Jackalope

Too bad those of us who aren't terminal usually can't get access to those drugs. If I hadn't finally found a doctor who was willing to weigh out the (very small) risk of addition versus my quality of life, I probably would have killed myself. Not because I wanted to die, because it appeared to be the only way I could escape the agonizing pain. Non-terminal patients are just SOL most of the time.

And now we're about to start beating on the insurance company about covering the really expensive drugs that might allow me to continue to feed and dress myself and probably keep me out of a wheelchair. The cheap drugs aren't working, or rather, they only work when we pump the dosages up to toxic levels. The new monoclonal antibodies range anywhere from US$1000-1500 a month.

I've already passed the point where in my youthful arrogance I claimed I would kill myself. I'd really rather go on living. However, there may come a point where simply living may become torture. I'd like to at least have the choice of opting out if things get that bad.

--Lee
[that bastard Arthur Itis has been kicking my ass again]

Mad Kally

I agree, it's very sad. Seniors who are on Medicare but are not terminal are SOL too. The health care in the US is a national disgrace. The HMO's have made it an even worse nightmare.

Sabine Grant

Indeed Kally !

To add a bit of romanticism to this thread, my latest patient is a quad. He married a couple of weeks ago another quad. This couple is amazing! They both enjoy life to the fullest despite of their condition. Their beds are side by side...they both have full respiratory function which eliminates the possibility of anything of a terminal character.
They could have chosen to give up on anything human... instead they feel love and live it.
An outside observer unaware of their happiness and joy for life would conclude that their quality of life is too poor to be lived.

alek0

I would not want to live if severely disabled. The fact that there are quads who enjoy life has nothing to do with the fact that I wouldn't, and would consider quality of life to poor to live. This also doesn't mean that I don't think that severely disabled people cannot live happy lives - just that I couldn't.

No one can judge on MY quality of life other than myself. I also cannot and do not want to judge quality of life of others. I do not see why should those who would not want to choose to die have the right to make those who would want to have to choose violent ways to end their life. Why not allow people who want to die regardless of their reasons to do so peacefully?

I would also like to ask those who are worried about abuse of euthanasia, what about guns? Why doesn't potential for abuse (proven time and again) prevent sales of guns in US?

Mad Kally

I'd be willing to wager that the quads and other severely disabled thought the same thing before their lives changed in a split second. How about Christopher Reeve? (superman)

wade-w

Its a matter of abuse of authority, not abuse by a private individual. These are very different issues.

alek0

Granted, some may have. But is it so hard to beleive that there are people who would not?

Your argument seems quite similar to people responding to statement "i don't want to have kids" with "Oh, you will change your mind later when you get older. I/my friend/causin/aquaintance used to say the same and now look at him/her with those lovely kid(s)". I always knew I don't want to have kids. I am 30 now and if anything my opinion on that is even stronger than it was. I am quite certain that I will not change my mind concerning living with disability which would prevent me from having what I consider acceptable quality of life for myself.
And there are probably other people out there who have similar views.

Mad Kally

Not at all. As a matter of fact I would rather die..

Sabine Grant

Hello Alek! And you are right, it must remain a personal choice.
The moral issue where Dr Rick and I agreed is when other individuals make that decision for the terminal patient. Even as the patient has full mental capacity, he can be pressured one way or the other.
As an example, I took one of my patients to see her physician recently. As she did not want to take a particular medication anylonger which had serious side effects, the physician told her " I want you to get a DNR order".... what gave the right to that doctor to pressure my patient into getting an order which will keep her from being ressuscitated?
I feel and fear that we may see an increase in pressuring terminal patients out of life support measures as the cost of medical care for such individuals is so high. It is obviously not in the best interest of medical insurance companies to support terminal patients. What role would they play in lobbying for liberal euthanasia? would their motivation be pure?
Should a court decide of the right to life or death of anyone?

Whom do we entrust with those decisions when the patient is unable to think thru and communicate his wish?
Should the closest relative bear the burden of that decision? or the dedicated physicians who were sworn to uphold life?
IMO the withdrawal of life support measures is justified only when the patient has no brain activity and is artificialy maintained "alive", that is on a ventilator. I would entrust the medical corps to evaluate the actual potential for life in such a patient.
The Clearwater case in Fla. is alarming in the sense that the patient was evaluated as having no chance of any recovery from the damages to her brain. She breathes on her own, is wide awake but is indeed severely mentaly handicaped. However she does have some cognition ( mostly sensorial). So do we have a breathing dead individual in her case? no.... But the court case was based on her no chance to recovery. Those medical reports are what prompted the judge to order the withdrawal of her G tube.
Is that a valuable and moral criteria?
IMO that kind of criteria is opening the gate to courts deciding for the death of any individual judged without any chance of recovery. Are we allowing then a society where the "unfit" will be eliminated?
I believe that a fully mentaly fit terminal patient has the right to ask for euthanasia granted he has recieved proper and informed counseling. But for the mentaly incapacitated patient who may not even be considered terminal, noone has the right to assume that they wish to die in absence of a living will.

scigirl

Sabine, you raised a lot of interesting questions. I think about this one a lot:
I agree with the sentiment expressed here that our lives are our own, and we should have the "right" to die. However. . . I still don't know if I could intentionally kill my patient. I agree with Dr Rick that we need a lot of safeguards before we outright legalize euthanasia or PAS (physician-assisted suicide). And as Mad Kally pointed out - a lot of terminally ill people don't want to die.

I think it's good for people to talk about these hypotheticals with their families and make living wills. However, honestly, NONE of us really know what we would do if x or y or z happened, because these "hypotheticals" are life-changing experiences in themselves, and in addition, the will to survive is strong within us (remember that pesky theory of Darwin's? )

scigirl