The Right to die.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Yes they do. Actually, I was thinking about hospice when I made the comments about other types of medical professionals.

FWIW, none of the friends I have who work or have worked for hospice would call themselves "medical professionals" . . . except, of course, for the ones who are doctors or nurses (and therefore bound by medical ethics).

Originally Posted by AGDee

One could argue that you are doing harm, mental anguish type harm, to someone by forcing them to die a slow, painful and struggling death when a little bit of morphine could hasten the process and keep them peaceful simultaneously. The line between "keeping them comfortable" and killing them is very very fine.

It is, and maybe we're getting into areas of grey here. At least accoring to the Wiki (hey, why not), what you describe is called "passive euthanasia."

Euthanasia may be conducted passively, non-aggressively, and aggressively. Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, pain medications, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death (principle of double effect). Passive euthanasia is the most accepted form, and it is a common practice in most hospitals. Non-aggressive euthanasia entails the withdrawing of life support and is more controversial. Aggressive euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill and is the most controversial means.

The Wiki on Physician Assisted Suicide.

I think that this is quite different from "aggressive euthanasia," which is what I, at least, think of when I hear "physician assisted suicide" -- a terminally ill patient, who by law usually must be of sound mind, makes a conscious decision to commit suicide before the illness puts them in what they consider an untenable quality of life situation and seeks out the help of a physician or medical professional to carry out the suicide painlessly and quickly. It's this later practice I have a problem with.

The Wiki also describes the Principle of double effect here; the description is quite in line with what AOII Angel said above.

[fantASTic]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Having a physician assist in a suicide is asking him/her to disregard the first tenant of medicine "First do no harm."

Can it not be argued that by allowing a patient to live who suffers greatly every day and wishes to not live, the physician is assisting in the harm of that patient?

ETA: I see it was already answered - my bad!

[Tom Earp]

I have it in my will that is binding that I will not be kept alive if there is no hope.

This releives the medical people of any recourse.

Why burden the family if any remaining with medical costs that they cannot afford or want?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

I have it in my will that is binding that I will not be kept alive if there is no hope.

This releives the medical people of any recourse.

Why burden the family if any remaining with medical costs that they cannot afford or want?

I completely agree with you Tom. Our country goes soooo overboard on end of life care. No one knows how to say enough is enough, because so many decisions are made by people that feel too guilty for not doing enough for their parents and can't let go. Universal health care will never work here for this main reason...most medical costs are associated with the last two weeks of life.

[AKA_Monet]

Let me ask you all this question:

Have you EVER "euthanized" ANYTHING beyond a bug yourself? Particularly, a mammal?

If you have, then you should know with that comes responsibilities, that are sometimes difficult to swallow. You cannot do it with cruel intentions and malice and it must always be done with compassion...

Extending it to humans is difficult--especially if one has never seen another human die albeit slowly, painfully or quickly. Then, it is tough to imagine modern burial techniques--i.e. one must still prep the body even if it is to be cremated.

The best anyone can do is not only have a DNR, no code (because my grandmother's was ignored prolonging her painful existence), but also a Physician's Health Directive, POLST form and a living will and trust.

I personally do NOT want any healthcare worker injecting me with any lethal injections of anything even if I am from the Borg Collective... If I die naturally, with minimal pain because of the morphine drip, then hey, K.I.M.

But healthcare worker assisted suicide no matter what the cause--unrealistic in a "civilized society"... We know we can do better. There are some fine scientists working on the concepts of pain management, chronic diseases of the aging, and improvement of the quality of life. We MUST persuade people that we are better and we will improve health and wellness by all means necessary!

Dr. AKA_Monet
Ariafya LLC

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Universal health care will never work here for this main reason...most medical costs are associated with the last two weeks of life.

Do you mind posting the journal to the bolded? Just asking? I had not heard that stat before. But it filters down to us minions over time...

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

I have it in my will that is binding that I will not be kept alive if there is no hope.

Tom, do you really mean your will, and did a lawyer draft the will? I ask only because in my experience (which I'll readily admit doesn't include Kansas), such a directive in your will, which by definition doesn't take effect until after your death, is meaningless. Most states provide for some version of an Advance Health Care Directive, Living Will or Health Care Proxy/Power of Attorney (or a combination of these) to cover these end of life issues.

Maybe I'm off base here, and sorry if I'm stirring things up unnecessarily; just don't want anyone to be relying on something if it won't be effective to carry out their intentions.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Tom, do you really mean your will, and did a lawyer draft the will? I ask only because in my experience (which I'll readily admit doesn't include Kansas), such a directive in your will, which by definition doesn't take effect until after your death, is meaningless. Most states provide for some version of an Advance Health Care Directive, Living Will or Health Care Proxy/Power of Attorney (or a combination of these) to cover these end of life issues.

