Euthanasia

[Sky Dancer]

semantics and covering their asses....

the end result is the same. Putting someone out of pain and helping them to die.

how about saying it straight up. They have no problem killing.

No, it's not. You don't seem to understand intent. Your intent is killing, mine is pain management. You've said many times you have no problem killing human beings. I sincerely hope you aren't working with patients now.

How easy it is for you to kill someone.

given the right circumstances...i have no issues killing.

you like the semantics of it all... the end result is the same. Sugar coat however you want to... pain management and killing are the same at times.

Yes i say that..and it is true. I have no issues with killing... i also add every time.... given the right circumstances.....

ive added the quote for you...since your memory is selective.

You are a cold blooded killer.

 

[syrenn]

No, it's not. It's intent. When my dog was dying I gave him pain meds. I was trying to let him die naturally. I did not have an aversion to his condition or a selfish motivation to put myself out of suffering.

You let him suffer a long slow painful death. Death was going to happen...and YOU let hims suffer for selfish reasons of your own. You let him suffer for YOUR religious beliefs.

You weren't there and you don't know shit. My dog died a natural, and pain free death.
I gave him pain meds and made him as comfortable as possible.

I did not wish him to suffer, I wished him to die the way he lived. A noble and loving being, I was with him around the clock, giving 24 hour care.

I am confident that my dog did not suffer. I was under the vet's direction the entire time.

My spiritual beliefs are none of your business.

We're back to where we started. On the outs.

That is not quite the way you presented it before you asked to have the thread removed..... You were very clear you did not put your dog down on strict orders of your lama.....

 

[syrenn]

Oh. I agree with that to an extent. It's accepted that morphine hastens death. The patient and family is made to understand that. It's also accpeted that it's use is to prevent suffering.

It is the final consensus that it's a balancing act that doesn't operate with 100% efficiency.

As long as people understand that, there is no arguement.

That is not "euthansia" per se. The intent is not to kill the patient. It's too control their pain.

I love the alleviation of the guilt...the end result is the same.

Are you completely heartless? Some of us genuinely aren't interested in killing anyone. We want our loved ones to have their pain managed.

I could say the same about you sky.

 

[geauxtohell]

Euthanasia as someone else deliberately ending someone's life to alleviate suffering is abominable, reprehensible, immoral, illegal, and sickening. It should never be embraced by the medical community.

Allowing people the option to end their own life by their own hand is a different matter. Oregon's "Death with Dignity" is the best example of a workable law that actually makes sense.

You certainly are entitled to that opinion. But I believe the majority will disagree with it because it conflicts with the most basic concept of mercy.

aaaahh... but medicine is not about mercy.. It is about keeping you alive.

Maybe 20 years ago. Now it's about treatment and the acceptance that medicine isn't a game where physicians "lose" everytime someone dies. I guess it took a few centuries of losing to figure that out.

The modern hospice movement has changed the way the whole profession views life and death.

And it also creates connundrums like this, where everyone is generally saying the same thing and is still screaming nastiness at the others.

It reminds me of being a soldier, and you are right, you probably have to have been in the field to fully get it.

Now, as a former soldier, I can tell you that everytime you send Americans into the combat zone, you cause the death and destruction of innocent civilians. You will find people dance all around that natural fact. If you (the proverbial you) supported Iraq or Afghanistan, you have the blood of innocents on your hands.

However, the indavertant killing of innocents is never the goal or policy. We don't live in a perfect world.

It's understood that in treating people and trying to prevent suffering, we may hasten death. The important thing is to never let the untentional taking of human life be the stated policy of docters and nurses.

 

[syrenn]

You work in medicine and kill your patients?

idiot.....

Nice and friendly response. You are the one who says you have no problem killing people.

Just responding to your nice friendly question sky....

 

[syrenn]

Oh. I agree with that to an extent. It's accepted that morphine hastens death. The patient and family is made to understand that. It's also accpeted that it's use is to prevent suffering.

It is the final consensus that it's a balancing act that doesn't operate with 100% efficiency.

As long as people understand that, there is no arguement.

That is not "euthansia" per se. The intent is not to kill the patient. It's too control their pain.

I love the alleviation of the guilt...the end result is the same.

The end result, death, is going to be the same for a terminal patient regardless. It's not an alleviation of guilt. It's an important line in the sand to keep the intent from switching from "pain control" to "ending life".

I'll certainly concede it's a gray area and has nuance to it. Probably enough to cover people who do intend to take life (for what they deem to be good intentions).

Doctors and nurses shouldn't be given the latitude to take their patient's lives. Even if the patient requests it.

I understand that fine line very very well. The end result is the same even with "proper intent"

 

[geauxtohell]

Your level of gifted wisdom may very well be horridly limited if these words are true as posted. Perhaps they are just premature and you're yet immature in understanding. Other than this... I admire your way.

I've seen death in the combat zone.

I've seen death in the hospital.

I don't consider myself immature. Thank you all the same for the well wishes.

I don't understand why physician assisted suicide isn't sufficient to address this issue. I fully support Oregon's model. The crucial element is that the choice to end one's life is in the hands of the patient.

That wouldn't be 100% efficient either. The other facet of the debate we have to accept is that we are never going to be 100% efficient. Even with all the policy in the world, some people are going to suffer before they die. People suffer on this Earth all the time. No one wants it, but it happens all the same.

I don't know where we reached the point were we decided that no one should ever suffer.

 

[syrenn]

You certainly are entitled to that opinion. But I believe the majority will disagree with it because it conflicts with the most basic concept of mercy.

aaaahh... but medicine is not about mercy.. It is about keeping you alive.

Maybe 20 years ago. Now it's about treatment and the acceptance that medicine isn't a game where physicians "lose" everytime someone dies. I guess it took a few centuries of losing to figure that out.

The modern hospice movement has changed the way the whole profession views life and death.

And it also creates connundrums like this, where everyone is generally saying the same thing and is still screaming nastiness at the others.

It reminds me of being a soldier, and you are right, you probably have to have been in the field to fully get it.

Now, as a former soldier, I can tell you that everytime you send Americans into the combat zone, you cause the death and destruction of innocent civilians. You will find people dance all around that natural fact. If you (the proverbial you) supported Iraq or Afghanistan, you have the blood of innocents on your hands.

However, the indavertant killing of innocents is never the goal or policy. We don't live in a perfect world.

It's understood that in treating people and trying to prevent suffering, we may hasten death. The important thing is to never let the untentional taking of human life be the stated policy of docters and nurses.

Agreed.. in the profession we all mean the same thing...just state it differently.

 

[geauxtohell]

I love the alleviation of the guilt...the end result is the same.

The end result, death, is going to be the same for a terminal patient regardless. It's not an alleviation of guilt. It's an important line in the sand to keep the intent from switching from "pain control" to "ending life".

I'll certainly concede it's a gray area and has nuance to it. Probably enough to cover people who do intend to take life (for what they deem to be good intentions).

Doctors and nurses shouldn't be given the latitude to take their patient's lives. Even if the patient requests it.

I understand that fine line very very well. The end result is the same even with "proper intent"

But in this rare instance, the intent, and not the outcome is the important thing. Terminal patients are going to die. The outcome is set. The intent in managing that is the only thing that is variable.

I don't judge people if, at some point in their career, they've euthanized a patient under the guise of controlling pain. I may not agree with it, but I respect that like on the battlefield decisions are made in real time and with the best of intentions.

That doesn't mean we need to change policy in this country. If we do, it's a major step backwards.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually it has to do with the hippocratic oath, which is first and foremost, DO NO HARM.

Can't reconcile it with killing patients off under the guise of "doing it for their own good".

I know doctors. I don't want doctors to decide whether or not my life is worth living, thanks.

Incidentally, it was a huge joke a few years ago...doctors do not put on their driver's licenses "organ donor". They don't want another doctor making the decision to pull the plug for them.

If you are THAT committed to not suffering ever, to never undergoing the indignity of anything other than a carefully controlled, painless, panic-free, fully conscious (or unconscious) death, I suggest you take your own life at the first sign of sickness.

But do NOT leave it up to other people to decide when your life is without value. I promise you, they will have a different take on it than you will.

 

[koshergrl]

It's right up there with "never let anyone know you're worth more dead than alive".

 

[Skull Pilot]

So whats the problem? If someone is dying... put them to sleep and end their pain.

They are dying.... giving them something to help end that painful process......

It's a fine line of semantics that doctors walk so they can't be accused of intentionally committing euthanasia.

A Dr says he's administering huge doses of narcotics or opiates to relieve pain knowing damn well that the secondary effect very well may be death but since he says his intent is not to cause death he is ethically and legally shielded.

No, it's not. It's intent. When my dog was dying I gave him pain meds. I was trying to let him die naturally. I did not have an aversion to his condition or a selfish motivation to put myself out of suffering.

One does not die naturally if one is given drugs.

And intent doesn't matter if one knows that the drugs will kill. It's a legal argument Drs use to protect themselves.

You really are naive.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Actually it has to do with the hippocratic oath, which is first and foremost, DO NO HARM.

Can't reconcile it with killing patients off under the guise of "doing it for their own good".

I know doctors. I don't want doctors to decide whether or not my life is worth living, thanks.

Incidentally, it was a huge joke a few years ago...doctors do not put on their driver's licenses "organ donor". They don't want another doctor making the decision to pull the plug for them.

If you are THAT committed to not suffering ever, to never undergoing the indignity of anything other than a carefully controlled, painless, panic-free, fully conscious (or unconscious) death, I suggest you take your own life at the first sign of sickness.

But do NOT leave it up to other people to decide when your life is without value. I promise you, they will have a different take on it than you will.

So in your opinion (and i won't take it personally) do you think my father made an immoral decision by giving my grandpa so much morphine when he was in unbearable agony?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oh. I agree with that to an extent. It's accepted that morphine hastens death. The patient and family is made to understand that. It's also accpeted that it's use is to prevent suffering.

It is the final consensus that it's a balancing act that doesn't operate with 100% efficiency.

As long as people understand that, there is no arguement.

That is not "euthansia" per se. The intent is not to kill the patient. It's too control their pain.

I love the alleviation of the guilt...the end result is the same.

The end result, death, is going to be the same for a terminal patient regardless. It's not an alleviation of guilt. It's an important line in the sand to keep the intent from switching from "pain control" to "ending life".

I'll certainly concede it's a gray area and has nuance to it. Probably enough to cover people who do intend to take life (for what they deem to be good intentions).

Doctors and nurses shouldn't be given the latitude to take their patient's lives. Even if the patient requests it.

The point is that giving pain meds knowing that they will hasten death is not that much different from a single lethal dose.

In both cases you alleviated pain and hastened death.

 

[geauxtohell]

Actually it has to do with the hippocratic oath, which is first and foremost, DO NO HARM.

Please show me where in the Hippocratic Oath the term "First do no harm" appears.

Then, show me the regulatory body that enforces breaches of the Oath. Is Apollo going to come down from Mt. Olympus and strike me down if I perform surgery? (Yes the Hippocratic Oath forbides Doctors to perform surgery). Also forbidden in the HO, not to teach medicine to others and not to have sex with the male slaves of the patients you treat.

The HO is just window dression for White Coat ceremonies. That's about the limit of it's utility. It meant something when the Hippocratic Guild lived and died by it.

Can't reconcile it with killing patients off under the guise of "doing it for their own good".

I know doctors. I don't want doctors to decide whether or not my life is worth living, thanks.

Incidentally, it was a huge joke a few years ago...doctors do not put on their driver's licenses "organ donor". They don't want another doctor making the decision to pull the plug for them.

If you are THAT committed to not suffering ever, to never undergoing the indignity of anything other than a carefully controlled, painless, panic-free, fully conscious (or unconscious) death, I suggest you take your own life at the first sign of sickness.

But do NOT leave it up to other people to decide when your life is without value. I promise you, they will have a different take on it than you will.

Or you cold drop the hyperbole and do the logical thing and have a DNR/DNI or give POA to someone that you trust with your end of life decisions.

This topic has oscillated between two polar extremes of idiocy between "no morphine to prevent suffering because it might kill a patient!" to "we should be able to choose when to end a life".

There is a logical middle ground on this. But by all means, you guys can keep beating yourself up.

 

[Iridescence]

Your level of gifted wisdom may very well be horridly limited if these words are true as posted. Perhaps they are just premature and you're yet immature in understanding. Other than this... I admire your way.

I've seen death in the combat zone.

I've seen death in the hospital.

I don't consider myself immature. Thank you all the same for the well wishes.

I don't understand why physician assisted suicide isn't sufficient to address this issue. I fully support Oregon's model. The crucial element is that the choice to end one's life is in the hands of the patient.

That wouldn't be 100% efficient either. The other facet of the debate we have to accept is that we are never going to be 100% efficient. Even with all the policy in the world, some people are going to suffer before they die. People suffer on this Earth all the time. No one wants it, but it happens all the same.

I don't know where we reached the point were we decided that no one should ever suffer.

I apologize as my words were my opinion of your words:

Not within the medical community. God help you all that I actually graduate, I will never intentionally end a life, even if a patient is begging me to do it. I think the Hypocratic Oath/Corpus is mostly irrelevant bullshit, but there are some general things we agree on.

I didn't get out of the profession of arms and into the profession of healthcare to take life. I regret that people suffer terribly. I am not going to be the person that "puts down" a human being like they were an animal.

I'll note too, I am pretty liberal and not generally considered to be a "morally obsessed" poster. In this instance, it's not the soul of the patient I am concerned with. It's my own soul and conscious (I mean that figuratively).

Yet, my experience has taught me better than to disregard all of your words, it is the ones I have specified that I cannot personally agree with. It has been my experience that an individual's state of mind, a person's peace be a focus before whatever else occurs. Be it the admirable and heroic measures of life preservers or the 'it's an inevitable death so let's do it' practitioners or even the "don't touch the dying wo/man"... the mind of the individual passing needs to be allowed it's own closure, it's own depths, it's own heaven or hell, accordingly.

 

[geauxtohell]

The point is that giving pain meds knowing that they will hasten death is not that much different from a single lethal dose.

In both cases you alleviated pain and hastened death.

It's completely dfifferent then a "single lethal dose".

You are being absurd. Furthermore, you are acting like the patient's under the care of physicians are mute or comatose. They have no say in their pain management regimen? "Sorry Ms. Bruce, I really feel bad that you are writhing in pain and agony, but I can't give you morphine, because it shocks the delicate conscoius of some people in this country. Hopefully you will get so sympathetically amped up, you'll go into heart failure soon and then you can die and other people will have a clear conscious."

As I said, if you are this hung up on it, make sure you articulate that you never want any narcotics. That is your perrogative. If you want to bite the bullet instead of taking the syringe, that is totally your choice.

You don't get to make that choice for others.

And if you did, I would ignore it. As would most other people.

 

[geauxtohell]

Your level of gifted wisdom may very well be horridly limited if these words are true as posted. Perhaps they are just premature and you're yet immature in understanding. Other than this... I admire your way.

I've seen death in the combat zone.

I've seen death in the hospital.

I don't consider myself immature. Thank you all the same for the well wishes.

I don't understand why physician assisted suicide isn't sufficient to address this issue. I fully support Oregon's model. The crucial element is that the choice to end one's life is in the hands of the patient.

That wouldn't be 100% efficient either. The other facet of the debate we have to accept is that we are never going to be 100% efficient. Even with all the policy in the world, some people are going to suffer before they die. People suffer on this Earth all the time. No one wants it, but it happens all the same.

I don't know where we reached the point were we decided that no one should ever suffer.

I apologize as my words were my opinion of your words:

Not within the medical community. God help you all that I actually graduate, I will never intentionally end a life, even if a patient is begging me to do it. I think the Hypocratic Oath/Corpus is mostly irrelevant bullshit, but there are some general things we agree on.

I didn't get out of the profession of arms and into the profession of healthcare to take life. I regret that people suffer terribly. I am not going to be the person that "puts down" a human being like they were an animal.

I'll note too, I am pretty liberal and not generally considered to be a "morally obsessed" poster. In this instance, it's not the soul of the patient I am concerned with. It's my own soul and conscious (I mean that figuratively).

Yet, my experience has taught me better than to disregard all of your words, it is the ones I have specified that I cannot personally agree with. It has been my experience that an individual's state of mind, a person's peace be a focus before whatever else occurs. Be it the admirable and heroic measures of life preservers or the 'it's an inevitable death so let's do it' practitioners or even the "don't touch the dying wo/man"... the mind of the individual passing needs to be allowed it's own closure, it's own depths, it's own heaven or hell, accordingly.

Oh. I see. I understand.

Either way, my ultimate last word on the matter is: "I will administer narcotics alleviate suffering. I will not administer narcotics to end life".

I could care less if other people think that is a cop-out or desire for more latitude. I don't answer to other posters on this board. I only see myself in the mirror in the morning.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The point is that giving pain meds knowing that they will hasten death is not that much different from a single lethal dose.

In both cases you alleviated pain and hastened death.

It's completely dfifferent then a "single lethal dose".

You are being absurd. Furthermore, you are acting like the patient's under the care of physicians are mute or comatose. They have no say in their pain management regimen? "Sorry Ms. Bruce, I really feel bad that you are writhing in pain and agony, but I can't give you morphine, because it shocks the delicate conscoius of some people in this country. Hopefully you will get so sympathetically amped up, you'll go into heart failure soon and then you can die and other people will have a clear conscious."

As I said, if you are this hung up on it, make sure you articulate that you never want any narcotics. That is your perrogative. If you want to bite the bullet instead of taking the syringe, that is totally your choice.

You don't get to make that choice for others.

And if you did, I would ignore it. As would most other people.

I would never make the choice for someone else. But if someone asked me to overdose them I would.

To say that giving increasingly high doses of morphine does not hasten death is a little ridiculous don't you think?

even when a doctor knows the next dose of morphine might kill a patient does he still give it?

 

[geauxtohell]

I would never make the choice for someone else. But if someone asked me to overdose them I would.

That's your choice. I would not.

To say that giving increasingly high doses of morphine does not hasten death is a little ridiculous don't you think?

Of course. I've said that very thing on this board.

even when a doctor knows the next dose of morphine might kill a patient does he still give it?

might being the operative word. This whole issue lies with the intent of the person administering the drug. That's a hard thing to nail down. To me, it is important that we never make it policy that the intent to end life is acceptable.