Switch Theme:

California becomes 5th Right-To-Die State  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

Via NPR:

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/10/05/446107800/california-governor-signs-landmark-right-to-die-law

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed landmark legislation Monday, allowing terminally ill patients to obtain lethal medication to end their lives when and where they choose.

In a deeply personal note, Brown said he read opposition materials carefully, but in the end was left to reflect on what he would want in the face of his own death.

"I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain," he wrote. "I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn't deny that right to others."

The new law requires two doctors to determine that a patient has six months or less to live before prescribing the drugs. Patients must be physically able to swallow the medication themselves and must have the mental capacity to make medical decisions.

Brown's signature concludes a hotly contested, 10-month debate that elicited impassioned testimony from lawmakers, cancer patients who fear deaths marked by uncontrollable pain and suffering, and religious and disability advocates who fear coercion and abuse.

Marg Hall, disability rights advocate with the Communities United in Defense of Olmstead, had this to say Monday: "I'm disappointed and I'm worried. Given the level of dysfunction and injustice that exists currently in our health care system, with many people without insurance still, with the very underfunded ability of people to have choices for treatment and care, adding this very potentially dangerous tool to the mix is of great concern to people with disabilities."

The law will take effect in 2016, which is 91 days after the special legislative session concludes. At that time, California will become the fifth state to allow physician-assisted suicide. Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont permit the practice. It was permitted in New Mexico until August, when the state supreme court ruled to outlaw the practice. Attorneys for the doctors and their patients vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The California law is set to expire in 10 years, unless the Legislature passes another law to extend it.


With same-sex marriage being mostly "settled" and abortion continuing in the current stale-mate with minor swings back and forth, I would not be surprised at all if Right-To-Die becomes the next "social justice" hot-button issue in our country.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






I can see why people who have to live in California would want to die.

Good for them.

"The Omnissiah is my Moderati" 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter




Seattle

Abortion was decided 40 years ago, what has continued that battle are people attempting to legislate their religion. This matter is not so very different.

It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 Alex C wrote:
I can see why people who have to live in California would want to die.


Can't lie, I lulzed a little.

I find it very hard to conjure an argument against terminally ill patients being able to end their suffering and frankly I doubt even the OT is going to be able to come up with any really strenuous arguments prohibiting it. This is one of those things I think conservatives and liberals agree on even if it's for slightly different reasons.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/05 22:20:37


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






 Ouze wrote:
 Alex C wrote:
I can see why people who have to live in California would want to die.


Can't lie, I lulzed a little.

I find it very hard to conjure an argument against terminally ill patients being able to end their suffering and frankly I doubt even the OT is going to be able to come up with any really strenuous arguments prohibiting it. This is one of those things I think conservatives and liberals agree on even if it's for slightly different reasons.


I got one
"MUH RELIGION"
But in all honesty, I have mixed feelings, while you can get better, its also unlikely.

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Los Angeles

 Alex C wrote:
I can see why people who have to live in California would want to die.


Herp-ah-derp-ah-doo!





On topic: I am actually glad that Governor Brown signed the bill.

Keeping people alive and suffering because...reasons! never sat right with me.

I feel badly for the people who are in pain now but won't be able to take advantage of the law for another few months. Grim stuff.
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine





NorCal

 Alex C wrote:
I can see why people who have to live in California would want to die.

Good for them.


Agreed 100%.

The Undying Spawn of Shub-Niggurath
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660749.page


Twitter: BigFatJerkface
https://twitter.com/AdamInOakland

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 Ouze wrote:

I find it very hard to conjure an argument against terminally ill patients being able to end their suffering


I don't have any real arguments against the practice itself. I do have some concerns about some issues like "are they just depressed", "are they really terminal", "are they just doing it so they are not a burden to their kids" and other thoughts along that line and I would hope that Right-To-Die legislation tries to address these issues, which it looks like this particular legislation does.

and frankly I doubt even the OT is going to be able to come up with any really strenuous arguments prohibiting it. This is one of those things I think conservatives and liberals agree on even if it's for slightly different reasons.


I would guess that the big issues, other than stuff related to concerns similar than the ones I had, will be "doctors shouldn't kill, even indirectly" and "suicide is a sin".

Slightly related question to everyone because I'm not sure: Does life insurance pay out a policy after suicide? Should the same rules for suicide apply to Right-To-Die cases?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Los Angeles

 d-usa wrote:
Slightly related question to everyone because I'm not sure: Does life insurance pay out a policy after suicide? Should the same rules for suicide apply to Right-To-Die cases?


Hm. That is an angle I never considered before. That gets tricky rather quickly. doesn't it?

I know nothing of life insurance, but Google says that "[u]sually, this clause states that no death benefit will be paid if the insured commits suicide within two years of taking out a policy. Whenever an insured person replaces an existing life insurance policy with a new one, the time clock for the suicide clause is set back to zero and starts over again."

If that two year window is ported over to Right-To-Die cases I can imagine people "hanging on" long enough to not nullify their policy. Sort of a perverse twist on murdering for life insurance money.
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






No complaints from me about the bill becoming law.

 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Ditto... as long as they're coherent of mind.

As to life insurance, pretty sure suicides renders policy void as general rule.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Southern California, USA

 Alex C wrote:
I can see why people who have to live in California would want to die.

Good for them.


As a native Californian I laughed.

I agree with this. Why should people be made to suffer if they have no hope to live?

Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Slightly related question to everyone because I'm not sure: Does life insurance pay out a policy after suicide? Should the same rules for suicide apply to Right-To-Die cases?


Hm. That is an angle I never considered before. That gets tricky rather quickly. doesn't it?

I know nothing of life insurance, but Google says that "[u]sually, this clause states that no death benefit will be paid if the insured commits suicide within two years of taking out a policy. Whenever an insured person replaces an existing life insurance policy with a new one, the time clock for the suicide clause is set back to zero and starts over again."

If that two year window is ported over to Right-To-Die cases I can imagine people "hanging on" long enough to not nullify their policy. Sort of a perverse twist on murdering for life insurance money.


I wonder if the company has medical insurance with the same individual, they would give some form of credit for avoided expenses that could possibly exceed the payout on life insurance. Sounds impossible, but a lot of stuff I thought was impossible years ago is the real deal nowadays.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Ouze wrote:
I find it very hard to conjure an argument against terminally ill patients being able to end their suffering and frankly I doubt even the OT is going to be able to come up with any really strenuous arguments prohibiting it. This is one of those things I think conservatives and liberals agree on even if it's for slightly different reasons.


There's a few reasonable arguments, I think. I think probably the strongest argument is that palliative care has improved massively in the last decade, and is expected to improve even more. There's a lot of conditions we can now control, people will still bedridden, but they won't be stuck with intense pain or nausea. We can't do this for every terminal condition, but we can for an increasing number, reducing the need for right-to-die.

The second reason, pretty closely attached to the first, is that right-to-die might let us walk away from the need to provide as high a level of care as we can. The level of care described above is very expensive. But faced between a person having 6 more months of life in intense agony or relative comfort, we will find the money in almost every case. But if instead we can just let them die, we might push more people down that option rather than do the hard thing of finding that money.

And there's also great potential for over-reach, for expanding the right to die to conditions that aren't immediately terminal. It is perhaps something of a slippery slope argument, but Belgian law right now allows right to die for many incurable diseases, including psychological conditions. Watching a few cases on people's decisions there was quite an uncomfortable thing.

And finally, there's an argument that isn't so much about rejecting these laws entirely, but a call to be very careful about their implementation. There is great potential for abuse, and so before any law is put in place we have to be certain that no-one can be pressured in to euthanasia.


I don't personally find those arguments complete, or enough, to over-ride the choice of a terminally ill person. But I think they are a lot more reasonable than, say, the arguments against gay marriage.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/06 00:53:50


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Sniping Reverend Moira





Cincinnati, Ohio

I support Chris Buckleys boomsday initiative.

 
   
Made in us
Colonel





This Is Where the Fish Lives

 Alex C wrote:
I can see why people who have to live in California would want to die.

Dammit, you beat me to it!

 d-usa wrote:
"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
 
   
Made in au
Terrifying Treeman






The Fallen Realm of Umbar

This is a pretty good move, apart from needing to be able to swallow the medication, that is a dumb clause that should be removed when the bill is extended.

DT:90-S++G++M++B+IPw40k07+D+A+++/cWD-R+T(T)DM+
Horst wrote:This is how trolling happens. A few cheeky posts are made. Then they get more insulting. Eventually, we revert to our primal animal state, hurling feces at each other while shreeking with glee.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





There's something inside me that doesn't like this. Maybe it's just that suicide cuts close to home for me, maybe it's that I don't think anyone should take a human life which by extension includes our own. That said one's life is one's own to do with as one pleases, including ending it I suppose. I don't like it, I don't like it, I don't like it and I don't think I ever will but it's ultimately really not my place to judge.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/06 02:50:19


 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






The Dog-house

 Chongara wrote:
There's something inside me that doesn't like this. Maybe it's just that suicide cuts close to home for me, maybe it's that I don't think anyone should take a human life which by extension includes our own. That said one's life is one's own to do with as one pleases, including ending it I suppose. I don't like it, I don't like it, I don't like it and I don't think I ever will but it's ultimately really not my place to judge.


Same feeling over here. I feel that the only death is the one you don't know thats coming.... What I mean is, a terminally ill patient is well, terminal, but stranger things have happened when said person lives. Passing a bill like this basically sums down to "Oh you are suffering. Why don't you kill yourself. Its easier" in my mind

H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
 Chongara wrote:
There's something inside me that doesn't like this. Maybe it's just that suicide cuts close to home for me, maybe it's that I don't think anyone should take a human life which by extension includes our own. That said one's life is one's own to do with as one pleases, including ending it I suppose. I don't like it, I don't like it, I don't like it and I don't think I ever will but it's ultimately really not my place to judge.


Same feeling over here. I feel that the only death is the one you don't know thats coming.... What I mean is, a terminally ill patient is well, terminal, but stranger things have happened when said person lives. Passing a bill like this basically sums down to "Oh you are suffering. Why don't you kill yourself. Its easier" in my mind


Indeed. Plus there is a lot of room for abuse of mentally unstable people. There need to be serious hoops to jump through for this to even be remotely reasonable. At minimum, I would say people who are deemed mentally unstable or who no longer have power of attorney should be prevented from using this. IE: Only the person in question should be allowed to make the decision, not someone who has legal guardianship. I would also say health care providers should not be allowed to suggest it as an option to prevent them from leading someone to it who otherwise wouldn't have considered it.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine





NorCal

 Chongara wrote:
There's something inside me that doesn't like this. Maybe it's just that suicide cuts close to home for me, maybe it's that I don't think anyone should take a human life which by extension includes our own. That said one's life is one's own to do with as one pleases, including ending it I suppose. I don't like it, I don't like it, I don't like it and I don't think I ever will but it's ultimately really not my place to judge.


In all seriousness, the right to choose the ultimate "opt out" is the most basic form of freedom in society. If you aren't property of the state, meaning an incarcerated prisoner or under military service contract, you should have the option to end your life in a humane manner. I mean lets face it, the world is depressing blah blah blah.

We're overpopulated as hell anyway.

The Undying Spawn of Shub-Niggurath
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660749.page


Twitter: BigFatJerkface
https://twitter.com/AdamInOakland

 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Hah, overpopulation

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Same feeling over here. I feel that the only death is the one you don't know thats coming.... What I mean is, a terminally ill patient is well, terminal, but stranger things have happened when said person lives. Passing a bill like this basically sums down to "Oh you are suffering. Why don't you kill yourself. Its easier" in my mind


Well yeah, being easier is the entire point! Let's be clear on this: if you are terminally ill you are going to die. And before you die your quality of life is going to decline to effectively zero (or even less than zero, arguably). You are going to be confined to a hospital bed and lose access to many, if not all, of the things that you enjoy. You are probably going to experience considerable pain and/or side effects from any treatment you get. You will lose your mental abilities because of the painkillers, and if you have the wrong terminal illness you might have your mind and entire identity destroyed. And everyone who cares about you will have to watch this process, and potentially make the final decision to take you off life support. Is it possible for there to be a miracle that lets you be the one-in-a-billion survivor? I guess. And even if other people choose otherwise you're still free to make the choice to keep fighting for yourself.

