HOME | DD
Avalik โ I support the right to die
Published: 2009-07-30 06:49:31 +0000 UTC; Views: 14635; Favourites: 394; Downloads: 69
Redirect to original
Description
So, I support the right to die. That is, euthanisia... for humans. I couldn't find another stamp similar to this, and I think it is an important human right that should be common but is rarely given legal rights to. I am an active activist for this right, and in the correct communities you can easily find me supporting this right. As such I receive many e-mails and mails a day asking for help or advice to end their life. Some of these are very earnest and my heart goes out to these people, but the laws in this world would equate my assistance with lethal or immoral action, and my ability to respond to such requests is restricted to deleting or crumpling their mail without a response. And this brings me to tears that the backwards world we live in threatens my liberties to even communicate and to help, and it makes me feel so incredibly selfish when I do not... I can respond, but my own fear of being imprisoned prevents this. I wish I could be more brave, like the real heroes of this world who fought in the past for human rights even at the risk of death or life imprisonment. I do hope to get rid of this cowardice of mine._________________
Many people outright are hostile to the idea, and believe people should live in pain up until their last breathe; they should fight and struggle for years on end, and if they give up are cowardly selfish beings, despite that perhaps the idea of forcing a person to live for your own benefit is the selfish idealogy. Others are more receptive to the idea, but only under conditions such as for those who are terminally ill or could only live by assistance from machines. I believe the right should be extended to those who are physically sick, mentally ill, and even those who are simply bored of life.
We euthanize pets on the basis that they "are living in pain", and yet we force a human to go through every available resource to keep the flicker going, even if they don't want to do this anymore. If they don't want to be hooked up to a machine or if daily living is unbearable, they should "be brave, suck it up!" but why? Why, other than the common "the people around you will be sad if you die."
Does NO one think of the person who is in pain? When someone is murdered, everyone looks out for the victim's right. When your pet is in incurable agony, it would be inhumane to impose that pain on them simply because you would be sad when they die. It's sadistc, it's inhumane, it's torture; to inflict pain, to refuse to help relieve pain, or to ridicule people who aren't steel and can't take the pain... for your own benefit, or for anyone else's benefit.
It truely is a sick society when we feel compelled to kick people who are down and is in fact IMMORAL to NOT punish these people, and that the slightest weakness should be looked down upon.
I care about the earth in which we live. I care about the quality of life for all living beings - like yourself - and I care about the life of the slug I found outside or the chickens on the farm or the elephant in Africa, and the cats and dogs we feed every day. The many wild rodents, the birds and insects, and the abundant flora, in which we humans provide a peaceful means to escape if in pain, exempt one species of billions.
I want the competent to have a means of living and dying which is self-determined, self-empowering, and gracefully executed according to compassionate and responsible principles I associate with intelligent and mature human values. This includes clear adult communications about methods to end one's life in a predictable and timely fashion.
From the words of another, "Euthanasia and assisted suicide are covert and unregulated in the Canada of today. Also, their accessibility has more to do with "connections" than with need. They must become available within an open, regulated and equitable system.
People who are suffering intolerably from an incurable condition must have an adequate level of information and support with respect to every one of their options โ including, though not limited to, the option of a hastened death." - Right to Die Society of Canada.
"I chose the way I lived my life, I should be able to choose how to end my life." - unknown.
"Quality over quantity. It applies to life itself, too." - my own words.
_________________
I'll be creating another one of these with a hemlock in the background, as I feel that'd be more symbolic. That'll be explained on the next one.
If you support any aspect of the right, feel free to still use it... you aren't obligued to use it only if you support it to my extent.
And to those who disagree with it, feel free to voice your opinions but I will respond and more than likely I will not be agreeing.
_________________
As for the artistic aspect of the actual stamp, the background is quite simply an eye with gaussian blur applied and a little tinkering. The eye is the key to the soul, and such and such, and is important in many cultures regarding to death so that's why I used it.
Medium: Digital
Program: Ole' Gimpy.
Time: an hour.
RESOURCES
Background: Eye Stock V by ~grace-stock
Font: Smudger LET Thin
Size: 99 x 56 pixels
ART USAGE TERMS for I support the right to die
I support the right to die is copyright to Adele "Avalik" Johnson. Please use I support the right to die according to the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License, and no other way. Please also review the stock image's Terms of Use: [link]
Legalese translation: You may use this anywhere on deviantART and out, however derivative works or commercial gain is prohibited.
Related content
Comments: 233
I appreciate the response. 
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
You know what a coincedence, I was watching South Park and they were airing a spoof of the Terri Schiavo case. Wouldn't never recognized it if you hadn't linked me your poll hehe.
I'm not too keen on USA laws with euthanasia. Aren't a lot of the states haven't even decriminilized suicide?
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Yeah, the Terri Schiavo case was SUCH a huge deal when it was happening. It's one thing I think George W. Bush really screwed up, by making it seem like euthanizing Terri was a crime (and I'm one of the Americans who happened to like GWB, too). That was a sticky situation; it was a case gone wrong, pairing the patient's desires against the proxy's, and the parents' issues and assumptions... it was a mess.
I'm not too keen on them myself, but I do know that, like I mentioned before, only Washington State and Oregon have allowed both passive and active euthanasia. As far as I know, "state-sponsored suicide" is still illegal.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
I think the biggest issue in the whole thing was religion, really (on the parents side, anyways). Her parents were Roman Catholics, and you know religion... it's pretty serious business. Here in Vancouver we had not too long ago some Jehovah's Witness parents giving birth to sextuplets that needed blood transfusions. They refused to let them have blood transfusions, meaning they would have died, so MCFD seized the three that needed the transfusions in order to adminster it. And then it became a big case.
Similar, sort of, except instead of trying to keep life-saving treatment it's withholding life-saving treatment for religious reasons.
But yes, that whole case was sticky on both sides. Should a husband have that guardianship power? Is it wrong to keep people on machines? And so on. I read the case though, and after the parents attempted perjury I definitely sided more with the husband.
It's so much easier when someone just makes a living will, isn't it? I made my living will up when I was 16
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Religion, definitely. It's so crazy how people, when it comes to that time, can start to cling to the tiniest things. If I were a parent, I'd rather put my daughter out of her misery than cling to her and know that she'd never be able to recover.
Yikes. I guess I'd better get moving on that living will thing...
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Well I wouldn't say it was the tiniest thing, hard to give a daughter up. But nonetheless.
Hehe well, unless you're like 60 or something you probably don't have to worry about a living will. But I guess it depends on your circumstances. And then you never know!
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
I'm 18, soon to be 19, with an uncle that is constantly trying to get my parents to get better life insurance. I think I have some time!
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Who's trying to get better life insurance on you? Maybe you should hurry up!
Just kidding. But ya never know what can happen right? One of my foster parents got into a car accident last two weeks, he's... kind of... okay, well, he's not dead or in a coma. But you never know, right? Well anyways, thanks for the conversation. Gotta go to the bank though so talk to you later.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
Hey there! I normally respond right away, if you noticed that please don't feel to insulted, I'm going to respond to this tomorrow hopefully. I don't think I'm in the right frame of mind today. So yeah, I'll respond tomorrow hopefully, sorry.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
I do that a lot, I let notes go until I feel I can actually respond properly. No worries.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
I agree with this, only to an extent though. I think someone who is terminally ill should DEFINITELY have the option. People who are suicidal? Absolutely not. You'd hope one to make such a decision would be in the right state of mind, but you never really now.
But, when I think about it...you put your pets down when they are suffering and they start to die. So why not people?
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
While I'd disagree with the second opinion, of course I agree with the first, especially
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
I... I have no idea how I can view this. I've always seen euthanizion, which is probably a misspelling of the word I'm familiar with, in animals as wrong unless their suffering too much. I've seen animals willing to fight to live be put to sleep because their owners didn't want them to suffer.
Though, I guess with humans, with them needing to be completely sure, it might be the way it should be...
Just, well... I might just be too pro-life... But, after convincing a friend to not kill himself (And I used the selfish "So I'm not important?" thing, yes... Not proud, but made him think.), I might have trouble seeing the good in this.
Though, if there was nothing that could be said to change their mind. Would be an animal choosing it can't go on. Like how with pets should be... Might not like it, but should be their call...
I had a whole internal debate writing this for the passed.... Er, 20 minutes.
๐: 0 โฉ: 2
Well, I'd agree euthanizing an animal that isn't suffering is rather pointless (I guess you're referring to things like shelter euthanasia, or horses with broken legs kind of deal?) though I'd also say I don't think animals are ever suicidal... their instinct is stronger than a human's, but I still think that when suffering they shouldn't have too, instinct or not.
How old was your friend? Like I've mentioned a few times on here, if it were ever legalized, it would have to be regulated (ideally, that's my view) ... what I'm guessing you're thinking is that, in example, your friend could have just went to a doctor and asked to be killed and poof the next day he's gone, when obviously he wasn't ready to go as he changed his mind... but, ideally -- and realistically, I imagine too -- the system wouldn't work like that if implemented.
In example, the places that have already legalized it ([link] ) they have specific rules, such as:
"Euthanasia was legalized in Albania in 1999 [...] Passive euthanasia is considered legal should three or more family members consent to the decision." in addition to being available only for the terminally ill.
And Japan has more specific rules,
"The Japanese government has no official laws on the status of euthanasia and the Supreme Court of Japan has never ruled on the matter. Rather, to date, Japan's euthanasia policy has been decided by two local court cases, one in Nagoya in 1962, and another after an incident at Tokai University in 1995. The first case involved "passive euthanasia" (ๆถๆฅต็ๅฎๆฅฝๆญป, shลkyokuteki anrakushi?) (i.e., allowing a patient to die by turning off life support) and the latter case involved "active euthanasia" (็ฉๆฅต็ๅฎๆฅฝๆญป, sekkyokuteki anrakushi?) (e.g., through injection). The judgments in these cases set forth a legal framework and a set of conditions within which both passive and active euthanasia could be legal. Nevertheless, in both of these particular cases the doctors were found guilty of violating these conditions when taking the lives of their patients. Further, because the findings of these courts have yet to be upheld at the national level, these precedents are not necessarily binding. Nevertheless, at present, there is a tentative legal framework for implementing euthanasia in Japan.[4]
In the case of passive euthanasia, three conditions must be met:
1. the patient must be suffering from an incurable disease, and in the final stages of the disease from which he/she/ is unlikely to make a recovery;
2. the patient must give express consent to stopping treatment, and this consent must be obtained and preserved prior to death. If the patient is not able to give clear consent, their consent may be determined from a pre-written document such as a living will or the testimony of the family;
3. the patient may be passively euthanized by stopping medical treatment, chemotherapy, dialysis, artificial respiration, blood transfusion, IV drip, etc.
For active euthanasia, four conditions must be met:
1. the patient must be suffering from unbearable physical pain;
2. death must be inevitable and drawing near;
3. the patient must give consent. (Unlike passive euthanasia, living wills and family consent will not suffice.)
4. the physician must have (ineffectively) exhausted all other measures of pain relief."
Luxemborg: "Terminally ill people will be able to have their lives ended after receiving the approval of two doctors and a panel of experts"
So far, I think Switzerland may be the only one that has legalized euthanasia for the mentally ill, "Based on more recent ethical, juridical and medical statements, a possible prescription of Sodium-Pentobarbital is not necessarily contra-indicated and thus no longer generally a violation of medical duty of care. However, utmost restraint needs to be exercised: It has to be distinguished between the wish to die that is expression of a curable psychic distortion and which calls for treatment, and the wish to die that bases on a self-determined, carefully considered and lasting decision of a lucid person ("balance suicide") which possibly needs to be respected.
If the wish to die bases on an autonomous, the general situation comprising decision, under certain circumstances even mentally ill may be prescribed Sodium-Pentobarbital and thus be granted help to commit suicide." "Whether the prerequisites for this are given cannot be judged on separated from medical โ especially psychiatric โ special knowledge and proves to be difficult in practice; therefore, the appropriate assessment requires the presentation of a special in-depth psychiatric opinion." A controversial article in the Hastings Center Report by Brown University Professor Jacob M. Appel advocated adopting similar rules in the United States.[2]"
So, yeah, with them you can't just go in and say, "Yeah, I'm suicidal. Help me die."
If that is why you'd be worried about it... and I'd agree, if people could demand and receive suicide at the drop of a hat, that would be abuse of the system and many people who could have gone on to live happy lives would have been killed.
So yeah, my personal ideas on... for example, euthanasia for the mentally ill... would have restrictions. Such as age. 18 and older only. And then must have tried to get better -- though it depends from what they suffer, I'd say they'd have to have gone through 3-5 years of therapy and have tried multiple medications. After that, they'd have to have a psychiatric evaluation to determine if this is a rash decision, and then maybe a month or two "observation" period where the person must still be lucid and such.
Don't feel afraid to voice your opinion. 
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
I am for it if the poor person is terminal and suffering because of it. The person should be of the state of mind to concent to it, though I see the probelms with people in comas as pepole do sometimes come out of them even the situation looks hopeless.
However there was a little girl in the news recently who was fighting for her right to die, I think she won but now she changed her mind and decided she wants to live. Imagine what would have happened if there wasn't laws against it. She would be gone.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
For people in a coma unless they have a living will it's usually other people (faimly, spouse) who will decide if they live or not.
Yeah I may have heard about that maybe. It was an... 11 year old girl... who refused a heart transplant, right? Maybe. If the laws were for it, the result would have been the same I imagine, considering she did win the case making it legal (for herself, anyhow)... she would have first wanted to die, and then changed her mind. I wouldn't hope the law forced you to go through with it if you change your mind.
Mind you, that's why ideally, if legalized, it would still be regulated and in example, only adults could access assisted suicide.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
It's a difficult subject really isn't it. I had to study it for religion philosophy and ethics.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Ah that would have been a fun class to that, I've always been interested in studying bioethics.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
I found it wasn't so fun. You can fail the subject by writing a plausable argument and refences that are completely relevant (even the examiners said this) simply for the structure of the essay. Which actually has more to do with English than the said subject.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
As do I. (*Is English*)
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
I'm a bit torn on the issue too. I'm a teen with suicidal tendencies and suffer from depression, self mutilation, severe anxiety, and suicidal thoughts/attempts. I spent time at a lovely looney bin and got some goods meds and a damn good therapist and i am recovering well. i still have my slip ups. part of me i think is always going to want to die, but theres a stronger part of me who wants to live because i still have much to live for.
so i think there should be an age limit like you said. and if its a mental issue you must try some sort of help first.
I'm all for this though. But i think their should be a different set of rules for people who are terminally ill or in chronic pain and for people with issues of depression. depression can be helped and cured with time. but it's called terminal illness for a reason.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Yep, ideally I don't think allowing anyone at anytime at the drop of a hat should be allowed to just get assistance with suicide, though I think all suicide should be decriminalized... but at the same time, I would be worried, with restrictions, that people who really have tried and really are sick and don't have much of chance would be turned down... so if there are restrictions, I think they'd have to be straight forward such as, "must be at least 18 of age" and "must have at least tried 3 different medications for a period of over 5 months for each, and have undergone a year of therapy at the least" or something like that, instead of being open to interpretation, and not insanely hard to meet to requirements either.
But yeah, if it ever did happen, it would definitely need regulation of some kind and ideally the regulation for those who are handicapped (wheelchair, retarded, etc), terminally ill, mentally ill, and physically ill each individually done with different regulations.
Sorry to hear of your own troubles, though. I'm going/gone through the same stuff (self-harm, depression, suicide, the works) so I definitely can at least relate to some of it.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
I am torn with issues such a this.
I do not like the idea of death. Or the prospect of the situation that makes people wish for death.
But I do agree that if people choose it, they should be able to die.
That it should be part of rights to choose your own death, if you feel the situation suitable.
There will always be the people who disagree with this, but I think it is selfish, because true, they only don't want someone else to die because they do not want to handle the loss. Thinking of what their life will be like without the person, rather than what the person is feeling, and why they want to, and that sometimes it may be for the best.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Well, obviously, I agree with what you say. I don't think very many people like the prospect of death, and definitely no one likes to think of a situation in which someone would want to die, but as you said sometimes it may be for the best.
One of the areas I'm unsure about is youth who want to die, though, on the subject... as many get out of the hole after their teenhood and really, are they able to understand fully the consequences? If it was made legal, I think (maybe, I've been unsure) it should only apply to adults... and, maybe should not apply if no alternative has been tried (i.e. never tried therapy, medications for mental illness, and never tried any treatment at all for physical ailments).
Thanks for the reply.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Mm.
Yes. I know people who have wanted to die for silly reasons. One boy who was seventeen at the time wanted to die because he loved a girl in another country who he'd hardly met and because she did'nt love him he wanted to die. Another person I know wants to die young so she can have a pretty corpse. I don't agree with situations like these.
I supppose if there was an age limit then it would be like drinking, and driving, and all the other things with age limits. Waiting till people are mature enough and completly aware of their decisions and the consequences.
True. People should have to try things to help before-hand, it should be a last resort if there is no other alternatives.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Well, I don't think it should be a last resort, that defeats the whole purpose, but it shouldn't be the first resort. Problems may fix themselves if they give it a try... but I don't insist they try for their whole lives.
Someone wanted to die young so they had a pretty corpse? That is a new one. But yeah, for physician assisted suicide at the least I think they should make sure it isn't a rash decision that they may regret.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Yeah. Right. Wrong wording ._.
Yeh.
My friend. She wants to have a 'beautiful bloody death' before shes thirty I believe ._.
Yes.
Only thing is to think about the people who will have to do it. To have the job would be depressing.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Heheh.
Well, there's people who already do it, such as Dignitas is Switzerland. But yeah I guess it might be a depressing job.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
>_<
Yeah. You'd need ALOT of counselling ._.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
<= Prev |