Debate: Euthanasia (Pharmacist POV)

[owlegrad]

Self defense is not murder.

Well we can agree on that. So war is back in I guess (although some are more for self defense than others) and so are armed police officers (although we could quibble over how many police shootings are self-defense).

How about the death penalty? Evil?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[owlegrad]

Or he's a misotheist/dystheist. Plenty of the moral people I know have that implicit belief in religion for objectively valid reasons.

What is an objectively valid reason for a personal belief? Is it still a belief at that point?

 

[zelman]

I'm apathetic. I couldn't care less about religion.

I'm apathetic regarding Oklahoma, but I still believe in it. I stand by my wager.

 

[lord999]

What is an objectively valid reason for a personal belief? Is it still a belief at that point?

Maybe, maybe not, I'm willing to concede the point and the problem it raises. That they recognize a paradox for what it is, a paradox. That recognition can be objectively known (you either know that the paradox exists or you do not). It is still a belief on their solution, as paradoxes by definition do not have definitive solutions, only beliefs and values, but you actually have to have some objective reason to understand the paradox. If the Euthyphro dilemma (either formulation about piety or goodness) is considered objectively as a valid paradox, then there is no easy answer to a truly benevolent (all good), omnipotent (all powerful), and provident (there is a plan) being. I consider the acceptance of that paradox to be an "objectively valid" reason, although I personally do not accept the proposition as a paradox (which puts me in a different category than a misotheist).

Without turning this into a religious debate that's not forum related, I do believe and am willing to act and have acted on that belief at work that personal beliefs should matter when faced with these sorts of questions. I actually do not have a problem with a pharmacist refusing to dispense birth control if this is against their beliefs, but they would need to respect mine to dispense (although a strict interpretation of my particular denomination of Christianity would consider this a grave mortal sin). I figure though that my denomination's version of the Trinity will forgive me eventually for my limited knowledge and shortcomings, thus I continue to do what I believe is right. If not, I'll be at a reunion with some Sisters of No Mercy after a brief meeting with St. Peter. If I cannot be forgiven for a mortal sin, then certainly the strict Sister of No Mercy who I still have nightmares about thirty years later will never have her wrath on us poor 1st graders forgiven. If anything, it'll be more likely I'll be condemned for using usury (the stock market and my pension) to make a much more comfortable living then I ever could on my own. After all, isn't capitalism about owning the means of production to exploiting others for your personal wealth?

 

[BenJammin]

I'm apathetic regarding Oklahoma, but I still believe in it. I stand by my wager.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make so I have no response.

 

[zelman]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make so I have no response.

Your stance on this issue is clearly not based in a faithless perspective.

You're acting like patients will live forever with no intervention. These patients are dying and there is no practical difference between taking away their pain with morphine or death. They will be dead in less than 6 months one way or the other. Refusing to provide for their medical need to terminate their own life just takes away their autonomy and drives up healthcare costs.

 

[angelsplight]

Depending on the patient, I would fill it. As someone whose grandparent passed away from end stage cancer, they just want to end it. Living a life on pain killers, not being able to move without feeling pain and forced to going through a medication regiment with a whole mess of side effects, they just don't want to continue going through it.

 

[deleted820760]

I am curious how far that extends. I presume then that you are against executions since that is legalized murder. I guess war is out as well. Presumably you think police officers shouldn't be armed either.

The weird thing is, I'm actually all for death with dignity in certain situations, but I'm against war and the death penalty.

I get the point you're making though, since he's arguing that government shouldn't have a role in killing people. I don't think government should either, but things are not always black and white.

 

[deleted820760]

Honestly, I'm against executions, war, and armed police.

Killing to end misery is the only kind of killing of humans that I can support.

Ha. I made my comment before I saw yours. I agree.

 

[deleted820760]

What is an objectively valid reason for a personal belief? Is it still a belief at that point?

It's a fact, that someone happens to believe.

 

[BenJammin]

Your stance on this issue is clearly not based in a faithless perspective.

You're acting like patients will live forever with no intervention. These patients are dying and there is no practical difference between taking away their pain with morphine or death. They will be dead in less than 6 months one way or the other. Refusing to provide for their medical need to terminate their own life just takes away their autonomy and drives up healthcare costs.

So now I have to prove to you that I'm not religious and that I don't attend church? Give me a break.

 

[zelman]

So now I have to prove to you that I'm not religious and that I don't attend church? Give me a break.

I'm not asking for proof. I'm just pointing out that you never said whether or not your assessment of the situation was based on your belief in biblical fairytales. You just sidestep the issue.

