4 ms·

Maybe he just didn't mention it, but nowhere in that post does it say that it was his father's wish to die if he was in such a situation. Helping someone die w

Maybe he just didn't mention it, but nowhere in that post does it say that it was his father's wish to die if he was in such a situation. Helping someone die who made their wishes clear, I'm perfectly okay with. But assuming someone wants to die, I'm not. Whether his father made it clear or not, I don't know. It just isn't in the post.

stickhandle 13y ago
Fair enough to say in "the abstract" ... but in reality, I'm sure Scott was in excellent position to declare his father wouldn't want to continue in that state. Alzheimer's in deep manifestations is devastating.
foobarqux 13y ago
What about assuming they want to suffer?
droithomme 13y ago
I looked for that also and there was no mention. There's no doubt that if that was actually his father's expressed wish he would have featured that prominently in his article. What he does state is: > I'd like to proactively end his suffering and let him go out with some dignity. But my government says I can't make that decision. Neither can his doctors. He also points out early in the article that there are financial considerations: > His smallish estate pays about $8,000 per month to keep him in this state of perpetual suffering.
- VLM 13y ago
  "He also points out early in the article that there are financial considerations: > His smallish estate pays about $8,000 per month to keep him in this state of perpetual suffering." Now you understand the reason for opposition to euthanasia. The purpose of government is to keep the rich, rich, and the poor, poor. Emptying his estate into the medical industrial complex is not an incidental side effect, but the sole purpose of its existence. You want to see pet (dog/cat) vet assisted euthanasia made illegal? Implement pet health insurance. Try it and see.
  - mgkimsal 13y ago
    Pet health insurance does exist, just isn't widespread. re: "medical industrial complex" Right now, some arguments against euthanasia center on the heirs bumping someone off early to keep their estate. We rarely hear the opposite view which you so cynically bring up - it's in the financial interest of many megacompanies that we continue the practice of prolonging life at all costs.
  - Xdes 13y ago
    That's quite a conspiracy you have there.
    - VLM 13y ago
      Politicians aligning laws to maximize corporate profits is not exactly unheard of...
wvenable 13y ago
Nobody would ask because it's not possible. Making the wish is pointless as well. If his father has lost most of his mental capability (as mentioned in the article) at this point it's far too late to ask the question. You have to ask yourself if there was a formal process with the list of outcomes and possibilities, how would you answer?
ChuckMcM 13y ago
My wife and I both have clear (and durable) health care directives that would allow our children (and our doctors) to not kill us so much as 'stop trying to save us.' In my case it has specific check points (like if I'm > 80 yrs of age, well past my "sell by" date, all artificial ventilation is strictly prohibited, and it says if I turn 80 while being kept alive by machines, turn them off on my Birthday) A number of these have been litigated (well at least arbitrated to my personal knowledge) in Calfornia and been found to protect the doctors and hospitals from pissed of relatives who wanted them to 'do more' so I pretty confident that they will be useful for my kids should I end up in that state.

stickhandle 13y ago

Fair enough to say in "the abstract" ... but in reality, I'm sure Scott was in excellent position to declare his father wouldn't want to continue in that state. Alzheimer's in deep manifestations is devastating.

foobarqux 13y ago

What about assuming they want to suffer?

droithomme 13y ago

I looked for that also and there was no mention. There's no doubt that if that was actually his father's expressed wish he would have featured that prominently in his article. What he does state is: > I'd like to proactively end his suffering and let him go out with some dignity. But my government says I can't make that decision. Neither can his doctors. He also points out early in the article that there are financial considerations: > His smallish estate pays about $8,000 per month to keep him in this state of perpetual suffering.

VLM 13y ago
"He also points out early in the article that there are financial considerations: > His smallish estate pays about $8,000 per month to keep him in this state of perpetual suffering." Now you understand the reason for opposition to euthanasia. The purpose of government is to keep the rich, rich, and the poor, poor. Emptying his estate into the medical industrial complex is not an incidental side effect, but the sole purpose of its existence. You want to see pet (dog/cat) vet assisted euthanasia made illegal? Implement pet health insurance. Try it and see.
- mgkimsal 13y ago
  Pet health insurance does exist, just isn't widespread. re: "medical industrial complex" Right now, some arguments against euthanasia center on the heirs bumping someone off early to keep their estate. We rarely hear the opposite view which you so cynically bring up - it's in the financial interest of many megacompanies that we continue the practice of prolonging life at all costs.
- Xdes 13y ago
  That's quite a conspiracy you have there.
  - VLM 13y ago
    Politicians aligning laws to maximize corporate profits is not exactly unheard of...

wvenable 13y ago

Nobody would ask because it's not possible. Making the wish is pointless as well. If his father has lost most of his mental capability (as mentioned in the article) at this point it's far too late to ask the question. You have to ask yourself if there was a formal process with the list of outcomes and possibilities, how would you answer?

ChuckMcM 13y ago

My wife and I both have clear (and durable) health care directives that would allow our children (and our doctors) to not kill us so much as 'stop trying to save us.' In my case it has specific check points (like if I'm > 80 yrs of age, well past my "sell by" date, all artificial ventilation is strictly prohibited, and it says if I turn 80 while being kept alive by machines, turn them off on my Birthday) A number of these have been litigated (well at least arbitrated to my personal knowledge) in Calfornia and been found to protect the doctors and hospitals from pissed of relatives who wanted them to 'do more' so I pretty confident that they will be useful for my kids should I end up in that state.