Quadriplegic allowed to starve to death.

[Compass]

---

Members do not see this ad.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/14/australia.right.to.die/index.html

Very interesting. Person is of sound mind, but can't move at all. Wishes to starve to death in AUS at a nursing home. My only qualm is that doing so sounds painful. Not eating for 3 weeks is pretty rough.

 

[Kinocilium]

I'm a personal care attendant for a quadriplegic who has a sound mind like the man in the story. He told me once that when he was depressed after his accident (about 15 years ago now) one thing that made him feel so much better was when he realized that he had the ability to die if he wanted, and that he was living this new life of his own choosing. When you depend on other people for so much, I'm sure it means a lot to be able to make those kinds of decisions on your own. This is really a great thing--I'm happy that this man can die when he wants to, though it's unfortunate that he has to do it by starving to death. It's cases like these that illustrate why assisted suicide should be legal.

 

[greatnt249]

It's cases like these that illustrate why assisted suicide should be legal.

The moral burden should not be on anyone else to facilitate the death of the patient; it's a tough sell to say that the patient can make a positive moral claim against a physician to facilitate the patient's death.

 

[LuciusVorenus]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/14/australia.right.to.die/index.html

Very interesting. Person is of sound mind, but can't move at all. Wishes to starve to death in AUS at a nursing home. My only qualm is that doing so sounds painful. Not eating for 3 weeks is pretty rough.

I'm stealing this for Ethics post
<_<
>_>

 

[VassarLiberal]

Person is of sound mind, but can't move at all. Wishes to starve to death in AUS at a nursing home. My only qualm is that doing so sounds painful.

He should certainly have the right, as a competent person, to choose death by a painless (or certainly minimally painful) method. How about OD'ing on morphine? That'd suppress circulatory function and be fairly painless, right?

 

[unsung]

The moral burden should not be on anyone else to facilitate the death of the patient; it's a tough sell to say that the patient can make a positive moral claim against a physician to facilitate the patient's death.

Isn't that pretty cruel? A "normal" person could commit suicide. Obviously, a quadriplegic cannot do anything for himself, which includes even ending his own life... short of refusing food.

We cannot ignore that important fact.

 

[VassarLiberal]

Obviously, a quadriplegic cannot do anything for himself, which includes even ending his own life... short of refusing food.

It'd be pretty tough to bill for that, though.

Kidding, kidding. The onus should be on the healthcare providers to assist this person, presuming there's a state law protecting them, no?

 

[greatnt249]

Isn't that pretty cruel? A "normal" person could commit suicide. Obviously, a quadriplegic cannot do anything for himself, which includes even ending his own life... short of refusing food.

We cannot ignore that important fact.

It's about the moral claim, though. Yes, it's a cruel reality that the patient has to live with. However, is a physician morally obligated to help said patient end his life? What we are looking at here is a patient making a positive moral claim to a right to end his life, meaning that he's claiming a right to third-party intervention to carry out said procedure. Is this really a fair burden to place on a healthcare practitioner, given that they're trained to do everything in their power to prevent this outcome?

 

[redsquareblack]

It's about the moral claim, though. Yes, it's a cruel reality that the patient has to live with. However, is a physician morally obligated to help said patient end his life? What we are looking at here is a patient making a positive moral claim to a right to end his life, meaning that he's claiming a right to third-party intervention to carry out said procedure. Is this really a fair burden to place on a healthcare practitioner, given that they're trained to do everything in their power to prevent this outcome?

I think you're looking at it backwards. After all, is a physician morally obligated? No, of course not. The far more interesting question is whether a physician is morally prevented from participating.

 

[MossPoh]

The moral burden should not be on anyone else to facilitate the death of the patient; it's a tough sell to say that the patient can make a positive moral claim against a physician to facilitate the patient's death.

Difficult moral decisions are one of the things we sign up for. Every day it is our duty to actively suppress biases, prejudices, and personal beliefs in an effort to supply the patient with the best medical care for them. Medical care doesn't just include prolonging life, but rather it also includes quality of said life. If a patient (and their family) goes through the necessary psychiatric evaluations and counseling before hand, have a terminal illness or extremely low quality of life, then they should be entitled to a painless and humane death.

Would it make me uncomfortable? Of course it would. The proper decision isn't always the one that makes us comfortable and feel good though.

 

[ToBeAnMD]

I think you're looking at it backwards. After all, is a physician morally obligated? No, of course not. The far more interesting question is whether a physician is morally prevented from participating.

So in other words your asking if a physician is morally prevented from killing someone or helping them commit suicide? Yes he or she is morally prevented!

 

[redsquareblack]

So in other words your asking if a physician is morally prevented from killing someone or helping them commit suicide? Yes he or she is morally prevented!

Ok, why?

 

[greatnt249]

If a patient (and their family) goes through the necessary psychiatric evaluations and counseling before hand, have a terminal illness or extremely low quality of life, then they should be entitled to a painless and humane death.

Can you really argue that those with terminal illnesses or low qualities of life are in the most rational states of mind to make it morally acceptable to commit suicide? Can you really ever argue that killing yourself is the most rational decision to make? It's one thing to recognize where a patient is coming from in their mindset; it's quite another thing to say that fulfilling their wish is morally acceptable.

I know it sounds like I'm being callous, but appeals to emotion aren't going to solve this conundrum, not to mention the fact that EVERYONE should be entitled to a "painless, humane death"; however, that doesn't mean people still don't face violent and inhumane deaths every day.

 

[Depakote]

Can you really argue that those with terminal illnesses or low qualities of life are in the most rational states of mind to make it morally acceptable to commit suicide? Can you really ever argue that killing yourself is the most rational decision to make? It's one thing to recognize where a patient is coming from in their mindset; it's quite another thing to say that fulfilling their wish is morally acceptable.

I know it sounds like I'm being callous, but appeals to emotion aren't going to solve this conundrum, not to mention the fact that EVERYONE should be entitled to a "painless, humane death"; however, that doesn't mean people still don't face violent and inhumane deaths every day.

MossPoh was careful to include that he would only consider this in a situation where the patient and family had been counseled by trained psychiatrists. While one might argue that the choice to end ones life is socially abnormal, considering the fact that patients wishing to do so are facing irreversible disability and years of dependence on their family members in this case or a painful death in many others, I would say that it can be a rational choice if the patient realizes that there is certain suffering (followed by death) ahead and wishes to die on their own terms.

 

[greatnt249]

MossPoh was careful to include that he would only consider this in a situation where the patient and family had been counseled by trained psychiatrists.

I realize that; however, what does it really mean to be counseled by a trained psychiatrist? How does being counseled by a trained psychiatrist make it morally acceptable for a physician to be the facilitator of a suicide-by-proxy as opposed to a close family member?

I guess my ultimate question is why is it considered the role of a physician to carry out an assisted suicide as opposed to (insert other profession)?

While one might argue that the choice to end ones life is socially abnormal, considering the fact that patients wishing to do so are facing irreversible disability and years of dependence on their family members in this case or a painful death in many others, I would say that it can be a rational choice if the patient realizes that there is certain suffering (followed by death) ahead and wishes to die on their own terms.

Don't take this the wrong way, but why do these patients get the "luxury" of deciding how to die on their own terms when many, many other people do not? Where's the cutoff as to who does and does not qualify for assisted suicide?