
I Hope My Father Dies Soon - Garbage
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/i_hope_my_father_dies_soon/
======
vezzy-fnord
Since this concerns the U.S. government, I'll say that the vendetta against
euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide by the Christian right is puzzling. The
Bible has a very ambivalent view on suicide (as with any other topic), the
tale of Samson being a prime example. The main argument against suicide comes
from Corinthians, but it is starkly contradicted by other passages.

A person who is slowly succumbing, immobile, on the brink of death and
suffering has nothing to offer or worthwhile to live for. Their life is
effectively over and they're simply waiting for the moment their biological
functions will at last cease.

Yet the Christian right insists that the agony be prolonged to a maximum. The
religion is notably fascinated with martyrdom, asceticism and persecution
complexes. But that suffering has no purpose in overcoming tribulation when
you're a near-lifeless bag of meat. Then, of course, very few Christians
actually ascribe to the ascetic life as laid down in their scripture.

Sorry for your loss.

~~~
GalacticDomin8r
The bible doesn't condemn suicide(or abortion) anywhere in it directly.
However, as with any good moral book, it is ambiguous. You can use it advocate
any position you chose.

> Yet the Christian right insists that the agony be prolonged to a maximum.

Christianity didn't always hold this view. I suppose some of the movement
comes from the commandment "Thou shall not kill". Of course that is a very
poor translation. A better one would be "Thou shall not kill without
justification".

~~~
gcr
I sort of don't understand the thought of turning "Thou shall not kill" into
"Thou shall do everything in thine power to keep the person alive"

~~~
waps
These rules are not actually from the bible, but from the Greeks, who had much
stricter rules.

1) no abortion never jamais, under no circumstances. Nor advising women on how
to do it themselves.

2) no euthanasia never jamais, under no circumstances. No advising people on
how to DIY it either.

3) no refusing medical aid to anyone for any reason

4) never go against patient wishes for not getting treated

5) never, ever, advise anyone on the use of poison

Some highlights from the Hippocratic oath. The first source of which is,
unsurprisingly, not the Bible.

------
IanDrake
Reminds me of a good C.S. Lewis quote:

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than
under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us
for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Note that this quote only apply to _human_ tyrants. As a Christian apologist,
I'm sure C.S. Lewis didn't object to the benevolent tyranny of God. (I would,
but I too have my own exception: Friendly AI).

~~~
olefoo
And where does your "friendly-AI" draw it's moral template from?

I mean, I'm OK with an AI that works tirelessly in the background keeping the
air clean and the habitat habitable. However I don't want a computer, no
matter how smart; telling me what I and consenting partners choose to do. Or
deciding whether or not we must or can use birth control. Or any of a thousand
other forms of infringing on human agency.

~~~
gohrt
> I'm OK with an AI that works tirelessly in the background keeping the air
> clean and the habitat habitable

Are you sure?

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM1-DQ2Wo_w](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM1-DQ2Wo_w)

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to
me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not
actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural
equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move
to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is
consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There
is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know
what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
You're a plague and we are the cure."

~~~
seivan
Love that quote & scene.

------
avar
No matter what you think about assisted suicide I'd highly recommend Terry
Pratchett's (of Discworld fame) documentary about it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slZnfC-V1SY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slZnfC-V1SY)

He's got Alzheimer's and documented his personal tour of looking into his end
of life options.

------
Strilanc
Related: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-
decay/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/)

> this is the way many of my patients die. Old, limbless, bedridden,
> ulcerated, in a puddle of waste, gasping for breath, loopy on morphine,
> hopelessly demented, in a sterile hospital room with someone from a
> volunteer program who just met them sitting by their bed.

~~~
sbarre
I got half way through that and had to stop reading.

I have a very close relative with moderately advanced dementia, and it's
heartbreaking to see.. I wish I lived closer, because every time I see her
(which is as often as I can afford to make the trip), it's worse and worse..

I don't even want to imagine her getting to that stage..

------
badman_ting
Sorry, but I am getting really tired of this form of discourse.

A million interests prevent you from doing a million things every day, but
apparently it's only objectionable and worth remarking about when it's the
government. And it's not even like I disagree with him -- yes we should allow
assisted suicide. But boy oh boy is it hard not to notice that he wastes no
time thinking about _why_ things are this way, or which interests
_specifically_ may be preventing things from changing. Nope, it's just THE
GOVERNMENT. Short circuit, do not pass go, no further critical thinking
necessary.

"The Nanny State Didn't Show Up, You Hired It"
[http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/09/the_nanny_state_didnt...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/09/the_nanny_state_didnt_show_up.html)

~~~
burntsushi
If there wasn't a law against doctor assisted suicide, he'd be able to let his
father die as he chooses.

The _only entity_ that can make and enforce laws is government. This makes
government distinct from _all other entities_.

Therefore, the government deserves the blame.

~~~
bowlofpetunias
And yet, I live under a government, one that like the US government has been
democratically elected, which does allow assisted suicide.

So maybe "government" isn't the problem. The people are.

But of course it is way scarier to imagine that it's not the government that
is making your father suffer, but your friends, family, neighbors and
coworkers.

Because that would really be too uncomfortable.

~~~
burntsushi
I'm not sure what inconsistency you're trying to point out. Not all
governments are equal. Perhaps it wasn't clear from my comment; the _US_
government is to blame.

Moreover, government is not the only perpetrator of evil things. It's
certainly by far the biggest (read: wars), but there are plenty of other evil
people and organizations out there. Is that supposed to make me uncomfortable?
I'm just calling it like I see it.

------
JshWright
As broken as our system is (and Scott's obvious pain should make it clear that
it _is_ broken), there are things you can do to make it suck just a little
less.

Please talk to your family and your doctor about your wishes in terms of life-
sustaining care. Even in your 20's, in perfect health, please take some time
to become informed about what the options are and how you can express what you
want done or not done (this may be a DNR, a MOLST, a living will, or any of a
myriad of other options depending on where you live).

If the decision you come to is anything short of "do absolutely everything
possible to prolong my life" then be sure to have that paperwork in a safe and
readily accessible place (and let your family members know where it is).

~~~
jlgaddis
Recently, I dated a nurse who worked on the cardiac floor of the hospital. She
had patients who died every day.

One day, the subject of DNRs came up. Interestingly, she mentioned that
"they're meaningless". When I asked her about it, she said that if, for
example, I had a DNR but an immediately family member told them to "save me",
they would disregard the DNR and do it.

The reasoning, she told me, was that regardless of what they did (save you
versus letting you die) there was a chance of a lawsuit and that the hospital
would rather be sued for saving your life.

(I'm sure it isn't this way everywhere.)

~~~
JshWright
I'm in a similar position on a fairly regular basis, and I can tall you that
DNRs absolutely do matter. It would take the threat of physical violence to
get me to perform ACLS on someone with a valid DNR (this is in a prehospital
EMS setting). A DNR represents the expressed wishes of the patient.
Disregarding that is a serious breach of medical this.

I'm not sure how often she came across that particular dilemma. As a nurse in
an ICU she would have limited decision making authority when it comes to
initiating and continuing things like ACLS[1]. That's a doctor's call.

I will say that in my experience as a prehospital EMS provider, I absolutely
honor the wishes of the patient (as expressed in a DNR) over the demands of
the family. In fact, in my experience, the issue that arises is exactly the
opposite. The family doesn't want CPR, etc, and states the patient has a DNR,
but they're unable to produce it (hence my original post). In the absence of a
valid DNR, I have to assume the person _does_ want all resuscitation measures
attempted.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_cardiac_life_support](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_cardiac_life_support)

~~~
gohrt
As a pre-hospital EMS provider, how do you have time to determine the presence
and validity of a DNR before making your choice?

~~~
JshWright
It's pretty simple... is there a DNR in my hand that hasn't expired and has
been signed by both the patient and a doctor and hasn't expired? If yes, then
don't initiate resuscitation.

Obviously a DNR could be forged, but baring obvious cases of forgery (which
I've never seen), we're not liable for honoring a DNR that we reasonably
believe is valid.

~~~
jlgaddis
What about a "verbal DNR"?

I was recently involved in a pretty bad motorcycle accident and was asked
multiple times (by EMS on the scene, medical staff in the ER, medical staff
right before going into the OR, etc.) if I had a DNR and/or if I would want
them to attempt to save me if something happened.

I remember thinking that was kinda weird since my assumption was that such
requests would need to be in writing. Perhaps it was because I was incapable
of writing or signing my name, though (two broken wrists)? Instead of me
signing any documents, they just asked me verbally after making sure they had
two other employees present as witnesses.

