111 people died under California's new "legalized suicide law"

[Lex Icon]

uh.. this op is given way too much leeway with his trolling.

[Phookah]

While the illegality was mostly related to a desire to codify morality, some jurisdictions still have it classified as a crime, primarily so police can detain them and get them help.

Aye, but I'm sure you get the point of what I'm saying. No one tries to commit suicide and wakes up in a jail cell. The very most that happens is like what you said, they try to get you help.

[Shadowmelded]

No, a doctor provides them the drug.

Ah yeah, I just assumed Doctor = State due to the NHS even though I know you guys don't have public healthcare ><

[Zeta333]

uh.. this op is given way too much leeway with his trolling.

yeh it seems this dude makes a thread, posts in the first page and then stops responding.

[Sorshen]

Tennisace threads are usually trash but this is extra trash. Can we call this what it is?

[Deleted]

And it doesn't. The patients have to be able to administer the dose to themselves.

Ok. In the tatoo example, the state would be providing the ink, rather than holding the needle.
But they could suicide at home just as well. The question, as it concerns this piece of legislation, is that the state helps, and provides the means. Which you may or may not be in favor of (personally, I find it against my beliefs, but I'm slowly being persuaded). But, if you are in favor, find better arguments; bodily autonomy is not it; if it was, the legislation is already favorable: because suicide is not criminalized.

[Nazrark]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/28/health...-bn/index.html

Rather disturbing. We can only hope public opinion changes so that the law can be reversed. Why in the world are we encouraging this?

You do realize that we just legalized doctor assisted suicide in Canada.

Think about the bleeding hearts Tenn. Because they've got 6 months to live.

[Revi]

You want a tatoo? you can get one because of body autonomy. But the government won't be the one holding the needle.
Body autonomy only implies that the government won't legislate what you can or can't do with your body. Not that it'll give you the means to do what you want with it.

That's a fair point, they could sell the drug instead.

But even if they give it for free, the savings for the healthcare system would more than make up for it. Suffering terminally-ill patients aren't cheap to treat/keep comfortable.

[Deleted]

The government isn't giving them the means. What are you talking about?

The government is providing the doctors. Not necessarily paying for them, but ensuring that they exist with the qualifications to prescribe and authorize the required medication.

[Eliandal]

We should do what we can to make their final days as peaceful as possible. Not give them the means to end their life. That's not right!

You presume to know how much others are suffering? Do you even know what suffering is? Just curious - since from this response - it appears not. For instance, my father did not have the benefit of our Assisted Death law, which was only recently passed. He had terminal cancer. Bone cancer. Centered in his hips and lower back. The last three weeks of his life were agony that NO dose of morphine could relieve as his hips, and finally his lower spine, were liquefied by the cancer. His primary nurse even spoke with us about wishing she could just disconnect the over rides on his morphine pump, and let him pick his time.

So please, don't presume to speak to me about making their final days as peaceful as possible. For some (including me, if I need that option), the means to end their life IS peaceful for them

[TheFirstOnes]

Its talking about euthanasia for terminally ill people with no chance of survival.

Not some kid having a bad day cause his/her bf/gf broke up and wants to off themselves being legal.

Oh...that makes sense...

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Ok. In the tatoo example, the state would be providing the ink, rather than holding the needle.
But they could suicide at home just as well. The question, as it concerns this piece of legislation, is that the state helps, and provides the means. Which you may or may not be in favor of (personally, I find it against my beliefs, but I'm slowly being persuaded). But, if you are in favor, find better arguments; bodily autonomy is not it; if it was, the legislation is already favorable: because suicide is not criminalized.

The State does not give them the drug. A doctor gives them the drug...and only after they jump through all the appropriate hoops.

[Mehrunes]

Fly that flag of progressiveness Tennisace! Fly it high!

[Thage]

We should do what we can to make their final days as peaceful as possible. Not give them the means to end their life. That's not right!

Why not? These people are going to die. Why drag it out 'making them comfortable' when you could offer them the option to choose whether they want to comfortably fade away, or face the Reaper on their own terms, head-on? And this isn't just something where a terminal patient can say, "I want to die." and that's that. There is a requirement of two requests 15 days apart and a written request they themselves must be capable of writing and they must be able to administer the drug themselves. That is a lot of thinking time for someone to change their mind and choose to struggle for every day of life they can scratch and claw for, or to confirm that yes, this is their choice and it is a choice they make in a sound, lucid state of mind, not something that was made in the spur of the moment and given no time for reconsideration.

[TripleZero]

How can people even be against this? We euthanize our animals too when theyre in terrible pain and cant be helped, but for some reason we keep humans alive to prolong their suffering as much as possiblee, it is sickening.

The people who think that's good are disgusting sadists and in all honesty they deserve to slowly die over a long period of time, since apparently thats what they want to experience.

Suicide needs to be legalized worldwide for terminally ill patients, it should've been a long time ago.

[Tennis]

How can people even be against this? We euthanize our animals too when theyre in terrible pain and cant be helped, but for some reason we keep humans alive to prolong their suffering as much as possiblee, it is sickening.

The people who think that's good are disgusting sadists and in all honesty they deserve to slowly die over a long period of time, since apparently thats what they want to experience.

Suicide needs to be legalized worldwide for terminally ill patients, it should've been a long time ago.

Animals are exactly that. Wild animals. They are not the same level as humans. I don't see the comparison at all.

[Deleted]

That's a fair point, they could sell the drug instead.

But even if they give it for free, the savings for the healthcare system would more than make up for it. Suffering terminally-ill patients aren't cheap to treat/keep comfortable.

I'm personally uncomfortable with that kind of analysis, as it encourages the slippery slope. To test it to the extreme, I can picture an economy driven policy that offers euthanasia to the poor and homeless, because it's cheaper than welfare. Not to suggest that will inevitably happen; only that the reasoning /feels/ weird to me.

(To be clear, I'm not opposing it. Not in this thread, at least. Just find the body autonomy argument misleading.)

- - - Updated - - -

The State does not give them the drug. A doctor gives them the drug...and only after they jump through all the appropriate hoops.

The state makes it so doctors are trained in this area. The state always intervenes. And, in this case, even regulates what hoops there should be. Again: if it was about bodily autonomy, suicide is already not illegal. If it was about autonomy, there would be no hoops at all. It isn't about body autonomy.

[KrazyK923]

I wholly support people choosing to end their own life for the reasons listed in the law. If you have debilitating pain that has no chance of ever going away, and you want to no longer suffer, then you should be able to die with dignity.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I'm personally uncomfortable with that kind of analysis, as it encourages the slippery slope. To test it to the extreme, I can picture an economy driven policy that offers euthanasia to the poor and homeless, because it's cheaper than welfare. Not to suggest that will inevitably happen; only that the reasoning /feels/ weird to me.

(To be clear, I'm not opposing it. Not in this thread, at least. Just find the body autonomy argument misleading.)

- - - Updated - - -


The state makes it so doctors are trained in this area. The state always intervenes. Again: if it was about bodily autonomy, suicide is already not illegal.

Hate to break it to you...but suicide is already an option for the poor and the homeless...and everyone else. Also, if you read the OP:

Both Wolk and Monning said it was important that any attempt to influence a person to hasten his or her own death under their bill would be cause for felony prosecution.
"The health plans cannot influence a patient in their choices," said Monning. "They're not mandated to cover the costs. Some may, some may not ... but no plan can say, 'You can't pursue (an expensive or long-term) treatment option; we want you to use this end of life option.' That's cause for a felony."

[Tennis]

I wholly support people choosing to end their own life for the reasons listed in the law. If you have debilitating pain that has no chance of ever going away, and you want to no longer suffer, then you should be able to die with dignity.

So if someone has chronic lower back pain you're okay with it. Wow...