I mean, FFS, we don't even force our pets to go through that kind of end. How many people who oppose right-to-die laws have decided "life for the sake of life isn't worth it anymore" when their beloved pet is suffering? Humans aren't special snowflakes here. If a person doesn't want to fight and suffer all the way to the bitter end then let them settle their affairs, enjoy whatever quality time they have left, and end their life on their own terms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:
There's a few reasonable arguments, I think. I think probably the strongest argument is that palliative care has improved massively in the last decade, and is expected to improve even more. There's a lot of conditions we can now control, people will still bedridden, but they won't be stuck with intense pain or nausea. We can't do this for every terminal condition, but we can for an increasing number, reducing the need for right-to-die.


But honestly, does this really mean much? Being bedridden for literally the rest of your life is still a pretty bad outcome. You might not be in intense pain but you've still lost most of the things that made your life worth living. And, unlike patients who are bedridden for an extended period with treatable problems, you don't even have the hope that the loss of quality of life is temporary and just the price you pay for many more years of happy living in the future. Are there people who would be content with that situation and find ways to give their life meaning? Of course, and they should get the best palliative care we can provide. But there are also people for whom that "life" would be nothing more than prolonging the wait before they can finally die. And in that case use the wonders of modern medicine to give them as much life as they want and let them go out on their own terms.

And remember, we're still talking about adding days/weeks/months before a person inevitably dies, not putting a terminal illness on hold and giving a person years of happy life. The situation might get more complicated when a "terminal" illness means "you'll probably die of this within 10 years, if something else doesn't kill you first". But right now it's the same kind of "controversy" as the argument that we can never unplug life support because all of the amazing machines we've invented are capable of keeping a person's body "alive" long after their brain is gone.

And there's also great potential for over-reach, for expanding the right to die to conditions that aren't immediately terminal. It is perhaps something of a slippery slope argument, but Belgian law right now allows right to die for many incurable diseases, including psychological conditions. Watching a few cases on people's decisions there was quite an uncomfortable thing.


I don't think this is anywhere near as big of an issue as some people think. If a person wants to die badly enough to jump through all the hoops of the formal euthanasia process then it's a fairly safe bet that they'll be determined enough to find an alternative way to die. It will probably be more painful and/or messier, but they're still dead. So really you're talking about the small number of people who want to die but are so crippled by whatever problems they're suffering from that are physically unable to, say, jump in front of a train. And I'd say that level of suffering pretty clearly qualifies as a case where their belief that life isn't worth it could be justified.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/06 05:33:07


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Moonbeam finally did something right. About damn time. Now for the rest of you loser states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Psienesis wrote:
Abortion was decided 40 years ago, what has continued that battle are people attempting to legislate their religion. This matter is not so very different.


Thats a separate thread but hardly. Viability keeps trending closer to conception and THATS the standard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peter Wiggin wrote:
 Chongara wrote:
There's something inside me that doesn't like this. Maybe it's just that suicide cuts close to home for me, maybe it's that I don't think anyone should take a human life which by extension includes our own. That said one's life is one's own to do with as one pleases, including ending it I suppose. I don't like it, I don't like it, I don't like it and I don't think I ever will but it's ultimately really not my place to judge.


In all seriousness, the right to choose the ultimate "opt out" is the most basic form of freedom in society. If you aren't property of the state, meaning an incarcerated prisoner or under military service contract, you should have the option to end your life in a humane manner. I mean lets face it, the world is depressing blah blah blah.

We're overpopulated as hell anyway.


Oh my, a Libertarian argument. Excellent.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/06 11:47:26


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






The Dog-house

Do we have a definition of terminally ill?

H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Do we have a definition of terminally ill?



"The Omnissiah is my Moderati" 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Do we have a definition of terminally ill?


yes. Taken from the text of the bill:

443.1. As used in this part, the following definitions shall apply:
(q) “Terminal disease” means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months.



http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520162AB15

Interestingly:

443.18. Nothing in this part may be construed to authorize a physician or any other person to end an individual’s life by lethal injection, mercy killing, or active euthanasia. Actions taken in accordance with this part shall not, for any purposes, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, homicide, or elder abuse under the law.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






The Dog-house

 Polonius wrote:
 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Do we have a definition of terminally ill?


yes. Taken from the text of the bill:

443.1. As used in this part, the following definitions shall apply:
(q) “Terminal disease” means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months.



http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520162AB15

Interestingly:

443.18. Nothing in this part may be construed to authorize a physician or any other person to end an individual’s life by lethal injection, mercy killing, or active euthanasia. Actions taken in accordance with this part shall not, for any purposes, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, homicide, or elder abuse under the law.


Um... right to die means you dont have the right to die? This bill is very confusing

H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

Prestor Jon wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
 cincydooley wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
You think it's trivial. Other people don't. You can equate gun suicide with crime because people die unnecessarily.


No. Suicides are people CHOOSING to kill themselves. Lumping them in with the violent crime is disingenuous at best.

I do love how people that choose to commit suicide this way are viewed so differently than those choosing to commit suicide over in that other thread where it's all "good for California."


Depends on mental illness, which is something that the law in California is specifically addressing.

But I guess "I'm depressed, nobody loves me, I'm a failure, war is hell, feth life" is the same as "I'm going to die in 3 months and would like not to be in pain".


Is your argument above that it's okay for people to choose to kill themselves to avoid enduring physical pain but it's not okay for people who are enduring mental or emotional pain that they don't want to tolerate to commit suicide? Pain is pain.


The argument laid forth is that its okay for terminally ill people to kill themselves, not people who have physical pain. If you break every bone in your body you wouldn't meet the criteria under this particular law, because pain is really not the determining factor. It's the terminal disease aspect that is the deciding factor. The motivation for the law is not "you are in pain, here is your way out", the motivation is "you are going to die soon anyway, here is your way to die on your terms". Mental pain usually isn't terminal, unless you want to count suicide as the terminal end to mental pain. The guy with neuropathy or arthritis or phantom limb pain won't be eligible because it's not terminal, and that's why mental health diagnoses likely won't be either.

Mental Health also still has the stigma that most people consider it an easy fix, unlike "real" diseases, and that you just need to want to get better and you would be better. So that's an additional hurdle IMO.

The state shouldn't force anyone to endure pain against their will, that's horrible.


Agree.

But in reality we do force many people to endure pain via policies, cuts to welfare, prisons, etc.

Regardless of the type of pain being endured or any other reasoning behind a suicide, a person is still entitled to exert whatever amount of control over their life and death that he/she is capable of exerting. The state doesn't need to interfere with the personal choice of deteining when your life ends.


The libertarian argument is that any person that is mentally capable of making an informed and sound decision should be able to make that decision as long as it doesn't affect someone else. And to a large extend I can honestly agree with that.

The problem is, like I mentioned, that at this point pretty much everybody at the clinical and policy level agrees that wanting to kill yourself means that you are currently unable to make an informed and sound decision. Wanting to kill yourself is a sign of a mental illness, so because you are mentally ill you are not currently competent to make the decision to kill yourself. It's very much circular logic, but I don't know when, or if, that would change.

But society has started to make the move that wanting to die is not a sign of mental illness when you are going to die anyway. So that's a step.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/10 01:24:25


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




To put this into context, in the trigger lock thread d and Prestor were having a discussion about the state having things in place to prevent easy suicide. The number of suicides by gun was being spoken of, which led me to comment on d's point, which I thought was good:

I will throw this in here, though, because I like where I think d is heading. Think about a , ""heat of passion" killing. If the person has time to think about what they're doing, they usually wouldn't have killed someone. Could the same not be true for someone who says, "Aw, feth it.", and put a gun to their head, who, being forced to take another minute to think, would instead say, "Aw feth, that's crazy"?
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: