Talking about death is sad.

So this has been a really interesting (if sad) week of posts. I think everyone has brought up fascinating and informative ideas and I'm glad to be here to share my opinions.

First off, I agree wholeheartedly with Pendleton when she says that it's not up to us to legislate morality and personal opinions on morality are not bases for laws. On the flip side, laws are meant to protect the people. Personally though, I believe that there isn't any reason to make a law protecting us from ourselves. Laws are to protect us from other people (or other people from us, as the case may be).

That said, there are lots of factors to assisted suicide. A family member on life support can be a huge drain on a families resources, both financial and mental, and one might argue that if there is just about no chance of the person ever recovering (or recovering with serious brain damage), it would be more worth it to pull the plug. Others might argue that doctors can be wrong and if there is any chance then they should continue as long as they are able. I think that falls squarely into the category of personal choice. The person can't stay alive on their own so allowing the person to die naturally is not really assisted suicide. The same (in my opinion) goes for a Do Not Resuscitate order. If the person's body is already self-destructing, letting it do that is just the natural cycle of life and death.

Of course, one could argue that it's the doctor's job to mess with the natural cycle of life and death. Their job is to prolong life, which has led to an increase of a slew of diseases affecting the elderly. Obviously, this doesn't mean we should stop letting people practice medicine, but it does mean there are more things to consider than someone's body self-destructing.

For example, Brandon brought up the idea of Alzheimer's and how he'd hate to life as a shell of his former self. I fully agree. It must be terrible to live that way and I can say first hand how terrible it is to be around. They aren't the person they used to be, and that's terrifying, but at the same time...I don't think I'd want to die. I think life could still hold happiness. I personally really wouldn't want anyone to have to take care of me and deal with me like that but I don't think I'd want to die.

There was an episode of SVU that brought up the idea that "there is no such thing as a terminal mental illness" and that's both true and sad. If your body is working fine, your brain can be wreaking havoc and there just isn't a quantitative way to measure that. You can't measure quality of life and you can't say "Well, this is bad enough where you are eligible for assisted suicide but you just have to suck it up." There is no way to draw that line. I think if there are diseases where the person suffering has no effective treatment and desires assisted suicide, then it should be an available option after a certain waiting period. Obviously, this seems like a wide net, but I really mean this for only serious comprehensively life-affecting diseases. This is not for people with depression that can be treated.

As far as physical diseases go, I think the body really has its own way of dealing with things, but a slow, painful death is not something anyone should have to endure if it's the only future ahead of them. And even in situations where it might not be terminal, if it's not treatable (and I mean treatable, not curable), then it really seems like the person's choice as to whether or not they would like to endure it.

Health care is expensive and it seems almost immoral to me to force someone to pay for what I can only assume is ridiculously expensive health care (for such a presumably serious disease) just to prolong a life they don't want to live. If someone really wants to end their life, they can probably find a way, and I think giving them a humane option (after serious counseling and various other screening procedures) is the best thing to do.

Assisted Suicide: Does Legalization Do More Harm or More Good?

As far as my personal opinion goes, I’m not positive on exactly where I stand on the issues of suicide or assisted suicide.  I don’t know if I think that it is our place as humans to decide when to end a life, even if it is our own.  But then again, it’s not up to us to legislate morality either.  However, legalizing assisted suicide does have its sticky wickets that we would have to deal with later.  I’m sure you can tell that I’m still kind of going back and forth even as I write this post, but I promise that I’ll eventually get to a point if you hang in there with me.

Regardless of where I personally stand on this issue (I’m not entirely sure where that is anyway), there are a number of important things that need to be taken into consideration.  The first thing that comes to my mind is the potential slippery slope that could come into effect if assisted suicide was legalized.  What would the procedure be? What kind of opportunities would making this option legal open up to people with the wrong intent?  I guess the ultimate question is whether legalizing assisted suicide would do more harm than good.  And no one can completely answer that question.

The other major point within this issue is whether assisted suicide is necessary.  Many of those who are against assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness urge patients to instead stop their treatments, take painkillers, and allow themselves to die naturally.  Since I’ve never been close to anyone who had a terminal illness, I have no idea how or if this works.  Then on the other hand, in many cases, it could save a family their much-needed money if their terminally ill family member wanted to use the option of assisted suicide so they could die peacefully and relieve their family of financial and emotional strain.

Another major thing to think about is the Hippocratic oath.  I’ve never read the oath in full, but I do know when discussing this issue, that the primary section of this document up for debate is the affirmations that doctors make to “never do harm to anyone.”  The way I see it, this phrase can be used to support either side of the debate depending on interpretation.  “Harm” could be interpreted as purposefully killing someone (even if they asked you to do so) or it could be interpreted as continuing to keep someone alive against his or her wishes.  It all depends on the kind of approach is taken, although I’ll admit the second interpretation is a bit of a stretch for even me.

As I said before, I don’t know exactly how I feel about the morality of assisted suicide, but I don’t believe it should be legalized or banned based on anyone’s opinions on the issue.  That being said, there are legitimate facts and concerns that back each side of this issue; however, if I were to vote on the issue today, I would favor the option to legalize assisted suicide.  Overall, I believe that this option would do the greatest amount of good for the most people.  Taking precaution against any foreseeable foul play that could arise, terminally ill patients should have the option to choose if they want to peacefully end their lives to avoid any further mental, physical, or financial suffering.

Kelsey will be back tomorrow to wrap up the discussion of this week's topic.  Thanks again for reading!

If I Ever Get Alzheimer's, Shoot Me In The Face

To start off, thanks to John for covering for me yesterday. I had my wisdom teeth removed on Monday, and I've been kind of out of it ever since. Not 100% sure how much sense I'll be making, but I haven't taken any painkillers since late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning, so I'm gonna give this my best shot.

The legality of this issue is a messy one, though really, I don't know if it should be. As Kelsey mentioned, there are a couple of states that allow it, and the conditions on it are pretty restrictive. Multiple doctors need to sign a form saying that you only have a few months to live, and then that's it. It seems like a pretty decent set of restrictions, after all, we can't have people running around getting poison from the doctor whenever they want. This seemed like an acceptable idea, and I actually wrote a research paper in favor of it in high school. However, as time as passed, other situations that it doesn't quite cover have left me less and less comfortable with it.

Most immediately, the issue of terminal illnesses that won't kill you immediately. As the title of this post suggests, the idea of dementia terrifies me. The idea of going on living as this empty shell of who I used to be is just... it's terrifying. I would hate to go on with life that way. It just sounds unbearable.

This may sound heartless, but I don't think that Do Not Resuscitate orders and refusing treatment are that different from straight up going the assisted suicide route. The only difference is that it's passive instead of active as a choice.

What it comes down to is that if somebody is ready to die, then they should have the legal right to do so. The mechanism used to enact that choice isn't nearly as relevant. Forcing people to go on beyond the point where they've ceased to really be people against their wishes isn't right, and I think the law needs to allow this option. I'm not really sure of the best way to adjust the existing law in states that allow it. Perhaps opening the option up to anyone with a terminal illness regardless of how long they have to live, but requiring them to sit on the decision for a certain number of months before they can actually do it? I don't know.

Well, that ended up being rather depressing. We'll be returning to our normal post schedule tomorrow with Pendleton, and again, thank you to John for posting early.

“In the darkest hours we must believe in ourselves.”

Surprise!  I know that you were all expecting Brandon's post here, but...

... Wait, no, come back!  I promise, he'll have his post up a bit later in the week.  I'm just filling in due to extenuating circumstances (and painkillers).

So, assisted suicide.  I worried for a while about this post, because I (among other people) wasn't sure if there would be much variance between the posts - but since we've opened it up from just the legality of the issue (thank you, Kelsey, for an amazingly awesome intro post), I'm much more confident.

Initially, I'll talk a bit about the legality of assisted suicide.  Virginia is somewhat odd in its handling of assisted suicide - there's been no real decision made on the matter, for the most part.  There's a statute which imposes civil sanctions on anyone involved in suicide, but the act isn't clearly defined as criminal.  There's really not a whole lot to debate, there, besides potentially comparing it to other states' policies.  The majority of the United States treats assisted suicide as an explicitly criminal act... which I don't necessarily agree with. Yes, you're aiding in the death of someone, but if it's in accordance with their wishes and desires, should it really be considered -criminal-?  That's not for me to decide, though, so I'm going to leave the legality bit right there.

My personal feelings, on the other hand, run much deeper (and along many more confusing, twisted paths).  First off, we'll look at "Do Not Resuscitate".  I have absolutely no problem with this concept - at least in terms of illness, or other debilitating diseases.  If someone is dying to an illness, and their body fails, then by all means, let them go.  Our bodies are incredibly resilient, and if they go through enough to shut down, I think it does more harm than good in trying to force them to do even more.  I understand that it's hard for people to look on, armed with the knowledge that they could keep someone they care for from dying... but I also believe that allowing nature to run its course in those instances is a good first step toward healing.  I do want to re-empathize that this references only instances involving diseases and the like - if a fairly healthy person ripped off their oxygen mask, or something, then the line would move a fair bit.  I think that refusal of treatment falls into this definition, as well - it's a patient's right to refuse medical treatment, and if their body naturally gives out as a result... well, that was their decision.

So what about non-immediate dangers?  If someone discovers they only have a year left to live, should assisted suicide be permissible?  On the one hand, having that kind of thing over your head can (I'm assuming) be a fantastic motivator to do the things you've always wanted to, and really live life to its fullest.  But is there a specific timeframe where it's acceptable?  If someone has a year to live, and they have no desire to "live it up", why shouldn't they be able to just end their life then, and save themselves (and potentially their family) from unnecessary bills and expenses?  ... I don't think there's a correct answer here, necessarily, but I do believe that a concerted effort should be made to hold off on any form of suicide for as long as possible.  Technology has the potential to increase quickly enough that what seems impossible right now could be semi-commonplace in a year's time.  Is it likely to happen?  Who knows?  But if you can keep the hope of living on alive, shouldn't that be enough to keep you going?

Reduced quality of life... this one is pretty tough.  Let's take a paraplegic, for example.  A "normal, everyday" person somehow gets hit by a car and will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of their life.  Is this a situation where assisted suicide would be acceptable?  ... Basing my own personal feelings off the idea above, I'd still have to say no.  Yes, the quality of their life would have changed in a (potentially) negative fashion - however, this doesn't mean that their life would no longer have meaning.  Look at Stephen Hawking.  He started being affected by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis at age 20.  It's common for people to pass away within 10 years of being diagnosed with the disease - he's had it for five times that, and he's still alive.  If he had just given up and chosen to commit suicide after his diagnosis... well, I can't even really imagine how things would be different.  If that's not a compelling case, I don't know what is.

The involvement of doctors is a bit more clear-cut for me.  One of the most basic cornerstones for physicians through the years has been the Hippocratic Oath (though it's become less widely used).  I believed that people operating under the Hippocratic Oath were sworn to preserve life however and wherever they were able - however, I think that my viewpoint has changed after reading multiple translations of the Oath.  The original version includes these lines:

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman apessary to cause an abortion.


But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

The classic translation of the Oath changes the lines to the following:

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.


And, finally, the more modern translation reads as follows:

If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.


The modern translation seems to provide some form of direction for the issue - it's an unfortunate truth that hospital care in our country is rather expensive, and a prolonged stay will almost certainly strain most people's monetary situations.  At some point, you have to weigh what's potentially best for one person against what's potentially best for others.  Am I advocating doctor-assisted suicide?  ... Not intentionally.  But I do think that they have a place in helping people make decisions about their health and life.  That's their job, after all.

I think I've rambled on enough - I'm going to wrap up with a personal thought.  In most cases, I'm personally completely against suicide as an option (if you can even call it that) for people.  Suicide can seem like a quick fix for life's problems, but the reality is that the person usually just passes their problems on to other people - generally, the ones who care about them.  I've been in situations where friends, family members, and even the people I've cared most about have contemplated (and attempted... and, once, successfully committed) suicide.  The sense of loss that accompanies suicide is tremendous, and not something that I would wish upon anyone.  I only describe myself as against the idea in "most" cases because absolutes are rarely correct - but I'm pretty close.  The other posts so far have been pretty interesting, and I'm looking forward to reading the others as they come.

As always. thanks for reading, and feel free to post any questions, thoughts, or flames below.

The Problem is, How Can You be Sure?

The idea of legally assisted suicide bothers me. Not in a morally wrong bother, but in the idea we are considering one type of suicide as legally okay, but other types of suicide are not. Since most assisted suicide seems to happen in the case of deadly illness, is it because this person knows that they are going to die anyway that it is okay.

When I keep thinking about this topic, I find myself struggling with what to say. Though Kelsey's statement about "Do Not Resuscitate" has sparked my thinking. Or at least sparked my frustration in that I think "Do Not Resuscitate" should be honored. A persons wishes should be honored; there is no need to drag out a person's life is they are not going to be resuscitated. Perhaps then legally assisted suicide is similar in that regards. I do not like the idea of it being completely illegal, charging the people who do it with murder when they were fulfilling another's request, but then how can you always know when that is what they wanted. "Do Not Resuscitate" is easier in that regard because it is something set out, and assisted suicide may not always be so easy or explicitly stated.

It's a stand off with me. I believe to some degree that people should be in control of their own life, even in how they die, but I also have that belief that life is sacred to some degree and should be protected. But then I don't feel like I have any insights on this topic because I haven't quite figured out my opinion myself. It's one of those topics you never feel like you yourself are going to have to confront, so why worry about it a lot. Though I suppose you could say that about a lot of things. It's just that, if assisted suicide cannot be made clear cut in legality, then whether a person's actions falls under assisted suicide or murder would be left up to the discretion of the people involved in the case.

I can see a person's desire to end their life with only a few, painful months to live. I can understand that. But I can see the struggles of a legal system trying to define the parameters of legally assisted suicide, even though I know that's not often why states make it illegal. Though perhaps no matter what our desires and understandings, the moral parameters of death should be kept in place. Maybe it would be a door once opened that we would not be able to close. Or perhaps that's too paranoid and legalizing assisted suicide would actually be rather smooth. Too many what ifs. Or maybe not.

So I can't exactly say whether or not assisted suicide should be legal. I think it should be less... illegal, if that makes sense, but I can't see it being a hundred percent legal in our system, so I know there will always be limitations, as their should be.

I suppose those are my jumbled thoughts on legally assisted suicide. I could have spoken more at length on my frustration with families ignoring "Do No Resuscitate" or trying to extend the life of aging patients who are going to soon die. From what I learned about the topic, it was drain on the medical system and has always felt grossly unfair to the dying patients who families cannot let go. Perhaps that is harsh, but that is how I feel about it. That is my essential feelings on it, addressing it anymore would be ranting and not so much logical discussion. So I believe I shall end my post here, and allow you to go on with your day until tomorrow, when you read another post.

In The Worst Situations

When I saw this topic, I was concerned about having enough to say about it.  I don't know much about the laws or reasons behind assisted suicide, so I though this post was going to be super short.  So, I would like to thank Kelsey very much for her topic announcement and her research on the subject!  I think the questions she posted were great, so I'm going to use them as a semi-guideline, if that is all right with everyone.

Okay, so I started thinking about this topic and the little I knew about assisted suicide.  If someone is terminally ill and only have a few months to live with little hope of ever getting better, there is always a chance that they will surpass the doctor's expectations and live for a year or more.  Doctors can just give an estimate to how a person's body is going to respond to something, but they can't actually tell the person what will happen with complete certainty.  Even multiple doctors can be fooled into thinking one way, and something else may occur.  I didn't want to make this about me, so I will go into a short version of the example that automatically comes to my mind when talking about proving doctors wrong.  Those of you who know this already, bear with me.  When I was born three and a half months early, I had a fifteen percent estimation of actually surviving and a zero percent chance of ever walking.  All of the doctors thought that if I even survived, I would be stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of my life.  Needless to say, twenty years later I am walking and able to do much more than anyone ever thought possible back then.

Off the subject of my lovely life story and back to assisted suicide.  I think if someone doesn't have much time to live and they don't think they have anything to live for, they should be allowed to make the decision of whether or not to commit some form of suicide , assisted or not.  Personally, if I was stuck in a white-walled sterile-smelling hospital with no one to visit me and very little time left to live, I think I would want to at least be allowed the option of choosing when and how I want to die.  I'm not saying I would take it, because I like living way too much and would refuse to die in a hospital anyway, but having the option is much better then not.  If someone wanted to die in their own home instead of a hospital, I say let them.  It's certainly the choice I would make, but I hate hospitals so I may be a little biased.

One of Kelsey's questions was does Do Not Resuscitate count as assisted suicide?  I don't think that it should, because it is the person's own decision, or the decision of their family.  It's what they wanted, so I think they should be allowed to choose not to be resuscitated.  If someone is in horrible pain and chooses DNR, I wouldn't want to bring them back to a world of pain and little hope of ever getting better.

These examples are kind of doom and gloom and extreme, and there are always exceptions and different cases.  All the different situations would be impossible to write in one post, so I'm just generalizing the worst situations.  If someone is able to live, heart beating and brain working, then they should try to do so, because you never know what may happen to turn a horrible situation into a better one.  They may have few people in the world who care for them, but at least the doctors/nurses care for the most part if no one else does.  That's something, right?

The last question Kelsey asked was "Should people be required to live if they are physically capable of doing so, because anything else would be immoral?"  The key words here seem to be "physically capable."  If someone is able to physically live a life, that is very different from actually living a life.  One is "going through the motions" (to take a quote from a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode), without actually paying attention or caring about what is going on, and actually living is an investment in other people as well as the physically body.  You have to be mentally prepared to live, and want to actually live, not just do what is expected of you.  If you just do what is expected of you without any emotions or caring, are you really living?  Or do you just walk around like a zombie who is as good as dead anyway?

Anyway, this got  long and kind of ramble-y, and I apologize for that and for forcing my life story upon you as an example, even if it was a good example of the that particular idea.  So, Kathleen is up tomorrow, and I can't wait to read what everyone else has to say about this topic.  Cheers.

Week of 7/22 - Legalization of Assisted Suicide

The topic this week is the legalization of assisted suicide. As of right now, assisted suicide is legal in only 2 states (Oregon and Washington), but is that too many or too few? Obviously, this topic is a bit narrow (for instance, my personal opinions on a topic may differ from what I believe the legality should be), so we're trying to broaden this topic to be as interesting as possible.

For example, should assisted suicide be a valid option if you get a certain number of doctors to verify that you have only a few months to live? What about non-life-threatening conditions that greatly reduce quality of life? What if there is a treatment but it's refused? Is quality of life a valid factor? Do "Do Not Resuscitate" orders count as assisted suicide? Should there be assisted suicide options for non-medical reasons? And is it ethical for doctors to be involved in this at all, given that their job is to save lives, not end them?

Around the world, this is a topic that provokes a lot of controversy. For example, in Virginia, assisted suicide is not permitted (no act may be taken to end a life), but withholding life-prolonging procedures does not constitute assisted suicide. In Germany, they can declare someone a Garantenstellung for the well-being of another and if purposeful harm were to befall that person (such as if they committed suicide themselves), the Garantenstellung would be guilty of homicide by omission.

So what do you think? Should someone's life be their choice, including whether or not it should end? Or should people be required to live if they're physically capable of doing so, because anything else would be immoral?

I look forward to seeing everyone's ideas on it this week.