Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

lol, that really made me laugh...


I don't like the idea of thinking ppl can get assistance to kill themselves... I don't know enough about the issue to contribute to a worthwhile discussion of it, though. I just wanted to laugh at that comment...

 

Anybody remember the huge Kavorkian deal years ago? I was young but still remember slightly.


In America we have the r ight to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". They are in that order for a reason. If somebody's liberty or pursuit of happiness can/will infringe on somebody elses being alive, then they do not have the right to pursue that liberty. I think that would even include ourselves. It's a constitutionally sound argument, I think, that they cannot federally legalize assisted suicide. I think it definately has it's good points, and if it were to be moved toward being legalized I only hope that it is heavily restricted and constantly monitored. I think it should be a requirement to get atleast 1 family members signed acceptance and acknowledgement of the activitiy before it is allowed to happen.

 

In Oregon, the reporting "requirements" have no teeth at all.

I'm not aware of a single positive model; all experiments have been disastrous, in my opinion.

It's already legal to administer whatever dose of pain medication is necessary, even if death inadvertantly results. Accidental overdose is called the "double effect," and it's allowed even at Catholic hospitals. Prescribing an intentional overdose of barbituates is another matter entirely.

I just can't fathom killing as a suitable "treatment" for such conditions.

 

If death "inadvertantly results" from an unusually high dose of narcotics, a doctor can be charged with malpractice.

Dr. Kevorkian typically induced death by potassium overdose. Barbituates are used for relaxing the patient.

This is along the same lines as what I was trying to imply. I am not sure if death is a suitable treatment for these conditions. It is somewhat more clean cut when you are dealing with a cancer hospice patient waiting to die.

 

This "double effect" is apparently more theory than reality:

http://www.hospicecare.com/Ethics/fohrdoc.htm

The Oregon law specificies barbituates. My point is that either of these is easily distinguished from aggressive pain management.

I don't think that deliberately poisoning is justifiable under any circumstances. It is certainly incompatible with the basic philosophy of hospice care.

 

I think that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legal, but the only ones to be able to decide are the patient himself and his closest relatives.

I don't see why it's a good thing that a depressed person can kill himself and a depressed perpetually ill person who needs assistance to do even the simplest things cannot.

 

Try actually reading some of the references I've provided.

Who said it was a "good thing" for depressed people to kill themselves? Maybe you're thinking of Holland, where psychiatrists have dispensed poison to depressed patients with impunity. I personally think that's a very bad thing.

 

Here is what I 'might' argue ...

1) The essence of the sentient being is the sustentation of life. All other pursuits, living well and being happy, are secondary in comparison.

2) Reason is the most accurate guide to the successful proliferation of human life.

3) It is unreasonable to desire death, unless the knowledge of the outcome [of the situation in which death is chosen] is known certainly and absolutely.

4) The leaders and citizens do not have a perfect knowledge of what might happen in between the time the patient would be euthanised and the time they would naturally die. Only a possible and arguably probable knowledge. Both of which are incomplete knowledge.

5) In cases where the knowledge of the outcome is perfect, life may only be justly self-sacrificed in order to preserve life that is certainly known to be in direct and imminent peril.

6) To base action on an imperfect knowledge is unreasonable in matters of life and death.

7) Those who support euthanisia support an unreasonable, thus unjustified act.

Here is a little justification for my above argument.

The blanket statement that the primary goal or fundamental function of any sentient being is the sustaining of it’s own life seems simple and obvious. The importance of this statement lies as much in its truth as in its truth for all. There is no record of a death seeking species of sentient being. It seems a law that living things desire to go on living. Questions of how to live well, to lead the good life and the like are all secondary in comparison. Our need for food and shelter are subordinate to the continuation of life itself. In a human being reason is the most accurate guide to sustaining life. This capacity for rational thought is more accurate than emotion, common sense, and sense perception alone as it recognizes and utilizes all of them to form the basis of right action in any given situation. This does not mean to diminish the role of emotion (or either of the other modes of knowledge listed above) as an accurate guide to right action most of the time. But since reason is not restricted solely to the faculties of emotion, common sense, or sense perception, it always is the more accurate guide to right action. Though this self-interest that motivates sentient beings to continue living is a rational motivation it is possible and reasonable for us to desire death. This desire for death is justified and reasonable if (and only when) two conditions are met. When the knowledge of the outcome of the situation in which death is desired is certain and absolute, firstly. Secondly, life may only be self-sacrificed in order to preserve life that is known to be in imminent or direct peril. It is important to note that the self must make the sacrifice of life as no other has the authority. If either, or both, of these conditions have not been met than the sacrifice of life is unjust and unreasonable as it puts other pursuits ahead of the fundamental goal of life.

It is not possible that our leaders and people can know for certain that every person euthanised would have died if he/she was not. The probability of survivors can not be ignored and even if it is taken into account in the decision, the possibility that one patient (of all euthanised patients) may have survived had she been allowed the chance can not be eliminated or marginalized. The knowledge of disease that underlies this ‘death desire’ is not certain or absolute, only possible or probable. In other words, the knowledge that underlies this desire for death is incomplete and does not sufficiently meet the first requirement for the just sacrifice of life.

The exchange of life for relief of emotional devastation is contrary to the second requirement for sacrifice of life. The emotional distress of having a terminally ill loved one would be incredible, but suggesting that people to die to save the damage puts an unreasonable price on life. Each life sacrificed must mean another life saved. In this case each life sacrificed is a building saved. It is unreasonable to put such small worth on life.

According to these principles and criteria euthanasia in most cases can not be justified.


What say you?

 

You come across an animal hit by a car.

By the time you get it to a vet it will be dead (not that the vet would be able to help in any case).

You can see that the animal is in obvious pain and suffering.

No bullet to the brain mercy?

Why prolong untreatable suffering?

Especially with a patient pleading for death...

"First do no harm..."

But what causes the greatest harm?

Allowing the suffering against the wishes of the patient or helping that patient kill themselves?

 

This analogy might work on the battlefield, but there are always other ways available to relieve the pain of terminally ill patients.

 

There are not always other ways available to relieve suffering...

 

Check out the last article I cited above and the ACP position paper in my first post on this thread.

 

I did quickly review your last link. I will review both of them, because this interests me. I must admit, Huck, that I often overlook your articles because of the sources and length. The last article you cited, however, appeared to be fairly objective.

I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue. I can see both sides of it.

Another thing I just thought of, and maybe you can tell me how this works in Oregon, are all doctors that treat terminally ill patients required to provide assisted suicide if the patient meets protocol requirements (I HOPE there is at least a protocol), if/when euthanasia is legalized? I know I will be called a hypocrite for this (when compared to my posts on other topics), and I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't feel doctors should be obligated to provide euthanasia services.

 

Fortunately, doctors in Oregon are not required to prescribe poison upon request. However, HMOs like Kaiser Permanente have gone "shopping" for suicide doctors, against the expressed professional judgment of attending physicians:

http://www.pccef.org/press/press12.htm

 

Turn them into drugged zombies?

I'd rather be dead...

 

ah, i was gonna post my opinion, but as always, huck_finn has taken over it with his links and bullshit.

 

I don't think that's a very accurate assessment of modern palliative care. See:

http://www.hospicecare.com/journals_publications.htm