DescentBB

So it seems France is heading toward Death Panels:

"France should allow doctors to "accelerate the coming of death" for terminally ill patients, a report to President Francois Hollande recommended Tuesday."

"Sicard's report was drawn up after extensive consultation with the terminally ill and their families which revealed widespread dissatisfaction with a "cure at all costs" culture in the medical establishment."

If approved, watch for something similar in Obamacare (if not already hidden there)

woodchip wrote:So it seems France is heading toward Death Panels:

"France should allow doctors to "accelerate the coming of death" for terminally ill patients, a report to President Francois Hollande recommended Tuesday."

"Sicard's report was drawn up after extensive consultation with the terminally ill and their families which revealed widespread dissatisfaction with a "cure at all costs" culture in the medical establishment."

If approved, watch for something similar in Obamacare (if not already hidden there)

how does 'extensive consultation with the terminally ill', coupled with essentially the same sort of assisted suicide plan allowed by several US states,
constitute a 'death panel'? You're reaching, woody, and in doing so, your ass is showing. Badly.

callmeslick wrote:
how does 'extensive consultation with the terminally ill', coupled with essentially the same sort of assisted suicide plan allowed by several US states,
constitute a 'death panel'? You're reaching, woody, and in doing so, your ass is showing. Badly.

I understand Jack Kevorkian consulted extensively with his patients also.

right, and he didn't constitute a 'death panel' either. Keep reaching, and until you can find an example of total strangers, without consultation and approval of the patient, declaring that the patient should die quickly, your ass is still showing.

callmeslick wrote:right, and he didn't constitute a 'death panel' either. Keep reaching, and until you can find an example of total strangers, without consultation and approval of the patient, declaring that the patient should die quickly, your ass is still showing.

Didn't say it was happening presently, now did I. When It happens I'll let you know.

Ferno wrote:

typical ferno post. nothing to say

AFP - Belgium is considering a significant change to its decade-old euthanasia law that would allow minors and Alzheimer's sufferers to seek permission to die.

The proposed changes to the law were submitted to parliament Tuesday by the Socialist party and are likely to be approved by other parties, although no date has yet been put forward for a parliamentary debate.

so what?

CUDA wrote:typical ferno post. nothing to say

That's because the argument's already been "done to death"

Ferno wrote:

CUDA wrote:typical ferno post. nothing to say

That's because the argument's already been "done to death"

Government panel decides that Ferno should be euthanized because it has decided that in its godly wisdom Ferno cannot decide things for himself and that forcing Ferno to live another day as Ferno would be inhumane.

What I'd like is a medically approved way to comfortably die even if I don't have a terminal illness. Suffering is suffering, whether one is terminally ill or not. My old age is not going to be fun the way my body is aging, and when I finally think I'm done with life, I want an out that's not messy, easy and painless and allows me to plan for the disposition of my estate. Why is that so wrong?

All I can say is if you're willing to plan your death you must not be involved in anything terribly important in life, which is sad. Suffering is suffering, but perhaps an answer might be to take more time researching ways to alleviate and perhaps even cure suffering outside of the medical industry. The body is a complex machine, which under the right conditions, I believe, is able to repair itself to a great extent and enjoy health (outside of any constant negative influences).

I'm a fighter, too, Thorne, but until I'm in such a terminal situation, I have no way of judging the level of suffering. Thus, I'll be willing to allow folks to make their own choices.

I was purely speaking to tunnelcat's outlook on her situation, not as to whether assisted suicide should be allowable. But maybe there are options that people in dark/painful places could do without. The wrong choice could end up being all too easy, when there may be other possibilities. I don't think that would be a good direction for society to go in at all.

Aren't people allowed to make choices? You guys always preach about personal responsibility and individual freedom, but only when you agree with the situation. I guess I don't see a terminally ill person not wanting to suffer as a "direction" for society but rather an individual's choice about not wanting to live a life of pain and suffering.

As long as the patient has the last call on what is or isn't going to be done it's good.
The 'fear' is that the government, in the name of government paying the bills now, will get to decide....by way of instructing the doctor what will and wont be covered by the government healthcare plan. The government is going to ultimately make those life and death decisions for us based on cost not based on a patients desires.

Before you say it wont happen remember the government already decided that, based on the cost they pay to cover the currently uninsured , we all now must carry insurance or be fined. So they have assumed the power to compel us to use their version of what is proper care and they will control what the doctors do by way of controlling the payments to the doctor....
And then there was Obama's answer to a voter during the campaign where he said maybe her terminally ill mother might be better served taking pain pills until she died instead of being allowed to undergo a treatment that is deemed to be unwarranted based on her age or likelyhood of surviving. So it isn't exactly an unfounded fear!

Remember, these are the people who run every program they touch into massive debt, exempt themselves from having to live under their own rules and print money to cover their ass in a way that makes Ennron and Maddow look like saints. And now that the media wont even pretend to hold them accountable there is just no way the status quo will be maintained.

tunnelcat wrote:What I'd like is a medically approved way to comfortably die even if I don't have a terminal illness. Suffering is suffering, whether one is terminally ill or not. My old age is not going to be fun the way my body is aging, and when I finally think I'm done with life, I want an out that's not messy, easy and painless and allows me to plan for the disposition of my estate. Why is that so wrong?

Surprisingly I agree you TC. What we don't want is the govt. forcing you to be terminated against your wishes.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:All I can say is if you're willing to plan your death you must not be involved in anything terribly important in life, which is sad. Suffering is suffering, but perhaps an answer might be to take more time researching ways to alleviate and perhaps even cure suffering outside of the medical industry. The body is a complex machine, which under the right conditions, I believe, is able to repair itself to a great extent and enjoy health (outside of any constant negative influences).

The problem is ST, that the medical community has no solution for my ills. I'm a chronic headache sufferer. Have been all my life, but it got a thousand times worse during and after menopause and really hasn't let up. I've been to doctor after doctor and they poke and prod, test and test to rule things out, but all they seem to do is shake their heads and prescribe some expensive medication that doesn't work and invariably has bad side effects. Then I go back and do it all over again. It seems a wallet biopsy is all I ever get for my troubles and my money isn't infinite. I've actually had my GP give up trying, so I gave up trying. I'm to the point that if these ever got worse or more numerous, death is my only out. I'm old anyway and my life has been reduced to surviving the pain when it comes. What's the point.

woodchip wrote:Surprisingly I agree you TC. What we don't want is the govt. forcing you to be terminated against your wishes.

Well, what we have now is essentially the same, only it's market-based death panels. If you don't have the cash, you suffer, you die. Simple. We just have that rationing by wealth, not bureaucrats.

Do I have these headaches to blame for your intermittent insanity?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:but perhaps an answer might be to take more time researching ways to alleviate and perhaps even cure suffering outside of the medical industry.

tunnelcat wrote:The problem is ST, that the medical community has no solution for my ills.

I think you can establish one thing. No one you've been to so far knows what they're doing. Have you tried any extensive diet modification? Cut out refined foods, or cutting back to only a few things that are easy on your system and gradually adding things back in? There are resources available to explore it. What have you got to lose? It wouldn't take but a number of months, maybe a year to give it a good go, and it's better than lethal injection.

tunnelcat wrote:Well, what we have now is essentially the same, only it's market-based death panels. If you don't have the cash, you suffer, you die. Simple. We just have that rationing by wealth, not bureaucrats.

This sounds suspiciously like a tirade against capitalism, but I'll give it some thought.

Suicide is a de facto right.

Something that scares me even more than getting a debilitatingly painful terminal illness is a brain-degenerative illness like Alzheimers that wastes away not the body but the person. I would want the state to afford me the dignity to choose to go out before I become a half-person or worse.

but that can't happen Jeff, because some people in one country think their god might look down on them. And because of that, EVERYBODY has to do what they say.

Why don't you leave out the generalizations about God and country, ya low-life, Godless, beer-swilling, matriarch-subjugated canuck, and focus on the actual debate for once.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Why don't you leave out the generalizations about God and country, ya low-life, Godless, beer-swilling, matriarch-subjugated canuck, and focus on the actual debate for once.

only if people don't start nitpicking, going into semantics, pull out doublespeak, resort to fear mongering, taking part in oversimplification or resort to the other cheap parlour tricks.

oops, there goes that argument out the window.

Does that make you a confirmed casualty of the hazards of internet debate?

Sergeant Thorne rows out a little way from shore...

[youtube]LJedoT3ufCI[/youtube]

There are no debates here thorne. Only loaded topics that devolve into trash.

Ferno wrote:but that can't happen Jeff, because some people in one country think their god might look down on them. And because of that, EVERYBODY has to do what they say.

You know that's the basis for all the anti-suicide laws we have? Religion and the Biblical stigma against suicide. And it doesn't help that the modern medical system essentially started out as palliative care in the Catholic Church. Before modern medicine took over, the Catholic Church ran all the "hospitals". You can see where the stigma against assisted suicide began.

If we're such a caring society, why do we try and keep people alive and suffering at all costs, literally? And why, when people have finally reached the conclusion that medicine isn't going to help them anymore, why doesn't the medical system want to help them achieve their final exit cleanly? It seems more humane than either keeping people alive and suffering in agony under their medical machinations, or even worse, kicking them out of the hospital and letting them die AFTER their money and insurance has run out. Outta sight, outta mind, dead is dead, not our problem.

Personally, I would want to plan my death. I would want to take care of the disposition of my belongings, my computer drives, passwords and internet everything, finances, where my body is going after, etc., beforehand. Much better than the authorities finding my rotting body lying somewhere in my house after the neighbors have complained of a "smell" emanating from my residence. I don't have enough family members that worry about me enough to check up me often enough to stop that nasty scenario from possibly happening. Even the thought of some estate sale in my home and people pawing over my belongings and personal information just creeps me out. It's just not a pretty thought.

Consider yourself lucky to live in Oregon…I guess. >shrug<

Spidey wrote:Consider yourself lucky to live in Oregon…I guess. >shrug<

Naa, they only give you that option after some doctor declares you terminal, and only after they've taken most of your money trying to heal you. I want the option even if I'm not terminal. I guess I got the plan everything out to the Nth degree bug from marrying an engineer. Things do work better when they're planned out in advance.

tunnelcat wrote:Personally, I would want to plan my death. I would want to take care of the disposition of my belongings, my computer drives, passwords and internet everything, finances, where my body is going after, etc., beforehand. Much better than the authorities finding my rotting body lying somewhere in my house after the neighbors have complained of a "smell" emanating from my residence. I don't have enough family members that worry about me enough to check up me often enough to stop that nasty scenario from possibly happening. Even the thought of some estate sale in my home and people pawing over my belongings and personal information just creeps me out. It's just not a pretty thought.

I figure a Viking funeral is the best way to go. Prevents all of those nasty arguments over who gets what from the estate.

Jeff250 wrote:Suicide is a de facto right.

Something that scares me even more than getting a debilitatingly painful terminal illness is a brain-degenerative illness like Alzheimers that wastes away not the body but the person. I would want the state to afford me the dignity to choose to go out before I become a half-person or worse.

Agreed.

With that said, I think there is still a place for the law in the matter in certain cases. After all, not every suicide is warranted (e.g. caused by depression from medication side effects or something temporary and treatable), and not every method of suicide is victimless (e.g. driving into oncoming traffic).

Foil wrote:...and not every method of suicide is victimless (e.g. driving into oncoming traffic).

Every suicide has victims: The surviving family members and whoever discovers the scene, it is one of the worst things someone can do to their loved ones. So if you are going to legalize a physicians assisted suicide, then I think it should require the unanimous approval of the individuals family.

Then you might as well require approval to go skiing…

I think notification would be enough, so the family can prepare.

Top Gun wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Personally, I would want to plan my death. I would want to take care of the disposition of my belongings, my computer drives, passwords and internet everything, finances, where my body is going after, etc., beforehand. Much better than the authorities finding my rotting body lying somewhere in my house after the neighbors have complained of a "smell" emanating from my residence. I don't have enough family members that worry about me enough to check up me often enough to stop that nasty scenario from possibly happening. Even the thought of some estate sale in my home and people pawing over my belongings and personal information just creeps me out. It's just not a pretty thought.

I figure a Viking funeral is the best way to go. Prevents all of those nasty arguments over who gets what from the estate.

Hey, nice idea. So after death, have a Viking longboat loaded up with all the stuff you don't want anybody else to have and your body. Then have it towed far out to sea and set afire. You'd solve every worry about what to do with your body and your belongings. You'd get rid of your stuff, have a funeral, get cremated and be buried at sea all at the same time. Both my husband and I have a Scandinavian lineage too. Convenient.

Krom wrote:Every suicide has victims: The surviving family members and whoever discovers the scene, it is one of the worst things someone can do to their loved ones. So if you are going to legalize a physicians assisted suicide, then I think it should require the unanimous approval of the individuals family.

Definitely! Since something like this is a final and permanent choice, this would be a family decision that everyone agreed with. Since I, and my hubby, don't have any family we're close to so to speak, it would be a more personal and private decision for us.

However, I'm not anywhere near wanting to do something this final yet. Death is not revocable, and besides, I haven't finished Far Cry 3 yet. Then there's the new Bioshock and Splinter Cell games coming out next year.........

Unanimous decision would mean someone close to you could hold out just to see you suffer, or for other reasons.

Spidey wrote:Unanimous decision would mean someone close to you could hold out just to see you suffer, or for other reasons.

It would depend on if I loved and respected them or not. If they wanted to see me suffer instead, they obviously don't love me or respect my wishes and I'd do it anyway.

That would be a problem if you needed their consent, actually I was thinking more along the lines of…

What if someone was going to lose a big chunk of change from a life insurance policy (life insurance doesn’t cover suicide) or if someone wanted to have more time to dispute a will…things like that.

That's why I don't have any life insurance, nor does my husband. None of my estate is going to family either. They have no say in my affairs.

Krom wrote:

Foil wrote:...and not every method of suicide is victimless (e.g. driving into oncoming traffic).

Every suicide has victims: The surviving family members and whoever discovers the scene, it is one of the worst things someone can do to their loved ones. So if you are going to legalize a physicians assisted suicide, then I think it should require the unanimous approval of the individuals family.

Ideally, you would make the decision with your family, and they would support your final decision, but legally, I don't see why preventing emotionally hurting loved ones should trump not being allowed to end your life in a dignified manner. There's already innumerably other ways that people can and do emotionally harm their loved ones, often in substantial ways, that aren't criminal. If a loved one does something to hurt you emotionally, you don't get to throw them in prison, but you do get to decide whether to love them back. That's your recourse. I don't think that suicide should be different. Even if it's often a total dick move, total dick moves aren't illegal.

If you do treat suicide differently, then I think you will run into moral paradoxes like making your loved ones hate you through non-suicide means, and then after no one loves you, then you can kill yourself.