I know people that work in hospice, and they say this is a big misconception (the article hints at it too). they patients don't die from lack of water, they don't want water because they are dying, and their body can't process it. In fact, as you kind of touched on at the start, giving them IV fluids can cause them to drown since their body can't process the water.

Death is pretty ugly thing, that comes for us all. I got to learn the fun way that in the state of Oregon, it is illegal to disable a pacemaker. Even when the person has a DNR, and it is really the only thing keeping them alive. The best the doctors can do is turn the pacemaker down as low as possible, and hope its not enough to keep the person artificially alive. Which seems kind of really weird, when its also the first and one of the only states that allows medically assisted suicide..

We know how to end life's.

They'll get Michael Gove right on that!

I was once helping take down a 10-foot weather balloon full of helium, and took in two breaths in a row of pure helium. I started to get tunnel vision, said "whoah", sat down when I realized I was about to lose consciousness, fell down, and twitched just long enough for my friend to realize I wasn't joking around before I woke up. From my experience, hypoxia from pure helium is slightly pleasant all the way to loss of consciousness. I presume pure nitrogen would be nearly the same.

Let my last words be something witty in a high-pitched helium voice.

(Side note: pure nitrogen hypoxia would not be a particularly humane form of execution because the condemned would likely fight it by holding on to their last breath.)

I fully understand why this has been done, to stop people who only intermittently get the urge, but for someone like me it's a major bloody inconvenience, so inert gas it most likely is.

(The above is not an opener for a discussion, it's an FYI for a different perspective. Please don't respond).

Like a warning sign or some fan kicking in later?

I'm wondering if it only anticipated pacemakers being disabled for malice or out of negligence.

[0] We did end up following the hospice's recommendations not to administer IV fluids, for what it's worth.

[1] https://spcare.bmj.com/content/bmjspcare/11/1/68.full.pdf

All in all it’s a tragic thing the only constellation is that I guess after 24 hours in that, one welcomes death with open arms.

Also, I guess prolonging treatment is in the interest of for-profit hospitals as found in other countries, thus as long as your suffering is profitable, you wil…

When it came to it, she didn't. It still wasn't petty because death-by-cancer never is. She was extremely weak and thin and tired. But on her last day she spoke to everyone in the family, gave weak hugs, said goodbyes. I guarantee you that guy took away days (at least) of suffering. We all knew that. He knew that. She knew that. Nobody said it though.

And I think that's better than someone who can't afford to deal with a disability being asked if they're prefer to die than cost the state lots of money. Horror stories both sides of the nuance.

France does the same but has nationalized healthcare, so it does not seem motivated by profits. It puts pressure on the healthcare system and only brings additional suffering. We could change that, but implementing assisted death needs careful consideration and defeating politically the small subset of people that think life with extreme suffering is precious.

Yes.

> and defeating politically the small subset of people that think life with extreme suffering is precious.

You don't need to defeat us. All you need is a clear-cut agreement between the patient and the doctor, preferably in advance for those who are physically unable to decide at the end, similar to a DNI. Between the patient and the doctor, and possibly the patient's family, it's no one else's business (though I still think second-party euthanasia of non-terminal persons is disgusting, and that they should commit suicide without involving a second party). It's when government or other third parties start getting involved that everyone should have an issue with euthanasia.

Then you are not part of the group of persons I was pointing out. Is was thinking of people against it regardless of the conditions. Some form of consent is needed for euthanasia. How strong this consent should be (written agreement before? Or must explicitly tell the doctor right before the injection?) needs to be decided after thinking carefully about how to keep the law being useful while avoiding abuses. But right now euthanasia is fully illegal; the best one can get is starving to death.

I actually am probably one of the one's you are pointing out. In that I don't want a government sanctioned process for this (it leads to a slippery slope in the countries it has been enacted in[1]). At best I'm basically in favor of decriminalization, not legalization, and not a standardized process that can be altered over time.

"By establishing a social policy that keeps physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia illegal but recognizes exceptions, we would adopt the correct moral view: the onus of proving that everything had been tried and that the motivation and rationale were convincing would rest on those who wanted to end a life.

Ezekiel Emanuel"

[1] - see point 6: https://haase.org.uk/history-of-euthanasia/

Also this case in Canada of a woman with MCS who couldn't get better housing away from the chemicals. It was easier to give her medical assistance in dying than to get her to a house or apartment free from other people's smoke and cleaning chemicals: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/woman-with-chemical-sensitivit...

