Brittany Maynard ended her life

[K_Z]

Incidentally, K_Z, I'd be interested in your input on the reasons behind the string of botched executions earlier this year.

I don't want this thread to go too far off topic, but the most common issue was improperly placed, and/ or improperly monitored IV line (partially infiltrated, or vein was incised/ double perforated), and the IV site (groin) was covered with a sheet.

Perhaps we can have a thread in Parking Lot for more in depth discussions.

 

[K_Z]

Thank you for this detailed and useful information. Don't patients with a terminal diagnosis have access to opioids as standard? Are barbiturates more humane than opioids for this purpose? The elephant in the room for the assisted suicide debate is the number of people who die through suicide every day, and don't have to go to Oregon or Switzerland to do it, with overdose or poisoning being a very common method- and that's just with drugs you can pick up from your local chemist's not the sort of drugs that someone in the advanced stages of a terminal illness has access to. Barring people who are severely mobility impaired, if someone wants to do it, they can do it and I doubt the relatively sudden death of someone with a terminal diagnosis is going to prompt close investigation, and even if it did it would be impossible to prove that their surviving relatives knew what they were going to do.

This is part of the reason I'm suspicious of the narrative and social imperative behind licit assisted suicide. I'm not convinced that having a normalised structure around assisted suicide is socially safer for disabled and seriously ill people, particularly with the "heroism" narrative around these cases alongside the denigration and stigma around disability and dependency.

You are absolutely correct that pretty much any terminally ill person that really wanted to, and was physically able, could construct a "medicalized" suicide. Final Exit, the book put out by Hemlock Society decades ago (and now in the 3rd edition) gives detailed instructions on several ways to do this. (I won't repeat the suggestions here.) Someone could also jump off a bridge, or run their car into a brick wall, shoot or hang themselves, or any number of other violent methods to end their life.

I'm not sure I agree with your impressions about the stigma of disability and dependency, though. And I'm not so sure I agree that the death with dignity laws are a social imperative, or even a slippery slope. I don't forsee a "Soylent Green" or "Logan's Run" scenario developing.

I do see that there are "religious imperatives" about a lot of things related to life, birth and death, and I believe that these are potentially far more damaging to society as a whole, than allowing personal choice, or engaging in compassionate and "unflinching tolerance."

There are 4 main life stages common to every society that has ever existed on earth: birth, death, coming of age, and pair bonding. Each society has developed rituals, rules, and ceremonies regulating what is considered "normal" behavior for these 4 stages. And these rituals and rules vary widely all over the planet, as well as through the centuries. It is only "normal" that we should continue to discuss, refine, and re-define what is "normal" behavior in our time, and in our societies, IMO.

We already have normalized the process of selecting the day one decides to give birth. We have normalized "maternal request" (no medical indication) cesarean sections in huge numbers. We are doing uterus transplants, and controlling fertilization, and creating embryos in laboratories. We can create life outside of the human body. Why, then, not give the same choices to those at the end of life? To face the inevitable, and choose the day one decides to leave?

I don't think anyone has suggested that we coerce terminally ill people into ending their lives-- just that for those that have clearly thought through all of the issues, they now have options in several states to do this legally. These are terminally ill people. One could argue that allowing them choice (when they have so bitterly few options) is far more compassionate than forcing them to submit to the pain, indignity, and emotional upset of their own wretched and certain deterioration.

 

[Sonya610]

Barring people who are severely mobility impaired, if someone wants to do it, they can do it and I doubt the relatively sudden death of someone with a terminal diagnosis is going to prompt close investigation, and even if it did it would be impossible to prove that their surviving relatives knew what they were going to do.

I disagree with that, if you are terminally it often would NOT be that easy to off yourself especially if you lived with family. One of the main requirements is time alone, in the case of overdosing that can take a while even if a plastic bag is used. There is also a risk for the family, years ago a family friend's husband was dying of bone cancer, he tried to OD on his pain meds at one point and his family called an ambulance. The authorities started questioning and basically accusing HER (the wife) of trying to kill him, he survived the incident so she didn't face charges or prosecution but regardless who would want to risk their loved ones being blamed for murder?

Another problem with that scenario (doing it illegally and quite likely having to be able to go off by yourself so you CAN do it) is that it compels people to end things sooner than they like out of the fear they may lose that high level of autonomy sooner than expected.

One very interesting benefit that I read regarding studies done in Oregon after the law passed -- doctors treating the terminally ill reported that they became MORE concerned about patient comfort and proper pain management as a result of the new legislation (most of the doctors didn't enjoy writing the prescription and they hoped it wouldn't be used if they did write it, and in fact most of the time the patients don't use it).

 

[lonetraveler]

I have a question, does anyone know what the cause of death will be? Is it considered a suicide or death by natural cause? or what?

 

[gregjrichards]

I have a question, does anyone know what the cause of death will be? Is it considered a suicide or death by natural cause? or what?

I imagine it will be suicide via the chosen method because it was that that killed Brittany if she had lived till the end it would of course be the cancer. I can't imagine what it must be like knowing you are dying. I would probably have done the same as Brittany but it is not legal in the UK yet.

 

[imjustagirl123]

R.I.P Brittany, I had listened to some of what she said in the weeks before her death, she is right IMO, if someone is terminally ill and there is nothing that can help her they should have the right to die, and thankfully she did before she had to endure anymore pain. R.I.P Brittany! You WILL be remembered.

 

[imjustagirl123]

I have a question, does anyone know what the cause of death will be? Is it considered a suicide or death by natural cause? or what?

I believe it's classed as assisted suicide. It is in DIGNITAS in Europe anyway.

 

[gregjrichards]

R.I.P Brittany, I had listened to some of what she said in the weeks before her death, she is right IMO, if someone is terminally ill and there is nothing that can help her they should have the right to die, and thankfully she did before she had to endure anymore pain. R.I.P Brittany! You WILL be remembered.

I agree with you people should have the choice to end their life if they are dying. Most people would not let an animal die suffering in agony and distress so why do we let human beings. Sorry if anyone is offended by my opinion I realise it is a very difficult and emotional subject.

 

[Hatfield]

I disagree with that, if you are terminally it often would NOT be that easy to off yourself especially if you lived with family. One of the main requirements is time alone, in the case of overdosing that can take a while even if a plastic bag is used. There is also a risk for the family, years ago a family friend's husband was dying of bone cancer, he tried to OD on his pain meds at one point and his family called an ambulance. The authorities started questioning and basically accusing HER (the wife) of trying to kill him, he survived the incident so she didn't face charges or prosecution but regardless who would want to risk their loved ones being blamed for murder?

Another problem with that scenario (doing it illegally and quite likely having to be able to go off by yourself so you CAN do it) is that it compels people to end things sooner than they like out of the fear they may lose that high level of autonomy sooner than expected.

One very interesting benefit that I read regarding studies done in Oregon after the law passed -- doctors treating the terminally ill reported that they became MORE concerned about patient comfort and proper pain management as a result of the new legislation (most of the doctors didn't enjoy writing the prescription and they hoped it wouldn't be used if they did write it, and in fact most of the time the patients don't use it).

I totally agree and which is why I am glad to see at least a few states starting to come around and allow this for the right patients that really need this service.

When properly managed with the proper cases, I applaud the states that have the courage to do the right thing and allow a person to end their life peacefully before the disease or other ailment destroys their mind, body, sole and causes great pain to themselves and family members.

When people are prevented and left to their own devices, another issue that comes up is being unsuccessful and harming themselves in horrible ways. They can injure themselves badly and be unsuccessful in dying and end up with a terrible situation worse than they already were in.

If a person does not have this service available, the good point you bring up about the fear of being incapacitated by the illness/disease could also cause a person to prematurely want to end their life before the time comes where they would not have the strength or capability to do so. This could possibly even happen if medicines are available, however, the risk of it happening much more frequently when medicines are not available because if a person knows they have their meds "at the ready", I am sure they would want to wait till the right time that they know they are near the end and/or suffering very badly.

One very scary thought for me is becoming in a comatose state and yet being able to feel pain and yet not having the ability to communicate to doctors or family. Imagine the horror if the doctors kept you hooked up to machines for months if you were in tremendous pain and yet nobody knew it and you could not tell or communicate to anyone.

Anyway, I do agree with the choice the brave lady made and wish more states would offer this service for the proper patients. When managed well, it is the right thing to do IMO.

 

[K_Z]

Since we have been discussing assisted suicide on this thread, I thought I'd share this link. It's a one hour lecture from a professor of medical ethics about VSED-- Voluntarily Stopping Eating and Drinking, and the role physicians play in this. Is it assisted suicide or not? The case presented is a woman with Alzheimers, who plans VSED, and asks to be admitted to the hospital for sedation. Interesting lecture, IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knxGtBmnADI