Physician assisted suicide

[Aristotle]

It sounds like pain is the only justification for euthanasia

 

[Mr. Peepers]

If you've ever seen someone bright and very active succumb to ALS coupled with late-onset dementia, you would say YES. Not to mention, the ALS began in her neck muscles, rendering her unable to swallow and then moved to her other limbs. It was horrible to have to watch the slow, PAINFUL progression. I'm sure she wished every day for that pain to stop. Horrible, horrible disease.

 

[earlycuyler]

Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?

I say yes to physician assisted suicide.

 

[geauxtohell]

The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.

More than your eternal soul? That doesn't jive with your usual MO. So, if I violate the Hippocratic Oath, will Apollo strike me down?

What about the part the forbids practitioners from doing cholecystectomies (cut for stone)?

At least we can agree on the whole "no sex with the slaves" thing.

Explain how killing people fits into that, and then explain why I should trust a person that swears an oath and then decides that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.

A.) To get to the point I am making: The Hippocratic Oath is meaningless window dressings for White Coat Ceremonies. Many physicians never swear to it for a variety of reasons and many schools no longer use it. The rest use a modified version that doesn't require Medical Students to swear to Apollo, which we can agree could be a little problematic.

B.) I have no frigging clue what "he got bitter" has to do with anything. Many physicians involved in end of life issues are passionate about bringing comfort to terminal patients.

Even if we bypass your silly hyperbole.... Where does your interpretation of the sanctity of life and every patient that is not you autonomy begin? I am on ICU this month. We take code status very seriously. If a patient doesn't want to be intubated or resuscitated, we will simply let them die because that is what they want. Does that make us bad doctors?

The real answer is no. It makes us physicians who aren't going to legally assault a patient by forcing a tube down their airway when they don't want it to avoid the concern of people who think that the issue is always as black and white as "life or death" and ever siding with death means you are bitter or a bad doctor or uncaring.

 

[geauxtohell]

The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.

Explain how killing people fits into that, and then explain why I should trust a person that swears an oath and then decides that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.

It does not but then again, what you are stating is false. The doctor is not ‘that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.’ That is not what is happening at all.

What is happening is that the INDIVIDUAL is making the conscious decision to end their life before whatever affliction they are facing does naturally. In such a case, the doctor can watch the person die a horrible and ugly death in a few months or they can assist in the persons individual choice to end their life early.

If you really believe ion individual liberty and free choice, why are you against the doctor making a decision to assist in what someone else wants. It is between the person and their doctor without involving any other people (except perhaps some basic safeguards like a psychiatrist and a second opinion). What right do you have to question the decision or how it impacts the oath they take. Who are you to say that it even violates their oath?

Any doctor who decides that the oath he swore does not apply to him for whatever reason is wrong.

Period.

I have never sworn to Apollo. I have also never sworn to not administer a deadly drug or not perform cholecystectomies.

Drop the lame H.O. strawman. It's silly.

 

[geauxtohell]

Would you prefer someone to live out their final days in pain?[/QUOTE]

(This is in response to the bold)

This is why they have hospice and palliative care.

Sometimes that doesn't relieve the pain. My grandpa died of lung cancer and not even morphine could take his pain away.

Sometimes nothing can take the pain away.

I'll complicate it further. Administering narcotics in a hospice setting almost certainly hastens a patient's death.

Does that mean we shouldn't give them and let a patient suffer in agony because we can never do anything that might shorten a patient's life?

Of course not. Just don't ask the non-medical people their opinion. They have no clue.

 

[geauxtohell]

Any doctor who decides that the oath he swore does not apply to him for whatever reason is wrong.

Period.

I think the point geaux was making is that doctors do not swear the original oath. It has been revised and may no longer contain that 'will not give a deadly drug' section at all. If that's the case, they may not be breaking the oath by providing lethal drugs.

For that matter, considering how many of the drugs doctors give out can be lethal (I'd imagine nearly all of them!) that section could be argued to put almost all doctors in violation for the simplest of prescriptions.

I quoted from the revised Geneva version of the oath, which is the most common version. It clearly states that a doctor puts his patients life and health first, even above his own thoughts that people should not have to live paralyzed. There are plenty of options for committing suicide that do not involve a doctor.

Doctors should not kill.

Period.

Should Doctors attend torture sessions and executions?

 

[earlycuyler]

I think the point geaux was making is that doctors do not swear the original oath. It has been revised and may no longer contain that 'will not give a deadly drug' section at all. If that's the case, they may not be breaking the oath by providing lethal drugs.

For that matter, considering how many of the drugs doctors give out can be lethal (I'd imagine nearly all of them!) that section could be argued to put almost all doctors in violation for the simplest of prescriptions.

I quoted from the revised Geneva version of the oath, which is the most common version. It clearly states that a doctor puts his patients life and health first, even above his own thoughts that people should not have to live paralyzed. There are plenty of options for committing suicide that do not involve a doctor.

Doctors should not kill.

Period.

Should Doctors attend torture sessions and executions?

In this country, they do. Dont know what the big deal is here. Dr.'s perform abortions. No big deal their. If they dont want to do that they dont have to. This issue is best left to the Dr.'s and who ever is stuck dieing. For my part, if my mind was going, or I was unable to be up and around, I would hope for the sake of my family he she would help me because I would kill my self first chance I got, and most likely make a mess of it.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Would you prefer someone to live out their final days in pain?

I would prefer that doctors not kill people. What about that is so hard to understand? Doctors are healers, not killers.

It's not hard to understand, I simply disagree.

Quite often, the kindest thing you can do for a terminal patient is to simply shoot them.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It sounds like pain is the only justification for euthanasia

No, not at all.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If you've ever seen someone bright and very active succumb to ALS coupled with late-onset dementia, you would say YES. Not to mention, the ALS began in her neck muscles, rendering her unable to swallow and then moved to her other limbs. It was horrible to have to watch the slow, PAINFUL progression. I'm sure she wished every day for that pain to stop. Horrible, horrible disease.

Which is why, if I am ever diagnosed with ALS, I will suck-start my shotgun that day.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.

More than your eternal soul? That doesn't jive with your usual MO. So, if I violate the Hippocratic Oath, will Apollo strike me down?

What about the part the forbids practitioners from doing cholecystectomies (cut for stone)?

At least we can agree on the whole "no sex with the slaves" thing.

Funny, I don't remember claiming to be a doctor. I also don't remember saying anything about an eternal soul. Maybe you should start reading my posts instead of making things up.

Explain how killing people fits into that, and then explain why I should trust a person that swears an oath and then decides that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.

A.) To get to the point I am making: The Hippocratic Oath is meaningless window dressings for White Coat Ceremonies. Many physicians never swear to it for a variety of reasons and many schools no longer use it. The rest use a modified version that doesn't require Medical Students to swear to Apollo, which we can agree could be a little problematic.

The part you quoted above is not from the original oath, but don't let facts slow you down.

B.) I have no frigging clue what "he got bitter" has to do with anything. Many physicians involved in end of life issues are passionate about bringing comfort to terminal patients.

Even if we bypass your silly hyperbole.... Where does your interpretation of the sanctity of life and every patient that is not you autonomy begin? I am on ICU this month. We take code status very seriously. If a patient doesn't want to be intubated or resuscitated, we will simply let them die because that is what they want. Does that make us bad doctors?

The real answer is no. It makes us physicians who aren't going to legally assault a patient by forcing a tube down their airway when they don't want it to avoid the concern of people who think that the issue is always as black and white as "life or death" and ever siding with death means you are bitter or a bad doctor or uncaring.

My interpretation of the sanctity of life is irrelevant, what is relevant is that doctors are supposed to heal. Killing is only healing if you think that killing makes life better for the people who are alive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It does not but then again, what you are stating is false. The doctor is not ‘that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.’ That is not what is happening at all.

What is happening is that the INDIVIDUAL is making the conscious decision to end their life before whatever affliction they are facing does naturally. In such a case, the doctor can watch the person die a horrible and ugly death in a few months or they can assist in the persons individual choice to end their life early.

If you really believe ion individual liberty and free choice, why are you against the doctor making a decision to assist in what someone else wants. It is between the person and their doctor without involving any other people (except perhaps some basic safeguards like a psychiatrist and a second opinion). What right do you have to question the decision or how it impacts the oath they take. Who are you to say that it even violates their oath?

Any doctor who decides that the oath he swore does not apply to him for whatever reason is wrong.

Period.

I have never sworn to Apollo. I have also never sworn to not administer a deadly drug or not perform cholecystectomies.

Drop the lame H.O. strawman. It's silly.

Did you swear an oath to put the health of your patient first?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think the point geaux was making is that doctors do not swear the original oath. It has been revised and may no longer contain that 'will not give a deadly drug' section at all. If that's the case, they may not be breaking the oath by providing lethal drugs.

For that matter, considering how many of the drugs doctors give out can be lethal (I'd imagine nearly all of them!) that section could be argued to put almost all doctors in violation for the simplest of prescriptions.

I quoted from the revised Geneva version of the oath, which is the most common version. It clearly states that a doctor puts his patients life and health first, even above his own thoughts that people should not have to live paralyzed. There are plenty of options for committing suicide that do not involve a doctor.

Doctors should not kill.

Period.

Should Doctors attend torture sessions and executions?

Only in a word where people are incredibly stupid.

 

[Polk]

I'm late to the thread, but, yes, it should absolutely be legal. I would ask those opposed if they feel patients should not have the right to refuse treatment.

 

[geauxtohell]

The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.

More than your eternal soul? That doesn't jive with your usual MO. So, if I violate the Hippocratic Oath, will Apollo strike me down?

What about the part the forbids practitioners from doing cholecystectomies (cut for stone)?

At least we can agree on the whole "no sex with the slaves" thing.

Funny, I don't remember claiming to be a doctor. I also don't remember saying anything about an eternal soul. Maybe you should start reading my posts instead of making things up.

A.) To get to the point I am making: The Hippocratic Oath is meaningless window dressings for White Coat Ceremonies. Many physicians never swear to it for a variety of reasons and many schools no longer use it. The rest use a modified version that doesn't require Medical Students to swear to Apollo, which we can agree could be a little problematic.

The part you quoted above is not from the original oath, but don't let facts slow you down.

B.) I have no frigging clue what "he got bitter" has to do with anything. Many physicians involved in end of life issues are passionate about bringing comfort to terminal patients.

Even if we bypass your silly hyperbole.... Where does your interpretation of the sanctity of life and every patient that is not you autonomy begin? I am on ICU this month. We take code status very seriously. If a patient doesn't want to be intubated or resuscitated, we will simply let them die because that is what they want. Does that make us bad doctors?

The real answer is no. It makes us physicians who aren't going to legally assault a patient by forcing a tube down their airway when they don't want it to avoid the concern of people who think that the issue is always as black and white as "life or death" and ever siding with death means you are bitter or a bad doctor or uncaring.

My interpretation of the sanctity of life is irrelevant, what is relevant is that doctors are supposed to heal. Killing is only healing if you think that killing makes life better for the people who are alive.

No, but you want to wax on about the parts of the Hippocratic Oath that support your personal beliefs while ignoring those that don't.

So, as a physician, I have to swear to Apollo and can't do cholecystectomies?

 

[geauxtohell]

Any doctor who decides that the oath he swore does not apply to him for whatever reason is wrong.

Period.

I have never sworn to Apollo. I have also never sworn to not administer a deadly drug or not perform cholecystectomies.

Drop the lame H.O. strawman. It's silly.

Did you swear an oath to put the health of your patient first?

I am sure I did. It was some sort of blaise blah-blah-blah that made everyone's parent's happy but meant little in the grand scheme of things.

Most people don't need ceremonial bullshit to do their best to care for people. Properly caring for people isn't always "doing everything" to prolong life. This is hardly a radical concept.

Should I do compressions on a 90 year old woman to keep her heart breathing while also breaking her ribcage and puncturing her lungs?

In the absence of orders not too, I will do these things, but I am not going to argue that it's in the patient's best interest.

BTW, another tenant of the original H.O. was to not share medical knowledge with others. Back when physicians were tied to guilds, it all made sense. Not so much now.

 

[Aristotle]

Sometimes that doesn't relieve the pain. My grandpa died of lung cancer and not even morphine could take his pain away.

Sometimes nothing can take the pain away.

I'll complicate it further. Administering narcotics in a hospice setting almost certainly hastens a patient's death.

Does that mean we shouldn't give them and let a patient suffer in agony because we can never do anything that might shorten a patient's life?

Of course not. Just don't ask the non-medical people their opinion. They have no clue.

Exactly my point, but I think people have their personal feelings caught up in producing a logical response.

 

[Aristotle]

It sounds like pain is the only justification for euthanasia

No, not at all.

I would prefer that doctors not kill people. What about that is so hard to understand? Doctors are healers, not killers.

It's not hard to understand, I simply disagree.

Quite often, the kindest thing you can do for a terminal patient is to simply shoot them.

First off, the keywords used here in this discussion are: suffering, pain, and agony. These are all forms of pain sensation. You mentioned previously that the kindest thing you can do to a patient is "shoot them." Really? So for every patient suffering from those suffering from suicidal ideation or severe depression or someone who is suffering from terminal cancer your resolution is to simply shoot them?

 

[geauxtohell]

It sounds like pain is the only justification for euthanasia

No, not at all.

It's not hard to understand, I simply disagree.

Quite often, the kindest thing you can do for a terminal patient is to simply shoot them.

First off, the keywords used here in this discussion are: suffering, pain, and agony. These are all forms of pain sensation. You mentioned previously that the kindest thing you can do to a patient is "shoot them." Really? So for every patient suffering from those suffering from suicidal ideation or severe depression or someone who is suffering from terminal cancer your resolution is to simply shoot them?

I'd rather just get 20 mg of IV Morphine. It's a much more pleasant way to die.