I will start off with a BIG YES!!!!!!!!

Yes!

Yes.

…but there do need to be regulations, and I’d mark “no” if I didn’t trust these would be adhered to.

Thanks @longgone and of course there needs to be strict regulations with that I do agree.

Yea.

Isn’t this essentially the same question?

Maybe with just a new twist,and thank you for bringing that up. now how would you vote, @canidmajor ??
Yes or no?

Yes!

Same as I did before.

I live in Oregon where it is Legal. I didn’t live here when the vote was held, but as a hospice volunteer I would definitely vote yes.

Yes. Some people seem to just have a need to be argumentative.

Yes!

I’d vote Yes!

Solid Yes here.

Yes. And we are going to have a law passed soon in California! The California Medical Assoc. withdrew its opposition today!

Yes, I have been through hospice care with someone terminally ill. That isn’t much of a life. We did our best, but I think she would have been better off just ending it.

@zenvelo Awesome! I didn’t know that! Yay!
Free to die a golden death in the golden state.

Yes.

This is Fluther. What do you think my answer will be?

@dxs yes the choir here is well tuned. This is another one of those issues where the ship has pretty much sailed.

Yes… and anyone who is against intrusive government should vote alongside those who believe in personal choice. This is one issue where both sides agree, even if their reason for supporting the right to assisted suicide is different.

Yes, but there has to be a notary at the time that consent was given. A notary not related in any way to the hospital, doctor or patient, or a living will left behind in case the person can’t speak and is incapable of making his/her wishes known.
It takes pressure off of family members having to make the decision.

Yes. Personal autonomy.

Yes.

No.

What about people in comas for months and then wake up? If they had been killed, they wouldn’t have a second chance at life. If their families approved the killing for them, because they couldn’t speak up for them self, I think that’s unfair to them.

I believe in God’s perfect timing. Some dead people have come alive, so where does death start and end? Let people die when they are meant to die. That’s my belief.

Interesting, @Jewel10 but what about people with painful terminal illness who are in extreme pain? Myself I would want the option of leaving a bit early then suffer through that.
What do you tell people in that situation sorry but God says you must suffer and be in pain longer,plus the medical system has to bleed more money out of you before you can go.

What do you tell those people, no you can’t have the option and suffer less,because I don’t believe in it. is that it??
I will respect your choice and leave there, but why would you want to impose that on others?
If heaven forbid you ever come down with a painful terminal illness then by all means stay till the bitter end, but why would you want to impose that on others that would welcome an early release?

@Jewel10 Do you differentiate between assisted suicide and do-not-resuscitate orders? Assisted suicide is not killing people in a coma, it is helping conscious people who are facing a slow agonizing death or intractable pain.

Families don’t get to say kill them. They can only say “no heroic measures.” If you believe in Let people die when they are meant to die. then you would not want extraordinary measures taken on a person who was unconscious or in a coma and needs a ventilator or a feeding tube.

Squeeky2: There have been people who suffered with great terminal illness, and then lived.
But I understand what you’re saying.

I knew 2 terminal women, both hospice patients who were told they were going to die. One was young, and one was old. Both were given morphine any time they asked for it so they wouldn’t have any pain.

The younger woman was early 40’s and told she would die that same night she was sent to a nursing home to die. She would stay medicated day and night so she wouldn’t have to think about leaving her children behind. She had kidney/liver failure. There was no limit to the morphine and sleep aid and anxiety medications she requested. Though she was told she would die the night they took her to the nursing home, months later she was still alive because her doctor said her kidneys and liver had begun functioning again.

The older lady was late 80’s and she came home to die and in two weeks had family and friends bid her farewell. She too had morphine given to her by her daughter so she wouldn’t feel any pain. When she said her goodbyes, she told her daughter she was ready. Her daughter gave her extra doses of morphine to allow her to die.
So this would be an assisted type suicide, though she was old with cancer.

The law in Oregon offers a pretty short window. You and your doctor have to agree that it’s terminal. He writes the prescription and you fill it. What happens often is that the person gets so sick that they are unable to administer the drug themselves and the law is clear that they have to be able to make the decision and do it themselves.

Yes, of course. It is cruel not to let people make that decision for themselves. To criminalize a doctor for helping someone to end their lives, by their own choice, to end their own suffering is inhumane. To force people to continue to live their lives, against their own wishes, in horrible pain, is a crime against humanity.

