quote:
This area is a lot more difficult and nuanced than the type my thread was about - which was more along the lines of clearly a person would be dying soon and so they choose to end on their own terms instead of having months in pain, not enjoying life, burning through their entire life savings on in home hospice that a person may have liked to give to their children if possible, etc.

My gut and the purely reasonable and logical part of my mind says that yes, any person should be allowed to make that decision but as a society we need to protect that person from rash, short decisions that result in a suicide by someone who may not have made the decision if they were able to get through a period of struggle.

I think you should do something where you sort of classify it and have different benchmarks for each:

(A) is people who have a terminal, painful illness and just don't want the pain of the final months, etc. - and this benchmark is essentially just them being of sound enough mind to understand and make the decision to end it.

(B) would be people who have a painful illness that really hurts quality of life but isn't terminal. I find it difficult to think of what sort of benchmarks they should have, I think one of those should be time, almost like a waiting period while seeing a psychologist or whatever. Honestly, I think someone in this situation should have this option, it makes sense to me but i am still very hesitant on how to make it work correctly though.

And since we went there we also technically should think about

(C) someone simply suffering some mental type ailments, PTSD, past trauma, etc. To me, a person suffering from long term, crippling depression or whatever where they have very few good days and just don't want to go on should have that option theoretically. This is the one that i don't see how we could craft appropriate checks and all to make it viable, but theoretically, I believe a person should have that option to just move on and see what is out there after this life if they so choose.

Sally I agree that it's a difficult topic to talk about but it's one that we as a Nation need to have a conversation about. I think if there's one area where the U.S. truly does fail it's in Mental Health, End of Life care and Death with Dignity.

I agree that for it to work you would need to clarify certain conditions that would automatically qualify for Death with Dignity. Stuff like Cancer, Tumors, ALS, Coronary Artery Disease, Parkinson's etc. Diseases that guarantee death and would lead the person to be in pain the last few months of their life. This should be automatic approval of Death with Dignity, no questions.

The other option, like you mentioned, would be diseases that aren't terminal but that hurt qualify of life. That is the group I would put myself into. I think what would need to happen in this group is that you would need at least 3 doctors to sign off that your condition significantly affects your quality of life and that there is no new technology or treatments coming along in the next 5 years that would significantly improve your condition. If not 3 doctors then at least 2 doctors, say your Primary Care Physician and then a Specialist that covers your disease.

As for Mental Health that is significantly more difficult as I think the person should have to approve that they are of sound mind. In the first two groups there wouldn't be much debate that the person is in sound mind and judgement. But I do agree with you that if someone has crippling PTSD, Depression, Anxiety, Trauma, etc. that Death with Dignity should be available to them. The question would be how do you determine that the person is legally competent to make the decision?