SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has published a report including the number of individuals known to have taken their lives under California's end of life bill. The law requires the CDPH to provide annual reports about the effects of the law. 111 people have died after taking prescribed aid-in-dying drugs from June 9th, 2016 to December 31st, 2016 (subsequent reports will cover full calendar years):
The law — which allows terminally ill adults to obtain life-ending drugs from their doctors — took effect on June 9, 2016. Between then and the end of the year, 191 people received prescriptions under the act and 111 people died after taking prescribed aid-in-dying drugs, according to a report released Tuesday by the California Department of Public Health.
In that time period, a total of 258 people began the end-of-life process under the law, which requires patients to make two verbal requests to their doctors at least 15 days apart.
Previously: California Legislature Approves Bill Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide - UK Reject Similar Law
California to Permit Assisted Suicide Starting June 9th, Could Raise Smoking Age to 21
(Score: 4, Insightful) by WalksOnDirt on Friday June 30 2017, @01:24PM (16 children)
I'm happy to hear it is working. Someday I may need it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @01:32PM (15 children)
What happened to the other 80 prescriptions? That seems like either a lot of failures, or a lot of dangerous drug prescriptions in the wild if they were fulfilled but not used.
The followup: Did the 'killed themselves' have to be used in the title? Seems like there are less charged ways of saying it, like '111 people have been assisted in choosing their own time to die.'
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @01:46PM (1 child)
Yes because we don't want to call a spade a spade. Let's obfuscate and make it dreamy.
I find it funny that so many people support this "right to choose"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kanweg on Friday June 30 2017, @05:44PM
I find it not so funny that there are people who want to deny other people the right to choose.
....
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday June 30 2017, @02:00PM (6 children)
This was my first question to, what happened to the 80 people that went thru the process and got the prescription but then didn't die. Did they have a last minute change of heart? Are they still sitting at home starring at the pills? Did they die of their illness or? Is there an illegal market for "death drugs"?
Next I was wondering if this has had any significant reduction in the "normal" suicide rate. People that now get these kind of drugs would they have killed themselves anyway or are these new people that would have never contemplated the idea of suicide previously?
Which opens up more questions - why is it 90% white people? Are the blacks, hispanics and asians offing themselves in some other fashion or don't they get old enough to have these issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @02:06PM
Probably the same reason suicide rates among White people have jumped in the past few years.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sulla on Friday June 30 2017, @02:07PM (2 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Ages [wikipedia.org]
Yes - Whites make up 80% of the population of those 80 and older.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday June 30 2017, @02:42PM (1 child)
It's more than that, according to a table in the page you linked: 87.10% of those aged 80–84 and 88.44% of those 85 or older.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Friday June 30 2017, @03:19PM
Absolutely right.. don't know why I typed 80, thanks!
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 30 2017, @02:11PM
Bill Cosby dates. The woman doesn't change her mind thirty years later, and call it rape.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday July 01 2017, @05:42AM
In Canada, the people who took this to the Supreme Court (lost the first time, won the second time) were people who were incapable of committing suicide, paralyzed and similar. The law here is for Dr assisted suicide, so a Doctor actually applies the drugs.
The Supreme Court ruled that if your quality of life is the shits, you should be able to die. The government passed a law that said, if you're terminal, with a shitty quality of life, you should be able to die. It's going back to the Supreme Court as there are people with things like Lou Gerigs (sp?) disease that completely remove any quality of life without being particular terminal.
(Score: 3, Informative) by pendorbound on Friday June 30 2017, @02:04PM
After the script is written, you have the choice to take the drugs or not. It's relatively safe to infer that the 80 people changed their mind. That goes a long way to refuting the idea that these laws "pressure" people into dying. 80 people were thinking about it, got so far as to have the drugs in hand, but still had the freedom to change their mind before going through with it.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday June 30 2017, @02:24PM (2 children)
I'm looking at it again. 258 people started the process, 191 got the drugs, and 111 died. The gap between 258 and 191 is the wait for approval. The 80 gap could be explained in part by people who haven't gotten their affairs in order yet, as well as people who got cold feet. Maybe some of them got the drugs in preparation for dying but have not reached the stage in their terminal illnesses where they would actually want to use it.
Complaining about the title? Give me a damn break. I could have used the word 𝕊𝕌𝕀ℂ𝕀𝔻𝔼𝕊 but I chose not to.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @04:34PM (1 child)
Precisely, some of them have the prescriptions, but haven't yet used them. And there's probably some that either died prior to taking them or decided that they couldn't go through with it.
