Physician assisted suicide

[Wookietim]

You know... The concept of physician assisted suicide just bothers me. I get it - some people want to end their suffering and some of them have valid reasons to make that decision. But at the same time a doctor swears an oath not to do that type of thing... so it seems to me that they should never do this unless they are willing to stop being doctors.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why limit it to doctors? Maybe the guy who shoots his wife can claim she told him she wanted to die. The father who can say he ran over his daughter was innocent of murder because she was too shamed by dishonor to live.

If we allow only doctors to make life or death decisions that's flat discrimination.

 

[Aristotle]

Why do you make an assumption that is patently offensive and then claim you mean no offense? Why not be honest about your intent to offend people?

The only people that need ethics are the ones that do not have morals. Morally, you are 100% correct, which is why I agree that doctors should not kill people. Ethically, it would depend on who you are talking to.

The thing is, in order to assume a need to involve a doctor, I have to assume that the person in question is a complete idiot that does not have access to the internet. There are a multitude of sites that describe the various drugs, their side effects, and how to administer them. There is no need to involve a doctor in the decision at all.

I grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the belief that where there is life, there is hope, resonates in me to my core. That does not mean I would never commit suicide, it does mean that the situation is unimaginable. Unlike most of the people here, I have volunteered in a hospice. I saw what people were like when they knew they were going to die. All of them were waiting to die, some of them had refused care that would have extended their lives, most of them suffered every day. None of them wanted to loose one moment of their life.

If I had a friend that wanted to die, and needed my help, I wouldn't ask a doctor, and I wouldn't need the permission of a bunch of dogooders in the government. I would argue with him, try to convince him to keep living, and do whatever I needed to do to help them with their decision.

That is death with dignity. Involving the government takes away dignity, and gives the government more power to kill.

Only fools want to make it easier for the government to kill.

The reason why most people say "I mean no offense" is because what will be said is not to offend, but to indirectly inform the person being addressed that what will be said is not a personal attack nor to be insulting.

Regarding the bold. What is so dignifying about being put to death by a physician?

If you have to say it, saying it isn't going to make a difference.

Did you read my post at all? I spent all that time talking about how using a doctor is the wrong choice, and you ask me how using a doctor is dignified.

No, I was questioning the claim of how euthanasia is a "dignified way to die."

 

[Aristotle]

It appears that the idea of dignified death by physician in context, seems synonymous with Seppuku.

 

[Aristotle]

Why limit it to doctors? Maybe the guy who shoots his wife can claim she told him she wanted to die. The father who can say he ran over his daughter was innocent of murder because she was too shamed by dishonor to live.

If we allow only doctors to make life or death decisions that's flat discrimination.

It's not just discrimination, it makes it an ethical problem. What about physicians who commit euthanasia in a non-hospital setting (assuming euthanasia becomes legal)? Discharging a firearm would still be legal and the physician would be charged with homicide but what if euthanasia was performed at home to a patient all because as you said, the patient begged to die?

 

[geauxtohell]

Did you swear an oath to put the health of your patient first?

I am sure I did. It was some sort of blaise blah-blah-blah that made everyone's parent's happy but meant little in the grand scheme of things.

Most people don't need ceremonial bullshit to do their best to care for people. Properly caring for people isn't always "doing everything" to prolong life. This is hardly a radical concept.

Should I do compressions on a 90 year old woman to keep her heart breathing while also breaking her ribcage and puncturing her lungs?

In the absence of orders not too, I will do these things, but I am not going to argue that it's in the patient's best interest.

BTW, another tenant of the original H.O. was to not share medical knowledge with others. Back when physicians were tied to guilds, it all made sense. Not so much now.

A Do Not Resuscitate Order does balance that one out.

And you'd be surprised at how few people actually have DNR orders.

 

[Noomi]

Why limit it to doctors? Maybe the guy who shoots his wife can claim she told him she wanted to die. The father who can say he ran over his daughter was innocent of murder because she was too shamed by dishonor to live.

If we allow only doctors to make life or death decisions that's flat discrimination.

You are claiming that assisted suicide will lead to murder, which it won't.

 

[koshergrl]

Wow Noomster, promoting killing off the disabled here...and arguing for the legalizing of incest...this has to be a red letter day for you. If you're somewhere promoting babykilling, it would be a perfect trifecta!

 

[Noomi]

Wow Noomster, promoting killing off the disabled here...and arguing for the legalizing of incest...this has to be a red letter day for you. If you're somewhere promoting babykilling, it would be a perfect trifecta!

I see things differently than you, that is all, KG.

And there is no need to promote baby killing, because I don't do that anyway!

 

[Aristotle]

I see proponents of euthanasia wont address my statements. Funny, didn't realize I had that effect on people.

 

[FA_Q2]

I see proponents of euthanasia wont address my statements. Funny, didn't realize I had that effect on people.

No one is addressing your statement because it has already been addressed many times. It has been repeated and the process explored on this thread by me alone on 2 occasions. If you cannot be bothered to read what you are responding to, then I cannot be bothered to reeducate you on my stance on the subject. If you have real questions, please go back through the thread and quote what you have an issue with. If you have a new question that has not been addressed then ask away. So far, you have not brought up any actual points directly refuting euthanasia that have not been covered or offered anything else to take away on this subject.

 

[Jarlaxle]

But a 12-bore slug is faster, surer, and a whole lot cheaper.

Arguably faster and much less surer.

If you doubt that, see if you can volunteer at your local level 1 trauma center when a failed suicide by GSW comes in.

You'll change your mind.

Believe me.

Muzzle in the mouth and pointed up to remove the brain stem, chamber loaded with a deer slug...messy, but certain.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Arguably faster and much less surer.

If you doubt that, see if you can volunteer at your local level 1 trauma center when a failed suicide by GSW comes in.

You'll change your mind.

Believe me.

^This

A 10-gauge pointed up in the mouth works well, took daddy-o out instantly (don't mix pills n' alcohol). But I hear what you're saying, I knew someone who used a .38 special, hollow point too. That one didn't work, and it was pretty bad for her father, as he had to make the decision to take her off life-support. (a parent should N E V E R be put in that situation, which is partly why I support Oregon's law)

Which is why I will use a 12-bore slug or a large-caliber pistol (like a .44 Magnum) and not a mouse gun.

 

[Aristotle]

I see proponents of euthanasia wont address my statements. Funny, didn't realize I had that effect on people.

No one is addressing your statement because it has already been addressed many times. It has been repeated and the process explored on this thread by me alone on 2 occasions. If you cannot be bothered to read what you are responding to, then I cannot be bothered to reeducate you on my stance on the subject. If you have real questions, please go back through the thread and quote what you have an issue with. If you have a new question that has not been addressed then ask away. So far, you have not brought up any actual points directly refuting euthanasia that have not been covered or offered anything else to take away on this subject.

No actually if you go back to the first few pages of this thread I asked four questions that were not answered. Shall I re-educate you on what they were?

 

[Aristotle]

Why not? I have always found that laws against committing suicide are asinine. If you don’t want to be here, so be it. I have no problem with you finishing yourself off if that is truly what you want. Such a process needs to be well thought out, we don’t want errors in such a situation but you have dominion over your body. Why not dominion in ending it.

The issue of euthanasia is a slippery slope because it blurs the line of morality between compassion and murder. Patients suffering from advance forms of Pick's Disease (Alzheimer's/Frontotemporal dementia) also suffer from cases of depression, suicidal ideation, and other horrible symptoms of neurodegeneration. This is why bioethics who do not support due to the "pain of emppending death" opt for palliative care (pain managment to make the patient comfortable upon death) compared to immediately ending the life.

If we are to end the life I think the following questions should be raised:

1) If there is no hope for the patient for recovery should euthanasia be acceptable on this reason alone?

2) If the patient requests to die yet is not in pain, how do we determine that the request of death is not symptomatic of their condition (e.g delirium or depression).

3) If we do allow euthanasia would this lead to a gateway of other bioethical issues such as people suffering from severe mental disorders?

4) If Euthanasia is allowed are loved ones able to see the doctor to perform? If they are allowed then what about the psychological trauma that may occur by watching the doctor perform the life ending procedure? After all, the last image would be the doctor ending their loved one's life versus the natural cause.

In my humble opinion on the issue I believe proponents of euthanasia are more worried about the psychological effect of both the patient, and loved ones and the image of that loved one suffering to annihilation. I would be inclined to agree that it would be better to "put him/her out of their misery" but case by case, it is hard for some families to let their loved one go.

I see proponents of euthanasia wont address my statements. Funny, didn't realize I had that effect on people.

No one is addressing your statement because it has already been addressed many times. It has been repeated and the process explored on this thread by me alone on 2 occasions. If you cannot be bothered to read what you are responding to, then I cannot be bothered to reeducate you on my stance on the subject. If you have real questions, please go back through the thread and quote what you have an issue with. If you have a new question that has not been addressed then ask away. So far, you have not brought up any actual points directly refuting euthanasia that have not been covered or offered anything else to take away on this subject.

How about addressing them now


By the way the first quote by you was poor. Laws against suicide is made to protect people from themselves. You don't know if someone suffering from suicidal ideation is not suffering from a mental disorder or drug related

 

[caela]

If we are to end the life I think the following questions should be raised:

1) If there is no hope for the patient for recovery should euthanasia be acceptable on this reason alone?

2) If the patient requests to die yet is not in pain, how do we determine that the request of death is not symptomatic of their condition (e.g delirium or depression).

3) If we do allow euthanasia would this lead to a gateway of other bioethical issues such as people suffering from severe mental disorders?

4) If Euthanasia is allowed are loved ones able to see the doctor to perform? If they are allowed then what about the psychological trauma that may occur by watching the doctor perform the life ending procedure? After all, the last image would be the doctor ending their loved one's life versus the natural cause.

1) No. I wouldn't agree with Euthanasia in any circumstance. This thread isn't about someone else making the decision for a patient to die, but whether the patient themselves have the right to seek that help.

Now if the patient has a terminal, incurable, disease (particularly if it is degenerative in some fashion) and wants to seek a lethal dose of medication that they will administer themselves (thus the ASSISTED part of the equation) then yes.

2) If a patient doesn't have a disease that inflicts pain, is terminal, and/or degenerative, than no, a physician shouldn't assist them in their suicide attempt. If they don't wish to live for solely personal reasons then that is their business but they shouldn't involve other people in it.

3) Again no. As I said, I disagree with Euthanasia. Family, doctors, social workers etc. shouldn't be making that call. If we leave it in the hands of the patients to decide (within boundaries) then I don't think the "slippery slope" will be a problem.

4) As for having family present, this, like the choice to take the lethal dose of medication, should be left up to the patient. They could choose to have them there when they give themselves the dosage, or to do it prior and then let family come in to say their final goodbyes. There would be no end to the ways this could be handled and wouldn't, really, be any different then families already standing vigil over someone dear on their final death watch.

These answers, of course, are simply my own 0.02$ worth and YMMV.

 

[PaulS1950]

Just as easy as it is for anyone else.

I think someone with terminal cancer but who still has full mobility would find it easier to swallow pills than a quadraplegic.

What makes you think quadriplegics can't swallow?

And how do they get and take the pills? No use of arms or legs makes hard to get something to swallow.

 

[Noomi]

I think someone with terminal cancer but who still has full mobility would find it easier to swallow pills than a quadraplegic.

What makes you think quadriplegics can't swallow?

And how do they get and take the pills? No use of arms or legs makes hard to get something to swallow.

We have gone around in circles with that question, you won't get a proper answer.

 

[koshergrl]

Because you're advocating killing people who you think are no longer productive.

Wow, this does sound familiar....

"Their treatise entitled Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life prefigured the Nazi effort to rid society of the nonproductive.(3) Binding and Hoche presented not only an ethical rationale for medical killing, but also developed procedures for the selection of candidates for death. In the opening segment of this book, the jurist Karl Binding argued for the practice of mercy killing, and finally for a "more general permission" for legalized destruction of human life.(4) Binding argued that mercy killing of the terminally ill "merely replaces the present cause of death with a different one which has the advantage of painlessness. This is not an act of killing in the legal sense but is rather the modification of an irrevocably present cause of death which can no longer be evaded. In truth it is a purely healing act."(5) The experience of the World War I was clearly a factor in Binding's thinking as he argued for a "more general permission" for killing:
Reflect...on a battlefield strewn with thousands of dead youths.... Compare this with our mental hospitals, with their caring for their living inmates. One will be deeply shaken by the strident clash between the sacrifice of the finest flower of humanity in its full measure on the one side, and by the meticulous care shown to existences which are not just absolutely worthless but even of negative value, on the other. It is impossible to doubt that there are living people to whom death would be a release, and whose death would simultaneously free society and the state from carrying a burden which serves no conceivable purpose....(6)"


The Cost-Effectiveness of Killing: An Overview of Nazi "Euthanasia"

 

[koshergrl]

"More aggressive means of ridding German society of the non-productive were not long in coming. According to post-war testimony by Dr. Karl Brandt, at the 1935 Nuremberg Party Congress, Hitler informed the Reich Doctors' Leader, Gerhard Wagner, that in the event of another world war he would take up the question of euthanasia and "solve the problem of the asylums in a radical way."(17) Hitler expected that in the upheaval of war the opposition of the churches would be muted. At this same Party Congress, Dr. Wagner assailed the doctrine of equality, which valued the lives of the sick, and the "unfit" on a par with the healthy. While not specifically mentioning euthanasia, Wagner went on to emphasize the high cost of caring for the "genetically disabled," and to point out how such care was diverting resources from the "healthy members of the population." Dr. Wagner assured his listeners that measures were being taken to reverse this trend.(18)"

The Cost-Effectiveness of Killing: An Overview of Nazi "Euthanasia"