Discussion In talks with a politician / How to make assisted suicide legal

[Honigwaffel]

I am in contact with a politician regarding assisted suicide and how a legal concept could look like.
Now I am having trouble to determine the best way to actually implement a new assisted suicide law. So I would be very happy to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Here are some of the questions I struggle with:

1. Should there be an age restriction? Do you have to be at legal age to apply?
2. Who would pay for it (Administration costs, Drugs etc.) If you pay it with 100% tax money there is no chance of passing the law, however some people just don't have alot of money, even more when they are at such a bad point of their lifes.
3. Is there a need for an evaluation by a psychiatrist? (Currently it is planned to make assisted suicide possible just for people that have incurable illnesses) Or should it be open for everyone, not depending on any medical problems?
4. Is a delay from aplication to treatment necessary? To avoid people ctb out of an impuls.

Feel free to add any additional questions that might be important on this topic.

EDIT: Thanks @TiredHorse for the reminder to add this. I am going for an ideal law, basically the best way it could look like. I am aware that in order to make it pass there will be a few trade-offs necessary.

 

[want to die 25]

In my opinion the age is not really that what matters. Teenagers that really struggle with problems should be able to get this help too.

But it will be difficult enough to make the politicians to agree for adults. So this should be the first step.

It doesn't really cost more. It's easy to explain why. The most that suffer so seriously can't work. So they get help from the government.

If you put this on the end it will cost even less if you want to see it from this part. That's why some people think that there will be pressure to die from others around.

I don't believe that. Because you must be sure to take the part till the end. So they would stop it to one point.

It should be open for people that have serious problems. Of course for incurable illnesses. But also for a person that normally has a tredable illness like depression. But doesn't get better through therapy.
The question here is what is incurable.

Yes I think a delay is necessary. But this should be not longer than some moths and depent on the illness the person has.

It's really difficult to find psychologist that could decide that the person is incurable or not if it's about psychological illnesses.

So there should be a more objective way. For example since... Time in therapy and able to understand the consequences of death.

I really like this thread. I hope you will find some nice ideas. That's just my view

 

[NextSummer]

Great questions to think about!

1) There shouldn't be an age restriction because some horrible diseases strike kids. Nature doesn't care for our human categories of age or race. In Belgium, kids can get a lethal dose since 2015 I think and its rare that they need it, just a handful of cases we are talking about. Bad side: Negative publicity. Church will use it for propaganda ("They are killing even kids!"). This is what they do against Belgium.

2) Nembutal powder is very very cheap to produce, just costs around 50$ for a lethal dose. Actually one doesn't need the doctor. Just swallow it and it's fine. As far as I know, they plan to send it to the patients with post (Urteil Bundesverwaltungsgericht). I think that's how they do it in Oregon as well. The more one involves doctors into the process, the more expensive it will be. In my opinion, assisted suicide will save insurances a lot of money. Unfortunately it's hard to say this in public, but that's why it should be free.

3) In my opinoon, it should be available for everybody. But of course politicians will not allow this. Society in Germany is not ready for this. Not even the far left dares to ask for this. That's why one could start with severe sick people that have incurable disease that makes them suffer (including mental health). This is the nominator people will agree upon. If you say "olderly people, people sick of life should have the option", you will get huge backlash.

4) If they just focus on very sick people about to die, there should be no time delay. Of course, ideally, it should be open to everybody and I wish to stop people from ctb just from impuls, by implementing a delay and a ticket system for a peaceful death. Something like 10.000 tickets (amount of suicides in the country) for a peaceful chosen death each year. I'd even wait a few years.

 

[TiredHorse]

Are you trying for an ideal law, or just to get a law on the books that can then be modified? Because I doubt you'd be able to get an ideal law passed straight out of the gate; it's too controversial a premise.

 

[NOT]

I think that they fear sort of domino effect once the cat is out of the bag.

 

[want to die 25]

I think the opposite will happen. For some people it's more easy to life if they know if it get worse there will be a way out

 

[Empty Smile]

The government would be against this. If they legalize suicide, that will be less taxes they collect because of people ctb.

 

[NOT]

This would be a quantum leap in human concioussnes.

