I’ve been struggling to keep dying OA meetings alive. First there was a phone meeting that I kept alive for many years, tho a young man finally took it over for me. Then there is a small meeting that I go to near my home every week. Sometimes there are only two or three. Sometimes I’m the only one. We’re lucky when we get five people.
The Methodist Church where we have this meeting also is struggling. The paint is peeling. It seems like the number of people attending the service is not that much more than attend the OA meeting.
This weekend I went to an SLAA meeting in the city, which used to be very large, but there were only 3 of us there and no chair, so I had to go get the key to get into the room, even tho I arrived late.
That church, which is Catholic, seems to be struggling as well. The toilet near our meeting room doesn’t stop flushing, for instance, even though I’ve reported it.
Why are things falling apart?
Some of it is changed religious beliefs. How many people really identify theologically with Methodists any more? I don’t know.
With the Catholic Church, of course, we know there have been losses of money due to sexual abuse scandals.
Another thing is the Internet. Everyone is glued to their electronic devices and doesn’t have time to go to in person events. Also, on the Internet, they can find more exciting content: songs sung better, preachers who are more eloquent.
Another thing is the loss of the great volunteer force, which was stay at home moms. This force of able workers devoted themselves to many of our national institutions — especially churches. They aren’t available any more.
As women’s “liberation” encouraged women to believe that working outside the home was liberating, the economy adjusted to the idea that families had two incomes. Housing prices doubled, so that one person working could no longer afford a home. It was like during the California gold rush, where prices went up so high that gold miners could get no profits off the gold that they found.
Now, working outside the home is no longer an option. It’s mandatory for the financial security of the family. People no longer have the time and energy to do do those older things, like keep churches going. Everyone’s working multiple jobs, just trying to stay afloat.
So now I’m thinking about Trump who speaks to people who think the country is falling apart and Obama who is saying that things are pretty good. I guess in some sense both can be seen as true.
Still, what do I want to devote my energies to saving?
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Just launching myself blythely into this controversy & expecting to be strafed.
Oh, so many thoughts.
I am seeing so much divisive finger pointing on the Internet where people of differing opinions accuse each other of nefarious conspiracies. If you are a liberal, those conspiracies are headed up by the Koch brothers. If you are a conservative those conspiracies are headed up by George Soros. Also, everyone is suddenly Hitler or a Nazi, if you don’t agree with them.
Unproven malicious gossip is taken as true. Mainstream media is drowned out, because people can’t afford subscriptions — or the time to read a paid subscription.
And, into this maelstrom, comes the current crisis surrounding the killing of Afrimericans by white cops and the shooting of cops by a loony in Dallas.
I tend to think of myself as progressive. I tend to take those views in many respects.
There’s this liberal cartoon
Then there's this conservative cartoon
I do find a certain appeal to the conservative cartoon. An Afrimerican "friend" on FB accused me of sounding like a Nazi when I said there were some cultural issues about the difference between how Afrimericans respond to police and how Anglos do. I don't think that this is a legal issue exactly, unlike the author of the above cartoon.
Now these latest two shooting by cops did not show Afrimericans responding non-deferentially to cops. But some of the earlier ones did.
Please note I'm not saying that the anger management issues that cops have manifested in response to non-deferential behavior were justified. I think cops should be trained not to respond to perceived rudeness with rage. I think cops should be more professional than that. On the other hand, it just really isn't prudent to be rude or talk back to a cop. It just isn't.
I do feel that Anglos like me (actually I'm only half Anglo) tend to be more timid and deferential in general. I've even heard Afrimericans comment on that.
Let me give you a couple of examples out of my life.
The first example occurred when my son was in second grade.
I live in a school district that is about half Hispanic and half white, but there are very few African Americans, as we usually think about that term, tho the Hispanics often have some African ancestry. I went to my son’s class and witnessed an African American boy put out in the hall. He had been talking back to the teacher and would not stop.
Now the curious thing about this was that this boy was not being nasty or disrespectful. He was just talking to her pleasantly, as if they were in an ordinary conversation, ignoring the rest of the class. I didn’t think he was a bad kid at all, but somehow his behavior was not like that of the other kids — all of whom listened silently when the teacher spoke.
I felt that this was perhaps a cultural difference. I notice, for instance, that Afrimericans are allowed to talk back in church, while Anglos are not supposed to.
The second example happened to me in NYC.
I was walking along 34th street at night with a man I had just met at an event. My companion was a very small, nerdy white man. As we walked along, we encountered a rather seedy looking street preacher, also white, who was saying something about Christianity. I’m not quite sure what he was saying, but the fellow I was walking with chose to try to speak to the preacher. I don’t remember what the comment was, but the street preacher went ballistic, showing himself to be dangerously unhinged.
The fellow I was walking with and I chose to try to walk briskly away from this lunatic, but he was screaming after us and seemed like he might try to follow us, which was a bit alarming.
Another pedestrian went over and yelled at the lunatic and told him to quit bothering us. This pedestrian was African American. His intervention did seem to work as the lunatic stopped yelling at us.
On the one hand, I was grateful to the person who intervened to help us and thanked him. On the other hand, I felt that this intervention might easily have backfired and resulted in a violent incident, and I doubted that an Anglo would have intervened in the same way.
In any case, I'm thinking that it might be good if school children were trained in how to respond to police, so that there would be consistency. That might avoid some problems. If everyone behaved consistently, the police might more easily distinguish people who were truly resisting arrest and dangerous from others.
I am seeing so much divisive finger pointing on the Internet where people of differing opinions accuse each other of nefarious conspiracies. If you are a liberal, those conspiracies are headed up by the Koch brothers. If you are a conservative those conspiracies are headed up by George Soros. Also, everyone is suddenly Hitler or a Nazi, if you don’t agree with them.
Unproven malicious gossip is taken as true. Mainstream media is drowned out, because people can’t afford subscriptions — or the time to read a paid subscription.
And, into this maelstrom, comes the current crisis surrounding the killing of Afrimericans by white cops and the shooting of cops by a loony in Dallas.
I tend to think of myself as progressive. I tend to take those views in many respects.
There’s this liberal cartoon
All Houses Matter: The Updated Version @krisstraub pic.twitter.com/PJ9gd5qGd3— Mikey Neumann (@mikeyface) July 7, 2016
Then there's this conservative cartoon
I do find a certain appeal to the conservative cartoon. An Afrimerican "friend" on FB accused me of sounding like a Nazi when I said there were some cultural issues about the difference between how Afrimericans respond to police and how Anglos do. I don't think that this is a legal issue exactly, unlike the author of the above cartoon.
Now these latest two shooting by cops did not show Afrimericans responding non-deferentially to cops. But some of the earlier ones did.
Please note I'm not saying that the anger management issues that cops have manifested in response to non-deferential behavior were justified. I think cops should be trained not to respond to perceived rudeness with rage. I think cops should be more professional than that. On the other hand, it just really isn't prudent to be rude or talk back to a cop. It just isn't.
I do feel that Anglos like me (actually I'm only half Anglo) tend to be more timid and deferential in general. I've even heard Afrimericans comment on that.
Let me give you a couple of examples out of my life.
The first example occurred when my son was in second grade.
I live in a school district that is about half Hispanic and half white, but there are very few African Americans, as we usually think about that term, tho the Hispanics often have some African ancestry. I went to my son’s class and witnessed an African American boy put out in the hall. He had been talking back to the teacher and would not stop.
Now the curious thing about this was that this boy was not being nasty or disrespectful. He was just talking to her pleasantly, as if they were in an ordinary conversation, ignoring the rest of the class. I didn’t think he was a bad kid at all, but somehow his behavior was not like that of the other kids — all of whom listened silently when the teacher spoke.
I felt that this was perhaps a cultural difference. I notice, for instance, that Afrimericans are allowed to talk back in church, while Anglos are not supposed to.
The second example happened to me in NYC.
I was walking along 34th street at night with a man I had just met at an event. My companion was a very small, nerdy white man. As we walked along, we encountered a rather seedy looking street preacher, also white, who was saying something about Christianity. I’m not quite sure what he was saying, but the fellow I was walking with chose to try to speak to the preacher. I don’t remember what the comment was, but the street preacher went ballistic, showing himself to be dangerously unhinged.
The fellow I was walking with and I chose to try to walk briskly away from this lunatic, but he was screaming after us and seemed like he might try to follow us, which was a bit alarming.
Another pedestrian went over and yelled at the lunatic and told him to quit bothering us. This pedestrian was African American. His intervention did seem to work as the lunatic stopped yelling at us.
On the one hand, I was grateful to the person who intervened to help us and thanked him. On the other hand, I felt that this intervention might easily have backfired and resulted in a violent incident, and I doubted that an Anglo would have intervened in the same way.
In any case, I'm thinking that it might be good if school children were trained in how to respond to police, so that there would be consistency. That might avoid some problems. If everyone behaved consistently, the police might more easily distinguish people who were truly resisting arrest and dangerous from others.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Clinton Fantasies
I’m having this fantasy that I’m Hillary Clinton and that I’m answering questions.
I’m having this fantasy because I’m expecting to vote for her and I’m hoping she’s really not the monster that some people are painting her to be. I did support Bernie Sanders, but it appears that he’s not going to be the nominee and I do feel that she’s likely better than Trump.
I never really liked to think of myself as a socialist. I supported Sanders, because he had some other positions that I liked: for instance, being against overthrowing dictators, because we don’t really have anything to put in their place; saying that addiction is a disease and not a crime; and also the Medicare for all thing (which I guess is socialist).
Anyway, I’m thinking right now that I’ll vote for Clinton, so I’m hoping there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for what she’s been doing with respect to the e-mails and the apparently unqualified member of a committee on nuclear policy.
So here are my fantasy responses, delivered not in her characteristically tight-lipped, defensive, bellicose way, but rather in a more relaxed, thoughtful, candid way.
E-mails
—————
Well, at the time it seemed like a good idea. It seemed like a more secure, private system than, say, gmail or Yahoo! In retrospect, I see that those big companies were probably better protected against hackers than my private system, but back then I did not realize that.
I did think we had permission. Joe, the Secret Service guy who went over the thing, said he got everything checked out. I guess maybe he didn’t clear it with the State Department. I didn’t double check.
Managers are supposed to be big picture people. We have to delegate details to others, or we wouldn’t get anything done.
Nuclear committee
————————————
As we go through life, we meet many people in many different ways. Yes, I met Mr. Fernando because he was a donor; but that’s not why I put him on this board. I put him on the board, because I got to know him, because I found him to be a person of exceptional thoughtfulness and good character. I think that, if you met him, you would also like him.
I find very sad that this extraordinarily sensitive, generous man is being subjected to the horrible implications that the media is putting forward.
***********
This is kind of like my books, where I write fantasies as novels.
I’m having this fantasy because I’m expecting to vote for her and I’m hoping she’s really not the monster that some people are painting her to be. I did support Bernie Sanders, but it appears that he’s not going to be the nominee and I do feel that she’s likely better than Trump.
I never really liked to think of myself as a socialist. I supported Sanders, because he had some other positions that I liked: for instance, being against overthrowing dictators, because we don’t really have anything to put in their place; saying that addiction is a disease and not a crime; and also the Medicare for all thing (which I guess is socialist).
Anyway, I’m thinking right now that I’ll vote for Clinton, so I’m hoping there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for what she’s been doing with respect to the e-mails and the apparently unqualified member of a committee on nuclear policy.
So here are my fantasy responses, delivered not in her characteristically tight-lipped, defensive, bellicose way, but rather in a more relaxed, thoughtful, candid way.
E-mails
—————
Well, at the time it seemed like a good idea. It seemed like a more secure, private system than, say, gmail or Yahoo! In retrospect, I see that those big companies were probably better protected against hackers than my private system, but back then I did not realize that.
I did think we had permission. Joe, the Secret Service guy who went over the thing, said he got everything checked out. I guess maybe he didn’t clear it with the State Department. I didn’t double check.
Managers are supposed to be big picture people. We have to delegate details to others, or we wouldn’t get anything done.
Nuclear committee
————————————
As we go through life, we meet many people in many different ways. Yes, I met Mr. Fernando because he was a donor; but that’s not why I put him on this board. I put him on the board, because I got to know him, because I found him to be a person of exceptional thoughtfulness and good character. I think that, if you met him, you would also like him.
I find very sad that this extraordinarily sensitive, generous man is being subjected to the horrible implications that the media is putting forward.
***********
This is kind of like my books, where I write fantasies as novels.
Monday, May 23, 2016
Another teen suicide due to bullying
A teen suicide connected with bullying.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/23/after-years-of-alleged-bullying-an-ohio-teen-killed-herself-is-her-school-district-responsible/
In this case, we have someone insecure about her race, because adopted by white parents, then bullied about her race and perceived sexual orientation.
People can be bullied for all sorts of things. In my case, I think I was bullied because I was an Aspie. My Aspie kids were bullied, too. Now that’s not to say that they didn’t contribute, because they were socially inept, because they were Aspies. But, again, that was part of their disability.
Neurotypical people think that an Aspie could just stop being socially inept. No. They can’t — any more than a person in a wheelchair can stand up and walk.
Tony Atwood recommends that Aspie children be appointed a mentor, preferably an older child, who can accompany them at recess and lunch and guide them through social situations. I asked for that for my kids, but it didn’t happen.
We really need to look at this public perception that school is good for kids socially. Really? It seems to me that it’s a place where they’re more likely to be socially traumatized.
Did the school have notice in the case of this suicide? How could they not have had notice if there was a shouting incident over the bullying? Moreover, if they don’t notice the bullying, they must not have enough supervision. Bullying happens very often. It should be expected and checked for. Schools should not be waiting for reports.
Maybe kids need one of those pendants, like they give older people, so that they can press a button and call for help when they’re being bullied. Perhaps kids should be given surveys monthly to ask if they’ve been bullied and get them help.
Maybe every adult should have a survey asking them whether on the whole they thought school was socially beneficial or traumatizing. Most adults I know remember traumatic experiences and feelings of being socially stigmatized at school.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/23/after-years-of-alleged-bullying-an-ohio-teen-killed-herself-is-her-school-district-responsible/
In this case, we have someone insecure about her race, because adopted by white parents, then bullied about her race and perceived sexual orientation.
People can be bullied for all sorts of things. In my case, I think I was bullied because I was an Aspie. My Aspie kids were bullied, too. Now that’s not to say that they didn’t contribute, because they were socially inept, because they were Aspies. But, again, that was part of their disability.
Neurotypical people think that an Aspie could just stop being socially inept. No. They can’t — any more than a person in a wheelchair can stand up and walk.
Tony Atwood recommends that Aspie children be appointed a mentor, preferably an older child, who can accompany them at recess and lunch and guide them through social situations. I asked for that for my kids, but it didn’t happen.
We really need to look at this public perception that school is good for kids socially. Really? It seems to me that it’s a place where they’re more likely to be socially traumatized.
Did the school have notice in the case of this suicide? How could they not have had notice if there was a shouting incident over the bullying? Moreover, if they don’t notice the bullying, they must not have enough supervision. Bullying happens very often. It should be expected and checked for. Schools should not be waiting for reports.
Maybe kids need one of those pendants, like they give older people, so that they can press a button and call for help when they’re being bullied. Perhaps kids should be given surveys monthly to ask if they’ve been bullied and get them help.
Maybe every adult should have a survey asking them whether on the whole they thought school was socially beneficial or traumatizing. Most adults I know remember traumatic experiences and feelings of being socially stigmatized at school.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Response to @Forbes re: weight loss & science
I feel like I’ve said these things before, but, then, I don’t know whether anyone consistently reads what I write, so I guess it is worth repeating.
I read this article:
link to recent Forbes article re weight loss
I tried to comment on it on the Forbes website, but, somehow, the accounts that I had set up wouldn’t work. I guess I had to agree to receive e-mails from them in order to set up an account, so that -- if I refused to receive e-mails -- their little widget wouldn’t register me? Not sure.
First, I do NOT believe these numbers associated with calories per gram of carbs, protein, and fat. These numbers were arrived at by a primitive system, burning or autoclaving food. It’s not at all clear to me that that method is bio-equivalent to what is going on with digestion. In particular, the idea that fat has so many calories per gram strikes me as *very* suspect.
Fat burns well in air, releasing a lot of heat. Is that what it does in the body? That’s not clear to me. For instance, when I took biology, I learned that fat was used in the digestion of glucose. It seemed to me more like it was helping the reaction, rather than being digested itself, at least not completely.
Studies are starting to come out showing that this whole low fat diet craze that our country is coming out of was totally wrong. There was never any science to back it up. It was just magical thinking: eating fat makes you fat. No. It doesn’t. One recent study said that for best weight loss most adults should have a diet that is over 30% fat.
I believe that people are overweight, because they are overeating. A maintenance level food plan will not keep a person in an overweight condition. They don’t have to eat below maintenance level to lose weight if they are overweight. I’ve seen this in OA.
This is a really important point. Restrictive diets lead to starve/binge eating behaviors. These behaviors are a very efficient way of gaining weight.
During periods of starvation, the body goes into a low metabolism storage state where weight loss is difficult. People who diet frequently mess up their metabolisms and have less and less effect from diets.
Moreover, if someone binges while in a low metabolism storage state, they put on fat much more efficiently than if they binged while eating in accordance with a maintenance level food plan.
Dieting is a primary cause of the obesity epidemic.
This article is just re-hashing approaches that don’t work and which I believe are false.
