You must log in or register to comment.

hellisontheinside t1_je6u6ts wrote

We allow it for our pets...


awildNeLbY t1_je78oyh wrote

Exactly. We treat dying animals better than our suffering, dying family members. It is sad.


1984Literally t1_je8ovlu wrote

Just have to fight to ban euthanasia on pets to show people how inhumane it is to not even give humans that choice. Chess not checkers.


Initial_Dimension541 t1_je6qzhc wrote

End of life care costs are what keep our amazing health care system afloat. This has nothing to do with religion but rather corporate healthcare greed


E5D5 t1_je7ee8s wrote

That’s not completely true. a lot of people including many healthcare professions are still just strictly against this


deeply_concerned t1_je7o9bm wrote

Because they’re religious.


George_GeorgeGlass t1_je8c49z wrote

Nope. Atheist nurse here. You couldn’t be more off base with this take

We should allow end of life care. But the reason we don’t isn’t because healthcare providers are religious. Shaking my head


MysteryMedic t1_je7pwkr wrote

Nope. For me (paramedic) the procedure was to be handled poorly. There was (and I’m trying to remember, because it’s been a while) no accommodations made for the people who are forced to manage the after. There was no connection to existing end-of-life orders. So when we responded to a residence for a well-being check there was nothing that prevented us from doing our jobs. I 100% support your right to die, but I’m not letting you die peacefully and without intervention just so your pissed off relatives can make my career a living hell.


deeply_concerned t1_je7q4zf wrote

Who cares about the after. If someone is suffering they should have the choice to end it.


MysteryMedic t1_je7ra6u wrote

Ummm. We do. Because we have a legal duty to act. And without protections in the case of death (Massachusetts uses the MOLST form) we now either violate your desire to in peace and dignity or we risk our jobs. So, yeah. Tie up some important lose ends and most of us will be VERY behind this.


George_GeorgeGlass t1_je8c8lr wrote

There’s no money in end of life care. It’s comical that you think so. That’s not where money comes from in our healthcare system. That’s actually peanuts. We lose money on that.


cowboy_dude_6 t1_je9iu4l wrote

It’s not hospice care people are talking about. It’s all the things people try before hospice care. Expensive cancer treatment regimens, patented prescription drugs (especially what seems to be trending now — wildly expensive antibody-based therapies), extended hospital stays, surgeries, dialysis, specialist consults, etc. It would probably be a better world if it was more acceptable to simply choose hospice rather than fighting until the very end.

For those who have never read it, I highly recommend Ken Murray’s 2011 essay “How Doctors Die”. Those who have experience with how the hospital system approaches care for the dying overwhelmingly reject it and choose hospice, or choose to die at home.


George_GeorgeGlass t1_jed0x2b wrote

I’m a nurse. I’ve don’t hospice care. But thank you for mansplaining the difference between hospice care of end of life/ death with dignity. Boy, am I glad you explained my job to me. Now I get it. Thanks to you


Lav4486 t1_je997d2 wrote

It's true. Lots of hospitals have given up their hospice programs.


Undecidedbutsure t1_je7vo27 wrote

I watched my mom die an incredibly painful death over the course of 18 months. She wanted to die MONTHS before she did, at one point she asked me to do whatever I could to “make it stop”. She had brain cancer. She couldn’t eat, talk or move on her own towards the end. She was skin and bones. People had to wash her, dress her, assist with bathroom. She couldn’t swallow water. She was on hospice, the nurse kept saying every day might be “the day”….her organs were shutting down…etc. I asked for her to be given as much morphine as possible so she couldn’t feel anything. “She isn’t in any pain.” She ended up dying at 2:30am one morning because the phlegm that we would remove for her was stuck in her throat and she choked to death. She felt that. I know she did. She didn’t just drift away on morphine.

If anyone in their right mind thinks they want to die like this that’s their choice, but I sure as hell don’t and neither did my mom. Ppl should be able to choose.


DangleBopp t1_je8n7g9 wrote

Geez, reading this gave me knots in my stomach. I'm sorry you and your mother had to go through that


Undecidedbutsure t1_je9m6co wrote

Thank you. I honestly never imagined what it would be like (how could anyone, really?). She died 16 years ago right before Mothers Day, I’ve never been the same. Losing a loved one is hard enough but to watch them suffer when it doesn’t need to end like that is intolerable.


barkingdog53 t1_je91ber wrote

It’s so sad your poor mother, and so many more, had to go through this. My heart goes out to you.


