Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Assisted and Voluntary Euthanasia Options · View
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:39:09 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,300
Location: West Coast
I started this thread because it was suggested coming out of the "capital punishment" discussion, after the concept of 'state-assisted suicide' threatened to potentially thread-jack off topic.

So my question is... what are your feelings on 'voluntary and assisted euthanasia' for human beings that are facing life obstacles where they feel they can no longer enjoy a reasonable quality of life... whether that be those who are terminally ill, ageing, in a state of chronic physical duress, or perhaps as the other thread suggested, inmates that face terms of life imprisonment.

Society is comfortable with euthanizing pets who are no longer able to enjoy quality of life, yet it seems with human beings, there are very divided arguments on both sides of the topic.

What's your opinion?


Rembacher
Posted: Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:46:23 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
Dancing_Doll wrote:
Society is comfortable with euthanizing pets who are no longer able to enjoy quality of life, yet it seems with human beings, there are very divided arguments on both sides of the topic.


There is a HUGE difference between pets and people, though it seems that some people get more worked up over mistreatment of a dog than a child.
DamonX
Posted: Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:59:36 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
If a person in a state of suffering and wants to die....I think it is against their basic human rights to deny them that right. Doctor assisted suicide, in my opinion, should not only be legal, but should be a viable option for anyone in a state of suffering. Although...in my experience, Dr assisted suicide is more common that people think, and is actually accepted within the medical community for terminal conditions. This is less common in private-owned American hospitals (which are often owned by religious orginizations) but still occurs quite frequently.

Anyone who has seen a person bedridden in agony and begging to die, would think differently about the aspect of "suicide."

The righteous ones will always preach about the "value of human life" but ignore the value of "the quality of human life."
Guest
Posted: Saturday, July 10, 2010 7:19:28 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,778
We can keep people alive, but we are way behind on providing them the dignity and quality of life they deserve. I find it inhumane to keep someone alive who is suffering with no real hope. Sometimes the best thing you can do for someone is to let them go. It's selfish to keep people alive, if they have no real quality of life and want it to end. I'm with DamonX on this one. I find it disrespectful to keep someone alive who clearly ready to go. I've seen plenty of suffering that was needless.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, July 10, 2010 7:33:01 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,778
im all for it. a huge chunk of our medical crisis in the U.S. is that we spend BILLIONS of dollars keeping the very very young and the very very old alive when it is clearly their time to pass.
rxtales
Posted: Saturday, July 10, 2010 10:15:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/28/2008
Posts: 2,589
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
I'm all for this. Though this decision should be made by the patient alone. I did a paper a while ago about what makes someone able to make their own decisions medically. And I think it because a bit complicated when it comes to Euthanasia. What makes someone able to choose this option? Does depression factor into their decisions? Age? Any "mental illnesses"? This issue gets really complicated really quickly. What about if someone is unable to make the choice, should a close family member be able to make it for them (maybe in the case of a young child)? Obviously it's a huge decision for the one making it - you can't take it back.

That said, I am all for it. I have worked in hospices and seen people I love suffer through illnesses. Had they been capable they probably would have committed suicide themselves, but the option of assisted suicide was not available for them. When I was in the hospital a couple of years ago I met a man who I developed a very close relationship with. He was not terminally ill, but did have an illness that wasn't going away. He wasn't going to die any time soon, but was suffering both physically and emotionally. He also was unable to kill himself. He was definitely depressed and had no family or friends to help him with what he was going through. He had asked doctors to assist him in ending his life. However, this was not done. He was just given psychiatric help which he had already been receiving for several years due to his OCD. One night, when I was getting close to being released, he asked me to help him. I seriously considered it. I really understood it, because of my own past experiences. I really had to step away from my relationship from this man, but I realised I couldn't help him. I was 16 and felt it wasn't my place. I truly understood what he wanted, because there was no hope in him getting any better physically. Emotionally things are still difficult for him. I get emails from him every now and then when he is able to send them. I know things are difficult, but they are getting better, and he is getting some normalcy in his life. He is still suffering though and he is no longer looking to end his life. So I still think, what if I, or someone else had helped him?