I read this article:
link to recent Forbes article re weight loss
I tried to comment on it on the Forbes website, but, somehow, the accounts that I had set up wouldn’t work. I guess I had to agree to receive e-mails from them in order to set up an account, so that -- if I refused to receive e-mails -- their little widget wouldn’t register me? Not sure.
Specious calorie numbers
First, I do NOT believe these numbers associated with calories per gram of carbs, protein, and fat. These numbers were arrived at by a primitive system, burning or autoclaving food. It’s not at all clear to me that that method is bio-equivalent to what is going on with digestion. In particular, the idea that fat has so many calories per gram strikes me as *very* suspect.
Fat burns well in air, releasing a lot of heat. Is that what it does in the body? That’s not clear to me. For instance, when I took biology, I learned that fat was used in the digestion of glucose. It seemed to me more like it was helping the reaction, rather than being digested itself, at least not completely.
Studies are starting to come out showing that this whole low fat diet craze that our country is coming out of was totally wrong. There was never any science to back it up. It was just magical thinking: eating fat makes you fat. No. It doesn’t. One recent study said that for best weight loss most adults should have a diet that is over 30% fat.
Specious comments about associating calories with weight loss
I believe that people are overweight, because they are overeating. A maintenance level food plan will not keep a person in an overweight condition. They don’t have to eat below maintenance level to lose weight if they are overweight. I’ve seen this in OA.
This is a really important point. Restrictive diets lead to starve/binge eating behaviors. These behaviors are a very efficient way of gaining weight.
During periods of starvation, the body goes into a low metabolism storage state where weight loss is difficult. People who diet frequently mess up their metabolisms and have less and less effect from diets.
Moreover, if someone binges while in a low metabolism storage state, they put on fat much more efficiently than if they binged while eating in accordance with a maintenance level food plan.
Dieting is a primary cause of the obesity epidemic.
***********
This article is just re-hashing approaches that don’t work and which I believe are false.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Current version of assistance in dying.
Yesterday, I went with Compassion & Choices to lobby for a bill, identical to the laws in states like Oregon & Vermont, to allow aid in dying.
I first got interested in this topic, because my father was in it. He spoke repeatedly about how frustrated he was both that there was no aid in dying and also that heroin, which is apparently the best pain killer for terminal cancer patients, and which was developed originally by a commercial prescription drug manufacturer, was illegal even for terminal cancer patients. He belonged to some groups that were advocating for changes in the law in that area.
Sadly, changes in the law did not arrive in time fo him.
He got terminal cancer and died in hospice. I want to make some observations about this process.
First morphine had been touted to him as this wonder drug that would make the dying experience bearable. This turned out to be wrong. He hated morphine. It caused severe constipation (the kind that requires a nurse to physically go in there and get the poop out). It also caused unpleasant hallucinations.
Moreover, he did not like the sensation produced by this drug. We hear reports all the time that morphine is addictive and that it makes people high. My father hated the way it made his thinking cloudy. He valued clear thinking.
Morphine may be wonderful for some people, but not for everyone.
Second, people have told me that you can die within two days if you don’t have anything to drink. It took my father 3 weeks, with nothing to eat or drink and no feeding tube, to die. I guess you only die so quickly if you’re out in the hot desert sun, not if you’re lying in a comfortable bed in a climate controlled house.
And all of that time, my father wished that he had the option to get aid in dying.
*****
But I learned, as part of my lobbying trip, that the current bill has some significant limitations intended to prevent abuse
- you have to be terminally ill, with less than 6 months to live and no available treatments
- you have to be mentally competent.
- the drug prescribed must be self-administered, not administered by anyone else
- you have to make at least two requests for aid in dying within 15 days of each other
My dad could have met these criteria.
On the other hand, other friends family members, who I watched die, could not have.
Let me take first the example of my maternal grandmother.
She had an initial major heart attack when I was in 4th grade, which left her somewhat brain damaged. In the following two years, she had a series of small strokes, each of which left her more disabled than the previous, so that she was essentially a “vegetable.” After 2 years, during much of which she was helpless, confined to a wheelchair and unable to speak, she died; however, within 6 months of her death she was not mentally competent and therefore could not have exercised an option for assisted dying, under this law, even if she had left clear directives indicating that she would like aid in dying. She would also likely not even have been able to self-administer the drug.
Another example was a friend whose wife died of early onset Alzheimers. For several years prior to her death, she was paralyzed and mute. Again, six months prior to her death, she was not mentally competent, so she could not have used the procedure from this bill.
The representatives of Compassionate Choices spoke — as if this were a good thing — of only 1/500 Oregonians opting for assisted dying. I would submit that this low number is due to at least part of the people who would have liked to exercise this option were not mentally competent within 6 months of their death.
Therefore, though my father would have benefited from this bill; a lot of people wouldn’t really have the kind of dying experience that would be compatible with this bill.
Ideally, I would like to be able to sign a paper upon getting an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that I would like assisted dying at some particular time, or when my symptoms were at some threshold of acuteness — like maybe I could no longer recognize my children — or maybe I could no longer get to the toilet. This law would not help in such a circumstance.
Another example would be if my cancer were to recur and they could treat me, but the treatment might result in paralysis or being maimed by invasive surgery/radiation/chemo. What if I would prefer not to have such treatment, but also do not want to go through a painful death? I would not be eligible under this law, because treatment would be considered available to me.
I’m glad that this law is being considered, but I don't think it goes far enough.
I first got interested in this topic, because my father was in it. He spoke repeatedly about how frustrated he was both that there was no aid in dying and also that heroin, which is apparently the best pain killer for terminal cancer patients, and which was developed originally by a commercial prescription drug manufacturer, was illegal even for terminal cancer patients. He belonged to some groups that were advocating for changes in the law in that area.
Sadly, changes in the law did not arrive in time fo him.
He got terminal cancer and died in hospice. I want to make some observations about this process.
First morphine had been touted to him as this wonder drug that would make the dying experience bearable. This turned out to be wrong. He hated morphine. It caused severe constipation (the kind that requires a nurse to physically go in there and get the poop out). It also caused unpleasant hallucinations.
Moreover, he did not like the sensation produced by this drug. We hear reports all the time that morphine is addictive and that it makes people high. My father hated the way it made his thinking cloudy. He valued clear thinking.
Morphine may be wonderful for some people, but not for everyone.
Second, people have told me that you can die within two days if you don’t have anything to drink. It took my father 3 weeks, with nothing to eat or drink and no feeding tube, to die. I guess you only die so quickly if you’re out in the hot desert sun, not if you’re lying in a comfortable bed in a climate controlled house.
And all of that time, my father wished that he had the option to get aid in dying.
*****
But I learned, as part of my lobbying trip, that the current bill has some significant limitations intended to prevent abuse
- you have to be terminally ill, with less than 6 months to live and no available treatments
- you have to be mentally competent.
- the drug prescribed must be self-administered, not administered by anyone else
- you have to make at least two requests for aid in dying within 15 days of each other
My dad could have met these criteria.
On the other hand, other friends family members, who I watched die, could not have.
Let me take first the example of my maternal grandmother.
She had an initial major heart attack when I was in 4th grade, which left her somewhat brain damaged. In the following two years, she had a series of small strokes, each of which left her more disabled than the previous, so that she was essentially a “vegetable.” After 2 years, during much of which she was helpless, confined to a wheelchair and unable to speak, she died; however, within 6 months of her death she was not mentally competent and therefore could not have exercised an option for assisted dying, under this law, even if she had left clear directives indicating that she would like aid in dying. She would also likely not even have been able to self-administer the drug.
Another example was a friend whose wife died of early onset Alzheimers. For several years prior to her death, she was paralyzed and mute. Again, six months prior to her death, she was not mentally competent, so she could not have used the procedure from this bill.
The representatives of Compassionate Choices spoke — as if this were a good thing — of only 1/500 Oregonians opting for assisted dying. I would submit that this low number is due to at least part of the people who would have liked to exercise this option were not mentally competent within 6 months of their death.
Therefore, though my father would have benefited from this bill; a lot of people wouldn’t really have the kind of dying experience that would be compatible with this bill.
Ideally, I would like to be able to sign a paper upon getting an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that I would like assisted dying at some particular time, or when my symptoms were at some threshold of acuteness — like maybe I could no longer recognize my children — or maybe I could no longer get to the toilet. This law would not help in such a circumstance.
Another example would be if my cancer were to recur and they could treat me, but the treatment might result in paralysis or being maimed by invasive surgery/radiation/chemo. What if I would prefer not to have such treatment, but also do not want to go through a painful death? I would not be eligible under this law, because treatment would be considered available to me.
I’m glad that this law is being considered, but I don't think it goes far enough.
******
Here is an interesting story about a woman in The Netherlands who was granted assisted suicide/aid in dying, because she had incurable PTSD from childhood sexual abuse
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/netherlands-sex-abuse-victim-euthanasia-incurable-ptsd-assisted-suicide/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)