Ethical or Not. . .

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

What do you think?

  • Should be legalized in U.S

    Votes: 93 80.2%

  • Should never be legalized

    Votes: 23 19.8%
  • Total voters
    116
a poll might be useful. I'm against it on religious grounds
 
Doesn't have my option which is * It varies on circumstance.
 
DOCBERT said:
Let's make a clear distinction between euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (from dictionary.com):

euthanasia
noun

1.Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition.

2.painless death.

physician-assisted suicide
noun

1. a situation in which a physician provides the means of death for a gravely ill patient but the patient takes the final step; also called doctor-assisted suicide, assisted suicide.

For euthanasia to occur, the physician must take an active role in the act of ending the life of a patient; physician-assistant suicide, on the other hand, implies a passive role. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington and Montana; euthanasia is universally banned nationwide.
Click to expand...

Ok, wait, I'm not clear on the terms we are using then. What do you mean by active role? So if a physician administers a lethal dose of sedatives per the patient's request, this is euthanasia, while simply prescribing them would be physician-assisted suicide?

Perhaps OP should clarify what s/he was asking about.
 
I don't know if any of you watched the movie "You don't know Jack" with Al Pacino, but I would definitely recommend to do so.
 
Sephiroth said:
Ok, wait, I'm not clear on the terms we are using then. What do you mean by active role? So if a physician administers a lethal dose of sedatives per the patient's request, this is euthanasia, while simply prescribing them would be physician-assisted suicide?

Perhaps OP should clarify what s/he was asking about.
Click to expand...

For example if a woman is dying of terminal cancer and she is too ill to make the final step in committing suicide, then the doctor would administer he lethal dose.
 
people should have a legal option to end life. But not necessarily by the hands of a doc




give those rights to the NPs
 
I should post this at a religious forum and what sort of correlation we can get.
 
If one can make a sound informed decision to die then it should not be illegal. Should still be up to the doctor to decide if they want to be a part of it. A free society must not prohibit any personal choice that doesn't harm someone else.
 
Last edited:
jesse120 said:
a poll might be useful. I'm against it on religious grounds
Click to expand...

Religious beliefs may prevent individual physicians from assisting patients die peacefully. But that's not the issue at hand. America, contrary to popular belief, is not a strictly Christian/insert-religion-here nation, and should therefore not be governed by spiritual rules and values.

The issue here is right to die, which should for all intents and purposes be an autonomous one. Yet the debate continues.

What kills me is the fact that people only focus on the patient when discussing the PAS/Euthanasia debate, not the physician. Imagine being asked, even expected, to take on such a large role in the patient's care. Then there are the physicians that do it in secret, and can't talk about it for fear of losing their licenses. Think of the emotional toll on these people, not just the patients themselves.
 
CuttingCorneas said:
Religious beliefs may prevent individual physicians from assisting patients die peacefully. But that's not the issue at hand. America, contrary to popular belief, is not a strictly Christian/insert-religion-here nation, and should therefore not be governed by spiritual rules and values.

The issue here is right to die, which should for all intents and purposes be an autonomous one. Yet the debate continues.

What kills me is the fact that people only focus on the patient when discussing the PAS/Euthanasia debate, not the physician. Imagine being asked, even expected, to take on such a large role in the patient's care. Then there are the physicians that do it in secret, and can't talk about it for fear of losing their licenses. Think of the emotional toll on these people, not just the patients themselves.
Click to expand...
I know you're not talking strictly about legal-PAS in OR and WA, but those laws specifically find participating physicians faultless and at no risk of losing their license (granted everything is legal.)
 
