Ethical or Not. . .

[sotto voce]

---

Members do not see this ad.

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).

I recant.

 

[CuttingCorneas]

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.

Once again, I am not religious. I am an atheist who believes in separation of church and state, which I alluded to in previous posts. However, to attack someone purely based on their moral values is incredibly immature, especially in a poll-based thread, which asked for unbiased opinions.

The thread's original question was quite simple: "How many of you believe that euthanasia should be legal? How many of you don't? Is your stance based on religious grounds or other values and morals?"

That being said, it was not an invitation to debase religion, or anyone's particular beliefs. This Jesse120 fellow, although obviously spiritual, was perfectly justified in stating his reasons for liking or disliking euthanasia, which happened to be religious in origin. It was merely an answer to the question posed by the OP. If you had read the rest of the thread before forming a bias toward all things remotely related to the existence of a higher power, you would have seen that the church and state topic has already been discussed, and you would have been able to add to it in a dignified fashion, rather than making yourself look like a bumbling fool.

Also, you spelled "religious" wrong (bolded for convenience).

 

[CuttingCorneas]

I recant.

Apology accepted.

 

[jesse120]

I'm sure I have the poll option above.

Must have just been forum lag or something, wasn't up when I posted that.

Says the guy whose user title is "must kill all humans."

I wondered if anyone would notice the irony 🙄

Cool story bro. Just out of curiosity, how is an agreement between two consenting parties any of your business?

A few quick things:

1. I wouldn't be involved in PAS. But I'm not naive, I understand its purpose. I wouldn't judge a colleague if she and her patient decide to go that route. That's their choice. I would be OK if it becomes legalized. But again, I simply won't do it.

2. I've never involved myself in a religion vs science debate, nor will I. I'm a Hindu, you're not, that's cool.

 

[theseeker4]

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.

I take it you have never actually seen anyone who is literally dying inch by inch day by day. I also take it you have a WHOLE lot more confidence in the abilities of modern medicine to do anything other than offer hospice care for patients with end-stage diseases. It is one thing to advocate continuing to fight on if that is the patient's wish, but what if it isn't? At that point, are you an advocate for the patient? Is insisting that the patient "continue the fight" really in the best interest of the patient?

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

Oh I loved this discussion in Ethics. I believe it should be legalized barring that it is a completely autonomous decision, with at least one psychiatric evaluation (if the person is in good health and wants to die).

 

[KnightofBaldMt]

Euthanasia should definitely be illegal. If you say that the physician can kill a patient legally, where do you draw the line? I don't see as much of a problem with PAS because it is patient initiated. However, I would not choose to be the patient assisting...

 

[deleted103644]

Euthanasia should definitely be illegal. If you say that the physician can kill a patient legally, where do you draw the line? I don't see as much of a problem with PAS because it is patient initiated. However, I would not choose to be the patient assisting...

The distinction between physician assisted suicide and euthanasia is an arbitrary one.

It shouldn't matter who wields the syringe as long as it is the patient's choice.

 

[sibitrum]

How would you all respond to a 12-year-old kid who had terminal cancer and was going to die in a month or two, under extremely painful conditions? Would it be allowed in this case? Who should/would be able to give consent?

 

[KnightofBaldMt]

The distinction between physician assisted suicide and euthanasia is an arbitrary one.

It shouldn't matter who wields the syringe as long as it is the patient's choice.

Mostly, I just wouldn't want to be the physician in question is the bulk of what I'm saying.

 

[deleted103644]

How would you all respond to a 12-year-old kid who had terminal cancer and was going to die in a month or two, under extremely painful conditions? Would it be allowed in this case? Who should/would be able to give consent?

I think it should be allowed, but only with the consent of the patient and his parents. (The patient's wishes should matter here even if he is not legally consentable.)

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

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?



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.

Because our culture believes that suicidal ideation or attempt is a sign of mental illness, which for the most part can be treated. It is the role of the state to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things.

 

[deleted103644]

Because our culture believes that suicidal ideation or attempt is a sign of mental illness, which for the most part can be treated. It is the role of the state to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things.

If that were true, we would ban alcohol, tobacco, and McDonald's.

Suicidal ideation should not immediately make someone not consentable.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

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.

Too late, this country was a product of the pro-nanny state founders who were students of the Western Tradition and Enlightenment Thought.

 

[theseeker4]

Too late, this country was a product of the pro-nanny state founders who were students of the Western Tradition and Enlightenment Thought.

Which led to far less government control of the average person's daily lives than the pre-Enlightenment era. Or are you claiming pre-Enlightenment monarchies of Feudal Europe (or any other region of the world you prefer) provided MORE individual freedom than modern and post-modern societies?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

If that were true, we would ban alcohol, tobacco, and McDonald's.

Suicidal ideation should not immediately make someone not consentable.

Alcohol has cultural significance to our culture, attempting to ban it would be impossible. Tobacco and McDonald's, well... special interests and corporations are people.

Anyway, suicidal ideation pretty much bars a person from intelligent consent. Would you let a women with post-partum depression off herself legally? Likewise a depressed teen?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Which led to far less government control of the average person's daily lives than the pre-Enlightenment era. Or are you claiming pre-Enlightenment monarchies of Feudal Europe (or any other region of the world you prefer) provided MORE individual freedom than modern and post-modern societies?

Yes, Enlightenment was for the individual, middle class, and merchantalism. It opposed heredity rule, but a majority of them believed that a strong government to protect stupid people was necessary ( The Author of the King, Voltarie, Locke, etc.).

 

[deleted103644]

Which led to far less government control of the average person's daily lives than the pre-Enlightenment era. Or are you claiming pre-Enlightenment monarchies of Feudal Europe (or any other region of the world you prefer) provided MORE individual freedom than modern and post-modern societies?

Depends on which individuals you are talking about.

The nobles had more freedom, but only in states with weak monarchs.

The peasants were generally f***ed, but were usually much better off under a strong monarch that limited the power of the nobles (their direct oppressors). The kings would often use popularity with the peasants as a check on the power of the aristocracy.

There are parallels in the current political climate too.

Someone will always limit the freedom of the public. It's just a question of whether you prefer the federal government, local governments, or corporations.

 

[deleted103644]

Alcohol has cultural significance to our culture, attempting to ban it would be impossible. Tobacco and McDonald's, well... special interests and corporations are people.

Anyway, suicidal ideation pretty much bars a person from intelligent consent. Would you let a women with post-partum depression off herself legally? Likewise a depressed teen?

Honestly? Yes, if they remained in that state after treatment and counseling with sufficient time to change their minds. But I know that's a rather extreme viewpoint.

 

[thecgrblue]

I stand in the middle. As has been said, depends a lot upon circumstance.

However, if I become legally obligated to perform PAS upon a patients wish I will be pissed. Farfetched, but sadly anything seems realistic these days.

 

[KnightofBaldMt]

I stand in the middle. As has said, depends a lot upon circumstance.

However, if I become legally obligated to perform PAS upon a patients wish I will be pissed. Farfetched, but sadly anything seems realistic these days.

^^Yes 👍

 

[theseeker4]

Depends on which individuals you are talking about.

The nobles had more freedom, but only in states with weak monarchs.

The peasants were generally f***ed, but were usually much better off under a strong monarch that limited the power of the nobles (their direct oppressors). The kings would often use popularity with the peasants as a check on the power of the aristocracy.

There are parallels in the current political climate too.

Someone will always limit the freedom of the public. It's just a question of whether you prefer the federal government, local governments, or corporations.

Sure, the definition of government means some type of limit on the freedom of the public. Only those who argue for true anarchy oppose ANY limits.

Whether the peasants were better off under a strong monarch or strong nobles depended on the situation. The peasants were f-ed if the goals of the monarch coincided with those of the nobles (such as war against an external enemy) or if the noble's support was needed (the nobles were the ones who collected taxes and forwarded the King's share to the royal palace, after all.)

Pointing out that the nobles had more freedom in feudal society is like pointing out that inner-party members of Communist China have a great deal of freedom; true, obvious, and not at all an indication of the relative freedom of the average individual in a given society.

Going to truncate my discussion of this here to avoid further derailment of the thread 😛

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Honestly? Yes, if they remained in that state after treatment and counseling with sufficient time to change their minds. But I know that's a rather extreme viewpoint.

It's not the fact that it is extreme, but rather the fact that it makes things more complicated. You're going to pretty much need to establish a standardized method of deciding whether or not someone with a psychiatric illness is able to consent to physician assisted suicide. I don't know, but even in the worst case scenario of extreme suicidal ideation and depression where even drug therapy doesn't work, ECT will work almost 80% of the time.

 

[theseeker4]

Alcohol has cultural significance to our culture, attempting to ban it would be impossible. Tobacco and McDonald's, well... special interests and corporations are people.

Anyway, suicidal ideation pretty much bars a person from intelligent consent. Would you let a women with post-partum depression off herself legally? Likewise a depressed teen?

Post-partum depression? I would oppose suicide. Depressed teen? Oppose.

The equation changes, however, if you are talking about someone at any age in incredible pain due to the final stages of a fatal or nearly-sure-to-be-fatal disease.

