6 ms·
> The measure requires that people "make two oral requests, separated by at least fifteen days, and a valid written request to his or her attending physician."
by trosi 10y ago
> The measure requires that people "make two oral requests, separated by at least fifteen days, and a valid written request to his or her attending physician." It also requires that people be capable of taking the medication unassisted
Why the last requirement? Seems to me like a lot of terminally ill patients wanting to die might not be self-sufficient
- zimpenfish 10y agoPresumably it's to stop people "helping" their elderly relatives who, perhaps, have a nice big house or millions of pounds.
- elthran 10y agoIf the first 2 requirements have been met, clarifying the intent of the person wanting to die, then surely the physical assistance at this point shouldn't be an issue in that situation?
- zimpenfish 10y agoCoercion isn't unknown. Although the two oral requests would probably help to avoid that a little bit.
- Shivetya 10y agoso are those requests being done while limiting who can be on hand to witness? I would expect a member of the hospital, state representative, and their doctor, would be sufficient. Having a family member on hand might be detrimental unless they ask for them separately
- yesiamyourdad 10y agoI've spent way too much time in assisted living homes the last 5 years. There aren't that many of the rich elderly people. More likely their families want to avoid paying thousands of dollars a month in care costs.
- zeveb 10y ago> More likely their families want to avoid paying thousands of dollars a month in care costs. Is killing the elderly in order to save a lot of money much more moral than killing them in order to inherit a lot of money?
- 91bananas 10y agoIs it moral that they're just humans that got sick, and they are burdened to pay the ridiculous cost of care that they don't want?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Retric 10y agoNormally debts don't get inherited without consent. This, is more about shifting this debt to the kids or kicking them out of the facility. Further, they are not going to get 'better' the facility's are focused on keeping patents alive to extract as much money from the family as possible not because the elderly actually want to suffer as long as possible or necessarily benefit from the care. PS: Funeral homes are also setup to prey on people suffering a loss. It's a sick business.
- hx87 10y agoBased on how often that happens, as opposed to people in pain who want to die but aren't able to take their own medication, I'm willing to risk that happening. Being forced to stay alive in pain is every bit as bad as being forced to die.
- 1123581321 10y agoMurder is still considered worse than torture by most people, so it's appropriate that our laws reflect that.
- hx87 10y agoGiven that the choice is between "torture leading to death" and "death", our laws are wrong.
- arethuza 10y agoMaybe it is to protect the people who might be administering the medication from criminal and/or civil litigation?
- roflc0ptic 10y agoMy dad is in the early stages of dementia and has repeatedly said he'd prefer to die than live on as a husk of a human. Interestingly, he's got one of the weird dementias, called "primary progressive aphasia", which is slowly robbing him of the ability to speak. There are cognitive deficits as well, but the main issue is that he has trouble formulating sentences. So if we lived in Colorado, when he actually wanted to die, he would be unable to fulfill these requirements. Also interestingly, part of his motivation is explicitly monetary: he wants his life savings to go to his family, not a nursing home. This experience has reaffirmed my position in favor of right-to-die, but it really is a complex issue. If gran-gran doesn't want to go to the gas chamber, there should be stringent protections in place to keep her family from sending her there.
- osi 10y agointeresting. makes me wonder if he were to write it out on paper would that still be ok? since i'd say the spirit of that requirement is the person is still able to express their desire unambiguously
- roflc0ptic 10y agoMy concern there - what if he changes his mind and is unable to communicate it? I happen to know the guy pretty well, and this is a decades-old position that I seriously doubt will change, but "take my word for it" isn't a really compelling burden of proof.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- prirun 10y agoI don't think people change their mind on this kind of decision. For example, I could list in the document (written when healthy) that if I am unable to clearly communicate my wishes either verbally, by blinking, or whatever, maybe for more than X days, then I prefer to err on the side of dying. A big advantage of having this written (and binding!) is that it takes the burden off of family to make the decision. Many people cannot make this kind of decision for others when they are incapacitated.
- Joeboy 10y agoI guess legalizing actually poisoning somebody is just a step further than legalizing selling a poison.
- InitialLastName 10y agoI agree... all these prescription drugs are a huge problem for our society.
- Joeboy 10y agoI'm being downvoted despite what seems like a straightforward and reasonable comment, and I don't understand your response at all (is it sincere or sarcastic?). I wonder if I'm being misinterpreted somehow. The Right to Die is a controversial and emotive topic, so legislation is likely to be a gradual process. Colorado's voted to legalize one aspect, the sale of life-ending medication. Legalizing physically administering it would require a different measure, which may or may not happen at some later point.
- philipkglass 10y agoThe downvotes (not by me, BTW) are for using emotive language that criticizes by implication without advancing an actual argument. Consider this description of veterinary euthanasia: "I guess that legalizing poisoning pets was a natural outcome of allowing vets to buy poisons." If you used that language I think that most people would infer that you strongly object to veterinary euthanasia, but you haven't made an argument why it should be illegal to hasten the end.
- Joeboy 10y agoThanks for the explanation. I thought I was just speaking plainly. I am in favour of the right to die (subject to details obviously).
- InitialLastName 10y agoI misunderstood what you wrote as a reference to the last major libertarian/progressive agenda piece that Colorado legalized, which is sometimes (with weak justification) characterized as legal poison. Not my downvote, but it's possible others had the same response.
- yesiamyourdad 10y agoI understand that the dying process is unfamiliar territory and none of us know how we're going to go or what the path will be like. My father died a couple years ago after a long decline. He would have passed the verbal request criteria, but he had a long history of saying unambiguously that he did not want extraordinary measures to prolong his life, and he consistently refused medications and medical care in the last 10 years of his life. However, hearing him say things like "If I knew how to end this, I would" was one of the hardest things I've ever heard, because he was not the type to give up. In the end, he declined rapidly in the course of a couple weeks and passed away on his own. There's some peace to knowing that even though it was a really hard road, he went out basically the way he wanted - without being plugged into a bunch of machines, without medications, in his own time and his own bed. I'm glad we didn't indulge his last minute desires for the easy way out. I really hope Coloradoans will make good decisions, but I know that sometimes they won't.
- undersuit 10y ago>Why the last requirement? Why the oral requests? Are signers of ASL not able to take their life under this requirement? Would a terminal patient that had their vocal cords or tongue removed not be able to make the requests?