595
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

On a brisk day at a restaurant outside Chicago, Deb Robertson sat with her teenage grandson to talk about her death.

She’ll probably miss his high school graduation. She declined the extended warranty on her car. Sometimes she wonders who will be at her funeral.

Those things don’t frighten her much. The 65-year-old didn’t cry when she learned two months ago that the cancerous tumors in her liver were spreading, portending a tormented death.

But later, she received a call. A bill moving through the Illinois Legislature to allow certain terminally ill patients to end their own lives with a doctor’s help had made progress.

Then she cried.

“Medical-aid in dying is not me choosing to die,” she says she told her 17-year-old grandson. “I am going to die. But it is my way of having a little bit more control over what it looks like in the end.

That same conversation is happening beside hospital beds and around dinner tables across the country, as Americans who are nearing life’s end negotiate the terms with themselves, their families and, now, state lawmakers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

For the last 10 years I have been saying this should be legal. As long as you are determined to be of sound mind and not influenced by anyone, then let them make the decision. You will have many arguments against it (religion, could be cured unexpectedly) but it's the patient's decision.

The only argument would be if doctors and nurses should assist. This is a huge argument against state sponsored executions. Maybe a device that can safely and painlessly assist the patient could be a resolution.

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I'm in agreement. My concern is that this gives people in control the ability to feign choice. "They wanted this route" when in reality, it was murder.

Just need some decent protections in place for things like these.

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 years ago

I agree, it needs to be a very strict and regulated process. No power of attorney or anything like that. The person needs to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by two or three psychiatrist that specializes in suicidal thoughts or self harm. It needs to be a somewhat long process. But, I don't want it to be a multi year process either.

[-] n2burns@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago

In Canada, 2 doctors have to agree that the patient is of sound mind, wants Medical Assistance in Dying, and their condition meets the minimum legal threshold. I think that system has been working fairly well.

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Sounds good..but in america...we're prone to finding ways to fuck up.

[-] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago

So what you are saying is that we need some of those suicide booths that they had in Futarama.

You bring up a good point that it would be hard to find many doctors or medical professionals willing to focus their careers on euthanasia, as it goes against their oaths.

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago

I would love a Futurama world.

[-] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

The "oath" isn't legally binding. They should help those that are suffering no matter the expected end result.

[-] Patches@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The "Oath" isn't why they can't go around assisting in suicides. It's because they will literally go to jail in the same way as a murderer

Are you not old enough to remember Jack Kevorkian?

this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
595 points (99.0% liked)

News

36384 readers
822 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS