TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

On November 1, a young woman named Brittany Maynard ended her life with a fatal dose of medication, legally prescribed by her doctor. It was her way of wresting control from a terrible disease that had taken over her life and made her dying a slow, debilitating, painful, and excruciating journey.

Just six months ago, she had received a diagnosis of an aggressive and incurable brain cancer. She was given six months to live, and her doctors duly informed her that the dying process would involve increasingly frequent and severe seizures, symptoms of stroke, brain swelling, and severe headaches and neck pain, along with distressing side effects of medication to control her symptoms. As a result of this dire prognosis, Brittany, her husband, and her mother moved from San Francisco to Portland to take advantage of Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide put into law by the Death with Dignity Act.

For most of us, committing suicide is difficult to contemplate and might seem impossible to carry out. You might question the wisdom of her decision and the morality of her actions. You may have religious objections and believe that no one should have the right to choose when or how they die.

Or you might wonder if, given similar circumstances, you too would end up taking that fatal dose.

In an effort to make meaning out of her suffering and create a legacy, Brittany decided to go public with her disease, her dying, and her decision. In doing so, she has spurred greater awareness and ignited public discussions on this topic.

Death with Dignity

Death with Dignity laws have been enacted to address people’s fears of a long, painful, expensive death. Why not end your life painlessly and quickly, instead of wasting away and experiencing terrible suffering? Why rack up massive hospital bills in a futile effort to fend off the inevitable?

Along with Oregon, Washington & Vermont also have passed Death with Dignity laws, making physician-assisted suicide legal. In New Mexico, a recent court ruling upheld the right of terminally ill patients to end life on their own terms. And advocates in Montana defeated a bill that would’ve imprisoned physicians for honoring patients’ wishes for death with dignity. Many other stateTechnology

We got in this pickle because life-saving modern medical technology advanced so much during the 20th century that it suddenly became possible to keep people alive past their expiration dates. In fact, ever since the 1950’s, it has been all too common for dying patients to be hospitalized and put on life support, even against their wishes, largely because physicians and society-at-large felt compelled to use this miraculous “life-saving” technology to prolong life at any cost. After all, prolonging life had been a focus of medical care for centuries. And not fully understanding the consequences, many patients and families insisted that doctors indeed “do everything” even when it was against best medical judgment.

Hospice Care to the Rescue

By the early 1960’s, health care practitioners, patients, and family members alike started questioning the futility, suffering, and expense of aggressive medical intervention for the terminally ill. Intensive care merely prolonged dying, but not living. Surely, there had to be a better way to provide end-of-life care.

Then in 1967, Dame Cicely Saunders founded the first hospice, which gave dying patients an alternative to an isolated, painful, protracted death in the ICU.

Hospice care focuses on increasing the quality of life rather than the quantity. It encourages s are wrestling with this issue in their courts and legislatures.

The Limits of Modern Medical

We got in this pickle because life-saving modern medical technology advanced so much during the 20th century that it suddenly became possible to keep people alive past their expiration dates. In fact, ever since the 1950’s, it has been all too common for dying patients to be hospitalized and put on life support, even against their wishes, largely because physicians and society-at-large felt compelled to use this miraculous “life-saving” technology to prolong life at any cost. After all, prolonging life had been a focus of medical care for centuries. And not fully understanding the consequences, many patients and families insisted that doctors indeed “do everything” even when it was against best medical judgment.

Hospice Care to the Rescue

By the early 1960’s, health care practitioners, patients, and family members alike started questioning the futility, suffering, and expense of aggressive medical intervention for the terminally ill. Intensive care merely prolonged dying, but not living. Surely, there had to be a better way to provide end-of-life care. Then in 1967, Dame Cicely Saunders founded the first hospice, which gave dying patients an alternative to an isolated, painful, protracted death in the ICU.

Hospice care focuses on increasing the quality of life rather than the quantity. It encourages and allows patients to live fully until they die. Invoking another centuries-long tradition, hospice makes it possible for people to die at home, with comfort and dignity, surrounded by their loved ones.

Still, for the next few decades, there was no consensus on where to draw the line between hoping for a cure and giving in to death. Indeed, hospice was seen as “giving up the fight”.

In addition, physicians were unsure about and reluctant to address the intractable pain caused by some diseases (like cancer), even at the end of life. One problem was that repeated doses of morphine and other opiates could turn patients into “drug addicts,” which was considered an extremely pitiful and shameful way to go. Another problem was that sometimes, so much morphine was required, patients would be rendered unconscious-- and sometimes respiration was hindered, hastening death

But medical ethicists and clergy began pointing out that writhing in agony is an even more pitiful and shameful way to go. And key is the intent behind administering high doses of morphine. If the sole intent is to hasten death, a potentially lethal dose should not be administered. But if the intent is to control pain, a potentially lethal dose is justified, and the informed, consenting patient is willing to take the risk.

The bottom line is this: alleviating suffering is aligned with the physician’s oath to first, do no harm. And with the recently (2007) established medical specialty of palliative care, hospice is an even kinder and gentler option than it was even ten years ago. In fact, a number of research studies show that hospice patients tend to live longer than those who continue aggressive treatment. Several factors are implicated, including individualized care, avoiding the risks of aggressive treatment, and treating patients and their families holistically, with attention to physical, emotional, and spiritual pain. With overall better quality of life, is it any wonder that hospice patients can actually thrive under hospice care, instead of withering away in intensive care?

A Cultural Shift in How We View Death and Dying

Over the past few decades, with growing public awareness and education, there has been a cultural shift toward understanding that modern medicine cannot cure what’s incurable, and suffering through failed attempts at aggressive intervention is a terrible way to die. We consider the fact that there are fates worse than death. And thanks to pioneers like Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, we've reframed death and dying as an important phase of human development and an opportunity for personal growth for the dying and the bereaved alike. Hospice is increasingly seen as a valued alternative where hope doesn’t disappear--it merely changes direction. With the support of hospice, we can go from hoping for a cure and long life to hoping to live fully during the remaining time and hoping for a peaceful death.

A Cultural Shift in Patient Self-Determination

In the olden days, doctors were considered to be in charge of their patients’ medical care, making important decisions for patients. It was even considered a kindness to not talk about death and dying with patients, and even keeping secret a terminal diagnosis.

In the 1970’s patients started standing up for their rights to be informed and make decisions about their own medical care. In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed The Patient Self-Determination Act, giving patients the right to refuse aggressive medical In the 1970’s patients started standing up for their rights to be informed and make decisions about their own medical care. In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed The Patient Self-Determination Act, giving patients the right to refuse aggressive medical intervention, even if it was potentially life-saving.

Now, no matter where you live, you can take charge of your destiny by filling out a legally binding advance directive, which outlines your medical treatment preferences and end-of-life wishes. By refusing such interventions as cardiac resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, feeding tubes, or hydrating IV’s near the end of your life, you’re aligning yourself with the medical research showing that these interventions painfully and unnecessarily prolong the dying process. When the body is shutting down, it is a physical burden to be resuscitated, ventilated, fed, and watered. Refusing intensive care and receiving comfort care is a way to let nature take its course and allow death to mercifully come when it calls.

Still, even with hospice care widely accepted, it is all too common for physicians to recommend intensive care, and for folks to request that maximum interventions be carried out for themselves or their loved ones. And in the absence of an advance directive, far too many dying people are still admitted to intensive care to endure the suffering of an unnaturally protracted dying.

The Role of Physician-Assisted Suicide

of life. It promotes hospice as an excellent alternative to dying in a hospital’s intensive care unit. But what if hospice care can’t provide any semblance of quality of life or a peaceful death? Death with Dignity laws go one step further, proclaiming that each person should have the right to not only allow death to come when it calls, but also to hasten death in order to avoid any lingering, suffering, and expense.

When the Death with Dignity Act was passed in Oregon, naysayers predicted that euthanasia would become rampant. They worried that physicians would be required to offer fatal prescriptions, that family members would have shady ulterior motives and push suicide on dying relatives, and suicidal people would see this a permission to get a lethal dose in the absence of terminal illness. However, research shows that none of this came to fruition, and in fact, of the few patients who do receive a prescription each year, more than one-third never use it. And yet, having that option can be therapeutic in itself, offering peace of mind should the day come when death is most merciful and welcome.

