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

Think you want to die at home? You might want to think twice about that

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Think you want to die at home? You might want to think twice about that

#71

Post by downerending »

chx wrote: post #21
kylec wrote: post #6

I feel like more people should consider euthanasia. If caring for you is a huge physical and financial burden, and you're basically waiting to die anyway , why not just get it over with?

I am. I have decided years ago and I do not see this changing significantly that once my mortgage is paid down -- which is approximately in eight years -- I just want to die, I will be 53 by then. By then the so called "bucket list" will be empty. I am living alone and this I can't see changing any time soon. Do not think I am suicidal or depressed -- I have three international trips booked for this year already and…

That's somewhat relatable. A few suggestions for your bucket list, though, if you haven't done them already:

Learn to ride a motorcycle. More fun than you'd think.

See an eclipse from the totality. More fun than you'd think.

Get a dog. Maybe not quite as fun as it looks, but pretty fun.

Go see an Above and Beyond show at one of the huge, outdoor festivals. More fun than you'd think.

Take a cruise.

Not being flippant here. I suspect that there are a few more things you could easily add to your bucket list that you might really enjoy.

Re: Think you want to die at home? You might want to think twice about that

#72

Post by blaser-waffle »

downerending wrote: post #69
gwright wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm pro right to die, but it's complicated. > I think I should have the right to say "Nope. I'm done with this crap." This is a pretty standard way of staking out a position on this topic but I think it is quite misleading. Laws regarding euthanasia have very little if anything to do with limiting the actions of someone who wants to die or protecting their "rights". After all they can't be prosecuted after they hav…

Disagree. Yes, anyone can commit suicide. But doing so without medical assistance usually involves leaving a huge, traumatic mess for our fellow humans to deal with. For the good of all concerned, including the about-to-be deceased, reasonable self-euthanasia should be supported. (An additional benefit is that it would help identify people who are suicidally depressed for not-reasonable reasons, and get them help, or…

Dying of cancer in a hospital leaves a huge traumatic mess for people to clean up too. Chances are they're cleaning up for you for days and weeks, and the trauma of dying is still going to crush your loved ones. One day of scrubbing blood vs weeks of changing bedpans, catheters, and cleaning up other messes.

Re: Think you want to die at home? You might want to think twice about that

#73

Post by DoreenMichele »

downerending wrote: post #70
thanatropism wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the euthanasia is better left un-codified. It's not difficult to obtain the means for relatively comfortable suicide -- and people do it left and right, mostly for reasons of mental illness -- so it's not like people are being oppressed by not having such a "right".

It's not so much that it's difficult as that it requires a certain amount of sustained, intelligent thought, and some people probably can't really reason it out. Methods that absolutely cannot fail and that aren't too awful for the subject and survivors aren't initially obvious. Thus the large number of failed and awful suicides. (Source: Have been suicidal in the past and cracked this nut.)

It's also hard to get good info precisely because helping someone or encouraging someone to kill themselves can get you charged with something -- or make you feel at fault, even if you don't get charged with something. So most people don't want to provide that info by any means whatsoever.

See, for example, the Michelle Carter case.

Re: Think you want to die at home? You might want to think twice about that

#74

Post by stillbourne »

I recently had to go through the passing of my grandfather. In addition to having Parkinson's for the last 5 years of his life that progressively got worse, he also had stage for rectal cancer that was inoperable. He had a DNR and also an advance directive about prohibiting aggressive medical intervention. He ended up with pneumonia and refused to be ventilated to clear the mucus. He told me and my grandmother after an extremely bad night in the hospital that he was, "ready." I called family from all around to come say good bye, We were planning on doing in home hospice but his condition was deteriorating and I couldn't manage it on my own. We ended up taking him to a very nice hospice center, they stabilized him enough for everyone to get to say their last good byes and then he passed a few days later.

Re: Think you want to die at home? You might want to think twice about that

#75

Post by downerending »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #73
downerending wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much that it's difficult as that it requires a certain amount of sustained, intelligent thought, and some people probably can't really reason it out. Methods that absolutely cannot fail and that aren't too awful for the subject and survivors aren't initially obvious. Thus the large number of failed and awful suicides. (Source: Have been suicidal in the past and cracked this nut.)

It's also hard to get good info precisely because helping someone or encouraging someone to kill themselves can get you charged with something -- or make you feel at fault, even if you don't get charged with something. So most people don't want to provide that info by any means whatsoever. See, for example, the Michelle Carter case.

I generally agree that random individuals shouldn't be providing this sort of information. Rather, I think there should be a considered, bureaucratic process, perhaps with a waiting period, and with that, most people should be allowed to peacefully self-euthanize.

