winstonjen

An update the courts have allowed the tube to be removed.

http://www.ndtv.com/template/templat...38624&callid=1

The most arrogant and ignorant comment about euthanasia I have ever heard was this - That was essentially her argument. No facts, no logic, no reasoning.:banghead:

If I met someone who said that in real life, I'd find it hard not to punch them in the face.

BioBeing

Just wondering if you saw this thread on Mother Theresa, dk?

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=52598

BioBeing

OK are we talking cancer patients for whom all treatment has failed? Elderly people who have no option of further treatment. People in so much pain that the meds do not work, despite the best pain doctors in the country? People whose only hope now is either a few months or maybe years of painful suffering? We are. Good. These are the people who we (well, maybe not you) have been talking about in this thread.

So, lets look at your choices (in reverse order):

c. Withdraw treatment: Inhumane. Leads to excessive pain and suffering.

b. Pain management. We already agreed they already had the best and it doidn't work, so no go here.

a. Assisted suicide. Sounds pretty good to me (if that is what the patient decides.

Of course, there is still d. continue the best we can, which is what most will choose anyway.

dk

"Refused" presumes an act of will/judgment irreconcilable with a persistent vegetative state. I had a friend whose dad died of throat cancer. When he ate food, bits went into the lungs. He was otherwise mentally and emotionally fit.

Some people might argue he committed suicide by food, which is of course nonsense. We’re splitting hairs. There exists a state of life where an objective determination of the time of death has no meaning (true/false). This presents a problem for science, but not a moral or ethical problem. The scope of ethical acts applies only to free acts because these alone are within our power. We don’t have the power to suicide someone beyond our ability to know life exists. What you’ve described becomes an ethical dilemma for courts and doctors precisely because they subsume to themselves power and authority beyond any possible human account or reasonable judgment.

dk

BioBeing: OK are we talking cancer patients for whom all treatment has failed?
dk: Cancer is an incidence of disease often beyond medical treatment. However, the judgment of “failed treatment” doesn’t apply. Only in a matter under a person’s control can anyone possible fail. People often assume some power or authority beyond their control, and in doing so become out of control. Once a person goes out of control their capacity for moral rectitude degenerates into moral resignation, judgment degenerates into accommodation, purpose degenerates into apathy, and finally life becomes an egomaniacal thirst for gratification.

BioBeing: Elderly people who have no option of further treatment. People in so much pain that the meds do not work, despite the best pain doctors in the country?
dk: Why single out elderly people?…Do child, manly or womanly cancer and pain pose a more treatable and manageable circumstance?…Of course not!!!. It’s very important to frame any strategy of health care in the context of the patient’s life, where a patient doesn’t surrender themselves to a doctor, nurse, disease or pain. The very concept of “pain doctors” undermines the patients dignity. The management of pain placed in a proper context requires the patients participation, and a patient in pain tends to be very motivated. Studies on pain have found doctors are dogmatically taught they are responsible for the patients pain, hence associate pain with personal failure. This is absurd, doctors have no institutional or scientific power/authority over pain, disease, life or death, except their own. All the evidence confirms people participate in their own health, disease, pain, life and death. When a patient learns they can manage their own pain and disease psychologically they acquire a sense well being essential to quality of life. Doctor Death walks upon the entrails of Doctor Pain… the entire construction is a fiction based on denial conjoined to presumption.

BioBeing: People whose only hope now is either a few months or maybe years of painful suffering? We are. Good. These are the people who we (well, maybe not you) have been talking about in this thread.
dk: Dr. Pain to the rescue, hey!

So, lets look at your choices (in reverse order):
c: BioBeing: Withdraw treatment: Inhumane. Leads to excessive pain and suffering.
dk: Agreed.

b. BioBeing: Pain management. We already agreed they already had the best and it doidn't work, so no go here.
dk: We disagree, patients tend to be very motivated when empowered to manage their own pain.

a. Assisted suicide. Sounds pretty good to me (if that is what the patient decides.
dk: In a world where Dr. Pain and Doctor Death rule, then pain becomes objectively untreatable, life becomes relatively worthless and death becomes an equitable alternative. The problem with this world view is that…

1. pain is subjective,
   not objective,
2. life is precious
   not relatively worthless
3. death is equitable.
   not a problem or a solution.

BioBeing: Of course, there is still d. continue the best we can, which is what most will choose anyway.
dk: Agreed, people as rational creatures can understand life teems with intangibles that inspire participation, and these intangibles make human dignity essentially immutable.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by dk

1. pain is subjective,
   not objective,
2. life is precious
   not relatively worthless
3. death is equitable.
   not a problem or a solution.

[/QUOTE]

The value of life is subjective. If someone is in a lot of pain and there's no hope to fix it I would think they would consider their life to be pretty worthless.

Dr Rick

If a competent person expresses wishes that they not be violated or assaulted, those wishes are no less valid if that person later becomes incompacitated. To suggest otherwise as you are doing is to dehumanize a person because he/she is incompacitated. Deliberately violating a persons wishes just because they are no longer able to resist is cruel and immoral.



I have a cat; she gets hairballs.

But can you quantify this temporal state of life when an objectivity is only subjectively determinative through death? The question is only answerable in the extant sciences (yes/no). This may puzzle my next door neighbor, which may explain why he keeps calling the cops on me, but it doesn't mean that it's unethical to use Scope freely because Listerine has power that causes quite a dilemma for the authorities. We don't have the power to hang-glide in bathtubs beyond our ability to lactate. It's only reasonable to judge a sub-sandwich on the account of a possible human precisely because it's not an ethical dilemma.

In an ideal world, Dr Seuss and Dr. No don't rule, but then life becomes intangibly objective and equities becomes worthless; bonds are the obvious alternative.

Foolishness is an incidence of stupidity beyond education. However, the judgement of 'brain damaged' doesn't apply. Only the control is what matters. People sometimes often drive fast and in doing so become speeders. Once a person is speeding, their rectal capacity degenerates beyond reasonable accommodation, bathroom facilities are sought for gratification, judgements of their cleanliness degenerate into apathy, and finally it doesn't even matter if they have decent toilet paper.

Egomaniacs understand the inspiration.

dk

I guess I come from a school where suffering can have a transformational value because life has intrinsic value, but I'll grant you the value is intangible. I appreciate your honesty.

The Lone Ranger

My perspective is that my life is my own, and no one has the "right" to force me to live a life that I find unacceptable.

If I'm suffering from some terminal illness, in constant pain, and that pain cannot be treated effectively, then my life is not precious at all -- it's a terrible burden.

If the only way to end this pain is to end my life, then death is the solution to my troubles.

Cheers,

Michael

dk

dk: "Refused" presumes an act of will/judgment irreconcilable with a persistent vegetative state.
Dr Rick: If a competent person expresses wishes that they not be violated or assaulted, those wishes are no less valid if that person later becomes incapacitated. To suggest otherwise as you are doing is to dehumanize a person because he/she is incompacitated. Deliberately violating a persons wishes just because they are no longer able to resist is cruel and immoral.
dk: That’s a big if, a competent person may become incompetent (or visa versa) at any moment, and revert back at any moment. In fact, the incompetent person may be the real person, and real person a mask to feign competency. Two questions spring to mind, 1) exactly how does a person become competent then become incompetent? 2) which person wishes for the other?
Dr Rick: But can you quantify this temporal state of life when an objectivity is only subjectively determinative through death?
dk: I suppose it depends upon a sufficient criterion and the temporal interval required to record the transition event in space and time. Dr Rick: The question is only answerable in the extant sciences (yes/no). (snip) It's only reasonable to judge a sub-sandwich on the account of a possible human precisely because it's not an ethical dilemma. dk: I’ll take that as a dogmatic statement. Ingest some botulinum spores on your sub-sandwich and the account becomes objective.