I call it compassionate transitioning. I have bone cancer and if I don’t take pain medication every 4 hours I’m in horrible debilitating pain. Your life, your body, your choice
Laws are made for the majority. The majority of people don't need the government to kill them. It is narcissism that drives the popular view on euthanasia at the moment, a deliberate negligence of the scope of law and its effect on many individuals, not just one. When you make euthanasia legal, you make the most vulnerable people of society such as the elderly prime targets for culling. You make depressed and mentally ill people scraps for vulture-esque doctors to make a quick penny from. There is no one on the planet who 'wants to die'. We are living beings, we exist in spite of death. To feign ignorance to the human condition shows that many proponents of 'legal killing' are arguing in bad faith. Furthermore, it is completely inconsistent with laws that the liberal individualist champions including the abolition of the death penalty and the recognition of depression as a real challenge that needs our attention. You cannot in one breath say that a judge being able to kill people with the death penalty is dangerous whilst in the other suggest allowing doctors to do it is any better. In addition, you can't claim that depression can be cured and that there is hope whilst simultaneously encouraging depressed people to off themselves. Enshrining euthanasia in law has transformed the public perspective on the value of life. In this bleak utilitarian purview, humans are only as good as their function and the hours that our elderly poured into their work when they were fit and healthy mean nothing. You do not create death with dignity but a duty to die.
We're born with this right. It's inalienable. We may not be able to consciously choose to be born, at least not that we could possibly remember, but when life becomes too painful to find a single moment of joy, WE are selfish to force that person to live under these circumstances. People living with unbearable depression or other mental illnesses that have done everything they can and have found no relief should also be included in this. The discrimination on illnesses you can't see and are of the brain, and not the body, needs to STOP.
Sadly, it’s only in certain states, and only if you have uncurable illness. What do you think if it’s available for people that are unable to take care of themselves and don’t want to live anymore after certain age ( old age)Wouldn’t that give them great dignity of dying!?
If people want to live as long as possible, I support their right to pursue every treatment that's available. If people want to die, I support that right, too. People should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies.
I am totally with you. I am a vet and I am able to help families choose for their pet. They cant do that for their own life. In Quebec, we also have access to medical assisted dying. Thank you for this so relevant talk. So needed. As you say it is a conversation.
That's not the plan since your not in the added category they twisted Mohhameds words into, 12 scribes wrote down what he says, and made a peaceful religion into f everyone including they're future grandchildren
We offer this to our terminally ill pets. i feel that after certain age, arbitrary at this moment. people who are in need , which sometimes has been me, need to know that they have a way out an don't need anyones permission.
I absolutely love your input. I also wish we would include the pain and deep blackness of mental health issues. These are absolutely as debilitating as a “physical” disease. One can see the physical, yet that blackness can consume one. Fully. Completely
Indeed mental health issue should also be included in this topic of living and dying and the suffrage that goes along with mental illness as it can affect not only the distressed person but people around them that become poorly affected. Mentally ill people can end up harming those around them as well which in turn brings on more of a struggle internally for the mentally ill person causing grief over their harms... There should be less shame about the topic of suicide altogether.
I agree, with some stipulations in place. If mental health is the only reason(meaning no physical sickness) I think putting a guideline in place that the person must take a specific amount of therapy for a good chunk of time, maybe a year. And if they’re still feeling the same way at the end of it they should be granted it. Mental health can be just as debilitating as physical illness. But it should be made certain it’s not situational depression(that will get better with a change in their life).
@@midnightmoon9774 What type of mental illness, so are we going to start putting people down because they had a migraine? Depression? Bi-polar disorder? Because all those conditions could be managed by lifestyle change and physical exercise. Specify, what type of illness that requires to take a person's life. If anything, euthanasia should be for violent murderous psychopaths, who torture and murder innocent people but even they live happily in jail.
This video brings up a lot of good ethical points. Dying with dignity is viewed by many as an important human right. It reminds me of my friend's mom who was diagnosed with ALS, she passed away this year and was an advocate for ALS research and for dignity while dying. While I am not sure of the circumstances of her moment of death, I do think about what a scary situation that was for her and her family. I also think of the pain and suffering she experienced as she grew sicker and more disabled. Imprisoned in her own body. This brings up the ethical principle of autonomy. Autonomy is a very important concept within medical ethics that highlights a patient's ability to make decisions about their own body and life. Many could argue that by not supplying access to aid in dying, we are taking away a patient's autonomy. However, on the other side of the argument, we can talk about nonmaleficence which is the ethical principle stating that physicians should do no harm. By providing aid in dying, some could say that physicians are not following this principle, and are in fact going against it. Conversely, isn't forcing someone to die a painful death also a form of nonmaleficence. By forcing someone to die naturally by a horrible disease like ALS or cancer, harm is being inflicted on that patient. I think this brings into context the idea of personal responsibility. If a patient suffers from a disease, no one is directly involved or at fault, but if you supply aid in dying, you are actively and directly helping them person kill themself. These are important decisions that law makers and physicians need to consider when considering the lives of patients.
Its Barbaric that in today's enlightened thinking . Why do people have to fight [very undignified For The right to die with dignity it should be just a given.
Because often when people have a longer timeline it’s not as accurate. So they could be cutting years out of a persons life. A timeline of 6 months or less usually means they won’t even make the 6 months. So wether they take the medical assistance in death they will almost certainly die. A longer timeline more often than not changes. (This is my guess, as an Oregonian)
I have very conflicting thoughts and feelings about this one … relate to all sides … but this is a beautiful articulation of this position. Thank you for your TED talk and with sharing your insights.