Also medicine has developed a lot in my lifetime. But I find people are being kept alive, when there is no quality of life left. I have seen this with grandparents, and my brother. My brother was born with an upside down heart (or at least that is how it was explained to me at 8 years old) and was kept alive for several months. As baby it was horrible to see him suffer. My family saw it as "God's Will", and just let it be. They knew about his condition before hand and chose not to get an abortion. As a young child a remember it being very difficult to watch. I didn't understand and remember asking my parents why they couldn't make it end. So in a case like that when someone can't choose to end their own life, would it be okay for someone else to?
She
Posted: Saturday, July 10, 2010 10:37:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,160
Location: Europe
I would do it.

I know that everybody have a lesson to learn in life, I know that life is a bitch to some (most) people and I know that if my family and friends would suffer that I would say fck it all, I will help you. The worst thing in my opinion is when mind stays healty and body is broken so much that they ask for help to finish the agony.

I like what DemonX said and I am glad that Doctors are beeing humans in this delicate situation despite Hypocrat's oath.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Sunday, July 11, 2010 6:12:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
rxtales wrote:

Also medicine has developed a lot in my lifetime. But I find people are being kept alive, when there is no quality of life left. I have seen this with grandparents, and my brother. My brother was born with an upside down heart (or at least that is how it was explained to me at 8 years old) and was kept alive for several months. As baby it was horrible to see him suffer. My family saw it as "God's Will", and just let it be. They knew about his condition before hand and chose not to get an abortion. As a young child a remember it being very difficult to watch. I didn't understand and remember asking my parents why they couldn't make it end. So in a case like that when someone can't choose to end their own life, would it be okay for someone else to?


I know a woman that gave birth prematurely. Her child was born SO early that he had to be put on a respirator, just to keep him alive. His doctors had no hope for him. They told her that he would never live to become more than a few months old. They said if by God's will he DID manage to live, his lungs would always be so weak that he would never have any "quality of life". They told her it would be a mercy if she would agree to have the respirator removed, and allow her baby to pass away naturally. She insisted he be given every chance. They kept him in intensive care until he could breathe on his own, and when they thought he was stable, they released him into his mother's care, again warning her not to be surprised if he passed away before he even had his first birthday.

That was 25 years ago. This boy, that never could have lived, just lost his driver's license (again) for crashing his car (again). Sure, he's a shitty driver... but if she had listened to his doctors, he never would have grown up at all.

I'm hard pressed to understand how anyone could decide that a newly-born child could never have any "quality of life". Give him the chance, at least. Once he's grown, if he finds life too intolerable, then let HIM decide whether or not he wants to end it. I figure it's none of MY business whether he wants to call it quits or not. It's an issue strictly between him and God.

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Sunday, July 11, 2010 9:24:08 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,300
Location: West Coast
MrNudiePants wrote:


I'm hard pressed to understand how anyone could decide that a newly-born child could never have any "quality of life". Give him the chance, at least. Once he's grown, if he finds life too intolerable, then let HIM decide whether or not he wants to end it. I figure it's none of MY business whether he wants to call it quits or not. It's an issue strictly between him and God.


This is the inherent issue with the concept of 'assisted' euthanasia. And it really shows how non-secular modern healthcare is. Even the hippocratic oath states "Above all, I must not play at God".

But should God really factor in when it comes to someone's desire to end their suffering? It's easy enough if that person is able to end things on their own. But with the way that euthanasia works, it is far more humane to have someone overseeing this for the patient, and of course would technically go against the hippocratic oath (if it's a medical professional).

I do believe that every human should have the right to decide to end their own suffering when they feel they no longer want to continue on.

I remember when my grandfather suffered his second major heart attack in the hospital (which I had to witness), the ICU nurse asked our family whether we wanted to give him more morphine to the extent that he would likely not wake up and would die. To give him less would mean that he would have more opportunity to wake up, but his heart was so badly damaged as it was, and might have been an exercise in futility. My family was too upset at the idea of "ending his life" that they couldn't make the decision. So I made it. The entire experience shook me to the core, but I had to take myself outside of the pain of the moment to understand what he would have wanted and what was the most humane option at the time. They increased the morphine and he passed peacefully shortly thereafter.

In other instances the "do not resuscitate" option can be seen as a more basic version of the same thing. By choosing to do nothing, that person's suffering may end.

But it tends to be a whole different situation when asking a medical professional to assist in ending a patient's life (even when that patient requests it). I find this unfortunate, and hope attitudes change in the future to be more tolerant of this idea.


Guest
Posted: Sunday, July 11, 2010 9:42:21 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,778
again..well said doll. and mr nudie pants your experience is so very very rare. my family is in the medical field and they have all seen things they cant explain but spending literally thousands of dollars to keep a 92 year old grandma alive because we cant let go is asinine. babies..now that may be another story as there is a whole life ahead of them. and if it is "god's" choice that they live then why do we need respirators and intensive care nurses and docs...surely he does not need them.

im sorry that im being flip but our country is in a state of crisis regarding our medical care. and the financial difficulties regarding our medicine, ie high insurance cost, high medical costs can be DIRECTLY attributed to extending life beyond its nature and frivolous malpractice suits coupled with that so many here eat themselves into type 2 diabetes (and blame mcdonalds) or need heart surgeries that the tax payers foot the bill for because they keep shooting heroine. we must accept that people die, the old, young and in between. its sad and tragic but is a part of our lives and we must let them go. and if we could just have a LITTLE personal accountability in how we treat our own bodies and maybe not be looking to make a quick buck because the doctors could do nothing for our loved one.

do you know that after Katrina docs and nurses in an ICU were charged with MURDER and had to stand trial because they could not save the machine dependent patients? they had to STAND TRIAL after their horrific experience for murder. the patients families filed suit and a grossly ambitious D.A. ran with it. tell me thats not wrong.

oops, guess i got on a soap box there a bit..
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Sunday, July 11, 2010 10:04:58 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,300
Location: West Coast
LittleMissBitch wrote:
again..well said doll. and mr nudie pants your experience is so very very rare. my family is in the medical field and they have all seen things they cant explain but spending literally thousands of dollars to keep a 92 year old grandma alive because we cant let go is asinine. babies..now that may be another story as there is a whole life ahead of them. and if it is "god's" choice that they live then why do we need respirators and intensive care nurses and docs...surely he does not need them.

im sorry that im being flip but our country is in a state of crisis regarding our medical care. and the financial difficulties regarding our medicine, ie high insurance cost, high medical costs can be DIRECTLY attributed to extending life beyond its nature and frivolous malpractice suits coupled with that so many here eat themselves into type 2 diabetes (and blame mcdonalds) or need heart surgeries that the tax payers foot the bill for because they keep shooting heroine. we must accept that people die, the old, young and in between. its sad and tragic but is a part of our lives and we must let them go. and if we could just have a LITTLE personal accountability in how we treat our own bodies and maybe not be looking to make a quick buck because the doctors could do nothing for our loved one.

do you know that after Katrina docs and nurses in an ICU were charged with MURDER and had to stand trial because they could not save the machine dependent patients? they had to STAND TRIAL after their horrific experience for murder. the patients families filed suit and a grossly ambitious D.A. ran with it. tell me thats not wrong.

oops, guess i got on a soap box there a bit..


Wow, I did not know that about the post-Katrina ICUs, LMB... and I agree, that is absolutely ridiculous.

As an aside, I'm curious about whether there is more leniency when it comes to people that have sustained serious injuries in the military. Do military hospitals or triages work with the same code? If someone has sustained an injury where death is likely, or suffering is significant during war times (on foreign soil)... does everything still operate with the same rules? Or are exceptions made to end suffering based on humane reasons?

I'd be curious to hear from anyone that has any insight?


Guest
Posted: Sunday, July 11, 2010 10:07:27 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,778
We're already playing God keeping people alive who would be dead without modern science. It's not between the patient and God, it's between the patient and the family and the doctors and the lawyers.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, July 11, 2010 10:51:21 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,778
MrNudiePants wrote:
rxtales wrote:

Also medicine has developed a lot in my lifetime. But I find people are being kept alive, when there is no quality of life left. I have seen this with grandparents, and my brother. My brother was born with an upside down heart (or at least that is how it was explained to me at 8 years old) and was kept alive for several months. As baby it was horrible to see him suffer. My family saw it as "God's Will", and just let it be. They knew about his condition before hand and chose not to get an abortion. As a young child a remember it being very difficult to watch. I didn't understand and remember asking my parents why they couldn't make it end. So in a case like that when someone can't choose to end their own life, would it be okay for someone else to?


I know a woman that gave birth prematurely. Her child was born SO early that he had to be put on a respirator, just to keep him alive. His doctors had no hope for him. They told her that he would never live to become more than a few months old. They said if by God's will he DID manage to live, his lungs would always be so weak that he would never have any "quality of life". They told her it would be a mercy if she would agree to have the respirator removed, and allow her baby to pass away naturally. She insisted he be given every chance. They kept him in intensive care until he could breathe on his own, and when they thought he was stable, they released him into his mother's care, again warning her not to be surprised if he passed away before he even had his first birthday.

That was 25 years ago. This boy, that never could have lived, just lost his driver's license (again) for crashing his car (again). Sure, he's a shitty driver... but if she had listened to his doctors, he never would have grown up at all.

I'm hard pressed to understand how anyone could decide that a newly-born child could never have any "quality of life". Give him the chance, at least. Once he's grown, if he finds life too intolerable, then let HIM decide whether or not he wants to end it. I figure it's none of MY business whether he wants to call it quits or not. It's an issue strictly between him and God.
Lapplause Lapplause Lapplause love7 I am in total agreence with you Mr,Pants and I would like to think any parent would be! I feel there is a big diffrence when it comes to newborn vs elderly. A new baby deserves EVERY fighting chance where some elderly are just outta chances big diffrence in my eye's.
Guest
Posted: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:04:04 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,778
Well pointed, Jebru!

Man has dominion over the animal kingdom. Otherwise, we have a "do not kill" and "do no harm" ethic that have lasted at least a couple of millenia.

The military doctors do everything in their power over here to sustain life and to get soldiers and civilians back to their families.
PirateKitty
Posted: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:35:58 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 5/29/2010
Posts: 35
Location: Queensland
I'm for it. On a planet that is struggling to sustain the amount of humans that there are, it seems to be going against logic to try and keep everyone alive while still adding to the population.

WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:39:26 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,301
Location: Cakeland, United States
This is a situation where the only person who can make the decision to be euthanized is the person to be euthanized.

If your wish is to end your future existence in this manner for any number of reasons, you need to be able to express this desire when you are in a lucid state of mind and produce documentation to that effect, to have this documentation presented for enforcement by someone you've chosen (and who has agreed) to assist you at that future time.

Make no mistake, there is a lot of money riding on the decision to prolong someone's life when that person has clearly reached the end of the rope. And at those times, it is too often too late for anyone to make that decision in a manner which the rest of the world might find believable. A person needs to make this decision in much the same state of mind as he or she would choose to donate or not donate their organs after their death has occurred. And we as a society cannot make it so prohibitively expensive nor put up so many legal hurdles to prevent this from being accomplished - for anyone. It must be as easy for a homeless person to state as it is for someone living in the top 2% of wealth.

We don't have any choice in the matter as to when or how we are born into this life. If we are fortunate we will have some say as to when we leave this life behind.

And that should not be criminalized, politicized nor prevented by any society, organization or sect of religious or legal fanatics.

Jack Kervorkian should never have been prosecuted or brought to trial. That was a political assassination by the state, using arcane laws to enforce their dominion over the rest of us by crucifying one man who has championed our collective dignities.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
LadySharon
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:56:43 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/5/2007
Posts: 2,121
Location: The Tundra, United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
This is a situation where the only person who can make the decision to be euthanized is the person to be euthanized.

If your wish is to end your future existence in this manner for any number of reasons, you need to be able to express this desire when you are in a lucid state of mind and produce documentation to that effect, to have this documentation presented for enforcement by someone you've chosen (and who has agreed) to assist you at that future time.

Make no mistake, there is a lot of money riding on the decision to prolong someone's life when that person has clearly reached the end of the rope. And at those times, it is too often too late for anyone to make that decision in a manner which the rest of the world might find believable. A person needs to make this decision in much the same state of mind as he or she would choose to donate or not donate their organs after their death has occurred. And we as a society cannot make it so prohibitively expensive nor put up so many legal hurdles to prevent this from being accomplished - for anyone. It must be as easy for a homeless person to state as it is for someone living in the top 2% of wealth.

We don't have any choice in the matter as to when or how we are born into this life. If we are fortunate we will have some say as to when we leave this life behind.

And that should not be criminalized, politicized nor prevented by any society, organization or sect of religious or legal fanatics.

Jack Kervorkian should never have been prosecuted or brought to trial. That was a political assassination by the state, using arcane laws to enforce their dominion over the rest of us by crucifying one man who has championed our collective dignities.


I'm against it, only for the fact that it says in the Bible, Thou shall not kill. While I'm no religious zealot, my grandmother has said to us that if she got to the point where she couldn't make decisions for herself, do not pull the plug. Let her go quietly and peacefully. She died at home with my mom, sister, uncle and his girlfriend surrounding her (she was going to go to a hospice the next day). After her funeral, my mom made me and my sister her powers-of-attorney and drew up the papers saying what to do in the event that she's hospitalized, and that included her death wish: no voluntary suicide unless the two of us agree on it mutually. Although doctors have taken the Hippocratic Oath, that has now gone out of the window over time. I can't imagine ending a person's life, let alone being told to get an abortion to end a life of a human being that's going to be born with severe abnormalities.

The Roommates Trilogy:
Roommates with Benefits
Roommates with Benefits: Snowed In
Roommates with Benefits: The Working Vacation is now available for your reading pleasure

Latest poem, Longing, is out now!

College Sex:



New story now available!
She
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:10:00 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,160
Location: Europe
LadySharon wrote:
WellMadeMale wrote:
This is a situation where the only person who can make the decision to be euthanized is the person to be euthanized.

If your wish is to end your future existence in this manner for any number of reasons, you need to be able to express this desire when you are in a lucid state of mind and produce documentation to that effect, to have this documentation presented for enforcement by someone you've chosen (and who has agreed) to assist you at that future time.

Make no mistake, there is a lot of money riding on the decision to prolong someone's life when that person has clearly reached the end of the rope. And at those times, it is too often too late for anyone to make that decision in a manner which the rest of the world might find believable. A person needs to make this decision in much the same state of mind as he or she would choose to donate or not donate their organs after their death has occurred. And we as a society cannot make it so prohibitively expensive nor put up so many legal hurdles to prevent this from being accomplished - for anyone. It must be as easy for a homeless person to state as it is for someone living in the top 2% of wealth.

We don't have any choice in the matter as to when or how we are born into this life. If we are fortunate we will have some say as to when we leave this life behind.

And that should not be criminalized, politicized nor prevented by any society, organization or sect of religious or legal fanatics.

Jack Kervorkian should never have been prosecuted or brought to trial. That was a political assassination by the state, using arcane laws to enforce their dominion over the rest of us by crucifying one man who has championed our collective dignities.


I'm against it, only for the fact that it says in the Bible, Thou shall not kill. While I'm no religious zealot, my grandmother has said to us that if she got to the point where she couldn't make decisions for herself, do not pull the plug. Let her go quietly and peacefully. She died at home with my mom, sister, uncle and his girlfriend surrounding her (she was going to go to a hospice the next day). After her funeral, my mom made me and my sister her powers-of-attorney and drew up the papers saying what to do in the event that she's hospitalized, and that included her death wish: no voluntary suicide unless the two of us agree on it mutually. Although doctors have taken the Hippocratic Oath, that has now gone out of the window over time. I can't imagine ending a person's life, let alone being told to get an abortion to end a life of a human being that's going to be born with severe abnormalities.


I, in the other hand I completely agree with WMM and if you read closely he said the same thing as you did and that is that every person have right to make a choice prety much on every matter. Your grandmother decided not to pull the plug and someone else will or did decide to pull that plug. And for me that all it is respecting eachother choices.

"If your wish is to end your future existence in this manner for any number of reasons, you need to be able to express this desire when you are in a lucid state of mind and produce documentation to that effect, to have this documentation presented for enforcement by someone you've chosen (and who has agreed) to assist you at that future time."
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:42:18 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,778
hi
i personally would like to think my family would let me die , i dont want to be connected to tubes and pumps and having my kids or anyone wipe my ass for me . i would rather die peacefully
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 3:23:41 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,778
Working in a hospital setting has changed my mind on many topics. When you see family members fighting over letting someone go or not is heart wrenching. One must prepare for the future and that also means one's death. No matter what you wish if it's not in writing it does not matter. If your wishes are no life supports you must have it stated in a living will. All states have different rules. I myself don't want to live plugged to any machines.
Jacknife
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:48:33 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 196
Location: United Kingdom
If somebody wishes to die they have every right to kill themselves. it must be terrible to be in a situation where you are unable to act properly should you wish to die. Personally I think these should be helped if they want it.

For myself, I have no intention of living as somebody who cannot care for myself
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 12:24:47 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,300
Location: West Coast
I think there is a big difference between not wishing to live on a machine (which most people will be favourable to), and being able (with sound mind) to make a decision to end one's life, using physician-assisted euthanasia such as what was used by Dr. Jack Kevorkian. His first patient was a woman that after suffering from the effects of late stage Alzheimer's, feared the day was nearing when she would no longer be able to recognize her family (or herself) in the mirror, and wished to proactively end her life before this happened, with dignity. A lot of people were opposed to this, since technically she was still physically capable. Yet, while she was still of sound mind, why shouldn't she have the right to self-determination (as we all should) about making a decision about the quality of life we would no longer find acceptable.

It was upsetting to watch the case of Terri Schiavo unfold in the media years ago. She was in a persistent vegetative state, and the fight was over what her wishes were about artificially prolonging her life. What it all amounted to was a circus that went on for a ridiculous amount of time with her feeding tube being removed the then reattached and then removed again. When the decision was made to finally remove her feeding tube for good, it took her 12 days to die. While the principle here is correct, the methodology is archaic and cruel. What it amounts to is waiting for the patient to starve and dehydrate to death slowly over time. When you know the end result is going to be death, I cannot and never will understand the logic of allowing the patient a slow and painful death, rather than just administering a lethal injection. When your pet is nearing, the end, you don't just stop feeding him and giving him water until they die. You take them to the vet for euthanasia. To me this is humane and civilized. Why we don't understand this logic for human beings is asinine.

The same should be held for those people that have chronic illnesses that take them beyond the point where they want to continue on. A lot of people cannot psychologically function in a healthy way with debilitating diseases that take away most of their quality of life. Not to say that anything should be rushed... and the decision making would have to be carefully weighed and various analysis should be done to ensure they understand the decision. But we should have the right to self-determination...and be given the option to do this with medical supervision and assistance.

Sure, people will argue that it's "playing God" by willfully (rather than passively) causing the death of the patient, but when you look at it, doctors play God every day by giving patients medications and performing life-saving surgeries. Every medication interferes with body processes as the way "God" would have originally willed or intended it. If death is the most positive outcome for that patient, then why should it be looked at any differently than the positive outcomes of surgery or medications.


MahlerSymphony
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 12:34:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 4/5/2010
Posts: 97
Location: California, United States
It seems to me that if we believe in personal freedom, and freedom of personal choice, then why should we deny someone to make the fundamental personal choice as to whether they exist? I understand ensuring that someone is of sound mind to make such a choice, but once that concern is satisfied it is a denial of one's personal integrity to take that choice away.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:51:57 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,778
my husband who is a critical care nurse in a medical ICU who watches people die everyday said to me , "Why should you have to involve a medical professional to commit suicide? Can you imagine the malpractice insurance costs?! You can go to any walgreens and find a multitude of things to get the job done" and hes right. he said, "do it yourself if you are able or ask a loved one, otherwise please leave us out of it"

he makes a good point.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:30:10 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,300
Location: West Coast
LittleMissBitch wrote:
my husband who is a critical care nurse in a medical ICU who watches people die everyday said to me , "Why should you have to involve a medical professional to commit suicide? Can you imagine the malpractice insurance costs?! You can go to any walgreens and find a multitude of things to get the job done" and hes right. he said, "do it yourself if you are able or ask a loved one, otherwise please leave us out of it"

he makes a good point.


It scares me to think about making your own suicide concoctions or plans. Why swallow cynanide or various poisons, or attempt a potentially botched attempt? Euthanasia is full-proof and peaceful. You go under anaesthesia before the heart is stopped. Painless and under the supervision of a medical professional. If I was going to do it, that's how I'd prefer to have it done. And I think we should have that option available. The only thing worse than being in a debilitating condition would be being in that condition and suffering the repercussions of a suicide attempt that didn't go quite as planned...


Guest
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:43:37 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,778
i think his point doll was that he and most doctors he knows do not want to have the responsibility for taking a life, they will however make you comfortable in your last moments and days with morphine and not prolong your suffering by removing life support. and that if you truly want to end your life all it takes is a little research to keep yourself from botching it. in other words take responsibility for your own death. and this is a man who is in a position to end suffering of dying patients whos families will not let go. the means and opportunity are both readily available to him.

doctors here get sued at the drop of a hat for real and perceived mistakes. how easy it would be for a family to come in after the procedure and say the patient was incompetent to make the choice and sue the doctor or the hospital...insurance would be crushing to say an individual family practice doctor.

