Freethought & Rationalism Archive

winstonjen · 11-17-2002, 12:00 PM

I'm sure we've all heard about the 'doctrine of double effect' - doctors can give mass amounts of morphine to their patients, with the full knowledge that it will hasten or cause their deaths, so long as their primary intention is to relieve suffering. How can we test their motive without using truth serums, a lie detector or torture? Basically, we can't, and we have to take their word for it. Essentially, it gives corrupt doctors a license to kill their patients, so long as they lie about their motives.

Sandy Williamson said that she wanted to end her suffering, not her life (her primary intention was to avoid the pain). The sad thing is, the only way she could end her suffering was by ending her life as well, which is similar to the dilemma that doctors have when dealing with the double-effect rule. IMO, it was also a way of showing the sick perversion of the law, and the double-effect doctrine.

The Other Michael · 11-19-2002, 05:55 AM

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/11/18/dying.study.reut/index.html" target="_blank">U.S. an uncaring place to die</a>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/11/18/hospice.care.ap/index.html" target="_blank">Another article on end-of-life hospice care</a>

Two CNN news articles relative to this thread.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]</p>

brighid · 11-19-2002, 07:19 AM

It is my personal feeling that people should have the right to choose how their final days play out, if they are in a position to do so. I remember my husband telling me about the last days of his grandfather�s life as he was dieing from brain cancer. Even though he was on pain medication, the highest doses that could be given (at least to his knowledge) his grandfather was suffering immeasurably. It was absolutely agonizing for his entire family to watch, helplessly as he died in excruitiating pain. They wished there was some way the could let him die in peace, or at least quickly without the days, weeks and months of pain that preceded his end.

I think about what I would want if I were faced with a terminal illness that would cause me to die in horrible pain, or cause my mind and body to fail, burden my family and cause them to suffer as well? I know I would want the option, very similar to what Oregon offers.

I do not feel that well worded and thoughtful laws with suddenly cause children to have their elderly parents euthanasied for nothing more then their inheritance. I can foresee this happening in some very egregious cases, but I think those people who would take such selfish and callous measures are one who would likely circumvent existing laws. I also do not feel that this very gruesome possibility should be the main opposition to legislation for those desiring to die with dignity, as it seems to cause more harm by preventing good people from making this very difficult decision than it does protect those who might be foreseeably harmed by its enactment.

I have not had the misfortune of watching someone I love die from any disease, although such a thing may happen a bit closer to home in the near future as one of my closest friends has been diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. She has also battled another of cancer episodes in her meager 31 years. Two friends, very close to my husband and his family have been diagnosed with different cancers: one with advanced Prostate cancer and his wife with an inoperable, malignant brain tumor.

I hope I am not faced with such choices in my life, or that of my family. I know that if I am I would want to die at home, surrounded by family, in a peaceful, comfortable setting and not being kept barely alive by machines, in a cold, sterile, uncaring environment detached from the world.

Brighid

winstonjen · 11-19-2002, 01:18 PM

I agree, Brighid. Oregon's DWD law is a good start, but there will still be patients so ill that they cannot even take the pills alone, or people paralysed with MND like Diane Pretty, and they must have a doctor give a lethal injection or face a slow, tortured and extended death.

brighid · 11-20-2002, 04:36 AM

Winstonjen,

I had not given too much thought to those already devastated by a disease who are unable to take the prescribed drugs themselves. I thought the Oregon law was to prescribe a lethal dose of barbituites that a terminally diagnosed patient would take when they felt ready, hopefully prior to any serious demise. I suppose I should familarize myself more thoroughly with the law.

Brighid

MadMordigan · 11-20-2002, 11:09 PM

The right to free speech includes the right to silence. The right to free assembly includes the right to be left alone. The right to free religion includes the right to have no religion at all.

It seems to me that if someone doesn't want to live anymore, they should have the right to end their life. Who am I to second guess their decisions?

winstonjen · 11-20-2002, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadMordigan:
<strong>The right to free speech includes the right to silence. The right to free assembly includes the right to be left alone. The right to free religion includes the right to have no religion at all.

It seems to me that if someone doesn't want to live anymore, they should have the right to end their life. Who am I to second guess their decisions?</strong>

Exactly my point. A compulsory right to live is a DUTY to live - not a right at all.

I don't see why some pro-lifers think they are so self-righteous and are justified in keeping people on life support until they are 200.

winstonjen · 12-05-2002, 03:57 AM

Apparently, it is legal to shorten your own life by decades through a poor diet and a lazy lifestyle. Yet it is not legal to shorten our lives by several weeks or months with a lethal injection, even when there is no hope of recovery. What a strange world we live in.

The Other Michael · 12-16-2002, 05:38 AM

A news story from CNN on <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/12/14/terminal.treatment.ap/index.html" target="_blank">terminal treatment</a>.

cheers,
Michael
Moderator, MF&P

Mad Kally · 12-16-2002, 06:33 AM

Quote:

In the landmark 1994 "Baby K" case, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Virginia hospital must provide artificial resuscitation for a child with anencephaly, a rare malformation in which almost all the brain is missing at birth.

