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'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
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.
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.
Yes, but why should you have to suffer through the pain of a slow death by dehydration or infection rather then a quick painless overdose of anesthetic?
Seriously, if that's your outlook on life/marriage I feel really sorry for your wife.
Then you totally don't get it. It sounds like the poster you're responding to has an unconditionally loving and trusting relationship with his wife. They are both very lucky.
soylentnews.org
He didn't say he got married because he wanted someone to kill him. He said he never would have married someone who wouldn't.
Not:
"Lets get married so we can end each other's life when the time comes"
More like:
"I can't marry someone who doesn't love me enough to respect my wishes and end my life, even though it will be painful and difficult for them"
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."
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.
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.
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.
"At no point should anyone in hospice care die in pain."
It's absurd; but I've actually heard people fretting about the risk of addiction presented by suitably aggressive pain control.
Now, obviously, (for the sake of people who have painful but either temporary or chronic-but-livable-if-the-pain-is-managed), aggressive painkillers that aren't also hardcore opiates would be a nice thing to have in the pharmacy; but what kind of insane do you have to be to worry about whether somebody who is going to die, relatively soon, is going to develop a dependence on painkillers or not?
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.
Not so. My grandfather had an interesting thing happen, where his intestine started dying by inches. They tried excising the dying bits, but the rest kept dying too. So, palliative care.
They were quite frank about the fact that he was in enough pain that no painkiller they had would work on him. He was drugged into utter unconsciousness, yet still his face was spasming with pain. Yet when I suggested maybe they just up the dose, they said 'Any more would kill him.' 'Well, doctor,' I said, 'what are his chances?' 'None,' they said. 'He will die within a week. There's nothing we can do.' 'Exactly,' I said. And they looked at me like I was a monster, while they did everything they could to prolong his death. Not his life, his death.
Yet if I treated my dog that way, I'd be up on animal cruelty charges.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Except that Scott Adams has no power to make these people suffer the fate his father suffered. But these people, by their advocacy, do have the ability to ensure that others will suffer the way his father did.
The wish and the deed are quite different.
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.
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.
...you can expect a really, really long jail sentence. And the health care in those for-profit prisons sucks.
No, you can expect no death benefits, insurance payouts, pension or anything else to the family you leave behind.