******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Lou wrote on the right to die: (When you get to be a certain age--ahem--this question becomes more and more urgent. It is the same fucking bastards who are trying to make abortion illegal again organizing against the right-to-die. I don't know if Barbara Ehrenreich gets into this in her new book, but I'll be damned if I have to endure 6 months worth of torture when dealing with a terminal illness.) I support this totally and for the same reasons no doubt. BTW the pro-life bastards who go on about the sacredness of human life are generally also for every fucking war there ever was and are pro-captial punishment as well. comradely Gary On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > (When you get to be a certain age--ahem--this question becomes more and > more urgent. It is the same fucking bastards who are trying to make > abortion illegal again organizing against the right-to-die. I don't know if > Barbara Ehrenreich gets into this in her new book, but I'll be damned if I > have to endure 6 months worth of torture when dealing with a terminal > illness.) > > NY Times Op-Ed, June 8, 2018 > Let Dying People End Their Suffering > By Diane Rehm > > It was an emotional moment for my friend and for me. As we sat in the > living room of her home in California, she told me that the breast cancer > that had been responding to treatment for several years had spread > throughout her body. “It’s everywhere now,” she said, adding without a > trace of self-pity: “I have less than six months to live. I’m so grateful > that I won’t have to spend my last days or weeks in extreme agony.” > > She could tell me that because California’s End of Life Options Act — > supported by 76 percent of her fellow Californians, passed by the State > Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown — had gone into effect > on June 9, 2016. The law made it legal for doctors to prescribe drugs to > end the lives of terminally ill patients, and my friend found solace in > knowing she would have this choice. Her husband and children, who had seen > her bear years of chemotherapy and other treatments and supported her as > her pain intensified, wouldn’t have to watch cancer torture her mercilessly > as it took her life. > > California’s law was modeled after the one enacted in 1997 in Oregon, as > were similar laws in Washington, Vermont, Colorado and, most recently, the > District of Columbia and Hawaii; Montana also permits this end-of-life > option as a result of a judicial decision rather than legislation. > > But this source of comfort was ripped away from my friend and her family > last month when a judge in Riverside County overturned the law on a > technicality. His reasoning? The measure was passed during a special > legislative session dedicated to health care issues, and complainants > argued that it wasn’t about health care. > > Try telling that to my friend or the many others whose lives were upended > by the decision of the judge, Daniel Ottolia. As opponents of the law > cheer, she and her loved ones prepare for the anguish to come. > > My children and I can empathize. In two weeks, we will mark the fourth > anniversary of the death of John Rehm, my husband. He, too, had under six > months to live and, he, too, was suffering to such a degree that he begged > for medical aid in dying. But that option was not available in Maryland, > where he was in an assisted living center. He ultimately chose to end his > life by refusing to eat, drink and take medications. It took him 10 long > and miserable days to die. > > As in my friend’s case, my husband was already going to die. He had > Parkinson’s disease, which left him unable to feed himself or do anything > else without assistance. He did not choose what some insist upon labeling > “suicide.” Those who commit that act do not want to live. Most terminally > ill patients like John would choose life if they could. > > So today my friend and many other Californians are staring death in the > face, without the degree of control over it that the End of Life Options > Act briefly granted them. Some people will say they should place their > faith in treatments to ease their pain. But despite the compassionate work > of hospice and palliative care personnel, those treatments have their > limits and cannot offer all patients the end-of-life experience they seek. > Furthermore, as my friend told me, “I am the only one who can define when > my suffering has become unbearable.” > > John’s death reinforced my belief that medical aid in dying should be a > choice available to all Americans. That’s why I have been interviewing > patients and doctors for a documentary on the subject, “When My Time Comes.” > > What’s happening in California now is an unnecessary tragedy. Judge > Ottolia’s decision is being appealed, and a hearing will be held later this > month. But it could take many months to play out in the courts — months > during which dying patients will be denied the option to mitigate their > pain and distress. The Legislature could reintroduce the measure and pass > it anew — but that process will also take time. > > I believe that this must and will be remedied. My confidence comes from > the fact that individual Americans seeking autonomy are driving the > national movement for medical aid in dying. Nearly three-quarters of > Americans believe that terminally ill patients should have that option. > > Let me be clear: I understand that many people believe that only God > should determine the time of their death, and I support them 100 percent. > Others want every additional minute of life that medical science can give > them, and I support those people 100 percent. But the end of life is an > extremely personal experience. If, when my time comes, I see only > unbearable suffering ahead of me, then I want my preference to have access > to medical aid in dying to be supported 100 percent, as well. > > As Archbishop Desmond Tutu has written, “Regardless of what you might > choose for yourself, why should you deny others the right to make this > choice?” > > The California law was allowing patients that choice. Its nullification is > causing them cruel and unnecessary torment. > > Diane Rehm, who hosted “The Diane Rehm Show” on NPR for 37 years, is a > producer of the forthcoming documentary “When My Time Comes” and host of > the podcast “On My Mind.” > > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/opt > ions/marxism/gary.maclennan1%40gmail.com _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