The state has no business in this matter. It’s up to you, not some bureaucrat who doesn’t know you from Billy Bibbit. It should be a matter concerning the person, his or her conscience, and doctor. It should be personal, not political.
In addition, think about the slippery slope this has started us on. Consider how the issue has evolved in The Netherlands and other countries where it is legal and the elderly are pressured to move aside and make room for the young and strong. Instead of being loved, cared for, and treasured, they’re being relegated to “death rooms” with space for a spartan bed, a bedside table (For what? An ashtray? A final good book?) and the euthanasia equipment. “Roll over, Grandma! You’re more trouble than you’re worth!” See Soylent Green.

Yes. As a health care professional who has met dying people and seen people die, yes.

OMG why do people that are against this think it will be a mass euthanasia of the crippled or elderly??
It is simply an early release for people WHO WANT it and have a painful TERMINAL illness,this slippery slope shit is uttter BULLSHIT, you can have a painful terminal illness and not opt for it,that is YOUR choice but why ban that choice for people that would welcome it as a blessing from the pain that they are in.WHY??
AS for others saying there are drugs to help cope with the pain,nice but I would still want the option of a clean assisted painless suicide and get off this shit pile, then lay in a bed shitting and drooling on myself THANKS!

This vote would be “Yes”.

Since I was 12 years old and heard about how much a grandmother was suffering, it didn’t make sense to me why she couldn’t be euthanized like we had done to our pets who were dying. Of course, it is much more complicated than that, but if a human chooses to die while still in their right mind, why not allow doctor-assisted suicide?

I’ve watched a couple of videos of assisted suicide based in European countries that allow it. It is very controlled as to who is eligible and how it is conducted.

@Jewel10 I find it hard to believe that anyone who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness lives. Whoever said that the 40 year-old woman would die that night was off her rocker. No one can predict something like that. Every case is different. And I don’t think that kidney/liver failure is considered a terminal illness, but this could be wrong.

@Hipster Can you provide any facts that state what is happening in the regions that allow assisted-suicide are pressuring the elderly into making this decision? I haven’t seen that in any internet search and would like to read up on it.

@SQUEEKY2 You’re starting to sound like a Facebook post. Please revert back to Fluther mode.

Sorry it just irks me when people disagree with something such as this,they think it should be banned for everyone.
And they will push the slippery slope, or God doesn’t want it type thing and we all know that is BS.

@SQUEEKY2, while I appreciate that your passion for this topic equals your passion on the topic of disliking tablets or automobile drivers, the dissenters have very real concerns, and your characterization of same as “BS” simply indicates that you don’t want discussion, you just want agreement.

@canidmajor ah yes but those concerns are just fears,there are no real facts that those concerns are real at all in countries that do have it it has worked very well and it isn’t a mass euthanasia tool, obese and depressed people will not qualify and people that do not want wont be forced to have it.
What I just don’t get, and will never get is those people that have those fears about this subject just want banned for everyone, and to me THAT is very wrong, to those who disagree if your against this then fine if your ever in a situation that you would qualify for it then by all means do not ,stay to the very end if that is your wish, but do not tell people that would welcome it, I don’t believe in it so you can’t have it. YOU CAN SEE THAT RIGHT??????

@SQUEEKY2, you entirely missed my point.
My point was my last sentence, which was not about ths topics themselves, but your personal sense of absolute right which has no room to consider others’ points of view.

Ah but I do see their points of view and why I say it is BS is because they don’t believe in it or have some misguided fear about it they want it banned for everyone, and that is totally BS , fine they are entitled to their views and fears,and if they are ever in the situation that they would qualify for ,then by all means do not,and stay to the very end ,BUT do not say because I don’t believe in it, no one should be able to have it that is wrong.

And again, you missed my point. Never mind.

I guess I did ,I don’t have a problem if they are against it and they can state their beliefs and fears great, just your right I want agreement on that it should not be banned for people that would want it, for those who don’t then don’t have it done,but don’t ban it for those who do.
So I guess I want agreement on that.
So your point is I don’t want a discussion just agreement,is that right?
My point is have your views and beliefs,just don’t ban it for those who do it’s not like it will be mandatory for the elderly or people with terminal illnesses it’s simply a choice, and don’t ban that choice if you disagree,leave it for people who do want it, that better??