Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kuu · 11-10-2002, 06:02 PM

I agree that the individual has the right to determine so long as all other options are made available which unfortunately they are not always.

Do you know which group is the least likely to ask for euthanasia? It is mothers with young children. Such women are willing to endure more than most so they can stay with theit children because they feel as if their children need them.

People who feel needed are less likely to ask for their life to be ended. People who are made to feel like a burden are the most likely to do. I think it might have less to do with pain than a reason to want to live.

winstonjen · 11-10-2002, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Kally:
So that's a fact eh? I'm a home health hospice nurse. Where did you get your factual information from? There is no need for a patient to suffer from intractable pain these days.

I'm all for euthanasia in some cases. Certainly not the majority. When people are through with chemotherapy and other agressive treatment, they actually do have some quality of life left. They can die with as much dignity, respect and as much pain relief as possible. (in their own homes if they so desire)

Palliative care doesn't always work. Studies have shown that 5% of cases have pain that cannot be relived. And there are doctors who give morphine to patients - and they don't tell them - and they keep doing it until they die, and they hide behind the defense of 'double effect' - and since they can't really prove the motive of the doctor unless they admit it, it is a way of getting around the legal system. The law against euthanasia and assisted suicide is symbolic at best - it doesn't really do its job, so why have it?

Mad Kally · 11-10-2002, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen:


Palliative care doesn't always work. Studies have shown that 5% of cases have pain that cannot be relived. And there are doctors who give morphine to patients - and they don't tell them - and they keep doing it until they die, and they hide behind the defense of 'double effect' - and since they can't really prove the motive of the doctor unless they admit it, it is a way of getting around the legal system. The law against euthanasia and assisted suicide is symbolic at best - it doesn't really do its job, so why have it?

That leaves 95% of patients can have their pain relieved. I said before that I am all for euthanasia in SOME cases. End stage Lou Gerhigs disease comes to mind. I don't know what goes on whre YOU live, but I've never seen a doctor give a hospice patient morphine before. It's only the RN who sees the patients during the last six months. We give the meds and tell the doctor what we need ordered via telephone orders. Do docs make house calls where you live? Even in an acute care hospital the RN's give all the meds. In the US there is a patients bill of rights. They ARE informed of what they are receiving. Morphine does slow respirations, but does it really matter by the end?

winstonjen · 11-10-2002, 06:21 PM

It's good that you can relieve the pain of the 95%. But that is not the figure in practice. Even with the patients that do get the relief, many of them end up in a semi-comatose state because of the medication. If that's what they want, fine, but if not, they should get the choice to die sooner, rather than later. What is the point of 'living' for weeks in a morphine-induced haze, then dying? Some would elect to die straight away.

Not all terminally ill patients go to a hospice - some go to a hospital and live with false hope. In Australia, doctors want control over patients' treatment and some will usurp advance directives, etc.

Mad Kally · 11-10-2002, 06:36 PM

Quote:

many of them end up in a semi-comatose state because of the medication.

Oh well, they don't know they're in a semi-comatose or comatose state. I wouldn't mind dying in a morphine induced haze.

winstonjen · 11-10-2002, 06:40 PM

I see...but that doesn't mean that those who don't want to be in such a state should be force to.

Patients need greater autonomy. It's easy for the doctor to prescribe medication or take away painkillers because he's not the one who suffers the side-effects of it.

Mad Kally · 11-10-2002, 06:43 PM

Let me repeat myself. I am all for voluntary euthanasia in some cases. People should have the right to make that choice.

winstonjen · 11-10-2002, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Kally:
Let me repeat myself. I am all for voluntary euthanasia in some cases. People should have the right to make that choice.

And I agree entirely. Patients need more control over their own treatment.

Perchance · 11-10-2002, 06:54 PM

I fully support the right to die, even for people who aren't terminally ill. I do think that people who are considering suicide should THINK about some things- for example, if they have dependents, will they be able to make some provision for them before they die? This obviously is less of a care for a terminally ill person, since dying would leave his or her dependents behind anyway. But finding other means to handle obligations, stripping them away one by one until the person is left with only his or her own life to worry about, has my full support.

I know that I would personally commit suicide, or leave a document asking for help in committing it, if one of the following things happened:

1)Alzheimer's disease.

2)Blinded.

3)In a vegetative state.

If I was conscious to choose it, I would try to make sure that my debts were paid, that my money and possessions were safely transferred, and that any obligations I had were safely fulfilled as much as possible. I probably couldn't do anything about the pain it would cause others; on the other hand, it would cause them pain, and money, to try to keep me going in one of those states.

If someone goes into a coma and hasn't indicated one way or the other what he or she wants to happen, I would deeply pity the family trying to make the decision. And certainly if someone has definitely indicated that he or she doesn't want to be pulled off life support, then I wouldn't think he or she should have to die.

Someone who commits suicide out of depression is more of a gray area. After all, there may be medications or changes of circumstance that can help, and someone talking about suicide may actually want to be talked out of it.

However, I don't see the point of trying to oppose the wishes of someone who wants to die and has freely chosen death.

-Perchance.

winstonjen · 11-10-2002, 07:00 PM

More absurdities:

"Beware!
To touch these wires
is instant death.
Anyone found doing so
will be prosecuted."

SIGN AT A RAILROAD STATION

And something I agree with:

"To save a man's life
against his will
is the same as killing him (against his will)."

HORACE
B.C. 65�8

Both acts destroy autonomy in the most extreme way possible.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-10-2002, 06:02 PM	#11
Kuu Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Tasmania Posts: 710	I agree that the individual has the right to determine so long as all other options are made available which unfortunately they are not always. Do you know which group is the least likely to ask for euthanasia? It is mothers with young children. Such women are willing to endure more than most so they can stay with theit children because they feel as if their children need them. People who feel needed are less likely to ask for their life to be ended. People who are made to feel like a burden are the most likely to do. I think it might have less to do with pain than a reason to want to live.

11-10-2002, 06:21 PM	#14
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	It's good that you can relieve the pain of the 95%. But that is not the figure in practice. Even with the patients that do get the relief, many of them end up in a semi-comatose state because of the medication. If that's what they want, fine, but if not, they should get the choice to die sooner, rather than later. What is the point of 'living' for weeks in a morphine-induced haze, then dying? Some would elect to die straight away. Not all terminally ill patients go to a hospice - some go to a hospital and live with false hope. In Australia, doctors want control over patients' treatment and some will usurp advance directives, etc.

11-10-2002, 06:40 PM	#16
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	I see...but that doesn't mean that those who don't want to be in such a state should be force to. Patients need greater autonomy. It's easy for the doctor to prescribe medication or take away painkillers because he's not the one who suffers the side-effects of it.

11-10-2002, 06:43 PM	#17
Mad Kally Banned Join Date: May 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 3,764	Let me repeat myself. I am all for voluntary euthanasia in some cases. People should have the right to make that choice.

11-10-2002, 06:54 PM	#19
Perchance Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,059	I fully support the right to die, even for people who aren't terminally ill. I do think that people who are considering suicide should THINK about some things- for example, if they have dependents, will they be able to make some provision for them before they die? This obviously is less of a care for a terminally ill person, since dying would leave his or her dependents behind anyway. But finding other means to handle obligations, stripping them away one by one until the person is left with only his or her own life to worry about, has my full support. I know that I would personally commit suicide, or leave a document asking for help in committing it, if one of the following things happened: 1)Alzheimer's disease. 2)Blinded. 3)In a vegetative state. If I was conscious to choose it, I would try to make sure that my debts were paid, that my money and possessions were safely transferred, and that any obligations I had were safely fulfilled as much as possible. I probably couldn't do anything about the pain it would cause others; on the other hand, it would cause them pain, and money, to try to keep me going in one of those states. If someone goes into a coma and hasn't indicated one way or the other what he or she wants to happen, I would deeply pity the family trying to make the decision. And certainly if someone has definitely indicated that he or she doesn't want to be pulled off life support, then I wouldn't think he or she should have to die. Someone who commits suicide out of depression is more of a gray area. After all, there may be medications or changes of circumstance that can help, and someone talking about suicide may actually want to be talked out of it. However, I don't see the point of trying to oppose the wishes of someone who wants to die and has freely chosen death. -Perchance.

11-10-2002, 07:00 PM	#20
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	More absurdities: "Beware! To touch these wires is instant death. Anyone found doing so will be prosecuted." SIGN AT A RAILROAD STATION And something I agree with: "To save a man's life against his will is the same as killing him (against his will)." HORACE B.C. 65�8 Both acts destroy autonomy in the most extreme way possible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.