Should Assisted Death (Physician-Assisted Suicide) be legal?

Just looking for opinions. Here in Canada, in mid-June of this year the legislature passed a bill that allowed the assisted death of an individual. If you want exact details, here they are;

Bill C-14; Physician-Assisted Suicide (open) Bill C-14; Physician-Assisted Suicide (close)

241.2 (1) A person may receive medical assistance in dying only if they meet all of the following criteria:

(a) they are eligible — or, but for any applicable minimum period of residence or waiting period, would be

eligible — for health services funded by a government in Canada;

(b) they are at least 18 years of age and capable of making decisions with respect to their health;

(c) they have a grievous and irremediable medical condition;

(d) they have made a voluntary request for medical assistance in dying that, in particular, was not made as a result of external pressure; and

(e) they give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying after having been informed of the means that are available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care.



(2) A person has a grievous and irremediable medical condition only if they meet all of the following criteria:

(a) they have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability;

(b) they are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability;

(c) that illness, disease or disability or that state of decline causes them enduring physical or psychological

suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable;

and

(d) their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances, without a prognosis necessarily having been made as to the specific length of time that they have remaining.

The key procedural safeguards are as follows:

(3) Before a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner provides a person with medical assistance in dying, the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner must

(a) be of the opinion that the person meets all of the criteria set out in subsection (1);

(b) ensure that the person’s request for medical assistance in dying was

(i) made in writing and signed and dated by the person or by another person under subsection (4),

and

(ii) signed and dated after the person was informed by a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner that

the person has a grievous and irremediable medical condition;

(c) be satisfied that the request was signed and dated by the person — or by another person under subsection (4) — before two independent witnesses who then also signed and dated the request;

(d) ensure that the person has been informed that they may, at any time and in any manner, withdraw

their request;

(e) ensure that another medical practitioner or nurse practitioner has provided a written opinion confirming that the person meets all of the criteria set out in

subsection (1);

(f) be satisfied that they and the other medical practitioner or nurse practitioner referred to in paragraph

(e) are independent;

(g) ensure that there are at least 10 clear days between the day on which the request was signed by or on behalf of the person and the day on which the medical assistance in dying is provided or — if they and the

other medical practitioner or nurse practitioner referred to in paragraph (e) are both of the opinion that

the person’s death, or the loss of their capacity to provide informed consent, is imminent — any shorter period that the first medical practitioner or nurse practitioner considers appropriate in the circumstances;

(h) immediately before providing the medical assistance in dying, give the person an opportunity to withdraw their request and ensure that the person gives express consent to receive medical assistance in dying;

and

(i) if the person has difficulty communicating, take all necessary measures to provide a reliable means by which the person may understand the information that is provided to them and communicate their decision.

Assisted suicide should be legalized, it is a right thing to do to offer a third option when people are facing death.

Imagine if you are facing the endless suffering and excruciating pain but can do nothing to end it. You are desperate need of terminating your agony but you will not ask your beloved ones to help you, because it would likely to put them into serious troubles that will destroy their lives. It is stunning that when people are facing death, in their darkest and most desperate moment of life, nobody could offer a little help because of the law bans the help.

Example 1:
A woman starved herself 25 days to death. in addition to the unbearable pain and torture form her terminal illness, she suffered 25 day's dehydration and starvation, just because physician assisted suicide is banned in England. her family members were emotionally broke down seeing their beloved mother and wife struggling in the edge of death, but they can do nothing about it except begging the medics to give her some drugs to release the pain.

Example 2:
In another case, a promising graduate student shot his beloved brother because he couldn't ignore his brother's constant cry and plea to die... he lost his chin and an arm and his organs were deteriorating because of the skin cancer, he had 6 month to suffer if his brother did not help him to relieve. however, the young man was arrested for murder, and he has to face a more than 10 years of sentence and a record of criminal for the rest of his life. the price for releasing his brother is enormous, he set his brother to free but put him self to the hell. why did he choose ruining his own life if it was not because of love? could you imagine the stress and pressure when he lifted the gun and shot his brother?

people are facing these choices every day, because someday, we will all have to encounter death.
what if our society, our legislation system could help, what if they could offer a third choice? if the laws force the ones who could and are willing to help stay inactive to protect the so-called value of life, and left the people dying without dignity, then the laws just failed people's trust. if the doctors barely see their patient's suffering and mechanically obey their hypocratic oath to "do no harm", their indifference to people's pain are actually doing harm to patients' trust.
although majority of the medical related professions are reluctant to end others' lives, some believe that is a right thing to do. but they are banned by our legislation and could not sacrifice their career to help...
let those who want to help help, the legislation should sanction physician assisted suicide, that is the least they can do...

took me long enough to type that up, there's homers rant. sorry if there are any errors ):

 

If anyone has rights to their own body, it should be oneself.

