J7,

Actually the cost is not relevant to the issue. The issue that thoughtful people are engaged in is one of personal freedom. Either we should decide how other people manage their personal end of life experience, or we should let each individual exercise their personal freedom and decide for themselves how to manage it. Weighing in about the cost of the drugs is called deflection and avoiding discussing the core or root issue.

Same with insurance and insurance companies. That is NOT the issue. That's tangential deflection, trying to shift the subject of the debate. Let the individual patient make his decision, including whatever the insurance ramifications are or are not.

Anyone bringing up tangential issues is guilty of trying to change the subject, and steer clear of the central issue which is personal freedom to make one's own end of life management decision. I don't care what your moral belief about this issue is, please don't try to impose your morals on me. I don't give a [censored] whether you have life insurance coverage for suicide or not, and I don't expect you to be butting into my life insurance issues either, along with any other of by business.

Same with family. While I respect my family's right to each of their individual opinions and beliefs, I expect each and every one of them to equally respect my personal beliefs, and either support my personal decisions or show some respect and butt out of my final personal business. That part in the ad where Martin Sheen says someone could commit assisted suicide without their spouse's knowledge or consent should be seen as a positive thing, not negative. What is it that some dumb fvcks don't understand about personal freedom being personal, not family or community and sure as hell not governmental.

BWP,

As stated emphatically above, the health care system is also irrelevant. You're just side-stepping the central issue. You favor personal freedom or you oppose it. Take a stand. For freedom I would hope. Go ahead and be afraid of assisted suicide if you want, and don't do it yourself. What I object to is that you seem to think it is you who should decide what I should fear and why I should fear it. I'm willing to let you decide what to be afraid of. How about you give me the same respect and not be constraining my personal freedom? I hate it when anyone would meddle in my personal business. Fvckin' busybodies need to get out of other's lives and take care of themselves.

Slab,

I know your experience well and respect you for your decision and action. A good dog is part of the family. Putting my retrievers down tore my guts out for days. Some things in life, and death, are hard, but nonetheless necessary.

AM,

Nice to be on the same page with you again.

Good post Parker. But again, insurance is a different issue, and an irrelevant distraction from the core issue of personal freedom. I don't expect to still be carrying life insurance in a few more years, but even if I did, I wouldn't let that over-ride the issue of my personal freedom. For those concerned about it, a lot of life insurance policies don't cover suicide in the first two years of the policy.

Krijack,

We're back to you thinking you have the right to limit my personal freedom in a matter that concerns me but doesn't concern you. What's that make you, a facist? I still recommend that you let yourself die writhing away in pain, but get your personal values and opinions out of my life, and let me decide for myself. What you're suggesting makes you the most dangerous kind of citizen in my estimation. You're only willing to let me live with the freedoms you think I should have, and that I shouldn't be allowed any that you don't approve of. I'd like not to take this to a personal level, but it is personal because it appears that you insist on injecting yourself into the most personal aspect of my life even tho whatever I do in this matter has no possible way of personally affecting you. Can you even see the lop-sided nature of the control of freedom that is at issue here?

All of your slippery slope arguments are more about dodging the core issue and less about facing the fact that your position is one wherein you're OK with enforcing your personal values over mine in a matter that affects me but not you. Nobody's making you choose assisted suicide. Your position causes me to see you as the enemy of personal freedom. Can you assemble a clear, cogent, and convincing defense that it isn't?

BTW, thank you for participating in this discussion.

Freespool,

Good points. I agree that it seems to be religious zealots who tend to think that they are the one who should have the right to decide how their fellow citizens manage their personal business, whether it's end of life, abortion, gay marriage, but they forgive priests who sexually abuse children. Sheesh!

Thanks everyone who took the time to contribute!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.