# Rational Suicide



## Lila

The topic of Rational Suicide came up with some co-workers today during lunch and I thought it would make an interesting discussion here. 

Rational Suicide is where people of sound mind and body make the decision to end their lives. The largest advocates for this are senior citizens who want control over their deaths.

This article does a great job of describing Rational Suicide and the controversy. 



> The concept of rational suicide is highly controversial; it runs counter to many societal norms, religious and moral convictions, and the efforts of suicide prevention workers who contend that every life is worth saving.
> 
> “The concern that I have at a social level is if we all agree that killing yourself is an acceptable, appropriate way to go, then there becomes a social norm around that, and it becomes easier to do, more common,” said Yeates Conwell, a psychiatrist specializing in geriatrics at the University of Rochester and a leading expert in elderly suicide. That’s particularly dangerous with older adults because of widespread ageist attitudes, he said.
> 
> As a society, we have a responsibility to care for people as they age, Conwell argued. Promoting rational suicide “creates the risk of a sense of obligation for older people to use that method rather than advocate for better care that addresses their concerns in other ways.”
> 
> But to Lois, the 86-year-old woman who organized the meeting outside Philadelphia, suicides by older Americans are not all tragedies. A widow with no children, Lois said she would rather end her own life than deteriorate slowly over seven years, as her mother did after she broke a hip at age 90.


What say you TAM?


----------



## notmyjamie

Having seen enough people suffer quite a bit at the end of their life I can see how this would appeal to some. My dream is to fall asleep one day and just never wake up again. Easy, calm, serene and I'd be doing one of my favorite activities. 

My brother says he wants to just end things when he hits 75 as he never wants to be a burden to anyone. Well, he used to say it...now that he's only got 20 more years until then I haven't heard him say it in a while. 

For myself, I might consider it in the case of a terminal illness to save myself from suffering and to save my kids from it. I wouldn't tell them I was going to do it though...I'd just let them think I went in my sleep peacefully from whatever illness I was suffering from at the time.


----------



## OnTheFly

Will dear Lois end her own life, or expect someone one else to do it?


----------



## wilson

Having seen relatives go through the ravages of age-related mental decline, having some control over when the end comes is something I totally support. I don't want to go through that and I don't want to submit my family to the emotional strain over the years or decades before it's finally over. 

What I would really like is something which greatly increases your chances of a shorter lifespan. For example, something which increases your risk of heart attack or a relatively painless kind of cancer that would be very certain to kill you in a matter or months or maybe a year. That way your end is more gradual and easy on your family. Suicide is going to be tough for those left behind even if they completely support the decision.


----------



## Faithful Wife

In Oregon we have a Death With Dignity Act. I don't know how many other states have this. It is there for people who are already terminally ill and do not want to live out the potential painful future they have left. If you qualify, a physician will prescribe you a lethal medication. The medication varies based on the doctor and the patient. I don't think patients are eligible if they have not been determined to be terminally ill. So it would not apply to someone like, say, my brother, who is a paraplegic and may just not want to continue living such a limited life. Since he will be potentially living a long time even though disabled, he would not be considered. I'm not sure about cases of Alzheimer's. I think you have to be aware enough to ask for the act to apply to your case, but most Alzheimer's patients can live a long time before the disease is going to kill them. Unfortunately, by the time they are dying from it, they can no longer be considered aware enough to request the act. But perhaps they can request it in advance to be issued later when they are closer to death but have lost their awareness.

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVI...THWITHDIGNITYACT/Pages/faqs.aspx#prescription


----------



## Cletus

I live in the first place in the world to legalize taking your own life for the terminally ill. 

There were the usual sky is falling predictions of bodies piling up in the streets and grey haired grandmothers being forced by the family to "do the right thing". All of which never happened, of course.

Today, it isn't even a topic of conversation around the water cooler. Those who meet the requirements can get a prescription from a physician to ingest a lethal dose of medication. So far, in 12 years, ~1500 have done so. There does not seem to be any abuse of the system, no one is forced to use it, many get the prescription but never take it, and most are glad to have the option when the time comes.

I'm glad I have the right to choose the manner and timing of my own death should I become terminally ill one day.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> In Oregon we have a Death With Dignity Act. I don't know how many other states have this. It is there for people who are already terminally ill and do not want to live out the potential painful future they have left. If you qualify, a physician will prescribe you a lethal medication. The medication varies based on the doctor and the patient. I don't think patients are eligible if they have not been determined to be terminally ill. So it would not apply to someone like, say, my brother, who is a paraplegic and may just not want to continue living such a limited life. Since he will be potentially living a long time even though disabled, he would not be considered. I'm not sure about cases of Alzheimer's. I think you have to be aware enough to ask for the act to apply to your case, but most Alzheimer's patients can live a long time before the disease is going to kill them. Unfortunately, by the time they are dying from it, they can no longer be considered aware enough to request the act. But perhaps they can request it in advance to be issued later when they are closer to death but have lost their awareness.
> 
> https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVI...THWITHDIGNITYACT/Pages/faqs.aspx#prescription


(1) An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897.

(2) No person shall qualify under the provisions of ORS 127.800 to 127.897 solely because of age or disability. [1995 c.3 s.2.01; 1999 c.423 s.2]

(12) "Terminal disease" means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months. [1995 c.3 s.1.01; 1999 c.423 s.1]


----------



## OnTheFly

I understand the thought of suicide when terminally ill or ravaged with disease, but the ''rational suicide'' is for people of sound mind and body. I assumed before the serious decline starts is when they will end themselves?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> (12) "Terminal disease" means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, *produce death within six months*. [1995 c.3 s.1.01; 1999 c.423 s.1]


Although Alzheimer's is terminal, I don't think it usually kills you within 6 months. That part is a bummer with regard to the DWD act.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> I live in the first place in the world to legalize taking your own life for the terminally ill.
> 
> There were the usual sky is falling predictions of bodies piling up in the streets and grey haired grandmothers being forced by the family to "do the right thing". All of which never happened, of course.
> 
> Today, it isn't even a topic of conversation around the water cooler. Those who meet the requirements can get a prescription from a physician to ingest a lethal dose of medication. So far, in 12 years, ~1500 have done so. There does not seem to be any abuse of the system, no one is forced to use it, many get the prescription but never take it, and most are glad to have the option when the time comes.
> 
> I'm glad I have the right to choose the manner and timing of my own death should I become terminally ill one day.


The other thing that I like about our DWD act is that you take the medication yourself, when you are ready. And that way it is not assisted suicide, and therefore the doctor does not have to take part in that process. They do have to prescribe it, but they don't know if you will ever take it or not. Suicide assisted by a doctor seems a little yucky to me. Doing it yourself when you choose seems much better.


----------



## Lila

OnTheFly said:


> Will dear Lois end her own life, or expect someone one else to do it?


They are trying to fight for medically assisted suicide. If I recall correctly Lois is stockpiling lethal doses of drugs.


