Getting into murky waters is what slows down all legislation; one item legislation is almost always porked by both blue and red with about a hundred riders, addendums, pork, etc... .

One's personal doctor should be enough to qualify as a referee, if you will, for acknowledgement of mentally capable or not to make such a decision. Afterall, by the time a patient is in the final, painfull stages of an incurable, debillitating disease none will know the patient better than the doctor that's been there for them the entire ride.

If people are looking for every possible scenario to be spelled out, for every concievable mishap to be considered no matter how remote, for every possible mal feasance to be thought of.... well, you get the laws we get and bills that take 100 lawyers to investigate.

Certainly this isn't to be taken lightly, but reality is that if one tries to consider every possible angle and include it into legislation, it'll never be done. A personal physician is more than qualified to care for and evaluate their patient.

Wow! Your proposal is even more loose than the Massachusetts bill. You only want one family doctor to evaluate the mental competency of a person before you give them death pills!

Not exactly a lot of safeguards.

The Right to choose to die with dignity has long been opposed by the AMA, other medical associations, and the rest of the for-profit medical industry. The reason is simple: The combination of physician and hospitals and nursing homes and assisted living facilities have found a way to drain every cent from the elderly by virtually imprisoning and torturing them at end of life.

What exactly is wrong with allowing people who are dying to choose how to go --- and to choose to keep their dignity and estate intact? Is there hundreds of thousands of dollars of value in keeping a terminal stroke victim alive for years? Does the patient actually benefit in some way? Or is it the physician who asks, "Don't you want your Mom to get the very best care?" of the hospital administrator who lies and says that a new drug promises a huge possibility of a cure? Does anyone ask the dying person?????

For every "for-profit medical industry" entity you can name, I can come up with a for-profit insurance company or HMO that will relish to have people not collect thousands in medical expenses. Did you consider that side of the coin?

Speaking of one's estate, the Massachusetts suicide bill of last year allowed one of the witnesses to the signing of the request for assisted suicide to be an heir. So much for safeguards!

Who the heck believes, "their religion requires them to suffer every last possible second of agony or indignity"?

I think that's called the Straw Man Fallacy, where you set up an absurd argument only to knock it down and declare victory.

No, it's a quite valid reason of arguement as religous beliefs do prevent others from benefitting from sound judgement even in today's society. It's not all about religion, but as in abortion issues, it's certainly in the fore front.

Common sense would state that if you're dying, in and have been in agony, pain, depression and all else for some time, with no hope whatsoever, just 'waiting it out'..... it would state that ending that misery is not only an appropriate choice but one that fundamentally should be a right all individuals have.

Common sense has to make a come back in this and in many other areas of society, politics and law. Of course there'll be folks that will argue 'what's suffering and pain when discussing assisted death, whom's qualified, etc., etc., etc., ....' but that where common sense needs to come in. A persons physician, the one that's been with them through it all, is more than qualified to deem a yes or no in the matter. Not a political group, not blue or red, not religion a, b, or c .

What about cases in Oregon under their assisted suicide law where people were denied cancer treatments that would have extended their lives, but were offered free death pills?

Just because someone's life can be extended through any number of treatments, doesn't mean it should be. I believe this is one reason some people get to the point of considering assisted suicide. People with end-stage COPD, CHF, Alzheimer's, end-stage renal failure are called "end stage" for a reason--they are going to kill you someday. A magic cure does NOT exist. Yet people who choose not to continue the fight, are seen as "giving up". Allowing someone a peaceful passing is just as important as curative treatments. I have worked in long-term care for many years, and what we subject some of society's frailest members to in the name of "doing something" (often for the sake of family members who are in denial), is almost criminal.

I hope you are not my nightnurse-1270103:

"People with end-stage COPD, CHF, Alzheimer's, end-stage renal failure are called "end stage" for a reason--they are going to kill you someday."