~~~
JshWright
That's actually _better_ than a written document as far as I'm concerned. A
DNR basically says "If I'm unable to speak for myself, here's how I would like
to be treated." If you _are_ able to tell me how you want to be treated, then
there's no question (assuming I'm confident in your ability to make informed
decisions... not drunk off your ass... etc...)

------
rickdale
My father was murdered about 10 years ago and really the only solace in the
situation is that he was pretty sick at the time and would have suffered
through the rest of his life and he was only 47 at the time. My mom has
repeatedly told me she has no desire to get to an elderly age, like her mother
is now. All I know is perspective on this stuff evolves over the years.

On another note, the only good thing about people being sick is that you can
prepare for their death and thus when they die it can be more of a
celebration. The funeral won't be as hard emotionally, and because they were
sick, you are comforted by them not suffering any more.

~~~
girvo
I'm sorry for your loss, that's terrible, but at least you can find some peace
in it. :(

------
forktheif
Maybe he just didn't mention it, but nowhere in that post does it say that it
was his father's wish to die if he was in such a situation.

Helping someone die who made their wishes clear, I'm perfectly okay with. But
assuming someone wants to die, I'm not.

Whether his father made it clear or not, I don't know. It just isn't in the
post.

~~~
droithomme
I looked for that also and there was no mention. There's no doubt that if that
was actually his father's expressed wish he would have featured that
prominently in his article.

What he does state is:

> _I 'd_ like to proactively end his suffering and let him go out with some
> dignity. But my government says _I_ can't make that decision. Neither can
> his doctors.

He also points out early in the article that there are financial
considerations:

> His smallish estate pays about $8,000 per month to keep him in this state of
> perpetual suffering.

~~~
VLM
"He also points out early in the article that there are financial
considerations:

> His smallish estate pays about $8,000 per month to keep him in this state of
> perpetual suffering."

Now you understand the reason for opposition to euthanasia. The purpose of
government is to keep the rich, rich, and the poor, poor. Emptying his estate
into the medical industrial complex is not an incidental side effect, but the
sole purpose of its existence.

You want to see pet (dog/cat) vet assisted euthanasia made illegal? Implement
pet health insurance. Try it and see.

~~~
Xdes
That's quite a conspiracy you have there.

~~~
VLM
Politicians aligning laws to maximize corporate profits is not exactly unheard
of...

------
dsego
I suggest watching Terry Pratchett's thought-provoking and humbling
documentary Choosing To Die
([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slZnfC-V1SY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slZnfC-V1SY)).
It covers the topic of assisted suicide and towards the end of the film we can
witness a man ending his life in a Swiss clinic. It is also a very personal
subject for Terry, as he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and is afraid to live
without being able to use his mind and write books.

------
DanielBMarkham
Wow. This touches home with me on many levels. I lost my parents a few years
ago. Both suffered. I lost several other close family members who also
suffered. And just last week somebody I was close to told me they were dying
of cancer.

And I'm a libertarian that strongly believes that government should keep its
nose out of my life.

So, of course, I'm going to play devil's advocate, at least a bit. Because if
you can't defend the other side's points well, you shouldn't be in the
argument.

Here's the thing: physician-assisted suicide is one thing if the doc gives you
the pills and you take them on your own. It's something else if the state
_requires_ doctors to assist you, or the state requires insurance companies to
require doctors to assist you. Then we're getting into the state telling
doctors what types moral views they should hold.

Hey, I'm all for you shooting your cat if it's sick. What I'm against is the
community all making some collective decision about who's got to go and when,
and who has to do the work. That's fucked up. This thing has to be a personal
choice among everybody involved: docs, nurses, family, the patient. I could
imagine in many cases the patient wants to whack themselves and the family
hates the idea. Fine. Then let the guy do it. On his own. Or perhaps the docs
have given up hope, but for religious reasons they will never pull the plug.
Fine, then let the patient do it. There's a decision to be made, somebody
should make it, and the rest of society should butt out -- either from
disapproving or forcing everybody else from doing things they don't want to
do. It's just as bad to make somebody kill somebody else as it is to make
somebody keep somebody else alive in this endless suffering nonsense.

The problem here is a search for some universal rules for a very personal
thing. I don't see that playing out too well.

In many cases, we have elderly losing their minds while family members hope
against hope that they recover. What to do then?

With the lack of a living will, I think the family members get to decide.
That's why we have living wills. I don't like that result, but there it is.
(I'd also add that this means the family members should be able to dose up
grandma with enough morphine to put her out of her misery -- and I imagine
such a thing happens a hell of a lot more than we will ever know.
Institutionalizing people and placing all of this in bureaucratic hands is the
crux of this problem.)

Also Scott, sorry to hear about your dad.

~~~
MetaCosm
It is important to understand that unless you build an "extreme" living will
(food and water denial), there are many circumstances where you will still be
tortured indefinitely. I speak from family experience.

My father suffered many strokes towards the end. This caused neuropathic pain
... completely untreatable pain coming from inside his brain (primary somatic
sensory cortex). He lost his ability to speak, move, and was basically just in
continuous agony, only really maintaining the ability to suffer, with no hope
for recovery.

Even with durable power of attorney, withholding food and water requires court
orders and takes time (sometimes months)... why is making someone die
horrifically of dehydration perfectly legal, but painlessly giving them a shot
is illegal?

> I'd also add that this means the family members should be able to dose up
> grandma with enough morphine to put her out of her misery -- and I imagine
> such a thing happens a hell of a lot more than we will ever know

That is how my fathers suffering ended. Not by a family member, in the end it
was by a nurse. The nurses and doctors and everyone seemed to give quiet nods
of agreement after days of failed attempts to mitigate the constant grimace of
agony. I don't think anything was ever said explicitly, but eventually a male
nurse came in and made it clear that if we wanted it, today could be the last
day. The decision ended up falling on me, and I said yes, the door was closed
and the nurse pulled out multiple needles of something, to this day I am not
sure what, but it was obviously they were packaged individually for dosage
control and he had a handful of them. he slowly injected each into the IV
without saying a word and my father slipped away. I am not sure I have ever
been more grateful for anything prior or since.

~~~
usefulcat
If you don't mind saying, in what country did this take place?

~~~
MetaCosm
USA. It was absolutely illegal, but it was also IMHO, the only moral thing to
do.

------
tunap
They should have pinned a medal on him, instead they threw him in jail.

Thanks for trying, Jack.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavorkian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavorkian)

------
FrankenPC
Any form of suffering on the helpless scale is especially painful. There's
something hellish about helplessness that can't be described, you just have to
experience it. Anyone who goes through months or years of helplessness without
committing suicide is a warrior. The particularly insidious part of this kind
of trauma is the intense PTSD that is the result of this mental torture.
Reading the S.Adams blog entry, you can just see the PTSD dripping off every
word. I feel for him. I feel for anyone who has gone through this because
there is no justice at the end of the bulls __t rainbow that the Christians
describe.

------
melling
The Singularity is about 30 years out, or so we're led to believe. It takes
about 10 years and billions of dollars to create a new drug, and that time and
cost is not decreasing.

Stories like this are a grim reminder of how much work we really must do.
"Fixing" the human body is a really hard problem.

~~~
cLeEOGPw
There is no problem at all. Wanting to live forever is just your body's
primitive instinct, and you should be intelligent enough to understand that
people don't need you, or anyone, being around for longer than you will live
already. Just look at the current old people - how they drag the whole
progress, the whole society back. Now Imagine what would happen if everyone
would be old - stagnation, that's what. Human brain is not evolved enough to
keep being fresh for so long. After some time we slow down our learning rate
because we have already learned much things. If everyone would live forever we
would stay at the exact generation the "singularity" would be invented. People
need to die in order for everyone to push things forward.

~~~
Apocryphon
If clinical immortality was possible, who's to say that mental rejuvenation
couldn't be possible, as well? And that people will develop new psychologies
as they become immortal?

~~~
cLeEOGPw
Mental rejuvenation would mean wiping out your brain and growing new one,
which would mean a new person. Brain has a limit on how fast it can adapt over
time by design, not because of some illness.

------
jl6
I don't wish to minimise his situation but it seems like he considers his
father's suffering not quite as bad as his own suffering were he just to do
the killing himself and take the jail sentence.

~~~
Houshalter
That's a good point actually. Especially if you could do it with low risk of
being caught/convicted. Which should be possible with someone who is dying
anyways and you have full access to them in the hospital and could just slip
some poison or something into them.

I don't blame the author for not doing that though. Maybe it didn't even occur
to him. But it's a good point that if you truly thought it was so terrible you
should want to try to stop it even if it's illegal.

~~~
PavlovsCat
But there is also the risk of inflicting even more suffering. Even killing
(instead of, say, crippling) oneself with all the time and resources in the
world to do it is not an easy task; but killing someone you love, without
inflicting even more pain and without getting caught, in a hospital of all
places, now that seems near impossible for a layperson.

~~~
Houshalter
Depends on the method of killing. And even a painful one is still probably
preferable than long drawn out suffering.

I assumed the poisoning would be easy and doctors wouldn't look for it but
that may not be trivial. But if you actually cared it would be worth a few
hours of research at the very least.

------
hrjet
To avoid the slippery slope, couldn't there be a jury system that could decide
the genuineness and applicability of a case of euthanasia? Leaving it only in
the hands of a single person, be it the patient, or doctor or relative is
bound to attract criticism. But if a jury can sentence one to a life-sentence
in a crime case, they could arguably be trusted to deal a similar sentence for
someone terminally ill.

------
snez
Although I'm on the author's side, things like
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/alzheimers-
tr...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/alzheimers-treatment-
breakthrough-british-scientists-pave-way-for-simple-pill-to-cure-
disease-8869716.html) make me think twice on whether I'm right or wrong.

~~~
acdha
1\. Wait until something ships before thinking it's changed anything. Medicine
is littered with would-be wonder drugs which turned out to have critical
shortcomings — if these were easy problems, they'd already be done by now.

2\. In many cases, new treatments don't help outside of the early stages — in
the story you linked, the description suggests that the treatment wouldn't
help someone who's already in an advanced stage of the disease. Great for the
future, perhaps, but cold comfort to when someone is already past the point of
permanent damage.

------
altero
Follow the money

Today patient has to pay lot of money to be kept alive. Also deciding about
death is expensive and this burden would be on government.

In a few decades elderly people will be 40% of population. Government will
probably have to pay bills for most of them. Only then will this become norm,
but in really hideous way.

~~~
burntsushi
> Also deciding about death is expensive and this burden would be on
> government.

Why? The burden should be on the person.

------
stickhandle
Please HN don't disappoint me with "slippery slope" and "it's too complicated"
arguments. I want to continue to believe the level of discourse here is better
than that. Its not just do-able ... doctor-assisted suicide is right.

~~~
eitland
Yes, because slippery slopes doesn't exist.

Or because we should not discuss the implications of a possible slippery
slope?

Note I'm not telling you what is right or wrong but I insist on the right to
discuss relevant issues, in ethnic as well as in technical questions.

~~~
stickhandle
Slippery slopes certainly exist. However, the use of "slippery slopes" as a
counterpoint is not useful. In fact, its harmful as it is posed as an end to
the argument. We can certainly all agree its a complicated issue that requires
a complicated solution, but our discourse should be on the solution, not
simply stopping calling it slippery.

------
ahi
Fortunately, doctors can still fiddle around the edges. My 96 year old
grandmother went into the hospital last Thursday. After some tests it was
concluded she would have a couple more months with rehab or maybe a couple
weeks without. We decided to just have her loaded up with morphine and she
passed on Sunday surrounded by her children. The morphine didn't kill her, her
heart was mush, but it likely knocked some time and suffering off the end.
It's unfortunate that we dont all get to die so gracefully.

I dont forsee euthanasia ever being legal in the US given the absurd response
to medicare requiring just basic end of life planning with a doctor.

------
fernly
Very important: by law in most states, you can control the conditions of your
end of life care. State laws vary but if you are in California, this[0] is the
form you print out, fill out, have notarized, and give copies of to your
regular physician and the person(s) holding your medical power of attorney.

Every person should do this, because without this clear and legally binding
statement of your wishes, medical people are compelled to do everything
possible to preserve your life.

Part 1 establishes who can act for you when you can't act for yourself (i.e.
in a coma). Unless you are legally married or a minor (when your spouse or
parent can act), nobody can intervene to make medical choices for you. Under
privacy laws, nobody can even ask about your condition. So your live-in lover
or best friend is helpless to change how you are cared for -- unless they are
named in a document like this one.

Part 2 expresses your wishes on how you want to be cared for at end of life.
If Scott Adams's father had filled out this form and checked 2.1(b), none of
that tragedy would have happened! And you can add more conditions. On my form,
for example, I specified that if I was unable to read, to watch TV, or listen
to audio with comprehension, and had no reasonable prospect of regaining those
abilities, my life was over and I wanted to refuse all medical interventions
except pain management. My idea being, to die quickly of pneumonia is nearly
as good as assisted suicide.

However you fill it out, do fill it out, and encourage your loved ones to do
so as well. A stroke or fall or collision can wipe out your consciousness at
any age, and this form relieves your survivors of a lot of horrible choices.

[0]
[http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/pdf/ProbateCodeAdvancedHealthCare...](http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/pdf/ProbateCodeAdvancedHealthCareDirectiveForm-
fillable.pdf) (PDF)

------
lmg643
i am wondering if i am the only person who read this, who felt the piece was a
very strange way to consecrate his father's passing. "i wish i could have put
him down like a cat, and if you disagree with me, i hope you die a horrible
death." there is a good case for euthanasia, and there is a case against it,
it just seems inappropriate to approach a dialogue with this piece as a
starting point. in the end, i'm sorry he lost his father in a painful and ugly
way and felt captive to a hospital. the end of life situations in my family
were also pretty gnarly but involved hospice care. i'd love to know the
circumstances here, and how the situation could have been improved. but you'll
never win over your opponents starting from a place like this.

~~~
dxm
I lost my grandfather (father really, he raised me) and I felt the same way, I
signed his DNR and if nobody was looking, I would have turned off all measures
to keep him stable myself. Watching somebody you love pass is entirely
heartbreaking, it's satisfying to see them cross the line into the unthinking.
If I had the talent of Scott Adams, the words I would have emitted would have
been similar.

------
spacecowboy
So sorry to hear about the current situation, found myself filled with a lot
of emotion as I read through it. Reminds me of a talk I had with a good friend
of mine where we basically acknowledged that we're not afraid to die but that
we're more afraid of the dying process.

------
GalacticDomin8r
Frontline had a nice piece on this issue a couple years ago called The Suicide
Tourist:

[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/suicidetourist/](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/suicidetourist/)

------
eip
Breathing pure nitrogen is a quick and painless way to die.

~~~
srean
Indeed and I wish this was closer to the top than here at the bottom.

------
znowi
I get the story and am sympathetic to the OP, but a little confused about this
line:

 _And while I 'm at it, I might want you to die a painful death too._

Is he just angry at everyone?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
"Is he just angry at everyone?"

He is irrationally distraught, to the point of advocating violence.

The reason this piece works (for me) is that _everybody is irrationally
distraught at this time in their life_. So while I get that he wants pain and
suffering inflicted on those he views as responsible for his dad's suffering,
I could line up a million more people who want to cling onto dear grandpa as
long as the old guy has a breath. _Everybody_ is irrational and emotional at
this time. That's the nature of the phase of your life that involves burying
people you love. And it's the exact reason that others behave in ways he finds
abhorrent.

~~~
n3rdy
Voting is already an act of violence.

His father was suffering agony every day because government and its voters
decided if anyone in that condition wants to end their life, that the course
of action be to put anyone who showed him mercy into a cage or worse.

------
bashcoder
I if ever become so weak as a man that I would vote someone else's conscience
instead of my own, then on that day, Mr. Adams, be my guest: Kill me.

------
a8da6b0c91d
Physician assisted suicide is a super slippery slope. I'm stunned when
thinking people advocate.

~~~
marquis
It works very well in countries such as the Netherlands, I've seen that first
hand in cancer cases. It is the most dignified thing to do for a thinking
person. Do you have examples where a large percentage of the cases are obvious
malpractice?

I have long planned that I will do everything in my power not to stay on life
support, and recommend you do the same for the sake of your family and your
sanity.

~~~
ars
> not to stay on life support

It's not such a simple decision. I know someone who was on life support and
minimally conscious and recovered from there to more or less normal health.

It would be better to specify something like: no life support provided there
is also no cognitive ability for 2 months.

That gives at least a chance of recovery.

~~~
pantalaimon
There is a difference if you had a car accident and are 20 years old or if you
are having terminal cancer at 80.

