1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.

assisted to die

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by mac, Aug 5, 2017.

?

Should there be legalised medical assistance?

  1. no

    14.3%
  2. yes with safeguards

    85.7%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    I already did that, Roberta.....
     
  2. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    And I was serious with my request. When you have the time please. I won't try anything so dumb again, I promise.
     
  3. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    What is your request??
     
  4. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    posting #24, lose/lock this thread please
     
  5. jimrich

    jimrich Active Member

    Roberta, I am not sure why the term "suicide" crept into this thread and I believe we could toss semantics around all day long and still never agree on anything but, allowing nature to take it's course to end someone's life WITHOUT using macines or drugs to artificially keep the doomed person alive is way different than someone taking the Jack Kevorkian methods or whatever they can to commit suicide.
    The original OP stated: "If you had the opportunity to vote whether your state, province, region or country should allow medical assistance to die, how would you vote?" So that question says nothing about SUICIDE but only places some non specific condition on one's "death". In my own direct experience of killing several cats and my wife, the "assistance" that the professionals gave them was to allow nature to take it's course in the least painful and most humane way possible at the time they all DIED but no one was "medically assisted" to commit suicide (kill them self)! I probably could have kept the very sick and ailing cats and also my very sick and suffering wife right here at home and allowed them to suffer horribly and finally die of "natural causes" but I didn't. I asked for medical professionals to help nature take its course for both our pets and my wife Irene. There never was any intention to have or let any of them commit suicide.

    I agree that the voting process should have included other options to make any sense. Perhaps you can open up a thread to discuss the "assisted end of life" question as I believe a lot of folks are facing that issue every day now. I did. In the case of my aging and ill cats, it was simple yet painful. Once my wife and I made out our Advance Directives, questions about death were still painful but much easier to face when the end came. The good nows is that our cats and Irene DID NOT DIE (with their bodies)!
     
  6. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    The voting choices were exactly the ones the thread starter intended - the binary choice wasn't a mistake.

    The premise of the choice was explained in the first couple of postings.

    The vote was not about suicide - the right to end one's own life isn't in dispute.

    The vote was not about assisted suicide.

    The vote was not about Advance Directives.

    The vote was not about keeping individuals alive by tethering them to devices etc.

    There is a website of space available here on ALF to start a new thread and discuss all those, and any other, issues.

    The vote was about direct medical action to bring to an end the life of another - Dignitas, for example, doesn't work that way; the recent Canadian system does.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2017
  7. jimrich

    jimrich Active Member

    Re: "The vote was about direct medical action to bring to an end the life of another - Dignitas, for example, doesn't work that way; the recent Canadian system does."
    I don't know much about Dignitas (http://www.dignitas.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20&lang=en) or the "Canadian system" (whatever that is?) BUT I do know exactly how (not the actual drug used) our cats were put to death (to sleep if it makes you feel better!) - with dignity by using "direct medical action" and I'd vote yes for that procedure anytime since it was both humane and completely PAINLESS for our pets. The "direct medical action" to KILL my wife was used in favor of simply removing the disallowed machinery the hospital staff was using to "keep her alive" rather than let nature take it's course and "end" her life BEFORE the staff shoved tubes down her throat (Intubated her). If someone had followed her Advance Directives, she would have crossed over (died naturally) many hours before the ICU staff finally let her go. Again, I would and did vote YES on the OP question above since what happened to Irene was (almost) humane and painless.
    We (Irene and I) could not have gone to Dignitas, etc. anyway, so we just did the best we could.
    I would suggest that the OP and anyone interested should start a thread to discuss Dignitas, the "Canadian system" (??) and assisted DEATH, in any of its forms, for your own peace of mind. I would love to read about the actual experiences of any other ALF member who has had to have a pet or human being put to death!
    It's a very painful and frightening topic so - good luck............
     
  8. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    SHIDAD
     
  9. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    Last edited: Aug 9, 2017
  10. jimrich

    jimrich Active Member

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page