If oneself doesn't own their own body, who the hell does?

 

This is really screwed up. You can just simply pull the plug if you or someone is on life support. In certain circumstances, this could be useful. If someone was suffering from chronic pain caused by cancer, the person who is suffering should have to choice to end their lives (but only if the person had zero chance of survival). A humane way to do this in my opinion would be to put the suffering patient into an induced coma, because when a patient is in a comatose state, they are rendered unconscious, but they are still self-aware. From what I hear, being in a coma is just like being asleep, except that you don't think you are in a hospital and instead somewhere else, and you can hear what everyone who is awake is saying. Like being awake even though you are asleep. Personally, I would rather die in a coma. It would be a calm way to go. I do not think that someone you trust like a friend or family member should be able to end your life because you want the suffering to end, it should be done by a person who has been trained for this sort of thing. Would you kill someone you loved because they were in constant pain, or would you place your trust in an expert to do the deed.

 

Yes, the only real arguments against this are religious, which hold no merit in a proper debate. It is not "God's plan" for someone to suffer in ways that are unimaginable to us currently, it is hell on earth.

 

Assisted suicide should be legalized, everywhere. If someone does not want to live anymore, because of going through chemotherapy or something else like that, then they should have the right to end their suffering. It is inhumane to keep someone alive against their will if they really want to die. If someone has a condition that will 100% get worse and painful, whats the point of living? Everyone wants to have a peaceful death. People say its elderly abuse which is untrue. Forcing the elderly to go through extreme pain is called abuse. Some people are against it and I'm sure none of them have a condition like MS. (Multiple Sclerosis).

 

God, jackass

 

Do we get to control God then?

And is that, like... his moniker?

TheDebatheist, debator.

The Queen, ruler.

God, jackass.

?

 

I agree.

Natsu: Meeper

 

Oh damn the amount of triggered people who will come to this thread because of you

 

Bump, want to see people's opinions

 

I see no reason why a person cannot choose to take death over life in this situation
I see no reason why I should not "pull the plug" on someone with almost 0% chance of recovery
The only time I think this shouldnt be as applicable is if the person is not mentally sound, since they can to an extent make their own decisions but really sometimes thats just... Not the right choice. The parents should make that call.

The only reason that people keep the nearly dead around is for personal reasons. When it gets to be the point that they are there for you, not you for them, its time to let that go. People die. Itll be okay. Thats just what happens.

 

you said "25 days with dehydration" you'll die in like four days without enough water lol

plus I don't know. I don't see any point in killing yourself, I'm that kind of person to say "let God take over"

just because you die to an illness doesn't make it a BAD thing. It's a thing that happens to most people.

So instead of people saying after your death "He died to cancer" you would rather them say "He killed himself because he had cancer"?

 

I think this is why we're starting to see a pushback against extremist religious thinking.

If you and @kwagscraft want to say, "Let God take over" (when you're in excruciating pain on your death bed)? That's your prerogative. Sure.

But making decisions about one's own body isn't enough, it seems. You want to control your body and mine.

You want to force people that don't even believe in the god you do, to follow your rules. To stay in excruciating pain against their own will.

Again, you can make religion as big of a part of your life as you want. It's your religion, after all. But I think it's precisely that. Yours. i.e. Not mine. Why should your religion rule over me? It's theocracy.

 

I really don't care about anybody else except my family, & nah that wasn't the point I was trying to get at.

I just said me personally, my opinion. In no way do I ever try to push my opinion on somebody. All this you're saying is not what I meant at all.

I just think it's extremely weak of someone to kill themselves because they have an illness, or at all.

I'd rather go out fighting than go out taking my own life.

 

Do you really think they care? They're dead, what people think of you has no merit. Besides, sensible people will understand.

So essentially what you're saying is "Woohoo! I'm gonna die in 3 months anyway because I have terminal cancer, but might as well just feel all the excruciating pain I can!"

It's not "going out fighting" it's going out experiencing unimaginable pain.

 

If an adult wants to partake in an activity that can only harm them and/or other people willingly partaking in the activity they should be allowed to. The government has no prerogative to censure it.

 

Yes, it's basically a more humane way of suicide. If someone wants to die (due to a pain, physical pain cause by a disease or something) they should be allowed to do it. They will do it one way or another so why not let them do it in a more humane way? Some states in America allow it. I do not think it should be allowed and provided to someone due to a "bad break up" but if they have cancer or something, I support it.

 

I think it's up to the physician. Obviously, the patient chooses whether or not they want to live, but the physician must decide on whether or not to help the person with their death. The hard part about this debate isn't the person in pain, but the doctor instead.

 

No, doctors take an oath to do no harm. Assisting in a suicide is doing harm.

 

Then shouldn't doctors not be able to take people off life support?