Questioning Assumptions and Opening Your Mind

If you think hospice is fine but physician-assisted suicide is too extreme, be thankful that you have yet to encounter extreme circumstances.

If you presume to know that you would never choose physician-assisted suicide, entertain the possibility that you truly have no idea what you would choose if you should face a situation that entailed unbearable and intractable suffering. You can only imagine what you might do if you had to walk that journey.

For those who consider suffering as divine discipline, be careful what you wish for.

For those who believe that God gave us intensive care to fend off death, remember that God doesn’t need an ICU to keep you alive. If you want to put God in charge of when you die, get medical technology out of the way and choose hospice. And by all means, don’t choose physician-assisted suicide if it goes against your values and beliefs.

For those who question Brittany Maynard’s action, know that you have the right to self-determination, not the right to other-determination. Then imagine what it would be like for others to try to determine your end-of-life decisions for you.

With death inevitable, Brittany wanted to have a hand in writing her last chapter, rather than having it written for her.

Whatever your beliefs, thoughts, and feelings about physician-assisted suicide, consider this perspective: Brittany refused to become a victim, and steadfastly remained the hero of her own journey.

The “death with dignity” movement addresses this persistent issue of aggressive intervention at the end .

http://www.psychologytoday.com/topics/education?tr=Hdr_Topics

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I think this is an important discussion. We have reached the point where medicine can keep you alive permanently in a vegetative state. However, I have a problem with the language. Death with "dignity". So a natural death is somehow "undignified"? I am not sure what that means. And, "hero of your own journey". Not sure why we are couching with this type of language. Or, if there will be a tipping point where someone who doesn't opt for physician suicide is then painted as a "coward" if we now have to go forth with this "hero", "dignity" type language.

We do need to have an HONEST and FRANK discussion of end of life care. There needs to be open and honest dialogue with the patient and family. Treatments need to be discussed in what is hoped to accomplished by the treatments and whether they are futile, inflict pain and what is the actual benefit to treatment and the benefits or risks to not accepting treatment. And, people may be ending their lives out of concomitant untreated depression or mental illness or fear of being burden to family, etc. Before this road is traveled, there are many questions that should be sorted out.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
I think this is an important discussion. We have reached the point where medicine can keep you alive permanently in a vegetative state. However, I have a problem with the language. Death with "dignity". So a natural death is somehow "undignified"? I am not sure what that means. And, "hero of your own journey". Not sure why we are couching with this type of language. Or, if there will be a tipping point where someone who doesn't opt for physician suicide is then painted as a "coward" if we now have to go forth with this "hero", "dignity" type language.

We do need to have an HONEST and FRANK discussion of end of life care. There needs to be open and honest dialogue with the patient and family. Treatments need to be discussed in what is hoped to accomplished by the treatments and whether they are futile, inflict pain and what is the actual benefit to treatment and the benefits or risks to not accepting treatment. And, people may be ending their lives out of concomitant untreated depression or mental illness or fear of being burden to family, etc. Before this road is traveled, there are many questions that should be sorted out.

But that wasn't the case here. She was not in some vegetative state, nor did it look like that was a likely prognosis--at least for any extended period of time.

Squeakers · Regular

She was terminal. She had been given 6 months in JANUARY. She was dying. You do not survive that cancer. You are lucky to live a year with that dx.

huskerbb · Guru

Squeakers wrote:
She was terminal. She had been given 6 months in JANUARY. She was dying. You do not survive that cancer. You are lucky to live a year with that dx.

We are ALL dying. Some just have more time left than others.

Squeakers · Regular

Not everyone has a terminal, incurable, inoperable tumor growing in their brain.

huskerbb · Guru

Squeakers wrote:
Not everyone has a terminal, incurable, inoperable tumor growing in their brain.

So? Where do you draw the line?

If you have a history of cancer in your family--you should off yourself at age 60? If your family has a history of heart disease, it's 58?

We are all going to die of something.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Right now it is "an individual" decision.

I don't believe for a second that it wont become more.

Squeakers · Regular

huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Not everyone has a terminal, incurable, inoperable tumor growing in their brain.
So? Where do you draw the line?

If you have a history of cancer in your family--you should off yourself at age 60? If your family has a history of heart disease, it's 58?