 

[LUV29]

This is a complex topic and I recently got into a debate with my best friend over it. Mind you we share the same opinion, but just to different extremes. I am personally against both for religious reasons. But even if you put religion aside, I would still be against it. I think this is more law or governmental based more so than medical based. Personally as a Doctor (IF/When I become one) I would be taking an oath to save patients and doing no harm and that is exactly what I am going to do.Will those doctors/physicians involved in such cases be doing harm? Well this depends on who you ask and how harm is characterized. People can choose to define harm in any way they see fit for agenda purposes, I included. I just can't see myself assisting someone in committing suicide. Should it be legalized? My answer would be no, but at the same time if I was a Doctor I wouldn't care that much as long as the medical sector wasn't involved in such cases. That to me is going against everything Doctors should stand for which is saving lives and not taking them. Again just my opinion.

I am sure during my application cycle this question or abortion based might pop up and honestly even though I am confident with my answer online I don't think I could be able to answer the question intelligibly, without making my opinion seem like the only one that matters while at the same time staying true to my beliefs when interviewing face to face.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Post-partum depression? I would oppose suicide. Depressed teen? Oppose.

The equation changes, however, if you are talking about someone at any age in incredible pain due to the final stages of a fatal or nearly-sure-to-be-fatal disease.

I wouldn't argue that, if it is terminal then assisted suicide should be an option. However Johnny is asking if someone without a visceral disorder has considered suicide as an option and how this becomes complicated. In the world of mental disorders this debate becomes very difficult to establish precedent.

 

[theseeker4]

I wouldn't argue that, if it is terminal then assisted suicide should be an option. However Johnny is asking if someone without a visceral disorder has considered suicide as an option and how this becomes complicated. In the world of mental disorders this debate becomes very difficult to establish precedent.

Right. I personally would oppose legalizing assisted suicide or anything of the sort for someone whose only health issue is they are depressed. I would even oppose it for people who have serious, but not life-ending, health conditions.

 

[deleted103644]

It's not the fact that it is extreme, but rather the fact that it makes things more complicated. You're going to pretty much need to establish a standardized method of deciding whether or not someone with a psychiatric illness is able to consent to physician assisted suicide. I don't know, but even in the worst case scenario of extreme suicidal ideation and depression where even drug therapy doesn't work, ECT will work almost 80% of the time.

I think there would need to be a waiting period with maximal medical therapy and repeated counseling sessions (and further restrictions if the person has dependents).

But ultimately, I believe people have the right to decide when to end their own lives.

 

[Omppu27]

people should have a legal option to end life. But not necessarily by the hands of a doc




give those rights to the NPs

hahahahahaha you never fail to disappoint me

 

[Bacchus]

Hippocratic oath, do no harm, maleficence, blah blah blah.

Stop touting an ancient oath that has no basis in modern medicine. It also says you shouldn't perform surgery, etc.

(IMO) Making someone prolong their life with a terminal disease and horrible symptomology is far worse than participating in PAS.

I'm sorry Mrs. Jones, you're gonna have to deal with that metastatic bone cancer despite our pain management not being effective. Plus, maybe a cure will be found in the next 6 months!

Give me a break. If all options are exhausted, you're harming your patient more than helping them.

 

[MT Headed]

Physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington and Montana; euthanasia is universally banned nationwide.

Well at least somebody remembered Montana, before it was quickly forgotten in the discussion. I studied the issue a fair amount in Montana. The paperwork and legal protections to actually perform PAS in Montana are enormous, for the obvious reason that both parties (doctor and patient) need lots of protection to prevent any abuse from the doctor against the patient, from the patient (or family) against the doctor, or the far more common abusive situation: from the patient's family against the patient. A surprising number of folks want to pressure the elderly to hurry things up. But if the paperwork does go through and the legal conditions are met, you have an even more ironclad case of appropriate PAS, where denying PAS is causing patient harm.

This is all fine and dandy from a ethical legal standpoint, but since it is legal in Montana we also have empirical evidence too. And in the end, only a small percentage of prescriptions for lethal medicine are ever filled. And only a small percentage of filled prescriptions are ever used. Because the issue isn't death. The issue is control. People want to control how they die. They want the option of ending their own life sooner, if necessary. And if you tell somebody they can't control their end of life, they will fight to their dying day to get that control back.

That's what the empirical evidence tells us.



P.S. I discussed this very issue at a med school interview (not OR, WA, or MT), justifying the elegant Montana solution, and was ultimately rejected. Make of that what you will.

 

[Bacchus]

Oregon's statistics agree with this evidence from Montana.