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

[InquisitiveGuy]

---

Members do not see this ad.

After thinking about it and prompted by this short article by a DVM: http://vetmedicine.about.com/od/lossandgrief/f/FAQ_euthanasia.htm

I am wondering why can't people in hospices and nursing homes, ect willingly undergo the process of euthanasia?

Having work in a nursing home, I have seen people having a terrible existence day after day, frequently stating along the lines of "I want to die", or "They won't let me die". Of course the nursing staff says "you don't mean that" and force feeds them anyhow.

Another consideration is the healthcare costs of keeping these suffering people alive.

What a screwed up system...I'm skydiving without a parachute if I'm ever teetering on the point of a nursing home.

 

[Simplify]

I'm not going to debate the merits, but you can in the state of Oregon.

 

[KeyzerSoze]

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.

 

[Compass]

If you get asked this as a moral dilemma, I feel sorry for you. No amount of textbook preparation will allow you to answer this with confidence.

 

[shiftingmirage]

In the eyes of the law, pets are properties. If someone assaults a pet on purpose, one cannot get pain and suffering because the pet is property. It would be like someone breaking your stereo and suing for pain and suffering.

Why can't a person die willingly? First do no harm. It is basically unethical for a physician to take actions that negatively affect a patient without the possibility of a future recovery. I'm going to look for it, but I heard that the AMA or another physician group fought successfully against physicians implimenting the death penalty. A tech administers the drugs, and the physician is only there to state the time of death.

 

[shawnpl]

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.

Holy crap, I hope you're joking.

 

[MedMan25]

Holy crap, I hope you're joking.

I think that post was intended to point out how ridiculous it is to compare animals to humans...

 

[Compass]

I will not link to it, but if you look up "Armin Meiwes" you will get some interesting stuff on Wiki...

 

[LiveUninhibited]

People in nursing homes wanting to die just makes me more convinced we need to change Medicare's policy of only covering skilled care. There are very few places to both save money and reduce suffering, but this is one of them, and it would simply require financing custodial unskilled home care. If the person can be taken care of at home they should be, but often the skilled-care-only policy forces people into nursing homes prematurely. Home care is much cheaper than nursing home care.

In the eyes of the law, pets are properties. If someone assaults a pet on purpose, one cannot get pain and suffering because the pet is property. It would be like someone breaking your stereo and suing for pain and suffering.

The law has no consistency on this. You can get put in prison for being cruel to an animal, but you can go to the vet and have your animal put down. We eat some animals, yet others are treated like children in the family. It's all subject to the whims of irrational cultural standards.

Why can't a person die willingly? First do no harm. It is basically unethical for a physician to take actions that negatively affect a patient without the possibility of a future recovery. I'm going to look for it, but I heard that the AMA or another physician group fought successfully against physicians implimenting the death penalty. A tech administers the drugs, and the physician is only there to state the time of death.

But harm should be defined by the patient. Forcing somebody to endure pain or indignity might be considered cruel from some perspectives.

 

[kia ora]

I'm not going to debate the merits, but you can in the state of Oregon.

this is inaccurate. the Oregon law provides for physician-assisted suicide (this is NOT the same thing as euthanasia - if anyone thinks they are the same thing, do some research - if you are planning to interview at med schools maybe you should know the difference, it may come up) and it is applicable only if certain criteria are met. the biggest one is that the person requesting PAS must have a terminal illness and must have been designated by a physician to have only a short time left to live (I think it is 6 months, too lazy to look it up at the moment).

a similar law was passed in Washington State last year

I believe that euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, but again, too lazy to look it up

 

[BlueElmo]

Euthanasia is illegal in every state in the U.S. What you guys are taking about is physician-aid-in-dying. In this system, the doctor provides lethal medication to the patient, but the patient must administer the drug himself.

Why is euthanasia illegal and why is physician-aid-in-dying (PAD) debated? Because for me, the sanctity of life comes before all else. Every life is precious and I do not condone taking of life, even if it means relieving suffering. Obviously, other people will have different opinions.

