Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
With the words, “In the end, I was left to reflect on what I would want in the face of my own death. I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain. 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,” Governor Brown of California signed into law provisions that will allow terminally ill patients to kill themselves with the assistance of a physician.
What if you have the funds to pay for the assistance and a medical professional contracts voluntarily to assist you? What is the states’ role in that if any?
Actually we pass laws specifically enabling banks to defraud clients.
BrentB67: anyone, especially a medical professional, who purposely kills another person should be prosecuted by the state. Even if the person wanted to be killed.
The word “purposely” is important here. As Merina has pointed out in another post, prescribing pain mess is not an exact science. No doctor should ever be given a hard time because he possibly gave a dying patient too much pain medication.
I don’t believe that anyone is morally obligated to accept medical care that they don’t want. I once met a ninety three year old woman, very happy, very healthy, who told me that she threw out all her medications and stopped going to the doctor when she turned ninety. I fully support her right to do that, but if she had wanted me to play an active role in killing her, that is a totally different story.
Suppose physician-assisted suicide is illegal. What on earth would stop you from killing yourself if you wanted to?
The point is to not sanction this kind of death with the imprimatur of the state.
Joseph,
Thank you so much for writing this. I am horrified by what California has done and the quite logical and foreseeable consequences.
I work in palliative care in cancer, but spent the early part of my career with kids with developmental disabilities and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Working with these kids and there families really shaped my views of how we as a society determine the value of life.
Always glad to hear your perspective.
What JD said. I didn’t say that suicide won’t happen without this culture-of-death law, but it sure will happen a lot more often, and to people who would have recovered from the wish, given time. With a stamp of approval from the state. Let that sink in. The state thinks your suicide is hunky dory, will even encourage it as time goes by. And I would like to point out that this law invites someone else into the suicide, making them a party to it, AKA as murder. One of our members, a nurse, has a horrified post about this over on the member feed. I would feel exactly as she does were I a nurse. Now, I hope they will allow medical people to opt out of this, but how has that worked out for those who are against some types of third party reproduction in CA? Not very well. How has this worked out for Kim Davis? Those who push prog culture are just not very happy when others don’t play along.
This I’m not convinced of. Assume person A is terminally ill and has decided he wants to die. Assume he’s of sound mind and body, and he has signed a document that shows he’s of sound mind and body and wants to die. Assume the State protects the right of contract, and that person A has hired person B to kill him. Assume this contract is documented. Assume the State investigates each such death, the documents, and the body, and can determine person B did not defraud person A, and did exactly what person A hired him to do (but that it prosecutes any case where there’s evidence of foul play and punishes any person found guilty). Assume the State protects a person’s right to do what he wants with his life. What about this situation still causes you to say person B should not be allowed to uphold his side of the contract?
Well, it would be nice if I could buy morphine at Walgreen, instead of using my Glock.
I have seen this a few times now and think it might be mistaken for something else.
When a person is dying he or she stops. He or she stops swallowing. No food. No water. Water will choke that person. The best that might be done is to put a small bit of ice in the mouth and allow it to melt. A trickle of water will make its way down to the stomach. Not enough to maintain life but enough to keep the throat moisturized.
I don’t believe that hospice will intentionally dehydrate a person but given my experience I suspect that a bit of ice is the most that they can offer to a person who cannot swallow anymore.
Suicide is a common occurrence, and a sad one. That said, I believe that people have the right to do what they wish so long as it doesn’t impact others. My argument is that this law on physician-assisted suicide will impact others.
If you take a purely libertarian stance – that there is no role for law to protect the vulnerable there is no point in arguing. We simply disagree. If that is your stance you will need to, in my view, also explain why government is justified in supporting a military or police force
The issue of parenteral nutrition and hydration in those who are unable to feed or drink themselves because of a cerebral catastrophe or other condition or who are near death is a complex one. There is a fine line to walk between hastening death and artificially prolonging life. I am not familiar enough with the Schiavo case to make a direct comment but, as I recall, her designated surrogate made a decision that others in her family tried to override.
well and succintly said
I cared for my dad who had Alzheimer’s. He reached a point of refusing to eat or drink. When that point lasted for 24 hours I called his primary care physician and he advised me to call hospice. When he was admitted I was told that he would be evaluated and there was a chance that he would be moved to an Alzheimer care facility. When I met with the hospice physician she told me that in her opinion that he was not going to leave hospice. I knew she was right and she was. What hospice did for my dad and I was provide an environment that when I couldn’t be there a volunteer would read to him and hold his hand. Hospice allowed me to hold his hand, talk to him, and say my Hail Mary’s as he took his final breaths.
