California Set to Approve Euthanasia
 

It's about time.
The ultimate personal matter, IMO...no place for the gov't.
.
Thoughts?

.
California to become sixth US state to allow euthanasia

agree..
spent enough time on Hospital wards to understand that wish..
in other places..
a good relationship with your Dr helps..
and listening well..
'I know your in much pain..
but don't take more than 5 of these'....

Rika

As a young teen I watched my mother die from cancer. In those last few days I would have gladly injected her myself. It still pains me today to think about it.

Overdue for all 50 states. My dad said to me in his last few weeks "a man should not have to go through this." He had a DNR and thankfully they followed it. He had a tortured last few weeks. No human or animal should have to go through it.

Should be legal in every state.

.

Agreed - it's about damn time. It's absurd that religious dogma and insurance company profit margins have driven policymaking on this for so long which has caused such profound suffering for terminally ill individuals and their families alike.

This is perhaps cynical, but I see this as a rather smart move by the State of California; being one of only a few states to allow this will encourage a bit more relocation there - likely people with means, implying their estates will come into play for tax collection / probate purposes. This could turn into be a money-maker for CA once people start moving there to establish residency and avail themselves of the law, particularly considering there are going to be an awful lot of Baby Boomers who are going to want to look into this in the coming few years.

Interesting...

I'm glad there might be a good option for me later in life now that common sense is finally starting to take hold in our society with respect to this issue.

Glad to see this. We have the right to end our lives, with appropriate safeguards, in Oregon. Everyone should have it.

Gives me hope that even California can do the right thing every now and again

Wife has been a critical care nurse for 30 years. Its a very fine line, but I've come to really grasp the distinction after loosing my first to a terminal disease at 44.

If it takes enough pain meds to make you comfortable and that amount suppresses your heart and lungs to the point you die from the medication, that is very different than the choice of injecting enough medication to kill you.

Its a fine distinction, but its really about true intent. Not just 'nudge nudge, wink wink' its time for grandma to hit the happy trails.

Intent is important, just because I have seen too many animals that were for convenience rather than true suffering of the patient. That kills me.

It is Important to have a lot of tools in the toolbox. We really don't know what is coming.

30 years ago I watched my uncle slowly tortured to death by cancer. Near the end he was on such high doses of morphine that just a little more would be lethal. He was no longer coherent from the pain and drugs. He would scream in agony when the nurse would roll him on his side to change the sheets. No one would ever want to exist like that.

Reminds me of something I heard: we all say we want to live longer, but really, we want to STAY HEALTHY longer. Nobody wants to spend their last 10 years chained to a bed , or in constant pain, even 1 year.

And that's just it. Up to now, you could have someone screaming in agony from pain (GF is a hospice nurse so I hear about this kind of thing a lot actually) but the minute they do something to end it, their beneficiaries get screwed. The ins. cos. will automatically deny all claims because it was a suicide, so the patient and all their relatives get to sit around and watch as the person gets pumped full of Adivan and morphine and suffers horribly for weeks or months. All because our politicians have written the laws to suck up to holy-rollers and insurance company executives.

As said above, I'm glad this is starting to become a foreground issue and that common sense is finally starting to take hold.

Can I nominate some folks for the procedure?

Was watching a TV show where a panel of 'interesting' people, might be writers, politicians, commentators, clergy, scientists, philosophers- whatever, take questions from a live audience on various subjects. The subject was end of life and a young strapping man in his 30's stood up and asked reps on each side of politics- why he couldn't choose to end his life.

He went on to explain he had brain tumour, he had 8-12 months to live and he described the decline he would go through and the indignity and misery of the end for him, and more importantly to him, those around him. He wanted to know why he couldnt now, being of sound mind, define and document a point in that decline where he would be medically euthanized.

It was rather good question.

It is nonsense that the procedure is limited to terminally ill people. If it is a right, then those not suffering from a terminal illness should not be discriminated against.