By the way, I don't have to be religious to have morals.

I couldn't care less about religion.

And I refuse to believe a rational human being would put some ethereal concept of "evil" between themselves and ending the misery of a terminally ill patient of sound mind. The only reasons to do so are a rigid dogma of what constitutes evil (with zero contextual consideration) or belief that life itself is some magical gift that must be preserved at all costs due to some greater purpose or sacred attribute of the "life" itself. Both of those are products of religious doctrine.

 

[owlegrad]

I'm not asking for proof. I'm just pointing out that you never said whether or not your assessment of the situation was based on your belief in biblical fairytales. You just sidestep the issue.





And I refuse to believe a rational human being would put some ethereal concept of "evil" between themselves and ending the misery of a terminally ill patient of sound mind. The only reasons to do so are a rigid dogma of what constitutes evil (with zero contextual consideration) or belief that life itself is some magical gift that must be preserved at all costs due to some greater purpose or sacred attribute of the "life" itself. Both of those are products of religious doctrine.

Well wait a second, plenty of people can be irrational without being religious.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

So now I have to prove to you that I'm not religious and that I don't attend church? Give me a break.

Lol.
There's so many of these "Charlie Brown kicking the football" situations on SDN, where people are shocked to find out that not everyone fits their expectations

 

[BenJammin]

I'm not asking for proof. I'm just pointing out that you never said whether or not your assessment of the situation was based on your belief in biblical fairytales. You just sidestep the issue.





And I refuse to believe a rational human being would put some ethereal concept of "evil" between themselves and ending the misery of a terminally ill patient of sound mind. The only reasons to do so are a rigid dogma of what constitutes evil (with zero contextual consideration) or belief that life itself is some magical gift that must be preserved at all costs due to some greater purpose or sacred attribute of the "life" itself. Both of those are products of religious doctrine.

So only religious people can believe in right and wrong/good and evil? I supposed you could probably find 1% of people who agree with you.

 

[zelman]

So only religious people can believe in right and wrong/good and evil? I supposed you could probably find 1% of people who agree with you.

No. Atheists say Hitler is evil. Evangelical christians say women cutting their hair is evil. One of those is based on utilitarianism, and the other...I don't even know...The story of Samson, maybe?

 

[Abby Atwood]

No. Atheists say Hitler is evil. Evangelical christians say women cutting their hair is evil. One of those is based on utilitarianism, and the other...I don't even know...The story of Samson, maybe?

I'm pretty sure the long hair thing is from 1 Corinthians chapter 11. I grew up in an evangelical household.
In most religions, death isn't final. If I felt that death with dignity was sending people straight to heaven, I would view it as an unmitigated good. Since I am an atheist, it seems a bit more complicated. In most cases, some existence is better than no existence. I support death with dignity because I believe it is a patient's right; however, as an atheist, I do not see it as a good thing.

 

[zelman]

I'm pretty sure the long hair thing is from 1 Corinthians chapter 11. I grew up in an evangelical household.
In most religions, death isn't final. If I felt that death with dignity was sending people straight to heaven, I would view it as an unmitigated good. Since I am an atheist, it seems a bit more complicated. In most cases, some existence is better than no existence. I support death with dignity because I believe it is a patient's right; however, as an atheist, I do not see it as a good thing.

So, if "some life is better than no life" is the guideline, wouldn't the use of antibiotics be a bad thing? Killing millions of poor MRSA to save one person seems like a lousy trade. I contend that quality of life must be considered in the decision, and terminally ill patients may be better off with no life than some life if that life is akin to torture.

 

[Abby Atwood]

So, if "some life is better than no life" is the guideline, wouldn't the use of antibiotics be a bad thing? Killing millions of poor MRSA to save one person seems like a lousy trade. I contend that quality of life must be considered in the decision, and terminally ill patients may be better off with no life than some life if that life is akin to torture.

human life > bacteria

 

[zelman]

human life > bacteria

Agreed. Now that we've decided that not all life is equivalent, is it possible that some falls below zero on this scale?

 

[Abby Atwood]

Agreed. Now that we've decided that not all life is equivalent, is it possible that some falls below zero on this scale?

I think we decided that bacteria are not equivalent to humans. It might be a little problematic if you are suggesting that not all human lives are equivalently valuable or that a particular set of circumstances would leave a human life without value. Some individuals live through a great deal of pain and, despite that pain, appreciate the time they have. I'm sure that you wouldn't argue that their life is without value.

