Euthanasia

[RunAway]

I surely want to be able to pile up pills or have something to inject into my IV lines if I had a painful and/or debilitating disease and had no hope of getting better. There comes a point when it's just time to check out! I watched as a friend was forced to endure weeks of so much pain she regularly tearfully begged her husband to kill her. Pain meds only go so far after a while. We treat the terminally ill much worse than we'd ever dream of treating an animal, allowing them -- no, forcing them -- to suffer unbearably in their last days/months. That scares me about getting older.

Oh, and do most life insurance companies still refuse to pay in suicide cases? I wouldn't want my loved ones to be denied what I've paid for either. That's terrible!

 

[SecondCor521]

RunAway -- Typically the suicide exclusion only applies for the first two years of the policy. On the few policies I've read, anyway.

I've watched one of my dogs go. Very peaceful for the dog; rough on me emotionally.

I know my parents want to be very aggressive in refusing life support and any life-extending treatments. More aggressive than I want them to be, but I figure their choice, their life. I am also their designated "plug puller" and will be following their written wishes even though I disagree with them. We have discussed all of this.

In my own case, while from an idealistic religious point of view I don't think it's right for anyone to end anyone's life deliberately (including their own), I believe in individual "sovereignty" far more.

I chose the first option, and while I'm not planning on it now (at age 39 and healthy), I am not going to rule out changing my mind in the next several decades.

As for the Nearing case, I knew a woman dying from ALS who asked to be taken off her feeding tube in order to hasten her exit. After a week or so she asked to be put back on because the pain of hunger and I guess the will to live outweighed the desire to die. She ended up dying about a month later anyway, after seeing her son graduate from high school. But she was in her late 40's or early 50's, so maybe it's easier for people who are Mr. Nearing's age.

2Cor521

 

[RunAway]

RunAway -- Typically the suicide exclusion only applies for the first two years of the policy. On the few policies I've read, anyway.

Thanks! Not planning on offing myself just yet, but if the time ever comes, I would want that option to say good-bye and then go without guilt. Hard question and a case-by-case matter, for sure!

 

[Khan]

I surely want to be able to pile up pills or have something to inject into my IV lines if I had a painful and/or debilitating disease and had no hope of getting better. There comes a point when it's just time to check out! I watched as a friend was forced to endure weeks of so much pain she regularly tearfully begged her husband to kill her. Pain meds only go so far after a while. We treat the terminally ill much worse than we'd ever dream of treating an animal, allowing them -- no, forcing them -- to suffer unbearably in their last days/months. That scares me about getting older.

Oh, and do most life insurance companies still refuse to pay in suicide cases? I wouldn't want my loved ones to be denied what I've paid for either. That's terrible!

When a cat (almost 20 years old) had a stroke one night, I took him to the vet in the morning and had him put down. When my uncle (~75) had a stroke, they 'saved' him and he hung around for about a year. With my mother (81), it was about 6 weeks.

I feel the Oregon law, while a good start, is too restrictive. You have to be competent enough to ask and to take the medication by yourself, and you have to be diagnosed to have less than 6 months left. I would like an advance directive option: when I can't do A and/or B and/or C just give me the injection; or at the very least: terminal sedation.

 

[donheff]

I would like an advance directive option: when I can't do A and/or B and/or C just give me the injection; or at the very least: terminal sedation.

I like this approach. My greatest fear is getting into a situation where I am stuck - too late to do it my self, too soon for the standard state sanctioned pull the plug option. If Khan's option was available I bet a lot of deep thinkers would develop well thought out boilerplate directives to peruse to help you find your sweet spot.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Suppose you had a 50% chance of recovering for option A, no chance for B, and a 80% chance for recovery from C but only if you underwent surgery which has a 30% chance of D. Furthermore, your daughter from Timbuktu is coming in some time in the next week to be with you. Also, that morning you other child decided that under no circumstance would he permit withdrawal of life support, and is arguing with the power of attorney, who just wants everyone to get along.

The next day a new consultant raises the possibility of a new treatment which costs $90,000 (insurance doesn't cover - experimental) and may help you recover 50% of the time, though much of that would be in a rehab facility. Your son threatens to sue the doctors if they don't provide that option. And you really should have updated that will, because of the heir who is now serving a life sentence.

Welcome to my world.

 

[REWahoo]

Rich, Rich, Rich... There you go again, injecting reality into a perfectly [-]theoretical[/-] good discussion. Party pooper.

 

[donheff]

Damn Rich, just shoot me! I don't envy doctors dealing with this stuff. At least the default position that the system will force you into extraordinary life sustaining efforts seems to have died out. Now, if you have good medical directives, you only have to deal with the kinds of issues Rich raises.

 

[Walt34]

Welcome to my world.

Reality is sometimes not fun. I do not envy you dealing with that.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Reality is sometimes not fun. I do not envy you dealing with that.

Well, my main point is that the euthanasia discussion is much more complex than whether to make it legal or not. Too much reality to deal with. My exaggerated example above is not exaggerated by a lot.

In fact, the fact that it is illegal in most jurisdictions makes things "easier" from the physicians' perspectives.

 

[Sarah in SC]

Well, my main point is that the euthanasia discussion is much more complex than whether to make it legal or not. Too much reality to deal with. My exaggerated example above is not exaggerated by a lot.
In fact, the fact that it is illegal in most jurisdictions makes things "easier" from the physicians' perspectives.

Which explains my lone "other" vote. Having seen just a sliver of the dilemmas you face daily, Rich, I know there is no one size fits all solution, just like there are seldom easy answers in estate planning.

Durable health care powers of attorney, plus living wills appropriate for your state, go a long way towards helping provide guidelines, but there are a lot of unimaginable circumstances out there.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

I like this approach. My greatest fear is getting into a situation where I am stuck - too late to do it my self, too soon for the standard state sanctioned pull the plug option. If Khan's option was available I bet a lot of deep thinkers would develop well thought out boilerplate directives to peruse to help you find your sweet spot.

not sure how i feel about that, especially for known degenerative processes like parkinson's or alzheimer's disease or even some cancers. i suppose it is not completely rude to depend upon others to end your life when suddenly & unexpectedly incapacitated as from a car accident. but it seems quite different to have missed your window of opportunity when becoming incapacitated from a known and expected cause and then to lay the responsibility & burden of your death upon the shoulders of others.

 

[donheff]

not sure how i feel about that, especially for known degenerative processes like parkinson's or alzheimer's disease or even some cancers. i suppose it is not completely rude to depend upon others to end your life when suddenly & unexpectedly incapacitated as from a car accident. but it seems quite different to have missed your window of opportunity when becoming incapacitated from a known and expected cause and then to lay the responsibility & burden of your death upon the shoulders of others.

I was talking about a situation where you have an accident or a rapid change in what appeared to be a slowly progressing illness suddenly takes things out of your control. For example, my brother was at an OK stage in terminal cancer when a stroke suddenly left him in a condition where he could not take things in his own hands if he wanted to (he did not). If he had the same attitude toward terminal illness that I have he would have missed his window of opportunity. Khan's concept would permit him to leave directives that would make his choice clear - or maybe not so clear as Rich has pointed out.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

I was talking about a situation where you have an accident or a rapid change in what appeared to be a slowly progressing illness suddenly takes things out of your control. For example, my brother was at an OK stage in terminal cancer when a stroke suddenly left him in a condition where he could not take things in his own hands if he wanted to (he did not). If he had the same attitude toward terminal illness that I have he would have missed his window of opportunity. Khan's concept would permit him to leave directives that would make his choice clear - or maybe not so clear as Rich has pointed out.

ya, got it. and while i don't necessarily disagree, it is still a point i would contend. is it not the burden of the dying to take such action while capable? it just seems to me that once a person misses their window of opportunity, they got a lot of nerve to burden someone else to open a door.

grumpy expressed best how i feel about it:

I would willingly forego a few years of life to assure that I can control the decision as to when I have reached that point.

 

[donheff]

ya, got it. and while i don't necessarily disagree, it is still a point i would contend. is it not the burden of the dying to take such action while capable? it just seems to me that once a person misses their window of opportunity, they got a lot of nerve to burden someone else to open a door.

Yeah, I agree that in today's world you need to deal with this on your own. And, in any world, I don't like dumping the decision on others. I want the burden to be on me. And I believe what I am suggesting would be "on me." In my ideal ideal world (which enables me to direct my own suicide) I would (theoretically) select one of Khan's boilerplate directives that tells the powers that be to off me in my brother's situation. I would not be burdening someone else with my decision. The powers that be would simply be exercising my decision. I am not talking about pulling the plug which is legal today - I am talking about active measures when I might otherwise be viable for sometime but unable to communicate.

 

[Khan]

Yeah, I agree that in today's world you need to deal with this on your own. And, in any world, I don't like dumping the decision on others. I want the burden to be on me. And I believe what I am suggesting would be "on me." In my ideal ideal world (which enables me to direct my own suicide) I would (theoretically) select one of Khan's boilerplate directives that tells the powers that be to off me in my brother's situation. I would not be burdening someone else with my decision. The powers that be would simply be exercising my decision. I am not talking about pulling the plug which is legal today - I am talking about active measures when I might otherwise be viable for sometime but unable to communicate.