We are all going to die of something.

I don't believe for a second anyone would off themselves because they MIGHT get cancer. Someone who was given a terminal prognosis should have the right to end their life pain free before they lose their dignity. Someone who determines their quality of life is no longer worth living for due to their medical condition should be able to end their life.

Vette · Owl drink to that!

Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Not everyone has a terminal, incurable, inoperable tumor growing in their brain.
So? Where do you draw the line?

If you have a history of cancer in your family--you should off yourself at age 60? If your family has a history of heart disease, it's 58?

We are all going to die of something.
I don't believe for a second anyone would off themselves because they MIGHT get cancer. Someone who was given a terminal prognosis should have the right to end their life pain free before they lose their dignity. Someone who determines their quality of life is no longer worth living for due to their medical condition should be able to end their life.

I think this is the point that LGS is trying to make though, why is it so undignified to die a natural death? Take the word "dignity" out of all of it. Death is death.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Not everyone has a terminal, incurable, inoperable tumor growing in their brain.
So? Where do you draw the line?

If you have a history of cancer in your family--you should off yourself at age 60? If your family has a history of heart disease, it's 58?

We are all going to die of something.
I don't believe for a second anyone would off themselves because they MIGHT get cancer. Someone who was given a terminal prognosis should have the right to end their life pain free before they lose their dignity. Someone who determines their quality of life is no longer worth living for due to their medical condition should be able to end their life.

C'mon, husker, she was DIAGNOSED. It wasn't done on a whim, and you know that.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Just in case you missed it the first time:

Just six months ago, she had received a diagnosis of an aggressive and incurable brain cancer. She was given six months to live, and her doctors duly informed her that the dying process would involve increasingly frequent and severe seizures, symptoms of stroke, brain swelling, and severe headaches and neck pain, along with distressing side effects of medication to control her symptoms.

flan

Vette · Owl drink to that!

I agree with husker where do you draw the line? I've been diagnosed with two severe mental illnesses, I've been admitted to the loony bin more than once and I can't have kids because of all the medications I'm on. Sometimes my life is so miserable and "undignified" it's hard to cope.

I think I could move to Oregon and make a case for killing myself too.

-- Edited by VetteGirl on Tuesday 4th of November 2014 07:13:31 PM

Squeakers · Regular

VetteGirl wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Not everyone has a terminal, incurable, inoperable tumor growing in their brain.
So? Where do you draw the line?

If you have a history of cancer in your family--you should off yourself at age 60? If your family has a history of heart disease, it's 58?

We are all going to die of something.
I don't believe for a second anyone would off themselves because they MIGHT get cancer. Someone who was given a terminal prognosis should have the right to end their life pain free before they lose their dignity. Someone who determines their quality of life is no longer worth living for due to their medical condition should be able to end their life.
I think this is the point that LGS is trying to make though, why is it so undignified to die a natural death? Take the word "dignity" out of all of it. Death is death.

Many people find it humiliating to be carried to the toilet, to be bathed, to have their bottom wiped and their genitals cleaned. To not even be able to lift their arm to their face to shave or feed themselves. To dribble water down their front while trying to take a drink. Many dying people feel robbed of their dignity when they lose their autonomy. When their degeneration makes them violent and vulgar. When their brain abnormality makes them strip naked and soil themselves.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

VetteGirl wrote:
I agree with husker where do you draw the line? I've been diagnosed with two severe mental illnesses, I've been admitted to the loony bin more than once and I can't have kids because of all the medications I'm on. Sometimes my life is so miserable and "undignified" it's hard to cope.

I think I could move to Oregon and make a case for killing myself too.

-- Edited by VetteGirl on Tuesday 4th of November 2014 07:13:31 PM

Well, it would be YOUR decision.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
Right now it is "an individual" decision.

I don't believe for a second that it wont become more.

Yes, Lily, you are RIGHT as rain.

First we're targeting the Conservatives...

flan

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

VetteGirl wrote:
I agree with husker where do you draw the line? I've been diagnosed with two severe mental illnesses, I've been admitted to the loony bin more than once and I can't have kids because of all the medications I'm on. Sometimes my life is so miserable and "undignified" it's hard to cope.

I think I could move to Oregon and make a case for killing myself too.

-- Edited by VetteGirl on Tuesday 4th of November 2014 07:13:31 PM

You could try, but your MI is exactly the reason they would not give you the meds. You have to pass a psych eval before your doc can prescribe the meds.

Vette · Owl drink to that!

Mellow Momma wrote:
VetteGirl wrote:
I agree with husker where do you draw the line? I've been diagnosed with two severe mental illnesses, I've been admitted to the loony bin more than once and I can't have kids because of all the medications I'm on. Sometimes my life is so miserable and "undignified" it's hard to cope.

I think I could move to Oregon and make a case for killing myself too.

-- Edited by VetteGirl on Tuesday 4th of November 2014 07:13:31 PM
You could try, but your MI is exactly the reason they would not give you the meds. You have to pass a psych eval before your doc can prescribe the meds.

LOL---I don't know why but that makes me laugh biggrin

chef · Guru

I have a family member who would've benefitted from human euthanasia being legal. As it were, she endured a long, painful death. Pain that the highest dose of morphine did not touch. She made it clear that she wants the plug pulled if there were ever a plug to pull.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Squeakers wrote:
VetteGirl wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Not everyone has a terminal, incurable, inoperable tumor growing in their brain.
So? Where do you draw the line?

If you have a history of cancer in your family--you should off yourself at age 60? If your family has a history of heart disease, it's 58?

We are all going to die of something.
I don't believe for a second anyone would off themselves because they MIGHT get cancer. Someone who was given a terminal prognosis should have the right to end their life pain free before they lose their dignity. Someone who determines their quality of life is no longer worth living for due to their medical condition should be able to end their life.
I think this is the point that LGS is trying to make though, why is it so undignified to die a natural death? Take the word "dignity" out of all of it. Death is death.
Many people find it humiliating to be carried to the toilet, to be bathed, to have their bottom wiped and their genitals cleaned. To not even be able to lift their arm to their face to shave or feed themselves. To dribble water down their front while trying to take a drink. Many dying people feel robbed of their dignity when they lose their autonomy. When their degeneration makes them violent and vulgar. When their brain abnormality makes them strip naked and soil themselves.

Exactly. I don't want anyone to have to wipe my ass. I don't want to get to the point where I don't recognize my family and I curse at them. That is what dying with dignity means to me. It is pretty undignified to have to be carried on and off the bed pan, when you remember you have to go, and have strangers wipe your filth from your body. No thanks. Writhing in pain while I beg for medication that I can't have for another 5 minutes, 10 minutes, and hour...no thanks. Not dignified. Let me leave the world on my own terms, before it gets that bad.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

VetteGirl wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
VetteGirl wrote:
I agree with husker where do you draw the line? I've been diagnosed with two severe mental illnesses, I've been admitted to the loony bin more than once and I can't have kids because of all the medications I'm on. Sometimes my life is so miserable and "undignified" it's hard to cope.

I think I could move to Oregon and make a case for killing myself too.

-- Edited by VetteGirl on Tuesday 4th of November 2014 07:13:31 PM
You could try, but your MI is exactly the reason they would not give you the meds. You have to pass a psych eval before your doc can prescribe the meds.
LOL---I don't know why but that makes me laugh

So glad that's the way you took it. After I posted, I thought it might be kind of harsh. But I think you know I wouldn't mean it that way.

huskerbb · Guru

Mellow Momma wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
VetteGirl wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Not everyone has a terminal, incurable, inoperable tumor growing in their brain.
So? Where do you draw the line?

If you have a history of cancer in your family--you should off yourself at age 60? If your family has a history of heart disease, it's 58?

We are all going to die of something.
I don't believe for a second anyone would off themselves because they MIGHT get cancer. Someone who was given a terminal prognosis should have the right to end their life pain free before they lose their dignity. Someone who determines their quality of life is no longer worth living for due to their medical condition should be able to end their life.
I think this is the point that LGS is trying to make though, why is it so undignified to die a natural death? Take the word "dignity" out of all of it. Death is death.
Many people find it humiliating to be carried to the toilet, to be bathed, to have their bottom wiped and their genitals cleaned. To not even be able to lift their arm to their face to shave or feed themselves. To dribble water down their front while trying to take a drink. Many dying people feel robbed of their dignity when they lose their autonomy. When their degeneration makes them violent and vulgar. When their brain abnormality makes them strip naked and soil themselves.
Exactly. I don't want anyone to have to wipe my ass. I don't want to get to the point where I don't recognize my family and I curse at them. That is what dying with dignity means to me. It is pretty undignified to have to be carried on and off the bed pan, when you remember you have to go, and have strangers wipe your filth from your body. No thanks. Writhing in pain while I beg for medication that I can't have for another 5 minutes, 10 minutes, and hour...no thanks. Not dignified. Let me leave the world on my own terms, before it gets that bad.

Trust me. You CANNOT tell when it is "getting bad".

By that time, you won't know how bad it is, and you won't believe your family who is telling you.

By that time, you don't have the mental capacity to make such decisions.

huskerbb · Guru

Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Not everyone has a terminal, incurable, inoperable tumor growing in their brain.
So? Where do you draw the line?

If you have a history of cancer in your family--you should off yourself at age 60? If your family has a history of heart disease, it's 58?

We are all going to die of something.
I don't believe for a second anyone would off themselves because they MIGHT get cancer. Someone who was given a terminal prognosis should have the right to end their life pain free before they lose their dignity. Someone who determines their quality of life is no longer worth living for due to their medical condition should be able to end their life.

Who gets to determine "quality of life"?

ANYONE who commits suicide has decided their life is not worth living.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Not everyone has a terminal, incurable, inoperable tumor growing in their brain.
So? Where do you draw the line?

If you have a history of cancer in your family--you should off yourself at age 60? If your family has a history of heart disease, it's 58?

We are all going to die of something.
I don't believe for a second anyone would off themselves because they MIGHT get cancer. Someone who was given a terminal prognosis should have the right to end their life pain free before they lose their dignity. Someone who determines their quality of life is no longer worth living for due to their medical condition should be able to end their life.
Who gets to determine "quality of life"?
ANYONE who commits suicide has decided their life is not worth living.

The sick person, of course.

flan

Domestic Engineer · Guru

Oh well, here goes....

The pope recently basically stated homosexuality was ok and he was credited with being in touch with the times. The Vatican Pontifical Academy just stated,

"We do not judge the individuals but the act itself is to be condemned," said Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, the bishop who heads the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, a semi-autonomous Church think-tank which studies ethical issues.

"This woman did this thinking she could die with dignity," Carrasco de Paula told Italian news agency ANSA.

"But this is where the error lies: to commit suicide is not a good thing, it is a wicked thing because it is saying no both to one's own life and to everything which signifies respect for our mission in this world and towards those closest to us."

www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/vatican-thinker-brands-us-womans-suicide-wicked/ar-BBcXjVr

I realize that this is not a quote from the pope, but it appears to be from his representatives.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

VetteGirl wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Not everyone has a terminal, incurable, inoperable tumor growing in their brain.
So? Where do you draw the line?

If you have a history of cancer in your family--you should off yourself at age 60? If your family has a history of heart disease, it's 58?

We are all going to die of something.
I don't believe for a second anyone would off themselves because they MIGHT get cancer. Someone who was given a terminal prognosis should have the right to end their life pain free before they lose their dignity. Someone who determines their quality of life is no longer worth living for due to their medical condition should be able to end their life.
I think this is the point that LGS is trying to make though, why is it so undignified to die a natural death? Take the word "dignity" out of all of it. Death is death.

Yes. We all die. Death is death, the end of our lives here on Earth. I am bothered by the need to couch this with a bunch of language meant to set some sort of "tone" that needn't be there.

chillepeppa · Regular

In instances like this, and I would imagine plenty other terminal illnesses, doctors are able to lay out the prognoses and what to expect in clear detail. And from what I've read about Brittney's case, this was going to be a terrible ordeal, not just for her, but for all those close to her. Knowing the toll this will take on those around her, I can see why she made this decision. I wouldn't want to place others in this position, even if I am so wrecked with pain/meds that I do not even know that I am still alive. The emotional and financial implications of a drawn out illness for which the outcome is certain, I can see myself not struggling to suggest this to those around me to consider.

TOTALLY GEEKED!

Death with Dignity and Brittany Maynard's Legacy