RIP Brittany. We all know the story. It astounds me that anyone can know/read the following and then respond the way the "Priests for Life" did.





Didn't this woman live life to the fullest? Give up hope for what? A miracle? It's like religious zealots enjoy the suffering of people. That the pain and suffering are somehow a homage to their "savior" and maybe........just maybe, he will swoop in to save the day.

When I live in rural Alabama, I was in line at our biggest store...Walmart. A woman in front of me was chatting with the clerk about her very painful malady. I don't remember what it was. Anyway, she turned to me and said "Praise Jesus! When I am in pain, I know that Jesus is in me!"
I kept quiet because I didn't know how to respond to that, and I wanted to get home, lol. I don't get it.

I was just reading about this and am both saddened and happy for Brittany and her family ~ she both lived and died as she chose ~ her ordeal and suffering are over ~ rest in peace, Brittany ~

Sooz

P.S. Oh ~ and "Priests for Life" can go suck lemons ~ there is a time and a place for everything, and this was neither the time nor the place for their "wisdom" ~

To Priests for Life: God did call, otherwise she'd still be alive.

i am all for the culture of death invading this country. FORCING people to live out a life of pain and hopelessness should go the way of slavery in any civil society.

I don't think she lived and died as she chose. She'd have chosen never to get the deadly brain tumor. However, she handled the horrible cards she was dealt in the way she chose.

What the priests think is irrelevant. What we think is, too.

Death is a hard concept. Generally when people are nearing death, life becomes more precious.

Generally when people are nearing death, life becomes more precious.

Until it doesn't, as is the case here.

I think she still thought the concept of life was precious. That's why she did all this. To advocate for other people to be able to make their own choices.

In her case, she knew she wouldn't be there much longer and she wanted to make the choice of going while she's sill there.

I should have been more precise in my wording above ~ following her diagnosis, she both lived and died as she chose ~ and she had the means too many others lack to move to a state where she could die as and when she chose ~

I'm also thinking that the priests' words and/or a discussion on this topic are not "irrelevant" ~ priests hold enormous sway with a tremendous number of people ~ I've posted a few times that I have a tough time with the concept of "death" ~ people, especially people like Brittany, lend context for me ~

Sooz

These "Priests for Life" have an very skewed view of living......and dying. The maintain that one should be able to "live their life with dignity" when dying. I would argue that point. Living in constant pain, having to be hand fed or fed through a tube, losing control of one's bodily functions or being kept in a near comatose state are not "living with dignity".

As a part of my job I order hospice for patients. The doctors determine the patients are five days from death. The hospital stops treating the patient, a hospice organization comes and the patient is given morphine and death is imminent.

I think "dignity" may be a strange word. I think life is precious. Everyone dies. It's a part of life. I admire and respect Brittany for her choice. I admire and respect the patients in my life who are hooked to morphine with or without their family members mourning.

My father told me he "wasn't afraid anymore". He died 2 days later.

Just 5 days Kathy? Oh my. I don't see how they know that, when one is that close to death.

When my Mom got hospice, the determining factor was 6 months or less to live. They worked to make her last bit of time something to enjoy. They brought a simple stringed instrument she could play, some fun games...that sort of thing. She wasn't mobile, so that helped. Of course, there was nursing support and a couple of good discussions on what the end would be like, and even what to do if we had a tornado warning. We had a storm shelter, and they said "Leave her". Glad I didn't have to make that choice.

Dignity: Worth of respect. In these cases, I guess that would mean respect for a person's being, their independence, their desire to choose time/place/method of death if possible.

No one is in a hospital for six months. Docs can read the vitals and labs and discern five days pretty well (plus I am fairly sure morphine can hasten death).

You can get hospice services at home or a nursing facility with a terminal diagnosis and a prognosis of six months or less to live. Two different forms of hospice.

No one is in a hospital for six months....

Michael Schumacher was in a hospital for 8 months.

Ok. I see and wasn't thinking about hospital vs home care. Thanks. Yes morphine hastens death and is probably used all the time. Shhhhh.

An opposing view. This article touches on some things I'd like to address.

Who's really hurt by assisted suicide?


By Diane Coleman



I can see her point. But...



She seems to suggest that the "major reorientation and restructuring" will include killing of the old and disabled. After all, it's cheaper. Something the right extremists have pointed to with "death panels". I can understand the fear, but I think it is unfounded. Most of those who are advocates of assisted suicide (a lot of liberals) still believe in the "sanctity of life" and also think it is up to the individual, not society at large. They would fight a blanket law that could be abused.




First of all. If this is what she thinks, then she should WORK for changes to the health care system so that people DO have a choice. As for the last question, I don't know. Why didn't this woman do her research and find out? I can tell you. The "fear factor". She wants to imply that thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people will choose assisted suicide. Not true. It takes a certain type of person to choose that.

As I watched my Dad struggle for breath in the hospital for hours, and even though he had morphine patches, it was very difficult to watch. Had I had control, like I did with my Mom, he would have passed on a lot sooner. As it was, his body (whether consciously or not) struggle to live on. It was when I whispered in his ear that it was time to "let go", that it was ok, did he finally find peace. Humans DO strive for "life" whenever possible. It's natural. When faced with certain untold suffering, or at the very best, unconsciousness, who are we to prolong death?

BTW, my Mom had a choice. She chose to forego all the painful radiation/chemo treatments that may have prolonged her life a couple of months. That is why I ensured that she did not suffer.



Again, with the "death panel" suggestion.

As stated (ad nauseum), no one, not even PETA, protests the "assisted suicide" of pets. In fact, the pets don't really have a say-so, do they? They euthanize pets that attack humans which is nothing more than a death penalty for animals. Speaking of which, so do we (they) euthanize humans who attack other humans. They do this almost gleefully.

Yet, we can't seem to come to grips with people who make a decision to end their own lives with dignity. Peacefully. Just who would be charged if someone like Brittany put a gun to their head or hung themselves? The fact that there may not be any witnesses is the only difference. Why can't we allow terminal patients to die on their own terms, surrounded by loved ones? Is it that much different from a DNR? Not really, but a DNR might result in suffering and pain before death.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/03/opinion/c ... Stories%29

I need to think about this ~ but my initial reaction is that everything has a "downside" ~ but I'm not sure how you quantify the "downside" ~

Sooz

The arguments presented in #16 are largely irrelevant, IMO.

Mine or the article's?

The article's.
Sorry I wasn't clear.

They aren't irrelevant. There are a lot of old, poor people who have no caring family that society does not want to foot the bill for.

I actually do want to tell a story from the lunch room. The patient in 465 had Alzheimer's dementia and was very strong. He was a big problem for the nurses because of that strength. He was in for a UTI or something. Non-terminal diagnosis. His discharge plan is difficult because his wife would not be able to care for him at home, because the possibility of his hurting her is fairly high. Not Medicaid so it would be self-pay at a nursing facility. Medicare only pays for rehab.

Jess, the charge nurse, stated that his discharge plan should be to hook him to a morphine bottle and send him off to heaven.

oskar, there are definitely predatory "caregivers" who fleece the elderly and dying ~ so I don't see that argument as irrelevant ~ and I believe that the problem with most laws is that they don't take into account "worst case scenarios" ~

I have personal experience with predatory "caregivers" ~ my uncle [mother's brother] was a victim ~ he lived in California and my mom's relationship with him deteriorated when he bowed out of the picture relating to the care of my grandmother [their mother], but they did stay in contact with each other ~ fast forward a number of years: his own health was failing and he hired the daughter of a friend and her husband to be his "caregivers" ~ in addition to a generous salary, they moved into his house so they were living free ~ granted, it was a 24/7 job and he could be difficult ~ he would regale my mom with stories of how wonderful they were, when in fact they were running thru his substantial net worth like it was their own ~ he made the mistake of giving them power of attorney ~ long story shorter: we filed a lawsuit against the "caregivers" to protect my uncle ~ it dragged on for almost 3 years, but they were found guilty on all counts ~ if we had not become suspicious from his stories ["too good to be true" usually IS] and had not had the means to investigate and bring suit, he would have died near penniless ~ the entire few years was a difficult ordeal for my mom and a harsh wake-up call for my mom, my sisters, and me ~

Kathy's comment above that "There are a lot of old ... people who have no caring family ..." is, sadly, 100% realistic ~

Sooz

We are having two different conversations. One is about a person who is terminal and chooses to end their life. It is their decision and no one else's. The second is about some blanket green light for anyone to end a life for any reason. That is why any law about assisted suicide has to be worded carefully to protect the "old, poor people who don't have family".

As for the Alzheimer patient, that is why I said that people who have beef with assisted suicide would do more good in working to ensure that all patients have affordable/free access to nursing homes etc. instead of working against legal assisted suicide.

It's the same thing I say about people who are anti-abortion. Work for more sex-ed and affordable/free birth control and the abortion rate will drop.

Quit making death and sex/sexuality verboten subjects. Both are part of life. IOW, instead of working against something that is happening already, spend time and money working for a solution so that it happens rarely. It seems as if people are afraid of both. Sexuality and death.

As an aside: You'll never convince me that people really care about the "babies" in the anti-abortion crowd.

Then address the problems rather than prevent compassionate laws from being enacted.