Two participants, one an exit guide and one a friend, look at the same voluntary exit and report their experiences, emotions.
Read More
John Abraham explains the process to receive educational and training services from the Final Exit Network if you are considering a self-controlled death.
Many people with debilitating and irreversible health conditions do not have supportive family and friends. They include include people with metastatic cancer, irreversible neurological conditions, and multiple medical problems that have taken away any enjoyment and quality of life as determined by them. They no longer want to continue living because they know that their condition will only worsen, and for them it is already beyond bad. There is no realistic hope that their lives will improve. Most of the time, family members and friends are able to see the suffering in their loved one’s life and understand a desire to end the suffering. But this is not always the case, as illustrated in this post.
If we use “existential suffering” as a stand-in for all of the related terms we use, it will help us discuss what we may mean by them. Certainly, distress, dread, angst, anxiety, anguish, or crisis all suggest suffering at least in a mental or psychological sense, a kind of suffering that all people encounter at one point or another in their lives, or even daily. Some existential suffering can be mitigated through changes in circumstances or with the help of others, but when one is dying, whether slowly or rapidly, one may wish to forego the suffering whether or not there may be temporary relief for it.
There is no medical reason why a person who hastens their death because of suffering or unacceptable quality of life should be precluded from being an organ or tissue donor. What is important is the medical history of the prospective donor, the location at time of death, and the timely discovery of the body after a non-hospital death, which affects tissue donation.
Many older people decide for themselves that they don’t want to be wholly dependent on others, and they don’t want to be remembered as someone in that circumstance. Others do not want to be an increasing burden on their family, a decision that is theirs, irrespective of whether the family feels that they are a burden. Such old and increasingly infirm individuals may get little, if any, pleasure from living with myriad physical dysfunctions, and all that such health problems entail. They are the ones who should decide whether their lives are any longer worth living.
Understanding disagreements between DWD advocates and disability rights advocates may be a way to find some common ground between the two groups. This is Part 1 of a multi-part series exploring the issues.
The American Association of Suicidology recognizes that the practice of physician aid in dying, also called physician assisted suicide, Death with Dignity, and medical aid in dying, is distinct from the behavior that has been traditionally and ordinarily described as “suicide,” the tragic event our organization works so hard to prevent. Although there may be overlap between the two categories, legal physician assisted deaths should not be considered to be cases of suicide and are therefore a matter outside the central focus of the AAS.
“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
— John Stuart Mill
The United States Constitution and the common law (along with some state constitutions) give us the right to make directives that control the health services we receive if we become mentally incapacitated. The instructions provided by most states in the statutory forms that have been approved since the late 1980s do not limit us. We can write non-statutory directives I call “supplemental directives” when they are attached to and referenced in the statutory directives. We can also write our own health care directives without using statutory forms (an issue to be discussed in a subsequent post).
Visitor Count:
