Physician assisted suicide

[Aristotle]

I don't consider euthanasia the same as assisted suicide. I do think it matters if you shoot me, or you load the gun and then hand it to me. I see a distinction.

It doesn't matter what you think, the medical board is in agreement that Euthanasia means physician assisted suicide.

What medical board?

Well for starters the California Medical Association. In 1988 the board of trustees voted to oppose the "humane and dignified death act" and also proposition 161, "Death with dignity act" in which this board felt:

"Legalizing physician "aid-in-dying" would introduce disturbing potentials for abuse. The "right" to a lethal injection could become an expectation of appropriate behavior, and then a duty, pressed forward by other demands on scarce resources and by the perceived burden imposed on others. Further down this "slippery slope," an expectation might arise for other "unfit" members of society (e.g., certain disabled individuals) to voluntarily end their expensive suffering as well."

As I mentioned before they also discussed psychological factors in the following:

"Suicide is rarely a rational decision; most often it is a psychologically abnormal event associated with depression or other disorders. This has been found to be as true among terminal patients as among others. Suicidal behavior suggests a condition deserving medical treatment, not lethal medication."

Regarding pain, they said in the following:

"Pain suffered by the vast majority of terminal patients can be controlled, and other needs, including emotional counseling and support, can be provided for through hospice care. Legalizing euthanasia could undermine efforts to further improve pain control and to promote hospice care, since an expectation could arise that terminal patients should simply dispatch themselves rather than consume valuable resources by "prolonging the inevitable."

See: California Medical Association Policy On Physician-Assisted Suicide

 

[geauxtohell]

It doesn't matter what you think, the medical board is in agreement that Euthanasia means physician assisted suicide.

What medical board?

Well for starters the California Medical Association. In 1988 the board of trustees voted to oppose the "humane and dignified death act" and also proposition 161, "Death with dignity act" in which this board felt:

"Legalizing physician "aid-in-dying" would introduce disturbing potentials for abuse. The "right" to a lethal injection could become an expectation of appropriate behavior, and then a duty, pressed forward by other demands on scarce resources and by the perceived burden imposed on others. Further down this "slippery slope," an expectation might arise for other "unfit" members of society (e.g., certain disabled individuals) to voluntarily end their expensive suffering as well."

As I mentioned before they also discussed psychological factors in the following:

"Suicide is rarely a rational decision; most often it is a psychologically abnormal event associated with depression or other disorders. This has been found to be as true among terminal patients as among others. Suicidal behavior suggests a condition deserving medical treatment, not lethal medication."

Regarding pain, they said in the following:

"Pain suffered by the vast majority of terminal patients can be controlled, and other needs, including emotional counseling and support, can be provided for through hospice care. Legalizing euthanasia could undermine efforts to further improve pain control and to promote hospice care, since an expectation could arise that terminal patients should simply dispatch themselves rather than consume valuable resources by "prolonging the inevitable."

See: California Medical Association Policy On Physician-Assisted Suicide

And the Oregon Medical Board says something completely different. To act like their is some sort of national consensus on this issue is stretching the truth.

Pain can be controlled to an extent in hospice. However, it is acknowledged that by administering morphine or narcotics to control pain, you are likely shortening life. So, again, we can't get around this sticky issue that everyone is going to die and there is only so much medical science can do about that fact. Some people are going to suffer as they die. In an attempt to alleviate that suffering, you shorten their life.

So there you go.

 

[Aristotle]

What medical board?

Well for starters the California Medical Association. In 1988 the board of trustees voted to oppose the "humane and dignified death act" and also proposition 161, "Death with dignity act" in which this board felt:

"Legalizing physician "aid-in-dying" would introduce disturbing potentials for abuse. The "right" to a lethal injection could become an expectation of appropriate behavior, and then a duty, pressed forward by other demands on scarce resources and by the perceived burden imposed on others. Further down this "slippery slope," an expectation might arise for other "unfit" members of society (e.g., certain disabled individuals) to voluntarily end their expensive suffering as well."