There is also the potential for abuse. End-of-life care and palliative care are much more expensive than simply euthanizing a terminally ill patient. As a cost containment strategy, it can lead to a slippery slope. Burdened family members and health care providers can encourage their loved ones and patients to choosing death. Laws can be passed that will try to prevent this, but there is no doubt some cases will slip through the net. No legislation will be 100% effective in catching these instances.

The integrity of the medical profession. The Hippocratic Oath says, "I will not administer poison", "I will do no harm." There are ethical traditions against taking of lives, which is why AMA is against euthanasia and PAD. When the public starts to see a health professional aiding people in dying, the image of medicine as a profession of healing will be tarnished. The integrity of the medical profession will be called into question.

These are some of the reasons why I'm against PAD. But there are also arguments that are for PAD, which are also legitimate IMO.

 

[zayka]

The short answer is that animals do not possess the same rights as humans do (and humans sentenced to capital punishment lose those rights). One of these is the "Right to Life" or something along those lines. Euthanasia goes against that right, hence it is not legal. I do believe that this needs to be qualified so that individuals who are suffering terribly can waive this right and choose euthanasia, but that means amending the constitution and will be a difficult/lengthy process. Also, how do we define "suffering terribly"?

Giving a patient "extra" morphine, to "ease the pain", but simultaneously slow down breathing, possibly causing death is a way to indirectly give him/her euthanasia and technically is not against the constitution and is legal in some states.

 

[shiftingmirage]

The law has no consistency on this. You can get put in prison for being cruel to an animal, but you can go to the vet and have your animal put down. We eat some animals, yet others are treated like children in the family. It's all subject to the whims of irrational cultural standards.

True. There are lots of...inconsistencies in the law. What's the saying, the govt wants it's cake and eats it too?

If for religious reasons, you don't want to get a procedure done, then no procedure. But if your child needs the procedure, the court will override the parents and consent to the procedure. Even if the parents have been deeply religious since birth, and the kid too doesn't want it because of religious reasons. So the govt will intervene basically obstructing the family's religious freedoms. On the other hand, lots of religious things are legal, where if they weren't in the name of religion, they wouldn't be. Take circumcision. If it wasn't a religious practice, it would be child abuse, and probably sexual assault.

[Note - I'm not saying these religious practices are good or bad, just that the law does contradict itself]

But harm should be defined by the patient. Forcing somebody to endure pain or indignity might be considered cruel from some perspectives.

But we often, maybe even always, define someone who wants to hurt themselves, regardless of the circumstances, as someone who is not mentally sound. Once you're labeled as not mentally sound, you cannot make your own medical decisions.

I'm not going to debate the merits, but you can in the state of Oregon.

I'll look for a stat, but I though I heard like 60% of the people that get the pills don't even take them, but they were happy they had the option too. It was like they were gaining control of their life back.

Found some numbers. They are older, but stats none the less.

first number - year
second number- # people given PAS drugs in Oregon
Third number - # of people who took the drugs

98 -24 - 16
99 - 33 - 27
00 - 39 - 27
01 - 44 - 21
02 - 58 - 38
03 - 67 - not listed

http://www.euthanasia.com/deaths2003.html
http://www.euthanasia.com/oregon2003.html

 

[Bacchus]

If you want stats, go to the Oregon Department of Health Services website. Oregonian law mandates statistics be published for each year, excluding the current year, explaining the outcomes, cause of death, terminal disease, etc.

To the poster above that said PAS=/=Euthanasia, thank you! 🙂 Oregon's law = Washington's Law (in essence) but neither = the Netherlands.

 

[shawnpl]

Why is euthanasia illegal and why is physician-aid-in-dying (PAD) debated? Because for me, the sanctity of life comes before all else. Every life is precious and I do not condone taking of life, even if it means relieving suffering. Obviously, other people will have different opinions.

So if someone is in excruciating(not sure if thats how its spelled) pain everyday of their lives, is in a wheelchair, has to be fed through a tube, and everyday says that they want to just be put out of their misery, you wouldn't even consider helping them? I do agree with what you said later in your post, but this statement here makes no sense to me. If they're suffering, why would you not want to help them.

Sorry, that post was way more d**che like than I thought it would be. I'm just wondering the reason behind your opinion, sorry if I seemed like a prick.

 

[Bacchus]

So if someone is in excruciating(not sure if thats how its spelled) pain everyday of their lives, is in a wheelchair, has to be fed through a tube, and everyday says that they want to just be put out of their misery, you wouldn't even consider helping them? I do agree with what you said later in your post, but this statement here makes no sense to me. If they're suffering, why would you not want to help them.

You would be tried for murder (probably in the 1st degree.) I don't agree with a lack of PAS, but do recognize that the law must be upheld regardless of my own biases.

 

[BlueElmo]

So if someone is in excruciating(not sure if thats how its spelled) pain everyday of their lives, is in a wheelchair, has to be fed through a tube, and everyday says that they want to just be put out of their misery, you wouldn't even consider helping them? I do agree with what you said later in your post, but this statement here makes no sense to me. If they're suffering, why would you not want to help them.

I guess if it's excruciating pain and suffering and there is zero hope for the patient, then there may be no choice other than to administer lethal medication. But other than that extreme case, I am adamantly against it.

 

[Compass]

I guess if it's excruciating pain and suffering and there is zero hope for the patient, then there may be no choice other than to administer lethal medication. But other than that extreme case, I am adamantly against it.

What's defined as extreme pain?


11/10 on the pain scale?
10/10?
9/10?
Constant 5/10 pain that occurs even during sleep?
3/10 pain that prevents you from sleeping?
1/10 pain?
Pain in a limb you no longer have that constantly reminds you of your limb loss?
No pain at all, but paralyzed from neck down?

And a way out:

Case-by-case?

 

[Bacchus]

The pain scale isn't a good measurement and shouldn't be used. We just use it because JCAHO wants us to.

 

[Compass]

The pain scale isn't a good measurement and shouldn't be used. We just use it because JCAHO wants us to.

Of course it isn't. I have a hard time describing debilitating pain in words, though. Usually it comes out as "OWOWOWOWOW" or "Dull"

 

[shawnpl]

I guess if it's excruciating pain and suffering and there is zero hope for the patient, then there may be no choice other than to administer lethal medication. But other than that extreme case, I am adamantly against it.

Ah, ok I thought you were completely against it no matter what. Ya, I agree with you though, only the worst cases.

You would be tried for murder (probably in the 1st degree.) I don't agree with a lack of PAS, but do recognize that the law must be upheld regardless of my own biases.

Obviously I would never do it if it was against the law, I was talking about doing it if it was allowed. While I would be very sad that I wouldnt be able to help someone who wanted to die, I wouldnt break the law to do it.

 

[BlueElmo]

Ah, ok I thought you were completely against it no matter what. Ya, I agree with you though, only the worst cases.

My wording was ambiguous sorry.🙄

 

[MN premed]

This title definitely caught my eye, because I love animals so much (no, I'm not even close to a vegetarian), and I would have loved to be a vet if I wouldn't have to euthanize animals. I feel that sometimes people do not euthanize their pets for the right reasons, and I would not be able to deal with that. So, honestly, thats probably the only reason I didn't choose to be pre-vet... 🙄

However, I have nothing against physician-assisted suicide. Don't know if I would be okay performing it though.

 

[greatnt249]

But harm should be defined by the patient.

Should it really?

 

[BerlinDude]

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.

HA! That is actually the first thing I thought when I saw the thread heading.

Anyone who says "There is no such thing as a stupid question" should be asked the OP's question.

 

[BerlinDude]

Should it really?

No, harm should not be defined by the patient. Anyone suggesting otherwise has very little experience in health care.

 

[greatnt249]

No, harm should not be defined by the patient. Anyone suggesting otherwise has very little experience in health care.

Exactly my point; what good does a health consult do if the patient, in their infinite wisdom, winds up making arbitrary decisions contrary to evidence-based medicine?

There's a difference between patient exercising their right to refuse treatment (to a reasonable extent) and their ability to dictate terms from the healthcare system.

 

[BerlinDude]

Exactly my point; what good does a health consult do if the patient, in their infinite wisdom, winds up making arbitrary decisions contrary to evidence-based medicine?

There's a difference between patient exercising their right to refuse treatment (to a reasonable extent) and their ability to dictate terms from the healthcare system.

Not only that, but there are patients with a host of psychological problems that makes them demand things that are clearly harmful. Everything from depressed patients who want to commit suicide (as the thread is about), or addicts who want harmful drugs, or paranoid patients who want you to take that government chip out of their teeth.

 

[Bacchus]

Not only that, but there are patients with a host of psychological problems that makes them demand things that are clearly harmful. Everything from depressed patients who want to commit suicide (as the thread is about), or addicts who want harmful drugs, or paranoid patients who want you to take that government chip out of their teeth.

Depressed patients are not litigated to pursue PAS.

 

[266549]

So if someone is in excruciating(not sure if thats how its spelled) pain everyday of their lives, is in a wheelchair, has to be fed through a tube, and everyday says that they want to just be put out of their misery, you wouldn't even consider helping them? I do agree with what you said later in your post, but this statement here makes no sense to me. If they're suffering, why would you not want to help them.

Sorry, that post was way more d**che like than I thought it would be. I'm just wondering the reason behind your opinion, sorry if I seemed like a prick.

didn't this happen on House once or twice? they gave some old professor who had written some huge textbook a lethal dose of morphine? i think it was that girl from the first couple seasons who was brunette but then went blonde...ps remember that episode where she took meth after thinking she might have aids and hooked up with the aussie? that was a good episode.

 

[CoolWhipp]

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.

I needed this laugh today. Thank you. 👍.

 

[shawnpl]

didn't this happen on House once or twice? they gave some old professor who had written some huge textbook a lethal dose of morphine? i think it was that girl from the first couple seasons who was brunette but then went blonde...ps remember that episode where she took meth after thinking she might have aids and hooked up with the aussie? that was a good episode.

Lol, the girls name is Cameron, only one of the stars of the show, and the aussies name is Chase. But ya, that was a good episode.

 

[greatnt249]

Depressed patients are not litigated to pursue PAS.

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

 

[JokerMD]

based on what I hear from others, the best answer to this question is that you are against euthanasia/PAS. This is because most of your interviewers will probably be from old-school medicine which is against these practices.

This is just what I have heard from others, so please correct me if I'm way off. But if asked, I think what matters is how you justify your position, not your actual position. I personally am having trouble justifying PAS to myself...

 

[BerlinDude]

based on what I hear from others, the best answer to this question is that you are against euthanasia/PAS. This is because most of your interviewers will probably be from old-school medicine which is against these practices.

This is just what I have heard from others, so please correct me if I'm way off. But if asked, I think what matters is how you justify your position, not your actual position. I personally am having trouble justifying PAS to myself...

Yea, that's definitely the right way to go. Euthanasia/PAS is not one of those ethically grey areas where there is no right or wrong answer. The law and ethics of the medical field are clear here. Besides, I think anyone who supports euthanasia is dangerous with an MD.

 

[266549]

Lol, the girls name is Cameron, only one of the stars of the show, and the aussies name is Chase. But ya, that was a good episode.

sorry, due to the mcat i rarely watch tv anymore. 🙁

but seriously didn't it happen on house? they were really upset because he was in a lot a pain and he was like *longing look* please let me die!!!! and cameron was like *anguished look* *pressed lips* ehhhhhhh *pushes morphine through drip*

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Should it really?

Well, when it comes to their goals and what procedures they want done, but maybe not when it comes to malpractice. 🙂

Exactly my point; what good does a health consult do if the patient, in their infinite wisdom, winds up making arbitrary decisions contrary to evidence-based medicine?

There's a difference between patient exercising their right to refuse treatment (to a reasonable extent) and their ability to dictate terms from the healthcare system.

Based upon a medical ethics books I read a few months ago, the physician's role is to tell the patient what is going to happen if they choose whatever options are available (or the relative odds of different outcomes), whether that be no treatment, treatment A, or treatment B. The paternalistic role only comes into play if the patient is incapacitated or mentally incompetent to process your disclosures.

based on what I hear from others, the best answer to this question is that you are against euthanasia/PAS. This is because most of your interviewers will probably be from old-school medicine which is against these practices.