CatCranky t1_je9dbsb wrote

I’m so sorry that your mother had to suffer this way, and I’m sorry for your loss. I did sign a petition to support Death With Dignity.


kintnerboyinside t1_jedeu0p wrote

Felt this very much personally. Watched my dad go through something similar this year. Last months he was catatonic and eventually they said his tongue prolapsed and he stopped breathing. it was awful to watch.


PrincessAegonIXth t1_jea6rqn wrote

I can’t imagine going through something like that and watching someone you love be in so much agony and discomfort. My grandfather (in Canada) used Assisted Dying when he had terminal cancer. It was such a brave choice of his, and a relief for him as well. He died before his appointment but it brought him peace to know that it would end soon.


G2KY t1_je6rz6k wrote

It should be allowed. Period.


Avocadoexpresss OP t1_je79ctg wrote

Agreed. I believe people who reach this stage in their lives will wish they extended this compassion to others


mattgm1995 t1_je6q6wm wrote

Same way we voted down ranked choice: new ideas are scary even if they’re a net positive


squarerootofapplepie t1_je70tj0 wrote

We voted down ranked choice because the pro campaign put absolutely no work into getting the word out and the very popular governor said it was confusing.


SeaJay1187 t1_je7wz5x wrote

As someone who deals with people keeping their family members alive much past their expiration and completely disregarding the patient’s wishes, we need to allow this. It’s so ethically wrong and is a big reason healthcare is so expensive.


bcb1200 t1_je6okmw wrote

I thought this investigative piece by The Free Press from last October about Canada was really interesting. Granted this is more about “the right to die” vs “death with dignity”. But you can see where it can go.

“Scheduled to Die: The Rise of Canada’s Assisted Suicide Program” by Rupa Subramanya


[deleted] t1_je739fj wrote



Avocadoexpresss OP t1_je774qg wrote

There are already states that have adopted death with dignity, that is a terminally I’ll person with six months or less to live. A person suffering, and dying shouldn’t have to suffer.


Avocadoexpresss OP t1_je795i9 wrote

The state of Oregon has allowed this help for 20 years, providing a safe and comfortable end to what would be prolonged suffering.


legalpretzel t1_je76cur wrote

Because adults in pain would be able to resolve their suffering? There are some serious issues in the family in that story. That the mom immediately started nonsense on FB when she found out instead of talking to her son raises all sorts of red flags.


Fearless_Act_3698 t1_je7r0ea wrote

My friend chose this. She lived in Oregon. She was suffering and had the choice to end her life on her terms. Fuck cancer. I miss her.


LuckyGuinness17 t1_je7tdn7 wrote

I definitely voted yes for death with dignity. There is a time in my life I will probably need it and I want it


Technical-Plate-2973 t1_je6rpfn wrote

Because there are actually some progressive concerns against it. I recommend reading this:

I understand that someone would get to a point that they are suffering so much, they are near the end of their life and this is the decision that is right for them. I just think it is really tricky for the state to put guidelines though law the point in which that would be allowed.. especially when people that get a really bad diagnosis a lot of times get really depressed and we don’t want them to make rash decisions. There is a reasons that all disability rights organizations oppose this. Like- how to decide which disabled is bad enough to kill yourself? In Canada they allow this for chronically I’ll and mentally ill people.

I also think this article speaks to the economic factors- , “So to put it starkly, if you’re faced with the choice at the end of life where one option is between $50 and $150 for a lethal prescription of medication to end your life versus tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for long-term care, that’s a pretty draconian choice to put in front of people.”


MattOLOLOL t1_je6ur4n wrote

The alternative is to simply not give them a choice, so they end up with the 10k+ bill automatically. That certainly doesn't seem better.


[deleted] t1_je6zvo4 wrote

Better for the corporations who issue the bill


Pocketpine t1_je718t6 wrote

I mean, They already have the choice, just maybe not through a hospital.

However, It’s another thing entirely for a doctor to suggest offing yourself over a bill. That would be my main worry—insurance companies pushing death instead of treatment. It already happens, more or less, this would just be explicit.


gorkt t1_je9rogq wrote

I understand this argument - I do think that when you give the government the power to make life and death decisions, there needs to be clearly defined and strict limits.


Lilly6916 t1_je83s3m wrote

Maybe it’s a reasonable choice. They’re dying anyway. They’re certainly not comfortable. And they don’t want to add to family burden. I’d take the $50 option.


Technical-Plate-2973 t1_je861w9 wrote

I disagree. We want people to do this only as a final measure and as a last resort. We don't want people to do this because they are financially pressured. That is not what this bill is for.


SileAnimus t1_je8r89q wrote

In other words we can't legalize it because healthcare wringing dying people suffering is just so sexy and profitable, so much so that people would literally rather die than dealt with healthcare's bills.

Peak USA.


Technical-Plate-2973 t1_jea7pue wrote

No, it’s that we have a very unequal healthcare system. That’s fucked up. Because of that, we don’t want to legalize this just for people to choose physician assisted suicide out of financial pressure (for example, to avoid being in medical debt). It’s sad but it’s true.


George_GeorgeGlass t1_je8d4ul wrote

And this here is all the twisted ways that make this not clear cut.

I’m loving all the comments about healthcare providers being too religious or the system is making money off the backs of terminal patients. All from people who don’t get it or can’t think this deep.

There are so many ethical issues tied to this. It’s simply not that easy. You can see how few people understand the layers of this just reading through this thread.


Avocadoexpresss OP t1_jea7pgs wrote

In the 11 states that currently allow DwD, the perimeters are very clear. A person diagnosed terminal with 6mo or less to live can can verbalise their wishes to take a life ending drug sooner (with vetting). No ambiguity.


Lilly6916 t1_jea2rnl wrote

Sorry, I didn’t mean financial pressure. But people should have the option to do this sooner. I wouldn’t want to live the end of my life trapped in my body, not able to do anything, not able to communicate readily, maybe not able to breathe on my own, maybe in a nursing home. The financial pressure and burden on my family would certainly be a consideration. But not the primary issue. Some people want every second they can get and that should also be their option.


Technical-Plate-2973 t1_jea74vi wrote

I get that. I think the argument in the article is that because we don’t have Universal Health Care, people would be pressured to choose this because they don’t want to go into medical debt. I don’t this that is something we should allow.


Witchcitybitch t1_je81yte wrote

I highly recommend people checking out the death positivity movements which ties into the assisted suicide movements.

Death shouldn’t be such a hushed topic. It should be talked about more openly. If people actually knew how a prolonged dying process can affect the people who are going through it and the family, I think many would change their minds.

We show compassion for animals, we should for the suffering of humans too. Death and dying is hard, scary, sad, painful and so much more but it doesn’t have to be like this by having conversations about it.


gorkt t1_je9rcse wrote

Death is part of life. It isn't an abomination or atrocity. It happens to every person on the planet. It brings meaning to every day.


Witchcitybitch t1_jeao3cj wrote

Death is definitely unavoidable for all of us. Yet for something everyone will end up going through, we talk so little, so hushed, so fearful of it. That’s just crazy to me.


DeliPaper t1_je6gti0 wrote

I can easily see it going Canadian, if you know what I mean.


zumera t1_je6l8cm wrote

Agreed. Canada made me question if any government could ever be trusted to implement death with dignity laws.


Avocadoexpresss OP t1_je7ib5e wrote

We currently have 11 states in which it is legal. Oregon has provided this procedure for 20 years. All things considering we shouldn’t allow a hypothetical, something that hasn’t happened, prevent someone from being allowed to end their suffering. Just to reiterate, the bill allows a person diagnosed terminal to end their suffering on their terms.


MrsMurphysChowder t1_je88kfc wrote

Yes please. My father is dying of dementia rn. His healthy hulk of a body is taking its sweet time shutting down, but he's in pain, confused, sad. He barely even wakes up anymore but when he does it's to gasp in pain. I can't do anything for him, but I do not want to go through it myself when my time comes.


Avocadoexpresss OP t1_je8avv0 wrote

I’m sorry your father is going through that. I think at some point Massachusetts will come around. Vermont will likely be the second state to allow services without having to be a resident. It is hard to imagine that people cannot empathise enough with the suffering of others to vote against a bill to protect the terminally ill from such trauma.


MrsMurphysChowder t1_je8r9hz wrote

Ty. It's mostly terrible to see him struggle but a kind of amusing thing happened the other day. He doesn't recognize us but i think he knows he can be honest with me, but has to put on a brave face for my mom. He rarely says anything intelligible anymore but when I arrived to see him hunched up in the bed, with his sheet balled up in his hands, and a pained expression on his face, I said, hey dad, how you doin? And my dad who never swore a day in his life in front of the family, looked me right in the eye and said, "I don't know what the fuck is going on!" I had to bite my cheek to keep from laughing as I helped him get sorted out.


narkybark t1_je7xhb7 wrote

It looks like Oregon's requirements are that the patient be 18+, diagnosed terminal with six months, and able to communicate themselves that this is what they want. I've seen other states that must have two doctors sign off on the decision. I feel like no one deserves to suffer and if they want out, we should give them a dignified and painless way to do so, and guidelines like these are a good start.


Avocadoexpresss OP t1_je7ya3m wrote

Absolutely. By denying this right is to deny ourselves and the ones we love the least amount of suffering at the end of life.


Syringmineae t1_je76ngu wrote

I don’t trust it. We’re already seeing in Canada situations where the problem would be solved by money instead of death. I could easily see, in the US, certain people be suggested to take this route


Avocadoexpresss OP t1_je78pyp wrote

I think looking to the states that have legalised death with dignity would be a better start. Which currently don’t have these reports of abuse. Canada and the states that allow physician assisted suicides have completely different parameters for who is eligible. In the states, it’s terminal illness.


Evilbadscary t1_je9xst7 wrote

Where it's legal here, it works very well. The window and parameters for it, where it is legal, is actually quite small. I know somebody who applied for it, but by the time they were ready to review it, he had lost some congnition and did not meet the requirements to fully consent.


onehundredpetunias t1_je73eth wrote

How about we fix the system so that dying people can access care that allows a comfortable, natural death without finances being a factor? That's death with dignity IMO.


lucascorso21 t1_je76osf wrote

There’s a lot of horrible diseases and cancers where comfort is not an option.


Avocadoexpresss OP t1_je76b45 wrote

Why not both? Watching someone still suffering receiving palliative care on a death sentence is not currently helping. Someone who is seeking mercy should receive it. Being pumped full of drugs just simply to keep your heart beating is not living, and those that wish not to simply exist shouldn’t have to…especially while suffering


onehundredpetunias t1_je7cdw9 wrote

There's enough evidence showing that many of the people who choose assisted dying are doing so because of financial concerns or because of burden of care to make me believe that we need to fix that first.

A natural death does not have to be painful suffering.


HorrorBusiness1234 t1_je79dti wrote

No money in death


pelican_chorus t1_je9qfcz wrote

Which is the biggest force, the healthcare industry that wants to increase costs or the insurance industry that wants to reduce them?


barkingdog53 t1_je913e0 wrote

This won’t happen because of the money involved in keeping people alive. It’s not a religious issue. It’s not a morals issue. It’s a money issue. Healthcare and nursing homes.


anythingbut2020 t1_je9ml0s wrote

Natural death is like natural birth. Painful, long, rigorous. Epidurals help enormously to ease the entire process — why not embrace something similar for death??? People are so afraid.


NonOggi t1_jeaik13 wrote

For it. I was against it for a long time. Now I can't believe I was. My loved one has ALS. They're surviving for now, but this disease will eventually strip them of everything. Try living with that and seeing that every single day.


HammerfestNORD t1_jeasy37 wrote

Everyone wants their freedom while living.... We should also have those freedoms while dying.


PopSiKo t1_je7sbw6 wrote

Because of the amount of discrimination against people with disabilities who want to live. Legalized assisted suicide is full of ethical concerns for those of us who are disabled.


Lilly6916 t1_je843mp wrote

But there have also been people with disabilities who want to exit and because they can’t do the deed themselves are forced to continue. How can we make it fair for everyone?


ajmacbeth t1_je7jp6c wrote

If I built a piece of furniture I’d be perfectly in my rights to destroy it. But since I didn’t create my life, it’s not ok that I destroy it.


bananagaloshes t1_je86mvd wrote

If your mom gave you a piece of furniture you'd be perfectly in your rights to destroy it. Even as an egregious false equivalency this doesn't work.


Workacct1999 t1_je9lsdu wrote

Do you solve all of your moral questions be comparing them to furniture?


kcast2818 t1_je6xxk9 wrote

Assisted suicide? No thanks


Cerberus73 t1_je6zj8o wrote

Nobody is asking you to do it, but don't take that choice away from others.


kcast2818 t1_je73jcm wrote

We live in a society. The person asked a question.


Avocadoexpresss OP t1_je77rxz wrote

You don’t believe that someone with a short life sentence, in a state of suffering, should get to decide for themselves when they are done fighting their illness? This isn’t a bill that just allows anyone to access life ending medication.


kcast2818 t1_je79dgj wrote

Do you really think they're gonna stop at the terminally ill? They are gonna expand it to anyone who feels like ending it all. "Its their choice none of your bees wax" is a ridiculously simplistic defense of it too.


Avocadoexpresss OP t1_je79xo2 wrote

Just look at the states that have it legalised currently. Some have provided this service for 20 years and none have changed their parameters to allow mental illness. Only terminal illness.


kcast2818 t1_je7amdb wrote

Correct changed their parameters..expect more of this as it becomes normalized. Next thing you know kids will be decide to end it all without parental consent cuz they felt like it.


Carpeteria3000 t1_je7g8j9 wrote

Livin’ wild on the slippery slope over here


kcast2818 t1_je7kg32 wrote

Slippery slope has happened on a bunch of issues. They're literally pushing assisted suicide in Canada for mental illness not just the terminally ill. Maybe you're not paying attenetion.


Carpeteria3000 t1_je7laaf wrote

I’m literally not living in Canada, and “pushing for” something doesn’t mean it will happen. Lots of laws get “pushed for” across the country. Doesn’t automatically make them happen.

The DwD law has existed for over 20 years in Oregon and no slopes have been slid in that time. It has been legalized in several other states since then, and amazingly, the laws have held fast and far fewer terminal patients have actually taken advantage of these acts than doomsdayers projected.


kcast2818 t1_je7mvsw wrote

They have no incentive to continue if other states have not followed in assisted suicide. Now that its gaining steam in the US expect Oregon to take the next step. Massachusetts passed gay marriage in 2004 other states followed. Now its national. Now we're discussing Trans kids. See how this works?


Carpeteria3000 t1_je7n1wv wrote

Nope. You’re talking out of your ass and that’s a massive false equivalency. You’re really good at tossing around fallacies, though.


kcast2818 t1_je7pp5m wrote

Yeah can't properly respond just name call and have a fit. Enjoy your echo chamber.


Carpeteria3000 t1_je7qi2z wrote

I didn’t call you any names. I said you’re talking out of your ass, which is a common phrase for someone throwing around a bunch of nonsense.

Not biting on fallacies =/= echo chamber.

It’s a shame that you’re afraid of something that has no evidence of occurring in this country after literal decades of data and which could help a great deal of your fellow humans who are needlessly suffering while terminal diseases ravage their bodies, while their families have to sit by and watch and while incurring unnecessary medical bills.


kcast2818 t1_je7rw3g wrote

I'm not name calling *Proceeds to say talking out of your ass* lol. You never addressed how this isn't a slippery slope. You don't want to have an actual conversation about this because it will lead to topics you don't wanna talk about. Clearly bringing up the gay marriage to trans kids pipeline was your third rail.

Talk to me when you actually want to have a conversation about this not PC nonsense for your Reddit upvotes.


Carpeteria3000 t1_je7tkb6 wrote

Umm ok? Name calling would be me saying “You’re an idiot.” I didn’t.

You’re definitely making a slippery slope fallacy.

You’re claiming that, despite there being over 20 years of data related to the law being safely enacted and protected here in the US, that somehow we’re just going to backpedal and start expanding DwD to groups not covered under the current laws, even though you have zero evidence of that being discussed in any real or likely manner by anyone with the power to expand those laws. Your evidence so far is that in Canada (a different country) it’s being “pushed for” - pushed how? By who? How likely is it to happen? Is it on a ballot? And again, even if Canada decided to expand on it, we aren’t discussing Canadian policies. This is America, where these laws have been pretty strictly adhered to in the few states where it has been legalized.

Making the bizarre equivalent between this topic and gay/trans rights, which has literally nothing to do with this issue, is a totally illogical connection and does nothing for the supposed points you’re trying to hammer.


Avocadoexpresss OP t1_je7cr6r wrote

So over a hypothetical, the terminally ill and suffering don’t deserve the mercy they seek? I think the states that allow it are a good example of what to expect. Currently watching someone die very painfully, who wishes for the ability to peacefully go. Living in pain and misery, draining all the money she saved within her lifetime for subpar treatment. Let’s hope neither you nor I have to experience this to extend the appropriate compassion.