If death with dignity means that people should be allowed to take it into their own hands to decide when they want to end their lives, why draw such a hard line at terminal illness with six months to live? I believe that it should be in the hands of each individual to choose how and when they die. I agree with the Oregon laws; even with the stringent restrictions of obtaining the medications, it still allows patients to control their end-of-life care. It’s a weird balance we strike as humans to want to care for each other and keep people alive, but also the desire and the right to live autonomously and make our own decisions about ending life or continuing to live it. I think having those choices in terminal illness and hospice is important. It allows the person to live a bit fuller if they have the opportunity to choose their last day on Earth.
People try to stop you from doing this for their own selfish reasons. They make it about them and how they will feel if you die, LOL OKAY WELL IM SORRY LITTLE BROTHER BUT MY DECISION ON WHAT TO DO WITH MY LIFE EFFECTS ME AND ME ALONE. We try to stop it because we don't want to experience the sadness, depression that comes with losing someone you love. My dad took his life suddenly and for years, all of us wondered how he could do that to us, never once thinking about what he must have been going through, how we weren't there for him when he needed us the most. We only pretend to care, until they are actually gone. That's why I do not feel guilty about wanting to end my life. I am ready to leave the physical and I am more excited, focused, dead set on my NEXT experience outside of the body. I love my family, maybe one day they will understand.
The topic of physician assisted death, while controversial among the public, showcases a very important ethical principle, autonomy. Autonomy allows patients to have control over their medical care and how they take care of their bodies. In this case, autonomy means allowing the patient to make the best decision for them for end-of-life care. Most cases of physician suicide occur when the patient is terminally ill and going to suffer for the rest of their lives. And for patients who do choose to end their suffering by taking a drug that will end their life, it is viewed as an act of compassion, another principle highly valued in the medical community. However, Helen O’Shaughnessey brings up a valid point of concern with physician assisted death; the slippery slope. As she said, many people are worried that allowing it to become legal will pave the path for less restrictions and also promote suicide among the community. But, as Helen states, the research from Oregon showcases that this is not the case since it was legalized in that state. Another medical ethical principle highly important in the topic of physician assisted death is non-maleficence. Medical professionals are held to high standards and take an oath to never do harm to their patients. As was previously stated, most cases occur when the patient is terminally ill and suffering, therefore the physicians are acting in the best interest of their patients and according to the patient's wishes.
Physician assisted suicide or dying with dignity, as it is referenced in this TED Talk, is a heavily debated topic and Helen does a fantastic job of advocating for patients’ autonomy. Autonomy is a pillar of medical ethics that can be defined by the British Medical Association as the right of competent adults to make informed decisions about their own medical care. In Helen’s words autonomy is living and dying according to one’s desires and beliefs. As pointed out in Helen’s talk, laws that support dying with dignity are developing around the world and this is potentially spreading more debate about the morality of choice in death. However, many concerns have been curtailed with research done in Oregon and the increased support for the law overtime. The law states that a patient must be within 6 months of dying from terminal illness and since 1997 when the law was instated, there has not been a slippery slope allowing for more lax laws. Some may argue that it is impossible to know that someone is exactly six months from dying and therefore there could be a slippery slope without a change in the law. While this is true, physicians are capable at establishing if someone is terminally ill and a couple months over the limit should not be considered a fall down the slippery slope. On the other side of the argument against dying with dignity, some may argue that the ethical principle of non-maleficence is being violated. In medical ethics, non-maleficence is defined as intentionally avoiding harm or injuring patients. Of course, prescribing a medication that will allow someone to dye by suicide is violating this principle of ethics. However, another way to look at non-maleficence is to weigh the risks and benefits. When taking this approach, it can be argued that the risk of the medication is no more than the risk of the terminal illness and the benefit is a relief from incredible suffering. With this approach in mind, it can be justified that physician prescribing these medications are not violating the principles of non-maleficence. This stance on non-maleficence and autonomy leads me to believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal in more places, especially with the strict laws like shown in Oregon.
This was such an information and well-spoken TED Talk on the debate of physician-assisted suicide. This topic has been debated for many years, and the environment surrounding the topic is very different depending on your location. This discussion lacks standardization-instead, personal beliefs and laws interfere with a proper debate surrounding making a change regarding this topic. The best way to discuss this topic from an unbiased viewpoint would be to consider the ethics around physician-assisted suicide. In ethics, there is a principle called bodily autonomy. This is the idea that we must respect how people wish to seek treatment for their own bodies. We must respect their wishes as long as they are reasonable and without harm. When discussing physician-assisted suicide, as mentioned in this video, the people seeking this care are terminally ill with less than 6 months to live. This mentality is adopted from the Oregon law. When this law was first enacted, the initial concern was that it would spread from just those with terminal illnesses to a plethora of other people who wish to end their life. This turned out to not be true at all. Therefore, the biggest thing that came out of this law is the ability to end suffering for those who were destined for an early death due to a terminal disability. Receiving this medication is not easy, as those who wish to proceed with this would need to see a physician on two separate occasions with no psychiatric diagnoses that could impact their decision-making skills. An additional ethical principle that must be considered is nonmaleficence. This is the principle surrounding the idea that we must do no harm when providing care for our patients. Some might say that ending their life is harmful, but the reality is that the suffering is insurmountable, and death is inevitable. Taking away the suffering that these patients are experiencing is the best way to honor this ethical principle. This topic is sensitive to most patients and their families; it takes a lot of thought, consideration, and input from healthcare professionals in order to come to a decision that best fits the patient at that time in their life. It is crucial for healthcare workers to be well versed in the in the political and ethical climate surrounding physician-assisted suicide in order to best serve the patients that need this care. While most care is centered around lifesaving care, sometimes that is not the case for everyone. Instead, we need to be focused on patient-centered care which is meeting the patient where they are and facilitating the best possible treatment specific for them by utilizing ethical principles. The principles of autonomy and nonmaleficence are crucial in this case, as well as beneficence and justice. Each patient deserves care that is not based on a physician’s personal beliefs, but rather based on the ethical rights surrounding the care.
