In my state, if someone is in hospice, they don’t even need to do that. It’s, in my book, one of the greatest benefits over home health at the end of life. (I, as a home health nurse, do have to call 911, even if the death is not unexpected.)
Literally, the hospice nurse comes by, confirms they’re dead, calls the doctor*, and then calls the funeral home to arrange pickup when you’re ready. Want a few hours to process what just happened and let the cousins come over and say goodbyes? No problem, they’ll be by in a few hours. Want the body out ASAP? No problem. It’s shockingly civilized.
*When my grandfather died in home hospice, the nurse got an idiot on the doctor’s answering service at 3am. “I need to report that Dr. Jones’ patient Mr. Smith has expired. …He’s passed on. …He’s passed away? DEAD. He’s DEAD.” I was sitting on the couch trying not to giggle inappropriately as the words, “pining for the fjords” starting running through my head…
I am also using them for pro- medically saving people 6 months of living in Hell.
The programs in CA, OR, and WA are not suicide. They are “end-of-life” options.
To recap:
Must be diagnosed by at least two “qualified*” MD’s
The disease must be one on a list (IIRC). What list? Who says which diseases qualify?
Both MD’s must agree you will be dead no earlier then 6 months from today.A Doctor must be willing to write the script (OD of a barbiturate). No doctor can be compelled to write said 'script**.
I’m guessing that pharmacists are also able to refuse to participate.
That list makes the idea that “Medically assisted suicide” is NOT available anywhere I know.
By the time you get all of the required players on board, you are not “committing suicide” - you are engaging in complex legal-medical bullshit and may well be dead because your disease gets different diagnoses, is not on the list, and you live in a town which is heavily Roman Catholic.
can the certificate be signed by any doctor, or do they have to be Oncologists for cancer patients?
Living in a big city certainly helps. I have already learned my “PCQuack” will refuse to participate.
The Hippocratic Oath specifically rules out poisoning patients (an early use of pharmaceutical knowledge). And it also rules out Abortifacients.
(spell check was sure I meant to say “antiabortionists”)
** - What do you say to the patient with 8 months to go? “Hold on Susan - in just two more months we’ll let you die; but not a second before”?
Do the two MD’s also have to agree with life expectancy of <= 6 months?
The preferred barbie is the one the drug companies are refusing to sell to States with the Death Penalty.
vbulletin just ate my post.
This is the rough draft I saved
The programs in CA, OR, and WA are not suicide. They are “end-of-life” options.
To recap:
Must be diagnosed by at least two “qualified*” MD’s
The disease must be one on a list (IIRC). What list? Who says which diseases qualify?
Both MD’s must agree you will be dead no earlier then 6 months from today.A Doctor must be willing to write the script (OD of a barbiturate). No doctor can be compelled to write said 'script**.
I’m guessing that pharmacists are also able to refuse to participate.
That list makes the idea that “Medically assisted suicide” is NOT available anywhere I know.
By the time you get all of the required players on board, you are not “committing suicide” - you are engaging in complex legal-medical bullshit and may well be dead because your disease gets different diagnoses, is not on the list, and you live in a town which is heavily Roman Catholic.
can the certificate be signed by any doctor, or do they have to be Oncologists for cancer patients?
Living in a big city certainly helps. I have already learned my “PCQuack” will refuse to participate.
The Hippocratic Oath specifically rules out poisoning patients (an early use of pharmaceutical knowledge). And it rules out Abortifacients.
(spell check was sure I meant to say “antiabortionists”)
** - the preferred barbie is the one the drug companies are refusing to sell to States with the Death Penalty.
You’re certainly welcome to make up your own definitions, of course, but that doesn’t mean anyone else has to agree with them.
Assisted suicide, physician assisted suicide, assistance in dying, right to die…there are many terms for the same general idea here.
You’re being awfully hostile to the one poster here who most closely agrees with you, y’know. I made the same points that you do about the folly of having lists of eligible diagnoses and time limits way up earlier in the thread.
Sorry - I did not mean to be hostile to you or anyone else (except, maybe, the one we won’t name).
I see the present law being referred to as “assisted suicide” as Roe v Wade as “Abortion on demand” - yes, I go back to that time.
The best I can say about the current laws is:
Maybe this will start a conversation about “rational suicide” - the current law considers the mere mention of “maybe I won’t stick around long enough…” as “Proof” of “Mental Illness”.
Yes, I WAS held for 3 days before a judge came to the hospital for a hearing.
Again, sorry to have given offense to anyone good will.
The majority of people, I think, agree with euthanasia, as long as there are “safeguards”. Death can be very messy, protracted and painful - even with palliative care. Having a “nice death” at a time of your own choosing would be most people’s wish (particularly those who are not religious).
It must be much better than having liquids withdrawn and being starved to death by the doctors.
Actually, what we should be doing is NOT forcing liquids and foods on people who are dying. It’s not uncommon for the desire to drink or eat to be lost and when it is it is the forcing of hydration and implanting of feeding tubes that prolong death and misery.
The hardest part of end-of-life care is NOT doing stuff to people.
And no, I don’t think “most” people are OK with the deliberate killing of dying people. They are OK with the withdrawal of artificial life support. They are OK with palliative treatments that may hasten death while relieving pain. I think quite a few of them are tolerant of suicide by the terminally ill. All of those are different than one person knowingly taking actions that directly lead to the death of another human being.
Look, I get it. For what it’s worth, I don’t think expressions of suicidal thoughts should *automatically *lead to prison (which, at its base, is what involuntary commitment is). The fact is, considering death is pretty typical of certain medical situations. It’s pretty much expected of anyone becoming quadriplegic, for example. What we should not do is automatically grant such a wish as most people will come to terms with such conditions and go back to desiring continued life. There should be a period of time during which a person can speak openly about what they’re feeling without fearing the loss of all their rights and freedoms, and to see if whatever is driving the desire for death can be remedied.
When my spouse, who is currently enduring some pretty epic levels of pain, says “Just kill me” he’s not really desiring death, what he wants is an end to the pain and illness. What he *really *wants (and I know this because he has told me directly) is to be healthy again. Currently, we’re trying to do something about the source of that pain while simultaneously doing our best to relieve his symptoms of pain and misery. If it becomes apparent we can’t cure him THEN we can talk about end of life and how to keep him comfortable - including, if necessary, sedating him to the point it hastens death. But that would be to be to relieve pain, not to directly cause his death.
I don’t know your present circumstances but I agree that it seems at times that there is a panic reaction to any expression of depression or thoughts of suicide. I don’t think that’s actually useful for anyone involved. It certainly makes people less inclined to seek help.
I was talking about those who wanted to be actively helped to die. Rather than having liquids withdrawn and being starved to death by the doctors. If they wanted to be starved to dead, then fair enough. But I would have thought there were better ways to kill people off.
One of my older female cousins who was extremely depressed for being very black and African looking (literally incapacitated her due to not being an attractive Caucasian. Psychiatrists couldn’t help), killed herself with hydrofluoric acid when she 24. Wanted euthanasia but obviously would she never even have been considered.
The vast majority of people don’t think that Euthanasia or suicide should be permitted for those who with mental illnesses especially for a case like the one above but would that fall into a similar category?
I’ve spoken about that sort of situation before. I am extremely hesitant to say OK to that. I would really prefer all other possible options be tried first, and that there be some proof it is a completely intractable, untreatable problem. I’ve been told that under my proposed criteria it would take years to get an OK for that, and most would not qualify. Which is a fair enough assessment. However, I am not saying “never” even if I’m saying “pretty damned unlikely”. No, I would not likely say it was OK, but I’m at least willing to listen to arguments why it should be allowed.
