A thread that we can't let die...or can we?

Preach it!

Tough call. I am torn on this actually.

I watched the video of her and it sounds like she has thought it through and is at peace with her decision. I wonder what her thoughts are on after she passes? I think that would be interesting to hear her thoughts.

It is tough because I still see it as suicide with a different name. I am just glad that this is not something my family is going through, it has to be tough knowing the date is upcoming.

Having seen both my parent die from cancer and the suffering they went through, especially towards the end I have no problem with this. 

i don't understand the opposition to her making this choice either.  how does this affect these tons of strangers judging her?  her husband and loved ones understand and support this, even if they don't love it.

i did not realize that this was legal in some states though, she is fortunate to have that option (given her circumstances and beliefs)  i would probably do a similar thing.  i would travel to another state to do so safely if it is not legal where i live.  

People feeling the need to impose their religious beliefs on others is my guess.

I may or may not share my opinion in the matter, but I also think there is a bit more justo muddy up the waters a bit...  More than "should she be allowed - yes or no".

Let me throw this in the mix that I haven't seen mentioned... 

What about insurance and benefits?  Do they get paid death benefits or do they sacrifice them to do this?

Who judges what circumstances are present allowing this or not?  Purely up to the patient/family?  What if someone is depressed anyway but want to say their "insert disease/injury here" is the reason why they want to do it?  "I don't want to live with Alzheimer's, or Parkinson's, or ALS?

Sometimes is easier to say "you just can't do it at all" rather than open up the 1000's of other instances where it's not so clear cut.  But just like anything, cross that bridge when you get to it I suppose.

Hey Kido, good to hear from you.

On the insurance and benefits, as far as I can recall the only type of benefits that could be restricted by suicide would be some types of life insurance, generally major companies selling individual life insurance policies has a suicide exclusion clause which expires two years after the policy inception. 

I'm not positive on the following but I think a lot of the "death benefits" you get with credit card and other similar types of gimmicky policies very well could include a suicide exclusion provision. Those same policies also include a lot of other exclusions not found in your more main stream individual policies such as alcohol related death exclusions, dangerous activities death exclusion. 

I don't know what other types of plans differentiate natural/accidental death from suicide? Pensions, SS, Annuities?

This is just my 2 cents on the who decides, the individual alone.

I can't imagine it being that simple, surely the government does/will have to have their hands involved in it. 

Quite a few people choose to end their own lives when diagnosed with a terminal illness.....I  guess "common" would be too strong of a word, but it certainly is not uncommon.   Almost none of them get a chance to say goodbye and die in peace.  They have to take secretive actions because of the stigma, and if they tell someone they face the very real chance that they will be committed for an evaluation and add humiliation to their suffering.  As a result, they die alone, and usually violently (gunshot, hanging, jumping, etc).  It's no way for a life to end just because someone doesn't want to suffer.  People with terminal illnesses should be allowed to die with whatever dignity they choose.

I think there are some laws or insurance regulations, something like "Moral Hazards" that would prevent the insurance company from engaging in a contract to "compensate" someone for deliberately ending their own life. I'm going on memory so I could be off on the terminology. 

The above doesn't mean I personally disagree with where you are coming from though.

But this is the same insurance companies that also DON'T pay for preventative medicine nearly as much as covering the "fixing" the problem.

As an example, dental insurance won't cover getting dental implant and say it's "cosmetic".  Even though it's proven to be a more effective and lifelong solution compared to bridges or not having a new tooth at all which both have the potential for bigger issues down the road.  How can they say that replacing a missing tooth is simply a cosmetic thing?  Maybe they say that there are cheaper solutions like dentures?

I think it's like that for a lot of things for them.  Treat the symptoms, not the cause.

I may be cynical but maybe they are not LOOKING to reduce long term costs if they have a reason they can justify to jack everyone else's rates up to cover it...

I have a feeling they don't mind shoveling money at a long term or continuous fixes as long as they can charge for them OR finding loopholes to deny coverage part of the time.  A bunch of healthy people that take care of themselves with preventative care may not be as lucrative than a bunch of sick people they can point to as a reason to increase rates across the board...

except for your MEDICAL insurance covers these long term treatments and your LIFE insurance pays out when you kick the bucket.  so...that doesn't really work.  sure, the medical insurance people are all for covering a pill or injection instead of months of hospitalization, but your life insurance doesn't benefit from that at all.

I have mixed feelings on euthanasia.  On one hand it's easy to simply say that all life is precious and we must extend it at all costs, but there's no question it's a lot more complex than that.

I think many of us have participated in a form of euthanasia, but just in more subtle ways.  My wife's grandma had terminal cancer and she refused to go through treatment because she was just "done".  Everyone in the family was very supportive of her and even bought her bottles of booze to help with the pain.  It was kind of funny at times because we were all contributing to her habit that everyone spent a lifetime trying to get her to quit.  When she died after a month or two it was really easy on the family and there was really no sadness like there usually is.  Everyone enjoyed how she got to choose how to go out and she went out with style.Sure, she didn't take a pill or something to end it and there was some suffering, but she did choose to go versus fighting to prolong the inevitable.

I think with terminal ill cases where people have less than 6 months to live (or however long) it makes a lot of sense and is truly humane.  However, there are various cases I've heard of around the world that are a little more difficult for me.  I recall a case in Europe where somebody was going blind and didn't want to deal with it so they ended their life.  Sure, it's a terrible thing to go through, but I just don't feel the same about a case like that.

Culturally I think America is still a long ways away from any form of euthanasia and sadly the politicians will be pushed by big money from the healthcare industry to keep it out of the laws for even longer.

btw, I'm a huge pro-life guy across the board and that includes the death penalty.  I never understood the people who are pro-life and pro death penalty.  That just doesn't make sense. 

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by mehaner

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by crusevegas

Originally posted by Kido

I may or may not share my opinion in the matter, but I also think there is a bit more justo muddy up the waters a bit...  More than "should she be allowed - yes or no".

Let me throw this in the mix that I haven't seen mentioned... 

What about insurance and benefits?  Do they get paid death benefits or do they sacrifice them to do this?

Who judges what circumstances are present allowing this or not?  Purely up to the patient/family?  What if someone is depressed anyway but want to say their "insert disease/injury here" is the reason why they want to do it?  "I don't want to live with Alzheimer's, or Parkinson's, or ALS?

Sometimes is easier to say "you just can't do it at all" rather than open up the 1000's of other instances where it's not so clear cut.  But just like anything, cross that bridge when you get to it I suppose.

Hey Kido, good to hear from you.

On the insurance and benefits, as far as I can recall the only type of benefits that could be restricted by suicide would be some types of life insurance, generally major companies selling individual life insurance policies has a suicide exclusion clause which expires two years after the policy inception. 

I'm not positive on the following but I think a lot of the "death benefits" you get with credit card and other similar types of gimmicky policies very well could include a suicide exclusion provision. Those same policies also include a lot of other exclusions not found in your more main stream individual policies such as alcohol related death exclusions, dangerous activities death exclusion. 

I don't know what other types of plans differentiate natural/accidental death from suicide? Pensions, SS, Annuities?

This is just my 2 cents on the who decides, the individual alone.

I can't imagine it being that simple, surely the government does/will have to have their hands involved in it. 

 

If ya think about it, the insurance companies would be pretty dang stupid to not re-negotiate terms. Think about it. Think about how much money a terminal illness can eat up. It could easily get into the millions. A shrewd (and let's be honest, a quite ballzy) individual, realizing they are terminal could negotiate with the insurance company. In the long run, both sides could win. The insurance company could dodge the insane end of life costs and the terminal patient could not only leave behind something for loved ones, but also dodge the torturous and oftentimes dehumanizing decline. Interesting stuff that not a lot of folks are comfortable talking about. ...and yes Kido, so many questions in addition to the "is it right or is it wrong" debate.

except for your MEDICAL insurance covers these long term treatments and your LIFE insurance pays out when you kick the bucket.  so...that doesn't really work.  sure, the medical insurance people are all for covering a pill or injection instead of months of hospitalization, but your life insurance doesn't benefit from that at all.

Good point mehaner. Sounds like a perfect opportunity for the insurance companies to make like cable companies and BUNDLE services! With a medical and life insurance bundle, folks could avoid that lovely (and expensive) period of pain and agony before death and still provide a little financial help for family in the process.

It would be a great way to cut costs down, but unfortunately various lobby's have convinced our government to pass laws to make this option very unlikely. 

So...on the other end, would most pro-abortion people also be pro-assisted suicide?  I'm asking because I never thought about it before.  It just seems to me that the two would go hand in hand with not telling someone what they can do with their body. Is that right?

I know for me, I'm firmly in the "your body, your consequences" camp.