Slashdot Mirror
Why Scott Adams Wished Death On His Dad
theodp writes " I hope my father dies soon," Dilbert creator Scott Adams wrote Saturday in a frustrated, angry, and poignant blog post. 'My father, age 86, is on the final approach to the long dirt nap (to use his own phrase). His mind is 98% gone, and all he has left is hours or possibly months of hideous unpleasantness in a hospital bed. I'll spare you the details, but it's as close to a living Hell as you can get. If my dad were a cat, we would have put him to sleep long ago. And not once would we have looked back and thought too soon. Because it's not too soon. It's far too late. His smallish estate pays about $8,000 per month to keep him in this state of perpetual suffering. Rarely has money been so poorly spent. I'd like to proactively end his suffering and let him go out with some dignity. But my government says I can't make that decision. Neither can his doctors. So, for all practical purposes, the government is torturing my father until he dies.' Adams also had harsh words for those who would oppose assisted suicide, 'I don't want anyone to misconstrue this post as satire or exaggeration. So I'll reiterate. If you have acted, or plan to act, in a way that keeps doctor-assisted suicide illegal, I see you as an accomplice in torturing my father, and perhaps me as well someday. I want you to die a painful death, and soon. And I'd be happy to tell you the same thing to your face.' His father passed a few hours after Adams wrote his screed. Challenged later by the SF Chronicle's Debra J. Saunders, an opponent of assisted suicide, Adams stood firm on his earlier words. So, can Adams succeed in convincing the U.S. where Dr. Jack failed?"
This is one of those things were I think it should be legal (free will) but only if the person left instructions stating so in their will. "I, So and So, being of sound mind, state that if I'm ever in a coma with less than 1% chance of coming out of it (by the doctor's judgements) do so hereby state that I wish to be 'put down'" or some such.
I want you to die a painful death, and soon. And I'd be happy to tell you the same thing to your face.
Please don't.
"I'm okay with any citizen who opposes doctor-assisted suicide on moral or practical grounds. But if you have acted on that thought, such as basing a vote on it, I would like you to die a slow, horrible death too."
"If you're a politician who has ever voted against doctor-assisted suicide, or you would vote against it in the future, I hate your fucking guts and I would like you to die a long, horrible death. I would be happy to kill you personally and watch you bleed out."
I'll attribute most of this to personal pain... but seriously, Scott needs to dial it back a notch. When you go into threats of killing someone, your political discourse has gone way too far.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
My dad degraded to the point where I just went crying to my (now) wife and told her I felt terrible but I just wanted him to die. (And long before that I wished that we had universal health care so it wouldn't have gotten to this point).
He ended up dying Thanksgiving day at home while trying to make it to the bathroom. But unlike Scott's dad there was no hospital, no hospice prolonging anything. However it got to the point where I honestly started looking into trying to get morphine such that it'd make his final days a bit easier.
In that situation, I'll kill my wife or she will kill me. Otherwise I wouldn't have married her.
I am not sure what she'll do after but I am positive I'll commit suicide after killing her.
I've lived something close to what Mr. Adams describes and I now need such certainties to live in peace.
For the most part, while there are exceptions, active suicide is almost unnecessary for someone in a grossly debilitated state. As a physician, I both have a living will and my family is well-informed that if I ever lose the ability to function mentally, in a way that is not reversible, I am not to receive ANY life-prolonging treatment. That means no artificial hydration, no feeding, and no antibiotics. Many of my physician colleagues have made similar arrangements. That's why MDs are the group in the population with the lowest end-of-life cost. While a surrogate or healthcare proxy may not make a decision to end a life, they are certainly within their rights to do the abovementioned, unless a person's living will specifically forbids it. In general, this means a person will pass away within days. For the most part it allows the family time to fly in, and make peace with the inevitable.
This is one of those things that I think should be legal due to free will, with the caveat that the person left instructions in there wills stating so. "I, So and So, being of sound mind do so state that if I'm ever stuck on life support with no chance of recovery, I wish to be 'put down'" or some such.
Fuck that dumb bag.
Saunders's response was rather confusing, esp the closing "Me, I don't want to live in a world where one group of people decides when another group should die."
I guess it is not oppression as long as the choice you want is the one being mandated.
People should have the right to die, and more so, people should have the right to pass on that right to someone they know in the event they are unable to make that decision.
Deaths such as that are absolutely agonising not only for the person, but for the people around them.
It solves NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING. It is, as he said, quite literally legal torture. Fucking prisoners of war got less than that!
No, they aren't going to pull a fucking cure out of their ass for most reasons someone is slowly dying like that, be is degenerative diseases of the brain or cancer slowly devouring them away or the countless others.
If they found a cure for cancer literally right now, you'd still probably die from an already active cancer simply because of how long it would take for it to go in to not only phase1 trials, but actual public use. (given it was going to kill you in the first place that is)
Yes, there are a billion and one legal loopholes that would need to be fixed, but that can be dealt with IF IT WAS ACTUALLY LOOKED IN TO.
But no, too many religious nutjobs in government will prevent such a thing.
Thanks, jebustards.
It sucks because most religious people in general are pretty sensible and just use religion as guidance, but these fucktards ruin it for everyone else.
We will be hearing more and more about how to conveniently die, or rather, how to make dying convenient, so as not to be a burden on the living.
Such is the sheer strength of the lack of rational thought and outright terror about the concept of death that we would rather prolong a tortured existence rather than even contemplate humane euthanasia. If someone is so scared of death that they would rather be kept alive, make THAT the exception.
If I had a loved one in such a terrible position being kept alive, I would probably take my chances with the law and the court of public opinion. No shame in being called an angel of mercy, and the legal repercussions are pale in comparison to ending torture.
Are the arguments against assisted suicide similar to the arguments against attemping regulation against the 1%?
Somehow, someone will be able to 'bypass' the regulation and kill themselves without being in permanenet suffering / some individual rich fucker will be able to bypass the regulation?
So I'll piss off both sides. I don't believe in helping someone kill themself. But neither do I believe in stopping the natural process of dying by using machines or drugs which force a body to continue functioning when it would otherwise stop. I.e. I do believe in letting a person have a registered DNR. My kidneys are failing (30% functionality). When they stop, I will die because I will refuse dialysis. And the government health care panel will applaud my decision to not waste their money ("being of sound mind and body, I spend it!").
I'd like to proactively end his suffering and let him go out with some dignity. But my government says I can't make that decision.
Sure he could have made that decision. He could have smothered his dad with a pillow. It's not like the government sends guards to make sure that terminal patients are not put down. He means that he can't make that decision without facing criminal charges. He is not physically prohibited from acting as he sees fit.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
He was wishing that his father would be out of misery and is a proponent of assisted suicide. He saw his father suffer and become little more of a shell. The "wish" was as much for himself as for his father.
And, he's right...if it were an animal, we'd have "put it to sleep" to ease its suffering.
We get so caught up on religious dogma and how this would be murder or suicide that we forget the person is a human being being forced to live an existence they wouldn't choose for themselves.
The other week, my mother's partner or 13 years suffered a stroke and was on life support. Thankfully, in our state, they support the concept of a living will - it gave her the authorization to take him off of life support. She waited until confirmation by multiple doctors on his prognosis. It was difficult. He has zero higher brain function and was being kept alive artificially with zero probability of recovery. He was 86. She authorized the removal of the machines and feeding tubes...just IV and pain meds (seems he was experiencing pain at some level). In 3 days, he passed peacefully.
My mother is a religious and moral person - but, she feels it morally wrong to keep someone in that state, given their expressed wishes prior, alive for the sake of keeping them alive. If he had a soul, it passed when his brain function ceased. His body was just a shell. And, she felt he was in a better place.
If you haven't heard "The Bitter End" segment from Radiolab, I highly recommend a listen: http://www.radiolab.org/story/262588-bitter-end/
We supply food, shelter and medical care to animals, only to then slaughter them for food. By her analogy, we should be slaughtering excess people for food by now. Where's my Soylent Green? (No, green Soylent does not count.)
What? You want to kill your father and keep all the poor healthcare providers from getting that $8000 a month??
While I agree with Scott on the main issue, his attitude and the way he is handling it is all wrong. For somebody who writes professionally for a living, his choice of words, both about his father and his opponents, is absolutely disgusting.
I don't think I'll ever be able to enjoy a Dilbert comic the same way now that he's acted like this.
I'm in favor of someone having the right to end their own life, but I do have a concern about how easily "I don't consider my life worth living and want to die" will morph into "We don't consider your life useful and want to kill you".
When ever I see a law that makes no rational sense I always look at the finances and who gains.
In this case:
"His smallish estate pays about $8,000 per month to keep him in this state of perpetual suffering"
$8k a month is a good (corporate/governmental) reason to keep people on life support machines and drag out a miserable existence that bit further.
Shame that $8k a month couldn't be better spent on someone who's got a chance at life rather than keeping alive someone who's got no chance and is suffering.
The world makes no sense with humanity in control but seems to make perfect sense when nature is left alone.
By this reasoning, there should be people wishing death on anyone who ever voted (directly or indirectly) for a policy which causes people to suffer.
And if you're about to point out that the opponents of every policy claim that the policy causes people to suffer, you are of course right.
You don't usually see people whose sons die in Iraq claiming that anyone who voted for George Bush needs to die, and when you do, they're considered nutcases.
I truly feel for him, having been through a somewhat similar situation with my own dad a number of years ago.
But I have to ask - whether I agree with him or not - why should his celebrity make me care about his opinion any more than I care about that of some random guy on the street? Which, by the way, is pretty much the same question I ask when someone brings up Clint Eastwood's or Tom Hanks' presidential candidate preferences.
#DeleteChrome
EOF
How ironic that a doctor doesn't want "extraordinary measures". It is like a car mechanic who says "take it to the scrap heap" rather than opting to replace the engine or transmission on his '57 Chevy.
I come here for the love
I've always strongly believed in any adult's legal right to commit suicide (either via their own hand, or at the hand of a proxy at their request). I saw one of my relatives go with Alzheimer's and I *never* EVER want to go that way myself. There is nothing more undignified than losing your mind. And I (and everyone else) should be allowed to have a living will to specify that I be put down in such a circumstance.
If Johnny Bible-thumper wants to live like than because he thinks Jesus wants him to, then that's his choice. But it's not mine. And it shouldn't be forced on me just because a bunch of senators need Johnny Bible-thumper's support to get re-elected.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Say, 70. Map it out so you have money till then. When you start getting close to 70, live it up. Make sure no penny goes unused. See all the things you wanted to see but never could since you had to keep saving money for the unexpected. If that isn't for you (living it up), then be glad that all your money is going towards your friends/family when you pass.
With your last remaining money, buy a gun and say goodbye to a painful retirement, sitting in a bed or a chair, watching TV as your mind melts away, using all your remaining money on meds and housing.
Ha, here is a question to Adams: why did not his father make such arrangement when his mind was still with him? Is it possible he did not want to die by his own or anyone else's help? Perhaps he himself has religious or moral problems with that? Do whatever da fark you want, but don't make decisions for anyone else, even if they are your family. You really have no moral or ethical right to determine anyone else's right to live.
Oregon has legal assistant suicide, the first in the nation to have these laws. You can plan and die peacefully in Oregon with your choice of a death cocktail.
I have 10 grams of coke hidden in my house. My dad suffered tremendously during his last weeks of life. I've seen it with my own eyes. If I'm ever in that situation, I've instructed my family to overdose me with the coke. They'll have plausible deniability (I was a junkie who wanted his dose). As for me, they say the first hit is better than an orgasm, and with 10 g, it'd also be my last, so I'd go in style.
Of course, if I'm conscious and able to, I'll do the coke myself if I have to...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
You don't know until you have gone through this yourself. I just did - twice within months, once for my Mother who died in home hospice and again for my Father about 5 months after she passed. I went through it alone, even though a sibling lived only 2 miles away from them. You can't imagine watching someone you love, someone you owe your whole world to waste away in this fashion. I was lucky enough that both were cognitive right up until the end; for me it was the only saving grace in all this that I could at least still communicate and interact with them up in until a day or two before each passed. I can't fathom the pain Adams went through in his situation. I understand fully why he said what he did and where it came from. To those who think they know better, be careful becuase karma has a way of administring harsh lessons of reality.
It is all about the state* being in control of all aspects of your life. You are a number, a cog, a cow...from birth to death. This is just the last act of control by the state.
* - obviously the global power much higher than any political organization
I come here for the love
It's legal there...
Voters are given the erroneous impression that medicine can miraculously save them and want to be covered for anything, so they vote in politicians that mandate "adequate care"; when costs spiral out of control, they need to be socialized and distributed to those who don't subscribe to such foolishness and would choose cheaper plans if they could; and doctors, hospitals, and drug companies love it because it increases their revenues. You'd think that insurance companies would be against it, but they don't care anymore, since with ACA, people have no alternative but to pay whatever rates insurance companies demand or violate the law.
Unless you arrange for dying far from hospitals and emergency rooms, you can now look forward to spending months as a living corpse generating revenue for hospitals in the future. Welcome to the financially bright new future of universal health care in the US.
It's sad to hear a guy who's given us so much laughter be in such pain over his father's situation. We all have to deal with this at some point in our lives and as we get older we see more of our loved ones passing away, some suddenly while others have a long, slow road to the afterlife. Unfortunately because of the religious, moral and political boundaries this crosses society as a whole just isn't ready to take this discussion on. People should be allowed to choose how and when they leave their existence due to severe medical ailments. A mechanism should be in place to allow people to leave with dignity and in those situations where they are unable either physically or mentally to make that decision themselves, the families should be able to make that decision with proper oversight and checks. No child wants to see their parents suffer nor do friends and loved ones want to see somebody they care about in a terminal situation that has no benefits to the suffering individual but there needs to be an open dialog about the subject. I have the same problem now but it's a little different. I have a step mother in a nursing home and a father, 85, still living at home. He's mentally active and tough as nails but he refuses even basic senior living services. If he loses his ability to drive, which is coming soon believe me, I will have to put him into a nursing home as well. He'll hate that but being a Marine who has fought in three wars but we've already had the discussions and the powers of attorney signed and the living wills done etc. but deep down I still don't think I can make that decision alone. Scott I hope this works out for you eventually but don't hate, people just try to do their best and unfortunately sometimes that just means that things aren't as sympathetic or as compassionate as we'd like.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
My name is Scott Adams. You didn't kill my father. Prepare to die.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
I know if I were in that situation, I wouldn't want to be kept alive any longer than necessary. I'm not even sure why these anti-suicide laws exist, even for healthy people. If someone is miserable, has a crappy life for whatever reason, and doesn't want to be here anymore, then they should be allowed to go. Better yet, they should be allowed to go in a controlled manner. So many suicides are violent or messy -- jumping off a building, gunshots to the head, bleeding out...you name it. That's no fun to leave behind for your family. I'd like to have the option of a non-messy suicide, no questions asked, if I ever found myself in a hopeless situation. Suicidal people are miserable, depressed, whatever...let them go peacefully. No amount of mental health treatment is going to make someone better who's come to that crossroads in their life.
I know it's going to take a few more generations for religion to be completely marginalized, but this is one of the things that should change ahead of time. If I ever end up with dementia or a terminal illness with no hope of a good outcome, I don't want to have to sit around waiting until my body just can't keep going.
While I think Scott was a little harsh in addressing his detractors, I side with him. Euthanasia laws needs to be modernized, especially in the case of terminal illness. The idea that we are okay with putting down cats and dogs but not humans when it is no longer possible to cure or treat them is rather sad, and we allow unnecessary suffering to ride those with terminal illness into their final rest. Something must be done, but considering how poor the US Medical System is, I have no doubt it shall be some time before favorable changes are made.
A mechanic opting not to rebuild the transmission in his 1987 Yugo.
Even after significant cost and effort, the result still won't be very good and will probably fail again in a catastrophic manner with next to no hope of ongoing residual value.
I don't know. But if he had left that one sentence out of his treatise\tirade, his argument would have been more convincing to opponents... perhaps. This is an emotional subject, but the discussion needs to be level-headed and practical.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Declare him a terrorist and call in a drone strike!
If you really want to make things better for your dad, make things better for your dad instead of wasting your fucking time writing about it.
The purpose of U.S. healthcare system is to make money. Letting his dad die would strip some people of some revenue. That ain't gonna happen.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
but isn't this why we have living wills?
Oh, and if you don't have a living will (and a will, for that matter) legally established, you're grossly irresponsible.
-Styopa
Adams says, betraying his claims to be humane, " I want you to die a painful death, and soon. "
Be careful what you wish on people, it tends to boomerang.
Can't say I blame the guy. It's horrible enough one we get old and have to wear diapers, but to have your mind completely go and not be able to do much of anything, that is the worst. We need rules in place to let people put us to sleep in such situations. Keeping people alive for religious reasons is wrong.
If I had lost all my pride, dignity and finally my mind I would want death sooner rather than later. Our minds is what makes us who we are, NOT the so called soul. Without our minds, we are nothing.
but I have said time and time again, if I require life support to live for a long period of time, that I would rather die. This is why I choose to not have health insurance. If I have to live a life hooked up to machines or require daily medication, I'd rather not live.
Take him to Oregon it's legal there for extreme cases.
This is just the kind of statement that we need these days to stop the deterioration of this country into the quagmire of idiocracy. I used strong words in a post against the creationists here yesterday and got modded down into oblivion. Enough with the feelings of the masses, and enough with being polite. We need some strong and nasty clue bats to wake up this country to start using their minds again instead of their "feel goods."
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
People should have the right to die, and more so, people should have the right to pass on that right to someone they know in the event they are unable to make that decision.
They do have that right. They need two documents: an 'advance healthcare directive' that says what they want to have happen, and a 'durable power of attorney for healthcare' that designates a person legally empowered to make the decisions.
While the documents cannot say "kill me outright", they can say many variations of "do not extend my life". For some situations that can mean death within minutes, for others it can mean death within three days.
If you don't want to spend your last days hooked up to medical equipment you don't need to. Getting those two documents in order is a simple thing.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
We spend a lot of money fighting it and a lot of emotions denying it. I used to work in an ICU and man the stuff I'd have to do to people who were in agony and just wanted to die sleeping on a cloud of Ativan and morphine. So many families wanted grandpa kept alive for 3 more days so they could come in and see him one last time. The response I wanted to have for that is: "You not being here isn't grandpas fucking problem. If you had such a good relationship, then it makes no difference who is here. Yet if you have grief, that's your own damn problem and they shouldn't suffer further so you can sleep better at night."
But seriously, it's a part of life just like birth, marriage, and having your own kids, but we (and I mean the voting majority, because I and others disagree) just don't want to see it that way. Put your big boy/girl rational pants on and get ready to die; it's the one thing we all have in common.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
No way in hell I'd let mom or dad suffer like it even if it meant killing them myself and spending the rest of my life in prison.
I agree with Adams, but I might have put it more like this:
I will continue to wish pain and suffering on you and you loved ones until you stop enforcing pain and suffering on me and mine.
His nerd rage tells me he needs to HTFU.
This is a perfect scenario for Catbert and the PHB.
And the other thing, he doesn't say, but considering the drain on his father's little estate, I think Adams should consult an elder law or estate attorney.
Also, this is a prime example of how in our medical system, 90% of our lifetime medical expenses are at the end of life. Keep in mind that Medicare (THE most expensive entitlement program Tea Patiers) is picking up a lot of this.
And the hospital and docs will be eating a lot of the cost themselves - passing it on to us insured patients.
tl;dr: this whole keeping people alive for the sake of keeping people alive is BULLSHIT!
The difference between humans and animals is that doctors have industrial-strength pain-killers they will administer to humans. No matter how excruciating the pain, doctors can keep you drugged into a dream world, and can similarly keep you entirely unconscious for an indefinite period. If you could choose your method of departure, being drugged out of your mind on coke would be the near the top of most people's lists, so morphine or similar isn't a bad alternative.
Well there you go. Stop the money, and you can very quickly stop his suffering.
Dr. Gregory House: "There's no such thing [as dying with dignity]! Our bodies break down, sometimes when we're 90, sometimes before we're even born, but it always happens and there's never any dignity in it! I don't care if you can walk, see, wipe your own ass... it's always ugly - ALWAYS! You can live with dignity; you can't die with it!"
No, you can't make the decision, and neither can his doctors, as it should be. But your father... HE can or could have have made the decision. Living wills, do-not resuscitate orders, etc. If he didn't want to go this way, he has (or had) that option. And it's only fair that whatever he chose, it's not for you or his doctors to second-guess.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Didn't he write text based adventure games for 8 bit computers?
You are carrying the following:
2 small holes in my neck
I've had the unpleasant opportunities to watch a number of relatives and neighbors spend their last months tortured by the medical profession. I really can't find a more appropriate word, even though everyone involved means well. It is hard for both families and medical providers to assert that sometimes the best thing that can be done is nothing.
Assisted suicide is only part of the issue, but perhaps it is where the conversation needs to begin. It is an option exercised millions of times each day on every animal except Humans as being more humane. However the conversation needs to continue from that point. I think of my 90 year old neighbor who had cancer. A type that if he was 30 surgery and treatment would have cured. One doctor wanted to operate, the other did not saying he would not make it. The family, ever hopeful, pushed for the surgery. What transpired after that was 5 weeks of torture. He did not do well in the surgery. Doped up in a hospital bed his wounds became infected, requiring another surgery. That necessitated a feeding tube, which then due to his poor condition also was infected. Finally after 5 weeks he was barely well enough to go home with 24x7 nurse care where he was able to somewhat peacefully pass away a few days later. The options here were all bleak, spend 3-4 months dying of painful cancer. Spend 5 weeks in the hospital undergoing multiple surgeries, doped up beyond belief. Assisted suicide, at the right time, might have been a good option. I have no idea what bills the family was left with as a result of all of this treatment, but I bet they added further pain after the fact.
End of life care is not a simple decision. Everyone involved, patient, family, doctors needs to realize we can't extend life forever. They need to realize that sometimes doing nothing is a better option than doing something, or that sometimes the something to do is to go ahead and choose to end life on the patients terms.
While for me this is 99.99% a moral and ethical issue, it is also a cost issue. For many patients more money is spent on their final month of medical care than in their entire life, because of these sort of heroic measures that lead to tragic outcomes. Fortunately I don't think saving money needs to be the primary concern here, but rather it can be a happy accident of doing the morally right thing.
If you haven't seen this film, see it now.
It will blow your mind, not only because Pacino does one of his best performances of his career, but also because of the subject matter.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Folks don't seem to mind killing them while they are in the womb, so why wouldn't it be valid to do the same for someone who is actually suffering?
The slippery slop here is who is responsible, because it will be challenged. You are of sound mind and body, but then a grandchild will take the doctor/hospital to court, because there is no way grandma would kill herself. Talk about having a super-iron-clad-irrefutable contract requirement.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
It's not a choice between "hideous unpleasantness in a hospital bed" and suicide. There's Hospice. Death is natural, and it is possible to have a healthy death.
I helped my grandmother in her final days, and it forever ended any doubts I had about the ethics of assisted suicide. Very little will wrench your heart harder than listening helplessly to a suffering relative curse and beg God to put and end to things. In the epilogue it turns out that all three of the family members that were present came very close to offering the entire bottle of morphine she had at different points. I wish it had been legal, I would have done so without regret.
I can definitely tell you that if his father was in that much agony, then somebody somewhere seriously screwed up his plan of care.
If hospice is done right, there would be no need for 'assisted suicide'.
I'm very sorry that Mr. Adams has gone through such painful experience and that his father is going through even more harsh things.
But orders and laws are what keep societies in peace.
A friend of mine had her mother passing away in similar painful manner and there wasn't much she or her family could have done to accelerate her mother through the pain. When she told me about it, we all wished that we could some how help her mother to ease down the pain and peacefully say good bye to her children.
Sad to know that we can't help patients in such process, but laws are still laws. Family still has to spend a fortune to keep a person alive until they die even though we know they will die very very shortly after.
Because human life has a dignity and purpose far beyond that of a cat. And because suffering can be meaningful and important even though it's difficult. If you want an example, look at a crucifix.
It's interesting that someone who's supposedly so concerned about the sufferings of a person can wish a slow and painful death on someone else. Nobody who believes in and fights for the dignity of the human person *wishes* for your dad to suffer, Scott. Don't let your sorrow and grief turn into hatred and malice.
I'll respect your wish to die if you respect my wish to live regardless of my state. I have seen elderly people effectively incapacitated by alzheimers and very drawn out battles with cancers and comas, and I understand the desire to finally end things, but for me this is still an individual decision. If you have a will drafted that says you want to die if in such a state then so be it, but if I have a will drafted saying to dump all my money and resources to keep me functioning in any state as long as possible then I expect that to be respected as well. My opinion would see the live at all costs view extended to those who haven't stated otherwise as well, but there's where the debate lies - on how to prevent abuses, not on whether the law should allow it at all.
As in sits in a wheelchair or bed sort of looking around vacantly, with a 10% chance of even cracking a smile on seeing me. Can't speak, move, or do much of anything. It's one of the more unpleasant life experiences I can imagine.
That being said, she has a proper living will, so when she's finally unable (well, actually, forgets how) to swallow that will be it. But, from what I understand, since death by starvation/dehydration is painful and unpleasant, she'll be given a morphine drip...perhaps calibrated wrong, whoops. I can think of worse way to go..
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
I can't really disagree that he's speaking out of anger and that his comments should be taken with a grain of salt. You're basically right. But:
I disagree with that general statement. Politics is about government, and government is about force. We all want our governments to sometimes kill people, and all the quibbling is about the conditions within "sometimes."
If killing people is just totally off the table and out of scope, then you're not really talking about politics.
You might even say Civilization is all about limiting death threats to politics, getting the threats out killing people out of non-political discourse. That way, we don't have to threaten to kill people in duals over mathematical or literary or technical discourse, for example. ;-)
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Umm. He can check out and go home. The end would be quick at that point. No one is forcing him to stay in hospital and get treatment as long as a living will or power of attorney has been completed.
The problem with "government" allowing assisted suicide is that governments rapidly move to enforced suicide to deal with expensive treatments or those political undesirables with "life not worthy of living". Every time the state has been given the power to kill it uses it.
It always seems so strange that legislation values animals so far behind humans in life, and yet lets them go with far more dignity than us.
Life is not sacred. The fallacious idea that life is sacred is a Judeo-Christian corruption that was imported into western society and does not belong here.
We should look to the Norse faith for inspiration--the notion of Valhalla, that only those who die honorably on their feet deserve any kind of eternal reward, is far more beneficial to society than any bullshit about life being sacred.
", but it's as close to a living Hell as you can get. "
how do you know? you have no idea whats going on in his mind.
At NO POINT are you to stop trying to keep me alive. AT NO POINT will you stop assisting in my critical life functions if I can not do it on my own.
Spare NO EXPENSE to keep me alive not matter what.
To be clear: I would rather suffer and live then cease existence.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Scott Adams is just now "breaking up" with the government? Well, there's your problem. You're a little late in getting over your Stockholm Syndrome. We need many more people to leave this abusive relationship, and realize that keeping government power in check doesn't mean you hate poor people, don't want infrastructure, or are a terrorist.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
More morphine won't help. Would you like me to administer more morphine?
Since what they are stating is that they a suffering, will not recover ever and do you want to end it as peacefully as possible now while not running afoul of the law. We have had that discussion in my family and it is written into people's living will what their choice is and everyone who would be making such a decision is aware of the individuals wishes.
Time to offend someone
...well intentioned people who's activism is resulting in pain and suffering.
Well intentioned? The ONLY people who are against death with dignity are religious people because of something said in their book of myths. They may justify their opinion with arguments like "death panels" or straw man arguments like "relatives who want the inheritance" or some other nonsense.
This is a prime example of where religion harms people's well being.
The method doctors use is to withhold all treatment. Food and water are probably being supplied by tubes at this point. When a patient is this far gone it takes very little in the way of lack of water or food to quickly put them down. Also make certain that all meds are stopped as well as oxygen. In a better world there would be no limit on the pain killers used for the final days. Simply giving enough meds to ward off all pain would tend to hasten death. And I also see no real issue with giving a shot that would send a patient onward. The rather mystical, supposed combination of morals and beliefs that the terminally ill face are a thin disguise for money issues. That last month or two of life pretty much support the medical industry, nursing homes and more.
This is one of those things were I think it should be legal (free will) but only if the person left instructions stating so in their will.
How do you plan to allow for children or those lacking adequate mental capacity who under the law are not permitted to make such declarations. We should just torture them because they aren't able to make such statements on their own behalf? Why do they need to be in a coma? What about those who are paralyzed or incapacitated. My mother suffers from ALS and is slowly being trapped in her own body in about the most horrifying way possible. Her mind is fine but she doesn't want to live like that forever and it should be her right to die whenever she feels it is time.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that it should be permitted but it's a little more complicated than what you propose.
Yes, my Mom recently passed away due to cancer and the pain management at one point had her comatose. There was no option other than to let her expire due to what was ultimately heart failure probably brought on by dehydration.
It was the single most horrible experience of my life and will probably haunt me forever sitting at her bedside watching her slowly dehydrate/starve to death because we had no other legal option. Cracked lips, loose skin, horrible breathing sounds from the dessication, breath after breath until it catches and you pray that it is over but then it starts again... - it will never leave me.
A living will only allows you to end their life horribly. DNR isn't enough.
I certainly understand the slippery slope issues, but it should be possible to specify a DNR that includes actively ending someone's life more humanely.
Loading...
I know this doesn't address the real problem, but couldn't he have afforded to have his father flown to a country where euthanasia is legal?
This isn't the most expedient solution, nor one available to the masses unless people start creating advanced directives with money set aside for the expenses. But, I'd imagine even those conservatives who are against euthanasia would have to stand by their mantra of letting people pick their own doctors. And although conservatives have little concern that the rich might enjoy more freedoms than the poor, it might annoy the rest of the voting public if they saw it happen a lot.
As for Mr. Adams, my sympathies are with him and I agree that euthanasia should be legal, but this guy has a history of being a bit of an a-hole in expressing his opinions.
I happen to know that the logical end result of ObamaCare will be the needless suffering of millions of Americans including the needless deaths of thousands a year such as in the UK where they readily admit that thousands of people a year needlessly die in their hospitals because of poor care (an extreme real-life example being a man who literally died of thirst in his hospital bed in the UK). Since I know how much suffering ObamaCare will cause should I wish a painful death upon every person who supports it? Of course not.
Remember the 'mad cow' scare- a gift from the UK and Thatcher (all farming biological safety protocols were abolished under Thatcher and the Conservatives, ending literally thousands of years Human responsibility in this field). A previously relatively 'harmless' prion 'infection' (prions are NOT virus or bacteria or chemical poison, but another category of corporal attack) was moved across species first into cows, and then Man, as a consequence of 'Monsanto' like 'scientific' manipulation of the food given to domestic animals.
The man-made manipulation of this process that got this particular prion infection into (ultimately) the bodies of almost everyone across the West followed the same 'mistakes' that got AIDS into much of the African population via a 'unique' oral polio vaccine that had been created by ignoring all cross-species protocols.
At first, the news was full of 'young' people dying horrific deaths from CJD (mad cow disease- same thing), but it turned out, thank god, that these were people with incredibly unlucky genes. For the vast majority of infected Humanity (and there is a 99.9% chance that includes YOU, the reader), if CJD strikes, it strikes in late life as a degenerative brain illness. The governments of the West conspired, in the 90s, to universally mislabel such illnesses as forms of Parkinson's Disease, or other similar NON-prion brain malfunctions with serious behavioural consequences. Illnesses you lump together under the label "dementia".
As the CJD generation reaches old age, rates of these illnesses have exploded- but very few people are aware that the extra cases are people dying of MAD COW disease.
AIDS and CJD are examples of the 'benefits' Monsanto like research WILL bring to Humanity. The upsides of breaking millennia of safety protocols in cross species meddling are minor indeed. The downsides, when the terrible mistakes are inevitably made, are unthinkably terrifying. What if CJD (given that the prion responsible is in most of us as a result of eating Thatcher infected beef) had proven to be 90% deadly within 10 years. Imagine 90% of most people in the West dying of a terrible degenerative brain illness, like Scott Adams' father, within 10 years of eating infected beef. There was NO scientific reason why this couldn't have happened.
Man is lucky. Our genetic make-up has evolved against AIDS like and CJD like treats in our distant history, so new versions of old enemies are nothing like deadly plagues of the past. However, this does NOT mean policies from a future monster like Thatcher, or future gene-splicing from Monsanto cannot create vastly more terrible disasters in our future. There is ZERO doubt that it is possible to create a Stuxnet like trojan for the Human body. Evolution is blind, but Monsanto engages in 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN'. Worse, Monsanto and similar organisations work with the US army to research weaponised genetic modifications. Obama ensures that American scientists are being paid billions to discover what are the most devastating possible consequences of genetic engineering.
I think she needs to look at herself in this context. She is part of a group that gets to decide when others die, and against the will of those people. Her opponents want to let those people decide themselves.
Many of us who strongly oppose euthenasia do so not for wacky religious reasons that we wish to impose on others but for precisely the opposite reason: We are acutely aware of history and human nature and we do not want you imposing your ideas on us, our kids, our grandkids, etc. When something is a legal option, there are many situations where pressure will be applied to choose that option. When a person is nearing the end of his life and his medical bills are reducing the value of his estate, his heirs may apply pressure for him to check-out early. When people are dependent upon government-provided health care and government budgets are an issue, there will be pressure for medical people to put-down the old, the disabled, the politically-disfavored etc. This has happened before, it is happening now to a limited degree in some places with government-provided health care (in the UK it is currently done in a subtle way by withholding things from patients... lookup the stats on how many UK patients die per year in hospitals from lack basic things like of water...) and it will happen in the future to a much greater extent if euthenasia is an accepted national policy.
You want to kill yourself? Fine. It's easy. Go jump off a cliff. Wheel yourself off the end of a pier. Take too many pills. Put a bag over your head. Stop eating. Stop drinking. Sign a power-of-atty and a DNR do nobody will try to keep you alive. Death comes naturally; it takes EFFORT to stay alive. If you lack the courage to kill yourself and you want to die, do NOT do it by demanding a change in law that will cause many people in the future (who had no say in the debate) to be murdered for convenience or as a matter of government economic policy. (Remember: Rommel was ordered/blackmailed to kill himself... "suicide" is not always truly voluntary...particularly when institutions are run by thugs) DO NOT pursue a policy change that will cause future generations to fear their doctors. Doctors in our current age are always there to heal, but in your future utopia they are both healers AND killers whose real motivations are unknowable to their patients/victims, particularly if those future doctors are on the payroll of somebody other than the patient (like a cash-strapped government). One of the primary architects of Obamacare is on record supporting the withholding of medical care from people who are no longer valuable to the society... A position that "progressives" have LONG held
...has its limits. Mr. Adams just issued what is a hairsbreadth short of a death threat against millions of people.
"I want you to die a painful death, and soon."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM8bTdBs-cw
If the person doesn't want it, they have the ability to create a living will (advance healthcare directive) and to designate someone with a durable power of attorney for healthcare.
That's not the same thing as having the right to pull the plug on someone. Furthermore many people are not able to create a living will. Children and those who are legally considered not competent or incapacitated (think coma) cannot authorize such a document. Furthermore while living wills and similar directives are a very good idea, they aren't appropriate for all circumstances and all people.
No need for $8000/month. A natural death can follow quickly, especially if your order says to give you no food or water.
I've had to watch close family die in exactly this manner through hospice. I wouldn't call it a quick death and it certainly isn't a particularly pleasant way to die. Basically the person is drugged up with opiates and they starve to death. I have nothing but respect for hospice and the service they provide but when the best they can do is let a person starve to death, that is to my mind needlessly cruel.
My brother in law had cancer so bad that it had spread into his sternum (which was so rotted with cancer that it would flex with every breath). The doctor gave him a prescription for morphine in pill form, and told him exactly how much to take, and that something between 4x to 6x of the regular dose was right out because it would be fatal. Had said brother-in-law been so inclined, he then knew how much morphine to take to overdose (he wasn't). He instead passed away in relative comfort in the care of Hospice.
My father didn't arrange for Hospice for my grandmother, and her death was harder because of the breathing issues. My father complained after her death, and I had to resist reaching over and throttling him for his lack of insight.
If the elder Mr. Adams truly was suffering while dying, then Scott should have arranged for Hospice care. Failure to do so would have been Scott's fault.
Now, the younger Mr. Adams may be suffering from a category error: "death with dignity". We don't come into the world with dignity; we come in naked, ugly, and screaming. The concept that birth, life, or death should be sterile, peaceful, and risk-free is a fallacy of our modern selfish world. The concept that the process of death itself is suffering or "subhuman" is absurd; dying is just a part of living.
I respect the man who was paralyzed in bed and on a vent who asked for the vent to be turned off; he couldn't do so himself. If you are conscious, you have the right to refuse any medical treatment. If you are unconscious, you have the right to have written your desires out in advance. However, no person has the right to demand that another end his life for him; that is manslaughter. If you wish to choose your own time of life, then pick a time and a method, and then follow through with it. I won't think it's right, but at least it is respectable.
Most people demanding euthanasia on demand simply want someone else to do the deed so that they don't have to do the dirty work themselves.
If Adams' father had expressed at some point in his life that he wouldn't want to live in a diminished state, I imagine it would have been mentioned. It seems the anger here is over the fact that he (or the doctors) can't proactively terminate his father's life without his consent.
In that, it's rather typical of Adams' soapboxing: a narcissistic boomer crybaby shaking with rage when his feelings aren't allowed to trump every other consideration.
(NB I am not opposed to physician-assisted suicide.)
I've taken more old people to the hospital than I can count over the years. Most, of course, want to go. Others, however, are nearing the end of their lives and know it. They don't want any intervention and are only going because their family is pressuring them. Often we are called to just get them out of the house before they die there. Some patients have even begged me to just shoot them. What ever happened to our society where people can't accept that we all are going to die? What's wrong with dying at home in the same way we've done for ever? Obviously if someone is in the hospital there is something of an obligation to "do something" especially with a bunch of unrealistic relatives there bothering the doctors and nurses. I'm not particularly in favour of assisted suicide, however I'm very much in favour of making someone very comfortable with large doses of pain medications (morphine, marijuana, anything that works) until they take their last breath. Dying is not easy and I've recently had to go through the death of one of my parents. It was heart wrenching. But it was even worse seeing my loved one take too long to die. It was his choice to extend his life and it wasn't my place to interfere (much). But if I were in his place I never would have gone down that path. I would have taken the faster, natural way and let nature take its course without any life-extending interventions. Fortunately his health costs were covered but they amounted to near a $100,000 which would have left my mother in a bad state if she had had to pay that. I don't know how people can take from their survivor's estates to merely put off the inevitable and at the same time inflict torture on the patient in question. I've never understood the selfishness involved in keeping someone alive at ridiculous expense, taking up a hospital bed that could better be used by someone who really needs it, and torturing their loved one at the same time. I know people who think it's the thin edge of the wedge before the pressure is on to kill all the "old and useless", but I think that's a really weak argument against letting people die with dignity.
And I thought Slashdot *normally* was depressing enough...I couldn't even finish the summary.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Move to a state that has legal suicide. Vermont for example. There are places that care enough to allow people to die with dignity as opposed to being tortured for the good of the hospitals making money off of them.
If he has never expressed a desire to die rather than go on living in pain, then it isn't anyone else's decision to end his life.
It becomes someone else's decision when he can no longer speak for himself. We decide to let people die all the time who have never expressed any thoughts on the matter. Talk to any hospice worker and they'll clue you in. I had an aunt who we had to place in hospice care and basically decide to let her die. They essentially drugged her up with opiates to keep her comfortable while she starved to death. It was the most merciful thing we could do for her that was legal. Fortunately we had a medical power of attorney through my mother but it very much was the family's decision to make. Happens every day all around the globe.
Furthermore there are many people who are unable to legally or physically express a desire to die. Children, the mentally incompetent, those who are incapacitated etc. Some people are never able to speak for themselves legally.