Maybe I'm off base here, and sorry if I'm stirring things up unnecessarily; just don't want anyone to be relying on something if it won't be effective to carry out their intentions.

What part did you not understand about what I said? It is in my will which is a binding contract that any judge will abide by. He has to because it is The Law!

This is my last will and testiment no matter what.

It is written in stone, notorized, period.

Yes, it is done by a Lawyer who is a Brother of mine.

It was my decission and he abided by the Law of the area.


Sorry mot to be snide as there is a difference than snarky!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

I have it in my will that is binding that I will not be kept alive if there is no hope.

This releives the medical people of any recourse.

Why burden the family if any remaining with medical costs that they cannot afford or want?

You might have signed a lot of things in your lawyer's office when you did your estate plan. I'm pretty sure it couldn't be in your Will. As Mysticat said, Wills typically aren't effective until after death and after being admitted to the probate court.

What you probably signed was an Advance Directive for Health Care -- sometimes called a "Living Will."

These things typically describe what measures can be taken to keep you alive and/or vest the responsibility of determining what to do in another person. It would probably look something like this (although, this is an Oklahoma form):

http://www.okbar.org/public/brochure...ective2006.pdf

*The above is not legal advice.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

As a physician, I am completely opposed to physician assisted suicide but completely supportive of withholding any artificial measures to prolong life if requested by the patient or power of attorney. Having a physician assist in a suicide is asking him/her to disregard the first tenant of medicine "First do no harm."

I would find it more harmful to allow that person to remain in pain and further deteriorate.

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Forever SoCalian
Posts: 4,238
Let me ask you all this question:

Have you EVER "euthanized" ANYTHING beyond a bug yourself? Particularly, a mammal?

If you have, then you should know with that comes responsibilities, that are sometimes difficult to swallow. You cannot do it with cruel intentions and malice and it must always be done with compassion...

Extending it to humans is difficult--especially if one has never seen another human die albeit slowly, painfully or quickly. Then, it is tough to imagine modern burial techniques--i.e. one must still prep the body even if it is to be cremated.

The best anyone can do is not only have a DNR, no code (because my grandmother's was ignored prolonging her painful existence), but also a Physician's Health Directive, POLST form and a living will and trust.

I personally do NOT want any healthcare worker injecting me with any lethal injections of anything even if I am from the Borg Collective... If I die naturally, with minimal pain because of the morphine drip, then hey, K.I.M.

But healthcare worker assisted suicide no matter what the cause--unrealistic in a "civilized society"... We know we can do better. There are some fine scientists working on the concepts of pain management, chronic diseases of the aging, and improvement of the quality of life. We MUST persuade people that we are better and we will improve health and wellness by all means necessary!

Dr. AKA_Monet
Ariafya LLC

And yes, I have euthanized many animals from rodents to dogs and cats to horses. While it is sad, watching the peace come over their face as they're released from their pain is more powerful than the grief.

I would still support any human to have the right to die. No one should be able to tell you that you can't end your suffering.

In many ways, I find our treatment of animals more humane than our treatment of other humans.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by kstar

And yes, I have euthanized many animals from rodents to dogs and cats to horses. While it is sad, watching the peace come over their face as they're released from their pain is more powerful than the grief.

I would still support any human to have the right to die. No one should be able to tell you that you can't end your suffering.

In many ways, I find our treatment of animals more humane than our treatment of other humans.

The question was should licensed healthcare workers be allowed to assist in a human's right to die... If someone wanted to kill himself, guess what! He will find a way to do that by his own hand. It doesn't make it "ethical" or "sound", but the finality of dying is so permanent.

Sure, one suffers and has pain, but life is suffering and painful and for some people it is everyday...

What makes humans different from animals--which is not saying that much--is that animals cannot directly communicate their feelings to humans--we just do not understand them to that point. Animals that cannot live upto expectations will be gleaned from the gene pool by predation.

At this time, humans do not have active predators that hunt us...

ETA: Even if one worked for a slaughterhouse, there are still rules that govern euthanasia of animals and what to do with the carcass afterward...

[kstar]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

The question was should licensed healthcare workers be allowed to assist in a human's right to die... If someone wanted to kill himself, guess what! He will find a way to do that by his own hand. It doesn't make it "ethical" or "sound", but the finality of dying is so permanent.

Sure, one suffers and has pain, but life is suffering and painful and for some people it is everyday...

What makes humans different from animals--which is not saying that much--is that animals cannot directly communicate their feelings to humans--we just do not understand them to that point. Animals that cannot live upto expectations will be gleaned from the gene pool by predation.

At this time, humans do not have active predators that hunt us...

ETA: Even if one worked for a slaughterhouse, there are still rules that govern euthanasia of animals and what to do with the carcass afterward...

I think that the fact that humans can communicate their feelings makes more of a case for allowing human euthanasia.

