It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wash. state has first death under new suicide law

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Wash. state has first death under new suicide law


my.earthlink.net

OLYMPIA, Wash. - A 66-year-old woman with terminal cancer has become the first person to die under Washington state's new assisted suicide law, an advocacy group said Friday.

Linda Fleming, of Sequim, died Thursday night after taking drugs prescribed under the "Death with Dignity" law that took effect in March, said Compassion & Choices of Washington.

The organization said Fleming was diagnosed last month with advanced pancreatic cancer. She would have had to have been diagnosed by two doctors as terminal in order to qualify for assisted suicide.

The group said Fleming died at home
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 23 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
I personally think that assisted suicide is a noble thing to end unbearable pain. And for the state to put restrictions on the way a person has to live their life is tyranny.

But another question arises; should the state be involved in any capacity determining who lives or who dies regardless if it is in a medical context or not?



my.earthlink.net
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 23-5-2009 by whaaa]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
first ive heard of this being legalised, i thought it would be huge news.

Euthinasia is a very delicate subject, and they have to say "who lives and who dies" as you put it in order to protect people from being euthinased against there will. aka, for an example, someones relative may put someone into a coma, and then try to assist suicide them, then the inheritence will go to that person, they are aware that this could happen thus has to have a profesional say from someone who is not involved.

One of the little questions i have is on the doctors that perform that task. When they become doctors, they have to place an oath, vowing that they shall never destroy life and shall only preserve life and heal, surley assisted suicide is going against their oath?

Other than that, i fully agree with euthinasia and this is a huge step. Many termanly ill people want to die, and people who want to live and can recover will be turned down because there is not enough beds or someone else is using the equiptment who doesnt even want to be kept alive.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I for one think this is a good law if it is used only for terminally ill people. And, it is good that at least two doctors have to agree on the diagnosis. I happen to believe it should also be allowed for anyone who is seriously paralyzed by an accident as well.

Of course the state should not endorse suicide just because someone is depressed, etc.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 



Another question just occurred to me....

Will the "suicide pills" and the assisting physician be covered under Medicare or even private insurance for that matter.

Insurance companies could say a person is costing to much money to keep alive and opp to terminate the policy along with the insured. By actually encouraging suicide. Whoa!


[edit on 23-5-2009 by whaaa]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
Insurance companies could say a person is costing to much money to keep alive and opp to terminate the policy along with the insured. By actually encouraging suicide. Whoa!


[edit on 23-5-2009 by whaaa]


I think that would be where strong legislation would come into play. An insurance company should not be allowed to make that call as they're motivation is profit rather than the well being of the insured. The decision to terminate ones life should be the primary responsibility of A) the individual and B) if the individual cannot make that assessment, the individuals family.

I think it would be a gross conflict of interest if it was up to the insurance agency. Hell, lets call it what it is in that circumstance, murder for profit.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by InSpiteOf]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Pandora once had a box.................

Goverment endorsed suicide....the Nazi's would be so proud.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


Hardly government endorsed.

What gives the government the right to tell me when I can and cannot die, and under what circumstances?

I thought most conservatives wanted to reduce government intrusion in the lives of the public?

[edit on 23-5-2009 by InSpiteOf]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

I think it would be a gross conflict of interest if it was up to the insurance agency. Hell, lets call it what it is in that circumstance, murder for profit.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by InSpiteOf]


Is denying treatment of an insured or canceling a policy to save money; and the insured dies.....is that murder for profit? or just business as usual?

Is this an argument for universal health care?



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Depends on which side of the policy you sit. To me, its murder for profit plain as day.

I dont see how it can be justified as anything other than murder. Lets say person A is dying of terminal lung cancer due to environmental hazards, person A is also insured and has always payed the premiums. If the insurance company decides person A is costing too much money and cancels the policy, dooming person A to a painful death, how it that not murder?

Whether or not its an argument for universal health care or not is a different question altogether. I think you and I both know how those threads usually end and I dont want to delude this thread with petty bickering on the merits of both systems.


Edit: spelling

[edit on 23-5-2009 by InSpiteOf]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Reminds me of a certain dr who saw many years in prison.
I think Kevorkian will now be known as a dr who was ahead of his time.
Euthynasia is back with a vengence.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
reply to post by whaaa
 


Depends on which side of the policy you sit. To me, its murder for profit plain as day.


Edit: spelling

[edit on 23-5-2009 by InSpiteOf]


How is this murder?
If someone is there asking for it, signing a paper giving consent to go forward with the whole thing because they don't want to suffer anymore I think it's the right thing to do.

You say profit is what it's about but stop and think about maybe the family of a dying person who's already up to their neck with medical bills. The person doesn't want to suffer anymore and leave a family in debt forever because of the treatments I think it almost works out better for every one in the long run IMO, but that's just my opinion and not trying to change yours but maybe just make you see a point you haven't maybe thought of yet.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Btw Oregon has had this law for two years and over 400 people have made use of it. I think that no one has made a fuss about it for some time, just that this Washington law is new, so this makes it newsworthy.

And I agree, care should be taken that such things don't happen friviolously. But I fully believe that I, or anyone, should have the right to die.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by seangkt
How is this murder?
If someone is there asking for it...




Uhh, i think you need to read the whole conversation between whaaa and myself.


Is denying treatment of an insured or canceling a policy to save money; and the insured dies.....is that murder for profit? or just business as usual?


Thats what I was replying to. For the record I fully endorse assisted suicide, the government has no business telling me how and when I can die.


Edit to add: seangkt. not a problem, happens to all of us.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by InSpiteOf]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 


Ahh I didn't notice that part as I skimmed through and am sorry for the response. After reading that though I understand where you are coming from on the subject.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Pandora once had a box.................

Goverment endorsed suicide....the Nazi's would be so proud.



Well that is true liberty... the liberty to choose whether you continue to live or not...

I don't know what Nazi's have to do with liberty... but you seem to be trying to pervert liberty into something evil...

Maybe you meant something else because you couldn't spell Government.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Maybe you meant something else because you couldn't spell Government.



I can't believe I misspelled Government. I normally go out of my way to ensure proper spelling. I am so embarrassed by this. I will try harder in the future not to do this again.

1st Government outlaws assisted suidice.
2nd Government OK's it.
3rd Government encourages it???
4th Government taxes death even higher???
5th Government mandates it???



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I always here people say this should only be for terminally ill people, but it just makes me wonder, are we not all terminally ill with the disease called aging?



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by seangkt
 

I had 2 grandparents go through terminal ovarian and terminal oral cancer about 10 years ago .... and 10 years later we are still paying their medical bills and it looks like we will be paying them forever.

Personally I think anyone who is diagnosed with a terminal illness or illness that has advanced to a terminal stage should be given the option of assisted suicide right up front before "palliative care" is even mentioned.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
A giant leap towards a truly civilized society! Now if we erradicate the death penalty so that no innocents accidentally get shot up, we might just do alright. We've been focusing too hard on "punishing the injustices" and "protecting those without a voice" that we have completely allowed for the erosion of the rights of everyone else, especially those who are innocent. Sure, taking your own life in the event of a terminal disease might not be the route of choice for yourself, but does that mean that since one of us might not do it that we should deprive others of that right?

The right-to-die issue will probably be debated for a long time, but at least now in some places people will be able to control their destiny and suffering will be put into check the way that it should have been since the first bipedal critter decided it wanted a better life for itself and new drapes.

This will allow many who are dying to focus on the things that count in their last days instead of the constant worry about what is on its way. Final weeks can be lived outin joy within the comfort and love of family and not overshadowed by the burden of the medical bills you may leave behind among other things.

For anyone with a chronic pain disease, life is miserable enough...but knowing that the disease causing you so much pain will inevitably end your life, the empowerment this act gives is sure to give many the option of quality of life since quantity is not offered on the menu.

I know some may get very angry at me for saying this, but I honestly believe that people suffering from untreatable depression should be assisted as well. Depression is in of itself a horrific misery and medications just don't help everyone. I believe these people should be allowed to "move on" to a place that they might think will erradicate their pain.

Some mental disorders cannot be cured, just like some physical ailments. Our lives are just that - OUR lives. If we so choose to attempt to move on, then we should be allowed to do so.

The really negative pain and impact of many diseases is simply because the family is subjected to that "could it be today?" Sword of Damocles ever present, ever looming. It is far better that you KNOW you or a loved one has complete control over it that makes those final days all the more precious.

I still think we're "one step ahead, two steps behind" in our manner of mental and emotional involements as far as a civilization goes but the passing of this act is a very real and important piece of legislature in the direction of handing us back not only our Constitutional liberies but basic, simple rights that each of us was born with as a member of this species. Some sectors of our species is now getting a clue.

BRAVO HUMANITY! You have finally turned to face true love, compassion and mercy!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join