And as for the talk of torture, if he truly was as far gone as the article claims it's unlikely that he was actually experiencing any of that pain.
You have virtually NO information regarding specifics of the medical situation facing Mr. Adams father. For you to glibly declare that he wasn't experiencing any pain is insulting and arrogant and almost certainly incorrect. You weren't there and you don't know the details and I'm guessing you aren't a medical professional either. (if you are I hope you never treat me) Maybe he wasn't mentally there anymore but that doesn't mean he wasn't suffering or in pain.
it seems that most of the money is made on preventing people from dying, not making them better. This is hardly surprising, given that medicine in the USA is a for profit business. Every facet of it...hospitals, labs, big pharma...all of it. It seems that many of the medical developments are geared towards "maintenance" rather than "cure". Why? Because maintenance makes more money for whomever develops it. Think Lipitor. Once you get on that shit you're never getting off it. And if you do, your cholesterol goes right back up to where it was when you started. Even if you've been taking it for 10 years.
Study and after study shows that the US spends far more per patient on medical care and yet we don't necessarily have better outcomes than other industrialized countries. Much of this is due to keeping patients in a suspended state with the aid of machines. Long after any semblance of a normal, productive, dignified life have passed them by. The victims,,,err patients...suffer daily. The families are forced to watch their loved ones die a slow, painful, humiliating death.
And what have they got to look forward to? Their loved one will eventually die and they will be stuck with an often enormous medical bill. Great.
No wonder Adams is so bitter. How would you feel?
I've seen Alzheimer's from a close range twice and am pretty sure I'll be there myself one day if I let that happen. I'm determined not to let my family have to go through my withering away.
Anyway, there's a compromise for those opposed to euthanasia: general anesthesia. At some point you could request you should be kept in general anesthesia or coma until either you are well again or dead. That way, you don't have to suffer a bit.
And this must come from tax-payers money. The estate shouldn't have to bear the costs of the silliness of the society.
...you can expect a really, really long jail sentence. And the health care in those for-profit prisons sucks.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
"So, can Adams succeed in convincing the U.S. where Dr. Jack failed?"
Probably not, in my opinion.
The conservative Christian religious community mostly see "suicide" as a mortal sin, and usually suffering as a Good Thing, in preparation for a life in Heaven. So no traction there.
The medical companies will get a nice little income stream from keeping these breathing corpses "alive" as long as they can (or at least, as long as they can pay). So no traction there.
The Government (of any orientation, not just the current administration) will listen primarily to whomever shouts the loudest or waves the most cash, which in this case are going to be the lobby groups and religious groups who represent the two aforementioned groups, and anyone who tries to generate an organised response to that will be faced with accusations of murder, regicide, patricide, and Oedipus Complex, and watching too many Horror movies and playing too many violent computer games. So no traction there.
While I agree that assisted suicide could be abused by unscrupulous people for personal gain, I am also damned sure that the people who would abuse the system are going to find other ways to get the job done, so not having such a system does not stop the abusers from being abusers, but it does stop the people who care about their loved ones' ability to maintain a certain quality of life or die with some dignity and minimal suffering from doing the best thing for their family member.
There are valid options for many cases, but in the US these amount to State-specific DNR (Do Not Resucitate) forms prepared, filled and signed by the patient ahead of time and properly anotated by appropriate medical professionals. However, in the case of dementia, Parkinsons, paralysis, Locked-In syndrome, or other conditions which are not in themselves life-threatening, but which do result in a massive loss of quality of life, there is little or no option other than the sufferer literally starving themselves to death or taking active steps to commit suicide in such a way that there is no sign of assistance in the act by other people (who, of course, could then be charged with murder in many cases).
Personally, I feel this is something that does need to be looked at and debated seriously, because many people would describe the conditions that lots of these people live under as akin to mental, physical or psychological torture, and they themselves would not want to live under such conditions but in later life find themselves forced to do so by the different morality of other individuals who say that human life is sacred and we are not allowed to take our own or another life (unless you happen to be an executioner in one of the States that allows the death penalty...).
Medical & nursing care staff in assisted living, nursing home, etc. facilities and EMTs are pre-disposed to take action and check later (it is in their training and most of the time, appropriate). The DNR notice on the backside of the bedroom door is likely to be forgotten or ignored in the heat of the moment, baring an assertive family member with PoA literally standing in the way. Once the ailing patient in on life support, the DNR becomes meaningless.
A common scenario is the elderly family member with the chronic and degenerative condition has other medical problems that lead to death before the core condition puts them into the state Scott Adams' father was in. Depending on individual circumstances, pallative treatments (e.g, hospice care) that maximize the person's comfort but do not treat the underlying condition may be available. Depends a lot on the mental state of the person, their physician's attitudes about dying with some dignity vs. treatment, and the opinions and involvement of family members. Which can get very interseting and complicated when you mix differences of opinion, geopgraphic distance, long-running family squabbles, and an elderly person who is wondering why they and their wishes are being ignored by everyone.
If you are really fortunate, they pass from one of the other conditions. For example, heart failure before dementia robs them of all cognitive functions.
Those who don't agree with assisted suicide and those who don't yet agree. I have a degree in philosophy and so understand the ethical concerns, risk for abuse and perspectives, but having seen anyone linger for years in a wasting state, I cannot believe anyone who has witnessed this would not agree that our ability to keep people alive has passed the point of a foolish consistency.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
For the record, I believe euthanasia laws need modernized. But wishing mass deaths on people who don't share your views is just wrong.
But isn't that what euthanasia laws do? Aren't they wishing mass torture and agony on people who believe that it is ok to choose when to stop living? I think that you could make an excellent case that these laws are based on religious values ('suicide is a sin', thank you, all you Catholic assholes), and as such it violates the separation of church and state by outlawing it. This is no less than religious tyranny, dictating to people how they must die in order to appease some fictitious sky bully.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Last year my father underwent heart surgery where there was only a 32% chance of success. Nothing went as planned and while he was still mentally there up-stairs, his heart was too weak to pump the fluid out of his body.
After a month of treatment in the ER the hospital literally insisted they terminate him due to the valuable bed space he was taking up despite the fact that from the waste up he was still perfectly alive and coherent. Since they had to give him a tracheostomy for the fluid buildup in his lungs, he couldn't speak on his own behalf.
The look he gave us the day the hospital told him they were moving him to hospice was unbearable and has scared me emotionally for life. He literally put his hand on his forehead like "oh shit, this is really it." The hospital told us he wouldn't live 24 hours after stopping treatment and his heart kept him alive for a week without food.
It wasn't his time, and he wasn't ready to go, but due to costs, the hospital considered him a lost cause and wanted him gone. While he may have been suffering, he was at least still alive and able to smile at our words, and use body language to hold a conversation. To this day I shall never ever trust doctors or the system again.
Everyone else passed out, exhausted from the hours of waiting. I was the only one left to hold vigil over my grandfather as he lay on his hospital bed. His breathing had degenerated into shallow gasps, like a motor stumbling and dieseling after the key is turned off. His eyes were open, blank and staring at a ceiling that he had long since lost the ability to perceive. No blinks anymore. No response. All through that night, I held his hand, knowing that the man I loved was already gone. It just struck me that it was so damned pointless. He was dead, and no one in the family had the wherewithal to let his body follow his mind. It was the epitome of thoughtless cruelty, both towards my grandfather and towards the family.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
it's not better
Scott could have killed his father, but balanced his discomfort at losing his personal freedom in prison ("fear the consequences", and I don't blame him) against his father's suffering, and chose to let his father suffer, albeit only a bit longer. By his reasoning, then, his father came out on the short end of the decision tree. Of such are not made revolutions.
It IS a slope, and it IS slippery, and no amount of sophistry or situational ethics changes that. Dachau, Buchenwald, &c.
Thoughts and prayers for a fellow cubicle farmer and his family.
If he had dialed it back it would never have made a ripple in the media. In today's overstimulated world, only this sort of talk gets noticed at all. For all we know, he'd said several times how sad it was that our laws were causing his father unnecessary pain and no one cared. Rant about wanting everyone who supported this situation to suffer from it as well actually got people talking. If we don't talk about it and admit there's a problem it'll never get better.
Boo hoo someone is being mean to the 1%...
Let us consider a wall
Let us consider a wall as an autumn evening falls across a vale in the Home Counties. Crooked Wisteria climbs across the hanging red clay tiles of the upper storey. Irregular Kentish rag beneath is a backdrop to roses, a tangled bed of sweet peas and ferns springing from beside a water butt. The wall belongs to the sort of house that has a tennis court amongst rhododendrons, woods at the back and a panoramic view of the valley at the front. Tresses of white wood smoke float in the deepening dusk below.
Recessed amongst the tiles there is a bedroom window through which, drained of colour in the fading light, we can just make out a figure lying neatly at rest.
From around the corner a tortoiseshell cat makes her familiar patrol. Entering the garage she dutifully examines the webbed rodent runs behind rusty tins of paint, the edges of abandoned tools, possible scents on the cardboard boxes of old crockery amongst the collapsing wellingtons and other remnants of household life.
The end of her investigations brings her to the cosy kitchen where a soft mew and slow stare reminds Bill it could be tea time for cats. Bill is glad of the distraction. "Alright Sweetie. Let's see if there's a bit of something special for you shall we?" Bill goes through the time-honoured cat satisfying ritual. "I'll need you soon – We're going to do a dark deed." Expecting loyalty from cats is a foolish folly but Bill has had a drop of Dutch courage which let the feeling out. Let him explain:
I started working for Simon in 1976 – The drought summer – He needed a man to look after his plants while he was away. He was an amateur botanist and went to great lengths to grow foreign plants. He tried exposing tomato seeds to radioactivity. But the greenhouse is still intact so we didn't get any monster mutants! Everything was very carefully recorded in his notebooks. He wanted, no, needed, precision. An easy man to work for as he told you what he was trying to do, why it was important and how you could help him – you couldn't help but volunteer to do the best you could. He made everything seem so worthwhile and worth your best try. Can you imagine a man like me talking to plants as I watered them? Well I did ‘cos "come along do your little best" is contagious.
Simon is a bachelor. It's funny but I can't imagine him having a wife. Just one of those things I suppose. Oh he liked women – One time he came back from a conference in Australia and telling me about the gorgeous girls; and perhaps I should try my luck out in a vibrant, growing country where there's plenty of ‘sun and sheilas'. I'll always remember that... ...Sorry I'm supposed to be telling you about Simon. "Come on Sweetie let's look at the scrapbook. Tch-tch. Up you come you scheming seed-bed digger you – I know what you plant there you toad. There will be a short test afterwards so pay ... umm anyway" Bill takes a drop more whisky, settles the cat in the crook of one arm and takes the plunge into Simon's life.
Born 1916. Windsor, Berkshire. Father's occupation: Stockbroker. Only child. Here he is as a chubby kid on a rug with baby-grin and huge awe-filled eyes gazing at the photographer. Privileged childhood. Public school then mathematics at Oxford. Here's a studio family portrait: Simon formally dressed, aged five perhaps, model aeroplane in hand is caught looking straight at the camera. Here he is in cricketing gear; and the officer cadets. Here a confident young student in his motor car. Apparently there was a group of them that had the motto "Better cars" not faster or noisier. His hobby turned into a job at Austin motors - Austins were in Oxford. A maths graduate had to pick up practical engineering pretty quickly, which he did and soon became a thorn in the side of the established production staff as he suggested improvements with the figures to prove his point.
Here there are two blank spaces
At a certain point I realized that folks with a different viewpoint than mine aren't usually out to do me harm and are not evil people but simply have a different viewpoint. The vitriol becomes tiresome to read...
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Why would I want my enemies to die quick and painless? or slow and painful? seriously.. a long tortured life is worse way to live. Id rather say stay alive, in horrible pain / misery and hopelessness. To the point they see Death as a release from the pain/misery of life and beg for it, yet it never comes.
Death is a release from pain and misery of life, it is the ultimate end to all things that live. Something everyone will experience, one way or another. Much as people try to forget, at the end of life is death.
Talk about medical miracles and modern day life prolonging science and people applaud and then forget.. talk about death and horrible pain - and people loose their minds (to use a meme)
Oh, and if you don't have a living will (and a will, for that matter) legally established, you're grossly irresponsible.
Exactly how is a child or someone who is legally incompetent (retarded, senile, coma etc) supposed to establish a living will? They are not legally allowed to do so. It's easy to be critical when you have all the options in front of you. Not everyone does. Living wills are a very good thing but they don't solve every problem and they aren't available to everyone.
Religion isn't even standing in the way, only fools who think they speak for God.
God provided us the ability to have free will, choice, and empowered us with the ability to take care of each other. We are our brother's keeper after all.
Scott's father was suffering, he is not committing a sin by using his free will and the help of family and doctors to end that suffering, he is celebrating his life and embracing the long dirt nap, as Scott said his father put it.
It is a crime how old people are treated in this country, more concerned with a pulse than with comfort and happiness.
Wow. Be careful what you wish for. In countries where assisted suicide is legal, it becomes the default. (In Belgium, they are even debating whether depressed - not terminally ill - children should have the "right" to die!) And it's not just those who are concerned about the sufferer's pain deciding. The doctors, the healthcare administrators, and, yes, families with a financial stake (healthcare costs, insurance, inheritance) in terminating the family member's life as quickly as possible are making the decision, even against the patient's will, and even when the illness isn't necessarily terminal! Withdrawing extraordinary medical treatment and providing sufficient pain medication should be enough to keep a terminally ill patient from suffering. We can't prevent every kind of suffering in the world; it's part of life, but we can do better than we do, and we don't have to kill people to do it.
Scott, if you read this, I support you. And what the heck, I will still support you in this even if you don't read my comment.
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-02-24/
We like to give lip service to 'liberty and justice', but when we are denied control over our own lives and only the state has the right to decide when to end a person's life, it is just another example of how American exceptionalism is a joke.
It seems to me the very cornerstone of personal liberty would be the self determination of when to end one's OWN life.
Bullet --} head please
I read a story revisiting the Obamacare desth panels issue. Turns out while everyone was denying it, it's more true than anyone wanted to believe. This legislation which passed before most anyone actually read it (proof that idiocracy is here) turns out to have provisions to make decisions about when to discontinue care for people who can't afford it.
I'll be the first to tell my own "I wish my mother was dead" story because watching my mother die wasn't just painful for her and the whole family, but it was ridiculously humiliating for her as well. I identified with her very closely as she lost it all except her mind. When word finally came out, my first thought was "finally." I wasn't able to be sad since my sadness over her suffering had already brought me to peak sadness. Her death was a relief to her and to everyone who cared about her. But that's ONE story of ONE family in ONE circumstance. It's an anecdote. It's not quite justification for eugenics. (yeah, I expect response after using that word)
I suspect we will hear more stories like this to make a government program such as this more acceptable to people. It isn't acceptable. It will never be acceptable. These are decisions for individuals and families to make; Not government and not business. Are we ready to give up our humanity so easily?
We have this unexplainable, sometimes completely irrational, and certainly short-sighted view of life. About half of all medical spending in the United States is spent in the last weeks of life, often just keeping a warm body alive long after the mind and soul have vacated it. Yet, as long as there is a warm pile of mushy innards there exotherming energy away, there will always by that crying, screaming, irrational family member (usually a woman) insisting that the mind and soul will return some day, if only everyone around would kneel and bow their heads to some fictitious diety.
What is it about human beings that gets them so unnecessarily attached to ugly bags of mostly water that will continue to exotherm away as long as a machine pumps oxygen into them?
I share Scott Adams' frustration with "the system." Really, the only opponents there are to assisted suicide, besides irrational relatives, are nursing homes, assisted living centers, and other charlatans, leeches, and vultures that will prey on your loved one's body until it can no longer convert chemical energy to heat. These are enormously wealthy corporations that steal BILLIONS of dollars from real, living, productive people just to keep bodies warm. They don't want to lose that income stream, and politicians certainly don't want to preside over losing those jobs.
So, we will never, EVER have assisted suicide. Ever. There will never, EVER be a humane and decent way to end one's life with dignity, respect, and calm acceptance. As long as irrational people can vote, and as long as there are billions of dollars to be fleeced from the estates of old people, the prohibition on assisted suicide will continue unabated.
My godmother is dying from ALS, and she's at the point where she probably won't see Christmas. They say it's one of the worst ways to go, as your mind stays sharp as you gradually lose the use of your muscles. She lost the use of her arms a year and a half ago. She's at the point where she can't swallow anymore and can't get out of bed. Throughout, though, she has kept the same high spirits with visitors, and still worries about the comfort of anyone coming by to see her.
While she has asked that no special measures be taken to keep her alive, as far as I know she hasn't considered suicide. What bothers me is those who imply that she is dying without dignity. I fail to see how how her suicide, whether assisted or not, would ever be referred to as allowing her to "die with dignity". Would a overdose on coke (as someone suggested above) really be more dignified?
I'm not trying to argue whether or not people should be allowed to make their own choices when terminally ill. I just want to make the point that suicide is not the same thing as dying with dignity.
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
As with many of these issues of our times it is a case of Technology outpacing ethics.
For a good part of history (and it is still going) Religion is the key teacher of ethics, and for the most part with a few exceptions it did a good enough job to keep society running.
However we are having new technological issues that really throw these old ethical standards into question.
Euthanasia:
In the past, if you got Old and sick, you either died or you got better, so ethically to say you should favor life, as they just might get better, if not they will die shortly. Today we can stop death so they just get older and sicker.
Abortion/Birth Control/Homosexuality:
In the past, the Human Race while not endangered, was not overpopulated, not contributing to a future generation would hinder society. Today we have too many people, society is being hurt from this over population.
Privacy:
In the past, a lot of people knew about your business however it was limited to human memory and attention so any scandal would go away (You sinned, ask for forgiveness and you are good to go). Today we actually have a record of everything. So the sin that you did, will get recorded and saved, and available via the next goggle look-up years after the event.
Now Religions are going to be slow to change. That is what they are suppose to do, have many thousands of years fads that are around for a few decades come and go, while the religion tries to be a source of consistency for the people, which is comforting. That said if these issues are part of a long term trend, then we might have to start reevaluate our ethics to meet modern needs.
Lets use the 10 commandments. It really breaks down two solving two issues, 1 Consulate people to follow the same rule of law, 2. Estate planning.
1. Believe in only one god. The original use wasn't that there was only one God, but you you should only pray to one. This over time helped keep the religion together as there is only one set of stories about one god.
2. No graven images. Now a lot of religions use to make graven images and worshiped them as gods. This allowed people to make their own gods so they can follow/justify their own moral code.
3. Don't take the lords name in vane. This is not cursing in the traditional sense, but actually cursing like placing a curse on a person in the game of God, or saying I am doing this to justify my actions because I have God on my side.
4. Remember the Sabbath day. Helps prevent overwork, as well as a convent way to get people together to reteach the religious ethics.
5. Honor thy Mother and Father. Back then, your parent have invested heavily in you. People didn't live long, and estate planning that crossed many generations. Pissing off your parents and putting yourself out of the will created all sorts of problems.
6. Do not murder. This is fairly straight forward, however it was an early attempt to stop people from taking the law into their own hands, as well as upsetting the normal order of things such as killing your older brother so you can get the estate from your parents.
7. Do not commit adultery. Still with estate planning, If you have kids across many parents who is the legitimate oldest son.
8. Do not bare false witness. This is a little different then the popular don't lie, however if you a witness to an event you shouldn't lie about that. As the legal settings back then were rather tenuous. Lying to get someone in trouble, (say your elder brother, to get him killed so you can then can get the estate)
9. Don't covet your neighbors wife. Back onto complex estate planning, don't try to steal the wife away as you can create complex estate issues.
10. Do not seal. An other fairly obvious one. However if you steal something then we have this property rights nonsense going on.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You're Scott ^#!$ing Adams. Why are you talking about money? I understand the "my dad is in inarticulate misery" part, but stop whining about the cost unless you want people to think you want your dad's money.
What he's hoping for here is that the folks who act to keep such laws on the books also get to experience the same
end-of-life torture his father has to endure because of their actions. Trust me when I tell you it's one of the most painful
things you'll ever experience and pulling someone you love off of life support is one of the toughest decisions you'll ever make.
It's a difficult decision to make, ending someones life. Even though the outcome is eventually inevitable, I would rather go quickly
than waste away slowly knowing what my fate is to be. I want my estate to pass to those I want to have it, not to the billing department
of some Hospital or facility who is trying to wring every dime they can from me before I go.
When you death vs the suffering they will endure by keeping them alive, you'll ultimately come to the same conclusion I think. Those
who support keeping them alive at all costs have obviously never experienced this for themselves. So I say to them, " Walk a mile in those
shoes, and tell me how you feel afterwards. "
That is how I want to go out
all those years skewering the Pointy Haired Boss when in fact the Pointy Haired Doctor was on a collision course with his contentment and independence.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Physician assisted suicide is when the doctor puts the patient in a position to commit suicide, usually through an apparatus which provides a lethal and non-painful death and is actuated by the patient. The way Adams describes his father, his father could not actuate anything, so the only option to end his father's suffering is through euthanasia. Euthanasia is what Dr. Kervorkian was actually imprisoned for, not assisted suicide.
This line in the photo caption at the top about sums up Saunders response, for me:
"Adams, appears to be a rare example of someone who has largely but not totally, recovered from Spasmodic Dysphonia, a mysterious disease in which parts of the brain controlling speech shut down or go haywire."
This, obviously has completely nothing to do with the article. It's a bit like if the Victoria Kennedy caption had noted she was divorced, a condition in which people are unable to properly relate and appropriately respond to one another's feelings -- and which she still seems to be suffering from. It's there not for the fact of the matter, but to try and cast an aspersion.
The implication is that Adams' commentary should be read and understood in the light of somebody who doesn't really know what they're saying.
It's a cheap shot, and it's pretty pathetic of Saunders or whichever editor inserted it into the piece.
My great-grandfather was a doctor. He would often deal with end-of-life care for terminal patients.
One of the things he would do would be to allow patients who were terminally ill and in chronic pain to self-administer painkillers. He would explain to them that these were powerful drugs, and warn them not to take more than a certain amount because it would kill them. Then, like all the other doctors, he would go home for the night. Sometimes when he came back in the morning, a patient died overnight in their sleep.
Any correlation between the two was entirely coincidental, of course.
This is not surprising. A consistent theme of conservatives is they get off by making other people suffer, preferably by inflicting physical pain.
> for others it can mean death within three days.
From personal experience, it could be longer... my father, in his nineties and already more or less skin and bones, managed to hang on in hospice care for seven days without food or water.
Any state that allows the death penalty should automatically allow assisted suicide. Maybe terminally ill patients should commit a serious crime so the state has to cover their medical fees....
A state that bans the death penalty would have to decide to allow assisted suicide or not.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
He said "I MIGHT [emphasis mine] want you to die a painful death..."
I see the elegance of producing a terrific strawman troll by merely omitting one word, but really, this doesn't qualify for Insightful mods, puh-leeze!
Suicide does not affect any of the other things you list, and if you pay through the nose you can get a life insurance policy that even covers it.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
As engaging and controversial this topic is. I don't think is a theme that should be listed in Slashdot. There are many other sites and forums where this discussion is taking place and I bet they don't involve technology or relevant information for "Nerds".
I'm not trying to direct this at you.
What you just wrote is a common opinion.
Those of us who have experience with Hospice care know that what you wrote is not correct.
In the last phase of Hospice care, the person's body has lost the ability to process food. They're already undergoing progressive, system wide failure. The death certificate may include the phrase 'Failure to thrive'.
The patient loses the ability to swallow. At first they're having difficult swallowing. Food 'goes down the wrong pipe'. If the care givers are successful, they're changing the diet from whole food to pre-cut, then to soft, then to liquid.
But in the end, the ability to swallow disappears.
At that point, some families choose to install a feeding tube.
Quality of life with a feeding tube is generally poor. And the reality is, you may be successful at forcing the food in, but it's not getting processed.
The patient's body is shutting down. It's not digesting food, it's not extracting nutrients.
As this process continues, the patient spends most of their time asleep.
It becomes very difficult to get them alert enough to even take med's by mouth.
They're not hungry.
They're not thirsty.
They're not responsive.
At this point you're swabbing their mouths with moist sponges on a stick. They're not generating enough saliva, to keep the oral cavity moist. So you're protecting from drying and cracking. What little saliva they are generating is getting pooled in the back of the mouth. So you may be suctioning it out so that it doesn't get in to the lungs.
You're also putting salve on their lips to prevent cracking.
As the lungs and heart continue to degrade, the level of O2 in the blood goes down. Their level of consciousness dips even lower. At this point, it's generally not possible to rouse them. They are 'unresponsive'.
Often, this is when they go on to low flow O2. It's not going to restore them. They're almost dead.
By this time you're administering oral morphine. The morphine is partially to address any pain they may be feeling but mostly it's to increase the level of O2 in the blood.
Morphine increases O2 uptake. At first you'll see small, short term improvements in their O2 saturation level. But the improvement's become smaller and shorter.
This is what happens to the vast majority of people who enter Hospice.
Hospice care is for folks are highly likely to die within a few weeks or at most a few months. Some people do rebound but most do not.
This is what happens for patients with neurodegenerative diseases, like vascular dementia and Alzheimer's. This is also very commonly the last phase of life for people with diabetes, stroke, and chronic obstructive heart disease.
Bottom line, imagine the worst case of flu you've ever had. Try to remember being so sick that you didn't have the energy to get out of bed. You weren't hungry, you weren't thirsty, you sleep constantly.
That was just the flu. You got through that phase in 24-36 hours. But it felt like you lost a day of your life. It just disappeared.
Now imagine that simply getting worse.
You're not hungry. You're not thirsty. You're not aware of your surrounding.
Your organs are shutting down.
You die.
... that the journalist contact Adams a day or so after his father passed away for a story?
As distasteful Adams comments may be about wanting people dead, it's completely inappropriate to hassle someone who just his father pass away? He's mourning and probably not in a good place.
I'm sure Adams had his PR person filter the request, but still, give the guy some time!
Wearing pants should always be optional.
Says who, exactly?
Part me out, pull the plug, burn me up, flush me down.
you obviously aint from compton
My dog was suffering congestive heart failure. He could hardly breath. He was put down , as it was suggested that was the 'Humane' thing to do.
Yet I watched my grand father suffer for weeks of the very same condition. He knew he was going to die. The doctors knew he was going to die. But for some reason, when it comes to humans, the same 'humane' thing to do, doesn't apply, they made him suffer, eventually drowning in his own fluids. It's truly disgusting.
Maybe, Adams father would rather spend his $8,000 a month on something else. Send somebody's kid to college, open a food bank, get cancer treatment for a 25 year old mother of 3. Hell, I'm thinking about how much I waste on the cable TV bill!
...has never changed. People should never be in a position where they can be pressured, cajoled or manipulated into suicide; doctors are improving but are still not very competent at figuring out the long-term prognosis for patients, the error rates are way too high. This should ALWAYS be balanced against indisputably terminal conditions, conditions where the person ceases to be meaningfully human, conditions of extreme suffering where the patient makes unconditionally clear (not just once but over time) that pain has to cease, one way or another, and any similar situation.
In other words, I don't trust doctors, patients or families to make perfect decisions. There has to be hard evidence that this case is typical, not atypical, hard evidence (within reason - coma patients don't talk much) that the patient has firmly decided on that path and it isn't the moment-to-moment feeling everyone gets on a regular basis, and hard evidence that conceding to fate is the last realistic untried option.
But if that evidence is beyond dispute, doctors are oath-bound to do least harm and painless death is less harm than agonizing death.
(I would never have made a good doctor. The older and moodier I get, the more I feel that someone invent hell, just so that idiots have somewhere to go.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I find it reprehensible that the best we are allowed to do for our loved ones is to allow them to starve/dehydrate to death.
We are more humane to criminals we put to death than to loved ones.
Only a sick, inhumane society keeps their past-due people alive on machines. Building up hospital debt or draining life savings are also a big problem. Man the fuck up people, let them go. Quality over quantity. Hell, I'd even rather have dead friends than them being numbed by antidepressants.
"your political discourse has gone way too far."
This is how we fucking talk on the internet. Don't take it personally you fucking pansy ass whiner.
I knew we'd be fucked when the "adults" started using "the net"
want to decide when its time to leave. If i suffer a terminal illness which prevents me from taking part in the normal life at all (i.e. mental decay, Alzheimer etc.) and at some point even living by eating on my own wish, i want to have the option of dying in dignity - if possible i want to be able by my own mind to say good bye to my friends and famlily.
The idea that for my last few years tremendous ressources would be used, which could help much better in other parts of the health system, without prviding me with a real participation in life would make me sick. I love my life, and therefore i wish that the decision to end it when it stops being worth living *to me* (and skip religous ideas how suffering shows us how valuable life is).
With all the angst in this thread... you'd think that some of you would do something with your life besides create widgets. Imagine if you (and the rest of humanity) actually committed your lives to doing something great.
Instead, we get to listen to you whine about not being able to kill yourselves while discussing the mediocrity of your existence.
The reality is this: With or without a living will or DNR order, in every state I've lived, a provable Next of Kin can order, under the doctrine of what the patient wanted, *ALL* care to cease, or a transfer to hospice care where palliative standards are different. The absolute most that may happen is said next of kin may be responsible for removing the patient from the hospital and to the next of kin's residence (though I've never heard of that particular one being given as an absolute order.)
I have attended cases as clergy where all resuscitation efforts have been ordered ceased based on next of kin declaration. And I have attended cases where feeding and hydration have been ordered ceased in a hospital ward, with pain control only. (And heard many anecdotes about oncology staffs who, knowing the life is at an end, do administer what they know is a fatal pain control dosage.) In fact, I have *never* witnessed care being given to a patient who couldn't make his or her own decisions and without orders, where the orders of the legal next of kin were not followed *to the letter.* Lest a lawsuit follows.
What Mr. Adams needs to consider, absent any prior declarations by his father to the contrary or other next of kin disputing his story, is a lawsuit against the attending physicians to follow direction. The most the physicians can do is note that said orders are being carried out Against Medical Advice.
Now if a patient, ahead of time, informs a physician or other medical staff that they *WANT* to live as long as humanly possible.... that's a different kettle of fish. That would override any familial wants. And I've seen many MANY cases where one family member is a holdout against the wishes of the rest, which means care goes on until consensus is reached to cease care.
Lots of people here are citing religion for why this is not legal, but really have you looked at the laws recently? I don't think religion really plays much of a role anymore.
The reason why many politician in my country will not touch this subject is because of a history of abuse. People have tried and tried and tried to close all the loopholes, but they just can't. The problem is that there are too many people that just plain suck! There is also a problem that doctors just don't know enough.
What the data shows is in general, for every 1 person that there is good cause for euthanasia, there are 3 that will be misdiagnosed. On top of that 4 people will be murdered by people abusing the system.
I personally know 4 people that would have been euthanized under some of the strictest laws that have been in place in the past when it has been legal in countries, all 4 of them are happy they are still alive and for the most part live with out lasting pain. I am lucky to not know anyone yet that has had to suffer.
I know that there are people that suffer that really have no chance of recovery, but legalizing it means pain for a whole bunch more people that loose loved ones who would have recovered, or were never really sick, but were involved with sick people. Do you save the thousands in pain with possibly tens of thousands in emotional pain to have tens of thousands killed and possibly hundreds of thousands in emotional pain?
There are definitely reasons to legalize euthanasia. The problem is that medicine needs to improve further and people as a whole need to improve so that the reasons against legalizing it aren't extremely strong.
As for talking about pets. I have a friend that was a vet, she quit because most people would rather put down their dog than pay the price for a cast when they break a leg. Again, too many people suck!
The problem with Scott Adams and the rest of the people, who seemingly ignore some 2000 years of history, as well as having very dim views of the human condition is anyone under the classification of Euthanasia, are going to be put to death ultimately by people who won't stop at human suffering.
They will continue to the poor, the "politically expedient", or just anyone they do not like.
These people who profess and advocate these sorts of problems have an almost childlike understanding of why human beings should not be given that sort of power, and if they get it it will mean not just the end of one individual, but probably the end of our civilization and possibly the species.
Yes, I am afraid we really are that depraved and our history has countless examples to prove it unfortunately.
Philosophically speaking, human beings always get themselves into trouble trying to control the processes of life and in this case death which are completely natural.
The pain of death and birth is something that was never decided on by any human being.
Now we are trying to make those determinations with coin and a small committee under Obama Care.
-Hackus
"By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes."
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
I have to agree with Mr. Adams. There is something to be said about making a distinction between quality and quantity. I believe people have the right to make the decision to end their own life in dire circumstances. Some states already allow this. Oregon and Montana are ones that come to mind, and although there are some who have taken their lives to end suffering it must be said that most end up keeping the lethal dose of barbiturates and never even using them. It is the sense autonomy that gives these people comfort in a time of what may feel like helplessness. I also think for families it would be easier to handle their loved one overdosing on a drug specifically designed to be gentle and painless, than for the loved one to resort to something more violent.
A society that cannot tell the difference between a person and a cat or value that difference is doomed.
Of course society can tell the difference.
Nobody can milk a cat for $8000 a month.
I hope you realize someday that going to HELL for committing suicide would be an improvement in your life quality rather than going through the suffering of inoperable terminal bone cancer.
That said self-righteous people like you are why I shirked off the yoke of my Christian childhood and looked over all the world's theologies.
Are you without sin to cast a stone and judge how much suffering other people deserve from your god.
as title. No more suffering!
My mother died from cancer in June after a 9 month fight.
We knew where it was going. Morphine no longer handled the pain after 8 months.
She's a US citizen, and had gone to Australia for alternative treatment. That treatment left her too weak to travel back to the US.
Medicare wouldn't help her as she wasn't in the US.
The Insurance company just washed their hands.
Australia wouldn't help her because she wasn't an Australian citizen.
Bastards all.
My Mom had no savings to speak of, I had no extra cash, so my sister took out $70K of emergency loan to keep things rolling along. Now she and I are paying that off.
I *completely* see where Scott is coming from. If it had been a possibility for my Mom to leave earlier, with less pain and more dignity, I'm sure she would have chosen that.
"Assisted suicide" should be changed to "Retro abortion". That makes it easier to understand and easier to legalize it. You're simply removing a useless and unwanted human life form. People across the country do it everyday. Why not have Retro Abortion clinics where we can take our suffering and dying consenting elderly and terminate them?
Scott, I get it. My Dad's 'life' was extended by modern science so he could have a shot at overcoming his stage 4 cancer. The chemo and radiation postponed his earthly departure by 11 months, of which 6 weeks were better, while the remainder of the time he was in such pain and discomfort that it was unbearable. At the time of his passing we were administering enough morphine to kill 6 horses and it only diminished his pain by 20% going from absolutely miserable to extremely miserable. It was painful and sad to watch and experience and I wasn't the one with the cancer. May your Father pass comfortably in his sleep.
Andrew Buys Barrington Hall Yacht Charters 800-478-2029 954-720-0475 http://www.yachtsbhc.com
Abortion. Assisted suicide. Then, what is next?
Cannabidiol (CBD) is becoming well known for reversing mental issues, especially memory.
Prohibition is the issue (thecleangame [.]net/2013/10/prohibition-causes-psychosis/)
Doctors have crappy educations these days and there's no reason someone like this should be prevented from using cannabis.
Keep it Clean! :D
The doctor's analysis comes back with exactly 1%.
We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be
That no man lives forever,
That dead men rise up never;
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.
-- The Garden of Proserpine.
-- Algernon Charles Swinburne. (1837–1909)
I had to watch both parents go that sort of way. when both had asked to end things earlier, we were unable to assist.
I'm glad I haven't any more parents. I don't think I could handle having to watch it happen again.
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Saunders is well known as a conservative nutcase and adamant supporter of substance abuse. Her life revolves around whatever story the Republicans deem is important (usually Benghazi) and marijuana. It's amazing she ever got a job writing editorial pieces at all, but the Chronicle had to have one "conservative" voice and picked a mentally challenged pothead to fill that role, hence giving her a platform to spread her drug-addled right-leaning viewpoints.
In the Bay Area, Saunders is regarded as a complete fucking moron.
I'm glad Adams stood up against her.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/09/21/1238215/your-moral-compass-is-reversible/funny-comments
Casteism
Here's hoping Irony will visit its good graces upon Debra Saunders and takes its sweet time releasing her.
There are times when we should relieve suffering, not prolong it. Intentional suicide is not the same. It is legal for doctors to not prolong life when suffering is the only outcome and those decisions have to be made, IF the patient left a living will the decisions are already made, or some one has the legal authority to do so. If no one has the legal authority, given by the patient in writting, they are required to keep the patient alive no matter what.. Not long ago my Father went in for surgery. The Dr came out and said, "it's all through him! I'd like your permission not to perform any heroics or life prolonging methods should something go wrong". It was a qurstion and decision I was not expecting, but I had the power and I knew his wishes, so much as I didn't want to, I told the Dr, that would be my father's wishes. He survived the operation and we talked about it later. He thanked me for upholding his wishes despite emotions. He lasted about 6 months after that. I don't know what happened in Adam's case. To say they shouldn't happen seems trite, but all too often Living wills are not made out, giving someone who cares the ability to make those decisions or informing the Drs and hospital ahead of time.. This would not have, or should not have had anything to do with assisted suicide. It appears to have been about prolonging life beyond reasonable limits. They simply do not use life prolonging methods if legally told not to. They do not assist in suicide. These are two entirely different issues. If the patient has a living will, the doctors have been shown it (preferably ahead of time) they know who to ask and that person has sole authority as to whether life prolonging techniques are used or not. My wif'e's dad was failing, but still in possesion of all his faculties. He made known his wishes ahead of time in a legal document, so no one else had a say.. The only thing they did was keep him comfortable until the end. Far too often, people and the press confuse the living will with assisted suicide. Everyone should have an up-to-date, living will if you don't want to have every cent of your estate spent keeping you in pain and as a vegatable.
Everyone seemed to freak out when "douglas adams wished death on his father"
They spread this out of context rumor all over the internet.
Actually reading his article, it's obvious he has nothing but compassion for his dying father.
I remember we used to discuss this in class in high school. And I think this was even a policy debate topic for a whole year - we researched it, talked about it, like it was some new and alien concept to consider for some future "advanced" or "more mature" civilization.
Long after, when some of my older relatives got, well, older, and I saw them in their dying days... morphine and dehydration. Or even cessation of care without any discussion or consent. The elderly are "allowed to die", or "helped along", or even "killed from deliberate and calculated neglect of necessary care" all the time. All. The. Time.
But for Scott's contrary experience, I wouldn't consider this topic worth discussion other than to point out that just sometimes, people don't want their elderly relatives euthanized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia#United_States
Casteism
Adams is not wrong to want death for his father. Similarly Sir Terry Pratchett, who has been making the same case over this side of the Atlantic.
However, there is one other consideration: once euthanasia becomes common, it won't just be the clear-cut cases that happen. I think it’s almost inevitable that it will become the normal way for old people to die. From there, someone who just needs a lot of troublesome care will be “in the frame” to be done away with, and will be made to feel selfish for hanging on. It could get ugly.
Is that a good enough reason to force people people to live in hopeless pain, perhaps for years? I’m not sure. Probably not. But it’s worrying all the same.
i read both adams post and that anti-euthanasia dicks post and she is a total dick. this debate is seriously complicated and she didn't bother mentioning that you know, mr adams was seriously desperate and devastated when he wrote his blog post and who the hell wouldn't be in that situation so lighten the fuck up already. and didn't even mention that euthanasia is complex and adams wasn't arguing for involuntary euthanasia but just for his poor old dad to have the option to not suffer needlessly. dick is a dick. gah! voluntary euthanasia = patient wants it involuntary euthanasia = other people want it for the patient and as for the living will crap FYI most parts of the world have all kinds of euthanasia illegal. so lets say patient wants it (voluntary) and writes a living will. their will is ignored anyway. it's very very cruel.
Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Pratchett:_Choosing_to_Die
It's not about what I want to have done to other people, it is about what I choose for myself.
Today, here in this country I have no choice.