Colorado right-to-die legislation announced

I have addressed it, numerous times, in this thread home, but I'll do it again for you to see if it penetrates your skull this time.

The issue you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion here. We are not talking about an elderly person who has started down the path of dementia, the bill that was defeated would have done not a single thing to improve that situation and you damned well know it. Why you continue to pretend otherwise is nothing short of irritating.

A person who is still fully capable of making a decision to kill themselves doesn't need a physician to commit an act of homicide for their benefit. Having a physician commit an act of homicide for the benefit of someone else does not add an element of dignity to the act of suicide. Whether a person dies with dignity or in the absence of dignity has to do with how they lived their life, not with whether or not a physician is legally able to commit an act of homicide for their benefit.

As humans with the right of self determination, we already have a "right to die" at any time, on any date, of our choosing. You can sign a DNR at any time between now and the time that this society has determined that your ability to make reasoned and rational decisions has been compromised. If you fail to do that, then you have, by your inaction, delegated that authority to someone else. So if you find yourself old and incapable of communicating, or with diminished mental capabilities, and you decide you want to be left alone so you can die and that doesn't happen then you really have no one to blame other than yourself because you are the reason you are in that situation, not the doctors, not your children, not your spouse, not the society.

If I'm sick with cancer, or Lou Gehrig's, or diabetes, or any other ailment of the body I have more than enough time to decide whether I wish to return to the state that I entered the world before I die or whether I am so afraid of going there that I want to check out early. If I decide the latter, then I don't need a physician to commit an act of homicide for my benefit, all I need is the courage to live with the decision I have made with regards to how I wish to die, stop eating and drinking anything at all and I'll be dead in 4-7 days. The equivalent to the Eskimo tradition here in CO would be to walk out into the forest until I can walk no further and find a place to eternally rest.

You and I already have the right to do that, we don't need a new piece of legislation legalizing an act of homicide by a physician to exercise it.

Got it now?

homeagain wrote: READ THIS CLOSELY.....

nypost.com/2012/12/09/diary-of-an-intensive-care-nurse/

It does NOT matter if you are 19 or 99 YO...THIS link is exemplary of the problem of "dying".

Since you insist on being bull headed home, I'll demonstrate, using quotes from what you keep insisting we all read closely, that nothing in the dead legislation would have altered it.

I cared for a woman in her 90s whose family had considered making her a DNR but decided against it. After a relatively minor stroke that left her awake but not lucid,[/i]

Had "Helen" signed a DNR herself before she had the stroke her family would not be in a position to decide whether or not to sign one for her, right? And the misnamed "Death With Dignity" bill that was recently killed would not have done a single thing to alter the woman's plight because, being not lucid, she would have been unable to express, on two separate occasions, her desire to kill herself, right?

Strike ONE for your article having any relevance to our discussion about mislabeled "Death With Dignity" or "Right To Die" legislation.

Consider another example, of a patient with advanced cancer, in this case an elderly woman with a well-informed husband who knew his wife was dying and that she didn’t want to end her life with an extended ICU stay.

Same comment - had the woman taken care of having her wishes spelled out in a legally binding document, her husband would have been able to take her home to die of the infection that day. Not the fault of the doctor, the husband, the hospital or the society that she didn't do that, it's her fault. And, here again, nothing in the misnamed "Death With Dignity" bill that was recently killed would not have done a single thing to alter the woman's plight because, being not lucid, she would have been unable to express, on two separate occasions, her desire to kill herself, right? I mean, there is a reason that the doctor was talking to her husband and not to her, right?

Strike TWO for your article having any relevance to our discussion about mislabeled "Death With Dignity" or "Right To Die" legislation.

If the patients I’m describing could talk, though, I think the urinary catheter would be the least of their complaints. In addition to the invasion of tubes, ICU patients live in a world of bright lights and loud alarms, continuous stimulation. People pry open their eyes and shine flashlights into them, then pry open their mouths.

And here, again, we see that the article is about those who are utterly incapable of requesting on 2 separate occasions that a physician perform an act of homicide for their benefit, which means that the entire article is utterly irrelevant to the discussion about mislabeled "Death With Dignity" or "Right To Die" legislation.

That's Strike THREE home, and your irritating insistence that anything in that article is somehow relevant to our discussion in this thread is OUT.

I am copying and pasting a summary of the context and scope of the bill (e.g. who is entitled, how requested, limitations on liability, etc); for the full language you can go to the site at this link:
www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2015a/csl...pen&file=1135_01.pdf

This is a highly emotional issue, and the majority of the posts reflect that. PrintSmith, you are on one end of the spectrum, and homeagain, you are on the other. I don't see the 2 of you ever coming to agreement, or ever moving off your current stand. Neither of you has to.

