Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

[arnisador]

I think attempted suicide is a crime in most states...a technicality to facilitate holding the person and prosecuting those who help.

Life insurance often has a two-year limit before benefits are paid on suicide, no?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I can't speak for all states, but I can speak for Missouri. The only statutes in the RSMO I could find about suicide are

376.620 In all suits upon policies of insurance on life hereafter issued by any company doing business in this state, to a citizen of this state, it shall be no defense that the insured committed suicide, unless it shall be shown to the satisfaction of the court or jury trying the cause, that the insured contemplated suicide at the time he made his application for the policy, and any stipulation in the policy to the contrary shall be void.

I could not find any statute making suicide, or the attempt therein, a crime.

I did find

563.061 5. The use of physical force by an actor upon another person is justifiable when the actor acts under the reasonable belief that

(1) Such other person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical injury upon himself; and

(2) The force used is necessary to thwart such result.

But, again, it doesn't make suicide or attempted suicide any sort of crime in Missouri.

If someone finds a state statute explicity making suicide or attempted suicide a crime, i'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[arnisador]

I still am not convinced that 'suicide' needs to be codified as a law of the state. There are enough ways that a person can commit suicide without making it the practice of medicine. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. It just concerns me on an ethical level when this becomes a part of the practice of medicine.

On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, I think of someone with ALS who cannot take this action for herself/himself, and think it's a good thing to have medical assistance. Regarding animals, it's standard veterinary procedure...are we so different? In some ways, sure...but if a person thinks it's their time to go, who are we to say No?

 

[sgtmac_46]

On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, I think of someone with ALS who cannot take this action for herself/himself, and think it's a good thing to have medical assistance. Regarding animals, it's standard veterinary procedure...are we so different? In some ways, sure...but if a person thinks it's their time to go, who are we to say No?

Are we to include the mentally ill who are suicidal in that group as well? In other words, if someone is mentally ill and 'thinks it's their time to go' should we simply allow them...or even assist? Where is the line?

 

[arnisador]

Obviusly, if they'r ementally ill they're not competent to decide. I'm not saying it's easy to decide...but there are clear-cut cases of people in pain and immobile, with no hope. Should we deny them this right?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Obviusly, if they'r ementally ill they're not competent to decide. I'm not saying it's easy to decide...but there are clear-cut cases of people in pain and immobile, with no hope. Should we deny them this right?

I agree, but you really can't have a statute defining it....unless you can define it.

 

[Ping898]

Obviusly, if they'r ementally ill they're not competent to decide. I'm not saying it's easy to decide...but there are clear-cut cases of people in pain and immobile, with no hope. Should we deny them this right?

Unless you know specifically what a person would want yes you should deny them. I don't care how much pain I am in or how terrible my life is, it goes against my personal and religious beliefs to end my time prematurely and I don't want some doctor who thinks he/she is helping me to tkae that decision out of my hands.

 

[punisher73]

Here is the article that had some information on complications

http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/orrpt7.htm

 

[arnisador]

My understanding was that the patient had to clearly request it and that two physicians (psychiatrists?), at least one of whom has not previously been treating the patient, must concur. That seems like a reasonably sound procedure, given what the hospitals and insurance companies will add to it in terms of committees and paperwork.

 

[jdinca]

Unless you know specifically what a person would want yes you should deny them. I don't care how much pain I am in or how terrible my life is, it goes against my personal and religious beliefs to end my time prematurely and I don't want some doctor who thinks he/she is helping me to tkae that decision out of my hands.

It's physician assisted, not physician imposed. Given your perspective, you definitely need to have a living will. You may be young but stuff happens.

 

[Marginal]

As you'll recall, in the Schiavo thread, I disputed starvation as an acceptable form of Euthanasia. If you have a point make it, however, there is no contradiction at all in the assertion that

A) I think some ethical issues exist with doctors being involved in planning the suicide of their patients

and the statement

B) I don't believe, if we are going to allow assisted suicide, that starvation is the ideal mechanism for that 'mercy killing'.

You actually claimed that they weren't brave enough to do anything else, despite the legal constraints that limited the options that the doctors could pursue in that case. Seems pro legalized euthanaisa enough to me. Either that, or shockingly oblivious.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You actually claimed that they weren't brave enough to do anything else, despite the legal constraints that limited the options that the doctors could pursue in that case. Seems pro legalized euthanaisa enough to me. Either that, or shockingly oblivious.

It is in actuality anti-starvation.

I don't see any contradiction in 'I'm not sure I want doctor's in the euthanasia business' and 'if they are going to be in the euthanasia business, I don't think STARVATION is an appropriate tool'. At least have the moral courage, if you're going to euthanize someone, to at least use a painless method.

That the doctor's in that case did, in fact, euthanize Shiavo, is clear. In light of that, it seems moral cowardize to hide behind the argument that they didn't, actually, do anything to kill her other than deny her sustenance. That IS moral cowardice, because it seeks to kill, while denying any mercy in the killing process, simple to eliminate any possible culpability.

Are you following me, or should I make it clearer?

 

[Marginal]

That IS moral cowardice, because it seeks to kill, while denying any mercy in the killing process, simple to eliminate any possible culpability.

Seems insincere on your part to protest their methods while refusing to allow them legal alternative means.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Seems insincere on your part to protest their methods while refusing to allow them legal alternative means.

It might 'seem' that way if you're being intentionally dishonest.

It should be clear, however, to any objective observer that death by starvation is in no way compatable with 'mercy'. I'd like to see you try and make an argument that it is, and see how honest this discussion becomes. While I might have issues with euthanasia, and whether doctor's should be involved in it, I have HUGE issues with using starvation as a tool of euthanasia.....any reasonable human being should.

 

[Marginal]

It should be clear, however, to any objective observer that death by starvation is in no way compatable with 'mercy'.

Objective observers (hordes of doctors for example) in the case of Terri pointed out that she was incapable of feeling pain, and most MD's say that removing a feeding tube in such a case is not comparable. The whole starvation angle's just an appeal to emotion. It is not supported by fact. Enjoy your truthiness.

I have HUGE issues with using starvation as a tool of euthanasia.....any reasonable human being should.

Yet you don't want them to have other options. Doubt you're losing sleep over this.

 

[Sarah]

I find (may be different for others) that people who are very against euthanasia have never been in a position where they had to sit by helplessly as someone they loved wasted away in pain, suffering the whole time to the point where they had to be in a morphine induced stupor until the last breath is finally taken…..and yes I have been in the position.

Im not for it, but I sure as hell aint against it. I believe every person should be able to make an EDUCATED decision, what ever is right for you and your loved ones.

I have never been big on the idea that people can force there opinions and beliefs on others and not allow them the choice.

I also agree there is no mercy in starvation IF the person is suffering!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Objective observers (hordes of doctors for example) in the case of Terri pointed out that she was incapable of feeling pain, and most MD's say that removing a feeding tube in such a case is not comparable. The whole starvation angle's just an appeal to emotion. It is not supported by fact. Enjoy your truthiness.

That must be reassuring that they are relatively certain that those are starved to death as a method of euthanasia 'probably' feel no pain. How convenient. Appeal to emotion? Hardly. There's an objective difference between a slow death as the result of starvation and a quick relatively painless death. Anyone who has suffered from starvation would likely call you a fool for calling starvation a slow, painful way to die 'an appeal to emotion'.

The reality, however, is that starvation is an extremely painful and long suffering way to kill another human being. Being 'fairly' certain that someone 'probably' doesn't feel too much pain is hardly a defense.

Your dishonesty is founded on a supposition. You assume that i'm entirely opposed to euthanasia in all circumstances. I have issues with legislating euthanisa on the part of doctor's, however, such a subtle nuanced distinction is apparently lost on people who have an all or nothing position. I have certain issues and questions that I don't feel are adequately addressed. You, however, perceive that as a signal to attack anyone who doesn't 100% support your position. Those who make fun of Bush's 'You're either with us, or against us' statement, sure have no problem applying it in their own ideological agendas.

So, i'll say this again, for those who are apparently slow in getting it. I have questions and issues with euthanasia that need to be addressed, from an ethical perspective, but supporting it 100%. But I have no qualms about STRONGLY opposing starvation as a method of euthanasia.

In closing, if your position is that starvation is a 'humane' method of death, then you are obviously being extremely disingenuous simply to win an argument. If you are so confident it is painless, try going 5 days without eating and tell how me how all of this is an 'appeal to emotion' to say that starvation is an extremely painful way to die. Sounds like a good experiment. I'll await your findings.

 

[Kacey]

This is a difficult topic, and very emotional for all involved. After watching the Shiavo case, I spent months convincing my father obtain and complete a living will (which he finally did, and provided me with copies); I'm still working on my mother (my parents are divorced, so it's not likely my father will be much help in convincing my mother). I have one for myself, which I need to take in and file with my doctor's office.

I do think that the right to die should be a personal choice; however, as with other medical decisions, choosing to die affects many more people than the person who makes the decision. If your religion says suicide is a sin, then that makes the decision that much more difficult. My concern with this debate is that, in attempting to ensure that no one is so well assisted that they are over-assisted (meaning that the decision is made for them without a clear indication of the person's preference). There are times when the decision is more clearly cut - for example, when my grandmother contracted pneumonia while slowly dying of emphysema complicated by Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimer's, and lapsed into a coma, no one in the family contested my grandfather's decision, after 3 weeks, to have the respirator disconnected. Indeed, I suspect that Grandma would not have wanted to linger on as long as she did, if only because of the pain it caused for Grampa. When my other grandfather, who had suffered multiple strokes, and developed dementia as a result, contracted pneumonia, the doctors gave my grandmother two choices, neither good - because of his mental state (dementia with severe agitation) they could not give him IV fluids (he kept pulling the IVs out, and strapping him down made him distraught and he flailed against the restraints until the IV pulled out), so either she could let the pneumonia kill him, or they could treat the pneumonia and he could die of dehydration - in his case, euthanasia would have been a blessing, for both him and my grandmother; she later died, having outlived her husband by over a decade, contracted pneumonia at the age of 94, was successfully treated, and died 2 days later in her sleep, of congestive heart failure - went to sleep and never woke up (of the 3 above, that's the one I'd choose for myself, had I the option). These cases are reasonably clear-cut - both were elderly, incapable of recovery, and mentally incapacitated.

A less clear case: my grandfather is 94, nearly 95. He has diabetes, has gone deaf, is losing his eyesight, can no longer stand up, is placed on the toilet using a sling and wears a diaper the rest of the time, can still speak but can only be spoken to by writing messages in 3" high letters on a whiteboard (any smaller and he can't see them); according to his doctor, he could die tomorrow, or make it to 100. My aunt and uncle asked that he be placed in the hospice facility at his nursing home; since he is not currently at "immediate risk of death" (that is, reasonably expected to die within 3 months), they won't change his placement (which is not physical - it's paperwork). My uncle, acting with my grandfather's agreement (my uncle holds his power of attorney, medical and otherwise) placed a DNR on my grandfather's treatment, and also an order that the nursing home could not change his medication in any way (add, subtract, change dosage, etc.) without contacting him first and obtaining his permission. The nursing home does not abide by this - instead, they will call my uncle and say things like "Your father has a urinary tract infection - we placed him on an antibiotic, because it is uncomfortable but not life threatening" - leaving my uncle with the much more difficult decision of taking him off a medication that has now begun to work. Although this could be the basis for a lawsuit, my uncle does not wish to pursue one - for many reasons, not the least of which is, other than this, the nursing home provides excellent care, and, if they would rather medicate him and fight have provided too much treatment than not medicate him and fight a wrongful death suit - and, were it someone other than my grandfather, I might even agree with them. However, I lived with my grandparents for a year, and I know that Grampa would much rather have died than reach this point. My word on this subject is not good, however, as I was 16 the year I lived with them - over 20 years ago - and Grampa placed nothing in writing. Grampa was always an active, involved man, who got a job in a gas station after he retired because he was too bored staying at home. He is, in my opinion, not living - he is existing. There is no quality to his life, only quantity. Were he legally competent, and had access to the prescriptions discussed earlier, I have no doubt he would take them - or stop taking his insulin, which would rapidly have the same effect. The choice of dying with dignity has been taken from him.

If this were your father, and you were in my uncle's place, what would you do? My parents, while not elderly, are not young (my mother is 63, my father 71), and someday, hopefully in the far distant future, I will be faced with this issue personally. I know my father's wishes, and have them in writing (and he has filed them with his doctor, as well); for him, I have guidelines. My mother refuses to discuss it - and probably won't, as long as her father remains in his current state. I don't know her preferences in this matter, and she won't tell me. That means, unless she files a DNR somewhere, I have no guidelines from her, and no legal recourse should be be in the same situation as her father, due to age or injury.

Is this decision one I want to make? No. But being able to make an informed decision for my parents, should the time come that I need to do so, is something I owe them. Do you know what your loved ones would want in similar circumstances? Have you thought about it for yourself? Have you informed those who would be responsible for informing doctors of your decision? These are questions you need to ask, and answer, for yourself - but ultimately, within certain safeguards (to prevent murder by euthanasia, for example), it is a decision that, in my opinion, should rest with the person and his/her family - not the government. Death should be allowed to occur with dignity - not as a slow, lingering twilight state from which no recovery is possible. And I do think that the key is the inability to recover, to be able to live a meaningful life in the future. That is what I want for myself, and for my loved ones - but right now, it is not possible; only death by withdrawal of life support (respirator, fluids, food, etc.) is allowed under current laws. You have to ask yourself what you would want, and then write your legislators, as I have, to encourage them to introduce, and support, laws that provide the options you want. :asian:

 

[Marginal]

That must be reassuring that they are relatively certain that those are starved to death as a method of euthanasia 'probably' feel no pain. How convenient.

As I said, feel free to ignore the objective opinion over your preferred truthiness. Just don't ever bother trying to invoke the "objective" position again. On top of that, she did not starve to death. Dehydration got her well before then.

There's an objective difference between a slow death as the result of starvation and a quick relatively painless death.

Even when the person in question has all the pain sensing equipment of a carrot.

Anyone who has suffered from starvation would likely call you a fool for calling starvation a slow, painful way to die 'an appeal to emotion'.

Moot since she died of dehydration.

Your dishonesty is founded on a supposition. You assume that i'm entirely opposed to euthanasia in all circumstances.

Nope. I said you're against laws giving doctors more tools than simply cutting life support. You have not denied this.

I have issues with legislating euthanisa on the part of doctor's, however, such a subtle nuanced distinction is apparently lost on people who have an all or nothing position.

Subtle and nuanced meaning slippery slope...

I have certain issues and questions that I don't feel are adequately addressed. You, however, perceive that as a signal to attack anyone who doesn't 100% support your position.

Only when it's obviously self-contradicting. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You can't.

In closing, if your position is that starvation is a 'humane' method of death, then you are obviously being extremely disingenuous simply to win an argument.

Ah. I was waiting for the D word. It's the D word to be against legislation that gives doctors more options, while saying current methods are inadequate.

If you are so confident it is painless, try going 5 days without eating...

Nah. I don't have to since she never came close to starving to death.

 

[sgtmac_46]

As I said, feel free to ignore the objective opinion over your preferred truthiness. Just don't ever bother trying to invoke the "objective" position again. On top of that, she did not starve to death. Dehydration got her well before then.

Ah, yes, dehydration....that great and merciful painless death. Feel free to avoid ANY resemblance of objectivity.....Of course, why would you start now?

Even when the person in question has all the pain sensing equipment of a carrot.

So you say....though, even if you were wrong, you'd still maintain that position....to do otherwise would be to paint your position as patently absurd. That the opinion that she was a 'vegetable' was far from universal, however, is a little inconvenient fact that you'd, I assume, prefer to ignore. Because if she wasn't a complete vegetable, and she did feel pain on any level, that makes anyone who decided to starve or dehydrate her to death guilty of a truly monstrous inhuman act....and of course, you are always right.....lol.

Moot since she died of dehydration.

Infinitely more humane.... As we all know, dehydration is one of life's most pleasant deaths. How flippantly you say that. Being right in the argument is far more important to you, obviously, than whether or not this woman suffered. I doubt you acknowledge any evidence that disagreed with your position.

Judge Lynch of the Massachusetts Supreme court ruled death by dehydration 'cruel and violent'.

• The mouth would dry out and become caked or coated with thick material.
• The lips would become parched and cracked.
• The tongue would swell, and might crack.
• The eyes would recede back into their orbits and the cheeks would become hollow.
• The lining of the nose might crack and cause the nose to bleed.
• The skin would hang loose on the body and become dry and scaly.
• The urine would become highly concentrated, leading to burning of the bladder.
• The lining of the stomach would dry out and the sufferer would experience dry heaves and vomiting.
• The body temperature would become very high.
• The brain cells would dry out, causing convulsions.
• The respiratory tract would dry out, and the thick secretions that would result could plug the lungs and cause death.
• At some point within five days to three weeks, the major organs, including the lungs, heart, and brain, would give out and the patient would die.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydration

Sounds very humane and 'serene' to me. Again, perhaps you should experiment with this method and tell us all your findings. Though, mercifully, the case of someone like Schiavo, those symptoms would only last three or four days before death....so there is a bright side merciful lining.

Nope. I said you're against laws giving doctors more tools than simply cutting life support. You have not denied this.

Allow me to explain this again.

I said that if we ARE going to euthanize people, STARVATION or DEHYDRATION are NOT acceptable methods. I stated, clearly, that I have moral and ethical questions surrounding euthanasia. That you feel that I should simply lock-step follow your position, without question, is irrelavent. In your limited world, i'm either 'With you, or against you'. And, of course, if I actually question the moral and ethical issues, and demand answers to those questions before supporting your position, i'm of course a 'hypocrite' in your view.

Subtle and nuanced meaning slippery slope...

That statement clearly illustrates how out of touch you truly are with this discussion. Subtle, as i've already explained, meaning I have clear moral and ethical questions that have not been answered, and you're apparently not even capable of dealing with.

Only when it's obviously self-contradicting. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You can't.

Again, you demonstrate your utter lack of perspective on the matter. I'm either 'with you, or against you'. Sorry if I have ethical questions about granting assisted suicide decisions to doctors, and whether or not that should be an officially endorsed medical decision. Quote me at ANY point as saying i've concluded, decisively, it's morally and ethically an absolute wrong? You, of course, can't. However, in your limited view, it's either your way, or someone's either and idiot or 'dishonest'.

Ah. I was waiting for the D word. It's the D word to be against legislation that gives doctors more options, while saying current methods are inadequate.

That's asinine. It's like being for No-Kill animal shelters, while claiming, at the same time that, if animal shelters ARE going to kill animals, they should do so in the most humane way possible, and probably shouldn't STARVE them or DEHYDRATE them to death. You can BOTH be against killing, and still maintain that if we ARE going to kill, that it be humane.

You're the one who is disingenuous in those arguments. You can BOTH be AGAINST executing prisoners, and STILL maintain that if they are executed they be executed HUMANELY, in fact, i'm very sure you'd make that very argument yourself if the argument was about THAT. There is no contradiction in those positions, despite your attempts to paint them as such.

All of this is assuming that i've concluded that euthanasia is ethically absolutely wrong, which I have not maintained.

Nah. I don't have to since she never came close to starving to death.

Nah, she only starved for a few days, then she died of the much more 'humane' dehydration......That you have the gaul to even make that argument makes me question your judgement. :erg: