Promoting the Culture of Death: Children being taught how to die

[Feuer Frei!]

In the past few weeks we have been assailed by a relentless stream of stories about people wanting to be helped to die. First, we learned that the BBC plans to screen a documentary this summer in which novelist and Alzheimer’s sufferer Terry Pratchett advocates assisted suicide.
The programme features footage of a man with motor neurone disease travelling to the Swiss euthanasia clinic Dignitas and being shown dying on screen.
Hard on the heels of this snuff movie came the sickening news that a video featuring notorious assisted suicide campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke, in which he demonstrates how to help people kill themselves, is being shown to schoolchildren in British classrooms.
Nitschke, nicknamed ‘Dr Death’ — whose DIY suicide manual provides instructions on how to kill yourself with plastic bags, carbon monoxide, cyanide, morphine and other poisons — is shown in the film demonstrating his machine that delivers lethal injections and giving workshops on his ghastly trade.
And now the Star Trek actor Sir Patrick Stewart, who apart from being diagnosed with coronary heart disease five years ago is a healthy 70-year-old, suddenly announces his wish to be allowed an assisted death.
This would all seem to add up to an intensification of the campaign to make it legal for people to be helped to kill themselves.

This autumn, the Commission on Assisted Dying, led by Lord Falconer, is expected to deliver its recommendations to MPs over a change in the law.

All this propaganda — for that’s what it is — seems to be part of a drive to soften up public opinion so that any recommendation made by this commission to make assisted suicide legal will be accepted.
And there’s more than a whiff of brazen stunts to that end.

For example, Michael Irwin, a euthanasia campaigner and former GP who travelled to Dignitas last month with pensioner Nan Maitland — who ended her life there merely because of arthritis pain — has called for his own arrest. He said he was prepared to face prosecution, and hoped that this might help to change the law oneuthanasia.

Of course, it is impossible not to sympathise with individuals who seek to end their own lives in this way. We can all identify with the terror of being trapped inside a useless body, of losing control, of the pain and indignity of a horrible terminal disease. If it were simply a case ofhaving the right to die, however, the issuewould be pretty simple. After all, suicide is legal. But assisted suicide is deeply problematic.

It opens up the route to intolerable abuse of deeply vulnerable people, who may be put under pressure by greedy or uncaring relatives to end their lives. Or the person in question may simply not wish to ‘be a burden’ on their loved ones.

It sends society down a slippery slope, where assisted suicide starts off for those suffering unbearable pain or distress through illness and rapidly extends to people wanting to die even though they are not ill at all.
Even more horrifying, those whose minds are affected by illness will be making a choice to be killed which may not be rational at all. Indeed, their wish to die may be the result of feelings which may change — if given the chance.

For all these reasons, despite years of campaigning by the euthanasia lobby group Dignity in Dying, of which Sir Patrick Stewart is a patron (and which cynically renamed itself from the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society to spin away the fact that it is actually in the killing game), Parliament has refused to change the law to permit either euthanasia or assisted suicide.

So the campaign is being ratcheted up. And, of course, people are instinctively sympathetic to these individual stories ofdespair.

But there’s a grim downside and extreme danger, both for individuals and society, from any such change in the law.

Consider, for example, the idyllic picture that Dr Irwin presents of the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland, describing how the night before Nan Maitland ended her life there, they stayed at a ‘wonderful five-star hotel’ and ‘had a three-hour dinner with a nice Chablis’.

Yet last year at Trotte Bay, on the shores of Lake Zurich, divers uncovered a huge number of urns at the bottom of the lake, containing human remains — reportedly from the incinerators at Dignitas.
A former nurse at the place, Soraya Wernli, has described how the urns were piled up near the wine collection in the cellar of the home near Lake Zurich of clinic owner Ludwig Minelli. She claims he then prised off all the nameplates, pushed the lids off and dumped the urns in the lake.

Dignitas has made Minelli a millionaire, even though profiting from suicide is against Swiss law. In short, Dignitas is simply a money-spinning death factory.

The question is why, given the deeply exploitative, dangerous and repellent aspects of assisted suicide, so many great and good folk — such as Lord Falconer — are so gung-ho in support of it. (Indeed, given this fact, Lord Falconer’s ‘independent’ commission is merely yet another propaganda stunt.)
Despite the sympathy and respect due to Sir Terry Pratchett for his heroic attitude towards his disease, the BBC documentary appears to be ghoulishly one-sided. The idea of the BBC making a programme against assisted suicide is pretty well unthinkable.

And what on earth are teachers thinking of in exposing schoolchildren to Philip Nitschke, who in any normal moral universe would be considered utterly beyond the pale?

For heaven’s sake, even Dignity in Dying has condemned him and criticised the use of such a film in schools.

The answer is that assisted dying is seen as an extreme version of freedom of choice.

And that is the territory of the Left — those who believe human beings should be floating free in a universe of self-interest, and who accordingly want to dislocate everyone from every tie to history, culture, tradition and, above all, religion.

The end of that road is a society of brutal utilitarianism in which, having first got ridof God, societies start getting rid ofpeople.

If human remains are treated as garbage to be dumped in a lake, it’s not long before live human beings are treated as garbage, too. If there is no intrinsic respect for human life, it’s not long before other people’s lives are treated with similar contempt.

The ‘right to die’ has an appealing ring to it, but apply the Beachy Head test. If, hypothetically, you saw someone in a wheelchair about to throw himself off Beachy Head, would you stand and applaud, maybe even give the wheelchair a helpful push — or would you rush forward to stop him?

The gathering pressure to adopt the former course says something terrible about our society. It says we are turning into a culture of death.

We must resist it and reaffirm life, true compassion and our common humanity.


SOURCE (http://www.noonehastodietomorrow.com/agenda/social-engineering/2882-2882)





(http://www.noonehastodietomorrow.com/agenda/social-engineering/2882-2882)

[CCIP]

And that is the territory of the Left - those who believe human beings should be floating free in a universe of self-interest, and who accordingly want to dislocate everyone from every tie to history, culture, tradition and, above all, religion.

Okay.

I had some hope this wasn't merely another poorly veiled politico-religious rant against that evil godless "Left" up to this point :roll:

[Bakkels]

I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer. Mind you, that is not directed at you Feuer Frei, but at this piece of text that I can't even call an article. This is just one big propaganda rant. It contains some analogies and statements that I personally find distasteful and sickening.

[TLAM Strike]

And now the Star Trek actor Sir Patrick Stewart, who apart from being diagnosed with coronary heart disease five years ago is a healthy 70-year-old, suddenly announces his wish to be allowed an assisted death.
This would all seem to add up to an intensification of the campaign to make it legal for people to be helped to kill themselves.


If Jean Luc Picard says it the right thing to do; then its the right thing to do.

[Platapus]

Awesome! I am glad that assisted suicide is being discussed. It should be an option for people in specific circumstances.

Of course it needs to be discussed logically which this article didn't.

But, outside this article, I am glad there is discussion about it.

[Tribesman]

That is one hell of a funny website.
It even has the soccer player who claims he is the messiah and says everyone must were turquiose
Feuer, do you expect anyone to take anything on there seriously?

[Feuer Frei!]

That is one hell of a funny website.
It even has the soccer player who claims he is the messiah and says everyone must were turquiose
Feuer, do you expect anyone to take anything on there seriously?
Soccer players who are Messiahs?
Haven't seen that one on there.
In respect to the article posted, i posted it as a discussion point.
The source maybe a little alternative, for want of a better word, granted.
However, questions are being asked. Some of the content of the article is i might add a little distasteful and i was slow to pick up on it, however the premise is still the same: posing the question
Pro or anti?
I thought that it did make some relevant points, none moreso than:
Hard on the heels of this s...f movie came the sickening news that a video featuring notorious assisted suicide campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke, in which he demonstrates how to help people kill themselves, is being shown to schoolchildren in British classrooms.Not really appropriate.
Nitschke, nicknamed ---8216;Dr Death---8217; ---8212; whose DIY suicide manual provides instructions on how to kill yourself with plastic bags, carbon monoxide, cyanide, morphine and other poisons ---8212; is shown in the film demonstrating his machine that delivers lethal injections and giving workshops on his ghastly trade.Again, not appropriate.
Of course, it is impossible not to sympathise with individuals who seek to end their own lives in this way. We can all identify with the terror of being trapped inside a useless body, of losing control, of the pain and indignity of a horrible terminal disease. If it were simply a case of having the right to die, however, the issuewould be pretty simple. After all, suicide is legal. But assisted suicide is deeply problematic.I agree there, nothing wrong with this statement.
And what on earth are teachers thinking of in exposing schoolchildren to Philip Nitschke, who in any normal moral universe would be considered utterly beyond the pale?Indeed, what are they thinking?
The ---8216;right to die---8217; has an appealing ring to it, but apply the Beachy Head test. If, hypothetically, you saw someone in a wheelchair about to throw himself off Beachy Head, would you stand and applaud, maybe even give the wheelchair a helpful push ---8212; or would you rush forward to stop him?Good analogy, no?
We must resist it and reaffirm life, true compassion and our common humanity.Hear hear!
It is a hard-line article with questions being asked in a more blunt way perhaps than a lot of articles written about this topic.
Because it is more blunt or straight to the point and asks perhaps some uncomfortable questions, is this the reason that we should shy away from asking ourselves the exact same questions?
Just because the article is addressing the topic matter differently or in a way that may seem a little too straight to the point, is that any reason to dismiss it and laugh it off as garbage?
It's all about the wording it seems, because there are countless online articles, addressing exactly the same topic and the same Dr Death, P Nitshkie and his so-called methods.
And here is the link to the story of school kids, 14 year-olds no less, being shown the Suicide film by our very own P Nitschke:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377412/Dr-Philip-Nitschke-gives-euthanasia-workshop-video-14-year-olds.html

Why the heck are we advocating this?

[Tribesman]

I thought that it did make some relevant points, none moreso than:

None moreso than the fact that this "being taught to children" actually means it is included as one small item in one small module of on particular subject which those students have chosen to specialise in.
So it is a small film clip giving a pro euthenasia point in a film about the different stances on euthenasia which is shown to those students who chose to take a course on philosophy as part of their leaving exams.
Would you be happier if an education in philosophy only contained views from one angle?

Can you see the problem yet?
You are taking your starting position from a loony site which based its article on a daily mail article.
the daily mail would be bad enough but a crazy rehash of a daily mail scare story is really beyond any semblance of credibility.

14 year-olds no less, being shown the Suicide film by our very own P Nitschke:

Really?
At what point of the academic cycle is this particular module of the philosophy course given to pupils who have chosen that subject?

Why the heck are we advocating this?
Why the heck are you getting annoyed over an issue that is pure panic mongering sensationalism?

[Feuer Frei!]

Well, at least you agree with me on the rest of it then.
You managed to only 'pick me up' on one point.
Being taught Euthenasia, voluntary that is, in schools, because those students have elected to study Philosophy.
The parts that i have a problem with is the supposed work shop of this clown's methods, showcasing the different tools at one's disposal to assist in someone's easing out of this world.
Another issue i have with this video and it's showcasing by the so-called intelligent Teachers is that it gives this guy more air time.
As if we haven't had enough of this person already.

So, if you need to study Philosophy, and Euthanasia, voluntary is a part of that, and you need to explore the necessary conditions for someone to be a candidate for voluntary euthanasia and outline the moral cases put forward by those in favour of legalising voluntary euthanasia, then there are other training materials that can achieve this.
Is it necessary to showcase the tools availabale to students and to showcase the machine at work?
Voluntary Euthanasia is unneccessary.
Nor can we ever have enough evidence for us to be justified in believing that a dying person's request for dying is fully competent, genuinly voluntary and soforth.
If society allows voluntary euthanasia, it is my belief that this will send us towards the allowing of other forms of euthanasia.
Including non-voluntary euthanasia.
The line between those two is clearly defined by principles.
I won't get carried away by my own, strong beliefs about what i think of Nitschke or voluntary euthanasia.
However what i will say is that the title of my thread is a concern to me.
The content of this supposed training video or lecture material is dubious and is a poor choice of material.
Teaching someone how to die is teaching a student/child how to put their own spin on wether it's right or wrong to kill someone or not, well....
As for the site being a loony site, hmm, i may call it alternative, nonetheless, loony?
Nah, far from it.
You call it loony because you don't like it? Or the points raised are not to your liking? Or the ways that they are raised are not to your liking?
It matters not.

[Tribesman]

Well, at least you agree with me on the rest of it then.

Not at all.
You managed to only 'pick me up' on one point.

Not at all, I only bothered to pick you up on the most obvious one which was bull, which as luck would have it appeared as the one you seemed most upset about.
As for the site being a loony site, hmm, i may call it alternative, nonetheless, loony?
Nah, far from it.

Sorry, if you think a Coventry City FC goalkeeper claiming to be the messiah isn't loony then ....:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Hey it even has reptilians, contrails and secret government mind control through the music of the beatles.

[Feuer Frei!]

if you think a Coventry City FC goalkeeper claiming to be the messiah isn't loony
Coventry City, there you have it.
Like i said, didn't see that one, nor would i read it, letalone post it as a discussion point.
You'll find a lot of sites that have some amount of garbage on it, hell, even the good ones.
About the agreeing with me and picking me up on only one point, tongue in cheek, i figured you didn't agree with me, or the article.

[Skybird]

Every human being has the natural right to deicde all by itself whether it wants to live on or wants to die. If the latter, society, religions, lawmakers, doctors have no moral or ethical or religious or philosophical or medical right whatever to deny them the realisation of that wish under situational conditions that respect the individual's dignity.

People close to such an individual may wish to make surte that the individual indeed has the wish to die, and that it is not just "appelative suicide" or a decision born from a momentary emotional state of depression. High age, with all the negtraive side-effects that come with that, or constant pains or a serious disease, are situations where no human has the right to hinder suich a patient for example by force to die. I think it is an ethical and moral and humane imperative that we also help a "candidate" to end his life in a a way that is painless, nonviolent and appeals to basic demands of human dignity.

Just walk the geriatric station of a hospital, especially a mental asylum, and you can easily see how worse the price for "life at all cost" can become.

Everybody tempted to do it now, save ypour time to throw Nazi stuff and claims of my eunasthasia program at me. That'S not what I said, and the above described is not what the term eunasthasia means. Also, keep relgious commands out of this. Your religious confessions are YOUR personal business only, not that of the other. You have no right to impose your views upon him, at his cost and to add to his suffering. You are free to not like what he wants and does. Maybe you also do not like green tea. Don'T drink it then, drink somethign else, stay away from green tea then.

I personally kn ow that under certain cinditions I have accepted suicide for myself as an option I consider in such circumstances. I also always carry a paper in my wallet that explains under which circumstances and in case I am unable to articulate myself anymore, I do not wish a continuation of any medical treatement, but want them to let me die.

The only thing that can be demanded about all this, is this simple call: do not take it lightly. Neither the making of the decision for suicide yourself, nor your easiness by which you maybe are tempted to criticise the other who defends suicide as an option while you are against it for principal or religious reasons.

People do not ask you whether or not they may get born. They also must not ask you for permission to die. In the end, we all are just guests, and our stay is limited. Some arrive, some leave, all day long. That'S how it goes.

[Feuer Frei!]

Everybody tempted to do it now, save ypour time to throw Nazi stuff and claims of my eunasthasia program at me. That'S not what I said, and the above described is not what the term eunasthasia means. Also, keep relgious commands out of this. Your religious confessions are YOUR personal business only, not that of the other. You have no right to impose your views upon him, at his cost and to add to his suffering. You are free to not like what he wants and does. Maybe you also do not like green tea. Don'T drink it then, drink somethign else, stay away from green tea then.
Who is this directed at Sky?

[Tribesman]

About the agreeing with me and picking me up on only one point, tongue in cheek, i figured you didn't agree with me, or the article.
What was there to possibly agree with? the article is pure bull and your position is based on plain misrepresentation.

Everybody tempted to do it now, save ypour time to throw Nazi stuff and claims of my eunasthasia program at me.
Hey I only throw the nazi stuff at Sky when he is repeating chapter and verse of the hate filled 1930s propoganda

[Skybird]

Who is this directed at Sky?
Religous zealots who argue "My religion demands, and so you must obey", and everybody who when reading my post thought he must answer by calling me a Nazi who promotes evil wicked Nazi ways and eunasthasia.

[Feuer Frei!]

Religous zealots who argue "My religion demands, and so you must obey", and everybody who when reading my post thought he must answer by calling me a Nazi who promotes evil wicked Nazi ways and eunasthasia.
Ah ok, understand.
Wasn't sure if you were referring to me. :salute:

[Bakkels]

The ---8216;right to die---8217; has an appealing ring to it, but apply the Beachy Head test. If, hypothetically, you saw someone in a wheelchair about to throw himself off Beachy Head, would you stand and applaud, maybe even give the wheelchair a helpful push ---8212; or would you rush forward to stop him?
Good analogy, no?


No. It's a childish, simplified comparison, it's saying that helping someone end their life who isn't able to do that himself is the same as killing a handicapped person you never met before.
If someone were to kill himself like that, you try to stop him. Because you don't know their reasons and their story. If someone willingly chooses to end their life, and isn't able to do so himself, a doctor should help him with that.
If you live in a country where the law makes this impossible, than it's not surprising that there will be organizations that, by giving instructions to people on how to end their lives, attempt to give them their right on the choice of life or death back. imo that's a good thing.

If society allows voluntary euthanasia, it is my belief that this will send us towards the allowing of other forms of euthanasia. Including non-voluntary euthanasia.

Yes, because after all, we're all just waiting for killing someone to become legal! That just makes absolutely no sense at all.

It is a hard-line article with questions being asked in a more blunt way perhaps than a lot of articles written about this topic.
Because it is more blunt or straight to the point and asks perhaps some uncomfortable questions, is this the reason that we should shy away from asking ourselves the exact same questions?
Just because the article is addressing the topic matter differently or in a way that may seem a little too straight to the point, is that any reason to dismiss it and laugh it off as garbage?

