the state of Washington followed suit with a similar law in 2008. But the Massachusetts ballot question has the potential to turn death with dignity from a legislative experiment into the new national norm, because the state is the home of America's leading medical publication (the New England Journal of Medicine), hospital (Massachusetts General), and four medical schools (Harvard, Boston University, University of Massachusetts, and Tufts). If the act passes in Massachusetts, other states that have previously had unsuccessful campaigns will certainly be emboldened to revisit this subject. The initiative would allow terminally ill patients with six months or less to live to request from their doctor a prescription for a lethal dose of a drug. Doctors do not have to offer the option at all, and patients must make three requests, two verbal and one written. They must self-administer the drug, which would be ingested. The patients must be deemed capable of making an informed decision. 'It's all about choice,' says George Eighmey, a key player in instituting the Oregon law, defending it against repeal and shepherding it into reality. 'You decide. No one else can decide for you. No can can force you into it, coerce you into it or even suggest it to you unless you make a statement: "I don't want to live like this any more" or "I'm interested in that law out there, doctor, can you give me something to alleviate this pain and suffering."'"

Comments

Question:

[Mitreya]

Is it really that difficult to acquire a lethal dose of a drug without doctor assistance?

Or is this aiming to legally protect doctors who are assisting patients?

Re:Question:

[mcmonkey]

Is it really that difficult to acquire a lethal dose of a drug without doctor assistance?

Or is this aiming to legally protect doctors who are assisting patients?

Yes, and yes.

Re:Question:

[poetmatt]

Uh, he said yes.

I am taking a stab at the dark here, but I'm assuming they meant a prescription drug approach that is guaranteed and quick, as opposed to "might not work and leave you crippled". Not that I would want to do that, but I can surely guess that terminally ill folks would rather like to be able to choose when they die of their own volition.

Re:Question:

[Firehed]

I imagine this allows ill patients to get access to something that will bring a much cleaner and painless death than downing an entire bottle of painkillers; i.e. more like a cyanide capsule.

It's easy to buy a lethal dose of caffeine (fairly cheap!) off Amazon, but going by how having way too much coffee feels, that would be a pretty crappy way to off oneself. Seems to go against that whole "dignity" thing they're aiming for.

Re:Question:

[h4rr4r]

So then how do people get illegal drugs?
Are doctors supplying those?

You know you can just buy carbon monoxide, right?

Re:Question:

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Possible, but hardly "with dignity". You could still be found and rushed to a hospital, stomach pumped and kept alive. Plus quite likely getting forced into some kind of psychological treatment.

Even if not, there are other nasty side effects associated with any of the easily available methods.

So while it's possible to suicide on your own, it's difficult to manage with a minimum of discomfort.

Re:Question:

[Reformed Lurker]

I don't think alcohol poisoning necessarily can be described as "Death with Dignity"....

Re:Question:

[Artraze]

> Is it really that difficult to acquire a lethal dose of a drug without doctor assistance?

Yes.
To elaborate: It's difficult to acquire a lethal dose of a drug that is easy to administer and will result in guaranteed, peaceful death without little to no chance of (partial) survival. Sure you can drink bleach or try to OD on alcohol or acetaminophen/paracetamol or any number of things. But they can be quite unpleasant and/or leave you alive but even worse off.

> Or is this aiming to legally protect doctors who are assisting patients?

Less so, I'd wager. Realistically, people rarely ask questions if someone suffering and wishing to die dies in their sleep. Doctor: "They died in their sleep last night". Family: "Ah, well their suffering is over at least". Pretty much never: "I bet you turned their morphine up you bastard!". Of course, that really requires the patient to be literally on their death bed, but either way I think the point of this is entirely a way to reduce suffering of the terminally ill and not really about doctor liability.

Re:Question:

[MozeeToby]

It's easy to get a lethal dose, but it's less easy to get a lethal dose in forms that many of these people can actually take. It's hard to swallow a fist full of sleeping pills if you're on a feeding tube 24/7. Heck, it can be hard to swallow pills if you have a stroke. Then there's the fact that none of the drugs you mentioned produce death in ways that are at all pleasant. A terminal patient who wants to end their life shouldn't have to worry about spending their last conscious moments vomiting themselves to death. And that's if they don't botch it (not taking enough, vomiting up the pills before your body metabolizes them, etc).

Letting doctors prescribe a lethal dose means a single large injection of morphine and it means being unconscious in seconds and dead in minutes, with virtually no failure rate.

Re:Question:

[mwvdlee]

You'd think a country that executes prisoners humanely (as much as I'm opposed to death penalty, atleast they're not tortured) would want the atleast the same humane treatment for it's citizens that actually choose to die.

Re:Question:

[TheCarp]

Yes and no. Most people are not medical experts and, shouldn't have to become so just to die with some dignity.

The thing is, what kills one person may not kill another and most things that you can eaisly get your hands on, and even most prescriptions, are within dosage ranges that are quite safe. Yes, you can kill yourself many ways, but, many of those ways are less effective than you might think.

I personally knew a guy who tried to off himself with barbituates. He failed, woke up several days later. This is actually fairly common with that route.

Also many terminally ill patients are in no condition to do that research and administer the drugs without help.

Which is why, I think we really need the second... Doctors able to help.

I plan to vote for this one. I have worked among the medical community (at MGH no less), I have been there when my family had to have stern words with doctors who somehow interpreted our grandfather's DNR order as "Recessitate and put on a ventilator".

This is such an important issue for so many reasons. So many people in ongoing pain that don't need to be, so many families that need to move on. I hate to bring it to money but.... 50% of health care costs are spent in the last 5 years of life.....and for what? The fact that so many doctors opt to not have chemo and opt to die rather than hang on like so many of their patients are made to should say something.

Don't get me wrong, if someone wants to fight to the biter end, and get as many waking moments as possible, regardless of their quality, more power to them. However, what compassion is there in forcing people to go on living who have nothing to look forward to except deterioration in a bed?

I honestly think Bill Hicks described the situation best in his comical suggestion that we use terminally ill people as stunt doubles in action films. "Do you want your grandmother to die in a sterile hospital bed, he translucent skin so thin you can see the last beat of her heart, or do you want her to meet Chuck Norris?.... wow Chuck just kicked her head clear off, my grandma is no longer in pain...this is the best movie ever!"

Re:Question:

[MozeeToby]

Doctor: "They died in their sleep last night". Family: "Ah, well their suffering is over at least". Pretty much never: "I bet you turned their morphine up you bastard!"

Pretty much never isn't good enough. If you're a doctor, are you really going to risk your career on the off chance that you get a family who is so overcome with rage that they demand a toxicology screen on their dead loved one? How about twice? How about 100 times over the course of your career? (sounds like a lot, but if you only practice for 20 years that would be less than one patient every two months). How about we have it nice and legal; so the decision is documented and acknowledged by the family and no one has to risk getting their life destroyed for doing what more and more people are of the opinion is the right thing to do.

Re:Question:

[jythie]

That is one of the key points. Yeah, overdoses happen and people die from them, but much of the time an overdose doesn't kill the person (humans are a lot harder to poison then people think) and then leave you feeling even more miserable. I have known several people who tried to commit suicide via ingestion of various pills and survived.

And, of course, some people are just law abiding and, even if they will be dead, still do not want to break the law to do it.

Re:Question:

[jythie]

No difference no, but the doctor could tell you exactly how much to take (too little will not be enough, too much will trigger the body's instinct to evacuate itself).. and of course there is the issue of not everyone knows where to get street drugs so those might not be an option they can access. I know I wouldn't have the first clue how to go about getting such things.

Re:Question:

[h4rr4r]

Which is why so many states are switching from that mess to a single barbiturate dose.

Re:Question:

[Golddess]

That's the part that kind of got me about TFS. Requiring the person to make both written and verbal requests, and to ingest it themselves (which I am presuming to mean they cannot ask someone else to put it in their mouth), I wonder what percentage of people that would restrict this from.

Re:Question:

[h4rr4r]

What does that have to do with it?

The death penalty is not vengeance, it is only preventing the person from continuing to be a danger to others. Society does not set out to murder, only protect itself.

Re:Question:

[tnk1]

The major need for a doctor and prescription drugs is to make sure the job is done right the first time, and in a way that will not traumatize your relatives (beyond the fact you're going to be a corpse at the end of the process). A failed suicide will leave a very real chance of you being even worse off, and under the current system, kept alive in that state and possibly in a padded room to boot.

For the same reason, that doctors are there to supervise lethal injection executions, a doctor will need to be there to make sure that the method and means are sound and also to ensure that there are no conditions that might complicate the process.

Additionally, the law ensures that you have assistance without that assistant being charged with a crime afterward. Suicides using perfectly effective methods can easily fail, and when they are done by disabled people, are much more likely to fail without assistance.

I don't know how I feel about legal suicide myself. In theory, they aren't impinging on my rights simply by doing so, so it's not my business.

On the other hand, I don't condone it, and if it became subsidized by government money (at some point in the future), then I would then be forced to have an opinion on it because then I become responsible for paying for it.

Hopefully, someone does the smart thing and leaves the funding for the actual actions to a nice, private charity organization made up of people who agree with it.

Re:Question:

[h4rr4r]

CO poisoning is quick. We are not talking about breathing over minutes or hours. We are talking about just a couple lung fulls. You won't have time for most of the nasty effects.

Re:Question:

[Joce640k]

You're missing the point.

The point is to die openly and with dignity. You can tell people you're going to do it. You can arrange things legally. You can say goodbye. They might even want to hold your hand or be in the next room when you do it.

It's completely different than letting somebody come home to a dead body or get a phone call from the police because the neighbors are complaining about a bad smell...

Re:Question:

[Mysticalfruit]

As a resident of Massachusetts, I plan on voting for this as well. The reason? When I was a kid, a friend of my parents died of inoperable brain cancer. In the end, he suffered terribly and even at age 10 I could see needlessly. He didn't die with dignity, he died in misery. I would think if I ever found myself in that situation that once the doctors told me, "Look, the seizures are going to get worse, everything is going to get really bad" that I would while I still had my facilities I could say, "That's not how I want to go, I don't want my children to remember their father like that."

With that all said, I hope to never be there, but I want the option and more over I want to give the option to others.

Re:Question:

[shaitand]

"A bullet works, too, but it leaves more of a mess for someone to clean up. I understand haning one's self isn't a bad way to go. Slitting your wrists might be a little painful, particularly if the blade isn't sharp."

For the sake of someone who might consider any of these things they are all bad ways to go. Most people don't know enough about bullets and human anatomy to be certain they don't end up a vegetable or paralyzed. Hanging is a horrible way to go along with drowning, it is a slow and painful process and most of the rope you would buy at the store will stretch when your weight is applied. My aunt hung herself on a closet door and I'll never forget the long fingernail grooves in the door.

Suicide is extremely selfish but if someone is going to do it a combination of drugs to put you to sleep and a heavy gas are what you need. Take strong pain killers, muscle relaxers, etc. Get a CO2 tank and a solenoid you can put on a timer then go into an enclosed space like a closet. The drugs put you to sleep, the gas makes sure you don't wake up. If I'm wrong somehow, or you didn't have enough drugs, or you otherwise find it unpleasant, just open the door to the enclosed space.

Re:Question:

[AK Marc]

Were there that many problems with a guillotine in good repair? I know that the most common ones used for low-level people were rarely sharpened, possibly leading to problems, but one in good repair? Any issues?

Re:Question:

[flimflammer]

You think that because you can ultimately kill yourself with carbon monoxide that terminally ill patients actually want to go that way?

They might as well put a bullet in their temple.

The whole point is for a peaceful, clean death with as little pain as possible.

Re:Question:

[realityimpaired]

Is there much of a difference between prescription opiates and street ones? Seems like everyday you hear more and more about the prescription ones being sold on the street or abused by radio personalities.

Briefly, yes. Not quite so briefly, it depends on your metabolism. The prescription opiates are usually encapsulated in a way that slows down their breakdown in your system, in an attempt to prevent them from being useful as a recreational drug, but other than that they're essentially the same. If you know what you're doing, chemically speaking, you can break down the encapsulation before taking the drug.

Drugs like codeine and oxycodone break down into morphine when exposed to your metabolic system. How much, and how quickly, depends on you. Some people digest the stuff very quickly so the effect wears of early, some digest it very slowly. The latter group is one of the reasons that they control the dosage that you can lay your hands on... people *have* lethally overdosed on codeine because they don't digest it very quickly, and so when they take one pill there's no effect within the half hour or so that they are told to expect it. So they take another. And another. And another. Eventually, the body starts breaking the stuff down, and they get a dangerous dose in a relatively short period of itme.

Legality of the war on drugs aside, if a person wants to commit suicide they will find a way. But methods like alcohol poisoning (suggested above) or overdose on illegal drugs are messy and unreliable, not even considering the very good point that was made here. Acquiring a lethal dose from a doctor is simply a way to guarantee that it'll be quick and painless, and legal. Most of the people who would consider taking advantage of something like this aren't really in a position to go out and buy drugs off the street anyway... this is an end of life/palliative care option.

Re:Question:

[Kyusaku Natsume]

Aside from that, legally accepted euthanasia protects the family and the deceased to make the proper insurance claims. All life insurance policies become void in case of suicide, but in case of legal euthanasia they should apply.

Re:Question:

[Luckyo]

Actually you will. It's debatable if your brain will have the ability to process these however due to massive lack of oxygen which is needed to register the necessary impulses.

But while it may not take minutes of breathing, it will take minutes of blood circulating with CO instead of O2 to die. Make no mistake there, it's not a fast death by any stretch, nor a painless one. It's just more or less guaranteed one after a certain critical mass is reached.

Re:Question:

[kenorland]

Suicide is extremely selfish

What a hateful thing to say.

Take strong pain killers, muscle relaxers, etc. Get a CO2 tank and a solenoid you can put on a timer then go into an enclosed space like a closet. The drugs put you to sleep, the gas makes sure you don't wake up. If I'm wrong somehow, or you didn't have enough drugs, or you otherwise find it unpleasant, just open the door to the enclosed space.

Your bad suggestions just underline the need for physician assistance.

Drone

[Anonymous Coward]

Predator drone attacks for everyone now.

Lot more dignity than a self-inflicted gunshot

[crazyjj]

At least this will allow someone to go with their family around (and without the mess).

Of course, doctors have been doing this sort of thing "off the books" forever. When I was a kid and a certain person I knew was dying, his doctor gave him a orders not to let his nurse inject him with this particular syringe of morphine (wink, wink).

Re:Lot more dignity than a self-inflicted gunshot

[h4rr4r]

One of my greatest regrets is not noticing when a doctor did this. They left the morphine drip machine unlocked and showed us how we must not turn it up. I was only 14, but I really wish I would have realized what they were trying to tell us at the time.

Re:Death with Dignity.

[Joehonkie]

Where does this even mention "the elderly?" It mentions people with terminal ilnesses, which can start very young indeed.

life insurance

[tippe]

I wonder what life insurance companies have to say about this. Specifically, does exercising your right to "die with dignity" automatically cause you to forfeit any life insurance that you might have? If so, that's going to doubly suck for the family you leave behind, especially if you have unpaid debts that'll be passed down to them...

Re:life insurance

[h4rr4r]

Life insurance will NOT GO TO DEBTORS.

Life insurance is payed to the beneficiary not the Estate. Life insurance can not be claimed against for debts of the deceased since it was never paid to him.

Creditors will lie to you about this, they will attempt to swindle you out of the money.

Re:life insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

Per the act: "The attending physician may sign the patient’s death certificate which shall list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death." So the insurance company might not even get to know.

Link to the 2012 Ballot Questions (pdf). This question is #2:
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV-2012.pdf

Re:life insurance

[Quirkz]

Hint: if your wife does you in, it's not suicide. :)

Re:Death with Dignity.

[dyingtolive]

I don't think that's how I'd interpret any of that. Consider this: You're 90-something, you shit yourself continually, you forget what you are doing periodically, and it's painful to continue to exist. That is, you are in constant pain. The 'solution' to this is that you keep munching down pain pills that slowly kill the rest of your organs, offering up delightful side-effects all the while.

I don't think that's a societal issue in the way you are thinking it is, unless your idea of a solution is to have "old people in pain" pride parades where you spread awareness of their constant pain and agony, or something, because you think that will make it go away?

Re:Death with Dignity.

[MozeeToby]

No dude, sorry. Imagine that I'm paralyzed down half my body, can't breath without oxygen, can't take a piss without someone helping me, and knowing that there is no chance at all that I will ever get better, that in fact I will most likely get worse every day until the day I die. Sorry, there's no dignity in that. Let me go. Painlessly, cleanly, and by my own decision, but let me go. Freedom over your own body should be the ultimate freedom, telling someone in that position that you won't let them die isn't just insensitive, it's downright cruel and selfish.

Terry Pratchett documentary: "Choosing to Die"

[TehCable]

I highly recommend Terry Pratchett's 2011 documentary "Choosing to Die." You may watch the full film on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slZnfC-V1SY I found the documentary extremely informative and moving.

Re:Death with Dignity.

[Immostlyharmless]

It's not that we don't like seeing sick old people, it's just that sometimes sick, old people, are tired of being sick, old people. They are in chronic pain, they are incontinent, they have skin break down that doesn't heal. They frequently fall and break bones, sometimes time after time after time. Why should someone who is in chronic pain, constantly shitting themselves who doesn't have the physical strength to turn themselves in bed or possibly finish a meal because they are too tired, be forced to go on simply because their body doesn't know it's time to quit? If a person decides they've had enough, why is that not good enough for you to accept? The summary and accompanying articles states very plainly that the law says it has to be initiated by the person involved and that they have to make that statement 3 times. What part of that are you not getting?

People with strong religious convictions

[Anne_Nonymous]

People with strong religious convictions are the ones who have opposed Death With Dignity in other states. They should be free to suffer to death in there own excrement, vomit, and drool if they like. They should also not attempt to control how others choose to live or die.

some sense at last

[thephydes]

I hope this spreads to other countries. What is proposed is a good step that I would support 100% if I lived there. My wife works runs a palliative care ward and the stories she tells me about patients wanting legislation like this are common.

Re:"Physicial assisted-suicide"

[MozeeToby]

It's antiquated because the last time someone really tried to push for it, he became a pariah to some people and a joke to others; which is why we needed a new term to introduce to people so that it doesn't carry the baggage of the previous attempts.

Re:Death with Dignity.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The reason why the elderly who are in medical care don't have dignity is because we as a civilization have setup a structure where such people are considered a drain on society.

Ever watched someone die of cancer? No matter how well cared-for they are, there is absolutely nothing dignified about it.

The "drain on society" has nothing to do with people dying a slow, painful and drawn-out death that can't be averted with modern medicine. Nice attempt to confuse the issue though.

Two birds with one stone

[larry bagina]

I think we should go all the way here. Let's be honest -- social security and medicare are not going to be there for us and who wants to be old anyway? I propose that at age 65 (or perhaps earlier as needed) all men be issued two bottles of viagra, a key of pure (98% minimum) Colombian flake cocaine, and a week's worth of services from three strippers.

The advantages should be obvious -- it's cheaper for everyone and certainly more enjoyable. What better way to die than while high as a kite and busting a nut inside a foxy coed? Certainly beats spending months in a hospital bed hooked up to a machine.

Re:Death with Dignity.

[h4rr4r]

Or maybe we like planning for our futures. Short of one of these laws my plan is manufactured by Remington if that day should ever come.

Off topic, sort of...

[NotQuiteReal]

Shouldn't the availability of such "end-of-life" drugs settle the "cruel and unusual" question in death penalty states? I mean if something like Propofol is so pleasant that it is the target of abuse, it should be perfectly fine for a pleasant, relaxing send off when a death row prisoner's time has come.

Bringing it back to "death with dignity", noone will force it, or even suggest it, but LWOP prisoners should also be offered the same option...

(lol - spell check on Propofol offers "Foolproof")

Re:Off topic, sort of...

[SuricouRaven]

There was a BBC program on this subject. They investigated many historical methods of execution, deciding on which was the 'ideal' method. Criteria were chosen: It had to be reliable, easily administered by persons of little training, not require difficult-to-source materials, clean and painless. The eventual winner was aspixiation with nitrogen, which met all of these criteria. This idea was then presented to the leader of a pro-death-penalty pressure group in the US.

He rejected it immediately, on the grounds that it was inhumane... to the victims. How is it justice, he asked, for a murderer to die peacefully if his victim did not?

There we have the problem of execution. The death penalty has many purposes. It is a deterrent. It is a way to dispose of those too dangerous to ever free. But it is also a way to satisfy people's base desire for revenge, to see the guilty made to suffer slowly and painfully. Nitrogen could have been introduced a century ago with ease - but it isn't politically viable: It's just *too* painless to satisfy that desire to inflict punishment. If the death doesn't hurt, people feel that the scales of karma remain unbalanced.

Re:What drugs and what protections from failure?

[MozeeToby]

Pills won't work for many of these patients, many are intubated or have a feeding tube, others are physically incapable of swallowing a pill because of the very diseases and disorders that are making their lives a living hell. A simple injection of morphine or something simple. Almost impossible to screw up and virtually guaranteed to produce painless death.

Re:IANAL

[mfh]

Well a living will executes demands and requirements from the perspective of the person, so the request is being made in advance by the person... not by a family member or anyone else.

For example, if I don't want to be resuscitated, I can put DNR in my living will. They cannot legally resuscitate me.

So it's the same if you put in a living will that if you ever become terminally ill and will die within 6mths, that you are hereby requesting the prescription to be given to you by a proxy.

Re:Death with Dignity.

[shadowrat]

I'll take oblivion over living in my own filth, forgetting who I am every day, and being too frail to actually interact with the world.

Are you kidding? why I remenber a time when the days were just a blur and i had absolutely no bowel or bladder control. I was the center of everyone's world. All attention was paid to me. Everyone hung on my every move or utterance. I was the king of the universe. The day i stopped shitting in my pants was the day my life started going downhill. I welcome incontinence, my old friend's return.

Re:Death with Dignity.

[mcgrew]

Or in other words, we don't like seeing sick old people. So we try to kill them off.

It's not for your sake, it's for their sake. Have you ever seen someone die of cancer? I'll tell you, it isn't pretty. I can't imagine a more hellish way to die. And what do you consider "old"? My friend Linda was only 49 when she died of cancer, even children get cancer.

You're thinking wrong. It's not for your sake unless it's you who is dying in the most horrible way a person can die. It has nothing to do with "dignity" but everything to do with not making someone die by torture. After seeing the hel Linda went through, I'm al for this.

Re:Death with Dignity.

[Anonymous Coward]

The term suicide -- which is generally defined as the "act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself"-- is not specifically used in the Scriptures; however, the injunction against killing embodied in the Ten Commandments, i.e., "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13), dealing with the unlawful homicide of another human being, would also forbid the murder of self. The very fact that the Almighty is the Giver Of All Life and "formeth the spirit of man within him" (Zechariah 12:1), tells us that it is not within our right to arbitrarily terminate our own life, against His permission. "Because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets: Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. Then shall the dust return to the Earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God Who gave it" (Ecclesiastes 12:5-7).

To understand suicide to be sin against God and against self, is in keeping with the LORD Jesus Christ's statement concerning the Spirit of the Moral Law, where "love is the fulfilling of the Law" (Romans 13:10). "37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the First and Great Commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Matthew 22:37-39). God requires, both in His Law and Gospel, that all moral agents choose the highest good of God, and of our being in general, for its own sake, as our ultimate purpose in life, i.e., a supreme love for God and an equal love of our neighbour as we would love ourselves. "For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the LORD the Church" (Ephesians 5:29).

Neither the modern legal nor medical definitions of suicide entail the Scriptural aspect of suicide being the transgression of the Moral Law, where both God and man are denied the love that are rightfully due them. "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother [much less, himself], he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother [or, himself] whom he hath seen, how can he love God Whom he hath not seen?" (1John 4:20). The supreme hatred of one's self and life, where a morally capable individual voluntarily terminates his own life, is also preeminent contempt of the "God [Who] Is Love" (4:16). Especially for True Christians, the very idea of disposing of our own lives as if we were the masters of them, is unthinkable. "For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself" (Romans 14:7).

http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/What.Bible.Says.Suicide.html

I always just thought "Thou shalt not kill" extended to self, but apparently there's more to it.

Re:Death with Dignity.

[N0Man74]

Or in other words, we don't like seeing sick old people. So we try to kill them off.

The reason why the elderly who are in medical care don't have dignity is because we as a civilization have setup a structure where such people are considered a drain on society.

We don't think they are a drain on society. We think they are cash-cows. We can take their (and/or possibly their family's) life-time accumulated wealth, all the money their health insurance (or Medicaid) will allow, and pour it into high cost healthcare.

They aren't a drain on a society, only to the people that love them. For everyone else, they are an opportunity.

The simple facts

[fnj]

I can't believe what a bunch of ignorant wild speculation is contained in the comments on this page. No one has even bothered to find out what Massachusetts Ballot Question 2 actually proposes. But it's simple enough in a nutshell.

It would be assured that the patient is adult, informed, and competent; ORIGINATES the action HIMSELF; is really facing imminent and certain death as determined by both attending and consulting physicians; confirms his wish three times with plenty of time enforced to think it over; and has to sign a form in the presence of witnesses meeting prescribed qualifications. Medication would be prescribed which would be certain to result in a humane death. I have been told by the opposition it consists of 100 Seconals to dissolve in water and drink promptly[1], but the measure does not appear to specify such. A big overdose of morphine would work just as well if not better (yes, morphine can be taken orally; it just requires more of it). It's what is used now "off the record" in hospitals when a patient is in irreversible unbearable agony and his body is betraying his dignity, if he is lucky enough to have access to a physician or nurse willing to risk everything to REALLY help him the only way that counts. Don't pretend it doesn't and won't happen even without the protection of the law. The law just prevents criminalization of what is one of the kindest and most caring acts it is possible to undertake.

It is prescribed that the death certificate shall specify the cause of death as the diagnosed disease, NOT "suicide". This is important. The patient is not "choosing death". That is HOGWASH. The patient is choosing the MANNER and TIMING of death. That is all. The death is already ordained.

The measure would specifically outlaw (and prescribe punishment for) coercing the patient, forging a patient request, or suppressing a recission by a patient of his own request. It would not allow the active participation in the ending of the patient's life. Contrary to the opposition hysteria, it is specifically NOT, repeat NOT, an assisted suicide measure. It is a lifting of sanction against suicide under controlled circumstances, and an above-board way for the patient to acquire the means without the risk of screwing up and having the effort come out badly. It is nothing MORE than this.

Anyone who opposes this measure is a DAMNED EVIL BASTARD who should rot in hell.

[1] The opposition expresses horror at this "dangerous" (WHA???) method of self termination, as if falling asleep for the final time is some kind of torture.

Re:Why not? It worked so well in Germany in 1939

[fnj]

This is a straw horse and a damnable tactic. You know perfectly well this measure is VOLUNTARY, that the request MUST always originate from the patient, and that 100% of people on both sides of this argument deplore the state ordained eugenic killing that went on in Germany. If you are trying to produce a genuine reason to oppose the measure under current discussion, you have FAILED utterly.

Good For Them

[wbav]

I've got karma to burn, and this thing is personal to me.

I take offense to the start of the summary. It is called death with dignity for a reason. There are people out there with very terrible diseases they didn't ask for. For example ALS that robs the victim of the use of their muscles. Over time the diaphragm goes out, and if pneumonia doesn't get the poor soul they eventual die from lack of oxygen, much like drowning. The sick and twisted part is while the person can feel the pain they can't even express their discomfort. My father has ALS. I may have it some day. I live in Oregon and I'm proud that this law gives me and my father a chance to end things on our own terms without saddling our loved ones with even more medical bills.

To this point my father hasn't asked for this; however, when the time comes he can. There's no reason we shouldn't allow that. It is far less dangerous than eating a bullet and gives family time to prepare. Fuck the submitter. It is about dignity.

Not available during US Presidential Elections

[shanec]

One slight item missing from the article...

"Due to the fear of mass suicides from the mental anguish caused by elections, the Death With Dignity Act would be suspended three months prior to all elections. "Not wanting to live like this (being exposed to non-stop presidential advertisements)" would not be sufficient excuse to superseded a very important aspect of the law, said spokesperson Dr. Marcia Angell. Everyone choosing this option must be "deemed capable of making an informed decision." It's well documented that during an election season, this is virtually, if not completely impossible."

Re:Psssh, Hippocratic oath!

[wbav]

Give me one good reason my father should have to "drown" slowly as his diaphragm gives out due to ALS, feeling the pain of his lungs screaming for air even when his muscles can't respond. The patient has to give notice in writing, which is traceable. Usually the family is involved. It is not a surprise. Quit with the conspiracy theories there's a time and place for them, but this isn't it.

Either you're an evil, sadistic human or stupid. Take your pick.

Re:Death with Dignity.

[Quirkz]

You may be setting your sights a little low. My grandparents on one side were playing tennis into their early 80s, and my grandma on the other side really only started slow down when she was nearly 90. My dad is 62, and he still does carpentry for a living - admittedly he's much more focused on management than the physical labor, but he can still swing a hammer pretty well. I know there's a lot of genetic variance, but 70 ain't necessarily that old, unless you've got serious health problems.

Re:Pressure from insurers

[shutdown -p now]

If the people in question want to die faster themselves, I don't see anything wrong with this. This is first and foremost about human suffering, not about money.

Re:Psssh, Hippocratic oath!

[shutdown -p now]

What about my right to die?

Alternate View on the Subject

[Koreantoast]

I'm neutral on the issue, but I think it's worth looking at an alternate view on the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/opinion/suicide-by-choice-not-so-fast.html (Pay Wall)

NEXT week, voters in Massachusetts will decide whether to adopt an assisted-suicide law. As a good pro-choice liberal, I ought to support the effort. But as a lifelong disabled person, I cannot.

There are solid arguments in favor. No one will be coerced into taking a poison pill, supporters insist. The “right to die” will apply only to those with six months to live or less. Doctors will take into account the possibility of depression. There is no slippery slope.

Fair enough, but I remain skeptical. There’s been scant evidence of abuse so far in Oregon, Washington and Montana, the three states where physician-assisted death is already legal, but abuse — whether spousal, child or elder — is notoriously underreported, and evidence is difficult to come by. What’s more, Massachusetts registered nearly 20,000 cases of elder abuse in 2010 alone.

My problem, ultimately, is this: I’ve lived so close to death for so long that I know how thin and porous the border between coercion and free choice is, how easy it is for someone to inadvertently influence you to feel devalued and hopeless — to pressure you ever so slightly but decidedly into being “reasonable,” to unburdening others, to “letting go.”

Perhaps, as advocates contend, you can’t understand why anyone would push for assisted-suicide legislation until you’ve seen a loved one suffer. But you also can’t truly conceive of the many subtle forces — invariably well meaning, kindhearted, even gentle, yet as persuasive as a tsunami — that emerge when your physical autonomy is hopelessly compromised.

I was born with a congenital neuromuscular weakness called spinal muscular atrophy. I’ve never walked or stood or had much use of my hands. Roughly half the babies who exhibit symptoms as I did don’t live past age 2. Not only did I survive, but the progression of my disease slowed dramatically when I was about 6 years old, astounding doctors. Today, at nearly 50, I’m a husband, father, journalist and author.

Yet I’m more fragile now than I was in infancy. No longer able to hold a pencil, I’m writing this with a voice-controlled computer. Every swallow of food, sometimes every breath, can become a battle. And a few years ago, when a surgical blunder put me into a coma from septic shock, the doctors seriously questioned whether it was worth trying to extend my life. My existence seemed pretty tenuous anyway, they figured. They didn’t know about my family, my career, my aspirations.

Fortunately, they asked my wife, who knows exactly how I feel. She convinced them to proceed “full code,” as she’s learned to say, to keep me alive using any and all means necessary.

From this I learned how easy it is to be perceived as someone whose quality of life is untenable, even or perhaps especially by doctors. Indeed, I hear it from them all the time — “How have you survived so long? Wow, you must put up with a lot!” — even during routine office visits, when all I’ve asked for is an antibiotic for a sinus infection. Strangers don’t treat me this way, but doctors feel entitled to render judgments and voice their opinions. To them, I suppose, I must represent a failure of their profession, which is shortsighted. I am more than my diagnosis and my prognosis.

This is but one of many invisible forces of coercion. Others include that certain look of exhaustion in a loved one’s eyes, or the way nurses and friends sigh in your presence while you’re zoned out in a hospital bed. All these can cast a dangerous cloud of depression upon even the most cheery of optimists, a situation clinicians

Re:Death with Dignity.

[nevermore94]

Yes, I have. I just watched my dad pass away earlier this year. After being diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor, I watched him degrade to the point that he finally quit breathing in a span of 3 months and held his hand as he passed. This was the hardest period of my life to date and just as hard watching my mom suffer through it as well as him. Although these changes could be a good start, they would not have been enough for him because he quickly lost the ability to use his arms so no writing, and then he lost control of his tongue so he could barely mumble words to us. But, he still made it fairly clear that he was ready to go. But, after we made the hard decision not to intubate him any more we just had to sit by and wait for him to get so weak that he finally lost the ability to breathe on his own and gasped his last. Anyone who thinks that it would not have been better to help him go quickly should have been there.

Restrictive conditions

[godel_56]

From TFA:

. . . and patients must make three requests, two verbal and one written. They must self-administer the drug, which would be ingested. The patients must be deemed capable of making an informed decision.

I can think of a lot of critically ill patients who would be incapable of meeting these criteria. What if you've had your vocal cords removed due to throat cancer, or if you have locked in syndrome or are otherwise paralyzed?

Where's the option of making a living will where you can lodge a request to be euthanized before your physical faculties fail you? What about the comatose patients who have no hope of cure but are bankrupting their families by massive medical bills while they're taking up a hospital bed?