Euthanasia

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
nice response! I love a smart a**!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
LizzyM said:
When I was a kid I thought this was spelled youth-in-Asia . People talked about it like it was evil and threatening. I thought it must be because of the communists is Asia.
Click to expand...

lol :laugh:

I thought barbiturates were pirates until my 8th grade DARE class.
 
Euthanasia?

YES!!!!!! 👍

To let someone terminally suffer is inhumane. 👎
 
LizzyM said:
When I was a kid I thought this was spelled youth-in-Asia . People talked about it like it was evil and threatening. I thought it must be because of the communists is Asia.
Click to expand...


I also used to think it was youth-in-Asia! I also thought Alzheimer's was "old-timers".
 
greatnt249 said:
They can go ahead and do it themselves, then; it shouldn't be my moral obligation to kill someone, even if they're suffering.
Click to expand...
I suppose it could be like abortion where you, as the provider, can make the choice regarding the services you provide. and they do do it themselves. its a problem. the results are not always lethal nor pretty for anyone.
 
We had to do a debate in my 8th grade English class. One group chose euthanasia. The first person showed up with an argument about whether or not it was morally right to help end a terminal patient's life. The other talked about average living conditions of children in Asia. Anytime someone mentions euthanasia I can't help but giggle a little thinking about this.
 
I would prefer that the government could not decide when I die. I am from Oregon and we have the "Death with Dignity" law. In Oregon, doctors can prescribe life ending drugs to terminally ill patients under very limited and carefully defined situations. But in Oregon, the patient makes the choice and the patient has to be rational and understand why and what that choice means. I would like to have the option of choosing to die.
 
greatnt249 said:
They can go ahead and do it themselves, then; it shouldn't be my moral obligation to kill someone, even if they're suffering.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't have to kill someone. No physician has ever been forced to give abortions.
 
greatnt249 said:
They can go ahead and do it themselves, then; it shouldn't be my moral obligation to kill someone, even if they're suffering.
Click to expand...


Ah, the whole shotgun to the head, the Ernest Hemingway scenario. A bit tough on the family. In Oregon, physicians can prescribe life ending drugs under very carefully defined scenarios. Only doctors who are comfortable, ethically, prescribe life ending drugs. No one would ever make you do this. It is your conscience as a physician. Oregon is pretty progressive. With salmon and people and trees and spotted owls.
 
I think euthanasia is a valid option for those that know they are going to endure a painful death and/or want to preserve any sense of dignity they have near the end of their lives. As a physician, do no harm can mean aiding patients like this so that they don't suffer psychologically from the trauma in the end (lol-that's what she said, anyone?). But anyway, it would obviously have to be discussed, and thought about, and all that btw physician and patient, and family in some instances I guess. The method I think is the real cause of controversy. No one wants to know they were responsible for the death of another (most non-sociopaths, I should say). I am okay providing the means (medications or something) but don't know how I feel about administration yet.
 
searun said:
Ah, the whole shotgun to the head, the Ernest Hemingway scenario. A bit tough on the family. In Oregon, physicians can prescribe life ending drugs under very carefully defined scenarios. Only doctors who are comfortable, ethically, prescribe life ending drugs. No one would ever make you do this. It is your conscience as a physician. Oregon is pretty progressive. With salmon and people and trees and spotted owls.
Click to expand...

I voted yes for the same thing up here in WA. It passed, so we copied you guys.

Anyways, that is where I stand. If people are deathly ill I believe they have the right to die with dignity, at home, with the people they love.

EDIT: And by the way, I believe it takes 2 MD's, and a psychological evaluation before they can prescribe the life ending drugs, at least here in WA.
 
chman said:
I voted yes for the same thing up here in WA. It passed, so we copied you guys.

Anyways, that is where I stand. If people are deathly ill I believe they have the right to die with dignity, at home, with the people they love.

EDIT: And by the way, I believe it takes 2 MD's, and a psychological evaluation before they can prescribe the life ending drugs, at least here in WA.
Click to expand...

You are correct. It does take 2 MD's and a psychological evaluation. Good for Oregon and good for Washington. Let rational people make choices about how their life will end.

And go Ducks in 2 hours with the Rose Bowl on the line.
 
searun said:
You are correct. It does take 2 MD's and a psychological evaluation. Good for Oregon and good for Washington. Let rational people make choices about how their life will end.

And go Ducks in 2 hours with the Rose Bowl on the line.
Click to expand...

It is rare, but I am actually pulling for them. They deserve it.
 
LizzyM said:
When I was a kid I thought this was spelled youth-in-Asia . People talked about it like it was evil and threatening. I thought it must be because of the communists is Asia.
Click to expand...

My mother tells me the same thing. She remembers thinking, "why are people so upset over youth over there?" The youth here are enough to deal with!
 
Just so y'all know, euthanasia =/= physician assisted suicide. One actively ends a life, the other gives the patient the tools to do so. Oregon's laws deal with PAS, not euthanasia.
 
beachblonde said:
Just so y'all know, euthanasia =/= physician assisted suicide. One actively ends a life, the other gives the patient the tools to do so. Oregon's laws deal with PAS, not euthanasia.
Click to expand...

Please explain further then, because I don't see the difference.
 
chman said:
Please explain further then, because I don't see the difference.
Click to expand...
Euthanasia = You giving someone an injection of some chemical that will kill the person. You are physically giving them the dose that will kill them. (You are pulling the trigger.)
PAS = You giving someone a bottle of chemical and directions on how to take the medicine that will kill you. You are giving them a tool for them to kill themselves with. (You give the person a gun and then they choose to pull the trigger.)
 
Compass said:
Euthanasia = You giving someone an injection of some chemical that will kill the person. You are physically giving them the dose that will kill them. (You are pulling the trigger.)
PAS = You giving someone a bottle of chemical and directions on how to take the medicine that will kill you. You are giving them a tool for them to kill themselves with. (You give the person a gun and then they choose to pull the trigger.)
Click to expand...

Got it.
 
Compass said:
Euthanasia = You giving someone an injection of some chemical that will kill the person. You are physically giving them the dose that will kill them. (You are pulling the trigger.)
PAS = You giving someone a bottle of chemical and directions on how to take the medicine that will kill you. You are giving them a tool for them to kill themselves with. (You give the person a gun and then they choose to pull the trigger.)
Click to expand...

I've never heard that distinction before. Euthanasia just means ending a life painlessly. On wikipedia there's an article about a suicide machine that walked the patient through the process, and that was identified as voluntary euthanasia.
 
Kovorkian released a video of him performing euthanasia on an ALS patient to 60 Minutes in 1998. I watched it in one of my classes. It was more weird than disturbing.
 
Euthanasia may include PAS, I guess. I am not terribly familiar with the laws and boundaries. However, PAS in Washington State AFAIK is simply the doctor prescribing them medicine that they take whenever they feel like taking it.
 
searun said:
You are correct. It does take 2 MD's and a psychological evaluation. Good for Oregon and good for Washington. Let rational people make choices about how their life will end.

And go Ducks in 2 hours with the Rose Bowl on the line.
Click to expand...

I have to shake my head a little over the psychological evaluation aspect...we're now to determine that an individual is sane enough to off him/herself?

I know, overly dramatic. However, we would never let a depressed individual "off the hook" knowing that they had suicidal thoughts, and they may be suffering more unbearable pain (psychologically) than we can even comprehend. How is it "fair" to give the OK for someone to kill themselves when they are in physical pain, yet leave no "recourse" for those in psychological pain?
 
greatnt249 said:
I have to shake my head a little over the psychological evaluation aspect...we're now to determine that an individual is sane enough to off him/herself?

I know, overly dramatic. However, we would never let a depressed individual "off the hook" knowing that they had suicidal thoughts, and they may be suffering more unbearable pain (psychologically) than we can even comprehend. How is it "fair" to give the OK for someone to kill themselves when they are in physical pain, yet leave no "recourse" for those in psychological pain?
Click to expand...

If the pain is bad enough, the individual will kill himself one way or another. I think it's better to have a physician do it properly than to have the individual botch it and end up as a vegetable with 3/4 of his face missing.
 
greatnt249 said:
I have to shake my head a little over the psychological evaluation aspect...we're now to determine that an individual is sane enough to off him/herself?

I know, overly dramatic. However, we would never let a depressed individual "off the hook" knowing that they had suicidal thoughts, and they may be suffering more unbearable pain (psychologically) than we can even comprehend. How is it "fair" to give the OK for someone to kill themselves when they are in physical pain, yet leave no "recourse" for those in psychological pain?
Click to expand...
you're thinking awfully narrow here. try getting more end of life/palliative care. like hospice. or try volunteering in a cancer treatment center. we allow people to be taken off life support, have their feeding tubes clamped off, stop giving them fluids, and allow them to have strict DNR preferences. it seems only reasonable to also offer euthanasia as an option. I agree that the guidelines would be harry.....but most things in medicine are anyway. everyone seems to be missing what I said earlier about people trying and failing on their own.
 
circulus vitios said:
If it bad enough, the individual will kill himself one way or another. I think it's better to have a physician do it properly than to have the individual botch it and end up as a vegetable with 3/4 of his face missing.
Click to expand...
finally. 👍

+3000
 
would be nice to add to the whole hospice care sector as an option...need a doctors note to receive hospice service anyways...maybe they can add a box where they can check "may be provided with blah blah blah...."

its all about dying with dignity...i think part of that should be having that choice when you cant really do anything else for yourself
 
Hoody said:
you're thinking awfully narrow here. try getting more end of life/palliative care. like hospice. or try volunteering in a cancer treatment center. we allow people to be taken off life support, have their feeding tubes clamped off, stop giving them fluids, and allow them to have strict DNR preferences. it seems only reasonable to also offer euthanasia as an option. I agree that the guidelines would be harry.....but most things in medicine are anyway. everyone seems to be missing what I said earlier about people trying and failing on their own.
Click to expand...

Sorry...you're not going to win me over with appeals to emotion/humanity. I never said I didn't feel bad for people in those situations, but to say that the medical profession should have guidelines for the willful administration of drugs to allow people to end their lives (in my opinion) is not a role that medicine should be taking on. It's bad enough that many perceive doctors as the local narcotics dispensary; the profession doesn't need the title of executioner added on top of that.
 
The previous definition is correct. Euthanasia is when a doc pushes the meds, PAS is when the doc gives the meds to a pt, and the pt takes them by themselves.

Would also like to add that in Oregon, the pt must have a prognosis of <6 months to live. There are also a list of diseases which one must have, to qualify for PAS. And I think Montana has PAS too.

The thing about euthanasia/PAS/suicide, is a struggle of power. People want to dictate what goes on in their lives. They want to have control over their lives. Emotions have a huge effect on everything. I definitely support PAS as it gives people control of their life. They get to decide when they want to die, not the cancer. Euthanasia I kind of support, but less than PAS. I absolutely believe pts are pressured to make decisions that they might otherwise not make because the doc is there, family is there, being in a hospital sucks. I feel with PAS, you do it in the comfort of your home, and it is your decision, no one else's.

About the whole do no harm thing. Yes we will take an oath, but it is violated in so many ways. How many people in a given year get hospital acquired infections because docs/nurses/other hospital staff don't wash their hands? How many physicians short change their patients only meeting with them for 15 minutes because of beauracratic crap that prevents them from making ends meat. If you go to Cook County hospital, the wait list for non-emergent surgery for those who can't pay (things like joint replacements) is 2 years. People can wait in the ED for 24 hrs before being seen. How is making someone wait 2 years with chronic pain not doing harm? Technically, you're not harming them since you're not actually decreasing the physical state of the pt, but surely we can do better than that. When it comes to reimbursement, surgeons make more money if they open the guy up. Studies have shown that with this pay for service, surgeons are more likely to recommend surgery. One surgeon even admitted that knowing doing an appy netted him $800, he was more inclined to do the surgery when there wasn't a clear diagnosis, instead of waiting, and seeing what happened. When there are monetary rewards for invasive procedures, any person's decision will be affected.

Those are just a few examples. I'm very annoyed when people use the reasoning "do no harm" because harm is present throughout the medical system. In the case of euthanasia/PAS, these individuals have made a decision, and have been cleared by psych saying they have the mental capabilities to make the decision. Instead of focusing on doing no harm to the few that want to die, how bout we focus on doing no harm to those that want to live.
 
minicow said:
would be nice to add to the whole hospice care sector as an option...need a doctors note to receive hospice service anyways...maybe they can add a box where they can check "may be provided with blah blah blah...."

its all about dying with dignity...i think part of that should be having that choice when you cant really do anything else for yourself
Click to expand...

Many of us won't die in a dignified manner/get to choose our way "out"; why should the terminally ill get a free pass?
 
chman said:
If people are deathly ill I believe they have the right to die with dignity, at home, with the people they love.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. Could not have said it better myself. 👍
 
greatnt249 said:
Many of us won't die in a dignified manner/get to choose our way "out"; why should the terminally ill get a free pass?
Click to expand...
They should because someone who is terminally ill knows without a shadow of doubt that their life will ultimately end in great pain and suffering, without a shred of dignity - the majority of those without a terminal illness have no idea how their lives are going to end, whether it be quick and painless or the contrary.
 
if the person want to die rather than suffer, y not?
 
c5212 said:
They should because someone who is terminally ill knows without a shadow of doubt that their life will ultimately end in great pain and suffering, without a shred of dignity - the majority of those without a terminal illness have no idea how their lives are going to end, whether it be quick and painless or the contrary.
Click to expand...

And those that don't get that right to dictate how their lives end because they don't "qualify" according to established guidelines...who speaks for them?
 
The first creed of the physician: do no harm. However, if a person is living in HARM, the SHOULD have the choice to die if they see that fit. I'm not saying I would pressure their decision, but I would terminate someone's life if they wanted to. It's their life. This is sort of the same concept as abortion, but that's a whole other debate. I thank everyone for their insightful comments. I see nothing morally wrong with what I have thus far stated. I hope the majority of you all would agree.
 
DRMRL said:
The first creed of the physician: do no harm. However, if a person is living in HARM, the SHOULD have the choice to die if they see that fit. I'm not saying I would pressure their decision, but I would terminate someone's life if they wanted to. It's their life. This is sort of the same concept as abortion, but that's a whole other debate. I thank everyone for their insightful comments. I see nothing morally wrong with what I have thus far stated. I hope the majority of you all would agree.
Click to expand...

Why should it be legal for doctors to push a fatal dose, yet not so for anyone else? What's so special about the medical profession that they're the ONLY ones who qualify to perform this action?
 
greatnt249 said:
Many of us won't die in a dignified manner/get to choose our way "out"; why should the terminally ill get a free pass?
Click to expand...

i dont think its about being fair...
and i dont think it is as black and white as that.
i dont feel like "debating" about it, i just answered the op with my own ideas and opinions.

during the last 6 months or less in someones life i think there should be options available...
painkillers, quick death, long painful end....
it would be nice to have a quick ending available if needed instead of failing to completely od on something and end up in a hospital your last few days or so
 
greatnt249 said:
I'm not the one arguing for euthanasia; it's on the supporters to state their case why medicine and medicine only is worthy of being burdened with this obligation.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the procedure involved in physician assisted suicide but from what others have posted it involves prescription medications. I think a doctor would be the most qualified to determine the quantity of whatever medications(poisons?) are required and write the prescriptions.
 
This is an interesting thread, thank you OP for bringing it up. I was not aware of PAS. Makes sense to me, if they know they are going to die painfully in x months, why not give them the option of having a little control over what's to come? Someone can kill themselves with anything with many horrible outcomes, if they are set on doing it why not give a means that will do the LEAST harm? I wonder what the numbers are of people who are provided the means and then actually go through with it? The bit about doing no harm above is interesting as well, even if you take away the cases above where harm is clearly done for whatever reason, don't physicians often inflict short term harm for long term good as well?

I've always said if it comes down to it I'm going skydiving, oops. :laugh:
 
sapama said:
This is an interesting thread, thank you OP for bringing it up. I was not aware of PAS. Makes sense to me, if they know they are going to die painfully in x months, why not give them the option of having a little control over what's to come? Someone can kill themselves with anything with many horrible outcomes, if they are set on doing it why not give a means that will do the LEAST harm? I wonder what the numbers are of people who are provided the means and then actually go through with it? The bit about doing no harm above is interesting as well, even if you take away the cases above where harm is clearly done for whatever reason, don't physicians often inflict short term harm for long term good as well?

I've always said if it comes down to it I'm going skydiving, oops. :laugh:
Click to expand...

XD
i wonder if that has ever been done...or if they look out for those terminally ill jumpers XD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Do you agree with Dr. Jack Kevorkian (euthanasia/assisted suicide)?
Replies
21
Views
4K
mybluedog
mybluedog
T
Euthanasia during Interviews
Replies
31
Views
13K
SarsMO
S
F
Euthanasia Question During Interview... HELP
Replies
9
Views
4K
kypdurron5
K
J
abortion, euthanasia laws
Replies
4
Views
1K
Blade28
B
C
  • Poll Poll
Mentioning Euthanasia decion in essay
Replies
9
Views
2K
da8s0859q
D
Top