We all die of something. Life is a terminal situation. Having been with my mother through ALS and another relative with 'end-stage COPD,' I am well aware that some never stop living, though a cure is never going to be available, until their last breath. I sat beside the bed of a terminal cancer patient, my daughter running errands for her, purchasing Christmas presents for children, knowing she would never see them opened. Supposed both spouses and doctors wanted to keep these frail people from pain and made the decision for them. Think that won't happen? Consider how many woman later come forward stating they had been coerced into an abortion. Until safeguards are sufficiently specific to my own standards that no one will provide me a 'peaceful passing' based on another's input, I'll vote against these proposals which are currently criminal.

People forget Terri Schiavo, suffering against her wishes and those of her husband.

Remember how congress flew back in session to intercede where they had no right to do so?

Keep suffering because of YOUR religious beliefs. Just don't project them on me!

Ct Voter-7748639

What about cases in Oregon under their assisted suicide law where people were denied cancer treatments that would have extended their lives, but were offered free death pills?

you have some citation or proof of this assertion? and the church bulletin from last Sunday isn't a valid source, BTW

Ludium misses the point. It is not about living or dying. It is about having the personal right to decide.

I'd watched my mother die of pancreatic cancer, and was there is the hospice when she passed. She seemed to wait for her brother to come, and once we were all there she passed within minutes of his arrival. She wasn't 'awake' per ability to speak, open her eyes, and her breathing was painfully labored. Her last month, I know at least last few weeks, were agonizing and likely she suffered more than she let on prior.

I had a Great Dane that once in a while would 'short out' and bite; most often, I suffered minor injuries and a few stitches but the last one was bad..... 280 stitches and a plastic surgeon as he more or less scalped me. Love him and always will; he was really a great friend but with children I couldn't keep him.

The vet gave me doping meds to take home; I gave him pills and a shot before taking him in. We played in the park, running around (well, I couldn't much as my face was fairly swolen and black and blue) and when he got to the point he started tripping, falling some I took him the rest of the way to the vets. We went in the back door, vet gave him final dose, then he died in my arms, lying on the floor together. Never knew what was coming or what hit him; in fact, I think that along with being high especially, that was one of his happiest days.... being together and just going to sleep.

Human animals? In pain, dying slowing, knowing what's coming, what's happening, how it's going to end? Having loved one's watch us suffer, slowly die, crying continuously?

For some reason, 'people' see this as more ethical and humane than how my beloved pup was allowed to pass.......

Go figure....

It's not a good life if you are disabled and people insist you are not worth being kept alive. That's the sort of mindset that assisted suicide has fostered in the Netherlands and Belgium.

This is the USA and nothing of remote possibility of disabled people being endangered by some imagined slippery slope or other 'thinning the heard' conspiracy theories is possible.

This is about personal choice, suffering, and not some sci fi novel or movie series. This is reality. I'm fairly certain that society a, b, or c has taken, twisted, or otherwise fouled up many, many notions and ideas not just from America but from all and their own, too.

Not responsible for any. This, in our society, should be a right not necessary for debate.

In this day of health care cost cuts, this is exactly the wrong time to allow the alternative of a $100 assisted death.

I see the debunked Rick Santorum LIE is alive and well in regards to the Netherlands and Belgium.

He insulted the country by saying their elderly live in fear of dying. Total bunk!

I've never found Nietzsche a good source for quotations on the value of human life.

Ct Voter-7748639

I've never found Nietzsche a good source for quotations on the value of human life.

Well then, I guess Nietzsche should be ignored.

You seem to praise life over death without regard for compassion which leads me to believe you are afraid of death, which in turn leads me to believe that you don't really understand life.

Seems to me you are NOT afraid of death --- you actively seek it --- for other people, of course.

It is not compassion to put an elderly person in a situation where they can be pressured to end their life. Can you understand that?

Ct Voter-7748639

Seems to me you are NOT afraid of death --- you actively seek it --- for other people, of course.

I 'm not afraid of death for myself or anyone else.

It is not compassion to put an elderly person in a situation where they can be pressured to end their life. Can you understand that?

I am actively putting anyone in any sort of situation regarding their death by having the compassion to understand that such a thing is their choice and should not be hindered in any way by my take on it.

There are plenty of ways to safeguard the elderly or ill against abuse by any agents of euthanasia. It's neither difficult nor complicated.

DD,

We just went through the same thing last August, I could tell, near the end, his eyes were saying, "Please make the hurt go away". We had him cremated also, and I buried him in our yard with his collar, and his favorite ball. *wipes tears*

Why is it, we are allowed to let our pets go with dignity to end their suffering, but we cannot let our family members go with dignity, and without suffering?

I live in Taxachusetts, and voted "Yes" to the referendum.

Do your friend a favor.

DD- It's important that more people can come to understand what you already do; that it's not about 'quantity' of life, but 'quality' of life. The puritanical roots in this country is often (and still) our undoing.

I never want to be a lifeless vegetable lying in a bed, catatonic and not allowed to die only because I have a heartbeat.

It is customary to kill a horse when it breaks a leg. Should we kill human beings when they break their legs? To treat humans like animals is inhuman.

Ct, you popped some above for supposed 'fallacy of arguement' but here, what you just said in context of what's been posted? Seriously? Well, it is Friday night, partying is acceptable.....

But face it, that's more embarassing than lame (which it's pretty lame... you really think this humane approach to an inevitable end is akin to a gateway to kill folks with head colds, etc...?). Please....

DD, per my above post, I couldn't agree more. And yes, for 'people' that would say they're only dogs don't know the depth of love and devotion some of us have for our 4 leggers and NO clue as to why some prefer canine animals over human animals and never will understand.

DD,I agree with you.It should be an individual's choice.

The Romans certainly did not think that it was "inhuman" to allow humans to decide for themselves to end lives that had become unbearable. It may be immoral and unacceptable according to your beliefs, but only a small minority of humans that have lived throughout history have held your beliefs, so they cannot be the universal, ultimate arbiter of what is human (or humane).

People talk about euthaninasia for their pets with stories that bring tears to my eyes. But do they have as much compassion for their parents as they enbter a world of pain from which they will never emerge? Can we actually be so crass that we believe that our pets are more deserving than our elderly?

Its about time...

All those who want to stop assisted suicide...what would you want to do if you are in such pain and suffering terribly...it's not "time" for your pain medication...what would you want? What if it is someone you love and you cannot do a thing...you know there is no medical cure for the condition, the medical people see the suffering and they cannot do anything. It's physically, mentally and financially a disaster to keep someone alive who wants to be relieved from suffering. This is an individual choice, not a choice of the "popular vote". It is not a religious right or wrong, except between the individual and his/her maker...not other human beings.

So it comes down to money, right? You make a very strong argument for NOT approving assisted suicide. Unless, of course, you work for a for-profit health care corporation.

For whatever reason Ct you seem to have a vested interest in this but for the wrong reasons I would have to venture. Perhaps you've had some negative dealings, or a loved one, with docs or hospitals but not anything in the above comments even remotely bring money into this; the ones that mention it do so in light of how it affects the patient and their family.... but..... DO indeed read the rest of the comment, as there are a host of logical and caring reasons, well thought out, common sensical and humane that you seem to have missed when cherry picking one item and doing so mistakenly and incorrectly.

Excellent points, Valkn...

Or the for-profits insurance companies will be happy when you take the $100 death pill and they don't need to pay the tens or hundreds of thousands in insurance benefits.

So you want it legalized so it MIGHT help you, but will put the weak, depressed, elderly and mentally ill at risk?

Once again, Ct.... either paid lobbyist or just really don't comprehend logic and discussion.

The weak, elderly and mentally ill at risk? Oooohhh... I get it - it's those evil, bent on killing you doctors that are just waiting for the chance to KILL OFF THEIR PATIENTS. Soylent Green is reality. Being depressed will give you the right to end your life.... HEY! Wait a minute? Do depressed people kill THEMSELVES if desiring to? Or..... maybe..... their doctor does it for them?

Oh yeah.... I've heard of that. Handicapped people, too..... grandparents, sick, depressed, yeah.... docs' are all about saying 'eff that oath I took' .

Many of us, and doctors as well, would argue and be correct in including the right to end one's life with assistance when the time has come is part of that oath.

Why don't you spend some time doing a little research on what has been happening with assisted suicide and euthanasia in the Netherlands during the past twenty years. Some of the stories are as bad as Soylent Green.

Please stay on your side of the pond.

Well, no, hospice can't guarantee everyone a pain-free peaceful death. Some diseases cause such intractable pain that even if you can find a doctor willing to take the legal risk of prescribing high doses of opioids, you will still suffer. And if your condition leaves you bedridden and dependent on others to take care of all your formerly natural bodily functions, there is no drug that will restore your dignity.

I have no problem killing myself - but what if I suffered from some condition that left me bedridden and unable to reach a gun? If any unsympathetic person knew that my husband must have had to bring it to me, he could go to prison. What if I lacked the strength or mobility to pull the trigger, and he feared the consequences of doing it for me? What if I belonged to a whole family of liberals (or, hey, ex-cons) so I don't have access to a gun? If you agree that I should, in that case, be allowed to refuse food and water for as long as it takes to die, why shouldn't I also be able to get suitable drugs to give myself a quicker end?

You make a valid point. Why is it the government jams it down our throats NOT to have the option end our life at a time we choose? Why is it you choose when I must suffer? Why is it you get to jam your choice upon my life?

well flower (that was the skunk's name in Bambi, BTW) do you WANT to be able to make a choice or just suffer until you DIE?

YOU can CHOOSE for YOURSELF, but I VEHEMENTLY object to you trying to CHOOSE FOR ME.

My mother died last year under care of hospice. She didn't ask to be put out of her misery and that was her CHOICE.

Uhhh ... flower? Current laws that are jam, jam, jammed down our throats that are objected to have no support. This proposition, however, has a great amount of support and is NOT forced on any but SHOULD be a choice for all..... don't RAM your opinion down any's throats as a reason to eradicate choice.

Logical and rational choice, made by suffering individuals that lived with the pain, the misery, and knowledge of no hope and a beyond miserable end. I, too, work in hospitals and have also seen many suffer and die, in hospice as well as it's not so easy to control all pain with dilaudid and morphine, and there is nothing for the mental anguish and family.

You and Ct would get along well...... but seriously, what's your premise for arguement? Nothing mentioned about rights, etc... just bad and ill comparisons that have naught to do with the subject. Our pets (which I consider family as do others) are allowed to pass with more dignity, respect, and understanding than human animals. As mentioned, I lost my mother to pancreatic cancer; towards the end, she would and did state she'd MUCH prefer being treated with that dignity than forced suffering and waiting for, more painfull by the day, and inevitable end with no hope in sight and no longer able to function. Just pain and misery.

flower,My aunt recently passed away.She had a stroke and a hospice nurse came to her home once a day for a few hours.she wa so drugged up she didn't know that my mother came to visit.We are thankful that she only lived another week.Hospice care is allowing people to linger without pain which racks up the cost of medical care.Euthanasia allows people not to linger so that they can be lucid enough to say their goodbyes to family members.I believe that this should be a person's choice based on their beliefs and not the government.

Paranoid much?

so tell me - how will the gummint make MY CHOICE FOR ME? I GET THE OPTION - not THEM

It's happening in Europe. In the Netherlands, for example, mobile euthanasia teams have now been organized for people with chronic depression, people with disabilities, people with dementia, people who are lonely, and those whose request for euthanasia is declined by their physician.

Oh yes... I can see how taking out stock in mobile death squads would be very prudent, especially in the USA. I mean after all, what reasonable physician or society would NOT take out people with chronic depression or disabilities, and ... wait! I can be the first to advertise!

Right on both sides of my black cargo van : "Lonely? depressed? disabled? CALL NOW! 1-800-DEATH; Help is only a phone call away!"

Some can't end their suffering on their own, be it physical limitations or religous, personal beliefs or insurance/ legal problems and ramifications..... but definately desire it. I do really hope those that so strongly oppose personal choice and have such a degree of paranoia never have to suffer such pain prior to death. No one deserves to die without dignity and respect and in chronic emotional and physical pain, knowing there's no hope - life IS going to be over, but what does prolonging the suffering do for any?

I still plan on going to Europe; guess I'll take my chances with the roving death squads that randomly kill people when their doctors won't. And the werewolves, the vampires, and other random story book characters lurking in our midsts.

CT Voter - Seems to me that dementia is the best possible reason to commit suicide. People with dementia simply do not get better (except for those lucky few who discontinue their statin, beta blocker or overactive-bladder drug and suddenly their "Alzheimer's" goes away). They get worse, and the inevitable end is a bedridden zombie in a nursing home with no memory, no dignity, no real identity. My father has chosen - I hope voluntarily; it does seem consistent with his values and culture - to die of Alzheimer's. I respect his choice, but I also expect others to respect my decision to eat a bullet if I ever get the same diagnosis.

I don't mean to insult anyone's religion - people are welcome to believe whatever they want, in my book, as long as they don't insist that I join in - but I absolutely do not comprehend why the most devout monotheists in Western countries are the ones most insistent on keeping people alive for years or decades after their functional lives are over. I would like to ask those people, quite sincerely: if you are confident that when you die you will "go to heaven to be with God," why do you seem to fear death so much and seek to avoid it at any cost in suffering to you and others? Why do you not say when death approaches, to paraphrase Epictetus' metaphor, that you've had a good time on shore leave here but now it's time to embark on a new voyage? I understand that a believer might refuse suicide because he believes that whatever suffering he experiences is part of God's plan, so he shouldn't artificially shorten it - but why then does he feel obliged to go to the hospital or the nursing home and artificially lengthen it? I have never gotten a straight answer about this and would genuinely like to hear one.

No, and why should it? This is an extremely restrictive model that applies only to people who have illnesses that will kill them within six months. (Why is it more ethical to spare people five months of intractable suffering than two years, or twenty years, anyway?) If your mother was known to be dying, could not be cured, could not get better, would you think you had the right to demand that she spend a few extra months weeping in pain in a hospital bed before leaving you behind anyway? Why would you ask that? If she was still functional and comfortable enough to enjoy living a real life and spending time with you and your family, it's almost inconceivable that she'd ask to commit suicide at that point, unless she was facing a future loss of cognitive function that would leave her incompetent to demand it. People with something to live for simply do not choose euthanasia because of mild physical disability or 4-out-of-10 pain. Only a few dozen people in Oregon have chosen it and followed through, and they were people who were suffering terribly. I hope that their children were relieved that their suffering was over, rather than selfishly wishing that their inevitable grief could have been put off a little longer.

argumentativebutfair, You can still post links even as a new user. Just paste the link into your post and delete the www and everything before it. Add a comment about it being a link and to add the www back in. Your link that you have posted can be copied and pasted into a browser.

@Jane: Oh yes, it is so selfish for her children to want to be able to spend as much time with her as possible before death.

I say she would be the selfish one for deciding to leave them early just to spare herself some pain.

What a warped sense of priorities you have! Suffering should be prolonged for the benefit of her children? They have already spent their lifetimes with her. She is selfish to want to end her suffering? That's really sick!

Oh yes, God forbind you should ever have to suffer or stay strong for your children!

People all over the world suffer and die every day who don't have access to modern medicine or euthanasia who stick it out for their families. What makes her so special that she gets to abandon her children for her own gain?

I say you have a warped sense of priorities.

Your comment speaks for itself! I have nothing to add.

did she WANT to live on, or did she accept the finality of the situation and want to end the suffering? I will NEVER support gummint euthanizing ANYONE who doesn't ASK. Recently there was a case of deaf mute BELGIAN TWINS who were going blind (at 45 IIRC) and asked for euthanasia. IF they were to live on they would have been uncommunicative and totally dependent on others for EVERYTHING. Their request was granted and they died together (as they had lived together all of their lives)

What kind of example does it set for children? Google what one speaker said before a Vermont legislative committee last week regarding how assisted suicide has affected his teenage son who had considered suicide.

Johnkaye; fuggetaboutit.... they're not going to get it. When someone literally believes that suffering in pain is part of love, part of priority and dignity, that family would WANT them to stay around suffering as long as possible and believe that - REALLY believe that - there's not much hope, save for hoping they don't get out to vote.

Jane, excellently put. Once again, Ct.... totally lost. What do the 2 possibly have to do with one another? We're to be responsible for any that any may or may not consider? You might as well start typing 'brick, rock, bally bally'. Makes about as much sense.....

Those people in poor countries who have no access to modern medicine die much faster when they get horrific diseases than we do. They don't get respirators and tube-feeding and rescuscitations when social training leads their families to call 911 at their deaths. If they are in too much pain to eat, they stop eating, and nobody institutionalizes and force-feeds them. If they don't have enough mental function left to swallow food, ditto. With advanced medicine we may live longer, but then we suffer longer.

Argumentative, you feel it is selfish of a dying woman not to suffer as long as possible to delay her children's grief. But she can't spare them that pain. She can't avoid dying, so they are going to have to deal with her death. Indeed, they are much more likely to wind up with post-traumatic stress if they have seen her go through the full horrors of modern medicine before she dies. (Actually, medical personnel have often remarked that the adult child who comes rushing into the hospital bellowing demands that Everything Be Done at the end is usually the one who hasn't been around to witness it, who has neglected his parent for years and has guilt he won't acknowledge.)

My values are strongly influenced by the Roman Stoic philosophers, who were sometimes unrealistic but in my view had a good attitude towards death. They thought that you should contemplate repeatedly and at your leisure, well in advance, both the fact that you will inevitably die (so don't behave as if you might have infinite time) and the fact that all of your loved ones will inevitably die. You will be separated from every single one of your loved ones, your parents, children, lover, pets, etc., by death - if not theirs, then yours. I believe that there's no avoiding pain at that loss, but if you recognize upfront that we are a mortal species and this is the sort of universe we live in, you can mitigate your pain by accepting that it is an inevitable part of life.

@Moderation: Yes, sometimes true love requires sacrifice and suffering. What's the matter, do believe love should remain only as long as it is convenient?

The fact that anyone would say the children are being selfish is more shocking than anything I've said.

What kind of message is it sending to her children if they see they are not good enough for her to fight on? Can you imagine what kind of guilt and hurt that could cause?

Perhaps it is because we are an imperial culture that we use the war metaphor so often in discussing health and medicine. "Aggressive" treatment is presumed to be better; patients are expected to "fight" diseases, and when they die, they "lost the battle." If the loss of a real battle is foreordained, it is often a wiser choice to surrender. If the hypothetical mother is doomed to die and leave her children, accepting that fact so she can die peacefully is not in any way saying "they are not good enough"! She might well prefer to remain with them forever, but that isn't possible, and being a loving parent does not require that one be delusional.

There is considerable logical inconsistency regarding who is considered selfish in these scenarios. We are warned that selfish caregivers might pressure a dying person to kill herself, not for her own benefit, but to ease their burden. But then, even if a dying person prefers to die quickly specifically so that her family are not left bankrupt and exhausted, she is called selfish - implying that dying is indeed in her interest, but not in the interest of others (family, or possibly doctors and hospitals?). If they are acting from self-interest when they pressure her to hang on longer, are they not selfish? But nobody uses the word. This hypocrisy is further confused because some people seem to use "selfish" to mean "making choices not sanctioned by their religion".

So, we kill pets without their consent. Do you think we should do that to people? To people who are mentally incompetent? That's what they are doing in the Netherlands. And over there they started with assisted suicide.

Sorry, John... see my above post, did similarly with my best friend and it was more peacefull and pain free than most any of us will have it. I did keep one dear girl alive longer than I should've as she was in pain and misery but selfishly I couldn't bring myself to do it. Never again..... they come first, as should human animals.

That's what you don't get Ct and likely never will - and again with inane comparisons on this sensitive subject.... really? More Netherlands? I doubt you'll ever go there, but you do realize you'll never get a PR job anywhere in Europe, right? 'The roving death squads of Europe; a documentary'. Now THAT'S where you'll make some money.....

If the time comes when our wonderful and beloved cat is dying and in constant pain, or demented and constantly miserable, we will have her put down - yes, without her explicit informed consent! Either of us would lay down our lives to protect this cat. If her troubles in old age were just a matter of extra care and extra cost, cleaning up messes or administering meds while she remained happy the rest of the time, we would do that for years without complaint. Indeed, we would do it happily to have more time with her. We would never, under any circumstances whatsoever, have her euthanized for our convenience. We would do it only for her sake. (She just gave a little wriggle on my lap as I write this - this cat knows how to jerk tears!) The people who think this is "treating her as an animal" and therefore - if we thought she had an immortal soul - somehow abusive or negligent have no clue. Giving mercy is an act of love.

Not 75 but completely understand and you've made excellent points.

We as functioning human animals are considered to have certain rights, and ending our own suffering if terminality is a known and not changeable NEED to have that right to end our lives with dignity and respect, legally and painlessly, with loved ones, family present if desired and with at least some positivity of a warm, loving goodbye - on our terms, by our choice, without fear of repercussions upon any.

I really don't understand certain aspects of our society, how some deem assisted suicide when terminally ill and in chronic, miserable pain and only losing more and more humanity and dignity every hour, every day to be horribly wrong, immoral and the gateway to mass extinction is one of those aspects.

Since when did known torture become more admirable and acceptable than ending it? People, get a grip.... these aren't patients with migraines, arthritis, or surviveable health problems; these are people with no hope and only ask to be treated humanely, with dignity, with respect.

I fully agree with you. I'm 63 and am thankful for every morning that I wake up. I tell my wife that I love her every night before falling asleep. Been doing that for over 40 years.

We do have hospice. Pets do not. Did you consider that?

Pets are euthanized without their consent. Do you advocate that for people?

Thank God or whom ever you prefer to thank there are many, many more JohnKaye's in the world than Ct's..... I have to give you credit, though...... I believe that you genuinely believe this will transform into Soylent Green. Dale Gribble comes to mind and other paranoid personalities, but am starting to think you really see this as reality.

I'm also sorry for you, and hope that you'll get the help you need....

Unfortunately, if it's available it will not just be for you --- it will also be for the person in a nursing home who is costing the for-profit company or the government thousands a week. Can those ill, old, weak people with minds cloudy with medications make informed decisions like you? I doubt it.

Patty makes sense; once again, examples of what may be in extremes or possible (which most all is possible in criminal cases) does not an arguement make.

You claim to work in hospitals; yet, you despise the same and apparently claim to believe that they are going to wander about in dementia, elderly and mentally ill/disable peoples wards and ask them to sign off on the dotted line.

If you were talking of banks and lending institutions, business commerce, I'd be likely to believe the paranoia presented in your arguements as it would be warranted and proven true. If they're old and mentally ill, clouded with meds but NOT dying soon, with certainty and no hope whatsoever, then I'm fairly certain they're hands off for even being considered for any sort of assistance in ending their lives.

Get a grip.....

CT Voter - If these poor old people in nursing homes are too demented to be allowed to choose suicide, why are they still being loaded up with pharma drugs that may, as you say, make their "minds cloudy"? To try to make sure that they don't die of any natural causes so they can vegetate for as long as possible? Maybe they should cut out those drugs so that they can think a little better, even if for a shorter time.

Wow! What a post from someone that has experienced this situation first hand. Thank you for expressing your point of view.

There with you on that, underemployed... unfortunately, also am underemployed.

But, we will get through it; our sorts do! You seem to be a realist as well as sensical. We have choices, and I do think that although unpleasant to deal with, we all should - as responsible, compassionate people - have living wills and wishes declared. No one knows when their 'time' will come, tragic accidents, etc... and even if not in law yet, our wishes can be carried out without guilt or weight of heart breaking decisions being left to our loved ones to a great extent; assisted death may or may not be a possibility, but really we can accomplish things very similar.

I have also worked in hospice and agree with everything underemployed said, except that I don't think I can actively take my own life. I do, however, think that should be a personal choice. I have let my family know that I don't want to be force fed, to be given IV fluids or tube feedings when I no longer want to eat or drink; do not want useless tests or procedures and want only medicine for comfort if I am suffering or can no longer care for myself. I definitely do not want to be resuscitated. I do not fear death; I fear living too long. Both my mother and grandmother had Alzheimers. I have started medication for early stage Alzheimers and am doing well so far.

My husband used to work in a nursing home; that's how we know we don't want to go that route. He used to come home from work and make me promise to kill him rather than letting him be put in a nursing home.

So true Amanda. The longer a hospital can keep someone alive the more money they make. Additional unnecessary test can be performed and doctors can stick their heads in the room for fifteen seconds and charge for a consultation. I've seen it happen over and over.

Oh and I wish to say, to anyone that would contest my end of life wishes. You should live how I would have to live, we'll be roomies in the hospital, yay. If I should have a massive stroke and cannot move, neither will you! You will be turned now and then, just like me, bedsores can be nasty. But it's all ok, we cannot speak, so we must not feel pain, right?! So when I finally die, you will be released. I'm sure you'll be fine!

Amanda, just curious, what do you think of post 13.3 and 13.5 above? I was appalled.

This is NOT just suicide. It is making it legal for a SECOND person to kill them. To participate in their killing.

I think she expects everyone to be in a lucid, pain free state. In reality, they may be there physically, but depending on their condition, not mentally due to drugs that take the pain away. And she fails to understand that her loved ones may not get ill at home. It could happen far away on vacation.

The memory that weighs on my mind about the right to death is my grandma's best friend. The vibrant woman had the bad luck to have a massive stroke in Texas 15 years ago. She lived in Missouri. Her brother was the next of kin so he said to keep her alive. I just remember the pain in my grandma's eyes after she drove down to visit her in the hospital. She couldn't move or speak with a voice, only with her eyes. She ended up with gangrene and they had to cut off her legs. But she still lived awhile in a different state, with few friends able to travel down to see her. I just remember my grandma being so angry because the guy dictating that she should live never went to see her.

Perfectly stated and condolences; funny how obviously I don't know you but (per my post above) somethings really connect people. My mother was pancreatic cancer, lasting 3 years but the key word is lasting..... I know towards the end, she would've chosen help to do exactly what you've described.

And yes, no one will force any to take this route and for various reasons many may not want to (I'd venture to guess when in the situation this may change, but a differed topic there...) but DO NOT force this on others, pain, suffering, indignity... as another poster said, a difference between prolonging life and prolonging death is vast. How do people confuse the two?

My condolences. I too, went through a similar experience. Only there was no choice for assisted suicide and we just watched him go out of this world in a morphine induced sleep.

Thank you very much for sharing your story. You behaved with honor; I hope that eases your grief.

"Only there was no choice for assisted suicide and we just watched him go out of this world in a morphine induced sleep."

Maybe a morphine induced sleep is better than giving a second person the legal right to intentionally kill another person. Assisted suicide is not about granting a person the right to commit suicide, it's about giving that second, healthy person a right to kill.

One of the hidden secrets of cancer treatment is that there is a fine line between a morphine induced sleep and the slightly higher dose that causes death. Particularly with cancer treatment this fine line, mercifully, has been quietly crossed many times over the years.

That same God in the bible also commands to kill ! Says it`s OK to burn an entire town down if they do not practice your religion.Calls for stoning to death.Commands to kill your child if he/she hits you.Stay away from three year olds !!!!!

So, it seems you admit assisted suicide is more than a religious issue.