Scientists believe children with anencephaly are incapable of thought or emotion and doctors almost universally advise parents to withhold life support. Baby K's mother insisted, over the objection of doctors, that her child be kept alive. With the court-mandated breathing assistance, the child lived for 2 1/2 years.

This is sickening. I can't believe that a court would rule to keep anacephalic children alive.

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

11-17-2002, 12:00 PM	#31
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	I'm sure we've all heard about the 'doctrine of double effect' - doctors can give mass amounts of morphine to their patients, with the full knowledge that it will hasten or cause their deaths, so long as their primary intention is to relieve suffering. How can we test their motive without using truth serums, a lie detector or torture? Basically, we can't, and we have to take their word for it. Essentially, it gives corrupt doctors a license to kill their patients, so long as they lie about their motives. Sandy Williamson said that she wanted to end her suffering, not her life (her primary intention was to avoid the pain). The sad thing is, the only way she could end her suffering was by ending her life as well, which is similar to the dilemma that doctors have when dealing with the double-effect rule. IMO, it was also a way of showing the sick perversion of the law, and the double-effect doctrine.

11-19-2002, 05:55 AM	#32
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/11/18/dying.study.reut/index.html" target="_blank">U.S. an uncaring place to die</a> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/11/18/hospice.care.ap/index.html" target="_blank">Another article on end-of-life hospice care</a> Two CNN news articles relative to this thread. cheers, Michael MF&P Moderator, First Class [ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]</p>

11-19-2002, 07:19 AM	#33
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	It is my personal feeling that people should have the right to choose how their final days play out, if they are in a position to do so. I remember my husband telling me about the last days of his grandfather�s life as he was dieing from brain cancer. Even though he was on pain medication, the highest doses that could be given (at least to his knowledge) his grandfather was suffering immeasurably. It was absolutely agonizing for his entire family to watch, helplessly as he died in excruitiating pain. They wished there was some way the could let him die in peace, or at least quickly without the days, weeks and months of pain that preceded his end. I think about what I would want if I were faced with a terminal illness that would cause me to die in horrible pain, or cause my mind and body to fail, burden my family and cause them to suffer as well? I know I would want the option, very similar to what Oregon offers. I do not feel that well worded and thoughtful laws with suddenly cause children to have their elderly parents euthanasied for nothing more then their inheritance. I can foresee this happening in some very egregious cases, but I think those people who would take such selfish and callous measures are one who would likely circumvent existing laws. I also do not feel that this very gruesome possibility should be the main opposition to legislation for those desiring to die with dignity, as it seems to cause more harm by preventing good people from making this very difficult decision than it does protect those who might be foreseeably harmed by its enactment. I have not had the misfortune of watching someone I love die from any disease, although such a thing may happen a bit closer to home in the near future as one of my closest friends has been diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. She has also battled another of cancer episodes in her meager 31 years. Two friends, very close to my husband and his family have been diagnosed with different cancers: one with advanced Prostate cancer and his wife with an inoperable, malignant brain tumor. I hope I am not faced with such choices in my life, or that of my family. I know that if I am I would want to die at home, surrounded by family, in a peaceful, comfortable setting and not being kept barely alive by machines, in a cold, sterile, uncaring environment detached from the world. Brighid

11-19-2002, 01:18 PM	#34
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	I agree, Brighid. Oregon's DWD law is a good start, but there will still be patients so ill that they cannot even take the pills alone, or people paralysed with MND like Diane Pretty, and they must have a doctor give a lethal injection or face a slow, tortured and extended death.

11-20-2002, 04:36 AM	#35
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Winstonjen, I had not given too much thought to those already devastated by a disease who are unable to take the prescribed drugs themselves. I thought the Oregon law was to prescribe a lethal dose of barbituites that a terminally diagnosed patient would take when they felt ready, hopefully prior to any serious demise. I suppose I should familarize myself more thoroughly with the law. Brighid

11-20-2002, 11:09 PM	#36
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	The right to free speech includes the right to silence. The right to free assembly includes the right to be left alone. The right to free religion includes the right to have no religion at all. It seems to me that if someone doesn't want to live anymore, they should have the right to end their life. Who am I to second guess their decisions?

12-05-2002, 03:57 AM	#38
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	Apparently, it is legal to shorten your own life by decades through a poor diet and a lazy lifestyle. Yet it is not legal to shorten our lives by several weeks or months with a lethal injection, even when there is no hope of recovery. What a strange world we live in.

12-16-2002, 05:38 AM	#39
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	A news story from CNN on <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/12/14/terminal.treatment.ap/index.html" target="_blank">terminal treatment</a>. cheers, Michael Moderator, MF&P

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.