She's not the only Canadian case of it being easier to grant MAID than to get functioning health and welfare services.

Edit: I feel a bit dumb now, I hadn't actually read the article yet, went straight for the comments. Seems like I'm just reiterating what it says.

When I'm in that shape I just wanna go in peace. Preferably at home, in my own bed, surrounded by loved ones. No tubes down my throat, no shots to keep me alive at any cost, with no end in sight.

Here's some good discussion on the topic between two doctors that I watched recently: https://youtu.be/O0YIGAUDlzQ?t=242

for example, nobody plans to go on a ventilator. But if you need one (like severe pneumonia), you’re already pretty messed up and you’re going to have a painful death with or without the tubes.

But I feel that was the main point at the start of the thread: if death is certain and going to be painful, why must we drag it out? Why is that additional lifespan (measured in days) so much more important than comfort?

Is it really worth trading away that opportunity just to not accidentally die on a ventilator? I'm not sure.

[1] https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/03/how-doctors-die/

I never wanted to go into medicine. Thus I do not believe the preferences of a typical older doctor represent my preferences in this respect.

I read an article once of a nurse who kept CPR going on her husband for somewhere around 2 hours until they could get him to a hospital that was able to restart his heart. I believe he ended up okay. CPR obviously isn't invasive tubing, but it's still kind of hard on the body.

If it's part of a long decay I would categorically refuse anything like that. If it's due to an abrupt and fixable thing give it a try.

> Yet families are often asked to make the call within 72 hours of someone sustaining a severe brain injury. Unless patients make a rapid recovery in the first few days, it's thought they are unlikely to survive or recover much at all.

> The data Sanders and colleagues analyzed tentatively suggest otherwise.

> The data revealed that 31 of the 56 brain trauma patients who stayed on life support died within six months; and 45 percent survived. Of the 25 patients who survived, more than 30 percent recovered enough in that same six-month period to have at least some independence in daily activities.

> Just four patients recovered 'fully' to how they functioned before their injury.

"some" is doing a lot of work in this sentence. Recovering enough to have "at least some" independence after several months is not a great outcome. That very likely means lifelong daily care is required.

And 7% of the study subjects recovered completely.

I wonder what 'go in peace' means if you explain it medically. Possibly abrupt heart failure?

From the deaths of older relatives that I've (sort of) witnessed, if any other part of your body fails it's going to be slower and a lot more unpleasant.

They care about your relatives who are burdened not “accidentally” holding that button for you when somehow you would still like to live.

Neither of those matter because they don’t hold massive, disproportional influence over a huge part of the US political establishment.

And that's as of 2015, so the trend may be higher by now. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/10/05/californi...

Several in-patients that opted for medical assistance in dying were refused that treatment by administrators of the hospital on religious grounds, and their families are sueing based on the additional suffering inflicted by having to transfer to other facilities.

It’s just not a great hill to die on since most people that actually care strongly about the issue are the ones bed ridden in the hospital.

That’s almost always a financial incentive though; if you remove that you can see who really cares. I have an open will for my friends and family; everything goes to charity with the taxes and tangible assets worked out so they don’t have issues; they get a net amount of a few million. Everyone else knows they don’t get 1 cent; helps with the accidental button holding.

Obviously for many people it's still very scary - it is death after all. But the self-administered morphine drip has been around for ages and is relatively uncontroversial.

Is it? As an atheist I welcome the nothing; no more worrying about filling out taxes and such. Being religious you really should be jumping for joy (although you cannot kill yourself probably), but how is death scary if you believe in something after?

He got pneumonia at the stage where he was having to use an oxygen machine at home. At the hospital he asked the doctors if he'd be able to go home, and they said it was highly unlikely.

So, he asked them to turn off the oxygen, which they did. He passed peacefully a few hours later.

Sure, we might have gotten a few extra months with him, but I'm so glad the doctors respected his wishes. My worst fear was him having to endure something like what you describe.

The reality is there comes a point where the doctors can only prolong the dying--and in an awful lot of such cases that's a negative for the person.

Sadly, this is just one of millions of descriptions of why the phrase "Slow as death" exists. Generally, life really does not want to give up, and the process is indeed terrible.

I have often wondered why he was chosen to carry such a burden, a harmless and kind person.