Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Senate Dems release new Chicago elected school board map proposal
Next Post: Supplement to today’s edition
Posted in:
* Center Square…
An advocacy group is urging lawmakers to make Illinois a medical-aid-in-dying state.
The Illinois End of Life Options Coalition recently gathered at the capitol in Springfield to inform lawmakers about the need for them to pass medical-aid-in-dying legislation.
The group said the procedure is called medical aid in dying and not assisted suicide, as it is commonly known.
Ten states have legalized medical aid in dying, with Oregon being the first in 1997. More are considering legislation this year.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1997 encouraged individual states to engage in an “earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality of” medical aid in dying to relieve unbearable pain and suffering.
A member of the coalition, Suzie Flack, lost her son to cancer and would like to see a gentle dying option.
“I am hoping to carry on and tell his story and to reach people so they can understand that an option like this does provide a lot of comfort to terminally ill individuals,” Flack said.
Jon Schweppe, policy director with the American Principles Project, said states shouldn’t be giving their residents the option.
“That really puts folks in a precarious situation where they think the noble thing to do is to choose to die and I think that’s wrong and it’s wrong to put families in that circumstance of having that choice,” Schweppe said.
Schweppe adds that the medical field should be about preserving and protecting life and doing no harm, and “this is the opposite of that.”
The coalition points to an Impact Research poll that showed seven out of 10 Illinois likely voters want the Illinois General Assembly to pass medical-aid-in-dying legislation.
* From the coalition…
Medical aid in dying is optional.
Optional for patients and optional for doctors. No person is required to use it. No doctor is mandated to provide it. It is illegal to force someone to use it.
Medical aid in dying includes strict eligibility requirements.
A patient must be an adult, have six months or less to live, be able to make an informed health care decision and be able to take the medication themselves.
The legislation includes more than a dozen safeguards.
Two doctors must confirm that the patient has six months or less to live — due to terminal illness, not because of age or disability. Two doctors and two independent witnesses must confirm that no coercion exists.
* The Question: Do you support this medical aid in dying concept? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 10:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Senate Dems release new Chicago elected school board map proposal
Next Post: Supplement to today’s edition
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
We’re all going to die. Some of us will be lucky to die painlessly. Some of us, however, are going to have to manage severe, unrelenting pain for the last few years of our lives We all ought to have the option for a painless death.
Comment by Dan Johnson Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:03 am
Yes. It would remove the negative connotation assisted suicide.
There is a time and place for medical care to be involved in the process of dying to easy pain and suffering of a person.
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:04 am
Yes. If an individual is terminally ill then they should have the right to choose how they die. This is a very personal decision and one that people should absolutely have control over.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:08 am
Yes. This already takes place off the record by overmedicating with pain killers, it should be recognized as a legitimate treatment for the terminally ill.
Comment by Excitable Boy Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:09 am
I voted yes. Personally I’m not in favor but that is on faith grounds. This is a civil question in my opinion and therefore make it available to those whose faith tells them otherwise.
Comment by don the legend Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:10 am
I voted yes. This is yet another decision best made by those involved with strong guardrails to protect from coercion.
Comment by froganon Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:15 am
Yes, @Demoralized said it perfectly.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:20 am
Didn’t vote.
I guess I’m confused. And not comfortable that only 2 doctors have to agree. Seen cases where multiple doctors got the diagnosis wrong.
Other than speeding up the process / picking an exact date & time, how does this differ from the current hospice approach?
Feels like a slippery slope issue. Could see it moving from the current definition to encompass quality of life versus cost issue. And yes, I know the statistics about the medicals cost for the last year or so of life under the current environment.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:20 am
I voted yes. If you remove religion from the equation, it becomes a simple question of self determination and individual rights. On a practical level, Dan said it well. If people would choose death over suffering, their wish should not be denied. It’s time for religious folks to spend more time inspiring people to be better human beings, and less time passing judgement on others, and trying to force others to live according to their relish’s beliefs.
Comment by Speaker of the grouse Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:24 am
Voted yes, but need clarity on be(ing) able to take the medication themselves.
I had a co-worker with ALS (like Steve McMichael) and I wouldn’t wish that condition on anyone.
Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:24 am
Strongly in favor. My mind and my ability to enjoy, influence, and impact the world around me is my greatest joy. The idea of having anyone tell me that if that joy is irrevocably taken away I should be forced to endure those circumstances because of *their* beliefs, *their* desperate hope for a miracle that is not coming, or *their* inability to process a situation…
The language required to express my feelings about that particular level of selfishness would get me and my family for generations banned from this site.
Comment by VK Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:24 am
voted no
Keep the state out of end-of-life decisions. Having been/helped two older relatives when they were facing end-of-life care and death - there are plenty of options right now. Doctors even at faith-based hospitals will work with families to provide palliative and then hospice care that includes aggressive pain meds and the ability to remove most life-sustaining treatments - the key is advance planning with medical POA and directives.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:25 am
Are there sponsors for the referenced legislation?
Comment by Speaker of the grouse Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:25 am
Yes. The other half has a parent who has been in hospice care for over *two years* with advanced Alzheimer’s. She was first diagnosed 14 years ago in her late-60s, and now is completely non-verbal, is almost completely noncommunicative, largely immobile, and barely eats. They’ve been told “six months to live” every three since she went into hospice in early 2021.
Watching her slowly wither away with a known terminal disease that is taking an inordinately long time has been extremely taxing on the family, both emotionally and financially, and against her known stated wishes. My very sweet senior dog was offered more dignity than my mother-in-law has been, and it’s infuriating to all of us.
Our current plan should this happen to the other half is that we’ll move to a state that allows for medical aid in dying, establish residency, and when the time comes, be at peace with the decision. I’d rather not uproot at that late age, so I voted yes.
Comment by Leap Day William Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:27 am
My faith says you don’t have to suffer needlessly. That you should not throw away your life but that at the end of life choices can be made to make the ending less awful.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:28 am
I’ve heard it called dying with dignity. With a terminal illness the outcome is set; you’re only changing the timetable and some conditions. I would chose to accept that outcome by dying with dignity. It would be merciful to the individual and their family.
I don’t see how that could be considered doing harm. It’s the opposite.
I hope our lawmakers take it seriously.
Comment by Dog Lover Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:30 am
Humans at the end of life should have at least the option of being treated as well as their pets. I have friends who as a family take their pet to a vet for that “final journey “ and report that it is a healing experience. Humans should at least be treated as well as their pets
Comment by DLOTTO Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:31 am
Yes.
==Keep the state out of end-of-life decisions.==
That’s the point of this bill. Lower the state’s restrictions, and allow the affected person to work with their doctors.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:35 am
Yes.
Too many lives well lived are spent in pain and anguish in the final years, months, days.
Compassion is also allowing for someone to choose something for themselves that you would never consider for your own.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:35 am
- Keep the state out of end-of-life decisions. -
That’s what a law like this would do. As it stands the state says you can’t legally choose a medically assisted death.
Comment by Excitable Boy Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:36 am
I voted no on this because you must be able to administer it yourself. My want is that when I am mentally gone I want to be totally gone and not be a burden or have my offspring remember me in that state of being. So, I guess I’d want assisted suicide more than aid in dying.
Comment by Lurker Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:38 am
- how does this differ from the current hospice approach? -
Many people don’t want to spend weeks or months doped up on morphine and relying on others to see to every bodily function. I know I won’t.
Comment by Excitable Boy Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:39 am
If I get to a point in my life where I know my death is imminent and I know every day until then will be a living nightmare of pain and suffering, I would like if the law did not require me to suffer until the relief of death comes.
Comment by Who else Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:39 am
Keep the state out of end-of-life decisions
ironically your vote is for keeping the state in end-of-life decisions, Donnie
Comment by The Truth Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:39 am
I voted yes. It is about individual freedom and the right a person has over their own body.
I support the concept of helping a person transition from this life with grace and dignity. I support expanding the 6 month window to allow any person who has a terminal diagnosis to have more autonomy over their condition. Some illnesses that should be given consideration may take longer to ravage the body. The bill as proposed would likely exclude dementia, Alzheimer’s, ALS and individuals experiencing these ultimately fatal diseases should also have the right to control their own fate.
Comment by Faithful Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:43 am
Having watched two family members suffer prolonged end of life decline with terminal illnesses I’m absolutely in favor of this. Watching them suffer was horrific enough, I can’t imagine living it with no option to bring it to a end on my own terms.
Comment by tea_and_honey Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:47 am
I voted yes. I’ve watched up close those with terminal illness die. There should be medical assistance for those with no hope.
Comment by Glengarry Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:48 am
Yes. Medical technology has taken us to Goldblum territory, just because you can prolong life, doesn’t (always) mean you should.
Comment by Shark Sandwich Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:49 am
Dignity. I’ve visited and sat beside too many writhing in agony as they’re body destroyed itself. Every doctor/nurse/compassionate care provider wringed their hands and stated they wished they could do more. As much as I prayed and begged for God for forgiveness of my heart to do the unthinkable to release them from their pain, it was not enough. This would give providers, family, and they dying an option to consider. Again, some may still choose to suffer, but at least they’d have an option.
Comment by CentralILCentrist Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:50 am
Absolutely. We give our pets this option to end their life with dignity, the least we can do is give it to our fellow humans.
Comment by Tony DeKalb Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:52 am
Agree basically word-for-word with don the legend. I’m not super-comfortable with it personally, but in all the jurisdictions I’m aware of where it’s allowed, it generally has worked fairly well to ensure there’s no coercion and the medical diagnoses are correct. There has been no slippery slope. So I can’t really think of a reason to oppose it other than personal discomfort, which is a dumb reason. Seems like a straightforward self-determination question to me.
Comment by Suburban Mom Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:53 am
This is something I’m vaguely for but I’ll admit a lot of hesitancy about, especially given recent controversy with how Canada is expanding its version of MAID
Comment by Nick Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:59 am
Agree with Excitable Boy. It’s happening now in an off the books, back-door way. For people who can afford it. I Witnessed that personally. The law change would not mandate it for anyone, but enable people who need it to get it.
Doctors pledge to preserve life. But in the end we all still die. What we’re arguing about is, under circumstances of terminal illness plus immeasureable pain, delaying the inevitable in death’s final stages is just formalized torture of the dying person.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 11:59 am
I support this concept and agree with broadening the criteria. I and my siblings supported our 97 year old mother to choose to end her pain and suffering. Trying to get accurate information on how to do this was difficult. Her palliative care agency claimed not to have heard of nor understand her wishes. Pretty sure they just wanted to avoid any liability. She was ridden with anxiety even after she made the decision and one false start. By contrast I saw the hospital and doctors assist my mother in law in a seamless and safe end of life. The emotional peril we place all people in by taking away this choice outweighs the dangers of bad actors. And if we sanction this option society increases the transparency that today does not exist
Comment by Peters Piece Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:02 pm
Voted yes. Seems realistic. Seems to have a lot of safeguards to prevent wives offing their hubbies … or vice versa.
Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:03 pm
I voted yes, because it is not my place to influence when others can end their lives. People can commit suicide (self-homicide). I cannot work with people to let them know that I do not wish them to end their lives, but I cannot prevent them from doing so. Indeed, the state itself cannot criminalize suicide. Doing so is in many ways, worse than suicide.
Assisted suicide with well-regulated, informed consent in order to minimize avoidable and undeniable pain and suffering is no different than minimizing pain and suffering in all other cases of medical practice. Terminally ill-people have always been assisted in this way. People die in the hospital all the time.
