Should mentally competent, terminally ill patients be able to end their lives?

#1 A Declaration in Favor of the Value of a Life

This is one of those laws that seems so laughable, if it weren't so sad.  We don't want people to commit suicide, so we outlaw it?  Because people won't end their own lives if we threaten them with legal punishment?  This is a pointless rule.

I don't want anyone to commit suicide, for any reason.  I think suicide is the ultimate abandonment of those who love you, even if it's just days short of a natural death.  And no matter how passionately I feel that no one should ever ever commit suicide, it will never be my right to make that decision for another person.

The natural extension of this question is, "if I am allowed to choose suicide, shouldn't I be able to require my health care provider to assist me in carrying out this personal decision?"  And I think this would be a really dangerous line to cross.  

While a law against suicide is silly and unenforceable, I can imagine why it exists.  Because if it's acceptable for me to decide that life is hopeless, and that I should end it, then why wouldn't it be ok for my spouse or my friend to help me?  And if ending a hopeless life by suicide is ok, then why isn't it ok for my doctor to decide that my life isn't worth living when my health comes to a certain level of hopelessness?

Maybe the law against suicide is a declaration in favor of the value of a life.  A legislative stand that says, "each life is important, and no one, not even the person in possession of that life, should have the right to end it prematurely."  Maybe i like that law after all.

Submitted by Beth Rogers.

#2 We Are All Terminally ill!

We are all terminally ill!  I am going to plead that we should not allow patients to decide or be allowed to end their lives.  

The first reason is society’s inability to determine a set of concrete guidelines for who would be considered terminally ill.  We all know that as soon as this “Pandora’s box” is opened, it would only continue to be challenged and pushed further and further.  

The second reason is this would be a devastating step in the wrong direction for the valuing of human life.  Let’s assume that we begin to allow terminally ill patients this option.  Ten years later, insurance companies might just begin to cover the fees associated with that “procedure”.  (They would definitely do this because think of the money they would save….yet it would be considered a new “service” or “option”)  Ten more years pass and insurance companies would begin to offer policies that were cheaper if you had a “terminally ill” clause that meant they didn’t have to cover health-care for “terminally-ill” cases.  It would seem like a great idea, because you could save so much money, until you are the one deemed “terminally-ill”.  Don’t think that’s true...try getting a transplant if you’re obese.


The third reason is simply, we cannot play God.  I do agree with choosing not to take “drastic” measures because that is the essence of leaving a situation in God’s hands, however; willingly ending one’s life is the essence of taking things out of God’s hands.  

Submitted by Paul Buchanan.

#3 Everyone Else Should Honor And Respect That Choice

Yes.

Whether or not a person continues to live is nobody else's choice but their own. I'd go farther and say that terminal illness shouldn't be a constraining factor. If a person decides that they are done living, then everyone else should honor and respect that choice.

To me, this is a basic human right. It is so obvious that marshaling arguments for it is actually more difficult because it is hard to predict what kind of complaints could be made. Of course, I'll do my best.

Q: What about all the loved ones this person will hurt by ending their life?

A: Those that truly love this person will stand by them and respect their choices. If that choice is to withdraw from life, then so be it. Those who wish to override the choice are not displaying love. They are displaying fear and selfishness. Now, I am NOT saying that loved ones shouldn't try to convince the person to change their mind. We do that for each other all the time when we don't agree about important decisions. By all means, make the case that sticking around is a better choice. But remember who gets to make that choice, when all is said and done.

Q: What kind of example will this set for kids?

A: Actually, I think that it might have a positive impact in areas like teen suicide. If we actually embraced the idea, sat down and talked frankly about it, explored the implications and understood the impacts... Perhaps a little reality would take the romance out of it. Also, our culture would adapt. There would be a transitional period, but eventually, we'd use such opportunities to explain death to those children who had reached an age where they were ready to understand it.

Q: Doesn't God say it is a sin?

A: I am not sure. I haven't talked with God today. I think the real issue here is that some beliefs count it as a sin. But since when is it okay to enforce our beliefs on someone who clearly does not share them? I don't think this is a valid argument. If a person has decided on suicide, then they have obviously dealt with any spiritual issues they might have had with it, and those issues WE might have with it are irrelevant.

I can see no compelling reason to forbid suicide, especially for those who are mentally competent and terminally ill.

Submitted by Matthew Rohr.

#4 I'll Reserve Judgment For Someone Who Makes That Choice

It's really sad when terminally ill people linger on in severe pain and suffering. I'd really like to say I thought it would be alright for them to choose to end their own life, but I do not. I'll not quote any scripture. There are several applicable, but my mind is made up that God does not want us to end our own life. While I do not think suicide is an unforgivable sin, as some Christians do, I do not think life should be ended by anyone but God.

Some might suggest that that would preclude capital punishment, but that issue was covered in the Old Testament. Also in war lives are taken, and I do not consider that murder either. My understanding is that the command “Thou shalt not kill” would have been more accurately translated “Thou shalt do no murder.” Murder would denote the taking of an innocent life, as in abortion.

I have no problem with life support being removed, since that is an artificial means to prolong life. When it comes to removing a feeding tube, that gets sticky. I'll not judge that. I certainly do have sympathy for situations where someone begs to die to end the pain, but I cannot give my permission for euthanasia. I'll reserve judgment for someone who makes that choice, but if asked what God would want, I'll have to say I don't approve of allowing someone to end their own life.

Submitted by David Parker.

#5 The Taking Of A Life is Murder

I just want to go on the record here and say that this was/is difficult for me to sort out. On the one hand, who am I to tell someone who is suffering unspeakable pain with absolutely no quality of life remaining that they don't have the right to end their suffering? 

On the other hand, medical miracles happen everyday. What if someone unnecessarily ends his or her life when there is still some hope? And where do we draw the line? To me, the taking of a life is murder. May seem like a simplistic viewpoint, but there you have it. So to begin with, we allow these terminally ill people to end their loves because their quality of life is bad. Then we allow people to voluntarily end their lives because they're lonely or unhappy. Their quality of life may seem just as bad to them. So now we are allowing people with a poor quality of life to make the decision to end it all. 

What's next? Allowing people to kill other people because they're bad or because they negatively affect quality of life? Where does it end? Where is the ethical line? 

Submitted by Lauri Lenox

#6 There Really Isn't Anymore Hope

If you believe in the right for every human to be able to make his or her own decisions, then you should believe in this option as well.

If mentally competent, that patient has the ability to comprehend the situation and decide to choose an end result that is not only best for their own well being, but also the well being of those around: family, friends, etc. I believe there are times when the pain and suffering of an ill patient is more difficult to handle than the lingering anticipation for the day goodbye is said to the world and their family.  It is at that point that someone may call it quits. We can not fault the family members who want to hang on a little longer or the doctor that may have a few more tricks up his sleeve.  They are human and respectively they are afraid of loss and afraid of failure.  

If there are no other options, then why not have the ability to choose this option?  When a hurting loved one passes, we always hear the same self-comforting reasoning from the family members, "They are in a better place now, they are no longer in pain."  If dying is what makes this peace a reality and everyone wants this peace, then let dying be the reality.  Otherwise, the patient's reality is pain, and everyone else is stuck in a fantasy because they refuse to accept the inevitable.

While I believe the choice should be an option for a mentally competent patient, I hope that if they do make the decision to end their life, it is because they want to and not because they have to. I hope they don't choose to end their life because of the financial cost or because any other options are unaffordable or too burdensome for the family.  I guess what I am saying is that I hope that the only time a patient has to make such a decision is because there really isn't anymore hope for their condition.

Submitted by Damian Trudell.