Physician-Assisted Suicide: Should it Be Legal?

[d1ony5u5]

Morsetlis, so what is the overarching purpose of medicine? Is there room in your idea of medicine for compassion?

I ask you this, because the way I think about it is: Medicine is simply a collection of knowledge we use in hopes of alleviating suffering. In this definition, which is admittedly mine and not binding to any one else, there is a good place for PAS.

could you go a little more in detail about how you see using medical knowledge to help someone who for whatever reason has come to the conclusion that he/she wants to die (from a medical standpoint).

Also, although I can understand you may have a personal stance on what you would do yourself when confronted with such a situation, could you clarify where you stand on the legality of the issue?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Siggy]

Frontline: The Suicide Tourist. Intersting look at PAS in Europe from the eyes of a patient with ALS.

 

[Morsetlis]

Can't talk about legality... I haven't taken medical ethics nor am I a lawyer/doctor.

There's plenty of things you can do for compassion: refer the pt. to hospice/palliative medicine, for one. Not a field I would be doing, and not something people of my culture usually do (stage-4 duodenal cancer and the family would NOT leave the pt's bedside... encountered pt for the past 2 weeks now on my morning rounds).

If I'm with a patient, I'm there to provide medical, emotional, and spiritual care, not comprehensive "fix my life" care. I'm not going to find them a job, I'm not going to give psychological counseling on how to quit smoking, and I'm certainly not going to help somebody commit suicide.

Finally, here's a quote from somebody I was quite fond of ;p

"Have killed many, Shepard. Many methods. Gunfire, knives, drugs, tech attacks, once with farming equipment. But not with medicine. Never with medicine."

Oh, yeah, I wouldn't mind referring them to Switzerland ;p

 

[Siggy]

but physician-assisted suicide is an abuse of medicine.

Isn't one of the goals of medicine to end and/or prevent suffering?

 

[randombetch]

People who take the anti position never have any good reasons for their stance. They just say "well I would never kill someone, that's just wrong" and use that to crutch their lame argument.

There are very legitimate reasons for the "anti" stance:

http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/pas.html#ques4

Potential for abuse is by far the most important, in my opinion. Another is the falliability of physicians: how can one know for sure exactly how much pain someone is enduring? Or what if the person chooses to undergo physician assisted suicide believing he or she has a terminal illness when it was a misdiagnosis?

That site basically sums up all of the arguments for and against physician assisted suicide - you all should read them.

 

[Morsetlis]

Isn't one of the goals of medicine to end and/or prevent suffering?

It's anesthesiology, not thanatology ;p

That site basically sums up all of the arguments for and against physician assisted suicide - you all should read them.

Good stuff, thanks. It's the value-judgment that I'm afraid of. How do you know that just because I had my leg blown up and shattered by a land mine... that I wouldn't want to keep it? I know a guy (army EMT) who chose to replace his entire leg w/ a prosthetic just so he could run again. I would choose to keep mine. How would you know that just because a patient can only move his eyes that he wants to die? How would you know... whether a burn patient wants to live in agony for a year or just say **** it? Well, you don't. And that's why you don't play with patients' lives.

Other potentials for abuse and/or mistakes, including in cases where the patient clearly says he wants to die: Financial incentives for relatives, physician, misdiagnoses, etc.

 

[orthomyxo]

There are very legitimate reasons for the "anti" stance:

http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/pas.html#ques4

Potential for abuse is by far the most important, in my opinion. Another is the falliability of physicians: how can one know for sure exactly how much pain someone is enduring? Or what if the person chooses to undergo physician assisted suicide believing he or she has a terminal illness when it was a misdiagnosis?

That site basically sums up all of the arguments for and against physician assisted suicide - you all should read them.

In my opinion, argument one and two for the anti side can just be thrown right in the garbage. Again, the basis for both of those is more or less the morality of taking a life. I can understand three, but that is where "strict" regulations can take effect and prevent such abuses. Four isn't really much of an argument, other than the fact the traditions of medicine do not agree with PAS. Five is valid, but once again, regulations can minimize the probability of mistakes.

 

[d1ony5u5]

Can't talk about legality... I haven't taken medical ethics nor am I a lawyer/doctor.