As I mentioned before they also discussed psychological factors in the following:

"Suicide is rarely a rational decision; most often it is a psychologically abnormal event associated with depression or other disorders. This has been found to be as true among terminal patients as among others. Suicidal behavior suggests a condition deserving medical treatment, not lethal medication."

Regarding pain, they said in the following:

"Pain suffered by the vast majority of terminal patients can be controlled, and other needs, including emotional counseling and support, can be provided for through hospice care. Legalizing euthanasia could undermine efforts to further improve pain control and to promote hospice care, since an expectation could arise that terminal patients should simply dispatch themselves rather than consume valuable resources by "prolonging the inevitable."

See: California Medical Association Policy On Physician-Assisted Suicide

And the Oregon Medical Board says something completely different. To act like their is some sort of national consensus on this issue is stretching the truth.

Pain can be controlled to an extent in hospice. However, it is acknowledged that by administering morphine or narcotics to control pain, you are likely shortening life. So, again, we can't get around this sticky issue that everyone is going to die and there is only so much medical science can do about that fact. Some people are going to suffer as they die. In an attempt to alleviate that suffering, you shorten their life.

So there you go.

Well one may argue that shortening the life of someone terminally ill and in constant discomfort may actually be a good thing. I mean, who wants to prolong suffering anyway?

 

[geauxtohell]

Well for starters the California Medical Association. In 1988 the board of trustees voted to oppose the "humane and dignified death act" and also proposition 161, "Death with dignity act" in which this board felt:

"Legalizing physician "aid-in-dying" would introduce disturbing potentials for abuse. The "right" to a lethal injection could become an expectation of appropriate behavior, and then a duty, pressed forward by other demands on scarce resources and by the perceived burden imposed on others. Further down this "slippery slope," an expectation might arise for other "unfit" members of society (e.g., certain disabled individuals) to voluntarily end their expensive suffering as well."

As I mentioned before they also discussed psychological factors in the following:

"Suicide is rarely a rational decision; most often it is a psychologically abnormal event associated with depression or other disorders. This has been found to be as true among terminal patients as among others. Suicidal behavior suggests a condition deserving medical treatment, not lethal medication."

Regarding pain, they said in the following:

"Pain suffered by the vast majority of terminal patients can be controlled, and other needs, including emotional counseling and support, can be provided for through hospice care. Legalizing euthanasia could undermine efforts to further improve pain control and to promote hospice care, since an expectation could arise that terminal patients should simply dispatch themselves rather than consume valuable resources by "prolonging the inevitable."

See: California Medical Association Policy On Physician-Assisted Suicide

And the Oregon Medical Board says something completely different. To act like their is some sort of national consensus on this issue is stretching the truth.

Pain can be controlled to an extent in hospice. However, it is acknowledged that by administering morphine or narcotics to control pain, you are likely shortening life. So, again, we can't get around this sticky issue that everyone is going to die and there is only so much medical science can do about that fact. Some people are going to suffer as they die. In an attempt to alleviate that suffering, you shorten their life.

So there you go.

Well one may argue that shortening the life of someone terminally ill and in constant discomfort may actually be a good thing. I mean, who wants to prolong suffering anyway?

The goal of hospice care isn't to shorten life to prevent suffering, it's to make people as comfortable as possible in their terminal state. The byproduct of that might be to shorten life, but that is not intended. It's just accepted. If you hit someone with enough narcotics, you are going to shorten their respiratory drive to the point where eventually they are going to go into respiratory failure.

Though, if you feel that way, I can't understand your problem with PAS.

I think everyone agrees that "euthanasia" (which is not the same as PAS, as much as you might want to claim differently) is a bad thing and should never be tolerated.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Euthanasia is not the same as physican assisted suicide. I would say, it would have to be written in a will by the person, death would have to be certain and verified by a panel of independent doctors and signed off on by at least 2 members of the family, the patients physican and the independent panel. And if any objection is raised by any family member, then it's an automatic no.

So...you want my crazy sister (who I can't stand and haven't seen in years) able to forcibly keep me alive for months (or YEARS!) with ALS? You want her able to force my wife (who she loathes) to die in agony of cancer? (Yes, she IS fully capable of doing either of those solely to hurt my wife!) Not just no, I say HELL NO!

It sounds like you have a specific issue with a family member. The rational thing to do is to get an advanced directive and remove any decisional capacity from her. This happens all the time and your wishes will be easily honored. Especially if they are in writing.

I am sorry you have ALS. It's a horrible disease.

I do not have ALS...it was the first thing that popped into my head. If I am ever diagnosed with it, I will suck-start a shotgun that day.

 

[Aristotle]

And the Oregon Medical Board says something completely different. To act like their is some sort of national consensus on this issue is stretching the truth.

Pain can be controlled to an extent in hospice. However, it is acknowledged that by administering morphine or narcotics to control pain, you are likely shortening life. So, again, we can't get around this sticky issue that everyone is going to die and there is only so much medical science can do about that fact. Some people are going to suffer as they die. In an attempt to alleviate that suffering, you shorten their life.

So there you go.

Well one may argue that shortening the life of someone terminally ill and in constant discomfort may actually be a good thing. I mean, who wants to prolong suffering anyway?

The goal of hospice care isn't to shorten life to prevent suffering, it's to make people as comfortable as possible in their terminal state. The byproduct of that might be to shorten life, but that is not intended. It's just accepted. If you hit someone with enough narcotics, you are going to shorten their respiratory drive to the point where eventually they are going to go into respiratory failure.

Though, if you feel that way, I can't understand your problem with PAS.

I think everyone agrees that "euthanasia" (which is not the same as PAS, as much as you might want to claim differently) is a bad thing and should never be tolerated.

I know about the goal of hospice care. I am saying as a sidenote, that the pain meds that may shorten the life may actually be a good thing.

 

[koshergrl]

So...you want my crazy sister (who I can't stand and haven't seen in years) able to forcibly keep me alive for months (or YEARS!) with ALS? You want her able to force my wife (who she loathes) to die in agony of cancer? (Yes, she IS fully capable of doing either of those solely to hurt my wife!) Not just no, I say HELL NO!

It sounds like you have a specific issue with a family member. The rational thing to do is to get an advanced directive and remove any decisional capacity from her. This happens all the time and your wishes will be easily honored. Especially if they are in writing.

I am sorry you have ALS. It's a horrible disease.

I do not have ALS...it was the first thing that popped into my head. If I am ever diagnosed with it, I will suck-start a shotgun that day.

Good for you. So you don't need to worry about being kept forcibly alive.

 

[koshergrl]

Euthanasia isn't the same as assisted suicide, but it's still just a matter of degrees.

Euthanasia is the *next step*.

So.... Ultimately..... Another "slippery slope" argument.

I reject that. There is a big and distinguishable difference between PAS and euthanasia that boils down to who administers the lethal drug.

That's not a big difference.

 

[PaulS1950]

Koshergrl,
I am advocating only that each individual has the right to decide when their life is no longer livable.
There is no need for counseling unless a person wants it. (there is no way counseling will help if they don't want it)
The individual right of choice is an inherent right.

 

[Grandma]

I think everyone agrees that "euthanasia" (which is not the same as PAS, as much as you might want to claim differently) is a bad thing and should never be tolerated.

I disagree. A strict criteria would have to be developed and written into the law books, but there are cases for euthanasia.

There was a baby that was born without most of his brain. He was kept on life support. The parents wanted to pull the plug, but the doctors refused. They had to get a court order, and it took two appeals. If you've never given birth, you have no idea how that mother had to feel. The baby had zero quality of life, would never grow and thrive, but was being kept alive indefinitely as a vegetable. The whole family suffered.

There was the Schaivo case, where her brain was basically jello. Why keep someone on a machine for years when there's absolutely no chance of survival?

There was a woman at a nursing home I worked at. If you've ever seen mummified remains, that's how the poor thing looked. She was dried up and in a fetal position, weighing maybe 80 pounds. Maybe less. She couldn't speak. She never closed her blind eyes. She never moved at all. She developed bedsores. The nurse had trouble with the IVs and feeding tube because the woman was so incredibly thin and fragile. I felt so sorry for her. I was still into organized religion at the time and I prayed every night for her to be allowed to die.

 

[Grandma]

Men should be forced to bear children.

 

[PaulS1950]

Men should be forced to bear children.

That makes as much sense as saying that women should be forced not to bear children.

Using force to change patterns of thought rarely works and is never permanent.

 

[geauxtohell]

I think everyone agrees that "euthanasia" (which is not the same as PAS, as much as you might want to claim differently) is a bad thing and should never be tolerated.

I disagree. A strict criteria would have to be developed and written into the law books, but there are cases for euthanasia.

There was a baby that was born without most of his brain. He was kept on life support. The parents wanted to pull the plug, but the doctors refused. They had to get a court order, and it took two appeals. If you've never given birth, you have no idea how that mother had to feel. The baby had zero quality of life, would never grow and thrive, but was being kept alive indefinitely as a vegetable. The whole family suffered.

There was the Schaivo case, where her brain was basically jello. Why keep someone on a machine for years when there's absolutely no chance of survival?

There was a woman at a nursing home I worked at. If you've ever seen mummified remains, that's how the poor thing looked. She was dried up and in a fetal position, weighing maybe 80 pounds. Maybe less. She couldn't speak. She never closed her blind eyes. She never moved at all. She developed bedsores. The nurse had trouble with the IVs and feeding tube because the woman was so incredibly thin and fragile. I felt so sorry for her. I was still into organized religion at the time and I prayed every night for her to be allowed to die.

I don't see scenario 1 and 2 as euthanasia. Withdrawing care is certainly not considered Euthanasia.

The last one would be if someone decided to take matters into their own hands on whether that person should live or die.

That is a criminal act.

 

[geauxtohell]

That's not a big difference.

It's a huge difference. Only the blind couldn't see that.

Wow, that's a BRILLIANT argument.

It's not a huge difference. It's a tiny difference. Semantics.

You shouldn't act so incredulous. You basically bring your opinions and nothing else to every argument.

At any rate. It's a huge difference. It's the central difference in this issue.

 

[koshergrl]

Says the loon who brings his own opinions and nothing else to every argument.

 

[koshergrl]

I think everyone agrees that "euthanasia" (which is not the same as PAS, as much as you might want to claim differently) is a bad thing and should never be tolerated.

I disagree. A strict criteria would have to be developed and written into the law books, but there are cases for euthanasia.

There was a baby that was born without most of his brain. He was kept on life support. The parents wanted to pull the plug, but the doctors refused. They had to get a court order, and it took two appeals. If you've never given birth, you have no idea how that mother had to feel. The baby had zero quality of life, would never grow and thrive, but was being kept alive indefinitely as a vegetable. The whole family suffered.

There was the Schaivo case, where her brain was basically jello. Why keep someone on a machine for years when there's absolutely no chance of survival?

There was a woman at a nursing home I worked at. If you've ever seen mummified remains, that's how the poor thing looked. She was dried up and in a fetal position, weighing maybe 80 pounds. Maybe less. She couldn't speak. She never closed her blind eyes. She never moved at all. She developed bedsores. The nurse had trouble with the IVs and feeding tube because the woman was so incredibly thin and fragile. I felt so sorry for her. I was still into organized religion at the time and I prayed every night for her to be allowed to die.

I don't see scenario 1 and 2 as euthanasia. Withdrawing care is certainly not considered Euthanasia.

The last one would be if someone decided to take matters into their own hands on whether that person should live or die.

In your opinion.