When we argue topics, no matter how emotional, we need to do our best to stay with the facts and within the scope of the topic. Reviewing the bill language will ensure that the point you are arguing is actually relevant to the subject at hand. For example, the scope is limited to persons with terminal illness that are able to make and communicate health decisions; this does not apply to one in a vegetative state; it is not about "pulling the plug" (removing life support);

As for me, I think ComputerBreath has summarized and commented most logically on the topic, and within the scope of what the language of the bill is targeted to address. Yes, PrintSmith, one can chose to take their own life today, but as ComputerBreath points out, there are certain implications to that decision that the bill tries to address directly, such as life insurance and annuity policies; while the bill summary does not call this out directly, most proponents of the bill also site the emotional implications that they wish to address (allow a family to say good-bye, and not deal with the trauma associated with losing a loved one to suicide by today's methods).

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I am someone that is "left behind" by a loved one that committed suicide after bring diagnosed with terminal cancer.

PrintSmith, I don't want to misinterpret your posts, but I think based on what I have read, you think suicide is an act of cowardice and if someone wants to die, they should just commit suicide. I used to feel the same way. As someone who has had to deal with this, I can vouch that everything that ComputerBreath notes as implications were (and still are being) experienced in the aftermath of that fateful decision. I don't expect empathy, or sympathy; I don't share my experience to try to convince anyone to change their beliefs. I am simply sharing why I support this legislation. It would be deceitful to not acknowledge my own emotional connection to the topic at hand. As "one left behind", I can see the benefit of someone being given an opportunity to make the same decision to die, but under different circumstances and with different implications.


*********************************
A BILL FOR AN ACT
101 CONCERNING A TERMINALLY ILL INDIVIDUAL'S FREEDOM TO MAKE
102 END-OF-LIFE DECISIONS.
HOUSE SPONSORSHIP
Court and Ginal,
SENATE SPONSORSHIP
Guzman, Merrifield
Shading denotes HOUSE amendment. Double underlining denotes SENATE amendment.
Capital letters indicate new material to be added to existing statute.
Dashes through the words indicate deletions from existing statute.
Bill Summary
(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced and does
not reflect any amendments that may be subsequently adopted. If this bill
passes third reading in the house of introduction, a bill summary that
applies to the reengrossed version of this bill will be available at
www.leg.state.co.us/billsummaries .)

The bill enacts the "Colorado Death with Dignity Act" (act), which
authorizes an individual with a terminal illness to request, and the
individual's attending physician to prescribe to the individual for
self-administration by ingestion, life-ending medication intended to
hasten the individual's death. The individual must:
! Be a Colorado resident;
! Be an adult who is able to make and communicate health
care decisions;
! Have a terminal illness; and
! Voluntarily request life-ending medication to
self-administer by ingestion.
The act outlines the manner by which a terminally ill individual
must request life-ending medication to self-administer by ingestion,
which includes:
! A requirement to make the request orally on 2 separate
occasions and by a written, signed, and witness-verified
request;
! A waiting period between the oral requests, the written
request, and the time the attending physician may write the
prescription; and
! The individual's right to rescind the request at any time and
in any manner.
Any person who participates in the life-ending process, including
a physician who prescribes life-ending medication to an individual with
a terminal illness, is protected from civil and criminal liability and
professional disciplinary action if the physician or other person acts in
good-faith compliance with the requirements of the act. The attending
physician is required to:
! Determine that an individual is suffering from a terminal
illness, is capable, is making the request voluntarily, and is
a Colorado resident;
! Inform the individual of his or her medical diagnosis and
prognosis, the potential risks and probable result of taking
the medication, and feasible alternatives;
! Refer the individual to a consulting physician for medical
confirmation of the diagnosis, prognosis, and a
determination that the patient is capable and is acting
voluntarily;
! Refer the individual for counseling, if appropriate;
! Inform the individual of his or her right to rescind the
request for life-ending medication at any time; and
! Document in the individual's medical record the procedures
followed and related facts.
The bill requires the physician to either dispense the medication
directly to the patient or, with the patient's consent, contact a pharmacist
about the prescription and personally deliver, mail, or electronically
transmit the prescription to the pharmacist, who can dispense the
medication to the patient, the patient's expressly identified agent, or the
physician.
A health care provider cannot discipline a physician, nurse,
pharmacist, or other health care provider for actions taken in good-faith
-2- HB15-1135compliance with the act or for refusing to act; however, a provider that
has a policy prohibiting other health care providers from participating
under the act while on the provider's premises and that notifies providers
of that policy may sanction a provider who violates the policy.
A person who is present when a terminally ill individual
self-administers by ingestion life-ending medication is not subject to
criminal or civil liability for failing to prevent the patient from
self-administering the medication. Physicians, nurses, pharmacists, or
other health care providers have no duty to participate in providing
life-ending medication to a terminally ill individual.
The bill specifies that life, health, or accident insurance or annuity
policies cannot be affected by a terminally ill individual's request for or
ingestion of medication to end his or her life.
The act does not authorize a health care provider to end an
individual's life by lethal injection, mercy killing, or active euthanasia and
clarifies that a health care provider does not engage in those prohibited
activities when he or she participates under the act to assist a terminally
ill individual in obtaining life-ending medication.
A person commits a class 2 felony if he or she:
! Without the permission of the terminally ill individual,
willfully alters or forges a request for life-ending
medication or conceals or destroys a rescission of the
request; or
! Coerces or exerts undue influence on a terminally ill
individual to request life-ending medication or to destroy
a rescission of the request.

