Euthanasia

[koshergrl]

I wouldn't either.

Because it's murder.

I would tell them there was still value to their life, that people would miss them in their absence, that they are loved and so forth.

Instead of telling them, "hell yeah, let me help you!"

 

[syrenn]

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.

It is semantics to comfort guilt. IMO...it is all the same. The intent is the same. It is only the wording that is different. The intent is to end suffering and pain.

I do think that policy should be changed. To allow an individual absolute rights over their bodies... to live or to die. To have the ability to set in granite the parameters of where quality of life and quantity of life end.

 

[koshergrl]

And for the record, I think we're way too quick to euthanize animals as well.

I recognize we have that right, they are animals, here for our pleasure, and thus anyone who owns an animal has the right to off them for whatever reason. I think people take advantage of that and kill them for purely selfish reasons "she was *suffering* without recognizing the fact that animals are no affected by physical pain, discomfort, disfigurement in the same way that humans are. They do not experience the horror that we have the luxury of experiencing when faced with the less pleasant aspects of life and death.

But people are not animals, and we should never treat them as if they are.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

It is semantics to comfort guilt. IMO...it is all the same. The intent is the same. It is only the wording that is different. The intent is to end suffering and pain.

I do think that policy should be changed. To allow an individual absolute rights over their bodies... to live or to die. To have the ability to set in granite the parameters of where quality of life and quantity of life end.

I don't have a problem with allowing others to end their lives, as long as it is by "their hand".

I have a problem with allowing the medical profession to end the lives of others, even if at the request of the patient.

 

[syrenn]

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.

It is semantics to comfort guilt. IMO...it is all the same. The intent is the same. It is only the wording that is different. The intent is to end suffering and pain.

I do think that policy should be changed. To allow an individual absolute rights over their bodies... to live or to die. To have the ability to set in granite the parameters of where quality of life and quantity of life end.

I don't have a problem with allowing others to end their lives, as long as it is by "their hand".

I have a problem with allowing the medical profession to end the lives of others, even if at the request of the patient.

And that is where i disagree. I believe the request should be fulfilled.

 

[MikeK]

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.

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).

You speak of "god" and "souls" which suggests that your position is, subliminally if not consciously, rooted in or strongly influenced by theology and is therefore subjective.

Also, you apparently reject the scientifically established fact that humans are animals. I can assure you that many humans who are forced to euthanize a beloved pet suffer no less, and perhaps more, emotional pain than they would if forced to put a relative or human friend down.

 

[Iridescence]

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.

It is semantics to comfort guilt. IMO...it is all the same. The intent is the same. It is only the wording that is different. The intent is to end suffering and pain.

I do think that policy should be changed. To allow an individual absolute rights over their bodies... to live or to die. To have the ability to set in granite the parameters of where quality of life and quantity of life end.

Carefully... I agree with this. It is a double-edged sword either way but to change policy would not necessarily be a step backward, and yet if some see it as such it may be a necessary step backward.

We live within a land where young women boast loud and proud that "It's my body! I'll abort this baby as I choose to do so... because my lifestyle demands it, because I am not healthy enough to carry it to full term without adequate medical care, because I refuse to work around having a baby in my life at this time, because....." Now, mind the board, I am not intentionally showing disrespect toward 'the system' or any woman who has chosen to do so for any number of possibly necessary reasons, BUT I AM PRESSING FORWARD in having this reconsidered. IT IS ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL BECOMING ALLOWED TO DO AS THEY CHOOSE within reason and within the logic of modern healthcare wisdom. IT ISN'T TO JUST PUT SOMEONE TO DEATH WHO IS HEALTHY AND MERELY DEPRESSED.

In my opinion, which understood... is what it is... For as long as ABORTION is legal and even protected by the laws of the land legal euthanasia should be as well.

 

[koshergrl]

NOt now..

Oh wait, yes it is...Netherlands has been taken to task for authorizing euthanisation of CHILDREN who request it, without their parent's permission, and for authorizing euthanasia (and following through) for mentally ill people.

 

[syrenn]

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.

It is semantics to comfort guilt. IMO...it is all the same. The intent is the same. It is only the wording that is different. The intent is to end suffering and pain.

I do think that policy should be changed. To allow an individual absolute rights over their bodies... to live or to die. To have the ability to set in granite the parameters of where quality of life and quantity of life end.

Carefully... I agree with this. It is a double-edged sword either way but to change policy would not necessarily be a step backward, and yet if some see it as such it may be a necessary step backward.

We live within a land where young women boast loud and proud that "It's my body! I'll abort this baby as I choose to do so... because my lifestyle demands it, because I am not healthy enough to carry it to full term without adequate medical care, because I refuse to work around having a baby in my life at this time, because....." Now, mind the board, I am not intentionally showing disrespect toward 'the system' or any woman who has chosen to do so for any number of possibly necessary reasons, BUT I AM PRESSING FORWARD in having this reconsidered. IT IS ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL BECOMING ALLOWED TO DO AS THEY CHOOSE within reason and within the logic of modern healthcare wisdom. IT ISN'T TO JUST PUT SOMEONE TO DEATH WHO IS HEALTHY AND MERELY DEPRESSED.

In my opinion, which understood... is what it is... For as long as ABORTION is legal and even protected by the laws of the land legal euthanasia should be as well.

The whole topic is a double edged sword. It is all about personal opinion, religious beliefs. It is about semantics and accountability.

 

[koshergrl]

Not really. It's about whether murder is ok sometimes. If you have a REALLY good reason.

 

[Iridescence]

NOt now..

Oh wait, yes it is...Netherlands has been taken to task for authorizing euthanisation of CHILDREN who request it, without their parent's permission, and for authorizing euthanasia (and following through) for mentally ill people.

Now that we have a potential proverbial ball rolling.... Most mentally "ill" people are completely misunderstood and for the most part many are not at all ill.

Children (?) why so? Where's the resource of your information? I am certain there is more to this than merely putting children to death...

 

[Marie888]

This one's a toughy for me, and perhaps I still need learning. Most conservatives and even some of my brothers and sisters in Christ, probably won't like what I think (for now) perhaps I'm just needing correction too.

My experience with my mom's cancer and the horrible pain it caused her just before she passed causes me to think that if there wasn't any doctors, if there wasn't any help, if it was just me and her.. and she was sufferering like she was, and asked me to end her life... it would be so hard to do, but how could I not?

Thankfully, that didn't have to happen. There were many doctors, there was pain meds, though even at the very end with the meds, she was still in undescribable pain. All I could do was pray for the Lord to take her...and my prayer was answered, thank the Lord so much. He took her very soon after.

I think it's dependant on each situation. If all that happened, and it was just me and the person, of course I'd be praying. But if for some reason God wasn't answering, and the suffering was going on and on...yes, I may take it into my own hands and be praying for His Mercy in doing so. Yes, that would be on me.

Words cannot express seeing someone you love suffer so much.

.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

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).

You speak of "god" and "souls" which suggests that your position is, subliminally if not consciously, rooted in or strongly influenced by theology and is therefore subjective.

Also, you apparently reject the scientifically established fact that humans are animals. I can assure you that many humans who are forced to euthanize a beloved pet suffer no less, and perhaps more, emotional pain than they would if forced to put a relative or human friend down.

Oh please. I say "God" and "soul" in a post and that automatically removes my objectivity on this matter?

Of all the people on this thread, I am one of a handful of people whose thoughts and opinions are going to translate into actions. I'll have a DEA number if I finish school. So, you can dismiss my opinions because you deem them as "subjective". Here's some objective fact for you: I will follow the law and I will do what I deem to be right, regardless of what you think about it.

Thanks for informing me that humans are animals. You are right, I totally rejected that concept.

I can assure you, if anyone grieves more over the death of a pet then a human, their priorities are seriously out of whack.

And before we go there, I grew up on a farm. I had to euthanize a lot of livestock growing up. I will never make my son take part in that. I don't blame my family for having me in the process. I just now know that it's not something a young person should be tasked with doing.

 

[geauxtohell]

NOt now..

Oh wait, yes it is...Netherlands has been taken to task for authorizing euthanisation of CHILDREN who request it, without their parent's permission, and for authorizing euthanasia (and following through) for mentally ill people.

Link?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I wouldn't either.

Because it's murder.

I would tell them there was still value to their life, that people would miss them in their absence, that they are loved and so forth.

Instead of telling them, "hell yeah, let me help you!"

So being so spaced out on pain meds that all you can do is drool in a cup is OK with you?

Sorry but that's not living with dignity.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And for the record, I think we're way too quick to euthanize animals as well.

I recognize we have that right, they are animals, here for our pleasure, and thus anyone who owns an animal has the right to off them for whatever reason. I think people take advantage of that and kill them for purely selfish reasons "she was *suffering* without recognizing the fact that animals are no affected by physical pain, discomfort, disfigurement in the same way that humans are. They do not experience the horror that we have the luxury of experiencing when faced with the less pleasant aspects of life and death.

But people are not animals, and we should never treat them as if they are.

Watch an animal bleed out internally from hemangiosarcoma and tell me you don't see terror in its eyes.

 

[geauxtohell]

NOt now..

Oh wait, yes it is...Netherlands has been taken to task for authorizing euthanisation of CHILDREN who request it, without their parent's permission, and for authorizing euthanasia (and following through) for mentally ill people.

Now that we have a potential proverbial ball rolling.... Most mentally "ill" people are completely misunderstood and for the most part many are not at all ill.

Children (?) why so? Where's the resource of your information? I am certain there is more to this than merely putting children to death...

The ball is not rolling. The mentally ill are not deemed to have proper mental capacity to make a decision about ending their lives in this country.

Not only do we not facilitate their wishes, we committ them until they are not a harm to themselves and others.

I can telll you any "suicidal ideation" that demonstrates actionability (i.e. do they have a plan) is taken sersiously and warrants a consult (almost to the point of annoyance, as many people use it to malinger).

As for this country, we've actually swayed more to the side of "life". For a time, parents were allowed to refuse care for children born with Down's syndrome until they died of their co-morbidities. That is now expressly illegal (as it should be). You can look up the cases from the 60s at John Hopkins (this was happening all over the country, the cases at Hopkins were just the ones that made the news and changed policy).

 

[rightwinger]

I wouldn't either.

Because it's murder.

I would tell them there was still value to their life, that people would miss them in their absence, that they are loved and so forth.

Instead of telling them, "hell yeah, let me help you!"

So being so spaced out on pain meds that all you can do is drool in a cup is OK with you?

Sorry but that's not living with dignity.

At that point you wake up each morning angry that you did not die during the night. Your day consists of existing in a drug induced haze or praying for time to pass so that you can get your next dose of morphine to end the pain.

That is not living, that is being forced to live

 

[geauxtohell]

I wouldn't either.

Because it's murder.

I would tell them there was still value to their life, that people would miss them in their absence, that they are loved and so forth.

Instead of telling them, "hell yeah, let me help you!"

So being so spaced out on pain meds that all you can do is drool in a cup is OK with you?

Sorry but that's not living with dignity.

At that point you wake up each morning angry that you did not die during the night. Your day consists of existing in a drug induced haze or praying for time to pass so that you can get your next dose of morphine to end the pain.

That is not living, that is being forced to live

Forced by who? Ultimately, any person can take their life if they have the bare minimal ability. I object to them turfing that out to to the medical community.

 

[Iridescence]

And for the record, I think we're way too quick to euthanize animals as well.

I recognize we have that right, they are animals, here for our pleasure, and thus anyone who owns an animal has the right to off them for whatever reason. I think people take advantage of that and kill them for purely selfish reasons "she was *suffering* without recognizing the fact that animals are no affected by physical pain, discomfort, disfigurement in the same way that humans are. They do not experience the horror that we have the luxury of experiencing when faced with the less pleasant aspects of life and death.

But people are not animals, and we should never treat them as if they are.

Watch an animal bleed out internally from hemangiosarcoma and tell me you don't see terror in its eyes.

Once one of our family dogs had jumped the gate at our fence, but being where we were, we had a fence and gate topped with barbed wire. His entire gut was cut and his intestines were hanging out. He scooted to greet us when we found him within the bushes. It was a horrid experience and we did consider surgery... but the vet made it clear that the damage he had done to himself was likely irreversible. It was NOT an easy decision, pet or no, animal or other, I personally couldn't comprehend it ever being an easy decision. Most important decisions ARE NOT easy decisions.