Doctor assisted suicide?Thoughts?

[onions!]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9595961/

Personally,& my opinion was only cemented by watching how long my maternal grandparents took to die,I'm
all for it.

[Antibubba]

If we allowed the dying to use whatever drugs eased their suffering, even pot and heroin, I might oppose it more.  But given the attitude that "The Lord loves those who suffer" that our society has, it ain't gonna happen.

[cfabe]

I have no problem with doctor assisted suicide on mentally competent, terminally ill patients. It seems to me that if a being is capable of making the decicsion to end it's existance, it should not be prevented from doing so.

I'm curious, what is the opposing argument to this? Is it religous in nature?

[Zundfolge]

my only thought as it applies to the SCOTUS case is that its not a Federal issue (or rather shouldn't be).

I'm morally opposed to suicide ... but its not the place of government to legislate morality. (I'm morally opposed to people rejecting Christ, but I sure as hell wouldn't want government enforcing that either)

As long as doctors aren't forced to go against their conscience (like they are with fertility treatments in some places) then I've got no problem with it.

[Waitone]

You want to off yourself?  Fine, have it.  Just don't drag the medical profession into it.  

We have institutions filled with people who could kill with skill, variety, and speed.  I can envision a prison boutique where someone wanting to off themselves can pick and choose.  Everyone wins.  The medical profession is not debased.  The offee is dead as desired.  Prisons gain a little revenue.  Inmates get to practice previously developed skills.  Take a cost center and convert it into a revenue generator.  

And I am not serious except for the part about not debasing the medical profession.

[BrokenPaw]

Waitone,

How is it a debasement of the medical profession to remove suffering from a person who is going to die anyway?  That's what this debate is about, after all.  It's about whether doctors should be allowed to help patients, who are going to die anyway of whatever condition it is that they have, to die sooner and with less suffering rather than later with more.

The death part is not in question.  It's the drawn-out pain and suffering, not to mention dignity, that is in question.

How is it a debasement of a profession that is supposed to help people to allow a mentally-competent person to die with dignity in a painless way at a time of their choosing, rather than sitting by and watching them convulse and cry their way into the grave over the course of months or years?

We euthanize animals who are too injured to survive, because we know that they will only suffer and die anyway.  Why then is it wrong to allow a patient to be euthanized at his own request?

A doctor is equipped to do it in a professional, painless way.  Who better?  I have to assume you were joking about the prison boutique.

Namaste,
-BP

[Felonious Monk/Fignozzle]

When Gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson took his own life a few months back (he shot himself after learning he was terminally ill with cancer), one of the memorials I saw for him quoted Rudyard Kipling's "The Young British Soldier":

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

My wife's mother deteriorated for seven years with breast cancer before dying.
Her last 18 months included very little consciousness, and none of that was free of pain.  

I think I'm in favor of what most of my fellow conservative Christians are against: they call it euthanasia.
Their argument is that it places us in the position of deciding when the sanctity of the life God gave someone needs to be disposed of.  
Maybe they're right, I'm still in favor of it.

When it's my time, let's don't prolong the suffering.
I'd be willing to bet that 4 or 500 years ago, it was preposterous to cut someone open and take out an organ under the guise of saving their lives.

[Guest]

How is it a debasement of the medical profession to remove suffering from a person who is going to die anyway?

The physicians job is not to accept the inevitable, but to fight it tooth and nail. We are all going to end up dead, here we have a proffesion that is centered around pushing that moment as far back as possible, and we want THEM to be the one's to pull the trigger? Why?

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me that a doctor is as free to choose as is an individual person.  If Dr. Sawbones is agin it, he hadn't ought do it.  

I just want the government to stay out of it.

I figure thatr if my next go-'round with cancer has a big "Terminal" tied to it, I'm going to Mexico and get a bunch of phenobarb.  I don't need any prescription for bourbon.  When the hurting gets beyond Darvon, I'm out of here.

I spent eight days all tubed up after surgery, but I knew I was healing up and all that.  I flat-out refuse to go out all tied to tubes.  No way, Jose.  I'm going out like I've lived:  Grinning and telling jokes and raising as much of a fun-ruckus as I can.

, Art

[K Frame]

I'm going out like Grandpa, peaceful and calm and snoring lightly.

I'm not going out kicking, screaming, and terrorized, like the people in Grandpa's car...

[mfree]

Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

====

Tricky according to the oath, which says that the power to take life is there, but not to play at God, and not to overtreat. At what point in a terminal illness is any treatment overtreatment?

[Vodka7]

You want to off yourself?  Fine, have it.  Just don't drag the medical profession into it.

This is ridiculous.  You're saying those physically unable to end their lives (those, for example, with no use of their arms) should have no alternative but to suffer?  Or are you suggesting that they should go to untrained friends or relatives for the fulfillment of their final wish?

Passive euthanasia is already legal--people can demand cessation of life-prolonging treatments, and through a living will they can declare that should they ever be in need of such care, no such measures will be taken.  So, why isn't active euthanasia legal?  Why can't a person say "that's enough, let's end this now"?  Why should an intelligent person's only recourse against state mandated prolongation of life be starvation?  Why can't a willing, trained medical professional be allowed to perform a service that a client wants?

[Preacherman]

There is one huge problem that no-one's identified yet.

I personally don't approve of suicide, although I have no problem with administering enough pain-killing medication to control pain, even if this shortens life.  However, because I regard life as sacred and God-given, I don't believe we have the right to take it.  This applies to the death penalty as well as euthanasia and suicide.

However, what no-one's pointed out yet is that once voluntary euthanasia is legal, how long will it remain "voluntary"?  We've already seen cases in Europe where doctors have made the decision to end a patient's life on the grounds that they don't think there's sufficient "quality of life" left to be worth living.  The patient may disagree, but has no say in the matter.  Also, when one's family is less than loving, and is impatiently waiting for an inheritance, what's the bet that they will assure the doctors that you have previously expressed the desire to die rather than live in pain, or in a coma, or whatever, and put pressure on the doctor to send you on your way prematurely?

This is such a humongous can of ethical and moral worms that I'm completely opposed to opening it at all.  If someone like Art makes his own decision, of his own volition, and does something about it, that's his right, and my own religious principles don't bind him (and should not).  However, once you make the medical profession accomplices in the act, you've crossed a line that I cannot tolerate.

[Art Eatman]

One fear of "doctor assisted" is that government will get tired of picking up the tab for the Medicare/Medicaid "veggies" in the nursing homes.  Same for the "no-hope" elderly during those last months of tube-time.

There's a pretty good article on this over at http://www.lewrockwell.com .  If not today, within the last couple...

Art

[...has left the building.]

You own your own life/body. Period. That means if you want to do extreme body modifcations, dedicate it to Christ, or end it, that is your perogative.

[charby]

well more people do die from medical mistakes than from the recieving end of a firearm...

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

"We've already seen cases in Europe where doctors have made the decision to end a patient's life on the grounds that they don't think there's sufficient "quality of life" left to be worth living.  The patient may disagree, but has no say in the matter.  Also, when one's family is less than loving, and is impatiently waiting for an inheritance, what's the bet that they will assure the doctors that you have previously expressed the desire to die rather than live in pain, or in a coma, or whatever, and put pressure on the doctor to send you on your way prematurely?"

Sounds like Terri Schiavo.  That woman was euthanized simply because her less than loving husband conviced a judge or two that "she would have wanted that".  

I don't care if a man kills himself.  I don't care if he enlists the help of a willing expert.  But I DO care when some third party says that a man ought to be killed for his own good.  

If a man is incapacitated, and a third party does the deed for him, then there better be damn solid evidence that the man really did want that.  

Otherwise it's murder.  Plain and simple.

[Waitone]

Preacherman and I differ on the death penalty, but he is dead right asking how long will it remain voluntary.  You can dress up euthanasia all you want to make it acceptable but once you go down that road (and I refer to governmental approval) you just started the clock on involuntary euthanasia.  We as a society are racing full tilt boogie toward a time when government mandated death will become quite common.  Don't want to get into the historical framework but I will point to societal factors destined to create involuntary euthanasia.  I point to the first wave of the baby boom headed toward retirement.  Once they retire they become wards of the state for their medical care.  They will live longer than other generations on the government tab.  If you think medicare and medicaid are expensive now, just wait until the boomers hit the system.  We are facing a train wreck of public financing.  Bush elected to address SS, a problem that will get to be bad in something like 20 years instead of dealing with medicare which is today as bad as SS will be in the future.  I can only speculate as to why, but the fact remains, the time to fix medicare without screwing a lot of people is past.  Bush and our spinelessrepublicans made the medicare problem grandly worse with the so-called Drug benefit program.  Noble intent, bad execution.  Want to project the ongoing cost of the drug program when its objectives are met and program ramp up is finished.  The majic multiplier is 9.  That's it kiddies, 9.  The history of social programs in the US of comparing initial projections against results shows congress is off by a factor of 9.  Medicare drugs started at $400 billion.  We can expect to pay $3.6 trillion for drugs if history is the guide.

If you don't think costs will drive involuntary euthanasia, you are deluded.  Government mandated death is a dangerous proposition for any country to experience.  We here in the US like to think we are above that sort of thing.  Well when you spend 30+ years killing the most innocent among us, the step to killing the old and infirmed who cost a lot of money is easy.

When I go to the doctor in the future I want to know that individual is legally, morally, and professionally separated from the machine that will kill.  Death does not need highly trained professionals.  I dare say more people have died without the benefit of the medical world than with the medical world's assistance.  If we as a society want to permit truly voluntary (and I don't think it is possible) euthanasia, keep the doctors out of it.  Yes, you can have medical input into judging the condition, etc. but when it comes to doing the deed, physicians are not needed.  Keep them separated because at some point a white haired geezer will look at his doc and wonder, "Is he helping me or does he work for the government."

[Moondoggie]

I watched my 74 yr old father-in-law die from an inoperable abdominal tumor.  It took 2 wks from the exploratory surgery....2 wks of begging for the next shot of morphine.

No thanks.

Also no thanks to nothing to look forward to but hopefully being able to swallow the next serving of goop provided in the nursing home.  Oh, yeah, diaper changes...I can hardly wait.  Being at the mercy of whatever low-paid CNA I happen to end up with is also waaaay down there on my list.

I'm with Art.  When the time comes, after a second opinion, I'm making my preps for an exit on my terms.  Pills, liquor, carbon monoxide, great tunes on the stero.  When it gets to be more than I can stand...hasta la vista world!

I would like the option for a prescription that would gaurantee a successful exit.  

There are many other factors to consider...preservation of my estate vs. medicare taking it down to house + $80K (and yes, I'll probably have more than that).

This is MY LIFE!!!!! It is not the state's or anybody else's place to require that I live on according to their terms.

Conversly, if others want to wait for the natural process, no matter what, that's their business and their choice to make.

[stevelyn]

I don't have a problem with doctor assisted suicide. Ending one's life after the quality of life is gone is a merciful deed. I don't want to linger around suffering in pain if I'm terminally ill or disabled, nor do I want to be a burden on society or my family. I certainly don't want the govt telling me I have to hang in there regardless of my wishes. They just want my tax dollars. Gimme the drugs or a bullet.

However, I do think that doctor and patient have to agree beforehand when that point is reached. Also this is an issue between doctor and patient. Govt has no business horning in on the issue.

Thompson Gunner,

Terri Schiavo is a hollow arguement. Her autopsy revealed she had the brain power of a cucumber when she died.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Thompson Gunner,

Terri Schiavo is a hollow arguement. Her autopsy revealed she had the brain power of a cucumber when she died.

Oh, she was terminally ill.  That makes it all OK...

You make my point eloquently.  Our society is fast reaching a point where it is acceptible to kill innocent people, as long as certain criterea are met.  Who decides those criterea?  

The government decides.  The government knows best.  Trust the government.  It's only your life.

[Stand_watie]

I have a moral problem with both suicide and murder, but I agree with antibubba that neither should be neccessary for pain control. People in pain should have the legal option of controlling that pain. If the dose of morphine it takes to control that pain is accidentally lethal, so what? It's then God's decision rather than man's.

To paraphrase Solomon

"Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more."
- Proverbs 31:6-7:

[Stand_watie]

Thompson Gunner,

Terri Schiavo is a hollow arguement. Her autopsy revealed she had the brain power of a cucumber when she died.

Oh, she was terminally ill.  That makes it all OK...

You make my point eloquently.  Our society is fast reaching a point where it is acceptible to kill innocent people, as long as certain criterea are met.  Who decides those criterea?  

The government decides.  The government knows best.  Trust the government.  It's only your life.

I doubt if my brain has more power than that of a cucumber while I'm asleep. I wonder if it would be ok for my wife to put a bullet in my head (while I'm asleep) as long as she doesn't wake me up cocking the revolver?

[Preacherman]

I doubt if my brain has more power than that of a cucumber while I'm asleep. I wonder if it would be ok for my wife to put a bullet in my head (while I'm asleep) as long as she doesn't wake me up cocking the revolver?

Yeah, you might end up a vegetable...

[grampster]

I'm of the school of thought that the Federal Government ought to get out of the drug prohibiting business, period.

 When a person is ill enough, in pain enough that he and his physician agree, the physician ought to be able to prescribe the dose of whatever drug is best able to alleviate the pain and make that person comfortable.  The question is not really about assisted suicide at all.  It is really about the ability to take the government out of having the authority to control drugs.  Assisted suicide is, imho, a straw man for this reality.  If the drugs that are and will be available were actually prescribable, this argument would dry up.  To say that there would be unscrupulous doctors?  I say so what!!  The Federal Government is worse than that now with the draconian laws that have been instituted in the name of interstate commerce.

Would universal drug prescribability solve every problem connected with getting sick and dying?  No!  But then show me any question about anything that is totally solvable under all circumstances at all times.  If a person had access to whatever drug eases his mind and body, it at least would put us in a better place than we are now.