California Adopts Doctor-Assisted Suicide Law

philip2009

philip2009

philip2009

Associate
Joined
9 Sep 2008
Posts
1,377
Where California goes the world follows -

California's governor has signed legislation that allows terminally ill people to legally end their lives.

The move by Governor Jerry Brown on Monday will make California the fifth state to have what is known as a right-to-die law.

The measure gives terminally ill patients access to life-ending drugs prescribed by their doctor.

A revised version of the controversial bill was passed by state lawmakers in September after a similar measure failed to get through earlier in the year.

Its passage came nearly a year after the highly publicised death of right-to-die advocate Brittany Maynard.

The 29-year-old moved from California to Oregon last year to legally take her life after she was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer.

Her story rekindled debate across the country on the issue of assisted suicide.
Gov Brown, a lifelong Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian, had declined to signal whether he would sign or veto the bill until Monday.

"I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain," he said in a statement released after he signed the measure.

"I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn't deny that right to others."

Opponents argued that some people who are ill, especially among the elderly and those with disabilities, might be unduly influenced by people close to them to end their lives.

The Catholic Church urged Catholic lawmakers and Gov Brown to veto the measure.

The governor said the before reaching his decision he "considered the theological and religious perspectives that any deliberate shortening of one's life is sinful".

Supporters of the legislation said Californians should be able to die without pain.

The End of Life Option Act requires patients to submit three in-person requests for end-of life medication to their attending physician.

Under the guidelines of the revised bill, two of the requests must be done orally - a minimum of 15 days apart - and the third request must be submitted in writing.

The law goes into effect on 1 January 2016.
Click to expand...

Parliament recently rejected the Assisted Dying Bill, but surely the public are going to keep on pressing for change especially in the light of California's decision. Around 70-80% of the public typically support assisted dying for the terminally ill.
 
Makes a lot of sense to me, especially as it's pretty nonsensical you can just drive to a neighbouring state and have it done there.

The fun ballot to watch out for will be the 2016 cannabis legalization effort, enough old people have died/attitudes adjusted since 2010 with states like Colorado leading the way that there's a pretty good chance now that it will pass - would lead to a major shake-up nationwide as I don't see how the federal classification can remain tenable when the most populous state in the country allows people to grow their own for personal usage :p

http://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2015/10/05/californias-2016-pot-legalization-campaign-launches/
 
philip2009 said:
Where California goes the world follows -



Parliament recently rejected the Assisted Dying Bill, but surely the public are going to keep on pressing for change especially in the light of California's decision. Around 70-80% of the public typically support assisted dying for the terminally ill.
Click to expand...

Most ministers who rejected our bill did it based on religious grounds. It's disgusting that you can vote based on religious beliefs.
 
squerble said:
Most ministers who rejected our bill did it based on religious grounds. It's disgusting that you can vote based on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for this? I suspect you'll not have any given that you confuse ministers with MPs.

Anyway, I am for assisted suicide, but there are very valid arguments against it. Namely that it may pressureise people to take their own lives to lift a burden from their loved ones. I don't really have an answer to that issue beyond the usual multi-doctor approval.
 
squerble said:
Most ministers who rejected our bill did it based on religious grounds. It's disgusting that you can vote based on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Wait...? So you want people to have the choice to end their lives but you don't want (other) people to have the choice to vote how they wish? That sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. All too common it seems.
 
Shouldn't religion be left out of all life or death decisions as every religion has a different take on how you should die?

It should be based on quality of life and the facts. Religion should be left to the patient not the people making the decisions - they need to be open minded.

To the OP that seems a very American way of doing it.... should be a national bill rather than a state bill because as said - drive into next state and do it. Makes it utterly pointless as a law.
 
FirebarUK said:
Wait...? So you want people to have the choice to end their lives but you don't want (other) people to have the choice to vote how they wish? That sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. All too common it seems.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

They were voting, you see, on preventing other people doing something they would like to do. The suggestion is that they voted this way based on their personal religious beliefs, which were not in line with the beliefs of the people who have to live under the results of the vote.

So, our friend Squerble wants people to be able to choose to end their lives, but the politicians want to prevent people having that choice - and have the power to make sure they are prevented by making their vote accordingly.

Your framing of the issue was disingenuous, at best.
 
cheesyboy said:
Not quite.

They were voting, you see, on preventing other people doing something they would like to do. The suggestion is that they voted this way based on their personal religious beliefs, which were not in line with the beliefs of the people who have to live under the results of the vote.

So, our friend Squerble wants people to be able to choose to end their lives, but the politicians want to prevent people having that choice - and have the power to make sure they are prevented by making their vote accordingly.

Your framing of the issue was disingenuous, at best.
Click to expand...

Everyone views these issues through the lens of their own experiences, values and beliefs. An atheist is no different in that respect. Some people just have a hysterical reaction to the presence of religious belief in anything that effects them.

Well, newsflash, many of are not cool with wet lefties being involved in anything that effects us. Alas, we must abide them. Just as the militant atheists must abide the religious folk.
 
cheesyboy said:
Not quite.

They were voting, you see, on preventing other people doing something they would like to do. The suggestion is that they voted this way based on their personal religious beliefs, which were not in line with the beliefs of the people who have to live under the results of the vote.

