(July 5, 2015 at 10:58 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 8:05 pm)Beccs Wrote:

---

What does "pleasing us" have to do with this issue.

Please don't try the guilt trip tactics others try on us - it won't work.

Depression is a complex issue (trust me, I know), as is modern medicine (again, from one who knows).

I don't think euthanasia is the way to go for people with mental illness.  I don't even agree with it for others, unless they have no chance, are in serious pain, and there's absolutely no hope for them.

---

If we start euthanizing people because they have depression, where does it end?  And what if, within a short timeframe, a new drug or treatment appears on the market

And what if there isn't a new drug or treatment within a short timeframe?  That is the more likely situation.

If you don't want to die, don't choose it.  But other people's lives are their lives, not yours.

Then let them take their own lives, not require doctors to do it.

(July 5, 2015 at 8:58 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 2:04 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Many times, self-inflicted suicide attempts can go badly.  For example, people who shoot themselves in the head with a gun do not always die.  And if they do not die, then they are generally worse off than they were before.  The point isn't to suffer and then die; the point is to die as cleanly and easily as possible.

Also, many means of death are unavailable to the general public.  I cannot go and buy any drugs I want from a pharmacy.  I need a prescription for many of the drugs they sell.  So if I want to use some of the better drugs for this purpose, I need to get someone's permission to get them.

If they sold death kits "over the counter," then it might eliminate the need to get someone's help in choosing a good death in most cases.  But they do not sell such things.

Yes it is quite possible to flub a suicide.  Many flubbed suicides weren't very serious attempts.  Serious attempts usually succeed. And if you fail, you can always try again.  Death on the other hand is rather permanent.

It is not true that if you fail, you can always try again.  It depends very much on how incapacitated one is from the first attempt.  

It would be more humane to help people do it right, then to have extra suffering because someone does not manage a clean death.

And no one is asking you to kill yourself.  Your life is yours.  But other people's lives are theirs, and so they should decide for themselves.  You don't want others deciding whether you live or die, do you?  If you want that courtesy, you should extend the same courtesy to others.

(July 5, 2015 at 10:55 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 10:47 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: It begins and ends with patients capable of giving informed consent deciding it's time to die.

What ifs are about as effective as arguments as guilt trips are.

Let them give their consent, but that doesn't answer the question entirely.  If someone decides they just want to die simply "because", why should a doctor be brought in to kill them?  They have the ability to take their own life.

Yes, "what ifs" aren't all that effective.

But, with medical breakthroughs coming as quickly as they are, it does have a bearing on this issue.

And a "what if" is better than a, "whoops, oh well . . .".

Believe me, Beccs, I appreciate all you're saying. I just don't agree that others have the right to dictate a person's actions unless they're proven incapable of making decisions for themselves. And, I don't necessarily believe a doctor need be involved in the process, except, on a voluntary basis, to write a prescription (Oregon and Washington have proven there are doctors willing).

(July 5, 2015 at 11:00 pm)Dystopia Wrote:

Quote:Should the state be on the hook for the medical costs of botched suicides? I would imagine that would quickly get more expensive than euthanasia.

That is only true if the number of failed suicides is higher compared to accomplished/successful ones - Ultimately this isn't just about costs but about valid reasons for the government and medical institutions to care about it when healthcare's responsibility is preserving life and not ending it.

Not true at all. The cost of a lethal dose of narcotics is insanely low compared to surgery for a gunshot wound to the head. How 'bout the cost of putting humpty the jumper back together again?

What more valid reason does anyone need than "I am tired of life and want to end it" from someone who is able to give informed consent? I would argue that precedent has been set that quality of life is more important that preserving life at any cost.

Why do you think the doctors would be forced? Oregon and Washington here in the states have legalized assisted suicide for terminally ill patients and any doctor with moral issues are not required to participate.

(July 5, 2015 at 11:00 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Why not create a new industry just for assisted suicide then? It seems reasonable and it would eliminate any further controversies surrounding the problem.

Indeed, why not? As long as proper safeguards are put in place to be certain that the patient is truly desirous and is capable of giving informed consent, like they already do in every jurisdiction I know of that allows assisted suicide.

We've had essentially the same discussion before and I'm sure we'll continue to disagree. I just don't want to turn it into a pissing match like we did last time.

(July 5, 2015 at 11:00 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 10:58 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: And what if there isn't a new drug or treatment within a short timeframe?  That is the more likely situation.

If you don't want to die, don't choose it.  But other people's lives are their lives, not yours.

Then let them take their own lives, not require doctors to do it.

Who said anything about requiring doctors to do it?  I am interested in allowing doctors to do it.

(July 5, 2015 at 11:32 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 11:00 pm)Beccs Wrote: Then let them take their own lives, not require doctors to do it.

Who said anything about requiring doctors to do it?  I am interested in allowing doctors to do it.

But it always comes back to the doctors, doesn't it?

I doubt anyone is going to force any doctors to perform euthanasia. If a doctor is willing to perform the service, though, and the informed, consenting patient wants to end his or her life, I don't see what the problem is.

This is my opinion as a person who has never completely climbed out of any depressive episode; from someone whose default state is apathy; from someone who has been tempted to take her own life many times, but still hasn't done it. There are various reasons for that, none of which being that a euthanasia doctor wasn't available. Actually, it might make me feel a little better to know that if it gets to the point where I just plain can't handle life anymore, I have a more humane option to take my own life than going to the local shooting range... but that's just me.

(July 5, 2015 at 6:11 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 3:15 pm)whateverist Wrote: Sorry, not following.  Do you think people should be restrained or discouraged from suicide while depressed or that they should be granted the right to choose and perhaps even be given a kit to ensure a cleaner, surer end?

Sorry to hear you are another sufferer of depression.  You obviously don't let it stop you.

No, what I'm saying is that people should not be granted euthanasia for depression.

They should also be discouraged from committing suicide and provided with support/help if they are suffering.

Yes, suicidal people will often find ways of killing themselves, but depression can be battled.

Around this time last year I was suicidal because of depression.  I didn't seek help (stupidly, I admit), but depression goes away, death, not so much)

Good.  Glad to hear it and I agree.

(July 5, 2015 at 11:36 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 11:32 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Who said anything about requiring doctors to do it?  I am interested in allowing doctors to do it.

But it always comes back to the doctors, doesn't it?

Who would you recommend to perform euthanasia, a plumber?

I don't think there is much of a distinction between being in constant physical pain and a constant state of severe depression. It could easily be described as mental pain, and it's a lot harder to control.

This is all a very difficult subject and I think it needs way more debate. In this particular case, it seems the person is being forced to stay in the institution. I understand why this may be, but it also makes her ability to kill herself greatly reduced.

At many points I've been about 5 minutes away from killing myself. I'm amazed that it hasn't happened. But if I had have stepped over the line at any point, I'd be faced with how to kill myself. However I do it, I'm going to leave people with a horrible shock and a mess to clean up. It would then be a matter of deciding if someone is allowed to help me do it cleanly with drugs, or if I'm going to call an ambulance to my location and tell them which cliff I'm about to jump off.

It's a whole lot easier I imagine where guns are available. If I had one... I certainly would not be confident I wouldn't have used it already.

Am I glad I didn't kill myself yet? No.