Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#31

Post by lunar-whitey »

Nextgrid wrote: post #25
niemandhier wrote: post #23

This is much more nuanced than many people realize. Assuming you want to commit suicide by a sensible cocktail of drugs: - something against the anxiety - something that puts you into a deep sleep - something against the muscle spasms - something that stops your heart / breathing From the top of my head that would be: - ketamine - propofol / thiopental - potassium chloride Most of these things are not available legal…

Wouldn't an inert gas cylinder and a mask be sufficient? There's a history of accidents where victims suddenly pass out in enclosed, poorly-ventilated spaces (caves, etc), and even worse, people who go help them will themselves succumb to the same thing.

Inert gas asphyxiation is less straightforward because some ventilation should be present to allow exhalation of carbon dioxide. Significant pain results if this is not provided.

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#32

Post by NoahZuniga »

Bender wrote: post #5

Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die? Rights are not applicable here. How exactly would you stop them from self termination?

You can't stop someone from stealing something. But it does make sense to say that people don't have the right to steal stuff.

So the concept of rights clearly does still apply.

Also, the concept of a right is very related to law. If you have the right to die, than it can't be criminal for someone to help you die.

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#33

Post by dghlsakjg »

martythemaniak wrote: post #21
hungmung wrote: post #12

The devil is in the (implementation) details. Canada has had some pretty serious abuses of their right to die system. Oregon's right to die somehow doesn't attract all that bad press. Maybe there's no perfect implementation for right to die, but it'd probably be better if the error fell to the side of "if in doubt, don't".

I would quintiple-check any such claims of abuse. It's usually just clickbait and outright lies.

The OP is correct that there are verifiable claims of minor abnormalities in the Canadian MAID system. The meat of the complaints that the anti-MAID crowd latch onto is that a single caseworker for veterans was proven to have raised the possibility of MAID in 4 known cases. There have been accusations of other instances with veterans. In all of the cases of inappropriate suggestions of MAID as an option, there isn't any proof that any of them resulted in death (likely because it is not a simple process, and has numerous avenues for concerned third parties and experts to raise concerns, and requires consultation with independent doctors). A generous interpretation of the known cases shows that there have been about a dozen individuals who have had MAID suggested inappropriately.

They are leaving out the denominator, however, which indicates that there are at least 15k MAID deaths per year, and increasing rapidly (probably closer to 20k, but statistics are generally at least 24 months behind), which doesn't include the people who qualify, but ultimately choose a natural death. Current estimates are that ~4-5% of deaths in Canada are MAID.

So yes, there are "abuses", but arguably no evidence of irreparable harm.

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#34

Post by kbelder »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #11
jaoane wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means whether we have to pay for their self termination.

It's no more your business than what roads "you" pay for with your tax dollars, you may never use those roads but you are not the protagonist of reality.

>It's no more your business than what roads "you" pay for with your tax dollars

Wow. It's your duty to just accelerate into abuse and corruption.

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#35

Post by Bender »

NoahZuniga wrote: post #32
Bender wrote: post #5

Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die? Rights are not applicable here. How exactly would you stop them from self termination?

You can't stop someone from stealing something. But it does make sense to say that people don't have the right to steal stuff. So the concept of rights clearly does still apply. Also, the concept of a right is very related to law. If you have the right to die, than it can't be criminal for someone to help you die.

If you steal the court can put you in jail or fine you. If you self terminate what would the court punish you with? I am assuming the person has already liquidated their assets and given it to whomever they choose. I do not believe the law has any bearing as it has no control. I believe the most they could do is yell at the moon.

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#36

Post by touisteur »

unaindz wrote: post #24
jaoane wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless a person is clearly insane and unable to comprehend what they are doing Like the person in the article who obviously is suffering from purely psychosomatic issues.

So you want her to suffer? If so how much time should she suffer while trying to find a remedy to her illness, psychosomatic or not? 1 year? 5? 30 years of suffering every day?

In a world telling her to get over her psychosomatic issues which are 'in her head' and that she should be dismissed as incapable of deciding for herself...

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#37

Post by jaoane »

unaindz wrote: post #24
jaoane wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless a person is clearly insane and unable to comprehend what they are doing Like the person in the article who obviously is suffering from purely psychosomatic issues.

So you want her to suffer? If so how much time should she suffer while trying to find a remedy to her illness, psychosomatic or not? 1 year? 5? 30 years of suffering every day?

No, I think she should get the psychological help she needs instead of killing herself.

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#38

Post by dns_snek »

Bender wrote: post #8
jaoane wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means whether we have to pay for their self termination.

Ah well in that case I am indifferent. There are many painless low cost or free methods that I will not mention here. I hope those that are suffering know people that know what I know and do not get suckered into paying for some service. Medical businesses are not required. Either way a doctor would violate their oath by performing this whether it is legal or not.

> Either way a doctor would violate their oath by performing this whether it is legal or not.

Are you referring to "do no harm"? According to my own moral compass helping someone end their life with dignity is not doing harm, quite the opposite. You could even argue that leaving them suffering when you have the means, knowledge, and consent to help them is doing harm.

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#39

Post by jmye »

Bender wrote: post #35
NoahZuniga wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't stop someone from stealing something. But it does make sense to say that people don't have the right to steal stuff. So the concept of rights clearly does still apply. Also, the concept of a right is very related to law. If you have the right to die, than it can't be criminal for someone to help you die.

If you steal the court can put you in jail or fine you. If you self terminate what would the court punish you with? I am assuming the person has already liquidated their assets and given it to whomever they choose. I do not believe the law has any bearing as it has no control. I believe the most they could do is yell at the moon.

The issue GP raised is the criminalization of “helpers” - e.g. a doctor administering lethal drugs. Certainly a law against suicide is irrelevant to someone who successfully uses a shotgun, alone in a field.
Post reply on HN