Why can a pet be put down, but a person cannot willingly?

[Simplify]

---

Members do not see this ad.

you can be opposed to PAS, that's fine and I totally respect that opinion. I cannot respect your stubborn and WRONG insistence that euthanasia = PAS (I realize that you couldn't care less whether some total stranger on a message board respects you🙂).

It's all a matter of perception. We'll have to agree to disagree, but realize that I think you are wrong for trying to use semantics to separate euthanasia from PAS. They are one and the same. PAS is nothing more than a euphemism! In order to morally justify euthanasia it is, of course, necessary to separate the two which is exactly what proponents of PAS have done.

 

[shawnpl]

you can be opposed to PAS, that's fine and I totally respect that opinion. I cannot respect your stubborn and WRONG insistence that euthanasia = PAS (I realize that you couldn't care less whether some total stranger on a message board respects you🙂).

What you just said there means that he does care whether some total stranger on a message board respects you. Fix your grammar son!

 

[OldSchooler]

What you just said there means that he does care whether some total stranger on a message board respects you. Fix your grammar son!

Sorry, couldn't let this slide. The phrase 'couldn't care less' was used correctly in this instance. The person cares so little (approaching 0) that it is impossible for him to care any less, because a smaller amount of care does not exist.

Please don't tell me you would prefer the phrase 'could care less,' because that implies that the person does care, as there are amounts of care below his current state.

 

[Simplify]

^
Truth.

 

[BennieBlanco]

Darn, he stole my idea for a new thread:

"why can't old people be locked up in cages and taken out only occasionally for exercise and bowel movements"

oh wait, they aren't animals.

 

[greatnt249]

the PAS laws, where they exist, make it lawful for a physician to provide certain patients with the means to end their own lives.

Just because an action is lawful doesn't mean it is ethical.

I feel that unless and until you are in the position of a patient eligible for PAS, you truly cannot say what is "right" or "wrong" and that patient autonomy and dignity must be the primary considerations.

Patient autonomy is merely the right of the patient to refuse treatment a treatment he/she does not wish to receive (to a certain extent); it does not give them the right to use the system as a mere means to an end. If that were the case, one could argue that physicians should be allowed to dispense highly-addictive narcotics to patients in order to support their drug habits. After all, surely getting drugs from a physician is safer than getting them on the streets.

You say that autonomy and dignity must be the primary considerations, yet the decision as to whether a patient is "allowed" to kill him/herself is left entirely up to a third-party system. I simply don't understand why this should be a burden of the healthcare system when killing yourself is ultimately your decision to make, regardless of whether a third-party system tells you if you qualify or not. Nobody answered my question as to what advantages PAS offers to the patient as opposed to the patient taking this responsibility into his/her own hands.

 

[InquisitiveGuy]

A point most of us are failing to realize is that often the suffering people in question are physically unable to commit self-euthanasia, despite desiring too.

 

[shiftingmirage]

"why can't old people be locked up in cages and taken out only occasionally for exercise and bowel movements"

Crap. Is that not allowed? Great uncle Jebediah enjoys his basement living arrangements. There's some sunlight peeking through the cracked foundation walls.

 

[shiftingmirage]

Nobody answered my question as to what advantages PAS offers to the patient as opposed to the patient taking this responsibility into his/her own hands.

I'm going to assume PAS is painless, and if it isn't it is less painful than starvation, hanging, drowning... etc. It also preserves the body so that if the family wants an open casket funeral, they can have one.

 

[shawnpl]

Sorry, couldn't let this slide. The phrase 'couldn't care less' was used correctly in this instance. The person cares so little (approaching 0) that it is impossible for him to care any less, because a smaller amount of care does not exist.

Please don't tell me you would prefer the phrase 'could care less,' because that implies that the person does care, as there are amounts of care below his current state.

Crap, that makes sense🙁. Haha, I just got owned. Well, thanks for pointing that out to me, apparently I need to fix my grammar instead 🙂.

 

[Bacchus]

What's the difference between a patient whose quality of life is obliterated by emotional pain versus that of a patient with physical pain?

We just started school, so I obviously don't know everything about the treatment of depression. However, there is a point where quality of life is diminished by the treatment modalities for pain management. I'd assume this could happen with depression control, but at a lesser extent. This is just my "guess."

 

[kia ora]

Just because an action is lawful doesn't mean it is ethical.

Nobody answered my question as to what advantages PAS offers to the patient as opposed to the patient taking this responsibility into his/her own hands.

I haven't been debating the ethics here. certainly your statement re: legal =/=ethical is true, but there's little room for debate as to whether an action is legal or not. it is or it isn't (within a given jurisdiction). wrt one particular action, however, reasonable minds can differ as to whether it is "ethical" or not. it's very subjective

as for "advantages," I suspect that most people do not know how to kill themselves properly. initially it seems that it wouldn't be so difficult a task, yet many methods are messy and if one is unsuccessful, one might end up worse off than he was to begin with. wrt suicide via some type of drug, most people don't have the practical knowledge to determine what type/dosage of drugs will successfully complete the job, nor is it always easy to obtain the drugs. all of these things certainly are considerably more difficult for a terminally ill patient. this is where having a physician prescribe the lethal dosage confers an "advantage." also, there is a stigma associated with suicide and it may be argued that the stigma is lessened if the law sanctions the suicide

 

[Bacchus]

This. Additionally, the number of people who actually take advantage of the Oregon and Washington statutes is very small; the recurring theme seems to be that people feel better knowing that they have the option if they so choose.

And PAS is still (technically) illegal in the Netherlands, but it isn't prosecuted.

We finally agree on something. *marks calendar*

 

[greatnt249]

I'm going to assume PAS is painless, and if it isn't it is less painful than starvation, hanging, drowning... etc. It also preserves the body so that if the family wants an open casket funeral, they can have one.

I gathered that; however, there are other painless ways of committing suicide that don't necessitate a prescription to do so.

It just doesn't make sense for the healthcare system to determine a patient's quality of life for him/her, and then at the same time use quality-of-life assessments to determine whether or not a patient qualifies for PAS.

If a patient is going to make the decision to terminate his/her life, that's his/her prerogative; they shouldn't have to need the resources that a third-party conditionally supplies in order to accomplish their end goal.

 

[Bacchus]

I haven't been debating the ethics here. certainly your statement re: legal =/=ethical is true, but there's little room for debate as to whether an action is legal or not. it is or it isn't (within a given jurisdiction). wrt one particular action, however, reasonable minds can differ as to whether it is "ethical" or not. it's very subjective

as for "advantages," I suspect that most people do not know how to kill themselves properly. initially it seems that it wouldn't be so difficult a task, yet many methods are messy and if one is unsuccessful, one might end up worse off than he was to begin with. wrt suicide via some type of drug, most people don't have the practical knowledge to determine what type/dosage of drugs will successfully complete the job, nor is it always easy to obtain the drugs. all of these things certainly are considerably more difficult for a terminally ill patient. this is where having a physician prescribe the lethal dosage confers an "advantage." also, there is a stigma associated with suicide and it may be argued that the stigma is lessened if the law sanctions the suicide

PAS is suicide. Litigation separates it (for the beneficiaries), but it is suicide. I admit that, as a supporter. One positive is indeed that PAS is less "messy" than most conventional suicide methods. Barbiturates are prescribed and the person goes into respiratory arrest and then cardiac arrest through, I believe, muscle relaxation. Any person should be guaranteed the control of his life and by allowing PAS, its just own more way to have that control. As far as stigma, I do view some reasons of suicide as selfish and nothing more. However, my beliefs don't allow PAS into that category. If anything, PAS allows for one to maintain autonomy over his body and die on his own terms (within respect of the law).

 

[Bacchus]

I gathered that; however, there are other painless ways of committing suicide that don't necessitate a prescription to do so.

It just doesn't make sense for the healthcare system to determine a patient's quality of life for him/her, and then at the same time use quality-of-life assessments to determine whether or not a patient qualifies for PAS.

If a patient is going to make the decision to terminate his/her life, that's his/her prerogative; they shouldn't have to need the resources that a third-party conditionally supplies in order to accomplish their end goal.

The problem isn't the healthcare system. It is the legal system. I don't view it as a problem anyway since there is terrific oversight for PAS. But, if you must find fault, it is the legislation that is impinging on the person, not the healthcare industry. The healthcare industry is evaluating the patient for the legal criteria set forth by state legislatures.

 

[greatnt249]

We just started school, so I obviously don't know everything about the treatment of depression. However, there is a point where quality of life is diminished by the treatment modalities for pain management. I'd assume this could happen with depression control, but at a lesser extent. This is just my "guess."

I agree with you on this assessment; I just don't think it's fair to the patients in question to establish a system with arbitrary cutoff points in determining who does and does not qualify for PAS.

 

[DrSno]

I agree. Also, why can animals be owned, but people can't willingly sell themselves into slavery?

In addition, we eat animals, and I think people should be eaten too if they so choose.

Humans are animals.

Why is it that cats purr but animals don't?

Why do giraffes have very long necks but animals don't?

Those sentences don't sound correct do they?

