Explain this part to me. Every patient in the USA already ---properly---- has a right to refuse any surgery, mediction, therapy, or any other intervention to extend life "beyond where it should naturally end."
Considering that this article refers to an organization that exists in Switzerland, I am hesitant to draw many comparisons to our laws and rights that we enjoy here in the USA. That being said, the organization appears to be fully in compliance with Swiss law, and I would imagine that it appeals to those people who wish to have a quick and Government-approved end, avoiding months or more of drawn-out pain and suffering.
And here's another thing. Some 30,000 Americans commit suicide every year, without manipulatively dragging our major medical, legal, and political structures into it for "assistance" or "permission."
Committing a fast suicide requires a particular mental focus which extremely sick people may not have. It can be, and usually is, violent, painful, lonely and is often botched.
This "service" provides the imprimatur of Government Approval as well as the flimsy facade of medical oversight, and the promise of a fast and relatively painless end. I can understand the appeal that it has to some people, even though I disagree with it.
I had meant this in reference to Popocatapetl's message at #9 about going to Mexico in a terminal situation to avoid burdensome treatments. I was not writing specifically of Switzerland --- though it's hard for me to imagine that Switzerland would not similarly recognize the patient's right to refuse burdensome, futile treatments.
I am not in the least an advocate of strictly autonomous, do-it-yourself suicide; I was just suggesting that it's less harmful than manipulating the assistance of the whole medico-legal complex and thereby rapidly accelerating the final collapse of medical and legal ethics.
There are all kinds of internet "resources" for suicide methods one can self-administer which are suppose to be swift, painless, and certain. I will not go into further detail because I do not care to promote them in any way.
Larger point: there is no reason for any terminally ill person in the 21st century to die in pain. Even 25 years ago Dr. Jose Espinosa, a gerontologist from Spain, was saying that he had never encountered "intractable" pain in many decades of ministering to terminal patients --- although, as he said, he had encountered "intractable doctors and nurses."
And medication to address pain and discomfort and even depression is a whole lot better now than it was even 25 years ago. That's what people should be demanding: excellent, state-of-the-art palliative care. And not a legally-legitimated lethal overdose, which will start off being an "option," progress to being a "right," and quickly morph into a "duty" which will be imposed on the frail, the politically disfavored and the disabled without mercy.