The prescriptions themselves are dangerous, but there's any number of dangerous pills out there, even some over the counter medications are extremely dangerous when abused.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @04:39PM
This, predominantly you'd think, since we're talking about terminally ill people.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday June 30 2017, @04:15PM
Some may have died before they took the meds. Others, faced with the concrete reality of the act may have changed their minds.
I wouldn't worry too much about the 80 bottles containing a lethal dose of medicine out there, it's just a drop in the bucket.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @07:23PM
self empowered life transitioning
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @01:35PM (19 children)
You know, the guy who had his girlfriend shoot him with a .50AE Desert Eagle while he was holding a book.
He died under the "right to be stupid" law ... LOL !!!
What's that you say, there is no such law ?
Oh yes there is : anyone is allowed to breed and that means the law upholds the right to be stupid.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday June 30 2017, @02:25PM (7 children)
I was thinking of submitting that but meh.
Let's hope girlfriend has a good lawyer.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday June 30 2017, @03:04PM (2 children)
You meatbags could use some more fantas^W sociopath sauce.
It's the perfect crime. Propose a stupid game, kill SO, have none other than youtube "prove" it was an accident.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday June 30 2017, @04:03PM
It was just a prank, bro.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Friday June 30 2017, @04:04PM
It was the "victim" who proposed the stunt, not the girlfriend. She will likely end up on charges of manslaughter.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @04:38PM (3 children)
Why? She deserves to go to prison for that. At bare minimum this demonstrates that she didn't test the stunt ahead of time. At an absolute bare minimum she should have shot the book without anybody behind it just to see if it would penetrate at the distance she was going to shoot from.
Mind you, that's still incredibly reckless, but in this case it probably would have saved his life.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Friday June 30 2017, @05:37PM
-- http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-woman-accused-of-fatally-shooting-boyfriend-in-fame-seeking-video-prank/431313063/ [startribune.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Friday June 30 2017, @06:21PM
She deserves to have her guilt or innocence determined by a judge or jury.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @07:25PM
why, if the dipshit volunteered? it's his right to risk his life. she should get off scot free
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @02:36PM (10 children)
I hope that book was a bible. One less religious retard.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Bot on Friday June 30 2017, @03:06PM (9 children)
Atheism is a religion, you bigot.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Friday June 30 2017, @03:21PM (8 children)
Just like not collecting stamps is a hobby?
(Score: 4, Touché) by sjames on Friday June 30 2017, @04:17PM (6 children)
If you devote enough time and energy into telling other people not to collect stamps, that could be considered a hobby.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 30 2017, @05:32PM
This atheist has devoted zero time telling people to not believe in fairy tales. Glad to know my atheism isn't a religion.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @06:27PM (3 children)
The "telling other people" part could be considered a hobby, but not the lack of stamp collecting.
Religion is a complex term and hard to define. I'd say that religions need to have some accepted belief structured around the sacred and supernatural.
Without the supernatural, they would be philosophies. Without the sacred, they would only be superstitions.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities.
Atheists can be religious, superstitious, and/or follow a particular philosophy.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Friday June 30 2017, @09:24PM (1 child)
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities.
I would call a lack of belief agnosticism. Atheism, I'd say, is the belief that there's no supernatural.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic [dictionary.com]
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnosticism?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic [dictionary.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Monday July 03 2017, @08:38AM
Atheism and Agnosticism come in strong and weak forms.
Weak atheism: There is no (evidence for) god.
Strong atheism: There can be no god in a consistent reality.
Weak agnosticism: We don't understand the nature of god(s)
Strong agnosticism: The nature of god(s) is beyond understanding.
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Friday June 30 2017, @10:28PM
What if something is considered sacred, but is not supernatural? Is that still a superstition? There a number of newer groups calling their views a religion that find the sacred in what is just natural.
And you're right about atheists can be religious, just like Buddhists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @09:12PM
Veganism: hobby or religion?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday July 02 2017, @05:13AM
Thank you for the canned response.
"Not collecting stamps" is completely defined. The act of collecting can be applied. True or false metadata can be assigned to anybody. Are you not collecting stamps? yes/no. It is a hobby? yes/no. QED.
Now: A=A+3, what is the value of A?
Atheists say they know and it's 3, because implicitly assigning a default 0 to A is the "most rational" thing to do. You destroy the very man made logic you proclaim to live by. In truth, Undefined concept is undefined.
"God does not exist" is an assertion made in the domain of a transcendent concept, which God is defined as. You can make such an assertion, just as I can say "I always lie" or "the smell of purple is center". Grammatically correct, but obviously no truth value can be derived.
First, because you should say meta-exist. Existing is defined for immanent concepts. OK let's sub. God does not meta-exist. What value can you give to such a phrase? true/false? What does exist mean? To exist means to be directly or indirectly or potentially experienced, or for a narrower def, to have a vector in time-space describing your rough position. So, let us translate this concept to meta, the domain of God. Is there time-space there? obviously no, unless you proclaim a new matrioska doll religion where the creator of space and time operate in a different space and time too. Which proves my point. So no time space there. How the fuck do you define existence then? by being experienced? ok by whom? unless you proclaim a new matrioska doll religion where the creator has itself an observer Which proves my point.
So, keep believing A=3 if you want, see if I care.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Sulla on Friday June 30 2017, @01:47PM
This is an important step in making universal healthcare possible. A Death with Dignity Act (Oregon) or this Right-to-Die are important in establishing that death is just not that big of a deal. OHP has gone so far as to offer patients lethal injection in order to not spend $4000/month on cancer meds.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1 [go.com]
Now that the dust has settled maybe we should start looking at the value of human life financially, seeing as its not that big of a deal. This woman was old and feeble, nobody really needs to live past 70 anyways, what is 64 but just a hop and a skip from 70? At that age she isn't working and not paying any real taxes, so just a drain on the system. At least we know that the state of Oregon values a human life at less than 4k/month, lets push it as far as possible to decrease the cost of universal healthcare. Afterall, healthcare for everyone is the only humane thing to do.
And don't try to pull any "but muh republican" crap on me, this is Oregon.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @02:12PM (6 children)
It's none of my business if you want to die on your own terms. That's between you and whoever or whatever you care about. I, nor the State, have any right to have a say in this.
How it is done, that is a different matter, but that it needs to be available is clear. After all, if it isn't made available in one way or another, people will just get themselves up a high point and lob themselves off or turn open their gas stove and sit back for an hour or so before lighting a cigarette. There are a myriad of ways in which to top yourself and since they exist, why not make it possible to go gently instead of painfully?
If you are mentally capable and have, under your own and full mental capacity, decided you do not want to live anymore and have expressed this desire over a sufficiently long period of time, then you should have the ability to end your life. If you so choose, you should have the ability to have someone assist you with this in such a way that this assistant faces no legal troubles, as you may not be able to do this yourself physically.
Anyone preventing you from executing on this is inflicting a cruel punishment upon you and frankly, a meddling fucktard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @02:39PM
The more precise definition is: criminal.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @04:13PM (3 children)
Is there a difference between regular suicide and medically-assisted from the standpoint of the insurance companies? Lots of policies won't pay out to the surviving spouse and kin if the policy holder commits suicide. Would they pay out in this case if their death was medically-assisted and state-sanctioned?
(Score: 1) by kanweg on Friday June 30 2017, @05:51PM (1 child)
If the money is withheld so as to avoid desperate people from killing themselves and leaving their spouse with some money, that might be OK. But now the insurance companies get to KEEP the money, if I'm correct. Now they are the beneficiaries of the suicide. It should be arranged that in such a case the money invested is returned to the spouse, and the remainder of the money goes to some charity (e.g. a suicide prevention foundation). That the insurance companies get to keep the money is terrible and should be illegal.
....
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 30 2017, @06:01PM
Fortunately, here on the internet we have the fix for that. First, change your moral opinions so that you aren't wasting time on this windmill. Second, keep in mind that the insurance company a) no longer gets paid once someone dies, and b) can't charge as much in premiums when costs go down. That means less profits in the long run.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @06:35PM
I see this as an opportunity for the health insurance and life insurance companies to negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement.
Health insurance would save much more money than what the life insurance would be able to make from a few more months of premiums. The health insurance companies could simply pay the life insurance premiums so the patients wouldn't spend extra time waiting to die in a hospital.
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Friday July 07 2017, @10:00PM
I couldn't agree more.
There have been a few attempts to get a similar law passed in the UK, but the safeguards against the potential for it assisted suicide being requested as the result of duress have never been felt to be strong enough. You also get the usual suspects - the interminably religious - claiming that we'd be terminating mildly disabled children left, right and centre and point-blank refusing to read the legislation to learn that this would be impossible. Similar to the abortion issue in Northern Ireland[1], there's no problem if you are able to finance a trip abroad but should you be of sound mind and decide you don't want to live any more, nothing can make that happen legally in the UK. I have watched people endure a terminal illness and while palliative care is better than it was, they still know what's coming; the option to take a nice big dose of morphine/midazolam would have made their suffering less terrible. Prolonging life is a noble intention, but willfully prolonging suffering is pure barbarism.
[1] Though it looks like this is less of an issue now. Still not a non-issue, unfortunately.