 

[LiveUninhibited]

It's all a matter of perception. We'll have to agree to disagree, but realize that I think you are wrong for trying to use semantics to separate euthanasia from PAS. They are one and the same. PAS is nothing more than a euphemism! In order to morally justify euthanasia it is, of course, necessary to separate the two which is exactly what proponents of PAS have done.

Objectively, the distinction is procedural. In one case the doctor actively kills the patient (euthanasia, e.g. terminal sedation). In the other case, the doctor prescribes a lethal dose of barbiturates that the patient self-administers. Just because you consider them morally equivalent doesn't make them equivalent procedurally. A procedural difference is sufficient to say they are not exactly the same and have separate phrases/words to describe them.

A point most of us are failing to realize is that often the suffering people in question are physically unable to commit self-euthanasia, despite desiring too.

Yeah, offing yourself without a lethal dose of barbiturates is likely going to be more difficult and painful. You can slit your wrists, but that would hurt more and is more complex to do correctly than taking pills. You're likely not mobile enough to get to a cliff. They might not own a gun. And most methods of poisoning are really painful, right?

I gathered that; however, there are other painless ways of committing suicide that don't necessitate a prescription to do so.

It just doesn't make sense for the healthcare system to determine a patient's quality of life for him/her, and then at the same time use quality-of-life assessments to determine whether or not a patient qualifies for PAS.

If a patient is going to make the decision to terminate his/her life, that's his/her prerogative; they shouldn't have to need the resources that a third-party conditionally supplies in order to accomplish their end goal.

It is my understanding that PAS in OR/WA is patient-initiated, so it is the patient who initially deems their own quality of end-of-life unacceptable, and then when they are unable to do it cleanly for themselves for reasons I mentioned above, they are sometimes given assistance via lethal rx. The fact that it is used infrequently reflects the limited circumstances in which both of those problems with regular suicide apply.

Humans are animals.

Why is it that cats purr but animals don't?

Why do giraffes have very long necks but animals don't?

Those sentences don't sound correct do they?

Semantics. They obviously mean non-human animals and it is generally assumed that humans are more sophisticated than other animals in a morally relevant way.

 

[Simplify]

You're rehashing arguments from other posters. I already stated plainly that I see no moral, legal or philosophical distinction between handing a suicidal person a gun or a lethal prescription. Nothing you can say will morally justify the action, and pretending that you can makes you look presumptuous.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

You're rehashing arguments from other posters. I already stated plainly that I see no moral, legal or philosophical distinction between handing a suicidal person a gun or a lethal prescription. Nothing you can say will morally justify the action, and pretending that you can makes you look presumptuous.

Well they didn't say the difference was procedural even if they implied it. Procedural doesn't necessarily fall under moral, legal, or even philosophical distinctions. For example, say two different people murdered somebody. One of them shot their victim to death and we refer to this as a shooting. The other one chopped their head off with an axe, and we refer to that as decapitation. There is no moral, legal, or philosophical distinction between their acts, but rather a procedural one. One did a decapitation, the other did a shooting. So is decapitation a euphemism for a shooting? Um, no. They may be morally and legally equivalent but they are not the same thing because they are different procedures.

 

[BennieBlanco]

Crap. Is that not allowed? Great uncle Jebediah enjoys his basement living arrangements. There's some sunlight peeking through the cracked foundation walls.

Don't worry, your secret is safe here. Just double his play time from now on and we'll be quiet.

 

[BennieBlanco]

Sorry, couldn't let this slide. The phrase 'couldn't care less' was used correctly in this instance. The person cares so little (approaching 0) that it is impossible for him to care any less, because a smaller amount of care does not exist.

Please don't tell me you would prefer the phrase 'could care less,' because that implies that the person does care, as there are amounts of care below his current state.

I could care less about this thread. There is a tiny bit of care in me.

 

[BennieBlanco]

I learn all my ethics and moral platitudes from SDN.

 

[OldSchooler]

Crap, that makes sense🙁. Haha, I just got owned. Well, thanks for pointing that out to me, apparently I need to fix my grammar instead 🙂.

No worries, 'could care less' is quite commonly used now days anyway. I just can't stop myself from commenting on word/phrase usage when I have the chance. And I'm sure there are tons of grammatical errors in my posts.

 

[Near]

I agree. Also, why can animals be owned, but people can't willingly sell themselves into slavery?

In addition, we eat animals, and I think people should be eaten too if they so choose.

Lol, you can. It's called working for free.

Some countries and cultures allow cannibalism...

 

[greatnt249]

Some countries and cultures allow cannibalism...

Yeah, after the person being eaten has already died. I don't know of any countries/cultures that allow/sanction premeditated murder just for the sake of food.