There's plenty of things you can do for compassion: refer the pt. to hospice/palliative medicine, for one. Not a field I would be doing, and not something people of my culture usually do (stage-4 duodenal cancer and the family would NOT leave the pt's bedside... encountered pt for the past 2 weeks now on my morning rounds).

If I'm with a patient, I'm there to provide medical, emotional, and spiritual care, not comprehensive "fix my life" care. I'm not going to find them a job, I'm not going to give psychological counseling on how to quit smoking, and I'm certainly not going to help somebody commit suicide.

Finally, here's a quote from somebody I was quite fond of ;p

"Have killed many, Shepard. Many methods. Gunfire, knives, drugs, tech attacks, once with farming equipment. But not with medicine. Never with medicine."

Oh, yeah, I wouldn't mind referring them to Switzerland ;p

Morsetlis your dodging of the question is sloppy. No one here probably has the academic credentials you seem to consider requisite to answer the question. Even then, ethics and politics are far from being fields in which only expert opinions count, or should count. Common sense should do fine, given the dangers of just deferring authority about such matters to others...

From the rest of your posts, all I can gather is that you personally wouldn't want to have anything to do with it. Fine. I don't see how that could translate into a society wide ban, though (which is what happens when something is considered illegal).

As Chops says, the majority of those arguments in the link make little sense.

 

[Morsetlis]

Who said anything about a society-wide ban?

Not me ;p

 

[d1ony5u5]

Who said anything about a society-wide ban?

Not me ;p

I know, because you tried to dodge the question. Am I incorrect in assuming that is what you mean? Or am I correct, in which case I'd encourage you to clear up your reasoning.

 

[Morsetlis]

I know, because you tried to dodge the question.

If I'm not sure about something, I don't go ahead and make things happen just because I have a personal feeling that what I do might be right. In this case, I can't comment on its legality.

I just posted to express my personal feelings, though

 

[d1ony5u5]

If I'm not sure about something, I don't go ahead and make things happen just because I have a personal feeling that what I do might be right. In this case, I can't comment on its legality.

I just posted to express my personal feelings, though

Oh, situation cleared up, then. I would assume you didn't vote on the poll then.

 

[StormingWynn]

As others have mentioned, please don't turn this thread into a religious debate. I'm not religious, yet I can understand why people wouldn't want PAS to become legal. They just don't want to live with the "what-ifs."

Thank you.

 

[she woolf]

I voted yes. I watched Javier Bardem in "The Sea Inside" he wanted the right to die but it was illegal in Spain so his family members helped him in a way where they wouldn't be blamed for the death. I think Term Ill patients should have the right over their bodies to die. I don't really see what the big deal is We kill people by injection all the time. I'm all for the kill me buttom idea

 

[Quantum Mecha]

Isn't one of the goals of medicine to end and/or prevent suffering?

+1

Personally I gravitate towards the safe side of this gray area; I don't think I could live with that on my conscious even though I did not directly do anything.

 

[Cleavername]

Lets see here.....It's ok to kill
1. Felons
2. Terrorist
3. Enemies of the State

but we can't assist people who want to die.

different cases. we punish those 3 for things they have done to unsuspecting people who obivousely didn;t want it to be done to them, like land a plane on mah towerz lol. i think the big issue with this topic, PAS, is whether should a physician have the right to do something like this. by that i mean the decision to end another persons life should not be exercised by a physician. When we gave those criminals a death penalty, they are done thro a trial by jury, they are being judged. PAS is just a person. those criminals are also given attorneys to defend their position, whos the person thats standing by the side of the phsician telling him/her not to assist?

just mah $ 0.02

 

[NickNaylor]

I don't think PAS should be legalized. Sure, I suppose everyone has the right to end their life, but they can do so outside the doctor-patient relationship. A doctor isn't necessary to complete suicide, and I don't think he should feel the slightest bit compelled - if only by the request - to participate in a suicide in any way. I think the only real argument for PAS is the "compassion" aspect of it, but even that is a bit twisted. Physicians are supposed to alleviate pain and suffering, but I don't think that means death is an acceptable route to that end. Physicians alleviate pain and suffering in order to improve the quality of life of their patients. There is no life in death (I'm ignoring here all religious arguments), thus there is no quality of life to improve. Killing someone because they're in pain is like removing the plumbing from a home because there's a leak. It fixes the problem (I guess?), but it's not quite the result we're looking for.

As far as attempting to disregard morals/religious beliefs, that's just silly. People's opinions on a variety of issues are informed by their moral values, whatever they may be. Just because someone rationalizes something doesn't mean their argument is superior or fail-proof. We aren't automatons. Believe it or not, it is actually acceptable to have beliefs and opinions not 100% founded on some kind of logical thought process. Not everyone finds logical arguments the most persuasive - a point that seems to be poorly understood on these boards.

 

[NerdyAndrea]

Palliative care should be able to help people. That's a field I have thought of two. It's one of my passions, not the PAS, that is a tough one, but the compassion it takes in supporting that decision.

When my Grandmother died she had kidney failure most of her days were spent on dialysis. She refused dialysis and asked that her pain meds be upped to deal with the situation. The doctor allowed her this.

This is a type of assisted suicide. I spoke with her during this period she was well aware of what was going on and what she was doing. I told her that I thought she was brave, and she'd never be forgotten. She confided to me, she wished they'd come give her a lethal dose right after she said all her good byes. Instead the medicine was staying in her causing her body to fail a bit at a time.

It took ten days for her to die in that way. She wanted to go, but, instead for ten days we watched her die slowly. I wanted to ask her physician if he could help her along, talk to him with her, but it's always hard.

The decision needs to be int he patients hands and it can't be something they just say oh kill me now, I've said that sometimes in moments of mortal pain, but the physician, the family, the doctor, they all need to see a psychiatrist separately, and then together.

Separately to make sure it's not family or medical pressure to die, but that the patient has sound reasons for wishing to die, and truly wishes for that. Also they need to have the support to take care of their loose ends before the decision.

Yes this is a personal experience, but long before this, as a middle school and high school student before I had a lot of contact with Palliative care I felt this way, and agreed with the pro arguments. There's always what ifs, no matter what choice you make in the case of diagnosis, and treatment, same for the patients and their families, at least from what I've observed. I may be wrong.

A

 

[Siggy]

For all of the "physicians shouldn't be involved with PAS" people, are you also against DNR orders and "physician orders for life sustaining treatment" (POLST) since they involve the physician writing an order that is essentially allowing a patient to die? Since no physician is required to write any order (A physician doesn't have to write a DNR order or POLST any more than any other order. Should? Yes. Have to? No.), how do you reconcile a physician writing an order such as a DNR order that leads to a patient's death just as well as writing a prescription for barbiturates? If death is not an acceptable route in ending the pain of a terminally ill patient, why is a physician writing an order forbidding a procedure that could save a life any different than writing a prescription that the patient can use on their own to take their own life?

 

[link2swim06]

Physicians should not be killing people.....there is plenty of ways for people to kill themselves.

Giving the physicians the power with PAS, gives them authority to determine if someone lives or dies (regardless involving patient consent). I don't think anyone should have such a power or be put into that deciding role.

 

[link2swim06]

For all of the "physicians shouldn't be involved with PAS" people, are you also against DNR orders and "physician orders for life sustaining treatment" (POLST) since they involve the physician writing an order that is essentially allowing a patient to die? Since no physician is required to write any order (A physician doesn't have to write a DNR order or POLST any more than any other order. Should? Yes. Have to? No.), how do you reconcile a physician writing an order such as a DNR order that leads to a patient's death just as well as writing a prescription for barbiturates? If death is not an acceptable route in ending the pain of a terminally ill patient, why is a physician writing an order forbidding a procedure that could save a life any different than writing a prescription that the patient can use on their own to take their own life?

Because a DNR is letting someone die naturally, giving them a drug is not natural and caused by an action. Big difference, modern medicine can make people live in states they should not otherwise be able to live in, rejecting this care is not suicide nor PAS.

 

[Hoody]

Yes, PAS should absolutely and without a doubt be legalized. Hopefully by the time my generation rolls around to power, pot wont be the only thing freed.

 

[Siggy]

Because a DNR is letting someone die naturally, giving them a drug is not natural and caused by an action. Big difference, modern medicine can make people live in states they should not otherwise be able to live in, rejecting this care is not suicide nor PAS.