And not all humans that want to die, can actively participate in killing themselves. There are certain situations and conditions that trap a sane mind in a body that is not capable of ending themselves.

I'm really not sure of what the edit to your post is supposed to mean? I've worked in labs mass euthanizing rodents for medical testing, and in a vet hospital (mixed practice) as an RVT, but I have no clue what you're getting at about slaughterhouses.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by kstar

I think that the fact that humans can communicate their feelings makes more of a case for allowing human euthanasia.

And not all humans that want to die, can actively participate in killing themselves. There are certain situations and conditions that trap a sane mind in a body that is not capable of ending themselves.

I'm really not sure of what the edit to your post is supposed to mean? I've worked in labs mass euthanizing rodents for medical testing, and in a vet hospital (mixed practice) as an RVT, but I have no clue what you're getting at about slaughterhouses.

If you have inspected slaughterhouses for foodstuff meats, they have animal carcasses and blood and organs all of over the place. Yet, no matter how much "gore" is in that area, there is still rules that are followed when killing these animals... One cannot just slam conscious animals bodies against walls.

And even in research laboratories, you still have to be approved to use animals, take classes to handle the animals and you cannot do some euthanasia techniques because it is against OLAW regulations--such as killing mice by slamming their heads against the counter... Hayle it's getting to the point that you cannot toe tag mice that much...

As far as being trapped in a immobilized body unable to communicate. The disabled cannot speak for themselves and require others to speak to them--and I am talking about paraplegics with the unicorn or laser guided writing on a computer. That is illegal to euthanize someone in prison who committed heinous crimes... Why would it be legal on the outside?

But folks who grow old or get into a severe accident or know they have a severe genetic disorder--like Huntington's Disease--then arrangements can be made with appropriate forms. But I do not think they should ask healthcare workers to ASSIST them in dying because of too much pain/suffering...

We will just have to agree to disagree...

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

1. How do you feel about terminally ill or elderly patients requesting a medical facility to terminate their life?

Part of the illness causes depression and several other mental health issues. Some alzheimer patients sometimes become psychotic with the drug treatments. Given the mental disorders that can occur with several illnesses, it would be inherently inhumane to allow this kind of practice in this country.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

2. What is your stance on euthanasia? Is it humane?

In a perfect system, euthanasia in NEVER humane. But given our system and how it's done with animals is to minimize pain and suffering. That gauge is set very high and is not allowed by several laws in place to protect people's human and civil rights.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

3. With considerations to what happened to Terri Schiavo, how do you feel about others making that decision to terminate that life?

Others are not allowed to terminate anyone's life. If you review Ms. Schiavo's case, they essentially unplugged her and she "expired". A husband has the right to make that call. However, if she had survived on her own--i.e. breathing and heart beat, they would have done nothing beyond what was allowable.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

4. Do you have a DNR in place? Would you consider it? Who do you best think would make the right decision?

A DNR order is not going to protect your wishes. ONLY a living will and trust and a health directive will in a court of law.

Think of it this way, you come in from a very bad car accident, you are mangled. Then you cough up blood and you go into cardiac arrest. Would you NOT want the team to put the AED on you because of a DNR order?

What about a routine simple outpatient surgery? For some reason you OD'ed on the Servoquel mix. Do you want them to NOT do all that is in their pharmacopoeia power to revive you--even if it is just enough smelling salts?

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

5. Do you think any kind of legislation that broadens a person's right to take their own life due to terminal illness or age, would make things better or worse for US citizens?

I think it will make things worse for some people. We have a problem with health disparities in this country. And childhood healthcare for ALL children is foul. Mothers are NOT allowed to be with their children 6 weeks after birth, whereas other advanced countries allow upto 2 years of PAID mother leave to care for infants.

Moreover, disabled people get jacked constantly. Let's not even go there with what happens to their insurance and job placement.

And if freedom to die is passed, do not be mentally retarded in this country. You can forget it.

I think our healthcare crises should be fixed first before we start culling our colonies down with people. Yes, there will be exorbitant costs, but I think that will be up front money that will pay off in the future. And to fix healthcare costs will be a dynamic process that will need constant review every 2,3,5,10+ years. I'd rather have a fair and equitable system that what we have now with a bunch of hypochondriacs.

If folks feel the need to kill themselves, then there are plenty of illegal actions that one can do to make that happen.

But, I would not allow any healthcare worker with that kind of power to do it. What would that person LOOK like? The "Angel of Death"?

I think is how one lives his or her life that makes all the difference...

[SWTXBelle]

Wasn't Terri Shchiavo basically denied nutrition and hydration? I believe she was still breathing on her own - she was essentially starved to death.
The husband argued that she was brain dead.That is totally different than not being able to function at all without machines. I think it is barbaric to allow someone to die that way.