So, our friend Squerble wants people to be able to choose to end their lives, but the politicians want to prevent people having that choice - and have the power to make sure they are prevented by making their vote accordingly.

Your framing of the issue was disingenuous, at best.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Squerble meant it like that (but I'm sure he does now!) and even then its hard to get outraged by it. If it's not religious belief, what is it next? If not the right-to-die topic, what others bills should be "approved"?

Anyway, nothing more to say on that but it seems like you want a new political system :)
 
Sorry, yes, I did mean MPs not ministers.

My view on the situation is that someone should have the CHOICE in their own death. I can see no logical argument, other than personal religious beliefs, against offering the choice. If someone personally believes that God will "take them" when the time is right then so be it, they can wait. If someone has no religious belief, or does not wish to see the rest of their days out in excruciating pain, then that choice should be offered to them. They should not have to travel to Switzerland in order to have some dignity in their death.

There is no argument against offering the CHOICE.

Edit: why do such big issues not actually go to public vote? Aren't MPs supposed to represent us?
 
squerble said:
Sorry, yes, I did mean MPs not ministers.

My view on the situation is that someone should have the CHOICE in their own death. I can see no logical argument, other than personal religious beliefs, against offering the choice. If someone personally believes that God will "take them" when the time is right then so be it, they can wait. If someone has no religious belief, or does not wish to see the rest of their days out in excruciating pain, then that choice should be offered to them. They should not have to travel to Switzerland in order to have some dignity in their death.

There is no argument against offering the CHOICE.

Edit: why do such big issues not actually go to public vote? Aren't MPs supposed to represent us?
Click to expand...

There are logical arguments against it, and I've already outlined one: People with serious illnesses may feel pressurised into ending their lives prematurely by those who will have to take care of them. Or they may feel they have a responsibility to ease the burden on loved ones.

MP's do represent you, which is why they don't go to a "public vote". If we had a public vote on these types of issues, the populist decision would usually win out, often with the average voter not having put a lot of thought into how it works in practice.

Like I said, I am actually in favour of assisted suicide. But I cannot deny that the issue is far from straight forward, nor do I have answers to some of the big questions on it.

Anyway, do you have any evidence regarding your claim most MP's objected on religious grounds? Most of the objections I read about related to the issue I highlight above, not religiousity.
 
Last edited:
A step in the right direction, glad people are finally seeing sense and letting people have a choice when quality of life is becoming a factor. It's a bit disappointing that it doesn't go as far as legalising actually assisting someone though - those with diseases such as MND for example would be unable to take the drugs themselves and would need the assistance of a doctor or family member.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
Anyway, do you have any evidence regarding your claim most MP's objected on religious grounds? Most of the objections I read about related to the issue I highlight above, not religiousity.
Click to expand...

I do not. I could have sworn I'd read something in the BBC article that mentioned religious beliefs but I just looked at it, and perhaps my judgement was clouded by the comments section below in which most people had assumed (or reacted to a now-edited part of the article) it was based on religious beliefs.
 
Cyanide said:
A step in the right direction, glad people are finally seeing sense and letting people have a choice when quality of life is becoming a factor. It's a bit disappointing that it doesn't go as far as legalising actually assisting someone though - those with diseases such as MND for example would be unable to take the drugs themselves and would need the assistance of a doctor or family member.
Click to expand...

Legally assisting someone opens the door too much for murder. If someone is badly disabled, what's stopping someone from giving them an OD and saying they wanted to commit suicide?

Obviously there would be a motive somewhere but it all starts to become a bit questionable.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
How can any of those persons be sure that there is not massive pressure on the person who wants to die? That is the challenge.
Click to expand...

How can we be sure the judicial system never passes an incorrect verdict? We put in safeguards, we do not shut down the judicial system because it might one day make a mistake.

How do we ensure doctors do not endanger the lives of their patients? We put in safeguards, we do not ban doctors.

Suggesting something should be banned because in edge cases it is not always going to function perfectly is not a serious argument because no human or society has ever exhibited perfect behaviour at all times.
 
Moses said:
Erm, numerous safeguard steps with solicitors/doctors/etc all backing up they want to die/are able to make that decision/etc.
Click to expand...

Generally Doctors don't want anything to do with this, from what I've heard. If they started ending lives through assisted suicide it fundamentally goes against their reason to be, hippocratic oath and all that.
 
philip2009 said:
How can we be sure the judicial system never passes an incorrect verdict? We put in safeguards, we do not shut down the judicial system because it might one day make a mistake.

How do we ensure doctors do not endanger the lives of their patients? We put in safeguards, we do not ban doctors.

Suggesting something should be banned because in edge cases it is not always going to function perfectly is not a serious argument because no human or society has ever exhibited perfect behaviour at all times.
Click to expand...

Apples and Oranges.

Most people who are in court have an interest in defending themselves against false charges. They will usually use facts and logic to prove their innocent to the jury.

But if someone has convinced you that you're a burden on your family or society and that your life is no longer worth living, you're not going to be capable of defending yourself. You will probably jump through hoops to help them kill you off.

This is why police interviews are recorded, to show someone isn't being persauded of their guilt in advance. How do you 'record' the conversations between family members or even social commentary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom