Physician assisted suicide

[Jarlaxle]

But a 12-bore slug is faster, surer, and a whole lot cheaper.

 

[geauxtohell]

But a 12-bore slug is faster, surer, and a whole lot cheaper.

Arguably faster and much less surer.

If you doubt that, see if you can volunteer at your local level 1 trauma center when a failed suicide by GSW comes in.

You'll change your mind.

Believe me.

 

[Jackson]

Perhaps this is off the wall, but for ther person who considers suicide to end their suffering, does belief, "Thou shall not kill", enter into their mind? If you are about to enter the Hereafter, is it wise to commint a sin intentionally? Will it be forgiven?

Just wondering...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why should we go to doctors, who are there to heal, in order to die? Why shouldn't dying be legal without doctors?

 

[Intense]

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.

A Do Not Resuscitate Order does balance that one out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.



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?

I am not ignoring anything, no one has pointed to any part of the oath, which boils down to "First, do not harm" to show me how killing is acceptable under the Hippocratic Oath. The best you could do was argue that you did not swear not to kill people, while ignoring the fact that you have not contradicted me about the part that says the health of the patient comes first.

Feel free to point out where I said you had to sear the oath at all, then you can complain about where I said you had to swear to a particular deity. As usual, you are arguing with your imagination instead of addressing what I am saying.

If you swore to put a your patients health first, how do you think killing people fits into that?

 

[Intense]

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.

I think Personal Choice should be respected too, as far as Treatments.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You swore an oath you didn't pay attention to, and you are upset with me for pointing out your lack of morals?

 

[syrenn]

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 strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal.

I am also a firm believer of pulling the plugs on terminal patients and not keeping people alive just to keep them alive.

As for spending to much money on keeping people alive... If the family has the funds to pay for services to keep all the machines going, pay for all the care... fine, its their money to spend. If doing all of this care is on the public dime.... then no. Support should be withdrawn...and people allowed to die the natural death they were meant to have.....

 

[syrenn]

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.



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



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?

I am not ignoring anything, no one has pointed to any part of the oath, which boils down to "First, do not harm" to show me how killing is acceptable under the Hippocratic Oath. The best you could do was argue that you did not swear not to kill people, while ignoring the fact that you have not contradicted me about the part that says the health of the patient comes first.

Feel free to point out where I said you had to sear the oath at all, then you can complain about where I said you had to swear to a particular deity. As usual, you are arguing with your imagination instead of addressing what I am saying.

If you swore to put a your patients health first, how do you think killing people fits into that?

Living in pain... is allowing harm. Not assisting someone from that pain when they ask you....is doing harm to that person.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

There needs to be a very good reason to justify a person wanting to go through assisted suicide. I strongly believe a person who is terminally ill and experiencing pain has a right to such a request. I think there needs to be a time period that the person must wait before they can go through with the procedure, give them time to think and reflect about their decision.

Perhaps a psychiatrist should be on-hand, so that when the time comes and if person shows even the slightest bit of doubt then they reach the end of the initial waiting period, they should have to wait a bit longer. ( Not sure how that would work for mentally ill patients, but the decision to ends one's life should obviously not be taken lightly.)

And like Geauxtohell said, the doctor shouldn't be compelled to perform assisted suicide. It should be based purely on the patients state of well-being in combination with the patients desire.

 

[Aristotle]

But a 12-bore slug is faster, surer, and a whole lot cheaper.

Arguably faster and much less surer.

If you doubt that, see if you can volunteer at your local level 1 trauma center when a failed suicide by GSW comes in.

You'll change your mind.

Believe me.

^This

 

[auditor0007]

Why not? I have always found that laws against committing suicide are asinine. If you don’t want to be here, so be it. I have no problem with you finishing yourself off if that is truly what you want. Such a process needs to be well thought out, we don’t want errors in such a situation but you have dominion over your body. Why not dominion in ending it.

I have a very big problem with someone wanting to off themself because they have a mental issue such as depression. People who want to die because they have a terminal illness and are also in severe pain are another story. They should have the right to end their life on their terms in order to avoid prolonged suffering. Good God, we treat our pets better when it comes to this than people. But saying anyone should be able to commit suicide, I disagree with completely.

 

[Noomi]

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 strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal.

I am also a firm believer of pulling the plugs on terminal patients and not keeping people alive just to keep them alive.

As for spending to much money on keeping people alive... If the family has the funds to pay for services to keep all the machines going, pay for all the care... fine, its their money to spend. If doing all of this care is on the public dime.... then no. Support should be withdrawn...and people allowed to die the natural death they were meant to have.....

Agreed 100%.

 

[Aristotle]

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 strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal.

I am also a firm believer of pulling the plugs on terminal patients and not keeping people alive just to keep them alive.

As for spending to much money on keeping people alive... If the family has the funds to pay for services to keep all the machines going, pay for all the care... fine, its their money to spend. If doing all of this care is on the public dime.... then no. Support should be withdrawn...and people allowed to die the natural death they were meant to have.....

So as long if its not on a taxpayer's dime its ok. I'm not following this logic

 

[Noomi]

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 strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal.

I am also a firm believer of pulling the plugs on terminal patients and not keeping people alive just to keep them alive.

As for spending to much money on keeping people alive... If the family has the funds to pay for services to keep all the machines going, pay for all the care... fine, its their money to spend. If doing all of this care is on the public dime.... then no. Support should be withdrawn...and people allowed to die the natural death they were meant to have.....

So as long if its not on a taxpayer's dime its ok. I'm not following this logic

She is asking why it should be okay for the taxpayer to keep someone alive on a machine when there is no hope of a recovery. I agree with her.

 

[RDK]

Having witnessed the prolonged death and suffering of some close family members I definitely support the idea of assisted death with dignity. If you made a dog or cat suffer the way that we make some people suffer the you could be charged for cruelty to animals.

This should also apply to people who cannot take the pills themselves. They would be assisted in taking a medication that would prolong life but not one that would relieve the pain.

You would need some safeguards to ensure that it was the patients informed choice in the matter but these could be accomplished. Living wills would also apply in the case the patient could not communicate his or her choice.

Speaking of pain, why is it that the US and Canada do not allow the use of the most powerful analgesic medicine known, heroin, for the relief of chronic pain in the terminally ill?

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

But a 12-bore slug is faster, surer, and a whole lot cheaper.

Arguably faster and much less surer.

If you doubt that, see if you can volunteer at your local level 1 trauma center when a failed suicide by GSW comes in.

You'll change your mind.

Believe me.

^This

A 10-gauge pointed up in the mouth works well, took daddy-o out instantly (don't mix pills n' alcohol). But I hear what you're saying, I knew someone who used a .38 special, hollow point too. That one didn't work, and it was pretty bad for her father, as he had to make the decision to take her off life-support. (a parent should N E V E R be put in that situation, which is partly why I support Oregon's law)

 

[syrenn]

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 strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal.

I am also a firm believer of pulling the plugs on terminal patients and not keeping people alive just to keep them alive.

As for spending to much money on keeping people alive... If the family has the funds to pay for services to keep all the machines going, pay for all the care... fine, its their money to spend. If doing all of this care is on the public dime.... then no. Support should be withdrawn...and people allowed to die the natural death they were meant to have.....

So as long if its not on a taxpayer's dime its ok. I'm not following this logic

the op asked about costs of keeping the... should be dead...alive. The cost of life support is quite something.....

If a person has private funds and a family willing to bear the burden of the cost... fine.. If not, the public should not be paying to do that.

It is rather simple....allow people to die the natural death that was coming to them.

 

[Aristotle]

With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.

As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.

The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.