AlonzoMourning23
04-22-2006, 03:52 AM
Many psychologists believe that virtually everyone, at least at one point in their lives, has thought about committing suicide. Suicidal thoughts are very common, and I have no problem admitting that I’ve thought of it more than once. Of those who actually take the next step and attempt suicide, about 95% (link (http://www.emedicine.com/MED/topic3004.htm)) have a diagnosable psychological disorder, and only about 5% truly want to die. Most people simply want an end to their pain, they don’t actually want death. Death is just the means to that end. These people need psychological assistance, which unfortunately many don’t receive. This article is not about those people.
In 2002 Vincent Humbert, a 21 year old French Paraplegic, made international headlines when he wrote to French President Jacques Chirac requesting the right to die. Here’s an excerpt from his letter:
I was in a traffic accident on 24 September 2000. I spent nine months in a coma. I am currently in Helio-Marins hospital in Bercks, in the Pas-de-Calais region.
All my vital organs were affected, except for my hearing and my brain, which allows me a little comfort.
I can move my right hand very slightly, putting pressure with my thumb on each letter of the alphabet. These letters make up words and the words form sentences. This is my only method of communication. I currently have a nurse beside me, who spells me the alphabet separating vowels and consonants.
This is how I have decided to write to you. You have the right of pardon and I am asking you for the right to die.
I would like to do this clearly for myself but especially for my mother; she has left her old life to be by my side, here in Berck, working morning and evening after visiting me, seven days out of seven, without a day of rest. And all this to be able to pay the rent for her miserable studio flat.
For the moment, she is still young. But in a few years, she will not be able to keep up such a pace of work, that is to say she will not be able to pay her rent and so will be obliged to go back to her apartment in Normandy......
I would like you to know that you are my last chance.………
I do not deserve a scenario as terrible as this and I hope that you will read this letter, which is specially addressed to you...link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3142366.stm)
Mr. Chirac did not grant him his wish, and a year later his mother administered an overdose of sedatives. For this she was arrested but quickly released into psychiatric care (link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3142246.stm)). It is considered a tragedy when a parent has to bury their own child, but what is it called when a parent must kill their own child?
The truth is euthanasia occurs, legal or not. In the United States, in a poll of physicians who regularly deal with the elderly and potentially fatal diseases, 6.9% of physicians admitted to helping at least one patient commit suicide. The actual number is probably much higher (link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/euth_us3.htm#doctor)). And over half of physicians who work with AIDS patients have prescribed a lethal overdose. The right to control ones destiny should be a fundamental right. Many argue that it is, but quite often those same people speak out against one of the most fundamental elements of that right, the right to choose when and where to die. Many people suffer unimaginable physical and psychological torment, knowing that, in the end, death is all that awaits them. For many, there is no hope of recovery. And fears of a slippery slope, that allowing such a thing as physician assisted suicide would lead to the devaluing of life, and would lead to people being pressured into suicide, are simply unfounded.
Modern medical science has made great strides in prolonging life, curing patients, and easing suffering. Of that there can be no doubt. But like most things it’s a double edged sword. For many terminally ill patients death is not their main fear, it’s the physician that they fear most. All too often they will use any method available to keep alive those whose only future is death. Repeated resuscitations, an array of tubes and life support systems etc. await many terminally ill patients. Quite often it is a well meaning physician doing everything he or she can to keep the person alive, but they’re attempts are often misguided and run in opposition to the individuals wishes. All this would not be possible without the marvel that is modern medical science. But how ironic is it that a level of torture rarely inflicted on murder victims can be the result of a well meaning physician?
For what good is accomplished by forcing a 30 year old man to live through the final 6 months of an incurable cancer ravishing his body, filling his days with nothing but pain and the certainty that his only relief will come with his last breath? What good is there to force his family to visit him, every day knowing that he is just one step closer to death, and that his pain and suffering will only worsen? And the psychological aspect cannot be ignored, for what reason is there to fight when there is no chance of winning? Why force him to endure the torment of watching his family suffer through his prolonged death?
My grandfather spent the last year or so of his life in a combination hospital/nursing home. Fortunately he died peacefully. He was talking to a worker and asked for some cereal, the worker returned a few minutes later and found that he had died. But I remember one of his roommates had Lou Gehrig’s disease. He knew his future was bleak, and he said of all the things in his future such as losing the ability to walk, the respirators, and everything else that occurs as the result of the disease, including death, he feared one thing above all else. He feared the possibility of suffering the indignity of drowning in his own saliva. Such a fate becomes many sufferers because they have lost the ability to swallow.Â*Â*
My great uncle once said that if he ever had to live life in a wheelchair he preferred not to live at all. He was dead serious at the time, but I never got to find out if his opinion would have changed had he been faced with such a scenario before his death. But for many such a scenario would be nothing less than a miracle.
Many argue that allowing physician assisted suicide could lead to the devaluing of life, that it would put pressure on the elderly and terminally ill to agree to suicide against their will. Slippery slope logic usually is not valid, and this case is no exception. For the best example of how physician assisted suicide would work in America we have to look at Oregon. In 2005 64 prescriptions were given out to patients wishing to die. Only 32 were ever used. And since 1998, when the policy was first instituted, only 246 people have chosen this method. 246 people compared to the 74,967 who died of the same diseases in the same 8 year period. And, out of total deaths in that time period, it’s about 1 in 800 (link (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year8.pdf)).
There are many safeguards in place to ensure that people truly want to die this way. This is true whenever assisted suicide laws have been instituted globally, and Oregon is no exception. In that state a patient must be within the last 6 months of their death, make 2 oral requests, one written request, receive a second opinion to confirm their condition, be instructed about other options and, if any psychological impairment or disorder is suspected, must be referred for a psychological examination. Requests for physician assisted suicide are not taken lightly, and multiple safeguards are in place to ensure that these people truly want to die, and do so of their own free will (link (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year8.pdf)). There is nothing to suggest that any of the fears voiced by euthanasia advocates have to come to pass. All that has occurred is that these people have been able to die with dignity, and to do so on their own terms.Â*Â*
The Declaration of Independence states that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. But the right to life does not mean that each of us is forced to accept that right no matter what the circumstances bring. And, for many, doing so violates the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For those suffering from the horror of impending death, life itself may become a living hell. The closest thing to the pursuit of happiness that they can achieve is death, which brings the cessation of pain. And to deny them that right is infringing on their liberty.
No one is asking that everyone should agree with that right, or that everyone should entertain the possibility of suicide in their own lives. But what is argued is that people should allow those in hopeless situations the opportunity to decide how they will die. The choice of whether or not to die has already been decided for them, all that is asked is that they be allowed to dictate when and where the end comes. And since there is no evidence of people being forced to die, or evidence of a floodgate being opened by laws allowing such rights, there is no reason for the personal moral views of one person to infringe on the liberty of another.
Some of the facts listed I didn’t provide links to. If anyone wants them I will do my best to provide them, but it’s info I knew previously from studying psychology. They came from academic books or other research I had to undertake. Since this is an op-ed on a message board I didn’t go out of my way to ensure proper documentation of every fact as I would in an academic paper. The links I included is information that I looked up while writing this.
If anyone wants to learn about a person who fought for the right to die tthen please take a look at this website: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-69-1135/life_society/sue_rodriguez/. It is about Sue Rodriguez, a woman diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease, who fought to have Canadian laws changed so she may die with dignity. It contains news clips, interviews, and written articles. She failed in her efforts, and ended up defying the law. With the aid of an unknown physician she died on February 12th, 1994. .
In 2002 Vincent Humbert, a 21 year old French Paraplegic, made international headlines when he wrote to French President Jacques Chirac requesting the right to die. Here’s an excerpt from his letter:
I was in a traffic accident on 24 September 2000. I spent nine months in a coma. I am currently in Helio-Marins hospital in Bercks, in the Pas-de-Calais region.
All my vital organs were affected, except for my hearing and my brain, which allows me a little comfort.
I can move my right hand very slightly, putting pressure with my thumb on each letter of the alphabet. These letters make up words and the words form sentences. This is my only method of communication. I currently have a nurse beside me, who spells me the alphabet separating vowels and consonants.
This is how I have decided to write to you. You have the right of pardon and I am asking you for the right to die.
I would like to do this clearly for myself but especially for my mother; she has left her old life to be by my side, here in Berck, working morning and evening after visiting me, seven days out of seven, without a day of rest. And all this to be able to pay the rent for her miserable studio flat.
For the moment, she is still young. But in a few years, she will not be able to keep up such a pace of work, that is to say she will not be able to pay her rent and so will be obliged to go back to her apartment in Normandy......
I would like you to know that you are my last chance.………
I do not deserve a scenario as terrible as this and I hope that you will read this letter, which is specially addressed to you...link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3142366.stm)
Mr. Chirac did not grant him his wish, and a year later his mother administered an overdose of sedatives. For this she was arrested but quickly released into psychiatric care (link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3142246.stm)). It is considered a tragedy when a parent has to bury their own child, but what is it called when a parent must kill their own child?
The truth is euthanasia occurs, legal or not. In the United States, in a poll of physicians who regularly deal with the elderly and potentially fatal diseases, 6.9% of physicians admitted to helping at least one patient commit suicide. The actual number is probably much higher (link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/euth_us3.htm#doctor)). And over half of physicians who work with AIDS patients have prescribed a lethal overdose. The right to control ones destiny should be a fundamental right. Many argue that it is, but quite often those same people speak out against one of the most fundamental elements of that right, the right to choose when and where to die. Many people suffer unimaginable physical and psychological torment, knowing that, in the end, death is all that awaits them. For many, there is no hope of recovery. And fears of a slippery slope, that allowing such a thing as physician assisted suicide would lead to the devaluing of life, and would lead to people being pressured into suicide, are simply unfounded.
Modern medical science has made great strides in prolonging life, curing patients, and easing suffering. Of that there can be no doubt. But like most things it’s a double edged sword. For many terminally ill patients death is not their main fear, it’s the physician that they fear most. All too often they will use any method available to keep alive those whose only future is death. Repeated resuscitations, an array of tubes and life support systems etc. await many terminally ill patients. Quite often it is a well meaning physician doing everything he or she can to keep the person alive, but they’re attempts are often misguided and run in opposition to the individuals wishes. All this would not be possible without the marvel that is modern medical science. But how ironic is it that a level of torture rarely inflicted on murder victims can be the result of a well meaning physician?
For what good is accomplished by forcing a 30 year old man to live through the final 6 months of an incurable cancer ravishing his body, filling his days with nothing but pain and the certainty that his only relief will come with his last breath? What good is there to force his family to visit him, every day knowing that he is just one step closer to death, and that his pain and suffering will only worsen? And the psychological aspect cannot be ignored, for what reason is there to fight when there is no chance of winning? Why force him to endure the torment of watching his family suffer through his prolonged death?
My grandfather spent the last year or so of his life in a combination hospital/nursing home. Fortunately he died peacefully. He was talking to a worker and asked for some cereal, the worker returned a few minutes later and found that he had died. But I remember one of his roommates had Lou Gehrig’s disease. He knew his future was bleak, and he said of all the things in his future such as losing the ability to walk, the respirators, and everything else that occurs as the result of the disease, including death, he feared one thing above all else. He feared the possibility of suffering the indignity of drowning in his own saliva. Such a fate becomes many sufferers because they have lost the ability to swallow.Â*Â*
My great uncle once said that if he ever had to live life in a wheelchair he preferred not to live at all. He was dead serious at the time, but I never got to find out if his opinion would have changed had he been faced with such a scenario before his death. But for many such a scenario would be nothing less than a miracle.
Many argue that allowing physician assisted suicide could lead to the devaluing of life, that it would put pressure on the elderly and terminally ill to agree to suicide against their will. Slippery slope logic usually is not valid, and this case is no exception. For the best example of how physician assisted suicide would work in America we have to look at Oregon. In 2005 64 prescriptions were given out to patients wishing to die. Only 32 were ever used. And since 1998, when the policy was first instituted, only 246 people have chosen this method. 246 people compared to the 74,967 who died of the same diseases in the same 8 year period. And, out of total deaths in that time period, it’s about 1 in 800 (link (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year8.pdf)).
There are many safeguards in place to ensure that people truly want to die this way. This is true whenever assisted suicide laws have been instituted globally, and Oregon is no exception. In that state a patient must be within the last 6 months of their death, make 2 oral requests, one written request, receive a second opinion to confirm their condition, be instructed about other options and, if any psychological impairment or disorder is suspected, must be referred for a psychological examination. Requests for physician assisted suicide are not taken lightly, and multiple safeguards are in place to ensure that these people truly want to die, and do so of their own free will (link (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year8.pdf)). There is nothing to suggest that any of the fears voiced by euthanasia advocates have to come to pass. All that has occurred is that these people have been able to die with dignity, and to do so on their own terms.Â*Â*
The Declaration of Independence states that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. But the right to life does not mean that each of us is forced to accept that right no matter what the circumstances bring. And, for many, doing so violates the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For those suffering from the horror of impending death, life itself may become a living hell. The closest thing to the pursuit of happiness that they can achieve is death, which brings the cessation of pain. And to deny them that right is infringing on their liberty.
No one is asking that everyone should agree with that right, or that everyone should entertain the possibility of suicide in their own lives. But what is argued is that people should allow those in hopeless situations the opportunity to decide how they will die. The choice of whether or not to die has already been decided for them, all that is asked is that they be allowed to dictate when and where the end comes. And since there is no evidence of people being forced to die, or evidence of a floodgate being opened by laws allowing such rights, there is no reason for the personal moral views of one person to infringe on the liberty of another.
Some of the facts listed I didn’t provide links to. If anyone wants them I will do my best to provide them, but it’s info I knew previously from studying psychology. They came from academic books or other research I had to undertake. Since this is an op-ed on a message board I didn’t go out of my way to ensure proper documentation of every fact as I would in an academic paper. The links I included is information that I looked up while writing this.
If anyone wants to learn about a person who fought for the right to die tthen please take a look at this website: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-69-1135/life_society/sue_rodriguez/. It is about Sue Rodriguez, a woman diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease, who fought to have Canadian laws changed so she may die with dignity. It contains news clips, interviews, and written articles. She failed in her efforts, and ended up defying the law. With the aid of an unknown physician she died on February 12th, 1994. .