How would you vote: Should a person have the legal right to a doctor assisted suicide?

Yes. If you want to die, you should legally be able to end your life.

i think an outright "right" is problematic.

i would support it under the right circumstances but not just a blanket and open right.

i would propose some controlls to verify:

1- the condition a person suffers from is indeed extremely painfull and untreatable. (ie: the patient IS in fact terminally ill)

2- there was a means to determine if the patient is thinking rationally and coherently. perhaps if they were interviewed and treated for a period of time by a psyciatrist and the psyciatrist made a determination after that.

3- a short interview would be made and a consult by the family, the psyciatrist and the patient to see if the family objected and give the family an attempt to collectively try to change the patient's mind.

- after some controlls like that to curb abuse that could occur (family members trying to off an elderly member early to collect life insurance or as part of an inheritance), then i would agree.

basically i would approve of any proposal that had sufficient protocols to make sure that the patient was informed and really terminally ill, and there was no "hanky panky" by the family.

YES !

I think it's disgusting that I have the right to drink, smoke and over-eat and practice other means of passive suicide BUT when I really want to do it cos my quality of life sucks I am seen as not sane ... cos who in their right mind desires death?

I was thinking about this last night actually.

Thinking about getting enough heroin for a double hit, a needle and a spoon; I'd need to have some lessons in how to put it all together cos even though I've lived close to the edge, and (I just recalled) even had a pair of junkies in living in my house back in the mid-70s, I have never tried heroin or seen the preparation or delivery of the hit.

Anyway, that's the way I'm gonna go.

'They' say that the first hit of heroin is better than the best sex you ever had and you spend the rest of your journey trying to match it.

Meh ...

~

It would have to depend on the legislation that went with the referral of such power, We are all aware that such a thing does occur now it is kept very much on an unofficial basis but the nurses who administer the fatal doses are under great risk.

It is indeed a difficult problem as I would like to feel the responsibility for my life remains in my hands but would not like to self administer. Very relevant to this matter is quality of life and this also brings up the need for doctors to be able to administer heroin for pain relief an act which is blocked by the United States wherever it is suggested.

Yes, they should have this right. It would be better off for the person and sometimes for others as well. For example, a woman's son is suffering from cancer which can not be cured and he wants to end his life...Now if you can't do this with a doctors help, he might find other ways to do it, which can be painful or messy. No mother would want to come home and find her son with cut wrists or hanging on a rope..

As for those who vote 'no', why? Do you think it's ok for people who are suffering to not be able to end their life in a humane way? It's their life, their choice.

Yaye.

If the individual cannot choose something as simple as that, then the state has absolute rule.

This is the stuff that this country has fought, died and killed millions for since it adopted the Constitution as a legal document.

If the many say we want cake, let them eat cake.

I say put it to the vote, if the majority choose a common good or a common evil, it is their choice to make.

I don't think it's that cut & dried - in SOME circumstances YES I would vote for it - in others no.... it's a tough moral call I think. No matter how you slice it - SOMEONE will be playing god - and I just can't quite balance that with MY own moral compass.

For all who so easily say YES to this - how about the consequences and fall out for the PERSON assisting such a procedure.... that's where the real dilema is I think. It's not just about the person who wants to die.

In principle, yes. It would come down to how the bill set up a clear process for making sure the person's wishes were well established, to protect both patients and doctors.

In certain circumstances and after proper protocols have been followed and after a proper cooling off period - Yes I do agree.

I have reservations when relatives or other parties stand to gain financially.

My feeling is in the circumstance of terminal illness or intense pain suffering we would not allow animals to suffer so why should it be different for humans. When all else is lost, dignity should be preserved.

Yes.

They're terminally ill, they're in pain and they don't want to live anymore.

So why make them suffer the bitter end? Who is it for anyway? The idiot fundies who think blood transfusions are a work of the devil??

Our pets are allowed to be put to sleep if they're in too much pain to enjoy life, humans should have the same right.

I vote for suicide. Sad that we live in a society that allows the family pet to be euthanized but Grandpa is made to suffer for months, sometimes years for no reason, other than religious wackos obsession with forcing life. You know, it can be more terrible to live than to die.