Re: Think you want to die at home? You might want to think twice about that

#76

Post by downerending »

blaser-waffle wrote: post #72
downerending wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. Yes, anyone can commit suicide. But doing so without medical assistance usually involves leaving a huge, traumatic mess for our fellow humans to deal with. For the good of all concerned, including the about-to-be deceased, reasonable self-euthanasia should be supported. (An additional benefit is that it would help identify people who are suicidally depressed for not-reasonable reasons, and get them help, or…

Dying of cancer in a hospital leaves a huge traumatic mess for people to clean up too. Chances are they're cleaning up for you for days and weeks, and the trauma of dying is still going to crush your loved ones. One day of scrubbing blood vs weeks of changing bedpans, catheters, and cleaning up other messes.

Indeed--I don't advocate either of those. Rather, physician-assisted suicide should be more broadly allowed.

Re: Think you want to die at home? You might want to think twice about that

#77

Post by kazinator »

gwright wrote: post #68
kazinator wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you assert your right and demand that someone be forced to assist you? I would say, the proper interpretation of rights such as "right to education" or "right to die" is that nobody may stand in your way of exercising them, not that others must be coerced into provisioning roles. (The coercive aspect is an interpretation taken by collectivist societies with regard to certain expensive needs.)

Ok, but then you don't need any special "right to education". You just need all usual individual freedoms (property, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc.) We could just call that "liberty". There is no need to argue about some nearly-infinite list of "rights to X" when that is all covered by the simple idea of being left alone. But the moment you say that you in order to excercise your…

Even if you have all sorts of freedoms, those freedoms by themselves don't allow you to attend and get a diploma from an institution that has not accepted you as a student. An institution could reject applicants for unfair reasons, and that would be one area where education as a right could be used as an instrument for intervention.

(Unfair reasons would be ones that have nothing to do with academic placement or ability to pay: right to education doesn't have to mean that a school has to take everyone who applies, and those who can't pay tuition.)

Re: Think you want to die at home? You might want to think twice about that

#78

Post by gwright »

kazinator wrote: post #77
gwright wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but then you don't need any special "right to education". You just need all usual individual freedoms (property, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc.) We could just call that "liberty". There is no need to argue about some nearly-infinite list of "rights to X" when that is all covered by the simple idea of being left alone. But the moment you say that you in order to excercise your…

Even if you have all sorts of freedoms, those freedoms by themselves don't allow you to attend and get a diploma from an institution that has not accepted you as a student. An institution could reject applicants for unfair reasons, and that would be one area where education as a right could be used as an instrument for intervention. (Unfair reasons would be ones that have nothing to do with academic placement or abil…

Of course freedoms don't guarantee an outcome. That isn't what freedom is about. In your example it assumes some higher authority that intervenes to ensure that you get what is your right. What about the person you are replacing in that incoming class? For you to get the spot that you deserve someone else has to lose their spot (assuming there is a finite capacity). Wasn't their "right" just violated?

As a thought experiment you can simplify this a bit more by thinking about an even more basic necessity. Food. Is there a "right to food"?

That sounds like a positive right to me. It can only be guaranteed by someone else doing something for me (i.e. providing me with food). So why should I have to pay for my groceries? Shouldn't I be able to just go somewhere and get all the food I need because it is my right? If you say that I need to pay for it, then it certainly doesn't sound like a right to me, that just sounds like commerce.

Once you drop the requirement that someone else provide the food to me, then I would argue you aren't really talking about a basic "right" at that point. Certainly it is a necessity to live, but that doesn't mean that the universe will magically provide that necessity to me nor does it mean that someone else should be forced to provide it to me.

Re: Think you want to die at home? You might want to think twice about that

#79

Post by hackeraccount »

erikerikson wrote: post #30

We could optimize for quality of life rather than length of life. It'd sure help that be a more positive experience if we inverted that. Give me a good life over a long one, within responsibile parameters, it was always temporary. Frankly, I'm glad for that.

Sadly we aren't given a choice. My Mom's mom went from perfectly reasonable to dying at home amazingly fast in hindsite - 3 to 6 mos. I think.

My Dad's mom lived to be 90'something but the last 20 years were in increasingly assisted living. I don't think she even knew where she was the last couple years of her life.

That said - dying at home is work for family no two ways about but.. I think it helps with grieving in some ways. I was there for a lot of that time and it dispelled any illusions I might have had about what was going on. It made me think that dying is an incredibly inwardly focused thing.

Your millage may vary though. :-)

Re: Think you want to die at home? You might want to think twice about that

#80

Post by yencabulator »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #27
thanatropism wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the euthanasia is better left un-codified. It's not difficult to obtain the means for relatively comfortable suicide -- and people do it left and right, mostly for reasons of mental illness -- so it's not like people are being oppressed by not having such a "right".

I occasionally wonder how many people with something terribly wrong sort of secretly commit suicide by "accidentally" screwing up their meds or something.

I hear there's a semi-established tradition where a medical practitioner explains to you how much a lethal dose is for a self-administered or a caretaker-administered pain medication (typically with old people, a bottle of morphine), and repeats this explanation a couple of times, and well...
Post reply on HN