Terminally ill artist holds party before ending life under California's new assisted dying law - Polidicks

[quote]One of the first Californians to die under the state's new doctor-assisted suicide law held a party before ending her life. Betsy Davis, a 41-year-old artist, who suffered from ALS, a neurodegenerative disease, held a gathering of 30 friends in the mountain town of Ojai in southern California. She then took a cocktail of drugs, prescribed by her doctor, which killed her. [/quote] [URL]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/california-artist-death-party-doctor-assisted-dying-law-als-motor-neurone-disease-betsy-davis-a7186516.html[/URL]

That's great. Rather than dying a shitty death in pain, she died after a wonderful party with friends. I don't understand how people would be against this.

[QUOTE=Araknid;50872296]That's great. Rather than dying a shitty death in pain, she died after a wonderful party with friends. I don't understand how people would be against this.[/QUOTE] It's not exactly that simple of an issue. It's sort of a tough situation between the boundaries of suicide, views of morality, and the authority of the state and how it should apply to individuals.

[QUOTE=Araknid;50872296]That's great. Rather than dying a shitty death in pain, she died after a wonderful party with friends. I don't understand how people would be against this.[/QUOTE] Some people are against it because they believe that killing a person is murder regardless of circumstances or reasoning. It is a very complicated moral question. Should we let a person with ALS suffer for months in a slow and agonising death or do we end their life a pain free as possible? Should the Sanctity of life be respected or should we just understand that we'll all die anyway so it doesn't matter?

Good. The government shouldn't force you to live a painful life when you're terminally ill.

[QUOTE=Timof2009;50872312]Some people are against it because they believe that killing a person is murder regardless of circumstances or reasoning. It is a very complicated moral question. Should we let a person with ALS suffer for months in a slow and agonising death or do we end their life a pain free as possible? Should the Sanctity of life be respected or should we just understand that we'll all die anyway so it doesn't matter?[/QUOTE] This is the closest thing we have to sanctity of life. I simply cannot fathom any mindset that would willingly want this person to suffer through almost all of their remaining days over something as simple and painless as this. I've always been for doctor-assisted suicide for those with conditions that are basically a death sentence.

Its not a complicated subject at all... Its reals over feels 'do with your body what you want'

[QUOTE=Chrisholl;50872331]This is the closest thing we have to sanctity of life. I simply cannot fathom any mindset that would willingly want this person to suffer through almost all of their remaining days over something as simple and painless as this. I've always been for doctor-assisted suicide for those with conditions that are basically a death sentence.[/QUOTE] I meant sanctity of life as in respecting the fact that we shouldn't end others lives, but like you said there is always the argument of dignity that "If they will die anyway why let them suffer months when they can celebrate and die peacefully".

Its their body, their choice, and if the thing has let them down they should have every right to shut it down with dignity.

The only situation I can feel ever being an issue is if there's reason to believe the patient is in a mental condition that would make them unfit to make such a decision. Otherwise, every individual should be able to decide whether they wish to live.

Idk why but with the "cocktail of drugs" bit, it made me think of this painting: [T]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/David_-_The_Death_of_Socrates.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50872414]Idk why but with the "cocktail of drugs" bit, it made me think of this painting: [T]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/David_-_The_Death_of_Socrates.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Is that plato sitting? he seems too old.

What's the procedure for this? Who's eligible to get this prescription?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50872513]Is that plato sitting? he seems too old.[/QUOTE] That's cause he is too old.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50872522]What's the procedure for this? Who's eligible to get this prescription?[/QUOTE] As noted in the article, people diagnosed with a terminal illness and given less than six months to live are allowed to request it from their doctors.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50872316]Good. The government shouldn't force you to live a painful life when you're terminally ill.[/QUOTE] I discussed this with my granma a week ago, to see what her idea was on it. Unsurprisingly, she said that its a bad practice, even if you're suffering, because suicide in any form is a sin and if you are in pain, its because god intended it to be like that, and its a trial, and all that sort of shit. I don't want to turn this into a religion debate, but whatever reason that restricts you of putting an end to your life if you're ill as fuck and suffering a lot, its a load of shit. A friend of mine doesn't even wants to die old, and would rather die young, because she doesn't wants to die a painful prolongued death or to reach a point where there would be a possibility of being put in a home and pretty much forgotten.

[QUOTE=153x;50872567]As noted in the article, people diagnosed with a terminal illness and given less than six months to live are allowed to request it from their doctors.[/QUOTE] Well good on her then. No point needlessly suffering for the few months.

Its basically a funeral except the host is still alive Neat

[QUOTE=Timof2009;50872312]Some people are against it because they believe that killing a person is murder regardless of circumstances or reasoning. It is a very complicated moral question. Should we let a person with ALS suffer for months in a slow and agonising death or do we end their life a pain free as possible? Should the Sanctity of life be respected or should we just understand that we'll all die anyway so it doesn't matter?[/QUOTE] The person is required to take the drug themselves; the doctor is not administering the drug or killing them so it's not even assisted suicide.

[QUOTE=Araknid;50872296]That's great. Rather than dying a shitty death in pain, she died after a wonderful party with friends. I don't understand how people would be against this.[/QUOTE] I've seen what ALS can do to someone, my grandmother who I never really got to know was disabled for as long as I can remember. She could barely move her arms, restrained to a wheelchair, her speech was completely lost and my granddad toke complete care of her. Its awful...

[QUOTE=ThePuska;50872686]The person is required to take the drug themselves; the doctor is not administering the drug or killing them so it's not even assisted suicide.[/QUOTE] Ah ok, I was under the impression that a physician or some kind of person administered it to you. Thanks for clearing that up.

Wait were the people still there when she took the drug? Can't imagine how it would feel to watch a friend die like that even if it's what they wanted.

Whatever about abortion in my country, I would hope that eventually when there is a movement for people who are terminally ill and in constant physical pain to have the option of suicide, the government will act on it. It's pretty awful to force people to through that if they don't want to. IIRC, there was a case here of a man going to prison because he helped his wife, who was in constant physical pain and was going to die, commit suicide... I think he might have gotten a tougher sentence than those who commit robbery. I'm happy for her that she got to decide what happened to her.

[QUOTE] “Pope Francis invites all of us to create our good society by seeing through the eyes of those who are on the margins, those in need economically, physically, psychologically and socially,”[/QUOTE] This statement doesn't even say anything except "sympathise with people in need" [QUOTE]Disability rights groups were opposed to California's new law, citing fears terminally ill people could be coerced into ending their life.[/QUOTE] You'd think a disability rights group would be in support of disabled people having more rights

This reminds me of The Machine Stops. You can just ask to die whenever. This is quite a complicated moral issue when you think about other non health related issues that would make somebody desire suicide, like that one developer who killed themselves because they couldn't escape the mental trauma from when they were molested as a child no matter what they did. Also wasn't suicide venerated in ancient rome as some expression of self choice or something?

[QUOTE=153x;50872567]As noted in the article, people diagnosed with a terminal illness and given less than six months to live are allowed to request it from their doctors.[/QUOTE] This is one problem here. Doctors aren't always accurate with you "have X months to live." Personally know people who've been in that situation and have had complete recoveries. [QUOTE=ScottyWired;50872837] You'd think a disability rights group would be in support of disabled people having more rights[/QUOTE] They're worried about old people or ill people who aren't ready to stop living thinking they are a burden due to their caretakers who may cause them to make a choice they don't really want. [editline]12th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50872861] Also wasn't suicide venerated in ancient rome as some expression of self choice or something?[/QUOTE] Yeah, but ancient Rome was also a shithole in many ways.

[QUOTE=ScottyWired;50872837]This statement doesn't even say anything except "sympathise with people in need" You'd think a disability rights group would be in support of disabled people having more rights[/QUOTE] It's the same slippery slope bullshit people use to argue against it becoming a thing. People are always afraid that something can be misused beyond its intended purpose. Well, anything can be misused beyond its intended purpose, but the intention of allowing terminally ill people who do not see anything beyond continued suffering in their lives is laudable, because why should they live in misery until they happen to die? better that it be quick, painless, and in the end, they can go out on their terms. To be fair, physician assisted suicide is in murky waters as far as the ethics and legality of it goes, because some argue it shouldn't be a thing because it violates the part of the Hippocratic oath that says "I shall not administer a lethal drug to somebody if asked, nor will I advise such a plan." And also, it's a legitimate concern that poor or uninsured patients could be pressured into requesting assisted suicide if they are diagnosed with a terminal illness despite their wishes. It's a very divided subject, and especially when you're going to add the personal ethics of the individuals who are in a position to provide such services into the matter, it probably won't be resolved any time soon.

Isn't the Oath not even that common anymore?

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50873111]Isn't the Oath not even that common anymore?[/QUOTE] people do swear by it, but in practice, a lot of physicians tend to follow the declaration of Geneva

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50873111]Isn't the Oath not even that common anymore?[/QUOTE] The oath is to do no harm, but how can you honestly say you do no harm when you leave a fellow humanbeing in screwed up position on all sorts of medications that only prolong their suffering in a corpse which only slightly moves anymore.