As things are now (in the USA), one has to choose to leave early lest one wait too long and have the decision taken away.

I had been looking towards 80, but reviewing the family history suggests 75 might be preferable.

I spent 20+ years as a COBOL programmer and tend to think/reason in terms of flow charts.

 

[TromboneAl]

Has anyone here read Final Exit?

 

[Khan]

Has anyone here read Final Exit?

Yes, have a copy.

 

[samclem]

The flowcharted, "if-then" approach that might result in someone killing you does miss one thing: The person doing the flowcharting, in good health and sitting in the comfort of his home, is not actually in the situation or frame of mind he/she will be in when the automatic decision is "executed." Things might be very different for you when you actually experience the situation, maybe different in ways that are unforeseeable.
Many young people say "I wouldn't want to live to be 80." Many middle aged people see a feeble old-timer inching behind the walker waiting for the Early Bird Special at Denny's and say "dang, I'd rather die than live that way." The funny thing is, when folks actually do get to that condition of frailty, they usually decide to keep going, that they want to live another day. One more day to call their grandkids, maybe go to the library--maybe just to see what the heck is gonna happen next.
No, the decision needs to be made at the time. Yep, you might miss the opportunity, but providing a defense against that possibility comes at too dear a price.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Yeah, I agree that in today's world you need to deal with this on your own. And, in any world, I don't like dumping the decision on others. I want the burden to be on me. And I believe what I am suggesting would be "on me." In my ideal ideal world (which enables me to direct my own suicide) I would (theoretically) select one of Khan's boilerplate directives that tells the powers that be to off me in my brother's situation. I would not be burdening someone else with my decision. The powers that be would simply be exercising my decision. I am not talking about pulling the plug which is legal today - I am talking about active measures when I might otherwise be viable for sometime but unable to communicate.

i also feel that the ability to offer directives ought to be both available & legal, but i disagree that the proxy would "simply be exercising my decision" because after the deed is done, they have their own conscience that they have to live with. would i do that for my brother or my mother, of course i would. would i find a way to live with myself, i hope so.

 

[Khan]

The flowcharted, "if-then" approach that might result in someone killing you does miss one thing: The person doing the flowcharting, in good health and sitting in the comfort of his home, is not actually in the situation or frame of mind he/she will be in when the automatic decision is "executed." Things might be very different for you when you actually experience the situation, maybe different in ways that are unforeseeable.
Many young people say "I wouldn't want to live to be 80." Many middle aged people see a feeble old-timer inching behind the walker waiting for the Early Bird Special at Denny's and say "dang, I'd rather die than live that way." The funny thing is, when folks actually do get to that condition of frailty, they usually decide to keep going, that they want to live another day. One more day to call their grandkids, maybe go to the library--maybe just to see what the heck is gonna happen next.
No, the decision needs to be made at the time. Yep, you might miss the opportunity, but providing a defense against that possibility comes at too dear a price.

If we aren't going to help them die, we need to set up a fully-funded way to take care of the old farts: providing housing, transportation, food, housekeeping, personal hygiene...

 

[Khan]

i also feel that the ability to offer directives ought to be both available & legal, but i disagree that the proxy would "simply be exercising my decision" because after the deed is done, they have their own conscience that they have to live with. would i do that for my brother or my mother, of course i would. would i find a way to live with myself, i hope so.

If my mother had asked me to help her die, I would have.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

my mother asked me but not in so many words as by then alzheimer's had stolen her ability to construct more than one or two sentences at a time. had i asked her again five minutes later to repeat her request she would not have been able to comply. certainly, in her lucid state, before alzheimer's, she never would have considered asking me to risk jail. the best i could do was to assure her that we would keep her as comfortable as possible. i did not see any other moral or legal course of action. euthansia was not applicable.

 

[Khan]

my mother asked me but not in so many words as by then alzheimer's had stolen her ability to construct more than one or two sentences at a time. had i asked her again five minutes later to repeat her request she would not have been able to comply. certainly, in her lucid state, before alzheimer's, she never would have considered asking me to risk jail. the best i could do was to assure her that we would keep her as comfortable as possible. i did not see any other moral or legal course of action. euthansia was not applicable.

My mother did not have Alzheimer's; she had diabetes, crippling arthritis et al, and (at the end) strokes. But I wasn't there, she had a caring husband (my father), and only spent 6 weeks in a nursing home.

I have inherited the crippling conditions and have no caretaker.

 

[donheff]

Has anyone here read Final Exit?

Yeah, I have it. But somewhere up above I noted that Final Exit counsels an awful death involving pills and plastic bags over your head. All because appropriate medications are not legally available.