its just another angle to think about. not every medical professional would be comfortable doing it. i know we've had one post from a medical person here...are there any more? would be interesting to hear more from the men and women in the field, those who would be charged with the responsibility of the actual act.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 11:07:09 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,300
Location: West Coast
LittleMissBitch wrote:
i think his point doll was that he and most doctors he knows do not want to have the responsibility for taking a life, they will however make you comfortable in your last moments and days with morphine and not prolong your suffering by removing life support. and that if you truly want to end your life all it takes is a little research to keep yourself from botching it. in other words take responsibility for your own death. and this is a man who is in a position to end suffering of dying patients whos families will not let go. the means and opportunity are both readily available to him.

doctors here get sued at the drop of a hat for real and perceived mistakes. how easy it would be for a family to come in after the procedure and say the patient was incompetent to make the choice and sue the doctor or the hospital...insurance would be crushing to say an individual family practice doctor.

its just another angle to think about. not every medical professional would be comfortable doing it. i know we've had one post from a medical person here...are there any more? would be interesting to hear more from the men and women in the field, those who would be charged with the responsibility of the actual act.


I agree, as the laws stand currently, physicians are not going to want to incur the risk of lawsuits and legalities... Dr Kevorkian being the exception (and maybe a small contingent of similarly minded doctors). That's where the laws would have to change to incorporate this and protect physicians from the risks they might face re lawsuits.

I also would be curious kind about the views that other medical professionals on this site have. IF there were laws in place that would guarantee immunity from lawsuits, would you (if you were a doctor) be open to providing this kind of service to patients? I'm more curious if it's the legalities that would prevent someone from doing it, or the 'ethics' of stopping a human life?


MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 6:29:27 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
LittleMissBitch wrote:
i think his point doll was that he and most doctors he knows do not want to have the responsibility for taking a life, they will however make you comfortable in your last moments and days with morphine and not prolong your suffering by removing life support. and that if you truly want to end your life all it takes is a little research to keep yourself from botching it. in other words take responsibility for your own death. and this is a man who is in a position to end suffering of dying patients whos families will not let go. the means and opportunity are both readily available to him.

doctors here get sued at the drop of a hat for real and perceived mistakes. how easy it would be for a family to come in after the procedure and say the patient was incompetent to make the choice and sue the doctor or the hospital...insurance would be crushing to say an individual family practice doctor.

its just another angle to think about. not every medical professional would be comfortable doing it. i know we've had one post from a medical person here...are there any more? would be interesting to hear more from the men and women in the field, those who would be charged with the responsibility of the actual act.


That's something we rarely think about. How would a doctor feel knowing that not only did he fail to keep his patient alive, but he actually assisted in killing him? How many people would be strong enough to be able to take a life, even if it IS done out of mercy? And then, once having taken that life, to go home and pretend as if you hadn't? I hope I'm never in this situation.

WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:26:17 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,301
Location: Cakeland, United States
A new career field is created: Euthanasist

It would not be fair nor compassionate for us to ask or request that those who entered the medical field, with their ideals of curing, saving/protecting, comforting, or nurturing/prolonging life ... to wear both hats.

With the proper foresight, legalities ironed out and teamwork... this could be a reality.

People naturally throw up roadblocks and hurdles. Why? Because change is something we are not used to. We like routine things. But change is inevitable and we can manage it.

Not all euthanasia need occur upon the premises of a hospital. There can be clinics especially designed for such services, or the service could be offered in the patient's home.

Busting the litigation addiction and the existing insurance/money generating cash register is the largest impediment to this becoming a reality.



If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:45:11 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,300
Location: West Coast
There is also the option of doing things the way Dr Kevorkian did, where the machine/apparatus for the lethal injection is set up, but the patient themselves must "pull the cord" to start the system working.

In this case, the physician is just assisting and supervising, but not carrying out the actual procedure (on a technicality). It also ensures continued free will for the patient. If they decide at the very last minute that they don't want to go through with it, they always have the option of not doing it.

That would also also alleviate feelings of 'guilt' that a doctor might have for ending a life.

I also think a "Euthanist Specialist" will have a different outlook than the average physician. Certainly this kind of thing would be set up at a specialized clinic, or a mobile unit if the patient preferred to be at home or some other peaceful or meaningful location.

I think more physicians than one would think, would be open to do the actual procedure or concept, providing legalities and litigation fears are removed.

If I was a physician, I for one, would be open to this concept. I think it also plays into your views on God, and in an increasingly secular society, there are more atheists or theists in the medical profession now that don't have traditional views on death or the moral implications.


Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.