Death's Domain

Opinion On: Shouthall Station Goes Through Three Suicide Attempts, Mother and Daughter Succeed, Unrelated Man Fails.

2006-02-22T19:51:00.000-08:00

Again this is an example of suicide painted. The woman was appointed to a marriage and left it into death, but the subject of her discontent was glossed over in a singe sentence. Once more the media is painting suicide a horrible act. This woman who was forced to marry was must likely, very unhappy in her marriage and I would say there was almost certainly more factors. If they want to cover up her true discontent they could have at least given her the respect to give a slightly in depth idea of her discomfort. I respect the actions of the mother; she was in pain and chose to join her daughter in death, an act of complete devotion. To follow someone into death is the ultimate act of loyalty.

Shouthall Station Goes Through Three Suicide Attempts, Mother and Daughter Succeed, Unrelated Man Fails.

2006-02-22T18:35:00.000-08:00

In Southall station in west London a woman committed suicide by standing in the path of an oncoming train in the same manner and location that her daughter and her daughters two children did six months ago. The daughter, Nevjeet Sidhu, 27, jumped inform of the high-speed Heathrow Express. Sidhu was holding her five year old daughter and toddler son at the time of her suicide. Sidhu’s mother, Satwant Kaur Sodhi, 56, killed herself at the same location as her daughter midday yester, standing in the way of a train from Bristol to Paddington. A neighbor of Mrs. Sodhi, who was also a close friend, said she had witnessed her repeated trips to the sight of her daughter’s death.
"She was always at the train station. We would see her just standing there, staring and crying - she was in an awful state. She would have to be pulled away and taken home. This time, I suppose she couldn't take the pain any more,” said the friend. After Sidhu jumped in front of the train with her 23 month old son and five year old daughter her mother, Mrs. Sodhi, was one of the first people at the seen. “Losing them will leave a void that will never be filled,” said Mrs. Sodhi. Sidhu and her daughter, Simran, died instantly when they got hit by the train. The younger Aman, Sidhu’s son, sustained major injuries and died some time later. To intensify the intensify this tragedy; the broken body of the young Aman was recovered by his father. The father of the children and wife of Sidhu is the Indian-born father, Manjit. Manjit married Sidhu by an arranged marriage in 1998 in India. The morning of her death Sidhu called her husband at work.
“I’m going far, far away and I’m taking the children with me.” Manjit drove frantically around the area trying to find her. When he finally found her he saw her entering Southall station but did not immediately follow as he could not find a place to park his car. By the time he had found a place parked and managed to get into the station his wife and children were already dead. He rescued Aman from the line and dialed 999.
Another man who was described as “suffering from psychological problems” by the police jumped in front of a train at the same station. The man sustained critical Injuries but was rescued before being hit by another train.

Opinion On: Elderly Couple Commit Suicide

2006-02-21T20:13:00.003-08:00

Unsurprisingly, I think this is great! This is an elderly couple whose health was declining and decided to leave this world together and on their own terms. They didn’t bother through red tape and medical procedures, they just decided they had lived their life and wanted to die while they were still happy. I believe this should be common practice. It is much better to die happy, dignified and with the one you love then sick, in pain and alone.

Elderly Couple Commit Suicide

2006-02-21T20:13:00.002-08:00

The police have rapped up an investigation into the death of an elderly couple this Monday. The police are tentatively calling it double suicide says Police Commander Rich Cinfio on Tuesday. The couple were Harvey Steele and Ethel Steele, ages 99 and 97. They were found dead Monday morning in the bedroom of their home on the 100 block of Park Street. .
"There was no evidence of foul play, so we're closing our investigation," Cinfio said. The police found light charcoal on the small table near the couple. The charcoal released carbon monoxide gas which, apparently, is what killed them. The corners office is still running toxicology tests in order to try and confirm that it was, in fact, the carbon monoxide poisoning that killed them, says Robert Foucrault, the San Mateo County Corner. The Corner’s Office is running routine checks for prescribed or illegal drugs in both victims as well.
Barry Steele, the son of the couple, who lives in Newport Beach told the Times Monday that his parents were battling health problems. Ethel was unable to move, do to Parkinson’s disease and Harvey was legally blind. The couple were described as affectionate, loving and very attached to their San Carlos home by Barry Steele and neighbors of the couple.

Opinion On: Son of Former Minister of India Commits Suicide

2006-02-21T20:13:00.001-08:00

Though I have tried quite hard I can not find more information on this suicide. I would like to investigate a suspected cause for this man’s choice to end his life, but unfortunately there is very limited information at this time. It seems another son in the Nagappa family was murdered in a hostage situation and this is all that comes up in a Google search.

Son of Former Minister of India Commits Suicide.

2006-02-21T20:13:00.000-08:00

Dr. Y. Nagappa’s son, Kiran, committed suicide in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Mr. Nagappa was the former Social Welfare Minister or Karnataka state, India. The 30-year-od Kiran hung himslef in his room at his house on Harihareshwara Temple Road in Harihar. Kiran was the youngest son of Mr. Nagappa. He was unmarried and is now outlived by his father, mother, brother and his three sisters. Dr. Nagappa returned to their house in Harihar at 3pm from Bangalore bust into tears upon finding their son’s corpse.

Opinion On: Future Physicians Offer Support for The Supreme Courts Decision

2006-02-11T19:02:00.000-08:00

I think this is great. There isn’t much more for me to say. These people share many views that I do, except that they believe that euthanasia should be so stringently monitored and so hard to acquire the right to do. I like how they offer help for those who are concerned through their programs and I think these issues should be better represented in the public. There is not enough representation of what the law truly represents, even if I, too, don’t entirely agree with what it does mean in the way of ending life

Future Physicians Offer Support for The Supreme Courts Decision

2006-02-11T18:59:00.000-08:00

In response to the Supreme Courts ruling in respect to Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide, the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), supported the decision to uphold Oregon's right-to-die legislation. The AMSA is the nation's largest, independent organization of medical students.
As future physicians, the American Medical Student Association places particular importance in the independence of patients and on the relationships between physicians and patient, and recognizes that patients should be the primary decision-makers for all aspects of their own care including how they live their final moments of their lives, including the ability to choose to embrace death.
The Supreme Court's decision was to uphold the right of individual states to regulate their own practice of medicine; this includes the care of terminally ill patients who wish to choose to die with dignity during the ending stages of their lives.
AMSA supports the right of physician-assisted suicide only for a last resort option in the care of a patient and only if strict criteria are met. Among these criteria are: the patient must be terminally ill, deemed competent and self-defined as undergoing unbearable physical, mental and/or emotional suffering, whereby his/her quality of life is such that life is no longer worth living. In addition, an independent physician must be consulted to review the case, and every step must be documented.
"AMSA recognizes that physician-assisted suicide is a controversial issue on many levels. We also believe that physician-assisted suicide is an important aspect of care when all other approaches to relieve the suffering of a terminal ill patient have failed," says Leana S. Wen, AMSA's national president. "If approached openly and properly, assisted death is an extension of compassionate medical care. By encouraging end- of-life care discussions, the patient and physician can explore all of the options, including hospice care, pain management and assisted death. This open discussion of death allows doctors to fully evaluate their patients for untreated pain, underlying mental conditions and other treatable illnesses that may be influencing a patient's desire to die."
In 1994, when its membership passed policy at its House of Delegates, the American Medical Student Association became the very first national medical organization supporting the basic concepts of physician-assisted suicide.
AMSA provides many opportunities for medical students to explore end of life issues, as to address the inadequacy of end-of-life care education in medical schools. For instance, AMSA's Foundation offers the End of Life Education Fellowship, a program funded by the HCR Manor Care Foundation and Vitas Hospice Services, to introduce medical students to end of life issues and its role in health services delivery. AMSA also provides two interest groups that address ethical issues, the Death and Dying Interest Group and the Bioethics Interest Group.

Future Physicians Offer Support for The Supreme Courts Decision

2006-02-11T17:52:00.003-08:00

Future Physicians Offer Support for The Supreme Courts Decision

2006-02-11T17:52:00.002-08:00

Future Physicians Offer Support for The Supreme Courts Decision

2006-02-11T17:52:00.001-08:00

Opinion On: The Death of a Hockey Coach

2006-02-11T17:52:00.000-08:00

Small and mildly insignificant this article caught my eye as it was an article that made national news relating a suicide other than a bombing or physician assisted. Also, I like the name Kalamazoo. However, on a serous note, I found it mildly disturbing that in the brief description of this death they made sure to point out his blood alcohol level and neglected to point out any other good reason for his death. This paints those who decide to end their lives as drunkards without good reason. Though there may be those who don’t have good reason suicide is often a philosophical choice and there should have been more insight into the man’s views and current stat of affairs.

Death of a Hockey Coach

2006-02-11T17:50:00.000-08:00

Former NHL player Marc Potvin’s recent death has been stated a suicide.
The 38-year-old hung himself, using a belt, from the curtain rod of a shower, police Sgt. Scott Merlo announced yesterday.
Potvin, who was the coach of the Adirondack Frostbite in the United Hockey League, was discovered dead on January 13th in his hotel room in Kalamazoo. His team was do to play against the Kalamazoo Wings in just a few hours.
Toxicology results came in Wednesday, the medical examiner had ruled the death as a suicide, Merlo reported.
Potvin's blood-alcohol content was 0.15 percent, acourding to a set of tests, this is nearly twice the legal limit for drunken driving in Michigan.

The Death of a Hockey Coach

2006-02-11T16:07:00.005-08:00

Opinion On: Another View on Physician Assisted Suicide

2006-02-11T16:07:00.004-08:00

Well... I thought it was only fair to post the other view. Plus this gives me the opportunity to directly challenge points. Ok let’s start, shall we? First and foremost; it says that we must respect our rights to food and medical care as long as it doest violate our right to life... What the hell are they thinking?!?! This doesn’t violate our right to life at all! It gives us the right to choose when to end our lives. Choice! If you call the right to suicide a violation to our right to live you are calling a fast or hunger strike a violation to our right to eat. Lets out law those too! Hell, let’s keep everyone happy on Soma so big brother can keep an eye out for us while we're at it. Now, it is pointed out multiple times that it is the duty of a state to look for its people and that it should value the life of an individual even if the individual does not value their own life. Well, we are not saying people who just plain don’t value their life have a right to die they have to be terminally ill, in a situation that they will have to face death at the end of anyway. To say that the state values the life of every one of these people, whose only real economic value anymore is spending medical bills, is preposterous. As Joseph Stalin said "The death of one person is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." The government in place can not value every life, it’s impossible and it pretends it does so it can make dieing people who are in pain have to keep living? It says any good member of a religious community would stop the assistance of suicide. I think the use of religion to keep one who is in pain and wants die alive as opposed to letting them go on to what ever after life they believe in is a perversion of the good teachings of religion, just like the justification of the crusades. So... here is another view and some of the reasons I am so strongly opposed to it.

Another View on Physician Assisted Suicide

2006-02-11T16:07:00.003-08:00

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to uphold a challenge to Oregon's law on physician-assisted suicide looks as if it may be prompting other states to consider similar measures.
In a column published recently, David Yepsen, a columnist for Des Moines Register, a news paper in Iowa, supported adoption of a law like that in Oregon for Iowa. Unfortunately, he approached the issue as a politician more than as a statesman.
The politician would rightly asks the question, "How do we pass this legislation?" The statesman should ask the more philosophical questions like, "Would this contribute to the common good?"
The statesman looks beyond a simple remedy for a commonplace problem. The statesman keeps their eyes on the purpose of a government: (1) to recognize (not give) basic human rights, and (2) to defend and promote those rights.
Our rights to food, health care, education and so on are, of course, meaningless if the most basic right is not secured, as we all know: the right to our lives, to be alive as to enjoy these other rights and keep alive the fundamental right to live.
Citizens of all religious view — not only conservative Christians — respect freedom of choice but only if it does not endanger this most basic value of the lives of humans. When freedom offers the ability to destroys human life, whoever’s that may be, and then freedom becomes license.
Hundreds of people end their own lives annually in their own way the matter what the local laws are. The state attempts to do all it can to keep people from killing themselves. The state always tries to value human life, even if the person in question does not value their own life.
The state works to fulfill its protective role by trying to stop any who try from assisting in the suicidal act of an ill patient, however ill they may be. People supporting assisted suicide are not only wanting the state's involvement in the ending of life through legislation, but also want the state's approval in their actions. They also want suicide to stop being an act of personal destruction alone, but one that will involve the assistance and participation of family members and physicians.
Citizens and legislators should ask the statesmanlike questions: Do we wish for the state of Iowa to place approve of the act of assisted suicide? Do we want the doctors in Iowa to become an assisting party in the act of one's personal decision to end his or her own life? How would practices like this color the dignity that the Bill of Rights has attributed to human life?

Oppinion on: More Aftermath of The Supreme Court's Ruling

2006-02-11T14:44:00.004-08:00

Still they will not stand aside?!?!? When will these people just let this go peacefully? I think it is wonderful that other states would instate laws like this. This is one of the most humane laws. I believe this law is like the old laws against alcohol or those on slavery and segregation. This is, in a way, detaining people; forcing them to continue a painful existence. This law will, I hope, like the others I have mentioned eventually become something of the past. The law doesn’t say that if you are terminally ill you must end your life or that if you are just depressed you should have the option to kill yourself. If you are against suicide in any shape and/or form then if you get cancer you can suffer day after day but don’t make others. Let them face death on there own terms as he is coming for them anyway. It is a show of close mindedness on the part of our government that they chased it this far. The people of Oregon made the law and rejected the internal attempt to block it. So what did our government of freedom and choice do? They went over the heads of those who so vehemently upheld this law for them selves. They found other ways to try to deny this right and were defeated time and time again. Finally they took it to the supreme court and were shot down again. I believe even the law for euthanasia being defended is too stringent, but it is a first step.

More Aftermath of The Supreme Court's Ruling

2006-02-11T14:44:00.000-08:00

The US Supreme Court has decided that Oregon's Death With Dignity Act is not barred by the Bush administration's interpretation of federal drug laws. The 6-to-3 ruling allows Oregon residents who are mentally competent and diagnosed as terminally ill to continue to have the option of asking a physician to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs. More than 200 Oregon residents have relied on the law to end their lives since 1997, when the measure took effect.The ruling also opens to eyes of other states to consider enacting similar laws on giving the option of death. This is setting the stage for bitter fights ahead."We are very confident that a number of states throughout the country will now move forward in attempts to replicate Oregon's very specific law," says Robert Kenneth, spokesman for the Death With Dignity National Center. Both Vermont and California have bills pending to give this right to there citizens in their legislatures, and Washington State is considering instating a similar law.Opponents of euthanasia say the high court ruling is not likely to start a rush to create similar laws in other states."The movement has been moribund. They had been unable to move the agenda forward throughout the country like they thought they would, after Oregon legalized assisted suicide in 1994," says Wesley Smith of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.A Pew Research Center survey conducted last November showed strong public support for right-to-die laws, with 84 percent of the American public approving - five points higher than in 1990.In reaching its determination, the high court has stated that they feel former Attorney General John Ashcroft overstepped his authority in November 2001 in rewrighting regulations under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) causing it to be illegal for Oregon doctors to prescribe drugs to help a patient end their own life."The authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "The idea that Congress gave the attorney general such broad and unusual authority through an implicit delegation in the [Controlled Substances Act's] registration provision is not sustainable."Ashcroft said that federally controlled drugs should be prescribed for only "legitimate medical purposes," and that helping someone to end his or her life worked against the healing mission of physicians.Justice Antonin Scalia said that Ashcroft's directive should be accorded deference by the courts and allowed to stand. He added that he found reasonable the former attorney general's conclusion that helping someone die was not a "legitimate medical purpose.""Virtually every medical authority from Hippocrates to the current American Medical Association confirms that assisting suicide … is not a 'legitimate' branch of that science and art," Justice Scalia wrote. "If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death."Scalia was joined in his dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas.In rejecting the so-called Ashcroft directive, the majority justices said the Controlled Substance Act is aimed at policing the abuse of drugs, addiction, and narcotics rather than to create an avenue for federal micromanagement on state efforts to choose healthcare and end-of-life issues for them selves.Congress had intended to leave what is a legitimate medical purpose a choice of the state said the majority of Chief Justices.
The government's position in defending the Ashcroft directive would "effect a radical shift of authority from the states to the federal government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality," Justice Kennedy wrote. "The text and structure of the CSA show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it."Oregon's Death With Dignity Act was first made legal by ballot in 1994. The law came into effect three years later after a second ballot initiative aimed at repealing the measure was defeated.The Death With Dignity Act makes sure that a mentally competent individual who is diagnosed with a terminal illness may ask a doctor to provide medication to help them end his or her life in a "humane and dignified manner."The law almost took effect in 1997. However, a few federal officials decided to raised questions about whether or not the Death With Dignity Act violates provisions of the federal drug laws. The head of Drug Enforcement Administration at the time decided it would and that the federal government should be aloud to take action against the doctors who - in the view of federal officials - manipulate their prescription privileges.Attorney General Janet Reno defeated that determination, stating the US should not be able to take action against physicians who were acting under Oregon's laws about physician assisted suicide.Ashcroft became attorney general in 2001, at which time he overturned Ms. Reno's decision. He then issued what is now known as the "Ashcroft directive." In it, he stated that anyone administering drugs that are federally controlled to assist in the ending of someone’s life would be violating the Controlled Substances Act.Oregon filed suit immediately afterward in federal court where they challenged the Ashcroft directive. Both the federal judge and a divided panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Oregon in their appeal. It was ruled, by the appeals court that Ashcroft exceeded his authority in issuing his directive.The majority justices said, in affirming the appeals court decision, that they had come to a "common-sense conclusion" that the Controlled Substance Act does not give the attorney general the power to create a federal bar against Oregon doctors engaged in assisting suicide "in the face of a state medical regime permitting such conduct."

My Opinion On: Poll on Physician Assisted Suicide and some History

2006-01-22T12:15:00.001-08:00

How could this man be put in jail for 8 years for helping a dieing man end his life with civility and dignity? I believe Mr. Kevorkian was a hero, a man working for the right and the humane. We should not condemn him for his actions, but glorify him. This man worked for the rights of human beings. I take my hat off to him for his efforts and bravery!

Poll on Physician Assisted Suicide and some History

2006-01-22T12:15:00.000-08:00

In the District of Columbia 50 percent of the citizens believe euthanasia should be legal, 39 percent believe it should not and 11 percent were undecided or had no opinion. This information from a poll by SurveyUSA released by WUSA-TV.

Oregon legalized Physician Assisted suicide in 1994. In July of 2005 in California a bill that would allow citizens with six months or less to live to obtain lethal drugs from a certified doctor and take them own their own lives was defeated in the California State Legislature.

Doctor-assisted suicide became a more widely acknowledged controversial topic in the U.S. in the 1990s, after Jack Kevorkian—a doctor who claims to have helped more than 100 people end their lives— came out and told of his actions to the public and worked stringently to make the right to die a legal option.

In March 1999, Kevorkian was found guilty of second-degree murder and delivery of a controlled substance for administering lethal drugs to Thomas Youk, who suffered from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). Kevorkian will be eligible for parole in 2007

My Oppinion On: Rulling On Assisted Suicide

2006-01-22T10:27:00.001-08:00

Hopefully this will be the end of this ridiculous debate. I can not believe this case went as far as it did. COME ONE PEOPLE! If you have moral objections to suicide, whoop-de-do for you, dont do it. If you believe anyone who commits suicide is going to hell, whoop-de-do for you, let them. They will be punished for their actions if you are right but dont deny them the right to do as they see fit to end their own suffering! These people are dieing, suffering with the ever-present fact that in the near future they will die. Let them take there own way out, dont make them whither away. As the saying goes, "better to burn out, than fade away." Face the curtain with a bow. This land was based on freedom, give the people this liberty. Not to mention the fact, that by a legal perspective, the law has been four times upheld, twice by the people living under it. The decision has been made, step aside, let it through!

Rulling On Assisted Suicide

2006-01-22T10:27:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court upheld Oregon’s state law legalizing physician assisted suicide. The arguments in favor of the law had a rocky start when the Senior Assistant Attorney General of Oregon Bob Atkinson, 62, began the case and was quickly interrupted by retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner who told who told him to speak up, unnerving Atkinson who was speaking before the Supreme Court for the first time. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia issued a powerful dissent in opposition to Oregon's law. But broke the ice and helped Atkinson regain his nerve saying, "You're just too tall!" Atkinson told the Court Justice he would work on that.
There was an 11-year battle over this law that may have been ended by this ruling after the law has been upheld twice by the Oregon state voters and twice upheld in the lower courts. Atkinson was driving on intestate 5 when he got the news of the verdict, "I nearly drove off the road," he said. The vote ended in a 6-3 verdict that capped years of preparation, many outlines of the arguments and many, many mock trials.
Atkinson has said he owes a silent debt to Chief Justice John Roberts, even though Roberts ultimately sided against Oregon. The lawyers for Oregon's law went and watched On Roberts' first day as Chief Justice, two days before their own case went before the court. "He had only been a federal judge for a couple of years, but he seemed completely at ease," Atkinson said. "And I thought, 'He's done this before, this is just on a bigger stage. And I've done this before — I've argued appeals for years. If he can do it, so can I."
In the early years of the hearings Oregon would argue on a much broader scale but over the years, the state's defense evolved into a more tightly focused argument on congressional intent, or the lack thereof. Giving a view from the majority Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the justices accepted the state's argument that there was no clear intent by Congress to give authority to the U.S. attorney general the regulation of medical practices — traditionally a matter for the states.
"It's almost insulting to the states to suggest they would act irresponsibly if it weren't for the federal big brother," Atkinson said. "For more than 200 years, states have regulated medical practices, and have done so responsibly. And if you look at the attorney general's argument, it's impossible to see what would limit his authority on what was a legitimate medical purpose."
One of the best alternate victories of this verdict was a pointed rebuke made by Justice Kennedy to the office of former Attorney General, John Ashcroft who had promised to inform Oregon before challenging the law but failed to do so. Even with this Supreme Court victory it is widely accepted that the Assisted Suicide case could end up back in the courts if the U.S. Congress passes a law banning the practice, though chances of this happening reduced after a statement by U.S. Senator Gordon Smith, a Republican from Pendleton, said he would oppose the action if it came up.
"For me, this would be the third or fourth time I thought it was over," Bushong said, a deputy Oregon attorney general who has defended the state law. "There is always a chance Congress could try to enact federal legislation, but I am cautiously hopeful that this is over."
could try to enact federal legislation, but I am cautiously hopeful that this is over."

Current Physician Assisted Suicide Standing

2006-01-16T19:59:00.000-08:00

Samuel Alito is drawing nearer to becoming our new Chief Justice and one of the issues being brought up is Assisted Suicide rulings. The ruling was drawing near under the last Chief Justice, Sandra Day O'Conner but now is being delayed do to the shift of power into the hands of Alito. Many believed O'Conner would pass down the deciding vote, however she left before a decision was handed down from the courts. Now, incase of the 4-4 tie new arguments and views will be in play with Alito. The justices heard the suicide case last October and the Advocates of the law were hoping for a quick and favorable decision. "Our view has always been, in the cause of judicial economy, it would be better if the court did not have to rehear the case," said Barbara Coombs Lee, co-president of the assisted-suicide advocacy group Compassion & Choices. It was noted by Lee that O'Conner seemed to have a considerable eye for the case. "She was the first with the questions, she related it back to (other) cases, so it seems to us that she is interested in addressing the issues raised by the case," Lee said Friday. Alito's views on the Oregon law are not well known. In fact, during his confirmation hearing he made comments considered by both sides to be encouraging. "This is obviously one of the most sensitive issues that comes up in our legal system," Alito said, referring to the decisions centered around physician assisted suicide. "With the advances in medical technology, this is going to be a very tough issue for an awful lot of people." Oregon voters have twice endorsed this law, the only one of its sort in the nation, but have been aggressively opposed to by the Bush Administration which claims that physician assisted suicide not a legitimate use of controlled substances and therefore violates federal drug laws. Personally, I think this is ridiculous. I would fight for suicide being legal to the citizenship at large, let alone just those who are terminally ill. How can the government argue that these people who are slowly and painfully dieing don’t have the right to end their own suffering and pass on? I believe in freedom of choice, and death is the ultimate choice.

Suicide: terms, definitions, misconceptions and applications

2006-01-16T18:17:00.000-08:00

What is suicide? Just for the weight of being able to quote names I will give the definition given by Webster’s Dictionary: "su·i·cide 1. The intentional taking of one's own life 2. destruction of one's own interests or prospects 3. a person who intentionally take his or her own life." As shown above suicide isn’t confined to ending ones own life, but destruction of personal aspects is also a form of suicide. An example would be "He is committing suicide by not taking those biology notes." A commonly heard term is "suicide by cops," this is when someone commits an act to get shot by authorities. One reason someone would take this form of suicide is that it is a sin, in Christianity, to commit suicide, sending the person strait to hell. If one does not actually hurt anyone and is killed by another it can be seen as a "loophole." Suicide is, in western ideology, is painted as a horrible act of the sinner and coward. However, in many cultures suicide is an honorable death, more than most. Most well known is seppuku in ancient Japan. It was also viewed as an acceptable and/or honorable form of death in many Native American cultures and certain African cultures. Personally, I see it as an ultimate decision that takes much courage to make and the most extreme, meaningful and brave act of romance. Suicide is an issue that is returning to the public attention. It was a taboo subject during the last generation but certain people are now speaking out to make M.D. Assisted suicide a right under the constitution. It is currently a state decision and is legal in a few states for those with terminal illness. I will continue this with a few articles on relevant moments in the development of M.D. Assisted suicide gaining influence in the legal system.

Greetings

2006-01-09T16:34:00.000-08:00

Welcome to Death's Domain, a source for all types of news relating to the shunned subject of death. Suicide in the legal structure will be the foremost issue examined though it the site will not be contained to this alone. I ask of the living, look to death, examine the other side, open your mind. This is all I ask and I hope you can become somewhat enlightened thanks to the texts I post here. Also, look to the links, they do not all perfectly coincide to the subject of death, but some are very enlightening.