winstonjen

They are affected INdirectly, IMHO.

Quote:

I also want to add - I think it can work in reverse. I could turn your argument around and say, "it's easy to be pro-euthanasia when you aren't the one working in a hospital and are actually faced with the decision." Just something to think about. . . .

So the people working in hospitals ENJOY watching people suffer? Or do they like making money from keeping them alive on respirators, etc. Is that what you're saying? Is that how they're affected by it?

scigirl

Wow, there's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one.

Let's read the statement you made again:

I agree. Reality is very different, and often much more complex than people who aren't in the actual line of fire realize.

Including both anti AND pro euthanasia camps.

For your info - there are currently several reasons to be anti-euthanasia in some cases that aren't necessarily tied to religious rhetoric. I am currently in medical school considering geriatrics as a career, and I welcome hearty debates about this issue so we can, as a society, decide what is acceptible and what isn't. But I'm not sure I'm going to find that in this thread. It's too bad.

I find it amusing that when someone questions the validity of euthanasia, you immediately jump to unwarranted attacks.

scigirl

winstonjen

Well then, if they oppose euthanasia, is it because they want to look after the patient? Even against their wishes? I don't mean any offense, but if they do it against the patient's wishes, isn't that paternalism, closing in on tyranny? And are they doing it for themselves in that case, rather than the patient?

I'm sorry you felt that way. That wasn't my intention, and I apologise.

But if these are not reason enough to legalise euthanasia, what is?

Where euthanasia is legal, patients live longer (because they have the strength to go on, knowing that the option of ending their pain is there).

Suicide in the terminally ill is much reduced, especially among those with AIDS.

scigirl

jen, please see my revised comments.


You are making this debate into an either or scenario. That is not a valid assessment of the situation. There are several possibilities. I'm not sure how it works in Australia. However here in the USA, euthanasia is not as big of a deal as some people would have you believe. Read Mad Kally's comments in that other thread about euthanasia - she works as a hospice nurse and rarely does the issue even arise! We have decent ways of dealing with mental illnesses, chronic pain, and all those other 'malaises' that could lead to someone who wants to end his or her life.

Now saying all that, yes there are still enough instances of people who want to die that it is an issue we as a society should address. In my opinion - in the USA today, as we exist now, euthanasia should not be encouraged except in extreme cases that are decided upon by the doctor, patient, and the patient's family.

There are just too many issues we need to iron out here in the USA before we outright legalize euthanasia.

scigirl

scigirl

That's a pretty bold statement - do you have any studies or links to back that up?

I have actually done fairly extensive research on this subject - and the papers I cited were from several different countries (mostly in Europe). I never remember reading this, but I would love to read that study.

The results I got were pretty surprising - and once again I emphasize, is NOT the major issue facing even most patients who have a life-threatening illness. Also, will-to-live will vary even among the sickest patients - many patients who expressed a wish to die had a change of heart after their pain medications were altered, or after counseling.

scigirl

winstonjen

I have read your revised post. Did you see mine?

The US has great palliative care, I acknowledge that, and Mad Kally mentions that. But in Australia, there is almost none. It'd be better to give suicide pills to the terminally ill in Australia who can't afford treatment, because out government-funded palliative care sucks, to put it simply.

Palliative care can work, but it should never be forced on anyone. Everyone should be able to choose euthanasia or palliation for themselves. Of course there could be a cure, but that's no reason to prevent a suicide just because of a 'potential' cure, when there is ACTUAL pain.

Pain relief medications also have some detrimental side effects, like putting in a patient into a comatose state, after which they may die.

winstonjen

Do you mean to say that you have never heard terminally ill patients mention how reassuring it is to have someone like Kevorkian ready to grant their wish when they want them to? Having the OPTION of euthanasia if it gets too bad really increases their will to live.

scigirl

Yep I did, thanks.

Ok I see now where you are coming from. Wow that sucks about the state of Pallative care. Don't you guys have national insurance?

Let me weigh in my 2 cents. If I get a residency in Australia, I would have a very very very tough time actually administering that pill, knowing that other means of care hadn't been tried. I just don't think I could personally do it.

So does that make me an immoral person? Perhaps. But - I am trained to first do no harm, not "kill if they can't afford the treatment." Heh I guess it just always comes back to - let's fix the system. In our ideal worlds, we would never need euthanasia, abortions, or tech support!

scigirl

scigirl

Well I tried to call Kevorkian's patients to grant me an inteview. . . funny they didn't answer the phone.

But ultimately we ALL have that right - any one of us could kill ourselves with not that much effort, and without enlisting the endorsement of the AMA. If it's that right and moral and good, why do they need the doctors?

scigirl

winstonjen

It's not just the insurance that's the problem, it's the quality of the care as well.

Quote:

Let me weigh in my 2 cents. If I get a residency in Australia, I would have a very very very tough time actually administering that pill, knowing that other means of care hadn't been tried. I just don't think I could personally do it.

You wouldn't have to do more than prescribe/give the pills to the patient. I bet you could ask someone else to do that. Just let the patient take the pills him/herself.

Quote:

So does that make me an immoral person? Perhaps. But - I am trained to first do no harm, not "kill if they can't afford the treatment." Heh I guess it just always comes back to - let's fix the system. In our ideal worlds, we would never need euthanasia, abortions, or tech support! scigirl

Harm...from your point of view or the patient's point of view, IMHO, it should be the patient's - they are the ones being affected MOST directly by anything the doctors or nurses do.