The ONLY guarantee in being granted life is the assurance of our own death. I feel that people should have the right to chose and take control of this inevitability in the case where we are living in uncurbable pain or distress. In the grand scheme of things, living 30 years, 50 years or 90 years is less than a blink of the universe's eye. If there is a spirit that endures, the duration it spends inhabiting this human body is negligible.
Agreed. What about those looking at decades of suffering, not just 6 months? Doing it “yourself” is not guaranteed, has to be done in secret, and traumatizes those around the person. Sad we don’t have an assisted option for non terminal illnesses. Suffering is suffering.
The concept of the right to die is one that is challenging. Ms. O'Shaughnessey argues that someone should be given the right to chose death if they are terminally ill with 6 months to live. This is a challenging topic that must be considered through a lens of medical ethics. Medical ethics are found on four pillars of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. When considering end of life care and physician assisted death, it is imperative to consider the concept of beneficence, autonomy, and non-maleficence. All physicians are required to uphold the obligations outlined in the Hippocratic Oath. One of the portions of the Hippocratic Oath is to do no harm. Doing no harm is the ethical concept of non-maleficence. This encompasses abstaining from any treatment or medical procedure that is harmful, including prescribing a lethal dose of medication. The concept of physician assisted death when assessed through this lens completely contradicts the moral obligations physicians have to their patients. Beneficence is another ethical consideration needing to be evaluated in the setting of physician assisted death. Beneficence is the concept of providing good to their patients. Both pro and anti-physician assisted death arguments could be made based off the concept of beneficence. One may argue that beneficence is removing harmful conditions for a patient. What better way to remove a patient from chronic suffering than to allow them to die with dignity? On the contrary, I would argue that death is the ultimate harm. Physicians prescribing a lethal medical to a chronically ill patient inevitably kills the patient, which is against the moral obligation physicians have of doing good. Thirdly, autonomy is a huge ethical consideration when discussing physician assisted death. There are legal requirements in place for a patient to be of sound mind and have decision making capacity to request physician assisted death. Due to these requirements, the principle of autonomy is being upheld in medical assisted death. A few thoughts arise when considering autonomy and capacity. Would children be given the right to elect for physician assisted death? How does capacity play into this topic? If an elderly terminally ill individual with an altered mental state begs to die repeatedly, should they be denied this solely because they do not have capacity? Or can this so called “right” be withheld from a child with cancer just because they are under the age of 18? The extremes of the spectrum bring some light to the issues of physician assisted death.
stop justifying what should be everyones choice...do NOT want to be in a hspice ..poor and dying want to go whne I want to go...it is no ones business but mine...terminally..critically..th idividual should have the choice
It is cruel that someone should have to hand themselves or resort to such methods to decide to leave this place. If my point here is to help be a catalyst for voluntary euthanasia for the physically healthy but the tired of life people than that’s would be worth it..
My thought, exactly. Why do those who are simply done, who don't want to continue to exist to watch our bodies decay around our"selves", who don't want to watch our loved ones, kind & patient, but whose lives will be made more difficult by our care, who don't want to live relegated to the sidelines of life, Why oh why , even if we are more than 1 year from our passing, why can we not be afforded a way to depart that is quick & sure, that allows us to communicate & help our families through this decision. Because this is not available people shoot themselves & end parapalegic instead of gone, jump from tall buildings and create mess & trauma for those present, take pills in in-effecient quantities that may not end life but create debilitating damage & leave unsuspecting hotel staff awful situations to deal with and families to be surprised by. I feel it causes years of unneccessary, untold suffering to have no dignified way out for people to determine their own lifes end .....period.
I’m looking at decades of suffering ahead of me, not just 6 months. But suicide is not guaranteed, has to be done in secret, and traumatized those around the person. Sad we don’t have an assisted option.
6 months? At that point I`d just wait. its looking at over 6 decades of endless pain and no hope of any semblance of a life that makes me want to die. Take your only for those already dying and shove it.
Suffering isn't trivial, but it is arguably relative. If someone wants to be dead because they can't have children, would you say "yeah, you better just kill yourself," or would you encourage them to reconfigure the order of their core values? Or does that sound too insensitive? Well, so is validating their hopelessness based on subjective reasoning.
@@thurmanmerman6173 I was speaking of physical pain when medication is proving ineffective. A shift in perception can relieve much of mental and emotional suffering, yes. But when your only relief in the day is being sedated to unconsciousness, the fututre is nothing to look foward to.
