(April 30, 2016 at 9:40 am)abaris Wrote:

(April 30, 2016 at 8:45 am)Chad32 Wrote: If people are going to fight for a person's right to their own body when it comes to pregnancy, then why not this?

Because it can and will be abused if any given law doesn't cover all the loopholes. Better yet, written into any particular constitution, covering each and every possible cause of failure or abuse. It should only´be offered to the terminally ill, not the ones suffering a temporary crisis. And it should prevent the government to take any role in it or any given company or individual to make a profit from it.

Well yeah, just about anything can be abused if you're not careful about it. But the fear of the government mandating people be killed to harvest their organs or whatever shouldn't stop people from saying they're ready to die when they want to.

At this point, I'm rather afraid of companies profeteering than the government. Where I live, there's a regular suicide tourism to Switzerland where it's legal and where one company is lining it's pocket over the death wish of people. So, if it gets yet another for profit industry, you can bet your ass that all safeguards are out of the window.

I think it's less mandating and more the persuasion of society or certain members thereof (including maybe just family or acquaintances). 

For me, I would not want anybody who isn't either terminally ill or permanently mobility impaired to be able to use assisted suicide/euthanasia. As well, those safeguards mentioned upthread (which pertained to the Brittany Maynard case) would need to be honored. Any violation of those safeguards by a prescribing doctor would lead to...what is it?...accessory to homicide?

ETA: Oops, ninjaed.

What if a mental health condition isn't temporary? I have schizoaffective disorder, and along with that comes flat emotions and constant depression. I've tried many treatments, but none seem to work. Medication stops my delusions but does nothing for the flat emotions. I fear that ahead of me is nothing but years of dreary boredom. I would like to be able to take advantage of a painless and reliable death, but the law is against me. Why is my suffering less deserving of a quick end than that of a terminal patient? I have tried ending my life on my own three times, and ended up handicapped, missing nine fingers, as a result. I don't want to end up brain damaged from another attempt. Why shouldn't I be allowed a quick and safe exit?

(April 30, 2016 at 11:23 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: What if a mental health condition isn't temporary?  I have schizoaffective disorder, and along with that comes flat emotions and constant depression.  I've tried many treatments, but none seem to work.  Medication stops my delusions but does nothing for the flat emotions.  I fear that ahead of me is nothing but years of dreary boredom.  I would like to be able to take advantage of a painless and reliable death, but the law is against me.  Why is my suffering less deserving of a quick end than that of a terminal patient?  I have tried ending my life on my own three times, and ended up handicapped, missing nine fingers, as a result.  I don't want to end up brain damaged from another attempt.  Why shouldn't I be allowed a quick and safe exit?

Shit, I don't know the answer to your question. Clearly I don't understand where you're at.
You certainly have a point.
I really wish I could help you somehow, give you some sought of hope.
But you're a lot more intelligent than me and I'm sure you've already thought of anything I could say or do.
It probably doesn't help or mean much to say that I care, but I do.

(April 30, 2016 at 4:41 am)The_Empress Wrote:

(April 30, 2016 at 4:40 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: As I understand it, the way that Washington state and Oregon have worded the legislation is that two doctors from separate institutions have to deem the patient terminal independently. Then they can apply to an independent board.

Too stringent, in my opinion.

But it is the American Way to pass shitty laws and improve them over time.

Yes, you should be able to end your life for whatever reason.

Option 3.

There needs to be oversight, as well as some mental health counseling.

(April 30, 2016 at 1:30 pm)Divinity Wrote: Option 3.

There needs to be oversight, as well as some mental health counseling.

And most of all, no profit for anyone involved. No incentive for anyone pushing a person in that particular direction.

(April 30, 2016 at 1:37 pm)abaris Wrote:

(April 30, 2016 at 1:30 pm)Divinity Wrote: Option 3.

There needs to be oversight, as well as some mental health counseling.

And most of all, no profit for anyone involved. No incentive for anyone pushing a person in that particular direction.

That's ridiculous. You can't expect them to offer their services for free.