Wash. state woman 1st death under new suicide law

[Biggie]

And if I’m wrong, I entrust myself to God’s mercy, because it’s His representatives that helped me work this all out.

Here’s a “Hey y’all” from Covington, KY - just next to Cincinnati, OH. And it’s complicated but as an outsider I see the morality of all the decisions you have made. We too have endured a number of similar trials.

So Go Cats!

 

[apromisemade]

Needless to say, you sound a little alienated from your own legacy. Without engaging in an ancillary debate, let’s just say not all share your historical viewpoint, and those who do not would not consider this a serious recount of the American epoch. Silly, in fact, both in accuracy and perspective.

But you seem to think you are on the side of the “little guy” - by killing him. Interesting.

Sounds to me like you’re denying these exploits of the conquistadors, slavery of african-americans, and the japanese internment ever happened, or at least are insisting it wasn’t that bad.

But you’re right, that’s another debate.

My point was, America was never exactly the garden of Eden. Though our goverment was founded on revolutionary ideas, our nation is still and always will be subject so some of the grimmer aspects of human nature as is the rest of the world. We will always be capable of devaluing human life in our own minds in one respect or another.

I am not for killing anybody. The only thing doing the killing in this situtation would be the disease. Nobody choses to get a fatal illness, but how to deal with the illness is the choice of the patient and his or her family.

 

[Fae76]

Hello all,

this is my first post here - I’ve been a member and reading along for awhile but I’ve never posted before.

I’m German and have been living in Sweden for seven years. I’m a doctor and will be finishing my specialty training in psychiatry this summer.

Physician assisted suicide is much discussed here in Sweden. Since laws have been passed in other European countries, it’s becoming more and more probable Sweden will be one of the next.

I see people suffering every day. I’ve seen people die of cancer. I’ve been suicidal during a depressive episode myself. I can say that thinking of writing such a prescription makes me sick. I do emphatise, and I’ve seen lots of research on this - showing that it’s not about the pain, it’s almost always about keeping in control and not being dependent on others.

Who am I to decide that this person’s suffering is enough to let them die, and this other person’s isn’t?

Everyone is always talking about how mental illnesses don’t “qualify”, but event though most of my colleagues don’t like to see this, there are patients we cannot help. There are patients who won’t reach a remission from their depression, who have to suffer for years on end. Who am I to judge if their pain is more or less than anyone else’s?

It honestly baffles me how some colleagues thinks this is a clear-cut matter. I had the possibility to meet colleagues from the Netherlands at an international congress a short time ago, and while none of them takes this responsibility lightly, a lot of them seem to think that they think it’s ok they have that responsibility in the first place.

Long story short - I can’t give life, and I can’t see how it’s right that I should be taking it. I can’t imagine my name on a prescription that is made to kill another person. That’s not what I signed up for, and I hope it’ll take some time until I will have to deal with this - though I’m doubtful it will be too long.

PS - to address the cases mentioned before, there is a huge difference between withholding/not wanting treatment, and ending a life directly.

 

[Biggie]

Sounds to me like you’re denying these exploits of the conquistadors, slavery of african-americans, and the japanese internment ever happened, or at least are insisting it wasn’t that bad.

But you’re right, that’s another debate.

My point was, America was never exactly the garden of Eden. Though our goverment was founded on revolutionary ideas, our nation is still and always will be subject so some of the grimmer aspects of human nature as is the rest of the world. We will always be capable of devaluing human life in our own minds in one respect or another.

I am not for killing anybody. The only thing doing the killing in this situtation would be the disease. Nobody choses to get a fatal illness, but how to deal with the illness is the choice of the patient and his or her family.

Let’s just say there are more native Americans in America now than before the Europeans came and they own casinos, land and enjoy special status. We fought a war to end slavery and there were more African slaves in Cuba, in Africa for that matter, than in the America. And Japanese internees, regardless the due diligence of their internment. were paid restitution. What a brutal regime we have established!

And one would venture you are currently enjoying the fruits of that supposed brutality which, in your case, must be a cause for metaphysical angst.

But some will always prefer the utopia that can never exist to the best the world can offer. And in the name of utopia millions have been forcibly starved, imprisoned, and impoverished. But then as you have demonstrated, good intentions can justify anything.

 

[Biggie]

Hello all,

this is my first post here - I’ve been a member and reading along for awhile but I’ve never posted before.

I’m German and have been living in Sweden for seven years. I’m a doctor and will be finishing my specialty training in psychiatry this summer.

Physician assisted suicide is much discussed here in Sweden. Since laws have been passed in other European countries, it’s becoming more and more probable Sweden will be one of the next.

I see people suffering every day. I’ve seen people die of cancer. I’ve been suicidal during a depressive episode myself. I can say that thinking of writing such a prescription makes me sick. I do emphatise, and I’ve seen lots of research on this - showing that it’s not about the pain, it’s almost always about keeping in control and not being dependent on others.

Who am I to decide that this person’s suffering is enough to let them die, and this other person’s isn’t?

Everyone is always talking about how mental illnesses don’t “qualify”, but event though most of my colleagues don’t like to see this, there are patients we cannot help. There are patients who won’t reach a remission from their depression, who have to suffer for years on end. Who am I to judge if their pain is more or less than anyone else’s?

It honestly baffles me how some colleagues thinks this is a clear-cut matter. I had the possibility to meet colleagues from the Netherlands at an international congress a short time ago, and while none of them takes this responsibility lightly, a lot of them seem to think that they think it’s ok they have that responsibility in the first place.

Long story short - I can’t give life, and I can’t see how it’s right that I should be taking it. I can’t imagine my name on a prescription that is made to kill another person. That’s not what I signed up for, and I hope it’ll take some time until I will have to deal with this - though I’m doubtful it will be too long.

PS - to address the cases mentioned before, there is a huge difference between withholding/not wanting treatment, and ending a life directly.

Thank you for the interesting viewpoint. My impression is that the trend in Europe is in the opposite direction of your moral stance, and toward permissive euthanasia. Am I correct? If so, I am baffled that following the German experience just 60 short years ago Europe has so quickly forgotten “Lebens unwerten leben”, or perhaps does not acknowledge its relationship to euthanasia.

 

[Fae76]

Yes, that’s definitely true, I think. Especially the non-medical people for lack of a better word, I think are positive to ending your life when you want to.

I don’t think they see the connection to euthanasia, or to the euthanasia that was practised by several dictators. The argument goes along the lines of that it’s the free will of the person, and that it’s their own business and right (similar to many people’s opinion of abortion, I find.)

They do have many controls in place, in order to ensure that it’s only the person herself who decides and that it’s not for the wrong reasons (I know there have been studies in the US about financial worries, but they have shown that’s not an issue, those people choosing to die by the DWD act tend to have health insurance and rather high social positions), that they’re evaluated by several doctors who don’t know them and whatnot.

I think this entire business is about control, and not wanting to accept that there are some things we don’t and shouldn’t have control over. Just that it can be done doesn’t mean it should.

 

[apromisemade]

Let’s just say there are more native Americans in America now than before the Europeans came and they own casinos, land and enjoy special status.

I am not even going to try to debate such blatant ignorance of basic U.S history. There were tens of millions of natives in America before the arrival of the Europeans. Not they number in the mere thousands.

We fought a war to end slavery and there were more African slaves in Cuba, in Africa for that matter, than in the America. And Japanese internees, regardless the due diligence of their internment. were paid restitution. What a brutal regime we have established!

So there were more Africans back in actual Africa than in the Americas, And yes we did apologize the Japanese Americans. What are you saying? That makes it okay and negates the fact that it was wrong in the first place?

And one would venture you are currently enjoying the fruits of that supposed brutality which, in your case, must be a cause for metaphysical angst.

And what fruits might that be? Am I supposed to be happy about the fact the American economy, for the first hundred or so years of her existence was built on the backs of slaves?

But some will always prefer the utopia that can never exist to the best the world can offer. And in the name of utopia millions have been forcibly starved, imprisoned, and impoverished. But then as you have demonstrated, good intentions can justify anything.

I really don’t see what you’re getting at. But in any case, we are digressing.

 

[apromisemade]

Hello all,

this is my first post here - I’ve been a member and reading along for awhile but I’ve never posted before.

I’m German and have been living in Sweden for seven years. I’m a doctor and will be finishing my specialty training in psychiatry this summer.

Physician assisted suicide is much discussed here in Sweden. Since laws have been passed in other European countries, it’s becoming more and more probable Sweden will be one of the next.

I see people suffering every day. I’ve seen people die of cancer. I’ve been suicidal during a depressive episode myself. I can say that thinking of writing such a prescription makes me sick. I do emphatise, and I’ve seen lots of research on this - showing that it’s not about the pain, it’s almost always about keeping in control and not being dependent on others.

Who am I to decide that this person’s suffering is enough to let them die, and this other person’s isn’t?

Everyone is always talking about how mental illnesses don’t “qualify”, but event though most of my colleagues don’t like to see this, there are patients we cannot help. There are patients who won’t reach a remission from their depression, who have to suffer for years on end. Who am I to judge if their pain is more or less than anyone else’s?

It honestly baffles me how some colleagues thinks this is a clear-cut matter. I had the possibility to meet colleagues from the Netherlands at an international congress a short time ago, and while none of them takes this responsibility lightly, a lot of them seem to think that they think it’s ok they have that responsibility in the first place.

Long story short - I can’t give life, and I can’t see how it’s right that I should be taking it. I can’t imagine my name on a prescription that is made to kill another person. That’s not what I signed up for, and I hope it’ll take some time until I will have to deal with this - though I’m doubtful it will be too long.

PS - to address the cases mentioned before, there is a huge difference between withholding/not wanting treatment, and ending a life directly.

Welcome to CAF! Hopefully you enjoy your stay.

 

[Biggie]

I am not even going to try to debate such blatant ignorance of basic U.S history. There were tens of millions of natives in America before the arrival of the Europeans. Not they number in the mere thousands.

1000 X’s 4100 maybe? … nativevillage.org/Messages%20from%20the%20People/Native%20Americans%20in%20the%20Census.htm

So there were more Africans back in actual Africa than in the Americas, And yes we did apologize the Japanese Americans. What are you saying? That makes it okay and negates the fact that it was wrong in the first place?

Don’t be intellectually lazy - African Slaves, as I said, and as I said I am saying slavery was neither an American nor a European but a worldwide phenomenon. As I reminded you we fought a war to end it.

And what fruits might that be? Am I supposed to be happy about the fact the American economy, for the first hundred or so years of her existence was built on the backs of slaves?

A gross demonstration of - it’s my turn - ignorance.

I really don’t see what you’re getting at. But in any case, we are digressing.

You raised the fallacies to indicate that euthanasia was in character with America. An accurate observation would be that no society or people enjoy perfection. What sets our country apart is that it is introspective, identifies its errors and has a legal framework to change course and redress. It is that legal mechanism your law threatens by eroding its integrity.

 

[apromisemade]

1000 X’s 4100 maybe? … nativevillage.org/Messages%20from%20the%20People/Native%20Americans%20in%20the%20Census.htm

Still far less than what they were when the Europeans first invaded.

Don’t be intellectually lazy - African Slaves, as I said, and as I said I am saying slavery was neither an American nor a European but a worldwide phenomenon. As I reminded you we fought a war to end it.

We fought a war to keep the union together. We ended slavery because the nation could not exist as one so long as it persisted, not soley because it was immoral. Of course slavery was a worldwide phenomenon. That was my point. It is in human nature to have the capacity to rationalize and justify such a thing as you are doing now. We ended slavery, or rather ended it for those who still utilized it, when it became an economic and political detriment rather than benefit.

A gross demonstration of - it’s my turn - ignorance.

Ignorant of what? The role of slavery in U.S history? It’s not a difficult concept.

You raised the fallacies to indicate that euthanasia was in character with America. An accurate observation would be that no society or people enjoy perfection. What sets our country apart is that it is introspective, identifies its errors and has a legal framework to change course and redress. It is that legal mechanism your law threatens by eroding its integrity.

And that same legal framework must function and base its decisions off a responsibility to the individual rights that we cherish and dispassionate reasoning, not moral theology. Laws in this country are created based on arguments using concrete and relevant evidence, not philosophy and relative projections based off subjective opinions.

Laws also, though not always to their credit, are created in this country by a democratic vote. This law was a ballot measure and the people voted for it to be made into law, by a comfortable margin I might add.

 

[Biggie]

We fought a war to keep the union together. We ended slavery because the nation could not exist as one so long as it persisted, not soley because it was immoral. Of course slavery was a worldwide phenomenon. That was my point. It is in human nature to have the capacity to rationalize and justify such a thing as you are doing now. We ended slavery, or rather ended it for those who still utilized it, when it became an economic and political detriment rather than benefit.

… and so we fought a war to end slavery … and you know you’re reaching as to the prevailing sense of morality in 1864. I think you’re just being rebellious. Did I say I sympathized with slavery? Have you considered the same arguments you are using made it possible?

Ignorant of what? The role of slavery in U.S history? It’s not a difficult concept.

The role of slavery in the US economy apparently is, though. Slavery was an economic factor in the south, so you can relieve your metaphysical angst by at least, what, 50%. I’ll send you the bill for the therapeutic result.

And that same legal framework must function and base its decisions off a responsibility to the individual rights that we cherish and dispassionate reasoning, not moral theology. Laws in this country are created based on arguments using concrete and relevant evidence, not philosophy and relative projections based off subjective opinions.

Laws also, though not always to their credit, are created in this country by a democratic vote. This law was a ballot measure and the people voted for it to be made into law, by a comfortable margin I might add.

Where did you get the notion that law is divorced from philosophy or morality? And where did you get the idea that law is determined by a popular vote in this country? Where do the legislature and the courts figure in your America? So law is like a poll. Let me ask if the behavior a law is intended to restrain were not desirable - why a law? And as to the vote in this case, refer to your own first paragraph as to the capacity to rationalize and justify.

 

[apromisemade]

… and so we fought a war to end slavery … and you know you’re reaching as to the prevailing sense of morality in 1864. I think you’re just being rebellious. Did I say I sympathized with slavery? Have you considered the same arguments you are using made it possible?

No I haven’t, because I am arguing for individuals to be able to obtain dignity in their own way. Racial equality, the inherent dignity due to all people regardless of their ethnic background, with regards to both legislation and social mentality, is a far more recent phenomenon than you are making it seem.

The role of slavery in the US economy apparently is, though. Slavery was an economic factor in the south, so you can relieve your metaphysical angst by at least, what, 50%. I’ll send you the bill for the therapeutic result.

If I’m being rebellious it’s only because you’re being evasive.

Where did you get the notion that law is divorced from philosophy or morality? And where did you get the idea that law is determined by a popular vote in this country? Where do the legislature and the courts figure in your America? So law is like a poll. Let me ask if the behavior a law is intended to restrain were not desirable - why a law? And as to the vote in this case, refer to your own first paragraph as to the capacity to rationalize and justify.

Where did I get the idea that laws are created both by a public vote and by the judicial process? Oh…I don’t know…fifth grade social science maybe…popular media?

Your previous post refered to the role of laws and law making in our country. Though not all the time, in general, throughout our history, laws are first desired or created by the people and popular vote, then either blocked or struck down by the courts. Doctor assisted suicide has become a law by vote. It was allowed on the ballot and no visible motion has been made to remove it by the courts because it does not contradict constitutional principle.

So you agree with me that people have a natural capacity to devaule one another as humans? Worrying about that attitude in our society and it being accelerated by any given law is like worrying about the weather, it comes and goes and is an ever present concern and is never going to go away completely no matter what anyone does. It is not a basis for creating or refuting a law.

Law is divorced from morality in the most technical sense of the word because morality in a theological sense, is too abstract, too subjective. Laws that, as you put it, intend to restrain certain behaviors, are put in place to protect the rights of others. Your right to swing your fist stops at my face. Why is it illegal to steal? Becaue it violates someones right to their property. Why is it illegal to kidnap? Because it violates someone elses right to liberty. Restrictive and even permissive laws are put in place to protect peoples rights. This law was put in place to protect and provide people with the right to a peaceful and dignified death if they so chose.

 

[scout64]

Having voted against I-1000, I can at least sleep easy at night, though I am deeply disturbed that it passed.

A. The law specifies that one must have been judged to have less than 6 months to live by their doctor. A good friend of mine and fellow parishioner was diagnosed with cancer and told he had 1 year left to live, that was twelve years ago. A student teacher at my school has a brother who was judged to have 6 months to live, that was ten years ago. Essentially, the diagnoses of 6 months or less which is necessary to receive eligibility under the new law, is not accurate. And both of the people I have mentioned above could have killed themselves if they so pleased, yet they live on, and similar cases are not uncommon.

B. It does not require the notification of family or friends (section 8 of the law), and suicide is not listed as the cause of death on the death certificate (section 4). Attempting, to hide suicide from the family of the dying individual seems sick to me.

C. The law requires that all information on each suicide be reported and collected as according to section 15. Yet the law does not stipulate any penalties for errors on the reports or even not reporting at all.

Ill post later with more after I have gathered up all my old sources and arguments ( its been awhile since I reviewed them).

 

[Biggie]

No I haven’t, because I am arguing for individuals to be able to obtain dignity in their own way. Racial equality, the inherent dignity due to all people regardless of their ethnic background, with regards to both legislation and social mentality, is a far more recent phenomenon than you are making it seem.

Indeed, but no, you are arguing for the value of individual’s lives to be conditional. Brutal. And the basis for slavery.

Where did I get the idea that laws are created both by a public vote and by the judicial process? Oh…I don’t know…fifth grade social science maybe…popular media?

Your previous post refered to the role of laws and law making in our country. Though not all the time, in general, throughout our history, laws are first desired or created by the people and popular vote, then either blocked or struck down by the courts. Doctor assisted suicide has become a law by vote. It was allowed on the ballot and no visible motion has been made to remove it by the courts because it does not contradict constitutional principle.

So you agree with me that people have a natural capacity to devaule one another as humans? Worrying about that attitude in our society and it being accelerated by any given law is like worrying about the weather, it comes and goes and is an ever present concern and is never going to go away completely no matter what anyone does. It is not a basis for creating or refuting a law.

Law is divorced from morality in the most technical sense of the word because morality in a theological sense, is too abstract, too subjective. Laws that, as you put it, intend to restrain certain behaviors, are put in place to protect the rights of others. Your right to swing your fist stops at my face. Why is it illegal to steal? Becaue it violates someones right to their property. Why is it illegal to kidnap? Because it violates someone elses right to liberty. Restrictive and even permissive laws are put in place to protect peoples rights. This law was put in place to protect and provide people with the right to a peaceful and dignified death if they so chose.

Why is it illegal to steal? First because of the common sense, universal understanding that it is wrong. Common sense: natural law. From that proceeds civil law.

So too with killing. So too with suicide. Morality is simple. The fatigue that leads you to call morality abstract is from the rationalization and mystification necessary to overcome it.

 

[apromisemade]

Indeed, but no, you are arguing for the value of individual’s lives to be conditional. Brutal. And the basis for slavery.

It is a choice no one is allowed to make but the individual in question. If their life is made less valuable by ending in such a manner, it is because they chose for it to be. Slaves were not given a choice about their circumstances and all decisions about what they were worth were in the hands of whoever decided to buy them.

Why is it illegal to steal? First because of the common sense, universal understanding that it is wrong. Common sense: natural law. From that proceeds civil law.

So too with killing. So too with suicide. Morality is simple. The fatigue that leads you to call morality abstract is from the rationalization and mystification necessary to overcome it.

Okay, say you’re a lawyer. You need to argue to a court that something should or should not be made into law. Or perhaps argue that an initiative deserves to be placed on the ballot. You’re going to argue on the basis of “common sense” and “universal understanding?”

Good luck with that.

If civil law, in reality, was based off that same natural law that I hear so much about, adultery would be illegal.

And far from being fatigued, I find our little debate to be rather invigorating .