Don't really care for the tone there. You're suggesting we're afraid of adressing these questions? Not at all.
But you're almost in admiration of how blunt and ballsy this article is. I have no problem with someone being blunt about a subject. This article however is not just blunt, it is shrewdly linking euthanasia with killing over and over again. THAT is why I can't take it seriously.

Of course there are problems arising with euthanasia. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't allow it at all. For example, to avoid people taking advantage of others, you could only allow (assisted) euthanasia if the person in question wrote up a will before falling ill. And there are a lot of these issues that should be well thought about by lawmakers. But they should be thought about from an objective stance, leaving religion completely out of the matter.

[Feuer Frei!]

Don't really care for the tone there. You're suggesting we're afraid of adressing these questions? Not at all.
But you're almost in admiration of how blunt and ballsy this article is. I have no problem with someone being blunt about a subject. This article however is not just blunt, it is shrewdly linking euthanasia with killing over and over again. THAT is why I can't take it seriously
The tone? I'm not suggesting anything. I don't believe in talking in riddles.
The flavor of the replies made so far, in particular by Tribesman seems to indicate that the article is BS.
Now so far i haven't had one reply to state exactly why this article is BS.
1 reply was that it was all about linking to killings, made by you.
Well, correct me if i'm wrong but, isn't that what euthanasia is?
Giving someone the consent to kill.
Assisting someone to die=killing someone.
Voluntary or not.
Blunt as can be.
Now, as for people's stance on pro or anti, well, we are going to disagree aren't we?
And that is why i posted this.
To invite discussion about the topic at hand.
Not to go off on a tangent about wether i posted this because i think it is ballsy and i am apparently glorifying the article because it is written with some gusto.
Glorifying? No.
Liking it? Yes.
Why? Because i am pro life.
That is my belief. I respect other's belief in this matter as well. If we can't have a civil discussion about this topic then that's a shame. Being attacked or confronted about the nature of why i posted this article is somewhat disappointing.
And making reference to religion? I never ever brought religion into this. So, moot.
I am happy to discuss the pros and cons of euthanasia, but i find it's a waste of time to discuss my supposed tone in the last paragraph you linked.
Ok, i have posted the article, you and a few others don't like it, that's fine, i respect that. No dramas. You don't need to like it. Like so many other articles written about subject matter, you are never going to agree fully with one, i know i don't. Heck, i don't fully agree with the article i posted.
But, it resonates with me.
On your challenge of it not making sense about the legalities of euthanasia, ponder this, Premeditated murder is illegal. Euthanasia is premeditated murder. Therefore, euthanasia is as illegal as premeditated murder.
Now, it's late here, i'm happy to retort in more detail, to your concerns/disagreements if needed, that can be arranged tomorrow.

[DarkFish]

Why? Because i am pro life.But are you also pro the right for anyone to choose if they want to live? If not, why?
So far we haven't heard any of your own arguments.

[tater]

I though this was gonna be about Palestinian TV kid's shows taching kids to be martyrs.

If people want to bump themselves off, that's their own business. Not sure if I think docs should be allowed to help. My gut says no. There are already way more suicides in the US than murders, it's not like killing oneself is hard to figure out.

[AVGWarhawk]

it's not like killing oneself is hard to figure out.


My pop always said, "If people knew how easy it was to kill themselves they would not live they way they do."

[Tribesman]

The flavor of the replies made so far, in particular by Tribesman seems to indicate that the article is BS.
Now so far i haven't had one reply to state exactly why this article is BS.

sorry wasn't it explained well enough for you?
The article is BS because it is full of lies and deliberate misrepresentations of fact, it then tries to build arguements on lies and "facts" which are not facts which means its arguements are nonsense as they have no foundation.
So from start to finish the article is best described as pure BS because it contains very little that isn't crap.

But I did enjoy your link and I thank you for it, that leading piece which seems so popular is a real eye opener. I never realised before today that Mick Jagger was actually part of a huge government conspiracy involving human sacrifice.:yep:

[Randomizer]

The issue with assisted suicide is that, in those jurisdictions where it is legal, only the means are provided, the actual act is entirely in the hands of the person committing suicide. The subject can back out at any time before the ultimate button push or triggering whatever means is being used. It is not homicide if you do the deed yourself.

Ironically, suicide is often the final act in gaining control of ones life; the ability to exit the world at the time and place and using the method of ones choice may seem huge to some.

At some point there is every possibility that my life will no longer be worth living due to certain health issues that are irrelevant here. I really like the idea that I can die by my own hand in the presence of my lovely wife before the man that she married is reduced to a mere shell. Far better to depart in a hospital or clinic, with all the "T's" crossed and "I's" dotted and surrounded by loved ones than taking the old Remington 870 into the deep woods with an magnum Special SSG up the spout; to be found perhaps months later by emergency personnel or volunteer searchers. As an active member of the latter group, I have helped recover enough human remains from successful wilderness suicides to know that I would really prefer to avoid inflicting that experiance on others. Other methods often messy or unpleasent also involve innocent bystanders or unwilling participants, first responders, police, firemen etc. With assisted suicide there should be nobody directly involved that does not want to be there.

Suicide may generally be considered a selfish act but assisted suicide in controlled conditions with reasonable legal and medical checks and balances can do much to assuage the grief of the survivors. Ultimately they are the ones who matter since once one has determined that suicide is the answer, all the interventions in the world won't prevent the act from being carried out.

I have already signed off my DNR and organ donor documentation. We all have to go sometime, and there might just be circumstances where it could be comforting to have a say in the where and when.

The article that the OP posted is heavy with unspoken religion but once god and churches are removed from the equation, the moral objections to assisted suicide tend to fall away.

[Betonov]

Suicide may generally be considered a selfish act but assisted suicide in controlled conditions with reasonable legal and medical checks and balances can do much to assuage the grief of the survivors. Ultimately they are the ones who matter since once one has determined that suicide is the answer, all the interventions in the world won't prevent the act from being carried out.

Sums it up.

When it is confirmed by doctors, consented by the patient, and confirmed that a cure is not going to be discovered in reasonable time, it should not be termed ''assisted suicide'', but an ''act of mercy''. But it is a delicate issue and should be handled profesionaly. With consent of a number of doctors, and only with terminaly ill patients. I'm still pro life when life is possible, we don't want an epidemic of assisted suicides for people with an amputated arm or a broken heart.

[Growler]

First, before I go any further: Apologies in advance; this is going to be long, and again, apologies to anyone who may find offense.

When Mom had been diagnosed with leukemia in April of 2010, she decided to go for broke, and elected to participate in an experimental study that would use stem cells and leukocytes from a donor to rebuild her immune system after severe radiation was employed to wipe out the leukemia-damaged one. After testing, it was determined that I would be her donor; my sister and I were identical for donation purposes, but as the older brother and without little kids at home, I was the one. So, in essence, once they beat the leukemia back enough, they'd nuke Mom's immune system, pull the cells from my blood, and give them to her (Or, as I put it, "Give them back to her"). For all the work, planning, testing, and effort, the transplant never happened - we got close both times, but the particular count they were looking for - BCR/ABL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCR/ABL) - was still too elevated to proceed.

Instead, it meant she went back to the hospital for another battery of chemotherapy and radiation, in an attempt to reduce that BCR/ABL count to levels they could tolerate for the transplant. As far as I knew, Monday, 15 November, 2010, Mom was being admitted for the third battery of such treatment.

The Sunday before her death, when I delivered her groceries, she was in bed and weak, but anticipating beginning the next battery of treatment; I didn't worry anymore than I already was, as I'd seen her in similar states before during this process. I delivered the groceries, ran some errands for her and the stepfather, and headed back home.

I knew Monday would be wearing for her, so I tried phoning her cell later in the day, after she'd be established in her room. No answer, but that'd happened before - she slept a lot after beginning her chemotherapy series in all three previous instances.

Tuesday, 16 November, 2010, I had my regularly scheduled telephone contact with my student mentor from college. During that conversation, we spoke about Mom's situation, and I decided to phone her after we finished the call. I dialed her cell number, and she picked up. She was very, very weak, she said, and tired, so she was going to hang up and get some rest. She told me she loved me. I told her I'd call her tomorrow. That was it, some twenty seconds on the phone from dial to click.

Those were her last words to me.

On Wednesday, 17 November, 2010, I got a phone call at ~0730 Eastern time, from my brother-in-law, who told me, simply, "You'd better get up here; Mom's going."

My wife and I made it to the hospital three and a half hours away in time; Mom was hooked to a machine to do her breathing for her, another machine administering medication from - I counted - EIGHT different intravenous sources. Another machine kept track of her blood pressure, heart rate, and specific oxygen levels in her blood. Another machine carried away waste she could no longer control. Seven months of treatment for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_lymphoblastic_leukemia) had taken a toll already; her hair was long gone to the radiation treatment, and her list of prescription medication easily numbered thirty different items, at least once daily - many, more.

My sister and brother-in-law were already there, as was my Uncle and two of my three cousins, and a few of my mom's friends. I thought it was due to Mom's neutropenic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutropenia) condition that we were required to gown, mask, and glove-up just to be in the room with her. Each time we left the room, we had to discard the garments and get new ones if we wanted to go back in. We were taking these precautionary measures not because of leukemia, but because of clostridium difficile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium_difficile), commonly called C-Dif. The link is there; the wiki article says it better than I can. The doctors had given my sister and brother-in-law the lowdown on why the gowns and such, but I hadn't been there when that happened, and no one ever gave my wife or I a similar brief.

After all the treatment that Mom had gone through, here we were on this day. Her blood was becoming poisoned due to the effects of C.Dif., but they were unable to dialyze because her blood pressure was too low as a consequence of the weakened state she was in due to the leukemia treatment. They had every drug in their arsenal deployed to fight the blood poisoning, to raise her blood pressure, to do something to get her to the point they could safely dialyze her blood and decrease the toxin levels. At one point, the doctor told me that they were dumping epinephrine into her system every minute, desperately trying to get her blood pressure up.

This entire time, she's wide awake, and scared. She couldn't speak, but I could see it in her eyes. I will never forget standing there at her bedside, trying in vain to do for her what she'd always done for her kids, trying to make it all right, to make it all better.

They added in a morphine drip to ease some of the pain she was feeling - blood occasionally welled in her mouth from the breathing tube, and her lips were brutally chapped, cracked, and dried from the plastic. Her stomach was distended - tympanic is the word they used - from the toxic gasses in her intestines that were poisoning her blood. And through it all, she was still awake.

At ~1600, the doctor approached my sister, my uncle, and I, and asked to speak with us. The latest blood tests they'd done earlier that afternoon had come back: In addition to the blood poisoning, her kidneys were now shutting down, as she was showing signs of liver failure. Even if her condition turned around right then, they couldn't be sure she'd survive the recovery. There was nothing more they could do - every card was on the table. And it wasn't enough. We had two options: Continue as was happening, and watch as more and more systems failed until she passed, or make her as comfortable as we could and let her go. The result was going to be the same.

I was supposed to be the one saving her life; instead I got to decide how to end it.

I sincerely hope that no one here EVER has to be in that place; if you have, all I can say is, I am so sorry that you had to go through that hell.

Together, my sister, my Uncle, and I made the decision. Withdrew the medication, except for the morphine drip, whose frequency was increased to encourage Mom to sleep. Pennsylvania law forbade the removal of the breathing tube, or any other machine that was supporting her life, but it did not prohibit the withdrawal of the medication.

Somewhere after 1600, Mom closed her eyes, and finally, mercifully, fell asleep. My father, who'd been divorced from her since 1984, sang a lullaby to her as she fell asleep. Her family and closest friends were with her at ~1640 that afternoon, when the monitors in the room recorded the last input they would receive from my Mother. She was 64.

Her oncologist managed to make it to her room right at the end, and remarked to me that she knew this would happen. I didn't understand then, but I would learn later that she was diagnosed with the C Dif. infection ~23 October, and that, considering the weakened state she was in from the leukemia treatment, she had little to no chance of surviving it.

So.

Instead of being allowed to end her own life with dignity, in a manner that befits a person, our laws required my Mom to be like a slab of beef on the table, just to earn a few more dollars out of her before she died.

Someday, someone will be able to explain to me why it is that we cannot accept that human death is as natural as human life, especially when we so arbitrarily deal it out to each other and to other living things on this planet.

Want to be Pro-Life? What do you eat that doesn't kill something else? Or does Pro-Life not mean what it says?

Face it, death happens. Why not give people the ability and the freedom to face it on their terms?

[Skybird]

The issue with assisted suicide is that, in those jurisdictions where it is legal, only the means are provided, the actual act is entirely in the hands of the person committing suicide. The subject can back out at any time before the ultimate button push or triggering whatever means is being used. It is not homicide if you do the deed yourself.

Ironically, suicide is often the final act in gaining control of ones life; the ability to exit the world at the time and place and using the method of ones choice may seem huge to some.

At some point there is every possibility that my life will no longer be worth living due to certain health issues that are irrelevant here. I really like the idea that I can die by my own hand in the presence of my lovely wife before the man that she married is reduced to a mere shell. Far better to depart in a hospital or clinic, with all the "T's" crossed and "I's" dotted and surrounded by loved ones than taking the old Remington 870 into the deep woods with an magnum Special SSG up the spout; to be found perhaps months later by emergency personnel or volunteer searchers. As an active member of the latter group, I have helped recover enough human remains from successful wilderness suicides to know that I would really prefer to avoid inflicting that experiance on others. Other methods often messy or unpleasent also involve innocent bystanders or unwilling participants, first responders, police, firemen etc. With assisted suicide there should be nobody directly involved that does not want to be there.

Suicide may generally be considered a selfish act but assisted suicide in controlled conditions with reasonable legal and medical checks and balances can do much to assuage the grief of the survivors. Ultimately they are the ones who matter since once one has determined that suicide is the answer, all the interventions in the world won't prevent the act from being carried out.

I have already signed off my DNR and organ donor documentation. We all have to go sometime, and there might just be circumstances where it could be comforting to have a say in the where and when.

The article that the OP posted is heavy with unspoken religion but once god and churches are removed from the equation, the moral objections to assisted suicide tend to fall away.

:up: Well said.

[Bakkels]

That story really moved me Growler. Thank you for sharing, and I'm sorry for your loss.

[tater]

Terrible story, growler. My mom died just a few days after checking into a hospice facility. Luckily the end was under less stress than your mom.

That said, knowing the c-diff diagnosis a few weeks ahead, why did her doc not really push for a DNR/DNI order? This really shows why a living will is so very important. The trouble is you end up with a 9-11 call and no standing orders, and they are forced to intubate you, etc. My mom had such a note on her bedroom door before she went to hospice so that it was clear they'd not put her in a situation where it would be (painfully) dragged out.

I'm so sorry for your loss. It gets better over time, but I still think about my mom most every day, and it's been almost 2 years.

[Jimbuna]

Sincere condolences Growler.

[DarkFish]

Very moving story Growler. My condolences for your loss.

Want to be Pro-Life? What do you eat that doesn't kill something else? Or does Pro-Life not mean what it says?

Face it, death happens. Why not give people the ability and the freedom to face it on their terms?Couldn't have said it better:up:

[Growler]

Thanks, guys - this is the first time I've ever really "written" it out, and I'm damned if it didn't kick my ass.

I'm of the mind that it is far better to create in kids a sense of the value of life, because the act of living is already so amazing. Death - is a part of life. My wife lost her mother at age 7 - right about the age that kids first are able to encompass the concept of death. Her little sister - age 4 - spent several hours in the house the day her mother died, trying to understand why Mommy wouldn't wake up for her.

And my wife is, aside from marrying me, a well-adjusted, functioning and happy member of society. Her sister has struggled with "problems" all her life, in contrast. I don't know that a more "death-friendly" (for lack of a better term) would have made a traumatic event like that any easier for both girls, or not. But I can imagine that a society wherein the concept of death is more socially managed and less the turf of the clergy/religious couldn't be all bad.

Death education is not "promoting a culture of death."

Randomizer said it all far better than I did, or could.

[Platapus]

The issue with assisted suicide is that, in those jurisdictions where it is legal, only the means are provided, the actual act is entirely in the hands of the person committing suicide. The subject can back out at any time before the ultimate button push or triggering whatever means is being used. It is not homicide if you do the deed yourself.

Ironically, suicide is often the final act in gaining control of ones life; the ability to exit the world at the time and place and using the method of ones choice may seem huge to some.

At some point there is every possibility that my life will no longer be worth living due to certain health issues that are irrelevant here. I really like the idea that I can die by my own hand in the presence of my lovely wife before the man that she married is reduced to a mere shell. Far better to depart in a hospital or clinic, with all the "T's" crossed and "I's" dotted and surrounded by loved ones than taking the old Remington 870 into the deep woods with an magnum Special SSG up the spout; to be found perhaps months later by emergency personnel or volunteer searchers. As an active member of the latter group, I have helped recover enough human remains from successful wilderness suicides to know that I would really prefer to avoid inflicting that experiance on others. Other methods often messy or unpleasent also involve innocent bystanders or unwilling participants, first responders, police, firemen etc. With assisted suicide there should be nobody directly involved that does not want to be there.

Suicide may generally be considered a selfish act but assisted suicide in controlled conditions with reasonable legal and medical checks and balances can do much to assuage the grief of the survivors. Ultimately they are the ones who matter since once one has determined that suicide is the answer, all the interventions in the world won't prevent the act from being carried out.

I have already signed off my DNR and organ donor documentation. We all have to go sometime, and there might just be circumstances where it could be comforting to have a say in the where and when.

The article that the OP posted is heavy with unspoken religion but once god and churches are removed from the equation, the moral objections to assisted suicide tend to fall away.

That was a well thought out and well written post. No attacks, just a simple explanation. :yeah:

You got a lot of nerve posting that type of stuff here on GT buddy :stare:

Take that logical, respectful, and non emotional thought process somewhere else pal! :shifty:

[Platapus]

Face it, death happens. Why not give people the ability and the freedom to face it on their terms?

It is not often I get emotional over people. But I am crying like a real man here. What a horrible thing to have to live through. And the way you described it. Wow.

I don't know whether to hate you for putting me through this or whether I should buy you a beer.

My parents are in their upper 70's and this is something I think about a lot.

I am glad you and your family had the strength to make such a horrible but noble decision. :salute: