This story is archived
Right-To-Die Issues Divide Americans »
Posted by: STONERS 2 years, 5 months agoMore than two-thirds of Americans believe there are circumstances in which a patient should be allowed to die, but they are closely divided on whether it should be legal for a doctor to help terminally ill patients end their own lives by prescribing fatal drugs, a new AP-Ipsos poll finds.
Read Full Story at news.aol.com »
Submitted By:
STONERS
Welcome to my profile...I've started a ""STONERS Daily News Group"" Please stop by and have a look and join if you like it ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 116
-
STONERS
May 29, 2007, 2:08 p.m."The new AP-Ipsos poll asked whether it should be legal for doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to help terminally ill patients end their own lives - a practice currently allowed in Oregon but in no other states. Forty-eight percent said it should be legal; 44 percent said it should be illegal."
"More broadly, 68 percent said there are circumstances when a patient should be allowed to die, while 30 percent said doctors and nurses, in all circumstances, should do everything possible to save the life of a patient."
((I'm curious as to what some of you think about this? ))
-
ind06
May 29, 2007, 2:23 p.m.Well, there's no "should it be legal". It IS legal. It's people who disagree with the Oregon law, passed, challenged and re-passed (and re-re-passed) who want to frame the "argument" as though it's some sort of popularity contest. Indeed as though there is an "argument" at all.
This law is here to stay in Oregon, hopefully you will never have need of it, but if one day (God forbid) you do Oregon is here to protect your right to a peaceful pain free death.
I fail utterly to understand people who disagree with this law. I assume that they are in favor of the odious machinery of the federal government being in charge of every aspect of their lives from cradle to grave.
-
jordan11
May 29, 2007, 2:42 p.m.The Oregon law has good safeguards in place to protect the terminally ill from being abused by people who may want them 'dead'. (A highly rare prospect). Two DR's must certify that their illness is fatal, & they themselves decide when and if a fatal dose of drugs will be taken. It is highly disrespectful of the autonomy of individuals to create a 'daddy' state, that decides the most intimate prospects of life or death. I have instinctual distrust of people who think they know what is best for me. If I develop an illness that causes a slow and painful death, the decision of whether or not to end my suffering will be mine and no one else's.
-
TOtheMOON
May 29, 2007, 2:45 p.m.I believe a lot of people who disagree with this issue are going to really reconsider should they or a loved one someday be confronted with a horrible and terminal illness in their own lives. Not many people *want* to die, but nobody wants to suffer, and I think this should be an option. I've worked with hospice, I've seen incredible suffering and not one person - the dying or the survivor - wished the struggle would continue to linger.
-
BronxBomber
May 29, 2007, 4:13 p.m.I've had three friends die slowly of both MS and cancer at it's painful advanced stages, and they all related to me about how they wished they could just give up the ghost and die right then and there because they related how painful the advanmced stages of the dieases were. I seen the pain etched in their faces as their bodies twisted, and writhed in pain. I'd think if i had the same terminal illness that they got I'd welcome Dr.Kervorkian, and his method just to go out peacefully and painlessly as I can, & yes that would be my right to choose that mode with no type of hinderance whatsoever if it were possible.
-
Charlson
May 29, 2007, 4:12 p.m.I've read that Kevorkian is to be paroled this year. He's pledged not to consult with patients about assisted suicides but will continue to try to pass laws for assisted suicide.
-
not2needy
May 29, 2007, 4:37 p.m.I have so many mixed emotions about suicide, assisted or otherwise.
-
joeblowe
May 29, 2007, 4:56 p.m.I notice this common theme: Those who oppose this haven't been through a situation where the decision would be relevant. It's hard to imagine that ANYONE who has watched a person with a terminal illness suffer a long, painful decline through the ravages of disease would not hope for a way to alleviate the pain and suffering. I suspect that many who haven't seen it think that "It's not that bad, drugs can control the pain." Guess what - sometimes they CAN'T! Think-- would YOU want to lie around in agony just waiting for your body to finally give up, KNOWING that the end was inevitable? I don't agree with anyone ELSE throwing the switch, pushing the button, giving the injection -- whatever, because no one ELSE can really know, FOR SURE, when a person has had as much as they can stand. Let's face it, a person can ALWAYS die if they are sufficiently determined and sufficiently mobile. But if you can't even get out of bed, a painless, peaceful end would surely be welcome.
-
Ratskii
May 29, 2007, 5 p.m.I've watched both my mother's dad and my father live on for years after their minds had left their bodies. I know for certain that my dad didn't desire to go on living under those circumstances. For myself, legal or not, I intend to be prepared should this begin to happen to me.
-
-
amazed
May 29, 2007, 5:29 p.m.I think there so be no legal repercussions to a physician prescribing medicine in fatal amounts to terminally ill patients who wish to die. If the person then takes the drugs in a sufficient amount to kill themselves, then that is suicide.
Where I believe it gets dicey is when the "assist" in assisted suicide is not just someone making the means available, but actively helping the person out the door -- injecting the poison, smothering the person with a pillow, starving one who cannot feed themselves-- that makes me uncomfortable, and is no longer suicide, but actually homocide. I do not believe in heroic measures at the end of life -- and also have no problem with turning off machines, or better yet, never hooking them up in the first place.
-
kedirian
May 29, 2007, 5:48 p.m.How hypocritical of the American people to be "divided" over this issue!
They have already solved their ethical dillemas by bestowing on their President, as Commander-in-Chief, the right to terminate peoples' lives - even when those lives are in full bloom!
-
walden3
May 29, 2007, 8:21 p.m.i see this as a non-issue. sick people and their loved ones should be able to decide in concert with their physicians. it's the ultimate form of self-determination. besides why is the government forcing people to stay alive? also, i'm pro death penalty and pro freedom of choice when it comes to abortion so it seems like this is a consistent position for me.
would patients have to prove that they're sane b4 getting doctor assisted suicide and then would the govt try to keep crazies from committing suicide and allow sane people to end it? strange.
-
slate
May 29, 2007, 9:28 p.m.This is such a sensitive issue of which I'm very torn. After watching my father waste away with Parkinson's and my father in law stuck in a shell of his former self for 5 years with Alzheimer's and being over 50, my stance seems to be changing.
-
natashas
May 29, 2007, 10:31 p.m.I think it is more painfull to have ongoing pain and know that you will die. I would probably ask to be put out of my misery if this was me. Because of this I could not judge anyone who could make such a hard decision. I would not think more or less of someone if they could or could not handle extreme pain until there final day on earth.
-
nursebetty
May 29, 2007, 10:37 p.m.If you read this story and you are disagreeing with it think about all of the people who are terminally ill. Hospice services allow families peace of mind,If someone has lung cancer and are in pain with a slow heart rate and breathing that is so slow and shallow you can hardly tell they are breathing,are you gonna withhold treatmnet no you would not thus allowing the person to take the medication that might ultimatly end thier life. To with hold treatment would be cruel and inhuman. I feel that everyone has the right to live or die and they have a right to do is as they please and as pain free as possibe. Rather they take the medication prescribed by the doctor or rather they get it off the streets if they want to die they are gonna. There for the safer thing to do would be to allow physicans to prescribe the medication and allow nurses to adminster it and allow everyonr to be at peac knowing they were able to help fullfill someones dying wish.
-
-
amazed
May 29, 2007, 11:13 p.m.I am absolutely against the witholding of pain meds in terminally ill (or even seriously ill) people because they "might become addicted". That is ridiculous. If I'm going to die soon and you can't fix me, then who cares if I'm a junkie if I'm reasonably comfortable.
I am also against withholding pain meds in the situation nurse betty describes above. If I am end stage and in pain, but it's a crap shoot whether or not I will survive the normal dose of pain meds, give it to me anyway, unless I say no.
-
NelsonR
May 29, 2007, 11:34 p.m.A humans body is their own temple. Nobdoy should interject their own moral principles upon another who would desire finality.
Conduct your own simplistic life without infringing upon another. Common sense but the religious who believe Adam and Eve romped with dinosaurs would desire determining other human lives.
-
coreyspring
May 29, 2007, 11:56 p.m.It seems almost foolish to me that a terminally ill patient can't have the right to die when and where on their own terms... at least give them that so they don't have to needlessly suffer if it's their choice.
-
aceofspades1
May 30, 2007, 12:08 a.m.Have you ever stayed up all night holding the cold hand of a loved one as they were in the final death throes, begging for relief of the pain? Why must the last thing a human experiences be pain & suffering that could so easily be alleviated. At least in NY we have pain management laws that allow pain relief on demand, not only for the terminally ill but for other procedures.However some nurses still have the mindset of the patient having to "tough it out".
We also have a DNR option (Do Not Resuscitate)it is not assisted suicide but at least it stops any heroic efforts at times tthat they are useless.We die we should not be tortured
-
ETproductions
May 30, 2007, 12:54 a.m.Nobody has a right to die. They should get at least life in prison for doing so.
-
mamasan
May 30, 2007, 1:08 a.m.So ol Kirk serves 8 years for helping terminally ill people who want to die achieve that goal
while our President has been on a killing spree since he was Gov of Texas and he is still at large.
Is there no justice.....
-
SlapALib
May 30, 2007, 4:09 a.m.Never got why people feel like they should butt into this. What happened to the principle: A person's body, a person's choice, when it comes to suicide?
If a person wants to die, feel free to try and persuade them not to, but in the end it's the person's choice.
They have kids you say? Children are taken from unfit parents.
Married? We allow separation and divorce.
Have a job? People can be laid off against their will.
Someone will be hurt by the loss? Relationships are broken up due to other circumstances.
It's wrong to take one's life? Who are you to force your beliefs on others?
The terminally ill patient is just a member of a no-brainer subset.
-
BigKab
May 30, 2007, 5:14 a.m.^ETproductions = Insane^
Had 4 family members die of cancer.Talked with some of my family about this and was quite shocked. I was only one for suicide out of 5. They all spoke of the "BIBLE" and "GOD says", I know to never trust them in my time of need damnit.
I've been a supporter since I was around 13 or 14 lol.
The first 91 comments are shown. Show all 116 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