If modern medicine can make people live in unnatural states, then, for example, a physician writing an order for barbiturates that could be used as an overdose to help remove suffering when a ventilator is disconnected would be ok? After all, for the ventilator dependent patient, a CNS depressant isn't going to cause that much harm since the major problem, respiratory depression, isn't a concern in these patients.

 

[Hoody]

Physicians should not be killing people.....there is plenty of ways for people to kill themselves.

yes. there are plenty of ways for people to kill themselves. Lots of them involve loss of dignity for the patient or the patients family. Lots of these ways also involve failure....as in a Patient who wanted to die took a gun to his head and will now live for as a vegetable. And his family member who found him got to wipe the brains off the ceiling.

Other options should be legal, and available.

Giving the physicians the power with PAS, gives them authority to determine if someone lives or dies (regardless involving patient consent). I don't think anyone should have such a power or be put into that deciding role.

Nothing these days can be done without the Patients consent (unless we are talking about a medical hold). And if the Patient cannot consent, then the POA consents. If there is no POA, then an ethics committee decides. The doctor does not have definite decision making power....this holds true whether we are talking about ending a Patients life, or if we are simply talking about holding the Patients hand - you can do neither, and nothing in between, without consent of the Patinet first. Often times consent is gained more than once (in other words, must be whitnessed and documented by several people).

This reminds me of the gun battle. I used to think that banning guns would stop people from committing gun related crimes. Not so much. In fact, just the opposite has been proven true. Giving physicians the power to assist those in suicide wouldn't cause a sharp increase in physicians who abuse such powers.

 

[Siggy]

This reminds me of the gun battle. I used to think that banning guns would stop people from committing gun related crimes.

There's a reason I call schools "unarmed victim zones."

 

[link2swim06]

yes. there are plenty of ways for people to kill themselves. Lots of them involve loss of dignity for the patient or the patients family. Lots of these ways also involve failure....as in a Patient who wanted to die took a gun to his head and will now live for as a vegetable. And his family member who found him got to wipe the brains off the ceiling.

Other options should be legal, and available.


Nothing these days can be done without the Patients consent (unless we are talking about a medical hold). And if the Patient cannot consent, then the POA consents. If there is no POA, then an ethics committee decides. The doctor does not have definite decision making power....this holds true whether we are talking about ending a Patients life, or if we are simply talking about holding the Patients hand - you can do neither, and nothing in between, without consent of the Patinet first. Often times consent is gained more than once (in other words, must be whitnessed and documented by several people).

This reminds me of the gun battle. I used to think that banning guns would stop people from committing gun related crimes. Not so much. In fact, just the opposite has been proven true. Giving physicians the power to assist those in suicide wouldn't not cause a sharp increase in physicians who abuse such powers.

My agreement is far more fundamental. Physicians should not be involved in suicide....its about human life.

I am arguing this point because although I see it both ways, nobody else is debating from this point on this thread.

 

[Hoody]

different cases. we punish those 3 for things they have done to unsuspecting people who obliviously didn't want it to be done to them

and what about the people that are innocent yet executed anyway?

like land a plane on mah towerz lol.

funny

i think the big issue with this topic, PAS, is whether should a physician have the right to do something like this. by that i mean the decision to end another persons life should not be exercised by a physician.

It wouldn't be exercised by a physician. It would be exercised by the Patient (or POA). Sorta like when a person exercises the right to have a surgical procedure. The surgeon doesn't make the desicion for the person. The surgeon presents the options, the person desides. Hence why its call Physican Assissted Suicide and not Physician Decided Suicide.

When we gave those criminals a death penalty, they are done thro a trial by jury, they are being judged. PAS is just a person.

its actually a few people. you have the patient. you have the physician. you have the pharmacist. you have the social work crew. you have the chaplain. nothing in medicine is just the patient. ever. there is no I in team.

whos the person thats standing by the side of the physician telling him/her not to assist?

the person. or the poa. or the family. or the ethics committee?

 

[Hoody]

My agreement is far more fundamental. Physicians should not be involved in suicide....its about human life.

Human life includes the right to die by choice, and to die with dignity.

 

[NickNaylor]

Human life includes the right to die by choice, and to die with dignity.

But why is it so imperative that physicians be the one that enables execution of that right? I concede the right for patients to commit suicide if that's their wish. I don't agree with it, but if it doesn't impact me I'm not really to worried about it. Why should physicians be the armory in this case?

 

[StormingWynn]

different cases. we punish those 3 for things they have done to unsuspecting people who obivousely didn;t want it to be done to them, like land a plane on mah towerz lol. i think the big issue with this topic, PAS, is whether should a physician have the right to do something like this. by that i mean the decision to end another persons life should not be exercised by a physician. When we gave those criminals a death penalty, they are done thro a trial by jury, they are being judged. PAS is just a person. those criminals are also given attorneys to defend their position, whos the person thats standing by the side of the phsician telling him/her not to assist?

just mah $ 0.02

Physicians do not end the life a patient. That's not what PAS is. PAS is just providing th means for a patient to commit suicide by themselves.

Physicians should not be killing people.....there is plenty of ways for people to kill themselves.

Giving the physicians the power with PAS, gives them authority to determine if someone lives or dies (regardless involving patient consent). I don't think anyone should have such a power or be put into that deciding role.

Those "other ways" you speak of are what? With a gun, with a knife, etc..? Well if you look at it this way you'll understand why PAS should be allowed. Physicians and pharmacists and everyone else involved prescribe the patient with enough medication to overdose. With the other methods, the person who made the knife basically gave the patient the means to commit suicide. Something with a gun. They merely gave them the means to commit suicide, BUT they didn't kill them directly. If you're going to criminalize PAS then you should also criminalize other methods of suicide.

 

[skiddoc]

Primum non nocere?

 

[orthomyxo]

Physicians should not be killing people.....there is plenty of ways for people to kill themselves.
Giving the physicians the power with PAS, gives them authority to determine if someone lives or dies (regardless involving patient consent). I don't think anyone should have such a power or be put into that deciding role.

Is this a joke?? You would rather see a patient shoot themself in the head, leaving their family to deal with shock and extreme anguish, then have a capable physician provide the patient with a lethal dose of morphine (or whatever) so they can go peacefully, painlessly, and with their dignity intact? That is some ridiculous logic right there.

Your second statement is just as ludacris as the first. Do doctors not sustain life, in many situations? If you think people should go naturally, well than just screw it, forget medicine altogether and just have everyone die from preventable and curable illnesses. Problem solved!

 

[Hope0913]

I was pretty strongly for euthanasia until I spent time in a cancer hospital that treats palliatively only. Turns out, every new advance that improves pain/depression/symptom management has slowly whittled away at requests by patients to be allowed to pass. The head of the program firmly believed that most requests of this nature were due to the failure of medicine to control the above mentioned probems.

Exactly

 

[Morsetlis]

And this is why I mentioned the palliative/hospice medicine option.

 

[Siggy]

The head of the program firmly believed that most requests of this nature were due to the failure of medicine to control the above mentioned probems.

Fully understandable. After all, it's all about quality of life. Improve the quality of life and you decrease the demand for legitimate PAS. However, what about patients with degenerative diseases like ALS. Is it really better to force them to live even when they get to the point where the only muscles they can control are the ones controlling their eyes?

 

[Geekchick921]

yes. there are plenty of ways for people to kill themselves. Lots of them involve loss of dignity for the patient or the patients family. Lots of these ways also involve failure....as in a Patient who wanted to die took a gun to his head and will now live for as a vegetable. And his family member who found him got to wipe the brains off the ceiling.

Other options should be legal, and available.

There are also plenty of ways to kill yourself without plastering the wall with your brains. Quick example, leaving the car running in the garage, clean and painless. A physician is not necessary to kill yourself. At all.

 

[Siggy]

Actually, the current flavor of the month for suicide is a combination of detergent and acid. Thankfully, those who have been using this method has made it a point to warn paramedics so that they don't just quickly open the door.

http://www.emsresponder.com/web/online/Top-EMS-News/Suicides-by-Poison-Threaten-Crews/1$12318


Why are we nicer to condemned criminals than people with end of life concerns and requests?

 

[Cleavername]

Physicians do not end the life a patient. That's not what PAS is. PAS is just providing th means for a patient to commit suicide by themselves.



Those "other ways" you speak of are what? With a gun, with a knife, etc..? Well if you look at it this way you'll understand why PAS should be allowed. Physicians and pharmacists and everyone else involved prescribe the patient with enough medication to overdose. With the other methods, the person who made the knife basically gave the patient the means to commit suicide. Something with a gun. They merely gave them the means to commit suicide, BUT they didn't kill them directly. If you're going to criminalize PAS then you should also criminalize other methods of suicide.

surely, although if a person wanted to kill them self, and they are capable od doing so, they prob would do it. PAS is only when the person who is incapable of offing them selfves on their own. such as they are too weak to get out of their bed, etc. PAS is basically a physician answering a command to end the life of a person on the request of another person. just so happends that those 2 people are the same person. the true question is that should you be allowed to execute a kill order on another person? now if the person is not too weak to kill them selves and PAS kicks in, it is a murder, however not as severe as a first or second degree.

 

[Cleavername]

Physicians should not be killing people.....there is plenty of ways for people to kill themselves.

Giving the physicians the power with PAS, gives them authority to determine if someone lives or dies (regardless involving patient consent). I don't think anyone should have such a power or be put into that deciding role.

exactly what i am trying to say. except mah english fails. btw that chick in ur avatar is really hot.

 

[SFO-IST]

The lines around this issue are actually quite fuzzy. I recently read an article on palliative care where essentially they induce constant sleep and stop feeding the patient. The patient in question was a cancer patient in constant pain with cancer throughout his body. It's technically not suicide/killing, but why wait if you know the patient will eventually die due to not feeding him. It seems strange...

 

[hefe]

People should be free to choose their own death after being thoroughly informed options to alternatives assuming a conscious state of mind. People don't have a choice on birth, but we have a choice on death. One should be able to decide themselves the terms they go out on.

People are free to choose death when they are perfectly healthy. What makes providing this alternative much different than to those who are terminally ill and possibly bed-ridden to the point this may physicality is impossible on their own? Aiding is providing the intrinsic right humans have to choose the length of their lifetime.

Resources should be focused perhaps on those who'd rather live instead. Although pro-longing death for the pure sake of it seems a terrible waste. I'm sure these view points change greatly around the world. We all generally come into and out of this world from the compounds we are made up, our choice is inconsequential in the scheme of our universe. Such things are only a priority in our extremely narrow microcosm by which we are surrounded.

 

[torshi]

Jack Kevorkian

 

[Venc]

Like the monkey with the sexual stimulation/electrification button?

Hey it was so good they chose that over food

 

[gettheleadout]

To everyone that says: "There are X many other ways to commit suicide without pain, loss of dignity, etc... Why involve the physician?"

This is assuming the patient in question has the capability to leave the hospital, for one, and wow the internet sucks, this entire post got deleted when I edited one word for a typo...

 

[James105]

Sometimes one hears rumors of people who disdain the pesky ethical construct that evolution has handed down to us. It is rumored that these folks even disregard ethics and arguments from an ethical perspective as completely false without further reflection. I guess I thought that it was merely a rumor. But after reading such astonishing statements as "In my opinion, argument one and two for the anti side can just be thrown right in the garbage. Again, the basis for both of those is more or less the morality of taking a life." Wow! Really? What a fundamental a priori decision! What incredible indignation towards morality! So let's get this straight by your logic, it is immoral (perhaps you would prefer the word wrong, but it ultimately has the same meaning) to make decisions about another's health care prerogative as it is their body. OK, first insert, you have already laid the groundwork for your moral stance. To continue with your argument to the next step. Therefore, when a patient wants to commit suicide, yes suicide, you are required as a physician to help make this happen (assuming it meets the laws of Oregon and Washington, as they are the forerunners in this revolutionary new science). Apparently, with one quick swoop of prejudice, according to your logic, the physician is forced to requit his or her own reasons and morals to satisfy your presuppositions. Never mind having your own morals, for they have already been discounted (without a debate) and replaced by another's. The irony is hard to miss; I am forced to accept another's moral decision (if you don't think that assisted suicide is a moral question, then not only is this physician wrong, he or she is dangerous) because I argue from a moral view.

Patient dignity is paramount, but so is physician dignity. So if you want to help people commit suicide, go for it. But those silly physicians who hold that an ethical system exists (which of course you do as well but disregard since it isn't religious) should not be forced to bow to your analysis of the morality of the issue.

 

[chman]

Sometimes one hears rumors of people who disdain the pesky ethical construct that evolution has handed down to us. It is rumored that these folks even disregard ethics and arguments from an ethical perspective as completely false without further reflection. I guess I thought that it was merely a rumor. But after reading such astonishing statements as "In my opinion, argument one and two for the anti side can just be thrown right in the garbage. Again, the basis for both of those is more or less the morality of taking a life." Wow! Really? What a fundamental a priori decision! What incredible indignation towards morality! So let's get this straight by your logic, it is immoral (perhaps you would prefer the word wrong, but it ultimately has the same meaning) to make decisions about another's health care prerogative as it is their body. OK, first insert, you have already laid the groundwork for your moral stance. To continue with your argument to the next step. Therefore, when a patient wants to commit suicide, yes suicide, you are required as a physician to help make this happen (assuming it meets the laws of Oregon and Washington, as they are the forerunners in this revolutionary new science). Apparently, with one quick swoop of prejudice, according to your logic, the physician is forced to requit his or her own reasons and morals to satisfy your presuppositions. Never mind having your own morals, for they have already been discounted (without a debate) and replaced by another's. The irony is hard to miss; I am forced to accept another's moral decision (if you don't think that assisted suicide is a moral question, then not only is this physician wrong, he or she is dangerous) because I argue from a moral view.

Patient dignity is paramount, but so is physician dignity. So if you want to help people commit suicide, go for it. But those silly physicians who hold that an ethical system exists (which of course you do as well but disregard since it isn't religious) should not be forced to bow to your analysis of the morality of the issue.

Ummm, I live in WA and voted in favor of that bill. Nowhere in it is any physician forced to do anything. Better get your facts straight.

 

[James105]

Perhaps I was unclear, let me clarify. (Amazing that is your only critique of an entirely too long post! I was hoping for a little more pizazz.) I am simply arguing that by tossing out moral considerations, one is, in fact, making a moral consideration. I only used Oregon and Wash in order to protect myself from being accused of saying that physicians were going to be forced to go around killing anybody that signed a consent. I know that won't happen and no one wants it to, the patients have to have to meet specific criteria. But by no means was that the gist of my post, it was simply added to clarify that I don't think proponents of PAS are in favor of helping everyone commit suicide. (though it would be interesting to see how one would argue out of that position if he or she holds that a physician's duty is to uphhold the patient's right to do to himself as he pleases)

 

[chman]

Perhaps I was unclear, let me clarify. (Amazing that is your only critique of an entirely too long post! I was hoping for a little more pizazz.) I am simply arguing that by tossing out moral considerations, one is, in fact, making a moral consideration. I only used Oregon and Wash in order to protect myself from being accused of saying that physicians were going to be forced to go around killing anybody that signed a consent. I know that won't happen and no one wants it to, the patients have to have to meet specific criteria. But by no means was that the gist of my post, it was simply added to clarify that I don't think proponents of PAS are in favor of helping everyone commit suicide. (though it would be interesting to see how one would argue out of that position if he or she holds that a physician's duty is to uphhold the patient's right to do to himself as he pleases)

Ok, I see what you were doing, you were creating a bit of a strawman..

I don't really know what you want to debate. The issue is rather complicated, obviously. I believe in choice all around: that is for the patient and the physician. I personally think that it is inhumane to force people to die a certain way, which is often starvation. I believe that if someone is terminal, it is their choice to die with dignity around the people they love, instead of wasting away in a hospice bed with no control over any part of their body or mind, which is how my grandmother went.

 

[VikingLegacy]

baleeted

 

[James105]

Ok, I see what you were doing, you were creating a bit of a strawman..

I don't really know what you want to debate. The issue is rather complicated, obviously. I believe in choice all around: that is for the patient and the physician. I personally think that it is inhumane to force people to die a certain way, which is often starvation. I believe that if someone is terminal, it is their choice to die with dignity around the people they love, instead of wasting away in a hospice bed with no control over any part of their body or mind, which is how my grandmother went.

We can certainly agree that this issue is very complex!! And I sympathize for your situation with your grandmother, it must have been quite difficult. My point was not to make a moral platitude. My argument was to suggest that this is also a moral discussion, not merely a scientific one. It seems very dangerous to, in your prejudice, toss out those beliefs that are different that yours. Several posters were doing just that with a certain pomp that seemed unhealthy to the discussion.