Anyone else watch the HBO "Death with Dignity" documentary?

[donheff]

I started to put this in the health forum but the subject is somewhat controversial so I went with the "political" forum. Last night HBO ran a two hour show about the Oregon 'Death With Dignity" law. I thought the show was tasetfully done and quite moving although I need to admit my bias here -- I like the law and hope it gets extended to other states (and particularly to DC).

The Oregon law permits doctors to prescribe lethal doses of Seconal or Nembutal to advanced terminal patients. The doctors do not "assist" in the deaths, other than to the extent of prescribing the drugs. The patients must take the drugs themselves which eliminates "assisted" situations such as Alzheimer's (all of the patients in the show had cancer).

Some 400+ people have taken advantage of the law so far (this is far less than opponents anticipated). The people covered in this documentary received the drugs far before they used them. The advantage they talked the most about was control -- if things got terribly bad as the end approached they would have an alternative if they chose to take it. In the end, many did and others did not. As we ERers morph into old age pensioners we and our loved ones will be facing end of life situations. I, for one, hope we see laws like this spread.

[braumeister]

Sounds like a very good law and I like it. My guess is that it will take a very long time before even most states follow suit, but we should see a very gradual spread of the concept. Hope I can take advantage of it when the time comes. What is the residency requirement before you're eligible to participate?

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister Sounds like a very good law and I like it. My guess is that it will take a very long time before even most states follow suit, but we should see a very gradual spread of the concept. Hope I can take advantage of it when the time comes. What is the residency requirement before you're eligible to participate?

I don't know but I would guess 6 months or a year. The film also featured a Washington state man with a painful brain tumor who wanted to move to Oregon. His doctors advised him that he would not live long enough to meet the residency requirement. Unfortunately, his cancer caused a kind of pain that morphine would not alleviate. He died in a hospital in great pain with his last wish being that his wife work to get an Oregon type law in Washington. She joined a movement underway and successfully saw it through to victory with 57% of the electorate supporting it. Another moving part of the film.

[GregLee]

I missed the show. I think it's a great idea and hope it comes soon to my state.

[modhatter]

I saw it. It was very good I thought. I have cancer and do not want to have to die a slow painful death, so it was of particular interest to me. I agree, it most definitely should be allowed under these circumstances. I think it's cruel to let someone suffer in the end when their is no chance of being saved.

I saw another show about this. It was a man who had a disease starts with an A, and the progression is awful until you can't move any part of your body and eventually you can't even breath. He wound up going to I think it was Switzerland, where they allow it.

The more progressive Blue states will mostly adapt it, but the more conservative Red states, will have the religious right fighting it to the end I am sure. So there I just made it political.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by modhatter So there I just made it political.

We knew we could count on you to bring politics and religion into the discussion in an argumentative way. Thanks.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet We knew we could count on you to bring politics and religion into the discussion in an argumentative way. Thanks.

Realistically, what might this topic be called other than political? It is intensely political, as are many things of any importance that cannot be accomplished by the indivudual acting alone.

I never have understood the fear of politics. Politics is one of the most typically human of activities.

Ha

[Purron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I never have understood the fear of politics. Politics is one of the most typically human of activities. Ha

Same here Ha.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I never have understood the fear of politics. Politics is one of the most typically human of activities.

I don't see it as "fear of politics" as much as the "fear" of incivility and disrespect, which political discussions all too often foment. Even when the discussions seem to start respectfully, when they go on long enough they almost inevitably start to go toxic, with insults, name calling, excessive labeling and demonizing becoming more and more evident. The 24/7 news cycle and all the "always on" political outlets (many of which have customized points of view to prevent people from being forced to think outside their political comfort zone) don't help in that respect as they just encourage intransigence by becoming "cheerleaders" for one's own political "team", and intransigence breeds incivility and political hatred.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Realistically, what might this topic be called other than political? It is intensely political, as are many things of any importance that cannot be accomplished by the indivudual acting alone. I never have understood the fear of politics. Politics is one of the most typically human of activities. Ha

Perhaps I should have said partisan politics and closed-minded religion..........

It's not the general discussion of political matters or religious/philosophical thinking I dislike. It's the constant, predictable restatement of biased political party support or insular religious/philosophical outlooks that makes me weary. That's a little different than being "afraid" of politics.

Some folks discuss the issues. Others seize every opportunity, again and again and again, to make the point that their team is best and that their outlook is the one and only correct outlook and that everyone needs to be reminded of that at every opportunity.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I don't see it as "fear of politics" as much as the "fear" of incivility and disrespect, which political discussions all too often foment. Even when the discussions seem to start respectfully, when they go on long enough they almost inevitably start to go toxic, with insults, name calling, excessive labeling and demonizing becoming more and more evident. The 24/7 news cycle and all the "always on" political outlets (many of which have customized points of view to prevent people from being forced to think outside their political comfort zone) don't help in that respect as they just encourage intransigence by becoming "cheerleaders" for one's own political "team", and intransigence breeds incivility and political hatred.

Nicely said Zig.....

In this context, I'd likely substitute the word "disgust" for "fear."

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Perhaps I should have said partisan politics and religion.......... It's not the general discussion of political matters or religious/philosophical thinking I dislike. It's the constant predictable restatement of biased political party support or religious/philosophical outlooks that makes me weary. That's a little different than being "afraid" of politics. Some folks discuss the issues. Others seize every opportunity, again and again and again, to make the point that their team is best.

Read enough posts, on any topic, and I believe that intelligent informed discussion of anything will be seen to be totally swamped by lots of unsuppported opinion, presented as fact. Of course some things are supposed to be opinion, or can clearly be understood as editorializing, which is quite different from "authoritative" pronouncements on whatever.

Thinking is hard, and therefore rare.

Ha

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Read enough posts, on any topic, and I believe that intelligent informed discussion of anything will be seen to be totally swamped by lots of unsuppported opinion, presented as fact. Of course some things are supposed to be opinion, or can clearly be understood as editorializing, which is quite different from "authoritative" pronouncements on whatever. Thinking is hard, and therefore rare. Ha

I have no particular disagreement with that Ha. But, for clarification, my comments are not directed at "opinions" or "editorializing" but more specifically at predictable, rubber-stamped statements repeatedly made to put down an alternative religious belief or political view, usually in a hurtful way. That is, comments not stating a view or giving an opinion but rather attacking another person or group regarding their religious or political/philosophical outlook.

I don't know what about my statement made you think that I'm "afraid" of political discussions. I'm not. But I do admit to being weary of the repeated use of canned digs at folks meant to demean them more than to support a point.

So, enough of that.......

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet I don't know what about my statement made you think that I'm "afraid" of political discussions. I'm not.......

Youbet, there was nothing about your statement at all. I see that since I used your quote, it would seem that I must have been addressing you. I apologize, that was not my intention. I was (clumisly) trying to talk about a widespread phenomenon.

I have just noticed that many boards, particularly financial ones, seem to me at least to be very wary of politics. By contrast, I love newspapers where the comments can get pretty direct, and no one seems to be harmed. But then, there is no attempt being made to create a cohesive group with a group identity, which may explain some of the difference.

Ha

[calmloki]

Tourists Trek to Mexico for 'Death in a Bottle' - ABC News

Of course with the current problems down south maybe the drug gangs off you instead, but end result?

[Brat]

As an Oregonian and former Washingtonian I am in favor of laws that preserve a person's right to manage their life, and death. Our right to die law assures that those who wish to avail themselves of it are protected from misdiagnosis, know of treatments, are able to make a decision independently and their physicians are protected from litigation.

It is my observation that those in red states are inclined to use their pistol to accomplish the same result. What an awful situation to be in.

[youbet]

Here in ultra-blue Illinois, we have no right to die law. But unlike those darn red states, we do have a civilized methodology for bringing it all to a quick and humane end. Your Precinct Captain or Ward Boss arranges for a local gang member, union enforcer or mafia hit man to stop by and dispatch you. At the same time, they gather your insurance papers and financial records so that any residual wealth you leave behind can be directed to benefit "Da Machine." The appropriate information enabling you to vote from the other side of the grass for the next few decades is also scooped up.

The system not only works well, it's totally self-funding and self-perpetuating. The best part is that you don't even have to be sick to use it! In fact, if the folks "concerned" about you wish, they can arrange it without your knowledge for a fee.

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Perhaps I should have said partisan politics and closed-minded religion...........

Is there another kind?

[Purron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR Is there another kind?

Well, there's this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1lrwIzVJSw

[Patrick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calmloki Tourists Trek to Mexico for 'Death in a Bottle' - ABC News Of course with the current problems down south maybe the drug gangs off you instead, but end result?

Who do this when there are so many easy DIY methods? If you really want to do it you don't need to go anywhere or hire Kevorkian.