I wrote a small piece on planned death

Some of my family members have died to suicide. One violently after many people could not restrain them. One very much planned, very much like Pieter. Both found reasons to end their suffering, to take authoritative control over their own death. The suffering doesn't go away, it just takes another form in other people. It seems I'm the authoritarian lunatic, the psychopath, because I cannot see what separates euthanasia from every other tragic suicide.

* Is it because someone else performs the injection? Then what about suicide by cop, and cases where the patient injects herself?

* Is it because their family members join them in that initial feeling of peace following their decision (which suicide prevention pamphlets warn to watch for)?

* Is it because a cancer patient really is better off dead? Then so are many other seemingly-hopeless people, who are depressed, abandoned, and addicted. Is it because doctors agree that they are better off dead?

Nobody is pro-suffering, but sometimes we must suffer for the things that make us human. When we hear about deaths, aren't the most painful ones those where a person has said "this human life is not worth living"? No inanimate disease can say something so painful, can affirm it so permanently through willful action.

Your stepfather apparently violated your mother's directive based on the desperate belief that his spouse could recover, and she did not. This is absolutely tragic.

Then your stepfather presumably refused kill his spouse (due to hope, moral beliefs, cowardice, etc.) by unplugging her from standard, non-extraordinary life-support. She eventually died a painless death.

For which of these does he deserve to suffer for, more than he has already?

A DNR is not an order to cease basic life-support post-resuscitation. For example, I don't want extraordinary measures, but I also absolutely do not want anyone to euthanize me if I somehow end up semi-vegetative.

If collective survival was the driving influence, we would have been in favor of suicide for people who were a "burden", like cancer patients.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2160/did-eskimos-pu...

Assisted suicide isn't a new freedom - we had it in the past, it went out of favor, and now it's favorable again. Ancient Greece had radical and crazy practices (infanticide, certain sexual pairings) that are revolting "right now". Having to come to terms with those particular practices isn't something that I look forward to doing in the future.

> I also absolutely do not want anyone to euthanize me if I somehow end up semi-vegetative.

Just out of curiosity, why not?

I've had chemo twice now, the first time I got this cancer and now a different mix (folfox). The negative effects are painful yet really minor compared to the potential of getting rid of your tumor or cancer.

The first chemo (gemcytabin) was once per week, three weeks, then pause, then again, over six months. This one is two days every fortnight, for six months. The first time I was tired and a little nauseous. This time I was pretty bad for two days after the drugs, and ended up on small doses of stuff I suspect they give to psychiatric patients, to calm my vomiting.

It is still worth doing, for two reasons. One, the chemo can and does work even when the chances are low. A day or two of feeling shit is minor, compared to the chance of not dying. This notion that chemo somehow ruins your life is not accurate, generally.

Secondly, the data goes back to medical research. This is the only reason I did the chemo both times because we all know bile duct cancer just doesn't respond to chemo. But they have to keep trying different things, and one day something will work, and then they'll refine it, and it'll save lives down the line.

I'm going to write another article, about how to be happy and "life as much as possible" even with chemo. It is about simple things like having lots of company and talking openly about your situation.