I can’t say enough good about hospice. They provided, free of charge, all kinds of equipment and visits from a home nurse. She was a bright and cheery person who helped keep my Dad comfortable and apprised us of what to expect. There’s an oppressive feel in the house when death is nigh, and she helped dispel that. Imagine what a fun bonus it was when we got to talking and realized we’d been in the same church congregation 30 years earlier! She brought the grace of God to a very difficult time.
The conscience issue is interesting when it comes abortion or euthanasia. Whose conscience might be comprised becomes the question. Does a physician, pharmacist, or hospital that refuses to provide abortions or euthanasia face coercion by the state to do so because it has been made legal.
The ACLU has filed and will continue to file lawsuits against Catholic hospitals that refuse to provide abortion services. The premise for these lawsuits is that these hospitals receive federal health care dollars. Left unsaid is by law these hospitals cannot refuse to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients, much less refuse to care for these patients when they come to the ER.
No way, that can’t be true, why just the other day I read how Governor Brown fixed it all. We be fine now.
You are advocating prosecution and possibly incarceration for a medical professional acting of their own free will and conscience assisting someone also making a choice of their own free will. Neither of which are harming anyone outside of the 2 consenting, contracting adults.
I hope you will recall that position when a state powerful enough to impose your views imposes its views on you.
I bet a majority of the folks on this thread would be against repealing Medicare, Medicaid, and all their associated state programs and entitlements.
When you surrender to the state to provide for your care, you surrender to the state.
If you don’t want the state influencing medical decision on end of life care then stop expecting the state to pay your bills.
No government entity ever disperses a nickel without a string (or in this case, potentially a noose) attached.
If you want the freedom to solely determine your end of life and other medical care then immediately renounce all federal or state medical payment programs, demand your taxes be reduced, and save your funds or purchase an insurance policy to your liking.
A state powerful enough to give you what you think you want/need is equally powerful to take it all away including your life on its terms.
I’m sure it must all be fine now because we are building that high speed train between LA and Fresno, aren’t we? It only costs a few billion per mile, and heck, there are literally dozens of people who will use that line every day! So worth it.
BrentB67: The original Hippocratic Oath forbade both euthanasia and abortion, thousands of years before Christianity. Do you believe that Hippocrates and all the doctors who have ever agreed with him were merely statists trying to impose their will on others, or could it be something else?
The Hippocratic Oath has nothing to do with prosecution by the state.
If a state medical board or some other panel (I am not sure the exact term) de-certifies or renounces a medical professional for participating in assisted suicide or abortion that is a civil matter.
You are advocating a criminal prosecution. Nothing about the Hippocratic Oath is enshrined in criminal law.
BrentB67: ok, Maybe criminal prosecution isn’t the answer. The risk of losing one’s licsence to practice medicine is probably more than enough to keep the vast majority of doctors away from assisted suicide. Either way, the doctor is being punished by the state.
The Hippocratic Oath has been around much longer than any modern state, so modern states probably should take it into consideration. Citizens of a free republic should definitely take it into consideration when deciding issues like assisted suicide.
So true and a point I don’t see/hear repeated enough by the leaders on the right.
If the state is determining the ability of two consenting adults to voluntarily make contracts I am not sure that rises to the level of a free republic.
You will almost never hear it from leaders on the right because they want to be in charge of the state, not free from it.
LA and Fresno?!?!? Pffffft. That would be useless….it’s going to run between Merced and Bakersfield….WAY more useful.
BrentB67: What is your definition of a free republic? Where you see “the state” regulating contracts, I see democratic majorities and their elected representatives. Free doesn’t mean perfect, nor does it mean that I will always agree with the majority, but the state does not exist on its own, at least not in America.
I get the impression that you are in favor of assisted suicide. Am I right about that and if so, do you think it is possible that those of us who oppose assisted suicide might have reasonable concerns?
This has been our experience with hospice, too. In all the cases I’ve witnessed in our family, IV solutions have been given to our elders when recovery was still hoped for. At a certain point, though, it became evident that it was time.
The elder did not want to eat or drink anymore, did not want any more tubes. Just wanted to be left in peace (with palliative medication on hand, though not necessarily asked for) to let nature take its course.
If these deaths counted as death by dehydration, they did not seem especially painful or protracted. I suppose it’s possible that our all elders who died in this way had become too “locked in” to express distress, but the quiet dozing, vague smiles… Pain and terror had come earlier, but genuinely seemed to fade in the final shutting down.