----------



## Lila

Faithful Wife said:


> In Oregon we have a Death With Dignity Act. I don't know how many other states have this. It is there for people who are already terminally ill and do not want to live out the potential painful future they have left. If you qualify, a physician will prescribe you a lethal medication. The medication varies based on the doctor and the patient. I don't think patients are eligible if they have not been determined to be terminally ill. So it would not apply to someone like, say, my brother, who is a paraplegic and may just not want to continue living such a limited life. Since he will be potentially living a long time even though disabled, he would not be considered. I'm not sure about cases of Alzheimer's. I think you have to be aware enough to ask for the act to apply to your case, but most Alzheimer's patients can live a long time before the disease is going to kill them. Unfortunately, by the time they are dying from it, they can no longer be considered aware enough to request the act. But perhaps they can request it in advance to be issued later when they are closer to death but have lost their awareness.
> 
> https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVI...THWITHDIGNITYACT/Pages/faqs.aspx#prescription





Cletus said:


> I live in the first place in the world to legalize taking your own life for the terminally ill.
> 
> There were the usual sky is falling predictions of bodies piling up in the streets and grey haired grandmothers being forced by the family to "do the right thing". All of which never happened, of course.
> 
> Today, it isn't even a topic of conversation around the water cooler. Those who meet the requirements can get a prescription from a physician to ingest a lethal dose of medication. So far, in 12 years, ~1500 have done so. There does not seem to be any abuse of the system, no one is forced to use it, many get the prescription but never take it, and most are glad to have the option when the time comes.
> 
> I'm glad I have the right to choose the manner and timing of my own death should I become terminally ill one day.


Rational Suicide is for people that are not terminally ill and who have all of their mental faculties. It is mostly directed toward the elderly but could technically include anyone.


----------



## OnTheFly

Lila said:


> They are trying to fight for medically assisted suicide.


I get that queasy slippery slope feeing.



Lila said:


> If I recall correctly Lois is stockpiling lethal doses of drugs.


I would respect this more.


----------



## Lila

I never would have considered this while I was married but now that I am single, Rational Suicide sounds like the way to go. 

I just had a minor medical procedure done and had to fly my mom in from a different state just to be present at the surgical center while I was under anesthesia. This got me thinking...who will be there for me if I have an emergency situation? Will I have to be a burden on my son in my old age? Yeah, nope. I don't think so.


----------



## Lila

OnTheFly said:


> I get that queasy slippery slope feeing.
> 
> 
> 
> I would respect this more.


Why would you feel queasy about medically assisted suicide?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lila said:


> I never would have considered this while I was married but now that I am single, Rational Suicide sounds like the way to go.
> 
> I just had a minor medical procedure done and had to fly my mom in from a different state just to be present at the surgical center while I was under anesthesia. This got me thinking...who will be there for me if I have an emergency situation? Will I have to be a burden on my son in my old age? Yeah, nope. I don't think so.


NOT that my mother is a burden....but holy crap do I spend a lot of energy on her health. I'm picking her up at the hospital today AGAIN, this will be the 6th time in one month that I have picked her up. And that does not include all the other things I've done in the same month related to her health. Pick up a rental wheelchair here, pick up a prescription there, talk to the nurses at physical rehab about her treatment plan for half an hour, go stay with her over night because she doesn't feel well and thinks she may need to go to the hospital again but isn't sure, talk to social workers and others who are in charge of her care about plans or changes...literally every day it is something and usually it is multiple things.

I love my mother and would not have it any other way (well, actually I would prefer to have a bunch of siblings who could help, lol), but this process has made me determined that I will NEVER do this to my own children. Hopefully that will mean I will be able to have medical professionals help me with things rather than my kids. But if that's not possible, I'm just going to kick the bucket in some sneaky way. NEVER will I put them in this position.


----------



## Mr. Nail

The right to die is the most basic of freedoms. It is a travesty in a Nation that claims the most human freedoms, that the most basic is the most controlled. And for what cause is it controlled? For the profit of the hospital industry. 

Some of my thoughts on this recently:
1. Death is not the worst thing that can happen to you. In fact it is the one thing that will most certainly happen to you.
2. While it is barbaric to "expect" someone to suicide. It is compassionate to expect some one to suffer. That needs to be reversed. It should be barbaric to expect one to suffer, and it should be compassionate to accept another's decision to die.
3. 60% of gun control advocacy is to make suicide more painful.
4. How exactly do you punish a successful suicide?


----------



## Blondilocks

One can hire a caregiver for the specific purpose of accompanying you to surgery and helping afterwards. Check with agencies in your state.

As for a quick demise, surely one can think of high-risk activities that will do the job. Or, start smoking - lung cancer can take you in a matter of months once diagnosed.


----------



## TBT

I imagine theology would come into play at some point.


----------



## lifeistooshort

It's always seemed to me that for a society that claims to be religious we in the US have a very irrational fear of death.

The very same people who will scream about God as the only one who can decide will also scream to keep man made life extending medical devices connected....so clearly they're not really about leaving things to God.

I don't see the issue if one who is suffering and has no end of suffering to look forward to wishes to end said suffering.

I sat with my father the night he died and urged him to move on because thanks to advanced lung cancer there was very little left for him here beyond suffering. I remember telling him it would be ok and him saying "no it's not, I'm going to die".

I responded with "yes you are, but that's ok. You're going to go on to the next world and check it out for me. I'll join you when I raise your grandsons and my time is here".

He calmed down and nodded. His doctor had actually given me enough morphine to end things but fortunately I didn't have to use it because he went by himself. He had made me promise to do it if he really started to suffer.

Let people control their own lives.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blondilocks said:


> One can hire a caregiver for the specific purpose of accompanying you to surgery and helping afterwards. Check with agencies in your state.


This is true but the word "hire" is the operative. There is no way my mother can afford to pay someone to help with all of the things she needs help with. She is on the verge of needing assisted living at this point. To pay for this privately is about $5K per month. She cannot afford that either, so what happens is that you turn in any money you have to the state and they pick up your tab at a qualified state assisted care facility. These facilities are pretty decent, not scary institutions, thankfully. She is reluctant of course because she lives in an independent retirement community right now and she will lose all of her friends and activities when she moves to assisted living. But in the meantime, that means I and her friends are doing the work of 2 or 3 nurses and aids. We can't do it anymore.

If someone does have plenty of money at the end of life, they are in a much better position than those who don't, and their families will feel the difference too.


----------



## Blondilocks

Faithful Wife said:


> This is true but the word "hire" is the operative. There is no way my mother can afford to pay someone to help with all of the things she needs help with. She is on the verge of needing assisted living at this point. To pay for this privately is about $5K per month. She cannot afford that either, so what happens is that you turn in any money you have to the state and they pick up your tab at a qualified state assisted care facility. These facilities are pretty decent, not scary institutions, thankfully. She is reluctant of course because she lives in an independent retirement community right now and she will lose all of her friends and activities when she moves to assisted living. But in the meantime, that means I and her friends are doing the work of 2 or 3 nurses and aids. We can't do it anymore.
> 
> If someone does have plenty of money at the end of life, they are in a much better position than those who don't, and their families will feel the difference too.


You said your mom has social workers, right? Is she on Medicaid?

Actually, my response was for Lila's benefit; but, if your Mom is on Medicaid, then her case worker should be able to provide workers to come in and assist your mom with her appointments, cleaning, grocery shopping, errands etc.


----------



## Mr. Nail

TBT said:


> I imagine theology would come into play at some point.


It always does. But is theology leading the law? or is law leading the theology? And has that changed recently?

Of more worry to me is the Psychological theory that the contemplation of suicide is de facto evidence of mental insufficiency. In other words there is no rational suicide because the choice to suicide is irrational in all cases.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blondilocks said:


> You said your mom has social workers, right? Is she on Medicaid?


Social workers are assigned to her through her health insurance system currently. They assign one as soon as you enter the hospital (if you are elderly or disadvantaged), and typically one will visit you in your home afterwards if you also need home health care, which she frequently does. Social workers are always present at physical rehab as well, which she has been in 6 times in the past 3 years. She does have medicare, not medicaid. She will have to go on medicaid once she goes into assisted living.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blondilocks said:


> Actually, my response was for Lila's benefit; but, if your Mom is on Medicaid, then her case worker should be able to provide workers to come in and assist your mom with her appointments, cleaning, grocery shopping, errands etc.


She doesn't qualify for medicaid yet, but she will soon.


----------



## Blondilocks

Faithful Wife said:


> Social workers are assigned to her through her health insurance system currently. They assign one as soon as you enter the hospital (if you are elderly or disadvantaged), and typically one will visit you in your home afterwards if you also need home health care, which she frequently does. Social workers are always present at physical rehab as well, which she has been in 6 times in the past 3 years. She does have medicare, not medicaid. She will have to go on medicaid once she goes into assisted living.


My mom lives in her own home and is on Medicaid. She is provided with help 5 days a week (7 if she wanted it). Is there any way you can get your Mom on Medicaid at this time so she won't have to leave her home? My Mom's caseworker is a Godsend and does everything she can to keep her patients in their own homes (it is actually cheaper for the state). My Mom lives in South Carolina.


----------



## Cletus

Lila said:


> Rational Suicide is for people that are not terminally ill and who have all of their mental faculties. It is mostly directed toward the elderly but could technically include anyone.


Yeah, I'm OK with that too, with HEAVY emphasis on the rational part.

A spur-of-the-moment suicide is one of those things that can be easily stopped through immediate intervention. Should the day come when I have my faculties but decide it's time to go, I would like that choice too. My FIL is dying as we speak. Hospice care sent home a packet to his wife outlining what's going to happen at the very end, and it is NOT pretty. I do not want anyone feeling obligated to go through that with me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blondilocks said:


> My mom lives in her own home and is on Medicaid. She is provided with help 5 days a week (7 if she wanted it). Is there any way you can get your Mom on Medicaid at this time so she won't have to leave her home? My Mom's caseworker is a Godsend and does everything she can to keep her patients in their own homes (it is actually cheaper for the state). My Mom lives in South Carolina.


No because she makes too much money on her pension and social security. Which isn't a lot but it is above the limit. And nearly all of it goes to pay her $1,700 a month rent at her independent living 1 bedroom 500sf apartment. So there is nothing left to hire people for help.

You can also qualify for medicaid based on disability, which she will qualify for soon. At that point though, they take any money you have to apply towards your care and they pay the rest.


----------



## OnTheFly

Lila said:


> Why would you feel queasy about medically assisted suicide?


The European (Belgium, maybe) model. It always seems to end up being something it wasn't supposed to be.


----------



## Buddy400

Lila said:


> The topic of Rational Suicide came up with some co-workers today during lunch and I thought it would make an interesting discussion here.
> 
> Rational Suicide is where people of sound mind and body make the decision to end their lives. The largest advocates for this are senior citizens who want control over their deaths.
> 
> This article does a great job of describing Rational Suicide and the controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> What say you TAM?


I'm a fan.


----------



## Lila

OnTheFly said:


> The European (Belgium, maybe) model. It always seems to end up being something it wasn't supposed to be.


I am not familiar with that. What is the European model? I thought they had the same thing we have here in Oregon.


----------



## wilson

One thing that would be useful for this would be a device which would stop your heart if you didn't take some action for some amount of time. Kind of like a reverse pacemaker. As long as you wave some wand or whatever over your body at least once a month, the device stays dormant. But if you skip several months, then it gets activated and will stop your heart at some random time in the future, preferably while you're sleeping.

For people who have declining mental facilities, something like that would be beneficial. They could get it installed when they first notice issues. As long as they still have their mental facilities they can keep it deactivated. But once things decline and they forget or aren't able to signal the device, the device would wake up and activate at some point in the near future.


----------



## Lila

Follow on questions...

For those of in favor or Rational Suicide, what sorts of limitations, if any, would you impose?


----------



## Lila

Mr. Nail said:


> It always does. But is theology leading the law? or is law leading the theology? And has that changed recently?
> 
> Of more worry to me is the Psychological theory that the contemplation of suicide is de facto evidence of mental insufficiency. * In other words there is no rational suicide because the choice to suicide is irrational in all cases.*


This seems to be the overarching argument against it.


----------



## SpinyNorman

wilson said:


> Having seen relatives go through the ravages of age-related mental decline, having some control over when the end comes is something I totally support. I don't want to go through that and I don't want to submit my family to the emotional strain over the years or decades before it's finally over.
> 
> What I would really like is something which greatly increases your chances of a shorter lifespan. For example, something which increases your risk of heart attack or a relatively painless kind of cancer that would be very certain to kill you in a matter or months or maybe a year.


 Of course a heart attack isn't reliably fatal, and when it is it is often very sudden. I don't begrudge you a death from cancer or heart attack if that's what you want, but I would greatly prefer the anesthesia overdose.


> That way your end is more gradual and easy on your family.


It probably varies by family. In your first paragraph you suggest the gradual death of age-related mental decline is itself a strain on the family. 


> Suicide is going to be tough for those left behind even if they completely support the decision.


Losing a relative is generally tough.


----------



## Casual Observer

I think the toughest cases to deal with will be those involving declining mental faculties. Because someone has Alzheimers, should that person no longer have a choice in the matter? What if it's someone who expressed a very clear desire to move on if they were mentally impaired, but when they got to that point, they were not remembering that and indicated no desire to move on, perhaps too far gone to really understand the question.

Easy to say what their intent had been, but do we assume that the Alzheimer version of this person no longer has any rights to say yes or no to something? At some point they become nearly vegetative and this is not an issue, but there's a lot of suffering between earlier and that point. 

Just look at the extent to which we argue (rightfully so) for consent at every stage of the way for sex. The impaired person may not be the person you remember, and may not remember you at all. But where do you draw the line?


----------



## Hiner112

I've had a couple related situations in my family so far.