yes to both. but only if the patient is terminal, has had time to ponder the issue, put their affairs in order, notified their family, and is faced with prolonged suffering. *AND THIS IS ASSUMING THE LAW ALLOWS FOR IT*
1) terminal means THE END. there is no other ending but death. if there is a cure or treatment, no matter how extreme or expensive, it should be utilized before euthanasia comes up.
2) the patient needs to think about what they are doing. yes it is their life and they should have control over it, but are they just doing it because they fear the next few months and are acting on impulse?
3) funeral and legal issues should be dealt with before using euthanasia. it might make things seem more "real" and they wont go through with it. or it will result in a lot less of a bad situation for the survivors to deal with. planning a funeral is an emotion-wrought, very draining process.
4) the family must know what is going on and be kept informed. it should be discussed as a family matter. the patient needs to see what they are letting go of and the kind of support they have. again, this might sway a patient's decision.
5) as a physician, we take an oath to first do no harm. i ask you this: which is more harmful? a tiny pinprick and a quick, painless end or months of agony and suffering? in my opinion, the first option is the merciful way to help someone take control of their illness and defeat it. the long, painful road ahead is avoided, the patient keeps their dignity, and the end is quick and painless.

the above is my opinion. this question actually came up in an interview. it was prefaced by asking me if the ppl who jumped out of the WTC on 9/11 were committing suicide or simply deciding the way that they would die (inevitable for those above the impact). it is def something to think about. probably going to get jumped on for this but its my opinion
 
Bacchus said:
I know you're not talking strictly about legal-PAS in OR and WA, but those laws specifically find participating physicians faultless and at no risk of losing their license (granted everything is legal.)
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the places PAS isn't legal--that's where the issue rests. Physicians in states excluding OR and WA shouldn't feel cornered into thinking they've done something criminal just because they wanted to provide a better end to their patients' lives.
 
Both should be legal.

It's ridiculous that my pets will probably have more dignified deaths than any member of my family.
 
johnnydrama said:
Both should be legal.

It's ridiculous that my pets will probably have more dignified deaths than any member of my family.
Click to expand...

Better food, too :laugh:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPyIz2GcNU8[/YOUTUBE]
 
While a lot of the debate on this topic focuses around patient rights and religion, there is an area of consideration outside both of these points that should be an essential part of the debate. Namely, it is the the consideration of what would happen under a system in which one (the terminally ill patient) has full capacities to terminate his or her life under law and is made aware of this by medical providers.

Many patients near the end will choose to end their lives, if not for the pain, for the financial responsibilities they are imposing on family members for their care. However, consider the patients who are terminally ill yet despite the odds against them want to fight for their lives through pain. In a world much like our own today, where physician assisted suicide/euthanasia is frowned upon by many, the patient who wants to continue his or her treatment will do so because his right to life is assumed as a natural product of his existence. Now, consider a world that is quite the opposite: full legality for such procedures are granted, and patients are informed of their choices in the matter. How would this patient, who originally wanted to fight for his life, feel under such a system?

Would he be as willing to continue, or would he perhaps feel that he doesn't have this "right to life" that is normally presupposed. A new sense of burden from having a choice arrises. "Maybe I should end it so I can free my family of paying for this. Maybe I shouldn't persevere" In a world where this choice is given, the new problem becomes having the choice in itself.

An example of when choice can be a problem: your friend is going out to a dinner to celebrate a special occasion, and you are bound to your desk writing papers. He then asks you if you would like to come, which presents you with a problem in both directions. Saying yes will mean you wont get your work done, and saying no can possibly offend his feelings. Obviously, not having had this choice and not being asked to begin with would be the best situation.

If establishing a law that permits such acts to be possible means that patients are fully aware of said law and options that they have, I don't believe it is correct to have this system as it can abolish the inborn right to life that people naturally feel when fighting through terminal illness. One major problem is choice, and creating a system which eliminates this variable is necessary but hard to accomplish.
 
NeuralNetwork said:
Now, consider a world that is quite the opposite: full legality for such procedures are granted, and patients are informed of their choices in the matter. How would this patient, who originally wanted to fight for his life, feel under such a system?

Would he be as willing to continue, or would he perhaps feel that he doesn't have this "right to life" that is normally presupposed. A new sense of burden from having a choice arrises. "Maybe I should end it so I can free my family of paying for this. Maybe I shouldn't persevere" In a world where this choice is given, the new problem becomes having the choice in itself.
Click to expand...

There are too many things wrong with this post.

It reeks of paternalism, which is something that the medical profession as a whole has decided is wrong.

Also, do you think patients don't have this choice you fear so much already? Terminal patients refuse treatment and resuscitation all the time, and yes sometimes family financial obligations do play a role in their decisions.

The only thing you are winning with the current system is that you condemn those who choose to stop fighting to a slow and painful death rather than a quick painless one.

As to suggesting people would be pressured into euthanasia - no one supports that, and there is no reason to believe that something like that would happen.

Your argument sounds similar to the ones that oppose gay marriage because that additional choice apparently threatens heterosexual marriage.
 
For those pro-PAS anti-euth, what's the reason for the line?

Should ALS patients be forced to make a decision before they get too weak to swallow adequately? Or administer themselves medications? What if the patient is of a religion that doesn't accept suicide, but euthanasia wouldn't be seen as such (whether there's actual religious policy on the matter or not, it would be a degree of separation for the individual and family)?

There's a great PBS series/documentary on end of life termination, for anyone interested

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/onourownterms/

I'm not sure if the videos are available online anywhere
 
Last edited:
I didn't even realize people argued this based on religion. Someone wanting to end their own life, sure. If any way another person especially a physician is involved then I'm against it. Tenndoc you argued a physician's job is to do no harm, but then the way you describe it is a bit contradictory. Killing (to me) no matter how/why you do it, is doing harm. I personally think the physician's job is to try their best to cure. Yes, even if there's no cure. A fight is only lost when you stop fighting 🙂 Or something of that cheesy sort...

Of course, it's a bit difficult to argue this when I'm not the one in a terminally ill situation. I guess I now see how religion is brought into this, with the idea of not knowing what that person's future was supposed to hold even in those agonizing months of pain. The whole "God has a bigger picture than we can imagine" thought.
But to continue this without the religious view, I think the only time there should be a doctor and a dead patient is if the doctor tried everything they could and failed (or if they're a pathologist 😛), not by giving up because the patient gave up. Some patients don't like being sick at all--where do you draw the line? You'd say "if they're terminally ill" but how often have patients been told they have 1 year to live and they lived 12. And possibly did a lot of great things in those 12 years.

Lonnnnnng story short, you're ending someone else's life--no. Person ending they're own life--that's their perogative.
 
Camy99 said:
I didn't even realize people argued this based on religion. Someone wanting to end their own life, sure. If any way another person especially a physician is involved then I'm against it. Tenndoc you argued a physician's job is to do no harm, but then the way you describe it is a bit contradictory. Killing (to me) no matter how/why you do it, is doing harm. I personally think the physician's job is to try their best to cure. Yes, even if there's no cure. A fight is only lost when you stop fighting 🙂 Or something of that cheesy sort...

Of course, it's a bit difficult to argue this when I'm not the one in a terminally ill situation. I guess I now see how religion is brought into this, with the idea of not knowing what that person's future was supposed to hold even in those agonizing months of pain. The whole "God has a bigger picture than we can imagine" thought.
But to continue this without the religious view, I think the only time there should be a doctor and a dead patient is if the doctor tried everything they could and failed (or if they're a pathologist 😛), not by giving up because the patient gave up. Some patients don't like being sick at all--where do you draw the line? You'd say "if they're terminally ill" but how often have patients been told they have 1 year to live and they lived 12. And possibly did a lot of great things in those 12 years.

Lonnnnnng story short, you're ending someone else's life--no. Person ending they're own life--that's their perogative.
Click to expand...
like i said... its just my opinion on the matter.
 
johnnydrama said:
There are too many things wrong with this post.
Click to expand...

Not trying to make a right or wrong post, just offering a different perspective.

johnnydrama said:
Also, do you think patients don't have this choice you fear so much already? Terminal patients refuse treatment and resuscitation all the time, and yes sometimes family financial obligations do play a role in their decisions.
Click to expand...