 

[NextSummer]

Politicians banned assisted suicide in Germany few years ago. The supreme court will soon declare this to be unlawful because "suicide is a fundamental right" (their words). So they will be forced to make a new law or don't ban it at all. The question is: Who will benefit? Assisted suicide will be definately available for a specific group

 

[want to die 25]

But someone has to start. If nobody starts nothing will change

 

[Ivenocare]

I think first step would be to somehow make the majority of man unbiased to their morales and be pro choice; that is what I believe.

 

[Honigwaffel]

Are you trying for an ideal law, or just to get a law on the books that can then be modified? Because I doubt you'd be able to get an ideal law passed straight out of the gate; it's too controversial a premise.

I am going for an ideal law. I am certain that there have to be some trade-offs in order to get it passed. But for now, I want to propose for the best possible way.

Thanks to @want to die 25 and @NextSummer for your feedback :) I've taken notes to implement in my paper.

As a friendly reminder to this discussion: I am really interested in the details not so much about the chances of actually passing such a law. I would appreciate to get some more feedback on the questions I put in the post. Thanks

 

[NOT]

They banned smoking on public places despite huge corporate profits? Why? Because it is a slow form of suicide. They put social stigma on people who smoke, just like they do on suicidal person.

 

[TiredHorse]

I am really interested in the details not so much about the chances of actually passing such a law. I would appreciate to get some more feedback on the questions I put in the post.

1) As uncomfortable as this makes me, I would place an age restriction on unrestricted access to AS --perhaps 16? However, I would make it legal to all younger ages with parental/guardian support as well as to all "emancipated minors." One's youth does not mitigate pain, but it intrinsically limits perspective on possible options and potential for situational improvement.

2) Payment might be on a sliding scale, based on tax returns or a statement of liquid assets? Those who can afford it subsidize those who cannot.

3) Psychological pain being as real as physical pain, I do not believe AS should be limited to those with a physical reason to CTB. That said, evaluation by a psychiatrist should be required, but the psychiatrist should not be granted veto power; the evaluation should be considered a last presentation and assesment of options rather than a plea for permission. One last "are you really sure?"

4) Again, uncomfortably, I would mandate a waiting period --perhaps 30 days? No more than 90-- to mitigate impulsivity, but once application for AS has been made and accepted, any deterioration of mental state should not nullify the original acceptance, as it does here in WA.

 

[Done182]

Can I ask which government you are talking to? Which country?

 

[Allpainnogain]

Can I ask which government you are talking to? Which country?

I was just about to ask this too.

Not hopeful anything like this would pass anytime soon

 

[nztphill]

What a stupid question...of course, if he would get votes again from us...but this would be the most shrinking party in the world...in a short period of time

 

[want to die 25]

The name that he has is for sure German so either Germany or Austria. Because in Switzerland it's already exist.

But I wouldn't care now about which place. It's general a question how it should be.

 

[Honigwaffel]

1) As uncomfortable as this makes me, I would place an age restriction on unrestricted access to AS --perhaps 16? However, I would make it legal to all younger ages with parental/guardian support as well as to all "emancipated minors." One's youth does not mitigate pain, but it intrinsically limits perspective on possible options and potential for situational improvement.

2) Payment might be on a sliding scale, based on tax returns or a statement of liquid assets? Those who can afford it subsidize those who cannot.

3) Psychological pain being as real as physical pain, I do not believe AS should be limited to those with a physical reason to CTB. That said, evaluation by a psychiatrist should be required, but the psychiatrist should not be granted veto power; the evaluation should be considered a last presentation and assesment of options rather than a plea for permission. One last "are you really sure?"

4) Again, uncomfortably, I would mandate a waiting period --perhaps 30 days? No more than 90-- to mitigate impulsivity, but once application for AS has been made and accepted, any deterioration of mental state should not nullify the original acceptance, as it does here in WA.

Thanks for your feedback. I pretty much agree 100% with you.

Can I ask which government you are talking to? Which country?

I'm based in germany. I'm in talks with a local politician, however after the the european election this month he may be able to pass this proposal on to the european parlament.

 

[Vegrau]

Honestly..

There is only positive effect in assisted suicide especially assisted by hospital.

1. More organs for the people who need it. Anyone who want to get assisted suicide must sign over all their organs, blood, etc. For research experiment etc. They can even choose to donor their whole body if they want to.

2. No more need to waste tax payers money to keep people who dont want to stay alive. Alive. Its counterproductive and extremely idiotic.

3. Need both doctor and psychiatrist to evaluate the person who want to die and then give that person 4 weeks of evaluation in a special ward without drugs just consultation and free roaming space like a resort and after 4 weeks the person still want to die then that person can die.

4. Also we everyone involve to sign the papers regarding the matter. So it will be recognize legally. By the doctor, psychiatrist , one witness and the judge.

 

[Anima]

I am in contact with a politician regarding assisted suicide and how a legal concept could look like.
Now I am having trouble to determine the best way to actually implement a new assisted suicide law. So I would be very happy to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Here are some of the questions I struggle with:

1. Should there be an age restriction? Do you have to be at legal age to apply?
2. Who would pay for it (Administration costs, Drugs etc.) If you pay it with 100% tax money there is no chance of passing the law, however some people just don't have alot of money, even more when they are at such a bad point of their lifes.
3. Is there a need for an evaluation by a psychiatrist? (Currently it is planned to make assisted suicide possible just for people that have incurable illnesses) Or should it be open for everyone, not depending on any medical problems?
4. Is a delay from aplication to treatment necessary? To avoid people ctb out of an impuls.

I think there should certainly be an age limit for now as society needs to fully accept that assisted suicide can be a viable option to those with an incurable illness and does not pose a threat whatsoever. Opponents often argue that palliative care is the key to all suffering and that legalising assisted suicide or even active euthanasia could be seen as a substitute to the former (which of course is not true). Furthermore palliative care or terminal sedation do reduce suffering but only to a certain extent (for around 10 percent of all patients with terminal illness and severe pain palliative medicine/care has no effect). That being said, psychiatric patients should not be able to "apply" for assisted suicide (again, for now). Another argument is the so called "slippery slope" which basically states that once you legalise it there will be negative consequences (like monetary aspects for institutions or individuals etc.), which might not be predictable. Studies have shown that this is not the case in countries that have legalised it.

I personally think that it should always be a decision made between the patient and a doctor who knows them well.

Honestly..

There is only positive effect in assisted suicide especially assisted by hospital.

1. More organs for the people who need it. Anyone who want to get assisted suicide must sign over all their organs, blood, etc. For research experiment etc. They can even choose to donor their whole body if they want to.

2. No more need to waste tax payers money to keep people who dont want to stay alive. Alive. Its counterproductive and extremely idiotic.

Excuse me? Thats exactly what a lot of people are afraid of. Systematically letting people die (who might want it, yes, but maybe for the wrong reasons) for economic reasons. Being forced to be an organ donor is certainly not what I would want.

 

[Vegrau]

I think there should certainly be an age limit for now as society needs to fully accept that assisted suicide can be a viable option to those with an incurable illness and does not pose a threat whatsoever. Opponents often argue that palliative care is the key to all suffering and that legalising assisted suicide or even active euthanasia could be seen as a substitute to the former (which of course is not true). Furthermore palliative care or terminal sedation do reduce suffering but only to a certain extent (for around 10 percent of all patients with terminal illness and severe pain palliative medicine/care has no effect). That being said, psychiatric patients should not be able to "apply" for assisted suicide (again, for now). Another argument is the so called "slippery slope" which basically states that once you legalise it there will be negative consequences (like monetary aspects for institutions or individuals etc.), which might not be predictable. Studies have shown that this is not the case in countries that have legalised it.

I personally think that it should always be a decision made between the patient and a doctor who knows them well.


Excuse me? Thats exactly what a lot of people are afraid of. Systematically letting people die (who might want it, yes, but maybe for the wrong reasons) for economic reasons. Being forced to be an organ donor is certainly not what I would want.

Hahahaha
Ohohohohoho

What kind of wrong reasons might that be? I dont see anyone ever live for a good reason either. Honestly reason and purpose are self made and impose. I am not about to let someone impose theirs on me. Also the donor is free no money involve to avoid anyone doing it for money. Do you... Even read what I am saying? Holy sht.

Theres a simple way to avoid people use a organ mule. That is to let them die beyond their state they currently live in. So the organs they have will be distributed as fairly as possible. Is that good enough? Not hard to solve not hard to do people are just lazy and inept as always. Oh and this will be private affair no one knows about it. Other than they one that want to die and the professional that's involve.

 

[Anima]

Hahahaha
Ohohohohoho

What kind of wrong reasons might that be? I dont see anyone ever live for a good reason either. Honestly reason and purpose are self made and impose. I am not about to let someone impose theirs on me. Also the donor is free no money involve to avoid anyone doing it for money. Do you... Even read what I am saying? Holy sht.

Theres a simple way to avoid people use a organ mule. That is to let them die beyond their state they currently live in. So the organs they have will be distributed as fairly as possible. Is that good enough? Not hard to solve not hard to do people are just lazy and inept as always.

Organ donation is a business in many ways ... but what do I know, right? ;)
An old person being afraid to cost their children/relatives a lot of money and time and deciding to end it solely for these reasons while actually not wanting to die. As an example.

No offence, it's just a very complex topic and I think there are many aspects to consider.

 

[Alan James]

Systematically letting people die (who might want it, yes, but maybe for the wrong reasons) for economic reasons.

Everyone has the right to end his life not only for any reason - just do it for no reason, because he does not want to live. Everyone has the right to do whatever he wants with his own body and his own life. My life should belong only to me, no one has any right to decide it for me. I believe that it is necessary to fight with the conviction that only physically and mentally ill have the right to euthanasia and assisted suicide, only those who are in pain and suffering. Many simply don't want to live, there is no such thing as the "wrong reasons", this is the fundamental right of every form of life. I do not need ANY life, I hate all this idiotic hypocritical nonsense "life is a gift and the greatest value." I also disagree that there should be some delay - just consultation with the doctors, that's enough.

 

[Anima]

Everyone has the right to end his life not only for any reason - just do it for no reason, because he does not want to live. Everyone has the right to do whatever he wants with his own body and his own life. My life should belong only to me, no one has any right to decide it for me. I believe that it is necessary to fight with the conviction that only physically and mentally ill have the right to euthanasia and assisted suicide, only those who are in pain and suffering. Many simply don't want to live, there is no such thing as the "wrong reasons", this is the fundamental right of every form of life. I do not need ANY life, I hate all this idiotic hypocritical nonsense "life is a gift and the greatest value." I also disagree that there should be some delay - just consultation with the doctors, that's enough.

Absolutely. However, to get there you first have to make compromises because there are many people who are either against it or very sceptical about legalising it. That's what I mean really.

 

[Vegrau]

Organ donation is a business in many ways ... but what do I know, right? ;)
An old person being afraid to cost their children/relatives a lot of money and time and deciding to end it solely for these reasons while actually not wanting to die. As an example.

No offence, it's just a very complex topic and I think there are many aspects to consider.

Sigh its not complex at all because people hardly using their brain thats why its complex. I dont pity idiots. Holy sht I cant believe I am talking to you about this basic rule of living and dying. This is beyond common sense. No offence.

Oh my god do you even know about the shelf life of organs for transplant purposes? You cannot keep the organs then sell it when you feel like it. Organs need to be transplanted within certain time window. Or else it will go bad. I know they invented new way to preserve for up to 12/24 hours. But like I said before. That can be easily solve. Do you even read what I said?

Just move the assisted suicide to a different part of the country. So their organ can be immediately use for the people there. Make it like lottery. The hospital and the state will be randomly generated. So no one can possibly buy it or do anything to it. Yes you dont know anything about organ transplant. Its only a business because people like you are handling it.

Now isnt that a perfect solution?

Also so what if an old person want to die because of that reason? Everyone can die if theyre sure of it. If they want it. If they sure thats what they want. They dont have to have severe illness for them to want to die. Thats a perfectly good reasons. Good as any. So if people want to die and if theyre really sure they want to die then allow them to die thats called free to die. Free to live and die as we want. Thats the human right to live and die. Why should anyone care about your thought? When they themselves want to die.

 

[Anima]

Sigh its not complex at all because people hardly using their brain thats why its complex. I dont pity idiots. Holy sht I cant believe I am talking to you about this basic rule of living and dying. Your level of ineptitude is beyond common sense. No offence but youre not really smart.

Oh my god do you even know about the shelf life of organs for transplant purposes? You cannot keep the organs then sell it when you feel like it. Organs need to be transplanted within certain time window. Or else it will go bad. I know they invented new way to preserve for up to 12/24 hours. But like I said before. That can be easily solve. Do you even read what I said or can you even read? You know what I am not surprise if you're illiterate.

Just move the assisted suicide to a different part of the country. So their organ can be immediately use for the people there. Make it like lottery. The hospital and the state will be randomly generated. So no one can possibly buy it or do anything to it. Yes you dont know anything about organ transplant. Its only a business because people like you are handling it. So yeah I wont trust such system to you. Not ever.

Now isnt that a perfect solution? Just use brain really everyone have one.

Also so what if an old person want to die because of that reason? Everyone can die if theyre sure of it. If they want it. If they sure thats what they want. They dont have to have severe illness for them to want to die. Thats a perfectly good reasons. Good as any. So if people want to die and if theyre really sure they want to die then allow them to die thats called free to die. Free to live and die as we want. Thats the human right to live and die. Why should anyone care about your thought? When they themselves want to die? Stop imposing your sick ideas to people that want to die.

Being on a forum like this says a lot about our opinion on this topic in general. I don't really know what you are interpreting into it and don't think there is any reason to be so disrespectful. You know nothing about me, dude, and as much as you are entitled to have an opinion on things, so am I.

 

[Alan James]

Absolutely. However, to get there you first have to make compromises because there are many people who are either against it or very sceptical about legalising it. That's what I mean really.

After many attempts to talk on this topic with a few people, I came to the conclusion that most of them will never approve of euthanasia and compromises are impossible. They are like religious fanatics (and most of them are religious), they don't listen to any logical arguments, you can spend a week giving them reasonable, scientifically sound reasons why euthanasia is the basic right of every person, why it's good, but they will still tell you that "euthanasia it is murder and crime". They say life is beautiful, it is a great gift, a tremendous value, that only the sick doesn't want to live and he needs to be treated.

The government does not ask anyone if they want to raise taxes - it should also not ask anyone in this case either, the society will not approve euthanasia anyway.

 

[Vegrau]

Being on a forum like this says a lot about our opinion on this topic in general. I don't really know what you are interpreting into it and don't think there is any reason to be so disrespectful. You know nothing about me, dude, and as much as you are entitled to have an opinion on things, so am I.

Hah you cant even argue about my point. All you can do is run run run. Run along little rabbit. I have no time talking with half baked kids.

After many attempts to talk on this topic with a few people, I came to the conclusion that most of them will never approve of euthanasia and compromises are impossible. They are like religious fanatics (and most of them are religious), they don't listen to any logical arguments, you can spend a week giving them reasonable, scientifically sound reasons why euthanasia is the basic right of every person, why it's good, but they will still tell you that "euthanasia it is murder and crime". They say life is beautiful, it is a great gift, a tremendous value, that only the sick doesn't want to live and he needs to be treated.

The government does not ask anyone if they want to raise taxes - it should also not ask anyone in this case either, the society will not approve euthanasia anyway.

There you have it the biggest reason is religion. Nothing more or less.

 

[Soul]

Reluctance to be a financial burden to one's family is a 100% valid reason to choose to die. (That is, unless it's only the family's idea and not the individual's - that's different.)

The age question can't have a one-size-fits-all answer. A child who's in intractable pain can't be denied a peaceful exit just because s/he's under 16. I suppose some mental illnesses can't really be judged incurable at a very early age; likewise emotional distress (in whatever age group) can't be accepted too quickly as cause for facilitated suicide. So some (most?) people would need counselling/therapy before qualifying. That would cost, of course, but civilised societies should provide that anyway to people in need.

This is a strange idea, but would having two or three different types of exit protocols available be appropriate? For example the people with intractable pain (physical or mental) or objective existential reasons would qualify for nembutal with a nurse to assist, but less clear-cut cases could be offered SN with anti-emetics and instructions for a DIY suicide that may involve discomfort? People wouldn't undertake that frivolously.

(If it were up to me personally, we'd all have tasteless nembutal available very readily, but I'm trying to address some of the questions the OP has set out for us.)