You are not quite on target with regards to my view of suicide onpoint; certainly on the paper, but not actually inside the rings.

Suicide is an act of fear. One chooses that action because they are afraid of their future, it is something they lack the ability to face. That is simply the truth, in all instances, of suicide. There is simply no dignity in giving in to your fear.

I, too, have been "left behind" by someone who committed suicide. I have lost one who was like a brother to me who had diabetes and failed to wake from his slumber one morning. My father died as he entered this world, completely helpless, unable to care for himself, unable to speak and in great pain from the cancer that riddled his body. I lost my godfather to a brain tumor when I was a young man and my godmother, his wife, to cancer over 30 years later, both of whom left this world in the same state as my father did. My paternal grandmother lived to the ripe old age of 100, dementia having robbed her of most of her memory of those that loved her. One of my cousin's children tried to commit suicide by driving a vehicle off a cliff when he was young and survived only to become brain damaged many years later when an illness resulted in clots in his heart that choked off oxygen to his brain. My former business partner has a special needs son that was delivered via emergency C-section after the umbilical wrapped around his throat and choked off the supply of oxygen to his brain.

Everyone in this State has a "right to die" at any point of their choosing without the need to involve others in an act of homicide to effect their death. They can pick the day, pick the manner, say good-bye, do all the things you mention in your post at the present time without the legislation proposed becoming law. Having a physician prescribe a fatal dose of barbiturates for you brings no dignity to your demise. Whether you pass with dignity or in its absence is the result of how you lived your life, not whether you had access to a fatal dose of barbiturates to effect your death. To be kind, it is obscene to suggest otherwise with the insertion of the language used in the bill that was recently defeated in the Colorado General Assembly.

And for the record, I make no judgement of a person who chooses to take their own life, that is well above my pay grade as there is only One who knows the true heart of the person who made that decision; I simply, and correctly, note that the act is the result of fear of the future, a future that the person committing the act finds themselves unable, for whatever reason, to face.

At the end, my father was in great pain. He was no more capable of caring for himself than a newborn baby was and required as much, if not more, care than a newborn child does. He was unable to speak, unable to walk, unable to control his bowels. And I dare any of you to try and tell me that he lost his dignity on his journey from a man who took care of himself and his family to his final breath, that the manner in which he died deprived him of his human dignity, or deprived any of us who cared for him on that journey of ours. To even imply that such is the case, as was done with the language in the bill that was recently, and properly, defeated in the Colorado legislature is abhorrent to any person of reason.

PrintSmith wrote: You are not quite on target with regards to my view of suicide onpoint; certainly on the paper, but not actually inside the rings.

Suicide is an act of fear. One chooses that action because they are afraid of their future, it is something they lack the ability to face. That is simply the truth, in all instances, of suicide. There is simply no dignity in giving in to your fear.

I, too, have been "left behind" by someone who committed suicide. I have lost one who was like a brother to me who had diabetes and failed to wake from his slumber one morning. My father died as he entered this world, completely helpless, unable to care for himself, unable to speak and in great pain from the cancer that riddled his body. I lost my godfather to a brain tumor when I was a young man and my godmother, his wife, to cancer over 30 years later, both of whom left this world in the same state as my father did. My paternal grandmother lived to the ripe old age of 100, dementia having robbed her of most of her memory of those that loved her. One of my cousin's children tried to commit suicide by driving a vehicle off a cliff when he was young and survived only to become brain damaged many years later when an illness resulted in clots in his heart that choked off oxygen to his brain. My former business partner has a special needs son that was delivered via emergency C-section after the umbilical wrapped around his throat and choked off the supply of oxygen to his brain.

Everyone in this State has a "right to die" at any point of their choosing without the need to involve others in an act of homicide to effect their death. They can pick the day, pick the manner, say good-bye, do all the things you mention in your post at the present time without the legislation proposed becoming law. Having a physician prescribe a fatal dose of barbiturates for you brings no dignity to your demise. Whether you pass with dignity or in its absence is the result of how you lived your life, not whether you had access to a fatal dose of barbiturates to effect your death. To be kind, it is obscene to suggest otherwise with the insertion of the language used in the bill that was recently defeated in the Colorado General Assembly.

And for the record, I make no judgement of a person who chooses to take their own life, that is well above my pay grade as there is only One who knows the true heart of the person who made that decision; I simply, and correctly, note that the act is the result of fear of the future, a future that the person committing the act finds themselves unable, for whatever reason, to face.

At the end, my father was in great pain. He was no more capable of caring for himself than a newborn baby was and required as much, if not more, care than a newborn child does. He was unable to speak, unable to walk, unable to control his bowels. And I dare any of you to try and tell me that he lost his dignity on his journey from a man who took care of himself and his family to his final breath, that the manner in which he died deprived him of his human dignity, or deprived any of us who cared for him on that journey of ours. To even imply that such is the case, as was done with the language in the bill that was recently, and properly, defeated in the Colorado legislature is abhorrent to any person of reason.

Let's be REAL clear here....my Uncle blew his brains out in a parked car at a trash dump. He was in
EXCRUCIATING pain for an extended period in his life,could NO longer live with that kind of pain. My
FATHER committed suicide (war vet) and had undiagnosed inner ear issues/viral infection that left him
thinking he was going insane...he JUMPED from a 4 story window to his death.

DO NOT PREACH TO ME..YOUR VIEWS ARE YOUR VIEWS, WE WILL NEVER MEET IN THE MIDDLE....(done with topic and Iam moving on.)

homeagain wrote: "The problem of inappropriate use or OVERuse of medical procedures is a difficult nut to crack. For one,physicians,hospitals and the life science industry are all aligned and INCENTIVIZED to do MORE procedures." Even at the subconscious level, as graphically portrayed in ATUL GAWANDES 2009 New Yorker article, "The Cost Conundrum".....certainly not all procedures are carried out in the patients best interest." EXCERPT from book by Eric Topol, M.D.

ATUL GAWANDE authored several books,all from a surgeon's viewpoint of the challenges he faces in
the medical arena....IF you wish I can also cite you date,volume of articles from the WSJ regarding the
medicare crisis, the role UNNECESSARY procedures play in the fubar we have as a health care delivery
system.....YOU may think this is personal,but I ASSURE you it effects EVERYONE ONE OF US in one way or another...we ALL are paying for this issue....information is POWER.

For the last time home, the current Medicare crisis, the extreme life saving measures taken in a person's last days by the medical community when a person is not lucid and is unable to participate in the decision making process of the care they receive are not part of the discussion centering around sanctioning a physician to commit an act of homicide for the benefit of someone who has decided they no longer wish to live.

If you don't want to be part of the discussion of the actual topic at hand, then don't participate, but please spare the rest of us your constant and unwelcome attempts to divert the topic being discussed to something else entirely that has no relevance to the topic of the thread.

Suicide is chosen because the person cannot face what lies ahead of them. That's the truth about suicide whether you like it or not. Having a physician prescribe a lethal dose of barbiturates for the purpose does nothing to bring dignity to that act. Even a suicide achieved through a fatal overdose of barbiturates is a sad end to a person's life, whether the dead individual obtained the drugs from a physician, pharmacist or the local drug dealer on the corner makes no difference in that regard.

The grief felt for the loss of the individual is not lessened according to how the person perished because the grief comes from the loss of the individual in our lives. Those who lost a parent to a heart attack feel no less grief at the loss than I did when I lost my father to cancer. In fact, the grief may be greater because they don't have the solace that I did in knowing that my father was no longer in pain.

The manner in which your uncle and your father died has nothing to do with whether or not they died with their dignity intact. Taking a fatal dose of barbiturates similarly has no bearing on whether you retained your dignity in death, nor does allowing nature to return you to the same state in which you entered life. Whether or not you died with your dignity intact is dependent upon whether or not you had that character trait intact during the course of your life. Overdosing on barbiturates doesn't bestow dignity on an act of suicide, that is something a chemical simply can't accomplish by its use.