|
I'm for it, not just in terminal illness cases but in severe disability which precludes any quality of life such as quadraplegia at the C1 or C2 level, severe stroke impairment that will not improve, etc. It isn't really possible for all patients to do it by themselves because some are physically unable to obtain the means.
I'm also pro-hospice, but have seen people suffer up until the very last minute, even while hospice was trying to keep them comfortable. If pain is so great that no pain meds can touch it and a patient is terminal and conscious, it's a pretty awful situation.
I also think "do no harm" can be interpreted a lot of ways. I also struggle with the religious arguments against it. The argument I usually hear is that it is "playing God" and such things should be left up to God. But I never hear that argument go in the other direction. Most (not all) are ok with taking all kinds of medical extreme measures to prolong a life. Isn't this playing God too? Where do we draw that line? People used to die from all kinds of infections that we now treat easily with penicillin. People died of heart problems that are much more easily treated now. If our time and manner of death is all predetermined, then why treat anything? For these reasons, I don't buy into that argument. I just can't understand where the line is. It's one of my first questions for Him when I die. (I have a whole list of these types of questions)
These are all reasons why it is important for people to have patient advocates and Living Wills, if they feel strongly about not being in certain circumstances.
|
Threaded Mode