 

[zelman]

I think we decided that bacteria are not equivalent to humans. It might be a little problematic if you are suggesting that not all human lives are equivalently valuable or that a particular set of circumstances would leave a human life without value. Some individuals live through a great deal of pain and, despite that pain, appreciate the time they have. I'm sure that you wouldn't argue that their life is without value.

I am all for giving people as much time as they want, but I don't think that all terminally ill patients are seeking to live as long as possible and I respect their informed decision to wave the white flag.

 

[Abby Atwood]

I am all for giving people as much time as they want, but I don't think that all terminally ill patients are seeking to live as long as possible and I respect their informed decision to wave the white flag.

There are not a lot of circumstances where I would look at a patient and think that death is the best option; however, if the patient makes that choice and issues like mental illness can reasonably be ruled out, I feel that it is their right.

 

[deleted480308]

There are not a lot of circumstances where I would look at a patient and think that death is the best option; however, if the patient makes that choice and issues like mental illness can reasonably be ruled out, I feel that it is their right.

But the real end game here is this.....do they have a right to make you dispense it?

 

[Abby Atwood]

But the real end game here is this.....do they have a right to make you dispense it?

They do not have the right to make you dispense it. I feel that you should direct them to a pharmacy that will meet their need if you refuse to fill. I think that similar guidelines to those used in a refusal to provide emergency contraception could reasonably be applied to this circumstance.

To clarify, this is not talking about the scripts from the original question. Those were inappropriate for a bunch of reasons including inappropriate procedure, inappropriate documentation, and inappropriate therapy choice. No one should be filling those

 

[Old Timer]

Morality is really a tricky issue. It comes down to this and unless somebody has a different idea, I don't see any other choices:

God: For those who are religious, we get our objective morality from from God as our religious tradition understands it. There are many issues with this not the least of which is what to do when someone doesn't believe in your deity, someone has a different understanding of what the deity requires or someone whose deity has a wholly different view of what is or is not moral in a given situation. The idea here is that there is something or someone that we humans have to answer to. The advantage to religion, at least western religion, is that it values human life over other life. So protecting human life becomes paramount.

Personal Opinion: This is very popular today. Benjamin has a view of morality that others disagree with. Each one of us has their own personal view. To him this is clearly immoral. What makes his view of morality superior to someone whose views differ? Some people would prefer to build hospitals. Others, gas chambers. While the theistic view has it's issues, this is where the atheistic view breaks down. If there is no God, no one to answer to, each person is his/own God and only answers to himself or herself. It's totally subjective. And every view therefore is of equal value and force.

Societal Agreement: When society comes together and by consensus decides something is or is not immoral. The trouble with this is different societies can have different views of what is and is not immoral. In a given society, what is immoral one day can be moral a different day. It usually takes longer than a day, but lets face it American Society has gone through massive moral changes in the last 60-70 years. For example I would wager everyone on this forum considers clitoridectomy to be immoral. Other societies don't. What do we do? Force other societies to follow our "morals" by the force of our arms? What if someone has the military power to force their view of morality on us?

So to throw out the "It's Immoral" argument is troubling because you don't have authority to make it. The US Constitution only mentions life and liberty in Article V in reference to the Government being able to take your life or liberty involving criminal activity and again in Article XIV when it prohibits state governments in the same way. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness along with references to God given rights appear in the Declaration of Independence and are absent from the Preamble and the original Articles of the Constitution.

It is not an easy topic. This is also a reflection of the state of our educational system. We don't get a classical liberal arts education anymore. We don't as a general rule graduate from college with a "World View". We have a great deal of knowledge but very little wisdom.

 

[Abby Atwood]

Morality is really a tricky issue. It comes down to this and unless somebody has a different idea, I don't see any other choices:

God: For those who are religious, we get our objective morality from from God as our religious tradition understands it. There are many issues with this not the least of which is what to do when someone doesn't believe in your deity, someone has a different understanding of what the deity requires or someone whose deity has a wholly different view of what is or is not moral in a given situation. The idea here is that there is something or someone that we humans have to answer to. The advantage to religion, at least western religion, is that it values human life over other life. So protecting human life becomes paramount.

Personal Opinion: This is very popular today. Benjamin has a view of morality that others disagree with. Each one of us has their own personal view. To him this is clearly immoral. What makes his view of morality superior to someone whose views differ? Some people would prefer to build hospitals. Others, gas chambers. While the theistic view has it's issues, this is where the atheistic view breaks down. If there is no God, no one to answer to, each person is his/own God and only answers to himself or herself. It's totally subjective. And every view therefore is of equal value and force.

Societal Agreement: When society comes together and by consensus decides something is or is not immoral. The trouble with this is different societies can have different views of what is and is not immoral. In a given society, what is immoral one day can be moral a different day. It usually takes longer than a day, but lets face it American Society has gone through massive moral changes in the last 60-70 years. For example I would wager everyone on this forum considers clitoridectomy to be immoral. Other societies don't. What do we do? Force other societies to follow our "morals" by the force of our arms? What if someone has the military power to force their view of morality on us?

So to throw out the "It's Immoral" argument is troubling because you don't have authority to make it. The US Constitution only mentions life and liberty in Article V in reference to the Government being able to take your life or liberty involving criminal activity and again in Article XIV when it prohibits state governments in the same way. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness along with references to God given rights appear in the Declaration of Independence and are absent from the Preamble and the original Articles of the Constitution.

It is not an easy topic. This is also a reflection of the state of our educational system. We don't get a classical liberal arts education anymore. We don't as a general rule graduate from college with a "World View". We have a great deal of knowledge but very little wisdom.

Societal agreement also typically agrees that human life is more valuable than other types of life.
Even if you have religious beliefs, you probably think that some religions are created by people. One disadvantage to religion is that it can take human ideas and codify them in a way that is difficult to change. That may be why some religious groups seem to lag behind a lot of social progress.

Not saying that any of these groups are good or bad. As your post points out there are pluses and minuses to go around.

 

[Old Timer]

Societal agreement also typically agrees that human life is more valuable than other types of life.
Even if you have religious beliefs, you probably think that some religions are created by people. One disadvantage to religion is that it can take human ideas and codify them in a way that is difficult to change. That may be why some religious groups seem to lag behind a lot of social progress.

Not saying that any of these groups are good or bad. As your post points out there are pluses and minuses to go around.

Societal agreement doesn't always value human life. It sometimes value some human life more than others. See the US Constitution that values a black man 3/5 of a person. Look at Nazi Germany which was abkle label some people as sub human, so as to be be able to legally eliminate them.

I fully accept the issues you point out with codifying a theistic view point. That goes the same with human conventions. I'm just pointing out to those who see this in such black and white terms that there are so many layers and shades of grey in this discussion. It works better if you have a world view, a well thought out world view.

 

[Abby Atwood]

Societal agreement doesn't always value human life. It sometimes value some human life more than others. See the US Constitution that values a black man 3/5 of a person. Look at Nazi Germany which was abkle label some people as sub human, so as to be be able to legally eliminate them.

I fully accept the issues you point out with codifying a theistic view point. That goes the same with human conventions. I'm just pointing out to those who see this in such black and white terms that there are so many layers and shades of grey in this discussion. It works better if you have a world view, a well thought out world view.

I totally agree. On the religious side of things, there have been some issues with equality between genders, sexual orientations, and gender identity. Concepts of morality are tools that shape attitudes and behavior. They can cause a lot of harm; however, at their best, they can push us to create a more inclusive world

 

[Old Timer]

I totally agree. On the religious side of things, there have been some issues with equality between genders, sexual orientations, and gender identity. Concepts of morality are tools that shape attitudes and behavior. They can cause a lot of harm; however, at their best, they can push us to create a more inclusive world

I firmly believe religion, when done well, can be a benefit to the world. The problem is really not with religion. The problem is with human beings who use religion like a club to coerce people into doing things the way they want.

 

[deleted480308]

I firmly believe religion, when done well, can be a benefit to the world. The problem is really not with religion. The problem is with human beings who use religion like a club to coerce people into doing things the way they want.

I feel the same about govt

 

[Old Timer]

I feel the same about govt

It's the same with anything. Human beings are the ones that screw things up......

 

[BidingMyTime]

I support death with dignity in theory. I think I will need to encounter it before I know how I feel about it in practice.

This. If euthanasia is illegal, then I would have no part of it. If euthanasia was legal (and legal with safeguards and paperwork like in Oregon).....then I don't know. Certainly we've probably all dispensed morphine or made a morphine drip, that we knew was going to be turned up to "comfort", at the same time it was hastening the person's demise. Yet, compounding a poison contact just sounds different. I don't know what I would do if presented with a legal prescription for euthanasia. I'm going to have to think about this.

I'm apathetic. I couldn't care less about religion.

You're an apatheist. Apatheists are far easier to get along with than theists or atheists.