Physician-Assisted Suicide Legislation introduced in Delaware House

A Democratic bill to make physician assisted suicide legal in Delaware is being introduced tomorrow.

Delaware On Line

A Democratic state lawmaker introduced legislation that would allow doctor-assisted suicide in Delaware, with the hopes of at least advancing a dialogue among lawmakers about the issue.

The bill introduced on Thursday by State Representative Paul Baumbach (D-Newark) would allow a patient who is told by a doctor that he or she is likely to die within six months due to a terminal illness to request life-ending prescription medicine. The legislation would require that a second, consulting physician confirm the diagnosis....

Under the bill, which is based off similar legislation passed 18 years ago in Oregon, only a patient could request assisted suicide and Baumbach said individual doctors or hospitals would not be compelled to participate in the process.

Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington, and Vermont.
California is neutral on physician assisted suicide.
(not sure how they can be neutral .. either it's legal or it's not).

This has a long shot for getting passed, but I hope it does. I have long stated that I believe in legalized assisted suicide for ANY adult who wants it, for ANY reason and at ANY time. I appreciate the states that have made it legal for the terminally ill but that's not good enough, IMHO. What about the chronically ill? Any adult .. for any reason and not just for terminal illness. That's what the goal should be.

Ever see the movie Soylent Green? People could walk into assisted death centers and 'go out' on their own terms in a pleasant fashion and with dignity. Those should be available around the world. Hopefully someday ...

a reply to: FlyersFan


I totally agree. By using shame as a means of controlling suicide only promotes more suffering and obviously does not work in decreasing the number of suicides either. Our constitution protects our right to life and as death is the only thing that can be said to be a certainty of life it should be our choice, without restriction, on when to choose it before it chooses us. This will allow everyone to have some dignity and comfort during their last moments and can be done with compassion, done properly and in a safe environment. To deny anyone the right to die peacefully for no reason is to take ownership over that persons life as your own. That is slavery at it's most cruel as it denies the person control over their own life free of suffering.

I agree with this. I am a major advocate for ALS victims. Some of these terminal diseases are devastating. To slowly become paralyzed over your entire body while your brain function remains the same. I would rather have a bullet in me.

I have a guy who I have ran multiple calls on for attempted suicide. He can barely move after several strokes. He is bed ridden in a bed in a terrible assisted living facility. He has a trach which he usually pulls out thinking it will kill him. He is in his 30's, was married with two kids. His wife / ex wont bring the kids there anymore. Is this anyway to live?

People like this would embrace this. I think many of us who live these semi normal lives can sit back and say no that isn't right. It isn't ethical for this to happen. Meanwhile people who suffer from these diseases and have to live in this misery many times, wish this were an option.

I never really understood the argument against this when it applies to people that are in intense physical pain. It almost seems cruel.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I agree. There is still too much Christian stigma around suicide though. Too many people see it as wrong and therefore have trouble recognizing that people should have the right to end their lives when they want to. If it is really a mortal sin, then that is between the person and God. You aren't part of that equation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FlyersFan

I agree. There is still too much Christian stigma around suicide though. Too many people see it as wrong and therefore have trouble recognizing that people should have the right to end their lives when they want to. If it is really a mortal sin, then that is between the person and God. You aren't part of that equation.

Exactly. And why would "God" create something so just have it suffer and then tell it that it can't escape it's own torment?

I'm not making any claims here about god and creation, just following your line of thought. That's another conversion and off topic.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree with what you said about the Christian stigma in suicide.

I support this with people who have terminal conditions.
I still have mixed emotions for other variants of suicide. Teens being bullied, PTSD etc. So I do support this legislation, but hope it doesn't open another door for other reasoning.

a reply to: LoverBoy

Suicide is a tough decision for anyone to make and many times it is a spur of the moment situation. Keep in mind, just because assisted suicide would be legal, doesn't mean that we should do away with suicide support lines. There will still be many people considering it who just need someone to talk to so that they don't go through with it.

Heck, make it a prerequisite to talk to a suicide prevention counselor or something before being able to go through with it. This way the counselor could alert friends and family to the person's situation. Then if all efforts fail, the person can still go through with it cleanly through physician assistance.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're right and it goes back at least as far as the religious idea that we must suffer in life for our sin. This notion is not only, unsurprisingly, sadistic but tantamount to torture rather than to forgiveness or grace or mercy.

In reality, the religious perception of it should not even matter. Like I said earlier we have a constitutional protection to Life which means we have protection as individuals to also end our own life if we choose before it chooses to end us. To not allow that is the same as having your life itself under the control of someone else and allows them to cause you to suffer with no means of escape other than their death at the hands of nature/time.

a reply to: mOjOm

You are right, it shouldn't matter, but you and I both know that it does. It does for most of the country. That is why this conversation is so taboo.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well said. You put my thoughts and words in better form for everyone to understand. I completely agree with this.

a reply to: LoverBoy

Heck. With the example I gave, it wouldn't be a surprise if the person DID decide to go through with it. Most of the pain associated with suicides is from the surprise of finding out that this person has been suffering for so long, told no one, and decided to end it all. What I suggested takes some of the sting out of the act. The person's friends and family could better prepare for it, accept it, and even say their goodbyes if they desire.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh yeah. This conversation is very taboo and will have people opposing the entire idea intensely. But it really boils down to answering the question of who has ownership of themselves. Do you own you more than I or anyone else owns you??? If so then the conversation ends there because ultimately you choice is the only one that matters at that point.

If you disagree and think someone else has more ownership of you than yourself, I would say is an invalid choice as it defeats your own position. By the very nature of what it means to be a "self" you cannot give that "self" to another "self" except in a limited capacity. Your choice to release ownership of your own will is an illogical impossibility and in trying to choose to give up your own will you've then invalidated that very choice itself.

The only time when this would not be true is if it could be shown that someone was actually not aware of their own will and conscious/body connection. Such as a child before they are aware of itself or someone who is "out of their mind" so to speak and unable to make an informed decision as it relates to them.

a reply to: mOjOm

Interestingly, it is likely that conservatives (champions of personal responsibility) will be starkly opposed to this and will continue to support keeping suicide illegal.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, ironic isn't it???

I imagine they would try and use that last clause in endless legal battles trying to figure out at what point someone is no longer consciously aware enough to make their own decisions and must have someone else do it for them. I can see many cases like Terri Schiavo only much more complicated and with super complex legal loopholes.

a reply to: mOjOm

Very ironic. Though we all know that conservatives are only for personal responsibility when it suits their needs. There are QUITE a few positions the right has that are pro-Big government and anti-personal responsibility. So let's just consider it another notch on the hypocrisy belt.

Though puzzleingly the right will turn around and say that the left is anti-liberty, yet here is a case where the left is for personal liberty and the right is for nanny state.

In the end, it is ALL rhetoric.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yep. If you think about it, the right to end one's own life should never be considered a matter of discussion in most cases. I can imagine a world where life can be sustained physically with automatic technology from birth. Then something such as being in financial debt might be legally argued to then put that persons "life" or "right to die" in another persons hands until they pay their "debt". This could essentially place someone into slavery and torture practically endlessly in the psychotic and brutal will of another until they decide to end it for whatever reason.

Ideas like that I think are truly the most likely realization of what "hell" could be in reality.

a reply to: mOjOm

This is why I flip-flop politically. I pick and choose the sides of the argument that work for me instead of choosing a side then letting that side determine my political beliefs. When I speak my political rhetoric, I try to be consistent with it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well that's really the only logical way to go. After all, if you pick some affiliation with the idea that it represents your choice in things all you've really done is give up your choice before even hearing it. Being that it's assumed you'll choose whatever your associative group is choosing you've effectively just given up your ability to choose anything.

This should be apparent to everyone regardless of what label they choose or what groups they belong to. Choosing a label alone, if one chooses to do so, should really go no further than as a simple identifier but have no obligation in swaying their decision making capacity. Otherwise all you've done is willfully handed over control of your free will to choose to a group mind and you never know what that group mind might be thinking.

I've been planning on suicide for quite sometime. I'd really like to just disappear, without a trace.

I once asked an emergency room physician for some suggestions, and he recommended stepping in front of an Amtrak locomotive at full tilt.

For some time this became my preferred method, but I've since changed my modus operandi. Primarily because it seems irresponsible to think that someone else should have to clean up after me.

A current plan is to simply walk off into the wilderness someday, and never return. The only problem with this plan and suicide in general, is karmic backlash. I'm currently trying to work out the karmic details, searching for a way to justify it, with the universe and one infinite creator.