Compassion or Financial Opportunity?

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

A 91 year old woman is being investigated by the FBI for selling suicide kits.

She claims her kits, which include a bag and tubing to connect to a helium tank with instructions and sell for $60, offer an easy, peaceful death to those who wish to end their lives. She has been criticized for not doing due diligence as to whether her customers need these kits as a compassionate measure or if they are underage or mentally unstable.

While I am in favour of assisted suicide on compassionate grounds, I do share the same concerns voiced by her critics. As well, it seems very wrong to me for someone to profit off of someone's pain and suffering. While I am not convinced she should be jailed for her actions, I do think her business should be shut down. Those who wish to commit suicide can always find a way to do so, either alone or with help without someone profiting off the act.

My questions to you:

1. Do you feel she should be prosecuted for this?

2. If not, should she be able to continue selling the kits?

3. Should the families of those who committed suicide using her kits be able to sue?

Comments

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

My thought experiment here might be flawed, but it just popped in my head:

Suppose I'm driving along a road and someone steps deliberately in front of my car, rather like Bill Murray in "Groundhog Day". He's clearly trying to kill himself.

Now in this case, I've got plenty of time to stop. He's maybe 300 feet in front of me...well within my car's ability to brake.

Instead of braking, I gun the engine and mow him right down, like he was hoping I'd do. Afterward, they even find a note pinned to his coat reading "Please thank the driver who ended my shitty life" for good measure.

I'm thinking I still deserve to go to jail.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

This was covered on an episode of CSI. One man hit another with his car. Instead of reporting it to the police, he left the guy wedged in his windshield while his car sat in his garage. The guy who was hit bled-out and died. They later found a suicide note, which meant the guy was trying to get hit, but because the guy who hit him didn't report it, he ended up going to jail.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

More like living in massive pain for years and cancer is eating you away, and even if you do beat the cancer, your body has only pain to offer after recovery and so you want to die. Or your loved one does. Then the doctor has a some chemicals that will end the life quietly, with dignity and less pain.

Cept you must suffer cause society doesn't feel good about it.

We treat our pets better.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Probably, you didn't know he wanted to die, so you've killed someone, not assisted with a suicide.

On the other hand, if it was your partner, who had gone to shrinks, been evaluated as sane, and had expressed a desire to be killed by you, by your car, to end their suffering (and lets go so far as to say that your partner is bed ridden, 2 months to live that will be spent in horrendous agony sick), then the morality of your thought experiment becomes far more ambiguous.

Hell, let's just legalise Nembutal, available only with multiple referrals from GPs, specialists and psychiatrists and say it's still not OK to hit someone with your car. I'm struggling to see the moral ambiguity there, unless you're a crank who takes things in the bible, as interpreted by your personal minister and the tradition in which they were trained, as the word of god or some crap

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

I wonder how guilty she would feel if someone bought her device with the intent to murder someone? Sometimes I think about that with cutlery or gun manufacturers, too. Then again, the latter products aren't marketed or produced for the purpose of killing someone or committing suicide, but her product is marketed for suicide. It kinda disgusts me even more that they're reporting about the specifics of the device and how it's used - what if someone who never even thought about buying one of these kits just decides to make one at home?
"It was never my intention of getting into the business of killing people. I was just interested in helping people," she said. And if that were truly the case, she'd be giving these kits away for free but as someone said in the article, she's found her niche by peddling death.
1. Yes, I think she should be prosecuted.
2. No, I don't think she should be able to sell the kits, especially if she doesn't have some sort-of business license to sell medical supplies/devices.
3. No, the families of the people who bought the devices have no grounds for lawsuit. The person who bought the device bought it with the intent to end their life, so there's no sort-of misues with the product. Because the family didn't purchase it, they have no reason to sue.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

1. Yes. At the very least, she was reckless.

2. N/A

3. I don't think so, but it's hard to say for certain. Of course, her kit only has once use, so it's hard to analogize to a gun, or to a pill, or rope, but we generally don't hold the providers of a suicide tool liable for how it is used. Now, she was directly encouraging the suicide, so it's a bit more of a different case. I like criminal sanctions because it reflects society's priorities in barring this behavior, but I'm not certain that she really caused the suicides. Made them easier? Maybe. But again, there's the action of the person committing the act standing between her and the damage. She's not the proximate cause.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

I don't think whether she derives a profit or not should color ones opinion of her actions. She's providing a service, one that is in demand, that has a high level of overhead (legal costs, lost wages when she's in jail, etc...). I'm sure once the government is done stepping all over her she'll be lucky to break even.

As for her actions, I'm a strong proponent of assisted suicide. Unfortunately, most states do not provide an option to receive the assistance of a medical professional so services like the one this woman provides become necessary. Forcing a person to continue living, even when all desire to live is gone, is unconscionable and a clear overreach of government authority (and this is from someone who has no problem with most uses of government authority).

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

1. Do you feel she should be prosecuted for this?

2. If not, should she be able to continue selling the kits?

No, and absolutely. The law is ridiculous on these grounds - if a person chooses to end their own life, and we're able to offer a way to do it that is safer and more compassionate, why not? I have no idea as to why you're upset about people profiting off of a product people want, though.

3. Should the families of those who committed suicide using her kits be able to sue?

At the moment, yes, only because the law is what it is. In a better world, though...

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

I don't see why she should have to work at cost. The doctors who would be keeping these patients alive certainly don't work at cost. She has every right to make a profit, especially given the huge amounts of risk she's assuming on behalf of these customers.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Her method is more civilized, less messy and destructive than other methods.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

A business model that guarantees no repeat customers.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. They should be able to sue, of course, but they shouldn't win.

As you say, anyone can buy any number of things to kill themselves. For example:

If I market this item as being able to cut through a tin can, then cut a tomato, no problem. If someone happens to buy this, and kill themselves or someone else with it, still no problem. But if I market it as a euthenasia device, hilarity ensues.

Mentally unstable and underage people should have guardians who are responsible for their well-being, so I don't see this as a problem. The only issue here is how our society views euthenasia and personal responsibility.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Mentally unstable and underage people should have guardians who are responsible for their well-being, so I don't see this as a problem.

Surely we know that this is a very problematic thing, right?

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

are executioners doctors? No. Why? Doctors are forbidden to execute humans because of their oath.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

The problem is not this woman, she is just a symptom. The real problem is that we have no recognized way for a person who does not wish to live any longer to legally end their lives.

If we actually had a way for people to talk to their doctors and get legitimate medical assistance on ending their lives fly by nigh operations like this one would not exist.

As far as the answers to your questions...

1) Don't know, I don't have enough evidence. The simple fact that she was selling these kits. No not worthy of prosecution but it is possible that there is actual evidence of her encouraging people to buy them or her engaging in recklessly irresponsible behavior while selling them and that may deserve prosecution.

2) Allowed? Sure, however I think she should be put out of business by changes to the law allowing people to get actual medical assistance.

3) For what? Should automakers be sued by the families of those who used their cars to commit suicide? Again, if there is actual evidence that she actively encouraged people to commit suicide and then sold them the kit it would be a different case but her providing these kits in no way represents a harmful act on her part.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I support legalized suicide for those who want it. Religious taboos have nothing to do with the law, not in a secular society. This, however, is far too open to abuse by the unscrupulous, the greedy, and the opportunistic to be defensible.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

1. Do you feel she should be prosecuted for this?

No. You can get the same instructions on UTube

2. If not, should she be able to continue selling the kits?

Yes. Why not?

3. Should the families of those who committed suicide using her kits be able to sue?

No. What did she do wrong?

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

1. Yes.

2. N/A

3. Yes.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

You can get instructions on how to make this hood on youtube by a human euthanasia group.

I take it you don't have an 'end stage' disease like I do.

Don't you think that {being in the end stages of a disease} changes ones perspective a bit?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. For what? They can sue, and the suits can be thrown out of court for not having a basis. Well, rather they should be. Since suits against gun manufacturers for stupid crap have gone through, I'm not convinced our court system is rational any more.

The difference here is that she is not assisting the suicide in any way. If she was helping them hook it up or opening the valve, this would be a different story.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

She shouldn't be prosecuted, so long as she is operating in accordance with relevant business laws, keeping good books, paying her taxes and providing a quality product.
She should be allowed to continue selling the kits. In fact, her entrepreneurial drive should be rewarded with government grants, low interest loans and tax credits so she can expand to meet demand. I'd rather see corporate welfare going to a successful small business like hers than toward bonuses for investment bankers.
Families shouldn't be allowed to sue. It is offensive that they would try to profit from the death of one of their own. If the kits operate as intended and don't result in collateral damage, then no one has cause to complain.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

2. No. Helium is non-toxic and expensive. She should be using CO2 which is much less expensive.

1. No, because it isn't a crime to be a bad businessperson.

3. Sure, consistent with product liability.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

CO2 doesn't make your last words sound like Alvin and the Chipmunks, tho.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

If there is nothing illegal in the kit then I don't see what the problem is. I don't see why information on how to kill yourself should be considered restricted. In Australia such material is what is called "Refused Classification" meaning it's not illegal to posses, but it is illegal to sell and/or distribute. You may be aware of the internet filter that has been getting built here for years (they can't make it work without destroying the internet for the whole country). This is the kind of stuff it will block.

However, all this highlights is the insanity in criminalising suicide and euthanasia. People will find a way to kill themselves if they want to; is it preferable that these people just do it rather than going through official channels where counselling would be mandatory? Also, euthanasia is already widely practiced under the term "pain management"; decriminalising euthanasia will mean medical professionals will not have to hide under weasel words or face legal ramifications for helping someone.

We had a dude in his 70s just up on murder charges because he got his wife the drugs to kill herself with. Rather than being able to be surrounded by her loved ones in her last moments, her husband had to leave her on her own whilst she administered the drugs so he could go out and create an alibi. The judge gave him a suspended sentence, saying essentially that the law was flawed and it served no one's interests by imprisoning him. So from this one case lets see: Woman dead, check, husband free, check, woman able to be surrounded by loved ones in her last moments ... man not have to spend years embroiled in a legal battle for his freedom for carrying out the dying wishes of his wife for 50 years ... But I'm sure someone got a nice sense of whatever it is people have when they legislate the morality of others due to the very fact that he was charged, although that probably dissipated when he got off with a "stop wasting my time prosecutor" ruling.

Just another example where those who want to control the morality of others will completely ignore all the actual research around an issue. I'm getting sick of my life being controlled by laws created with no more justification than the fact that it was displeasing to a bunch of bronze age desert nomads.