As has been said by others, PAS =/= euthanasia. Euthanasia is doctor-administered suicide and they do it in the Netherlands, often in lieu of palliative care. The biggest concern with it is it opens up the possibility of involuntary euthanasia, which resembles murder more than suicide. In PAS, they generally prescribe a lethal dose of a drug and the patient takes it themselves. This is after the patient has been evaluated by a psychiatrist, and only when the patient has less than 6 months to live per terminal illness. Under carefully supervised conditions such as this to prevent abuse, I see no problem with allowing patients to choose the terms of their death instead of slowly dwindle from terminal illness. Also important to understand that dignity is usually a bigger issue than pain management in these circumstances.

Another thing to consider is whether PAS is really worse than letting them die by withdrawing treatment, which is the usual mode of death?

At one end of the ethical spectrum, end-of-life care includes withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment, which is now legally and ethically accepted in the United States and which precedes up to 84% of hospital deaths. At the other extreme is voluntary euthanasia, in which the physician ends the patient's life at his request…

Gillick, Muriel MD. "Terminal Sedation: An Acceptable Exit Strategy?" Annals of Internal Medicine. 141-3 (2004): 236-237.

This is just what I have heard from others, so please correct me if I'm way off. But if asked, I think what matters is how you justify your position, not your actual position. I personally am having trouble justifying PAS to myself...

That part is correct, particularly if they happen to disagree with you. Try to say the merits of both sides but choose one.

 

[BlueElmo]

based on what I hear from others, the best answer to this question is that you are against euthanasia/PAS. This is because most of your interviewers will probably be from old-school medicine which is against these practices.

This is just what I have heard from others, so please correct me if I'm way off. But if asked, I think what matters is how you justify your position, not your actual position. I personally am having trouble justifying PAS to myself...

What I heard too.

 

[Quix]

If you want stats, go to the Oregon Department of Health Services website. Oregonian law mandates statistics be published for each year, excluding the current year, explaining the outcomes, cause of death, terminal disease, etc.

To the poster above that said PAS=/=Euthanasia, thank you! 🙂 Oregon's law = Washington's Law (in essence) but neither = the Netherlands.

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.

 

[Simplify]

Euthanasia is illegal in every state in the U.S. What you guys are taking about is physician-aid-in-dying.

I don't think you know what euthanasia means. Physician assisted suicide is a euphemism for euthanasia.

 

[BlueElmo]

I don't think you know what euthanasia means. Physician assisted suicide is a euphemism for euthanasia.

No. Read what I wrote more carefully. I made a distinction between euthanasia and physician-aid-in dying(PAD). Like I wrote, euthanasia is when a third-party directly administers lethal medication to a patient who requests it. PAD is when a doctor provides medication to his patient but the patient must adminster the drug himself.

Check it out online, I don't think you understand the issue here.

 

[greatnt249]

Based upon a medical ethics books I read a few months ago, the physician's role is to tell the patient what is going to happen if they choose whatever options are available (or the relative odds of different outcomes), whether that be no treatment, treatment A, or treatment B. The paternalistic role only comes into play if the patient is incapacitated or mentally incompetent to process your disclosures.

I'm not arguing for the paternalistic model; I am, however, arguing that patient autonomy does not equal the ability to demand whatever you want from the healthcare system.

I guess what I'm most concerned about is the fact that a patient has to get the "go-ahead" from medical practitioners before being allowed to terminate his/her life. This implies that there's a set point after which the patient is qualified for PAS, whereas before that point they are not. This begs the following question: why is it up to a third party to determine whether someone is qualified to kill themselves? What advantages does PAS offer as opposed to letting someone off themselves in the privacy of their own home? After all, doing that doesn't necessitate permission from anybody.

By the way, it's rather silly to argue the morality of PAS by providing examples of systems currently in place. Just because a process is legal does not necessarily make it ethical.

 

[kia ora]

No. Read what I wrote more carefully. I made a distinction between euthanasia and physician-aid-in dying(PAD). Like I wrote, euthanasia is when a third-party directly administers lethal medication to a patient who requests it. PAD is when a doctor provides medication to his patient but the patient must adminster the drug himself.

Check it out online, I don't think you understand the issue here.

yes. simplify, you misunderstand. do some research into the issues before you go telling others that they don't understand. the distinction between euthanasia and PAS (or PAD) is a key one. euthanasia = for example, what veteranarians do. the vet physicially (via injection) administers medication to an animal; the animal's death results from this medication. PAS = a physician prescribes medication to a patient who has been found to meet strict criteria; the patient must administer the medication (I believe it's most always medication that is taken by mouth) to him/herself. per the existing laws re: PAS (OR and WA only, in the US) no one but the patient may administer the meds. if a patient is, say, quadriplegic and physically is unable to put the meds into his own mouth, even if he meets all other criteria for PAS, he is not eligible. the physician does not administer the meds directly to the patient, s/he writes the prescription. that's it

anyhow, my point is that they are NOT the same thing and you need to educate yourself wrt the issues, rather than talking out of your elbow (or some other body part)

 

[Simplify]

They are, by definition, the same thing. Legal semantics and euphemisms don't change that one iota. Providing means for a patient to provide themselves a painless death is still euthanasia. If you put a gun in the hand of a suicidal person and they pull the trigger you'd be legally culpable. This is the exact same scenario only with a different backdrop.

 

[Quix]

They are, by definition, the same thing. Legal semantics and euphemisms don't change that one iota. Providing means for a patient to provide themselves a painless death is still euthanasia. If you put a gun in the hand of a suicidal person and they pull the trigger you'd be legally culpable. This is the exact same scenario only with a different backdrop.

No, that's simply not the case. This kind of simplistic reasoning overlooks meaningful differences (both linguistically and ethically).

Direct killing is very different than physician-assisted suicide. In fact, there are at least eight significant categories which all produce a dead patient, but they are in no ways comparable.

Direct and indirect suicide are agent-specific (i.e., the patient is the one who pulls the trigger or hits the plunger on the needle). There are also variants on active vs. passive and voluntary vs. nonvoluntary vs. involuntary euthanasia. The fact that a patient ends up dead does not mean that the actions performed to reach that point are ethically equivalent.

 

[BlueElmo]

They are, by definition, the same thing. Legal semantics and euphemisms don't change that one iota. Providing means for a patient to provide themselves a painless death is still euthanasia. If you put a gun in the hand of a suicidal person and they pull the trigger you'd be legally culpable. This is the exact same scenario only with a different backdrop.

Do you know how to read? Or are you just being stubborn?

 

[Simplify]

Are you just listening to what people have told you? Have you ever entertained the definition of the word?

 

[Simplify]

Direct killing is very different than physician-assisted suicide. In fact, there are at least eight significant categories which all produce a dead patient, but they are in no ways comparable.

My scenario does not contain direct killing.

 

[kia ora]

They are, by definition, the same thing. Legal semantics and euphemisms don't change that one iota. Providing means for a patient to provide themselves a painless death is still euthanasia. If you put a gun in the hand of a suicidal person and they pull the trigger you'd be legally culpable. This is the exact same scenario only with a different backdrop.

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🙂). yes, you may legally be culpable of assisting a suicide if you give a gun to a suicidal person. this is because there are no laws that provide for you to do this. the PAS laws, where they exist, make it lawful for a physician to provide certain patients with the means to end their own lives. you can say that euthanasia = PAS if you want to, but you're only going to sound ignorant when you are involved in any discourse on the matter

on another note, there was a TON of debate over the PAS initiative in WA (and I'm sure in OR) before it was placed on the ballot. even now that it is law, it's still a very contentious issue. there are several pars of the statute that I find problematic, but that's a discussion for another time and, probably, place. the statute is not perfect; it is the result of a lot of compromise. and as someone pointed out several posts back, one of the biggest aspects of the whole issue is the dignity and autonomy of the patient. 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. maybe my thoughts on this will change once I am a physician, who knows. but I at least try to educate myself on the issues and I will continue to do so.

anyhow, thanks to all for an interesting (and mostly civil) thread

 

[RogueUnicorn]

doesn't the oath kind of take out the possibility of euthanasia in general?