@@Amosyahu We did not ask to be of this world. And this world is not fair. Every individual should have this individual right without ridicule, judgment, sorrow or hopelessness. Regardless of our circumstances our soul/spirit continues. Looking back at what we gave in this life or happiness we provided here is our heaven. Namaste ~
I believe in the choice to die no matter the age or if your ill but i do believe the organs should go to a good place could possibly save 5 people that don't feel as i do with my body alone
no quiero que mis órganos vayan a prolongar la vida de un maltratador de perros o de gatos por ejemplo, la vida humana está sobrevalorada, muchos humanos son malos y merecen morir cuanto antes mejor. En mi canal hay varios videos con canciones que hablan de eso
In the world of "ME" I should be allowed to have what I want and think what is best for me... I am the best I will ever be when it is all about "ME". In 30 years of medicine I often have asked people who were newly diagnosed with a life-long disease that has destined to be a life of suffering and debilitation, if it was time for them to die and they all said no. To see life as more than what "I" think it should be brings hope and something worth living for. I asked young healthy people if they wanted to die and it was only young males who wanted to die if there was suffering. The connection someone has beyond themselves in the "US" world makes the journey possible for all of us. People who care, willing to help, and go beyond... bringing peace and dignity to those in need. To think I am beyond the need of their love and help when needed is, again, without care for the other. It is in the circle of "ME" that my life becomes void of meaning and purpose. A life of self-satisfaction and success to be the best is not what unites anyone. Such a life does not show my strengths only my wants and desires for "ME". There is no glory in declaring "ME" as the one in control. Unfortunately, Bishop Tutu has not experienced the world as a disciple of the "OTHER" either even though he claims to be a disciple of the one who did suffer more than anyone would ever suffer in this life on earth. A suffering that liberated and gave life its meaning, purpose and destiny.
im not there yet but my gut tells me ppl should just thug it out. . .u can try to put reason behind it but yeah youve lived with pain most you life whats another few months or year of it. . . easier said then done but maybe just thug it out. . .if you watch videos of people/nurses who are close to death or have had near death experiences its ends up being ohkay. . .nobody really talks about pain. . some say the experience its beautify. . there people who have suffered prob worst deaths. . just like theres people who have lived worst lifes. . .lot of us have had a pretty easy life compared to others. . .now you want a easy death idk. . but once again not in there shoes so yeah
You are not alone in your thoughts. I do not agree with euthanasia either. Medicine is treating and preventing disease. Suffering is not a disease that needs treating.
In New Zealand- Euthanasia is not legal but despite this it is being done at the hospital without the patient's consent or the familys consent. Hospitals allow their doctors to make this decision without the patients or familys consent. In other developed countries this is considered murder but not here in New Zealand. If you happen to be of a religion like Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist which are often against aggressive drug treatments or overdosing someone on a drug such as morophine, the hospitals and their doctors seem to not care or give any acknowledgment to these beliefs and go ahead and overdose people regardless. If you want to know the reason why, it is not out of compassion for the patient but to save the hospitals costs on caring for someone who may be very ill or terminally ill. This all gets covered up and the cause of death is declared to be natural due to illness. This is one of the most unethical atrocities allowed to go on in New Zealand by the New Zealand Government, its hospitals and also the coroners as well as police. A serious inquiry should be carried out and all passed to prevent this from carrying on as it has and it is supposed to be illegal and should not be happening. Legal euthanasia would prevent this from going on as doctors, hospitals and coroners would then be monitored which is why the medical profession is primarily against it. The only one who should be allowed to make the decision to be euthanized is the patient themselves or the patient's power of attorney and nobody else. All this fear about doctors being required to do euthanasia who dont want to be a bunch of propaganda as one can see most doctors who work at hospitals who are already doing euthanasia have no problems doing it even without the patient's or family's consent, nor do they even acknowledge the patient's religion or spiritual beliefs regarding this. The Crown who is a regulated healthcare system in NZ has its own best interest at the base of this matter which is to save money. Yes there are probably many patients who should be allowed to live longer and die naturally but the hospitals do not wish to grant them that or provide care to them because they want to ultimately control the situation and legal euthanasia would make it harder for them to be able to. I have spoken to many Kiwis who have confirmed this information to me that they are aware of eujthanasia being done in hospitals and a few have told me about their family members being overdosed by doctors without any agreement by them or anyone in their family. Its totally unethical and it needs to stop and the decision to be euthanized has to come from the patient or their power of attorney only. Nobody else. If doctors refuse to do it then those who are already doing it should also. Like in Belgium there should be special doctors who do euthanasia only and that they don't work at or for the hospitals.
@@phoenixtoash2396 well unfortunately we all have to die eventually first. And after "the second death" i am wrong if there is no God. Even then i still have hope.
@@edwardgalliano9247 I'm just saying for myself... No life no eternity no existence. That would be best for me. I would absolutely love knowing everyone else had a great immortal existence for all time. That would be wonderful and beautiful. However not for myself. Omg no. That would be a nightmare of torture for me. So not saying anything relative to anyone but myself as far as non existing.
Humanism in the way she describes it, is near atheism, supplanting the role of God in our lives and world. You may restrict God in this life but remember, God will absolutely rule eternity! What will you do then?
I call it compassionate transitioning. I have bone cancer and if I don’t take pain medication every 4 hours I’m in horrible debilitating pain. Your life, your body, your choice
Laws are made for the majority. The majority of people don't need the government to kill them. It is narcissism that drives the popular view on euthanasia at the moment, a deliberate negligence of the scope of law and its effect on many individuals, not just one. When you make euthanasia legal, you make the most vulnerable people of society such as the elderly prime targets for culling. You make depressed and mentally ill people scraps for vulture-esque doctors to make a quick penny from. There is no one on the planet who 'wants to die'. We are living beings, we exist in spite of death. To feign ignorance to the human condition shows that many proponents of 'legal killing' are arguing in bad faith.
Furthermore, it is completely inconsistent with laws that the liberal individualist champions including the abolition of the death penalty and the recognition of depression as a real challenge that needs our attention. You cannot in one breath say that a judge being able to kill people with the death penalty is dangerous whilst in the other suggest allowing doctors to do it is any better. In addition, you can't claim that depression can be cured and that there is hope whilst simultaneously encouraging depressed people to off themselves.
Enshrining euthanasia in law has transformed the public perspective on the value of life. In this bleak utilitarian purview, humans are only as good as their function and the hours that our elderly poured into their work when they were fit and healthy mean nothing. You do not create death with dignity but a duty to die.
We're born with this right. It's inalienable. We may not be able to consciously choose to be born, at least not that we could possibly remember, but when life becomes too painful to find a single moment of joy, WE are selfish to force that person to live under these circumstances. People living with unbearable depression or other mental illnesses that have done everything they can and have found no relief should also be included in this. The discrimination on illnesses you can't see and are of the brain, and not the body, needs to STOP.
I m a big believer in the right to die with dignity, Helen’s talk is very convincing.
Im nurse, i wanna die without pain.
we dealt with pain so we understand the right to die is fundamental
What you believe in believes in you.
Sadly, it’s only in certain states, and only if you have uncurable illness. What do you think if it’s available for people that are unable to take care of themselves and don’t want to live anymore after certain age ( old age)Wouldn’t that give them great dignity of dying!?
If people want to live as long as possible, I support their right to pursue every treatment that's available. If people want to die, I support that right, too. People should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies.
I am totally with you. I am a vet and I am able to help families choose for their pet. They cant do that for their own life. In Quebec, we also have access to medical assisted dying. Thank you for this so relevant talk. So needed. As you say it is a conversation.
When a person is in too much lifelong physical pain, that person has the right to end life
You are life.
Life does not end as such.
More like you change state.
That's not the plan since your not in the added category they twisted Mohhameds words into, 12 scribes wrote down what he says, and made a peaceful religion into f everyone including they're future grandchildren
We offer this to our terminally ill pets. i feel that after certain age, arbitrary at this moment. people who are in need , which sometimes has been me, need to know that they have a way out an don't need anyones permission.
I absolutely love your input. I also wish we would include the pain and deep blackness of mental health issues. These are absolutely as debilitating as a “physical” disease. One can see the physical, yet that blackness can consume one. Fully. Completely
Indeed mental health issue should also be included in this topic of living and dying and the suffrage that goes along with mental illness as it can affect not only the distressed person but people around them that become poorly affected. Mentally ill people can end up harming those around them as well which in turn brings on more of a struggle internally for the mentally ill person causing grief over their harms... There should be less shame about the topic of suicide altogether.
I agree, with some stipulations in place. If mental health is the only reason(meaning no physical sickness) I think putting a guideline in place that the person must take a specific amount of therapy for a good chunk of time, maybe a year. And if they’re still feeling the same way at the end of it they should be granted it.
Mental health can be just as debilitating as physical illness. But it should be made certain it’s not situational depression(that will get better with a change in their life).
@@midnightmoon9774 What type of mental illness, so are we going to start putting people down because they had a migraine? Depression? Bi-polar disorder? Because all those conditions could be managed by lifestyle change and physical exercise. Specify, what type of illness that requires to take a person's life.
If anything, euthanasia should be for violent murderous psychopaths, who torture and murder innocent people but even they live happily in jail.
this video just push my decision further to leave this earth!!! now i know, its definitely something i need to do
Killing yourself is a sin, please don't do it!
@@marynelson328 Listen to yourself please.. You are the sinner here, Live and let live.
@@destroythespot that's your opinion, but suicide is sin. The Bible says that you're not supposed to harm his temple. We are his temple.!
This video brings up a lot of good ethical points. Dying with dignity is viewed by many as an important human right. It reminds me of my friend's mom who was diagnosed with ALS, she passed away this year and was an advocate for ALS research and for dignity while dying. While I am not sure of the circumstances of her moment of death, I do think about what a scary situation that was for her and her family. I also think of the pain and suffering she experienced as she grew sicker and more disabled. Imprisoned in her own body. This brings up the ethical principle of autonomy. Autonomy is a very important concept within medical ethics that highlights a patient's ability to make decisions about their own body and life. Many could argue that by not supplying access to aid in dying, we are taking away a patient's autonomy. However, on the other side of the argument, we can talk about nonmaleficence which is the ethical principle stating that physicians should do no harm. By providing aid in dying, some could say that physicians are not following this principle, and are in fact going against it. Conversely, isn't forcing someone to die a painful death also a form of nonmaleficence. By forcing someone to die naturally by a horrible disease like ALS or cancer, harm is being inflicted on that patient. I think this brings into context the idea of personal responsibility. If a patient suffers from a disease, no one is directly involved or at fault, but if you supply aid in dying, you are actively and directly helping them person kill themself. These are important decisions that law makers and physicians need to consider when considering the lives of patients.
I don't understand what you hope to gain by lying.
My body. My choice
Thinking back, can you remember when this idea first came to you?
@@freshliving4199funny how there's no answer.
Its Barbaric that in today's enlightened thinking . Why do people have to fight [very undignified For The right to die with dignity it should be just a given.
We're all here temporarily.
why 6 months...I want to go before the agaony starts??? a kill pill...go to sleep 100% of my own decisios.
Because often when people have a longer timeline it’s not as accurate. So they could be cutting years out of a persons life. A timeline of 6 months or less usually means they won’t even make the 6 months. So wether they take the medical assistance in death they will almost certainly die. A longer timeline more often than not changes. (This is my guess, as an Oregonian)
We should all have this right
I have very conflicting thoughts and feelings about this one … relate to all sides … but this is a beautiful articulation of this position. Thank you for your TED talk and with sharing your insights.
And I’m replying to my own comment but this particular view feels like “Hospice Extra “ thank you again
If death with dignity means that people should be allowed to take it into their own hands to decide when they want to end their lives, why draw such a hard line at terminal illness with six months to live? I believe that it should be in the hands of each individual to choose how and when they die. I agree with the Oregon laws; even with the stringent restrictions of obtaining the medications, it still allows patients to control their end-of-life care. It’s a weird balance we strike as humans to want to care for each other and keep people alive, but also the desire and the right to live autonomously and make our own decisions about ending life or continuing to live it. I think having those choices in terminal illness and hospice is important. It allows the person to live a bit fuller if they have the opportunity to choose their last day on Earth.
People try to stop you from doing this for their own selfish reasons. They make it about them and how they will feel if you die, LOL OKAY WELL IM SORRY LITTLE BROTHER BUT MY DECISION ON WHAT TO DO WITH MY LIFE EFFECTS ME AND ME ALONE. We try to stop it because we don't want to experience the sadness, depression that comes with losing someone you love. My dad took his life suddenly and for years, all of us wondered how he could do that to us, never once thinking about what he must have been going through, how we weren't there for him when he needed us the most. We only pretend to care, until they are actually gone. That's why I do not feel guilty about wanting to end my life. I am ready to leave the physical and I am more excited, focused, dead set on my NEXT experience outside of the body. I love my family, maybe one day they will understand.
Patients=profits
Then push for healthcare reform, not offing yourself.
exactly...Private hospitals don't like empty bed.
MRI, CT scan...all business.
No palliative cares...no job.
como al cantante Cerati, lo tuvieron 5 años en coma y le quitaron todo el dinero del banco
The topic of physician assisted death, while controversial among the public, showcases a very important ethical principle, autonomy. Autonomy allows patients to have control over their medical care and how they take care of their bodies. In this case, autonomy means allowing the patient to make the best decision for them for end-of-life care. Most cases of physician suicide occur when the patient is terminally ill and going to suffer for the rest of their lives. And for patients who do choose to end their suffering by taking a drug that will end their life, it is viewed as an act of compassion, another principle highly valued in the medical community. However, Helen O’Shaughnessey brings up a valid point of concern with physician assisted death; the slippery slope. As she said, many people are worried that allowing it to become legal will pave the path for less restrictions and also promote suicide among the community. But, as Helen states, the research from Oregon showcases that this is not the case since it was legalized in that state. Another medical ethical principle highly important in the topic of physician assisted death is non-maleficence. Medical professionals are held to high standards and take an oath to never do harm to their patients. As was previously stated, most cases occur when the patient is terminally ill and suffering, therefore the physicians are acting in the best interest of their patients and according to the patient's wishes.
Physician assisted suicide or dying with dignity, as it is referenced in this TED Talk, is a heavily debated topic and Helen does a fantastic job of advocating for patients’ autonomy. Autonomy is a pillar of medical ethics that can be defined by the British Medical Association as the right of competent adults to make informed decisions about their own medical care. In Helen’s words autonomy is living and dying according to one’s desires and beliefs. As pointed out in Helen’s talk, laws that support dying with dignity are developing around the world and this is potentially spreading more debate about the morality of choice in death. However, many concerns have been curtailed with research done in Oregon and the increased support for the law overtime. The law states that a patient must be within 6 months of dying from terminal illness and since 1997 when the law was instated, there has not been a slippery slope allowing for more lax laws. Some may argue that it is impossible to know that someone is exactly six months from dying and therefore there could be a slippery slope without a change in the law. While this is true, physicians are capable at establishing if someone is terminally ill and a couple months over the limit should not be considered a fall down the slippery slope. On the other side of the argument against dying with dignity, some may argue that the ethical principle of non-maleficence is being violated. In medical ethics, non-maleficence is defined as intentionally avoiding harm or injuring patients. Of course, prescribing a medication that will allow someone to dye by suicide is violating this principle of ethics. However, another way to look at non-maleficence is to weigh the risks and benefits. When taking this approach, it can be argued that the risk of the medication is no more than the risk of the terminal illness and the benefit is a relief from incredible suffering. With this approach in mind, it can be justified that physician prescribing these medications are not violating the principles of non-maleficence. This stance on non-maleficence and autonomy leads me to believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal in more places, especially with the strict laws like shown in Oregon.
This was such an information and well-spoken TED Talk on the debate of physician-assisted suicide. This topic has been debated for many years, and the environment surrounding the topic is very different depending on your location. This discussion lacks standardization-instead, personal beliefs and laws interfere with a proper debate surrounding making a change regarding this topic. The best way to discuss this topic from an unbiased viewpoint would be to consider the ethics around physician-assisted suicide. In ethics, there is a principle called bodily autonomy. This is the idea that we must respect how people wish to seek treatment for their own bodies. We must respect their wishes as long as they are reasonable and without harm. When discussing physician-assisted suicide, as mentioned in this video, the people seeking this care are terminally ill with less than 6 months to live. This mentality is adopted from the Oregon law. When this law was first enacted, the initial concern was that it would spread from just those with terminal illnesses to a plethora of other people who wish to end their life. This turned out to not be true at all. Therefore, the biggest thing that came out of this law is the ability to end suffering for those who were destined for an early death due to a terminal disability. Receiving this medication is not easy, as those who wish to proceed with this would need to see a physician on two separate occasions with no psychiatric diagnoses that could impact their decision-making skills. An additional ethical principle that must be considered is nonmaleficence. This is the principle surrounding the idea that we must do no harm when providing care for our patients. Some might say that ending their life is harmful, but the reality is that the suffering is insurmountable, and death is inevitable. Taking away the suffering that these patients are experiencing is the best way to honor this ethical principle. This topic is sensitive to most patients and their families; it takes a lot of thought, consideration, and input from healthcare professionals in order to come to a decision that best fits the patient at that time in their life. It is crucial for healthcare workers to be well versed in the in the political and ethical climate surrounding physician-assisted suicide in order to best serve the patients that need this care. While most care is centered around lifesaving care, sometimes that is not the case for everyone. Instead, we need to be focused on patient-centered care which is meeting the patient where they are and facilitating the best possible treatment specific for them by utilizing ethical principles. The principles of autonomy and nonmaleficence are crucial in this case, as well as beneficence and justice. Each patient deserves care that is not based on a physician’s personal beliefs, but rather based on the ethical rights surrounding the care.
Death is not the end. It is a continuation.
The ONLY guarantee in being granted life is the assurance of our own death. I feel that people should have the right to chose and take control of this inevitability in the case where we are living in uncurbable pain or distress. In the grand scheme of things, living 30 years, 50 years or 90 years is less than a blink of the universe's eye. If there is a spirit that endures, the duration it spends inhabiting this human body is negligible.
People should have the right to die at any point in their life.
Especially depressed 10 year olds, amirite? Jeepers, think about what you're saying.
Exactly! Our body our choice!
@@thurmanmerman6173 Yeah sure, bad genes should be totally passed on!
Agreed. What about those looking at decades of suffering, not just 6 months?
Doing it “yourself” is not guaranteed, has to be done in secret, and traumatizes those around the person. Sad we don’t have an assisted option for non terminal illnesses. Suffering is suffering.
The concept of the right to die is one that is challenging. Ms. O'Shaughnessey argues that someone should be given the right to chose death if they are terminally ill with 6 months to live. This is a challenging topic that must be considered through a lens of medical ethics. Medical ethics are found on four pillars of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. When considering end of life care and physician assisted death, it is imperative to consider the concept of beneficence, autonomy, and non-maleficence.
All physicians are required to uphold the obligations outlined in the Hippocratic Oath. One of the portions of the Hippocratic Oath is to do no harm. Doing no harm is the ethical concept of non-maleficence. This encompasses abstaining from any treatment or medical procedure that is harmful, including prescribing a lethal dose of medication. The concept of physician assisted death when assessed through this lens completely contradicts the moral obligations physicians have to their patients.
Beneficence is another ethical consideration needing to be evaluated in the setting of physician assisted death. Beneficence is the concept of providing good to their patients. Both pro and anti-physician assisted death arguments could be made based off the concept of beneficence. One may argue that beneficence is removing harmful conditions for a patient. What better way to remove a patient from chronic suffering than to allow them to die with dignity? On the contrary, I would argue that death is the ultimate harm. Physicians prescribing a lethal medical to a chronically ill patient inevitably kills the patient, which is against the moral obligation physicians have of doing good.
Thirdly, autonomy is a huge ethical consideration when discussing physician assisted death. There are legal requirements in place for a patient to be of sound mind and have decision making capacity to request physician assisted death. Due to these requirements, the principle of autonomy is being upheld in medical assisted death.
A few thoughts arise when considering autonomy and capacity. Would children be given the right to elect for physician assisted death? How does capacity play into this topic? If an elderly terminally ill individual with an altered mental state begs to die repeatedly, should they be denied this solely because they do not have capacity? Or can this so called “right” be withheld from a child with cancer just because they are under the age of 18? The extremes of the spectrum bring some light to the issues of physician assisted death.
stop justifying what should be everyones choice...do NOT want to be in a hspice ..poor and dying want to go whne I want to go...it is no ones business but mine...terminally..critically..th idividual should have the choice
It is cruel that someone should have to hand themselves or resort to such methods to decide to leave this place. If my point here is to help be a catalyst for voluntary euthanasia for the physically healthy but the tired of life people than that’s would be worth it..
My thought, exactly. Why do those who are simply done, who don't want to continue to exist to watch our bodies decay around our"selves", who don't want to watch our loved ones, kind & patient, but whose lives will be made more difficult by our care, who don't want to live relegated to the sidelines of life, Why oh why , even if we are more than 1 year from our passing, why can we not be afforded a way to depart that is quick & sure, that allows us to communicate & help our families through this decision. Because this is not available people shoot themselves & end parapalegic instead of gone, jump from tall buildings and create mess & trauma for those present, take pills in in-effecient quantities that may not end life but create debilitating damage & leave unsuspecting hotel staff awful situations to deal with and families to be surprised by. I feel it causes years of unneccessary, untold suffering to have no dignified way out for people to determine their own lifes end .....period.
@@ckite5424Am with you on this 100 %
Hope we could be friends 🙏
Loved your thoughts
@@ckite5424agreed
I’m looking at decades of suffering ahead of me, not just 6 months.
But suicide is not guaranteed, has to be done in secret, and traumatized those around the person. Sad we don’t have an assisted option.
6 months? At that point I`d just wait. its looking at over 6 decades of endless pain and no hope of any semblance of a life that makes me want to die. Take your only for those already dying and shove it.
Suffering isn't trivial, but it is arguably relative. If someone wants to be dead because they can't have children, would you say "yeah, you better just kill yourself," or would you encourage them to reconfigure the order of their core values? Or does that sound too insensitive? Well, so is validating their hopelessness based on subjective reasoning.
@@thurmanmerman6173 I was speaking of physical pain when medication is proving ineffective. A shift in perception can relieve much of mental and emotional suffering, yes. But when your only relief in the day is being sedated to unconsciousness, the fututre is nothing to look foward to.
@@Amosyahu We did not ask to be of this world. And this world is not fair. Every individual should have this individual right without ridicule, judgment, sorrow or hopelessness. Regardless of our circumstances our soul/spirit continues. Looking back at what we gave in this life or happiness we provided here is our heaven. Namaste ~
I am a Christian. I'm done with life. Being a humanist has nothing to do with end-of-life choices.