The idea that we would not admit “the end of life” also requires assistance is just naive and foolishness. It borders on barbarism.
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:04 pm
I should have said, “I can work with people to let them know…”
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:04 pm
I voted yes, but I am putting a big old condition on that yes vote.
Any provider can refuse to participate in any phase of the process and not be subject to penalties in terms of license or liability, including but not limited to malpractice.
I know pharmacists and others invoking this sort of thing for abortion is problematic for some people. I get that.
But it seems to me in this context someone should be able to say “No, I don’t want to be the second doctor” or “I don’t want to inject medication with the intent to cause death” without having to go to court to defend themselves.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:11 pm
As I confront my own mortality as I now have more years behind me as I do before me, I have contemplated what I would want if I had a terminal illness. I would rather pass peacefully of my volition instead if having loved ones watch me suffer. I would not want to be remembered for suffering in my final days, it takes a toll on those around you.
So I voted yes with conviction.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:14 pm
Yes. As long as “the DEA is the DEA” an option like this should be available. People shouldn’t die in agony because medical staff are afraid of the DEA.
Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:16 pm
I voted yes. I, like many others here have seen the suffering that family and friends have gone through, from cancer, als as well as just old age shutting their body down. As others have mentioned, this already goes on to some extent through hospice by knowingly over dosing patients with opioid pain killers which shuts down breathing. Let the patient keep some dignity.
I also believe it would have to be very carefully worded and enforced so that it does not devolve into something like what goes on in Canada where they encourage people to die.
As far as the faith based concerns, a cousin committed suicide when faced with a 3rd boutique with cancer, which he knew this time was terminal. At the funeral the pastor started with a comforting statement: Jesus can forgive ALL sins. The Bible does not tell us he forgives some, most, or all with a few exceptions, it says All sins. This too can be forgiven.
Comment by SOIL M Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:17 pm
Like many people who support this policy, I have had a related personal experience. I watched my mother’s agony as doctors would not disconnect her life support despite her written wishes.
Comment by Perry Noya Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:17 pm
Excellent question for Dia de los muertos.
My wife wants to know if there is any wiggle room in the requirement for a diagnosis of terminal illness. When I went in for kidney stones, she tried to pull the plug on me. This will only encourage her.
I’m voting present on the question. Not sure a law is needed. Not sure how a patient with dementia or alzheimers can give consent. Not sure how someone with ALS can self-administer drugs. Too many questions to count.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:18 pm
I seem to have done something wrong in my post. Anyway, I voted no and the main reason is that this law does not go far enough.
Comment by Lurker Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:22 pm
I voted no.
I am not without compassion or empathy for people dealing with end of life choices. Both my grandmothers’ lives ended with debilitating strokes that left family members with tough choices on whether to try to prolong their lives.
And maybe it is hypocritical or incoherent of me to feel this way as a supporter of reproductive freedom, but I just worry about the unintended/slippery slope consequences.
I worry suicide could eventually be normalized and the bases for life-ending assistance could expand, as it has in Canada, from just terminal conditions to also include incurable conditions. In such a scenario, does public support for assisting people with disabilities or mental illness erode because those people can just end it if life is so hard for them? Do people give up on life when they learn this is an option for them?
I would be a no on this if it was up to me.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:31 pm
I would say no until a safeguard to prevent financial incentives for hospitals to pressure patients to kill themselves. Seriously ill patients that will require long periods in intensive care can cause a financial loss to the hospital. Some unethical hospital administrators pressure doctors to push patients out the door into hospice care, or just deliberately stop treatment so the patient will die. There should be no withholding of pain medications to make patients feel they have to choose suicide.
One of my relatives was told by a local hospital there was nothing they could do for his heart condition and he should go into hospice care over 10 years ago. He went to a VA hospital and they did a by-pass. He is not 100%, he has to use a riding mower, and has to hire someone to shovel the snow, but he is otherwise still doing OK.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:37 pm
I an emphatic yes, and echo those who point out that this is about getting the state out of end of life decisions. I’ve been at loved one’s bedsides more times than most having lived through the worst of the AIDS epidemic and know many of them wished to die on their own terms.
Comment by NotMe Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:38 pm
===to prevent financial incentives for hospitals to pressure patients to kill themselves…===
It’s not just the hospitals that have financial incentives to terminate patients. Heirs also have a financial incentive.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:42 pm
I voted yes for selfish reasons. I want to live as long as God sees fit. But when I come to the end of my life, if I know the last six months will be spent in excruciating pain or as a semi-vegetable, I would rather end earlier and with as many of my faculties as I can.
Comment by Guzzlepot Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 1:15 pm
@- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 12:42 pm:
===to prevent financial incentives for hospitals to pressure patients to kill themselves…===
===It’s not just the hospitals that have financial incentives to terminate patients. Heirs also have a financial incentive.===
Agree 100%.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 1:25 pm
I voted yes and cherish everyday . I hope i never die but……
Comment by flea Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 1:35 pm
I voted no. hisgirlfriday did a better job than I was doing in formulating my difficulties with the issue.
Comment by Jaguar Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 1:37 pm
No. This approach does not protect people with disabilities who experience a host of social stigmas that have regularly led to coercion. The approach also does not adequately provide for mental health supports for those with six months to live, and in Canada there is already an effort to expand the terminal illness group to those with non terminal mental illness. These kinds of bills pose unimaginable problems for those with disabilities, in ways that non disabled people find hard to understand or predict.
Comment by Quill Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 1:51 pm
Yes…there is no value in needless suffering.
A quick and painless death is a blessing.
We already have the decency to help our animal friends perish…how much more for ourselves and loved ones?
Comment by Dotnonymous x Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 1:55 pm
No. You cannot trust insurance companies on this issue and advance directives/DNRs already exist.
Comment by Carly Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 1:56 pm
Yes, all day.
We allow human beings to suffer in ways that, if we allowed an animal to, we could face felony charges.
Comment by Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 2:23 pm
No in states where assistive suicide
has been legalized the law has been expanded to include different issues
Comment by Guy in chi Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 2:30 pm
Support. People should get the choice when faced with such a prognosis. Slightly OT, Paddleton from 2019 is the great film on the topic if you like indies.
Comment by Earnest Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 2:35 pm
I voted yes. Sure, one can have advanced directives. And I respect those who take a principled view against suicide of any type. However, having two good friends face this situation at end of life — one with ALS and one with a most painful cancer, I would feel selfish if I imposed my morality on theirs. This makes the already present “oops, they had too much morphine” and makes the decision less sneaky and less legally questionable.
And with regard to insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors “encouraging” this option, please! I have a tinfoil hat for you.
Comment by diogenes in dupage Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 2:39 pm
Support for physician-assisted suicide (PAS) should be insulting to physicians and all those in health care. Allowing those who are “caring” for us to end our lives is encouraging them to take the easy way out of managing difficult cases. Those who enter medicine as a career are better than that, or at least when they start. Unfortunately, as their career goes on and the pressures of practice increase, they look for ways to cut corners and ease their workload. The freedom to kill their patients is much easier and convenient than spending time with them and their families to help them deal with a very difficult time in their lives. “Medical Aid in Dying”? Whatever it is called, it’s the same thing: volitional cooperation in ending a life. PAS supporters are saying that we only have two options at the end of life. You can either suffer needlessly or die. Nihilism is not a benefit to society. This is the 21st century, with the most advanced medical services in history. We don’t need to kill the least of our brothers and sisters. We are better than this, and we should not only expect, but demand better than this from our legislators and our clinicians.
Comment by TPM Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 2:44 pm
==We don’t need to kill the least of our brothers and sisters.==
When you watch someone suffer from ALS for years and then basically suffocate to death at the end of their lives then maybe you would have a different take. People have the right to not die in agony. Keep your nose out of it.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 2:48 pm
I voted yes. My mother died recently in her nineties, unable to communicate, feed herself or even sit up in her final weeks. She was in and out of dementia towards the end but the last time she spoke to me she begged to have ‘this’ end. After expressing that she was mostly a frightened child looking for her parents. Her deep religious conviction fell away, all that was left was need for comfort from her mother and father long gone. The look of fear haunts me. We made sure she felt no physical pain but the psychic pain looked to be unbearable.
Her wishes were clear and I’d make mine clear as well, but the option should be available.
Comment by Liz Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 2:50 pm
Assisted Suicide is not a painless or peaceful death. You must ingest large amounts of what is basically poison. Often times the person becomes violently ill, that is why you must also take something to address the severe nausea. Also, lets think about who benefits. If people are concerned about health inequity now, wait until insurance providers can offer someone the option of assisted suicide. “Sorry Mr. or Mrs. Jones, we don’t cover that procedure to save or extend your quality of life, but we do cover assisted suicide”. That is no exaggeration, it happened in Oregon.
Assisted suicide has no place in healthcare.
Comment by Chris M Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 3:13 pm
==we don’t cover that procedure to save or extend your quality of life==
Steve McMichael is paralyzed from the neck down and cannot speak, eat, or breathe on his own. Where’s the quality in that?
Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 3:23 pm
- Assisted Suicide is not a painless or peaceful death. -
Is it less painless or peaceful than suffering for years in pain…how peaceful do you suppose that is?…I’m forced to wonder if you have actually witnessed this death or simply regurgitate what you read or heard?
Comment by Dotnonymous x Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 3:24 pm
==Assisted suicide has no place in healthcare.==
Do you think it has a place anywhere?
Comment by don the legend Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 3:25 pm
There isn’t a single person alive that gave consent to being created. If someone wants off of this ride, it’s their choice. Full stop.
It’s ghastly enough that government already imposes upon a person’s reproductive choice. Must we also allow the state to limit how and when we die? What is the meaning of freedom if we are forced to yield these universal biological functions to the control of government?
Comment by sulla Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 3:27 pm
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…when there is no more opportunity for liberty or happiness…what is the point of living?
Quality is the measure.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 3:33 pm
The number one reason people give for wanting to avail themselves of assisted suicide is they don’t want to be a burden on others, not fear of pain or suffering.
For those that do not like me pointing out that the death isn’t some fairytale type end to a life, I am just stating the simple truth that people aren’t given some magical pill, and they fall asleep, and all is good. That isn’t reality.
Those that push physician assisted suicide are asking that it be legal to have medical professionals help kill people. What happens if doctors or nurses or hospice workers do not want to help, will they be forced to do so or risk losing their license?
Why not see the value in every human being and make every effort to give someone a peaceful natural death.
Comment by Chris M Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 3:55 pm
===It’s not just the hospitals that have financial incentives to terminate patients. Heirs also have a financial incentive.===
As do insurance companies.
Voted yes anyway. I want the choice when I have to make it
Comment by northsider (the original) Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 3:59 pm
===What happens if doctors or nurses or hospice workers do not want to help===
Learn to read.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 3:59 pm
==make every effort to give someone a peaceful natural death==
Why do you believe it is any of our business to be involved in such a personal medical decision? Why do you think your views should override the views of the actual patient?
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 4:32 pm
- For those that do not like me pointing out that the death isn’t some fairytale type end to a life.-
No one said anything about a fairytale…but you…keeping in line with your comments.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 4:37 pm
This is an abdication of physician care and responsibility. It is untrue that current medical practice is unable/unwilling to provide adequate control of pain/nausea or other symptoms at the end of life. This initiative fans the flames of misunderstanding of the capabilities of medicine in favor of a false premise. “Medical aid in dying’ is an unfortunate euphemism, and the whole idea of this is to promote hopelessness in desperate patients…leading to them wanting to facilitate their own death. Shame on those promoting this vile ideology…
Comment by GT MD Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 4:40 pm
I hope I live long enough to see the “demise” of the misnomer word/concept “Suicide”.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 4:41 pm
- Those that push physician assisted suicide are asking that it be legal to have medical professionals help kill people. -
You seem to know alot…seem being the key word.
Iatrogenic deaths are an every day occurrence in medical treatment…ask any honest Physician…so wise up.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 4:51 pm
Absolutely NOT. Euphemisms are deciving - this is suicide assisted by a physician, not “aid in dying”. Far too many misperceptions here. Palliative care is now good enough that nobody needs to die in pain. Top reasons to request are loss of autonomy, quality of life and feeling a burden. Many have untreated depression. Safeguards have failed everywhere and the slippery slope is very real. Canada is about to allow this for depression alone. It will marginalize the disabled and elderly. It also harms the patient physician relationship when death is now a treatment option. Please rethink this everybody. Get the real facts.
Comment by Steve MD Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 5:02 pm
I think back to watching my mother in her last years, as dementia and physical ailments ate away at her once so vibrant humanity. She recognized none of her children or grandchildren, couldn’t really function on her own. She died slowly over about two years time, and there was nothing we could do about it. I don’t wish that on anybody.
So I’m a firm “yes” on this question. Like it or not, our lives are our own to live and to end. I don’t want to live as a shell of myself, utterly dependent for everything on someone else, no matter who they are or how well-meaning. A minimum (*not* minimal) level of functioning beyond mere biological existence is necessary for meaningful life, and that is where I would draw my line. I respect that others will make different choices, with which I will not interfere. But so should they respect my choice and not interfere with it.
Comment by Flapdoodle Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 5:08 pm
I vote No. There are major ramifications to this legislation that will impact everyone in some way.
If assisted suicide is legal and viewed as just another health care option, what incentive does a health insurance company have to provide costly care that extends a life? People in the US have been told by their insurance that they’ve been denied coverage of treatment, but approved for assisted suicide. I’ve learned a lot at the praf.org website.
Take a look at the high rates of abuse of elders and disabled people in our state. It happens in homes and in institutions. This legislation would put a powerful lethal weapon in the hands of abusers who are quite capable of manipulating vulnerable people.
If this becomes legal, some people will die due to abuse and/or coercion. Some people will die due to misguided pressure they put on themselves to not be a burden, even if their family members disagree. None of the “safeguards” will be able to prevent this.
Once the option of assisted suicide is there, it inherently puts pressure on people to do it.
Comment by Valerie Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 5:23 pm
- what incentive does a health insurance company have to provide costly care that extends a life? -
There is no incentive currently, and insurance companies regularly and eagerly deny costly care that might extend a life. If that’s your concern take it up with capitalism.
Comment by Excitable Boy Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 5:47 pm
Having personally experienced this very issue I would emphatically say yes. And the slippery slope arguments are manageable red herrings that should not stand in our way.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Nov 1, 23 @ 7:08 pm
So has anyone actually seen bill language? I am not aware of any language that has been publicly shared by the champions of physician assisted suicide. This would be helpful for all so we can see what protections are in place for those most vulnerable in our communities.
Comment by Chris M Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 8:05 am
YES. Absolutely. We must get over the inane “survive at all costs” mentality that has taken over the aging-illness process. Quite frankly, I’d love the option once someone turns 80 regardless of illness, but until then, a painless exit for those terminal people is the only compassionate approach. People should have bodily autonomy at end of life, or what was the point of being free?
Comment by Ty B Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 11:12 am
NO.
It is up to God, and only God, to decide when we live and when we die. Having just witnessed a family member die by over-medication, not illness, this proposal would be a horrible path to take.
Comment by It's up to God Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 11:13 am