I already acknowledged that this happens. My post has nothing to do with those who willfully and logically decide to waive their rights, but has only to do with those who instinctively do anything and everything to preserve their life as a natural response to the possibility of death (which is an entire issue debatable in itself; see Hardwig's "Duty to Die")

johnnydrama said:
The only thing you are winning with the current system is that you condemn those who choose to stop fighting to a slow and painful death rather than a quick painless one.
Click to expand...

"I" am not winning or losing anything because I have not actively reflected on our current system - my post isn't for or against our current system. My only comments are to those in which a possible system could violate a patient's sense of persevering by having to make a bluntly presented choice. My stance is that any establishment of a system in which euthanasia is legal should take this factor into account.

johnnydrama said:
As to suggesting people would be pressured into euthanasia - no one supports that, and there is no reason to believe that something like that would happen.
Click to expand...

While there is no empiral data to prove this, there is most definitely the prima facie evidence of the burden of choice in day to day life. "Pressure" is a strong word, and not one I am positioning behind.

johnnydrama said:
Your argument sounds similar to the ones that oppose gay marriage because that additional choice apparently threatens heterosexual marriage.
Click to expand...

That's kind of a ridiculous comparison to the argument I'm making, as it sounds like under that argument one would have to make an assumption that being gay is fully a choice in itself.
 
Camy99 said:
Killing (to me) no matter how/why you do it, is doing harm. I personally think the physician's job is to try their best to cure. Yes, even if there's no cure. A fight is only lost when you stop fighting 🙂 Or something of that cheesy sort...
Click to expand...
That's crap. I suppose you don't believe in hospice care either? There's more than enough of a belief in the general population that "the wonders of science" will cure anything. Healthcare providers should not perpetuate that
 
NeuralNetwork said:
That's kind of a ridiculous comparison to the argument I'm making, as it sounds like under that argument one would have to make an assumption that being gay is fully a choice in itself.
Click to expand...


I should have used the word "option" instead if "choice", but for those who use that argument, many do see it as a choice.


There are better examples I am sure, but the argument that by presenting someone with a choice you are limiting their options is not valid. Even in the situation you described, patient autonomy should trump your concerns.
 
loveoforganic said:
That's crap. I suppose you don't believe in hospice care either? There's more than enough of a belief in the general population that "the wonders of science" will cure anything. Healthcare providers should not perpetuate that
Click to expand...

Indeed. My ICU rotation left me of the opinion that much of current end-of-life care is nothing more than hospital-sanctioned torture to appease the guilt of previously absent family members.

For any of you out there who do not yet have a living will, get one. You shouldn't underestimate the amount of suffering good intentions might put you through.
 
johnnydrama said:
I should have used the word "option" instead if "choice", but for those who use that argument, many do see it as a choice.


There are better examples I am sure, but the argument that by presenting someone with a choice you are limiting their options is not valid. Even in the situation you described, patient autonomy should trump your concerns.
Click to expand...


My argument is exactly the opposite: presenting someone with a choice can expand their options into areas they normally wouldn't think of, or comfortably venture.

And I agree that patient autonomy is important, which is exactly why creating a better way to handle these issues is complicated. Ideally (under my argument), you'd want patients to have the choice - especially when the medical opinion believes dying is the better option - but at the same time you don't want to threaten the natural instinct for survival of other patients by having a clear choice from the getgo that can make a patient feel like they have to prove to themselves and others why their life is worth living.


johnnydrama said:
Indeed. My ICU rotation left me of the opinion that much of current end-of-life care is nothing more than hospital-sanctioned torture to appease the guilt of previously absent family members.

For any of you out there who do not yet have a living will, get one. You shouldn't underestimate the amount of suffering good intentions might put you through.
Click to expand...

I can certainly see this as a reason for why you want the legal option to exist, and while I haven't seen that yet in real life, I did read about ICU cases like that in a couple books about residency. In many of those cases, patient autonomy isn't even an option as their decisions are being handled by the family, which is a completely different issue at hand.
 
NeuralNetwork said:
While a lot of the debate on this topic focuses around patient rights and religion, there is an area of consideration outside both of these points that should be an essential part of the debate. Namely, it is the the consideration of what would happen under a system in which one (the terminally ill patient) has full capacities to terminate his or her life under law and is made aware of this by medical providers.

Many patients near the end will choose to end their lives, if not for the pain, for the financial responsibilities they are imposing on family members for their care. However, consider the patients who are terminally ill yet despite the odds against them want to fight for their lives through pain. In a world much like our own today, where physician assisted suicide/euthanasia is frowned upon by many, the patient who wants to continue his or her treatment will do so because his right to life is assumed as a natural product of his existence. Now, consider a world that is quite the opposite: full legality for such procedures are granted, and patients are informed of their choices in the matter. How would this patient, who originally wanted to fight for his life, feel under such a system?

Would he be as willing to continue, or would he perhaps feel that he doesn't have this "right to life" that is normally presupposed. A new sense of burden from having a choice arrises. "Maybe I should end it so I can free my family of paying for this. Maybe I shouldn't persevere" In a world where this choice is given, the new problem becomes having the choice in itself.

An example of when choice can be a problem: your friend is going out to a dinner to celebrate a special occasion, and you are bound to your desk writing papers. He then asks you if you would like to come, which presents you with a problem in both directions. Saying yes will mean you wont get your work done, and saying no can possibly offend his feelings. Obviously, not having had this choice and not being asked to begin with would be the best situation.

If establishing a law that permits such acts to be possible means that patients are fully aware of said law and options that they have, I don't believe it is correct to have this system as it can abolish the inborn right to life that people naturally feel when fighting through terminal illness. One major problem is choice, and creating a system which eliminates this variable is necessary but hard to accomplish.
Click to expand...
You must make the request in Oregon. I assume the same for Washington as their statute is mirrored to Oregon's. Two verbal request and a written request followed by a diagnosis made by 2 physicians who are able to subject you to a psych evaluation. The patient comes forward, the physician doesn't go, "Hey Joe, I can write you for some barbs and let you end it tomorrow."
 
johnnydrama said:
For any of you out there who do not yet have a living will, get one. You shouldn't underestimate the amount of suffering good intentions might put you through.
Click to expand...

Save the suffering of the family as well. They don't want to be responsible for guessing the desire of their family member


Sidetracking a little:

This is something that's obviously needed but is a lot more complicated than it seems on first glance. I assume you have one. How explicit do you get? Obviously intubation/assisted breathing isn't a firm no-no - there are plenty of disease processes where this needs to happen on the road to being cured (e.g. guillain barre). A reasonable no-more-care in my mind (as a young individual) would be something like persistent vegetative state, but is it as simple as just writing that out as your point? Do you need to qualify what that means?

Bacchus said:
You must make the request in Oregon. I assume the same for Washington as their statute is mirrored to Oregon's. Two verbal request and a written request followed by a diagnosis made by 2 physicians who are able to subject you to a psych evaluation. The patient comes forward, the physician doesn't go, "Hey Joe, I can write you for some barbs and let you end it tomorrow."
Click to expand...

IIRC, there's a fairly long amount of time that must pass following the initial request before it can be written for as well
 
johnnydrama said:
Indeed. My ICU rotation left me of the opinion that much of current end-of-life care is nothing more than hospital-sanctioned torture to appease the guilt of previously absent family members.

For any of you out there who do not yet have a living will, get one. You shouldn't underestimate the amount of suffering good intentions might put you through.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming, but the majority of college students and medical students don't necessitate a living will because the majority approve of heroic measures.
 
Gamechanger said:
A free society must not prohibit any personal choice that doesn't harm someone else.
Click to expand...
Unless it is healthcare because that is required in a free society, or a financial penalty will be imposed. :meanie:
 
Last edited:
loveoforganic said:
Save the suffering of the family as well. They don't want to be responsible for guessing the desire of their family member


Sidetracking a little:

This is something that's obviously needed but is a lot more complicated than it seems on first glance. I assume you have one. How explicit do you get? Obviously intubation/assisted breathing isn't a firm no-no - there are plenty of disease processes where this needs to happen on the road to being cured (e.g. guillain barre). A reasonable no-more-care in my mind (as a young individual) would be something like persistent vegetative state, but is it as simple as just writing that out as your point? Do you need to qualify what that means?



IIRC, there's a fairly long amount of time that must pass following the initial request before it can be written for as well
Click to expand...

I actually have a healthcare proxy. If you have someone you feel understands your wishes, that works too.
 
jesse120 said:
a poll might be useful. I'm against it on religious grounds
Click to expand...

Cool story bro. Just out of curiosity, how is an agreement between two consenting parties any of your business?
 
Bacchus said:
Euthanasia? No.

PAS? Absolutely.

Glad Oregon and Washington (state) are getting it right.
Click to expand...

Why the distinction? If a healthy, active, mentally competent (i.e., has the ability to consent) woman wants to undergo euthanasia, is it the role of the state to intervene?

tenndoc said:
yes to both. but only if the patient is terminal, has had time to ponder the issue, put their affairs in order, notified their family, and is faced with prolonged suffering. *AND THIS IS ASSUMING THE LAW ALLOWS FOR IT*
1) terminal means THE END. there is no other ending but death. if there is a cure or treatment, no matter how extreme or expensive, it should be utilized before euthanasia comes up.
2) the patient needs to think about what they are doing. yes it is their life and they should have control over it, but are they just doing it because they fear the next few months and are acting on impulse?
3) funeral and legal issues should be dealt with before using euthanasia. it might make things seem more "real" and they wont go through with it. or it will result in a lot less of a bad situation for the survivors to deal with. planning a funeral is an emotion-wrought, very draining process.
4) the family must know what is going on and be kept informed. it should be discussed as a family matter. the patient needs to see what they are letting go of and the kind of support they have. again, this might sway a patient's decision.
5) as a physician, we take an oath to first do no harm. i ask you this: which is more harmful? a tiny pinprick and a quick, painless end or months of agony and suffering? in my opinion, the first option is the merciful way to help someone take control of their illness and defeat it. the long, painful road ahead is avoided, the patient keeps their dignity, and the end is quick and painless.

the above is my opinion. this question actually came up in an interview. it was prefaced by asking me if the ppl who jumped out of the WTC on 9/11 were committing suicide or simply deciding the way that they would die (inevitable for those above the impact). it is def something to think about. probably going to get jumped on for this but its my opinion
Click to expand...

How are these relevant to anything? So what if a rational, consenting adult no longer wants to live? Is it the role of the state to interfere in an agreement between two consenting parties (the patient and the doctor administering the drug)? You sound like the kind of person who wants women to have to get a "transvaginal ultrasound" before they can obtain an abortion.
 
CuttingCorneas said:
I'm sensing a little animosity here...looks like we're one step away from religious persecution.
Click to expand...

You sound like you're in favor of a nanny state. Not the kind of country I want to live in, but that's just me.
 
CuttingCorneas said:
Edited: not worth getting into a flame war
Click to expand...

No please, let's. You have a particular religous perspective (and dare I mention that as is the case with all religions, there is absolutely no evidence for your religious beliefs) and you think everyone should agree with you. Not only that, but you want your religious beliefs to be official state policy. K got it. Sounds awesome.
 
Before this thread goes down the pooper, I just want to comment that I'm pleasantly surprised with the poll results. Not what I expected at all

Carry on
 
sotto voce said:
You sound like you're in favor of a nanny state. Not the kind of country I want to live in, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

At what point did I ever advocate a nanny state? If you read my above posts, I'm arguing in favor of PAS, and against religious values driving our country (the current state of affairs).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
mcat: to retake or not to retake
Replies
11
Views
1K
LizzyM
LizzyM
capybaracarbonara
To Update Letter or Not
Replies
15
Views
2K
PickaGodnPray
PickaGodnPray
shazam211
Go to Top CA DO school or not?
Replies
8
Views
950
HuskyMD Emeritus
H
A
Writing about a false dilemna for the ethical/professional dilemna questions
Replies
4
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
J
LOIntent Ethical question
Replies
40
Views
3K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top