I believe in the choice to die no matter the age or if your ill but i do believe the organs should go to a good place could possibly save 5 people that don't feel as i do with my body alone
no quiero que mis órganos vayan a prolongar la vida de un maltratador de perros o de gatos por ejemplo, la vida humana está sobrevalorada, muchos humanos son malos y merecen morir cuanto antes mejor. En mi canal hay varios videos con canciones que hablan de eso
🖤
In the world of "ME" I should be allowed to have what I want and think what is best for me... I am the best I will ever be when it is all about "ME". In 30 years of medicine I often have asked people who were newly diagnosed with a life-long disease that has destined to be a life of suffering and debilitation, if it was time for them to die and they all said no. To see life as more than what "I" think it should be brings hope and something worth living for. I asked young healthy people if they wanted to die and it was only young males who wanted to die if there was suffering. The connection someone has beyond themselves in the "US" world makes the journey possible for all of us. People who care, willing to help, and go beyond... bringing peace and dignity to those in need. To think I am beyond the need of their love and help when needed is, again, without care for the other. It is in the circle of "ME" that my life becomes void of meaning and purpose. A life of self-satisfaction and success to be the best is not what unites anyone. Such a life does not show my strengths only my wants and desires for "ME". There is no glory in declaring "ME" as the one in control. Unfortunately, Bishop Tutu has not experienced the world as a disciple of the "OTHER" either even though he claims to be a disciple of the one who did suffer more than anyone would ever suffer in this life on earth. A suffering that liberated and gave life its meaning, purpose and destiny.
Life shouldn't be suffering. If so why be born. No one should be forced to live. Regardless of suffering.
My issue,would be,not being saved,if I had assisted death etc
Can you prove that people who die with dignity aren't saved?
hola estaría bien que pusiérais subtítulos para que con el traductor automático podamos traducir a otros idiomas
im not there yet but my gut tells me ppl should just thug it out. . .u can try to put reason behind it but yeah youve lived with pain most you life whats another few months or year of it. . . easier said then done but maybe just thug it out. . .if you watch videos of people/nurses who are close to death or have had near death experiences its ends up being ohkay. . .nobody really talks about pain. . some say the experience its beautify. . there people who have suffered prob worst deaths. . just like theres people who have lived worst lifes. . .lot of us have had a pretty easy life compared to others. . .now you want a easy death idk. . but once again not in there shoes so yeah
You are not alone in your thoughts. I do not agree with euthanasia either. Medicine is treating and preventing disease. Suffering is not a disease that needs treating.
In New Zealand- Euthanasia is not legal but despite this it is being done at the hospital without the patient's consent or the familys consent. Hospitals allow their doctors to make this decision without the patients or familys consent. In other developed countries this is considered murder but not here in New Zealand. If you happen to be of a religion like Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist which are often against aggressive drug treatments or overdosing someone on a drug such as morophine, the hospitals and their doctors seem to not care or give any acknowledgment to these beliefs and go ahead and overdose people regardless. If you want to know the reason why, it is not out of compassion for the patient but to save the hospitals costs on caring for someone who may be very ill or terminally ill. This all gets covered up and the cause of death is declared to be natural due to illness. This is one of the most unethical atrocities allowed to go on in New Zealand by the New Zealand Government, its hospitals and also the coroners as well as police. A serious inquiry should be carried out and all passed to prevent this from carrying on as it has and it is supposed to be illegal and should not be happening. Legal euthanasia would prevent this from going on as doctors, hospitals and coroners would then be monitored which is why the medical profession is primarily against it. The only one who should be allowed to make the decision to be euthanized is the patient themselves or the patient's power of attorney and nobody else. All this fear about doctors being required to do euthanasia who dont want to be a bunch of propaganda as one can see most doctors who work at hospitals who are already doing euthanasia have no problems doing it even without the patient's or family's consent, nor do they even acknowledge the patient's religion or spiritual beliefs regarding this. The Crown who is a regulated healthcare system in NZ has its own best interest at the base of this matter which is to save money. Yes there are probably many patients who should be allowed to live longer and die naturally but the hospitals do not wish to grant them that or provide care to them because they want to ultimately control the situation and legal euthanasia would make it harder for them to be able to. I have spoken to many Kiwis who have confirmed this information to me that they are aware of eujthanasia being done in hospitals and a few have told me about their family members being overdosed by doctors without any agreement by them or anyone in their family. Its totally unethical and it needs to stop and the decision to be euthanized has to come from the patient or their power of attorney only. Nobody else. If doctors refuse to do it then those who are already doing it should also. Like in Belgium there should be special doctors who do euthanasia only and that they don't work at or for the hospitals.
We shall live, all live to eternity.
No .. please no. That would be the most horrifying thing I can think of.
@@phoenixtoash2396 that's okay you're right it's the last line of a eulogy i gave.
@@phoenixtoash2396 well unfortunately we all have to die eventually first. And after "the second death" i am wrong if there is no God. Even then i still have hope.
@@phoenixtoash2396 everything is safe inside its own empty circle.
@@edwardgalliano9247 I'm just saying for myself... No life no eternity no existence. That would be best for me. I would absolutely love knowing everyone else had a great immortal existence for all time. That would be wonderful and beautiful. However not for myself. Omg no. That would be a nightmare of torture for me. So not saying anything relative to anyone but myself as far as non existing.
Humanism in the way she describes it, is near atheism, supplanting the role of God in our lives and world. You may restrict God in this life but remember, God will absolutely rule eternity! What will you do then?
This is wrong on all levels your sad story doesn't phase me assisted suicide is wrong period.
Why?
Would you prefer that someone jumps in front of a train or drive their car into a tree? The list is endless.
Why should you decide for or judge someone else? How can you dare to judge?