Ah, too bad. Well, at least this is a willing decision on the part of participants (which does not excuse it); it is not something like war where people do not choose it.
Again, that does not excuse euthanasia, it just makes it seem like less of a trouble than abortion or unjust war. :shrug:
Plus, California. There was no opportunity to stop it there.
Good decision from a legal standpoint. The arguments being used given the law’s safeguards were very weak.
Padres, have you known of anyone who has used the law in California yet? We are just over two months into it, and the protocol for requesting the medications take time. I know of three here in Northern California.
Canada’s Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) went into effect in June also. I don’t know how many there have died. Both Canada and California have created very strong safeguards, especially at the beginning of this, until we see how it unfolds.
I didn’t like the SFGate article so much. They didn’t get things quite right, such as cause of death on the death certificate. It needs to be from the terminal illness in order that insurance will be paid. That is extremely important for the families.
Anyway, Aid in Dying is here, and with 20 more states in process of adapting it, we need to learn how to be with people who make these choices.
Does this mean that the law has been written so that the true cause of death (suicide) is concealed in order to enable others to profit from the death?
The California law was written so that the death certificate would reflect the terminal disease - cancer, ALS, etc, and not the drugs given to hasten the death. This is true when a person dies in hospice also. No one writes that the person died of a higher dosage of morphine.
The people who benefit are the family members who will use the life insurance money for funeral expenses, the mortgage, and whatever they need to continue living without their loved one.
A nice vacation? A new house or car? Paying off the mortgage? One might hope this does not become an incentive to hasten the death of grandpa or grandma, mom or dad.
Hospice is not supposed to kill you-it’s supposed to help you manage your pain during a terminal illness.
Euthanasia (assisted suicide) is supposed to kill you.
It seems fraudulent to put a an illness down as the reason for death when, in reality, the reason is a deliberate overdose of pills. It also is problematical in that, those who might benefit from the earlier death of a family member (before savings are spent down on health care) are being guaranteed life insurance which might otherwise be denied due to the suicide issue.
I wonder if this might encourage relatives to support assisted suicide for monetary gain? I also worry that the state is complicit in the cover up of the reason for death. This seems problematical.
Declaring that a person died of a disease when, in reality, they killed themselves (sometimes with the help of others) seems fraudulent.
Do you know if the life insurance companies have protested this requirement? I would anticipate that is is cutting into their profit margin and, given the situation, seem almost akin to legalized theft of their resources.
1Obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception:
the fraudulent copying of American software
More example sentences
1.1Unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities:
he unmasked fraudulent psychics
More example sentences Synonyms
Late Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin fraudulentus, from fraus, fraud- ‘deceit, injury’.
This, as I see it, is part of the problem, that it might not be a willing decision.
The person might have been persuaded by family members that they’re being a burden on them.
So that’s supposed to make it right??? Can’t fool GOD !! When will we ever learn !! God Bless,Memaw
Of course… I would hope not, and there have been cases of this in the Netherlands and in Belgium, the most liberal countries for euthanasia. It would be horrible if this happened…
The guidelines in California and the other states where it is legal (and also Canada) are explicit and very tightly controlled specifically for situations where the person might be coerced. I honestly don’t think that will happen. There are physicians who will be monitoring the family situation very carefully.
And just for clarification, the Medical Aid in Dying laws are not euthanasia.
Then what are these laws as opposed to euthanasia? At the least, I assumed they were related concepts.
People shop for physicians. Physicians willing to sign off an assisted suicide already have a bias in favor of expediting death. The care with which they will monitor family situations, given the bias, is questionable.
They ARE related, but there are distinctions. It is all grey area and people are still trying to understand (at least here in California) what the law says.
When it comes to end of life and how people die, there is always the intervention of medical treatment and/or drugs. (We are looking at prolonged illness, and not sudden death). If a person is on pain medication, such as morphine, the dosages can be raised to a level where the patient will die. It happens frequently.
In the Aid in Dying law, the terminal patient asks for the medication directly. And after going through two physician’s exams and sometimes a psychiatric exam, the tending physician orders the drugs. At that point, and any time after that, the patient can take the drugs him or herself. It will cause death. The physician does not have to be present. It is a choice of the individual. That is not really euthanasia. If the physician were to administer the drugs, Kavorkian style, that would be active euthanasia.
The two physicians work with the patient to make sure all the safeguards are protected. There can be no coercion. At this time, the patient must be competent to make the decision (no dementia) and be close to death. They must be physically able to take the drugs on their own.
If they were in Hospice or in a care facility, the pain meds would be administered by a health care professional. This is somewhat different.
My elderly mother has had many acquaintances and friends at the end of their lives. So from what she says Hospice is something you are on, not in. Some of her friends have recovered from Hospice.
It is possible for the pain medications when you are on Hospice to hasten your death. That is a side effect of the medication. If you take medication with the intention of killing yourself that is suicide.
My mother has informed me that the staff at her elder facility are not allowed to help someone with their end of life medication. I am concerned that this may become the treatment of choice for the elderly on the part of the physicians.
Hospice is wonderful. (And I think the ‘in hospice vs on hospice’ is just semantics. Both are used. And yes, a patient can graduate from hospice care. They get stronger and their qualifications don’t meet Medicare standards, but ultimately, somewhere down the line, their symptoms decline and they face end of life.
The whole pain medication leading to death is a very grey area. Standard palliative care does not result in death, but there are many times, if a person is suffering greatly, meds can be used knowing very well that they will hasten death. It’s intentional. Everyone knows it’s intentional.
I realize that many are concerned with this new California bill that people other than the patient will push the physicians to hasten a person’s death. Please be assured that, according to the law itself, that cannot happen. Everything about this law goes back to the patient initiating a request for the drugs. There are meetings to determine if that is indeed so - meetings with family and meetings without family. There are evaluations. It takes weeks. And the state is monitoring the requests carefully. I really don’t see it happening.
I am not familiar with the safeguards or the number of consultations. I am concerned about this becoming the treatment of choice because physicians are already reluctant to treat elderly patients. My mother’s primary care physician ignored her symptoms of cancer until the nurse at my mother’s facility called him up. My mother had cancer and even then a specialist informed my mother that “elderly women didn’t do well” with the surgery and she probably shouldn’t have it. She did have it and did just fine.
I am very glad she did have the surgery.
Would you consider this relevant to the right to die issues?