When I was in high school my maternal grandfather got pancreatic cancer. He went from a very in shape 130 pounds to less than 90 over the course of 6 months. There was never any real hope of a remission short of a miracle. At one point a couple months in he said something to my grandmother and his children that they should all go somewhere for a while so he could be alone. There was no sense in spending money on medicine that was never going to help. His firearms were moved out of the house that day. I don't think he was wrong.

My paternal grandmother was almost 90 and living independently when she was admitted to the hospital for dangerously high blood pressure and an arrhythmia. On her discharge day as my aunt was showing up to pick her up she had a heart attack and the hospital put in a pacemaker. After trying to ween her off of the pacemaker it was determined that she couldn't live without it. In the next 24 hours the family that weren't local either traveled there or called / facetimed. She said what she had to say like, "I love you all the same though some of you are more trouble than others" *looks at two people in particular*. After planning her funeral (picking out songs, picking out her hair dresser, etc) she said, "Well, I've had my say. When can we cut this machine off." Balls. That. Clank.

My mom had kidney problems for a while and she had surgeries to prepare for dialysis. One weekend she was lethargic and decided to wait until Monday to go to the doctor. By Monday she couldn't get dressed by herself. That evening talking to her was like talking to her slightly buzzed. Dialysis stopped her heart once and by Thursday she was never going to wake up. I've heard of people deciding on stopping dialysis because they preferred dying to dealing with it. Part of me is glad that my mom didn't have to make that decision.


----------



## TJW

What if you are elderly, of sound mind, still gainfully employed (although at lower pay than you used to command) - and do not want to live with the embarrassing limitations, such as being fatigued, and being "average" (unable to have a good life free from financial pressure and constant worry) ? What about the humiliation of living in government-subsidized housing because you are no longer able to earn a decent living-wage paycheck, having to be in debt, with little hope of coming to relief?

What if your spouse hates you because you are physically incapable of the "honey-do" list, keeping up with yard work, etc ? And you receive constant insults and complaints every day ? You are made to feel substandard and inferior to other family members and acquaintances ?

Would no laws offer assisted suicide because I am not "terminal" ? After all, isn't life itself a terminal illness ?


----------



## uhtred

"Rational" suicide for the elderly is good in theory but has real issues. 

At one point my father, late 70s was in the hospital. Wife had died the previous year. He was depressed, didn't want to live. He said he wanted to die, and receive no treatment. Hospital complied in not doing anything but giving him water. (as apparently they could legally do). 

I spent several days with him and finally convinced him that he had something to live for. He lived another 10 years, some of them OK.


The problem is that as people get old the get gradually less rational, but there is no sharp cutoff.


----------



## Casual Observer

TJW said:


> What if you are elderly, of sound mind, still gainfully employed (although at lower pay than you used to command) - and do not want to live with the embarrassing limitations, such as being fatigued, and being "average" (unable to have a good life free from financial pressure and constant worry) ? What about the humiliation of living in government-subsidized housing because you are no longer able to earn a decent living-wage paycheck, having to be in debt, with little hope of coming to relief?
> 
> What if your spouse hates you because you are physically incapable of the "honey-do" list, keeping up with yard work, etc ? And you receive constant insults and complaints every day ? You are made to feel substandard and inferior to other family members and acquaintances ?
> 
> Would no laws offer assisted suicide because I am not "terminal" ? After all, isn't life itself a terminal illness ?


Soylent Green. The future was 2022.


----------



## SpinyNorman

uhtred said:


> "Rational" suicide for the elderly is good in theory but has real issues.
> 
> At one point my father, late 70s was in the hospital. Wife had died the previous year. He was depressed, didn't want to live. He said he wanted to die, and receive no treatment. Hospital complied in not doing anything but giving him water. (as apparently they could legally do).
> 
> I spent several days with him and finally convinced him that he had something to live for. He lived another 10 years, some of them OK.
> 
> 
> The problem is that as people get old the get gradually less rational, but there is no sharp cutoff.


I'm not sure how much it has to do w/ age. Many people who attempt suicide but don't complete the attempt are alive years later, they appear to have reconsidered. But I think others do reach a consistent decision.


----------



## AandM

Faithful Wife said:


> In Oregon we have a Death With Dignity Act. I don't know how many other states have this. It is there for people who are already terminally ill and do not want to live out the potential painful future they have left. If you qualify, a physician will prescribe you a lethal medication. The medication varies based on the doctor and the patient. I don't think patients are eligible if they have not been determined to be terminally ill. So it would not apply to someone like, say, my brother, who is a paraplegic and may just not want to continue living such a limited life. Since he will be potentially living a long time even though disabled, he would not be considered. I'm not sure about cases of Alzheimer's. I think you have to be aware enough to ask for the act to apply to your case, but most Alzheimer's patients can live a long time before the disease is going to kill them. Unfortunately, by the time they are dying from it, they can no longer be considered aware enough to request the act. But perhaps they can request it in advance to be issued later when they are closer to death but have lost their awareness.
> 
> https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVI...THWITHDIGNITYACT/Pages/faqs.aspx#prescription


The Slippery Slope is not just for breakfast; and it is not a myth:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4736927/Right-to-die-can-become-a-duty-to-die.html



> Imagine that you have lung cancer. It has been in remission, but tests show the cancer has returned and is likely to be terminal. Still, there is some hope. Chemotherapy could extend your life, if not save it. You ask to begin treatment. But you soon receive more devastating news. A letter from the government informs you that the cost of chemotherapy is deemed an unjustified expense for the limited extra time it would provide. However, the government is not without compassion. You are informed that whenever you are ready, it will gladly pay for your assisted suicide.
> 
> Think that's an alarmist scenario to scare you away from supporting "death with dignity"? Wrong. That is exactly what happened last year to two cancer patients in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal.
> 
> Barbara Wagner had recurrent lung cancer and Randy Stroup had prostate cancer. Both were on Medicaid, the state's health insurance plan for the poor that, like some NHS services, is rationed. The state denied both treatment, but told them it would pay for their assisted suicide. "It dropped my chin to the floor," Stroup told the media. "[How could they] not pay for medication that would help my life, and yet offer to pay to end my life?" (Wagner eventually received free medication from the drug manufacturer. She has since died. The denial of chemotherapy to Stroup was reversed on appeal after his story hit the media.)
> 
> Despite Wagner and Stroup's cases, advocates continue to insist that Oregon proves assisted suicide can be legalised with no abuses. But the more one learns about the actual experience, the shakier such assurances become.


----------



## Diana7

Faithful Wife said:


> NOT that my mother is a burden....but holy crap do I spend a lot of energy on her health. I'm picking her up at the hospital today AGAIN, this will be the 6th time in one month that I have picked her up. And that does not include all the other things I've done in the same month related to her health. Pick up a rental wheelchair here, pick up a prescription there, talk to the nurses at physical rehab about her treatment plan for half an hour, go stay with her over night because she doesn't feel well and thinks she may need to go to the hospital again but isn't sure, talk to social workers and others who are in charge of her care about plans or changes...literally every day it is something and usually it is multiple things.
> 
> I love my mother and would not have it any other way (well, actually I would prefer to have a bunch of siblings who could help, lol), but this process has made me determined that I will NEVER do this to my own children. Hopefully that will mean I will be able to have medical professionals help me with things rather than my kids. But if that's not possible, I'm just going to kick the bucket in some sneaky way. NEVER will I put them in this position.


If they found out you killed yourself (and with unexplained deaths there is a post mortem), they will be left with an even greater burden and nightmare to deal with. I have lost 2 family members to suicide, one very close, its horrendous. I would never want to do that to my kids.


----------



## heartsbeating

Lila said:


> What say you TAM?


I haven't read the whole thread, despite this being an interesting question and discussion.

Lila, if you're interested though, you might like to read Emile Durkhiem's theories/stuides of suicide (in this instance, anomic).


----------



## Lila

Diana7 said:


> If they found out you killed yourself (and with unexplained deaths there is a post mortem), they will be left with an even greater burden and nightmare to deal with. I have lost 2 family members to suicide, one very close, its horrendous. I would never want to do that to my kids.


That's why people are arguing for Rational Suicide. Family and friends could be notified of the decision and know that the person deciding to die is doing so of sound mind.


----------



## SpinyNorman

AandM said:


> The Slippery Slope is not just for breakfast; and it is not a myth:
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4736927/Right-to-die-can-become-a-duty-to-die.html


Not sure what your example is telling us. Are you saying it is ok for the state to not treat people w/ serious diseases as long as it doesn't offer to pay for their suicide?


----------



## Diana7

Lila said:


> That's why people are arguing for Rational Suicide. Family and friends could be notified of the decision and know that the person deciding to die is doing so of sound mind.


I am sure that many family members would not want their relative to kill themselves even if they did know before.


----------



## Lila

Diana7 said:


> I am sure that many family members would not want their relative to kill themselves even if they did know before.



Most people don't want to see their loved ones die but I think the number one reason suicide is so hurtful to the left behind is the suddenness with which it happens and the reasons for it. I think most people would be better able to cope if they knew it was coming and could understand the why's for it.


----------



## Affaircare

AandM said:


> The Slippery Slope is not just for breakfast; and it is not a myth:
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4736927/Right-to-die-can-become-a-duty-to-die.html



Regarding this specific article, I have only one issue: both of the people were on Medicaid, which means that they expected OTHERS to pay for the treatment to extend their life. I get it, some people are not ready to die and may not choose that...they want every option to live. But that doesn't really mean that others are responsible to pay for what you can't afford to keep you alive a little longer. At that point, I would say that others (via Medicaid) had paid for all the most likely, cost-effective options to extend life. Based on their diagnosis, they were GOING to die and soon... so yeah as much as we hate to think of it this way, when you ask OTHERS to pay for your medication, at some point there's going to be a question of cost efficiency. It sounds cold-hearted, but here's the truth: we are all going to die. If I have a fortune and I want to spend all that I've amassed to try to stay alive an extra month--hey that is my business. I can spend it all! But if I personally can not afford it and I am depending on the aid and relief offered to the indigent or less fortunate, then I can't really expect "them" (the public) to spend all THEIR money to make ME life an extra couple months. As I see it, the notice from Medicaid just was telling these people that their life will be ending soonish, that it's time to begin accepting that, and that if they wanted to consider assisted suicide, that is an option at their disposal. They don't HAVE TO choose that--they could say "Nope, I want to let it happen naturally" but either way the cost of the proposed medication is denied. 

Now...as to the bigger topic at hand, my own personal thought is that every adult is personally responsible. Whether we want to think of it this way or not, dying is something we do alone. Now...there may be loved ones and family nearby, but they don't die with you. You die on your own. So it seems to me that if an adult can make decisions about their own life and body, they should also be able to make decisions about their death. I would hate to see the scenario where a doctor "makes the choice for you" because that IS an ethical and moral Gordian Knot. But as long as the adult is of sound mind and terminal, and they make this choice of their own free will, I say document it and let them go peacefully.


----------



## Not

Lila said:


> Follow on questions...
> 
> For those of in favor or Rational Suicide, what sorts of limitations, if any, would you impose?


I'm in favor. As to your question, a rational suicide will most likely be done under the radar so limitations would be impossible to impose. I dictate how that goes, no one else.


----------



## Lila

Affaircare said:


> Now...as to the bigger topic at hand, my own personal thought is that every adult is personally responsible. Whether we want to think of it this way or not, dying is something we do alone. Now...there may be loved ones and family nearby, but they don't die with you. You die on your own. So it seems to me that if an adult can make decisions about their own life and body, they should also be able to make decisions about their death. I would hate to see the scenario where a doctor "makes the choice for you" because that IS an ethical and moral Gordian Knot. But as long as the adult is of sound mind and terminal, and they make this choice of their own free will, I say document it and let them go peacefully.


Would you also agree with it if they were not terminal? Rational Suicide is when people who are of sound mind and body choose to die.


----------



## Affaircare

Lila said:


> Would you also agree with it if they were not terminal? Rational Suicide is when people who are of sound mind and body choose to die.


Well my Dear Hubby is a great example of this. He had heart failure for 5 years, and that meant that for 5 years he could never take a deep breath, and when he did breathe it was painful. He spent his final years feeling like he was drowning and in pain, and honestly that wasn't easy for him or me. Clearly, his heart failure was going to eventually kill him. 

On the one hand, I did enjoy our life right up to the final day, so each day was precious. On the other hand, if he had said, "I'm really done with this, Honey, and I think I'm ready to go," I would have been extremely sad and taken some time to adjust. But here's the thing--as we went through his medical stuff, there were times when I disagreed with his medical choices (as in, I wouldn't have done that if it were me, or I wouldn't have gone about it that way, etc.)...but I did realize it was HIS body and HIS health, and thus HIS decision. My job wasn't to make him do it my way, but rather to support his choices and give them the best opportunity to succeed, right? So again, if he had been of sound mind but just indicated he was ready to go, I would have probably said "Okay let's do a couple counseling sessions to be sure it's not depression and to give me a chance to accept this, and then let's go." 

I would not want to see someone I love suffer. We do all suffer--that's life --but I mean prolonging the physical suffering. Death is okay--it's going to happen. Dignified death doesn't bother me. I think the people who are the loved ones who weren't ready for them to go might be the most likely to have a problem with it. And I sure as shooting would never, EVER get the government involved in legislating this or "enforcing" it.


----------



## arbitrator

Lila said:


> The topic of Rational Suicide came up with some co-workers today during lunch and I thought it would make an interesting discussion here.
> 
> Rational Suicide is where people of sound mind and body make the decision to end their lives. The largest advocates for this are senior citizens who want control over their deaths.
> 
> This article does a great job of describing Rational Suicide and the controversy.
> 
> What say you TAM?


*Bless her heart! Although not being a proponent of either outright or assisted suicide, primarily because of my strong Christian relationship, and given the magnitude of her personal situation, I can clearly see her rationale on this!

*


----------



## wilson

One challenge with getting older is that many diseases cause a long and slow decline in mental facilities. The early stages of conditions like dementia or Alzheimer's may be just some increased forgetfulness and confusion. The person will likely be of sound mind at that time and will be able to get to the doctor, understand the diagnoses, and so on. But as time goes on, that ability will fade. Even if they have stockpiled the necessary drugs to take care of the issue themselves, there will be a time where they won't remember or be able to take that step. So then the person is left with a tough decision of when to end everything. If they are competent enough to do it, then likely they still have some amount of good days left. If they wait until it's all bad days ahead, it's likely too late since they won't be competent enough to do it themselves.

I think it would be optimal if someone could end their life a little while after they crossed that line where they are no longer competent. It would help their family with the transition if they could see and experience the downturn. If the person suicides while they still are having good days, it will be harder on those left behind. But I think it's common for the family to feel some relief and peace when they feel their loved one was suffering and death released them from that pain.


----------



## 2&out

I'm in. My kids know. Daughter doesn't like it but it's my decision, isn't it. I hope I don't end up needing to and die by accident or suddenly but I won't hesitate if happy, good, and future aren't all aligned/together.


----------



## Mr. Nail

So I haven't written a living will. I haven't even written a will. I haven't bought a funeral policy. I haven't discussed much of my desires along those lines. It seems like a lot of work. 
They say people put off the conversation, because we are uncomfortable with it. I guess I'm still keeping my distance.


----------



## SunCMars

I see this as the foot, that once it wedges itself in the door, will slowly leverage more concessions from the willing-living.

Oh my!

And for those having a living will, specifically, for those whose insurance policies that will not pay out for {death-by-suicide}. It will, at some point, if not now, force them to pay.
................................................................................

At some point,this ......

_Just another ten feet closer that humanity will find itself, sliding off the cliff into that uncaring future, that cold abyss_.

..............................................................................

I get it, I do.

Like it, I do not.


----------



## AandM

SpinyNorman said:


> Not sure what your example is telling us. Are you saying it is ok for the state to not treat people w/ serious diseases as long as it doesn't offer to pay for their suicide?


Sending people that would like to live letters to the effect of, "Well, even though you are on Medicaid (which we promote as the answer to all medical funding problems), we're not going to pay for the recommended treatment, 'cause we don't want to pay for that ****, so here's a bunch of lorazepam (to knock you out) and amitriptyline to stop the heart".


----------



## Lila

I guess I was interpreting Rational Suicide a little differently. 

I interpret it as someone who is healthy but just not interested in life anymore. They may feel they've accomplished everything they were put on this Earth and are just ready to go but a) want to make sure it's done correctly and b) as painless as possible. 

I think that choice should be allowed. May make me morbid but considering what I have to look forward to, I would probably make this choice.


----------



## SunCMars

Martians will never take their own life by their own hand.

No.

They will commit suicide via another hand, that of another soldier, the bad ones do, sometimes by cop.


----------



## OnTheFly

Lila said:


> I guess I was interpreting Rational Suicide a little differently.
> 
> I interpret it as someone who is healthy but just not interested in life anymore. They may feel they've accomplished everything they were put on this Earth and are just ready to go but a) want to make sure it's done correctly and b) as painless as possible.


My understanding also. (except for the a) part)



Lila said:


> I think that choice should be allowed.


I bristle at the idea of getting the "State" involved. A person of sound mind and body should be able to come up with a clean and efficient method of suicide, no?


----------



## Lila

OnTheFly said:


> I bristle at the idea of getting the "State" involved. A person of sound mind and body should be able to come up with a clean and efficient method of suicide, no?


I wish the State would just not legislate period. 

As to coming up with an efficient method, there's a big difference between being given intravenous lorezepam and succinyl choline ( go to sleep) and taking lethal oral doses of other drugs. One is guaranteed to be quick and painless (essentially going to sleep) the other may or may not go smoothly as anticipated.


----------



## SpinyNorman

AandM said:


> Sending people that would like to live letters to the effect of, "Well, even though you are on Medicaid (which we promote as the answer to all medical funding problems), we're not going to pay for the recommended treatment, 'cause we don't want to pay for that ****, so here's a bunch of lorazepam (to knock you out) and amitriptyline to stop the heart".


You haven't answered my question.


----------



## OnTheFly

Lila said:


> I wish the State would just not legislate period.


Yes, thank you!! lol



Lila said:


> As to coming up with an efficient method, there's a big difference between being given intravenous lorezepam and succinyl choline ( go to sleep) and taking lethal oral doses of other drugs. One is guaranteed to be quick and painless (essentially going to sleep) the other may or may not go smoothly as anticipated.


True, with freedom comes risk. I don't like the idea on having another State mandated person involved.

Interesting topic, really.


----------



## AandM

SpinyNorman said:


> You haven't answered my question.


Yes, I have. You are either being obtuse* REDACTED *

"Hi! As a member of our Oregon family, you are entitled to state and Federal medical help since your medical condition helps to exclude you from work. However, you're cancer is going to cost us too much, even though you may live 10-30 years afterwards. Therefore, here is a bunch of pills we think that you should take. K Thnks Bye!".


----------



## MattMatt

In The Netherlands people questioned the wisdom of physician assisted suicide.They were told that it would all be OK, that people would not be killed without their full agreement.

Unfortunately their worries have been proven to have some validity.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...sharp-rise-docter-assisted-deaths-netherlands



> Dutch prosecutors to investigate euthanasia cases after sharp rise
> 
> Doctor-assisted deaths of four women in the Netherlands found to warrant criminal inquiries


https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...nasia-gone-too-far-netherlands-assisted-dying



> Death on demand: has euthanasia gone too far?


I am not totally against assisted suicide, but believe great care must be taken.


----------



## Blondilocks

Anyone remember the movie Harold and Maude? She made it happen.

People who genuinely want to end their lives figure out a way to get it done. I wouldn't trust the government in any capacity nor doctors to carry out my wishes. Also, with elder abuse on the rise one must be careful that the person is not being coerced into exiting the land of the living.

I'm still undecided on the concept when it doesn't involve a terminal illness. What I do know is I have no right to make it my business.


----------



## Cletus

AandM said:


> Sending people that would like to live letters to the effect of, "Well, even though you are on Medicaid (which we promote as the answer to all medical funding problems), we're not going to pay for the recommended treatment, 'cause we don't want to pay for that ****, so here's a bunch of lorazepam (to knock you out) and amitriptyline to stop the heart".


Oh, look, the death panels are back!

I missed them, I really did.


----------



## Cletus

MattMatt said:


> In The Netherlands people questioned the wisdom of physician assisted suicide.


Anyone who has ever had a family member take their own life by handgun understands the need for physician assistance for those determined to carry it out.


----------



## SpinyNorman

SpinyNorman said:


> Are you saying it is ok for the state to not treat people w/ serious diseases as long as it doesn't offer to pay for their suicide?





AandM said:


> Sending people that would like to live letters to the effect of, "Well, even though you are on Medicaid (which we promote as the answer to all medical funding problems), we're not going to pay for the recommended treatment, 'cause we don't want to pay for that ****, so here's a bunch of lorazepam (to knock you out) and amitriptyline to stop the heart".





SpinyNorman said:


> You haven't answered my question.





AandM said:


> Yes, I have. You are either being obtuse* REDACTED *


No, your objection mentions both of the possibilities I inquired about, so it is impossible to tell if your objection is based on one, the other, or for some reason, the combination thereof. 

Obtuse and non-clairvoyant aren't interchangeable.


----------



## SpinyNorman

Blondilocks said:


> Anyone remember the movie Harold and Maude? She made it happen.
> 
> People who genuinely want to end their lives figure out a way to get it done. I wouldn't trust the government in any capacity nor doctors to carry out my wishes.


Really? Do you ever trust them w/ your health when you don't want to die? Because that is a lot easier to screw up.


----------



## SpinyNorman

OnTheFly said:


> My understanding also. (except for the a) part)
> 
> 
> 
> I bristle at the idea of getting the "State" involved. A person of sound mind and body should be able to come up with a clean and efficient method of suicide, no?


The medical profession is always going to have the nicest means. What you can come up w/ on your own may be limited by your faculties. If you are bedridden or have poor use of your hands, that is going to be limiting.


----------



## OnTheFly

SpinyNorman said:


> If you are bedridden or have poor use of your hands, that is going to be limiting.


True, but then it is no longer rational suicide. RS requires sound body and mind.


----------



## Blondilocks

SpinyNorman said:


> Really? Do you ever trust them w/ your health when you don't want to die? Because that is a lot easier to screw up.


Not really. If you have ever been misdiagnosed, you would know it's important to get 2nd and 3rd opinions. And, to do your own research. Know what they call doctors who graduate at the bottom of their class?


----------



## OnTheFly

Blondilocks said:


> Not really. If you have ever been misdiagnosed, you would know it's important to get 2nd and 3rd opinions. And, to do your own research. *Know what they call doctors who graduate at the bottom of their class?*


Dr. BlewIt?

I sure hope your answer is funnier!


----------



## Blondilocks

OnTheFly said:


> Dr. BlewIt?
> 
> I sure hope your answer is funnier!


They are called Dr. The same as the one who graduated at the top of the class.


----------



## OnTheFly

Blondilocks said:


> They are called Dr. The same as the one who graduated at the top of the class.


That's not funny, that's bloody scary!!

I heard 10% of all deaths are doctor error, or is that urban legend?


----------



## SpinyNorman

OnTheFly said:


> True, but then it is no longer rational suicide. RS requires sound body and mind.


I read the article linked in the OP and also the article on the Oregon law, and I found nothing that says you must possess a sound body. 

Do you have a source for this claim?


----------



## SpinyNorman

Blondilocks said:


> Not really.


You always get a 2nd & 3rd opinion? b/c if not, sometimes you do trust your doctor. And even if you do, you're trusting the medical profession, just not one individual.


----------



## Blondilocks

SpinyNorman said:


> You always get a 2nd & 3rd opinion? b/c if not, sometimes you do trust your doctor. And even if you do, you're trusting the medical profession, just not one individual.


I know you like to be right and get the last word in; so, here ya go: you're right (on occasion). End threadjack.


----------



## Fozzy

Cletus said:


> Yeah, I'm OK with that too, with HEAVY emphasis on the rational part.
> 
> A spur-of-the-moment suicide is one of those things that can be easily stopped through immediate intervention. Should the day come when I have my faculties but decide it's time to go, I would like that choice too. My FIL is dying as we speak. Hospice care sent home a packet to his wife outlining what's going to happen at the very end, and it is NOT pretty. I do not want anyone feeling obligated to go through that with me.


Agree. As a formerly suicidal guy, rationality is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. I thought I was being rational at the time. I wasn't. With that said, I do think sometimes it's the rational course of action, and I wouldn't oppose it in those circumstances. 

It's a balancing act. Family and friends, obligations, quality of life...it's not an easy decision. Nor should it be.


----------



## Lila

Fozzy said:


> Agree. As a formerly suicidal guy, rationality is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. I thought I was being rational at the time. I wasn't. With that said, I do think sometimes it's the rational course of action, and I wouldn't oppose it in those circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a balancing act. Family and friends, obligations, quality of life...it's not an easy decision. Nor should it be.


I think "quality of life" is where you'll get the most subjective pushback. One person's acceptable life is another person's miserable existence. 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Taxman

I have seen enough people, enough loved ones anguishing and leaving in bits and pieces to know that if I have an alternative, I will take it. I see families use their last dime to buy someone a year or two. I would never want to put my family through that. I had occasion to talk to my children on this matter. My son is emotional, my daughter controls her emotions. I was very forthright, and told them that I have a DNR on my medical records. My daughter is a physician, and I particularly wanted her insights. In the case of the DNR, she has one as well. I stopped, and asked why a 36 year old woman would do that. Simple, she remarked. I have brought back people, and I have been there when they have brought people back. It is NOT what you see on TV. What comes back is a lot of life altering deficits. Most of my colleagues do not want to be resuscitated. She agreed with me that the worst part of this is the loss of quality of life. I do not want my wife and children watch me diminish in bits and pieces. I have joked that if something of a major nature raises its head, that I will take up hunting at that point, go out and have an accident. Hell, we are Jewish, but I don't want a week of mourning. I want a party. I want "Sympathy for the Devil" played. I want my friends and family to have one last drink and a bite on me.


----------



## Cletus

Lila said:


> I think "quality of life" is where you'll get the most subjective pushback. One person's acceptable life is another person's miserable existence.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


Agreed. No one should get to decide FOR ME if my quality of life is good enough. 

To pull from another recent thread - this is the ONLY right I truly have as a human. To decide that I no longer wish to continue.


----------



## wilson

Cletus said:


> Agreed. No one should get to decide FOR ME if my quality of life is good enough.
> 
> To pull from another recent thread - this is the ONLY right I truly have as a human. To decide that I no longer wish to continue.


I would agree as well, but I would also agree that society can decide at what point it will help you make that decision. I think assisted suicide should have limits as to when it should be allowed. But if someone wants to end their life because they're happier than they've ever been and they feel that's a great time to go, they can do it with many ad-hoc methods. The method may not be as certain or pleasant as the method allowed by society, but I feel that's a reasonable tradeoff. The person needs to decide if they really want to go through with enough that the potential downsides are worth it. I don't think any society as a whole would want people to commit suicide capriciously or for ulterior motives. Obviously people can commit suicide as any time on their own, but I would want some qualifications before someone could suicide in a way supported by society.


----------



## Lila

wilson said:


> . I don't think any society as a whole would want people to commit suicide capriciously or for ulterior motives. Obviously people can commit suicide as any time on their own, but I would want some qualifications before someone could suicide in a way supported by society.


Why do you think society as a whole would not want other people to commit suicide? Why does it matter what someone else does?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## wilson

Lila said:


> Why do you think society as a whole would not want other people to commit suicide? Why does it matter what someone else does?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


Well, as a person in society, I wouldn't support state-sponsored suicide if someone is doing it on a whim. But I would support state-sponsored suicide in cases where there is little chance for hope. Personally, I would consider long-term depression and other conditions which have significant negative effects on quality of life as valid reasons. Same for terminal conditions. But I wouldn't support it for someone who is sad because they got laid off that day. So for me to support it, I would want some kind of procedure in place to ensure that enough time and consideration has been taken to evaluate the decision considering that there is no way to undo the outcome.


----------



## Blondilocks

I'm currently making my way through a paper by Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel (Rahm's brother) called "Why I Hope To Die At 75" (written in 2014). Although he is against euthanasia and assisted suicide, he makes a fine case for Rational Suicide even if he doesn't realize it.


----------



## heartsbeating

Lila said:


> Why do you think society as a whole would not want other people to commit suicide? Why does it matter what someone else does?


Perhaps because, besides direct loss and impact, an individual's action can reflect the fragmentation of our society and relates to contextual experiences.


----------



## Aspydad

My father suffered terribly as the automation part of his brain degenerated for the last three years of his life (called Progressive Supra-nuclear Palsly). We knew, and he knew that eventually, he would lose the ability to swallow - he made the decision, that he did NOT want to have feeding tubes to extend his life (he had lost the ability to move as well and his ability to speak was almost gone completely). 

So in the end, when it happened, he called my mother (he could really not speak as that went as well) but, my mother told me that somehow he spoke clear as day and told her this is it - I will not have any more of my meds - and I want you to take me home (as he had been in a nursing home the last 10 months of his life). Mind you, he had not eaten anything substantial for about a week - and barely been able get any water down - but, was still of clear mind. Mother called me, and said he had about a week - so I started driving - spent one night at hotel about 6 hours from my dad - started the next morning and when I was about an hour away I got the call that he was gone (we were going to have him taken home that afternoon after I got there). He should not have died that fast - but, I know what happened - as I have been with another terminal person before (my uncle) and we were the ones delivering the morphine - I know for a fact that you can end it for someone by giving them too much. I talked to my mother - and she told me that the nurse just kept giving dad morphine - and I know that is what put him out of his misery so fast - and I was grateful. Went back up the the nursing home after the memorial service - and gave that nurse a big hug - thanked her - I told her I knew what she did and was very grateful - she did not respond - but, smiled at me. I think the overdose of morphine goes on more than anyone knows.


----------



## Lila

heartsbeating said:


> Perhaps because, besides direct loss and impact, an individual's action can reflect the fragmentation of our society and relates to contextual experiences.


Ooh @heartsbeating this one is an interesting theory. I do agree that people in general would feel we are failing as a society of we had large groups of "our people" opting out of life. Society would probably question their actions. 

I often hear suicide referred to as a selfish action by those grieving the death but I think our desire to keep someone alive because of our feelings is just as selfish. 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## OnTheFly

Lila said:


> I often hear suicide referred to as a selfish action by those grieving the death but I think our desire to keep someone alive because of our feelings is just as selfish.


Both are definitely true.


----------



## Cooper

Personally I'm all for having the right to make our end of life decisions. Unfortunately too often we never get the chance for choice. I have seen many times where someone gets sick or injured and has to be hospitalized, and from there straight into full dependency care like a nursing home. At that point it becomes nearly impossible to choose when to end your life.


----------



## wilson

Lila said:


> I often hear suicide referred to as a selfish action by those grieving the death but I think our desire to keep someone alive because of our feelings is just as selfish.


I agree. And anyone who has had to put down an aging pet has dealt with this kind of conflict. I think we often keep our pets alive longer because we have trouble dealing with the emotions of putting them to sleep rather than it's truly the best thing for them. A lot of times when I've had to put my dogs to sleep I know I waited too long. I tell myself I'll do it sooner next time, but then next time it's too emotionally wrenching to deal with and I wait too long again.


----------



## heartsbeating

Lila said:


> Ooh @heartsbeating this one is an interesting theory. I do agree that people in general would feel we are failing as a society of we had large groups of "our people" opting out of life. Society would probably question their actions.


In that instance, we would (and ought) to consider the sociocultural impacts of our society; such as constructed meaning and values, life contexts and possibilities, social integration and regulation, detachment and autonomy.



Lila said:


> I often hear suicide referred to as a selfish action by those grieving the death but I think our desire to keep someone alive because of our feelings is just as selfish.


With physician-assisted suicide, there are attitudinal predictors which include demographic, social, and psychological factors. Applying religion as an example, some religions favor absolute dominion of God in matters of life and death. For me it raises whether this is due to embedded faith and belief, and/or that religion promotes social control, rather than individual autonomy.


----------



## heartsbeating

TJW said:


> What if you are elderly, of sound mind, still gainfully employed (although at lower pay than you used to command) - and do not want to live with the embarrassing limitations, such as being fatigued, and being "average" (unable to have a good life free from financial pressure and constant worry) ? What about the humiliation of living in government-subsidized housing because you are no longer able to earn a decent living-wage paycheck, having to be in debt, with little hope of coming to relief?


I just caught up with the rest of this thread. With this scenario, I would wonder what support systems are available (and if they're not, that's a reflection of that society) to advocate for, support, and empower this individual. And if it's the case where the individual does not know that support systems are available, then why not? And from my perspective, again becomes a symptom and reflection of the community.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

There's lots of reasons that make suicide seem pretty rational. Perhaps I'm not of sound body or mind.


----------



## SpinyNorman

Lila said:


> Ooh @heartsbeating this one is an interesting theory. I do agree that people in general would feel we are failing as a society of we had large groups of "our people" opting out of life.


Suicide is the 10th most common cause of death in the USA, depending how you group things.


----------



## Lila

SpinyNorman said:


> Suicide is the 10th most common cause of death in the USA, depending how you group things.


That is true but that number is pretty low compared to 1st and 2nd place (heart disease = 24%, cancer = 21%). Numbers 3 through 9 account for 53.5%. Suicide ranks 10th with about 1.5% of the total number. 

I think we'd start to question our society a little more if that number grew and kept growing time and time.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

The only thing irrational is going out on a bad note. You are down, life sucks, I agree. But... How cool would it be to go out on top instead right? Life is a series of basically **** days with some good ones thrown in. You have a crap month and crawl yourself out of it then have a few amazing days. Then the bubble bursts, the cloud you were floating on disappears, and you fall all the way back down in the mud again. 

So, perhaps it's better to end one's life after an amazing day. Before you hit the crash and burn. End life on a high. That's probably the more rational way of doing things.


----------

