Physician Assisted Death

[creekland]

I still really think it needs to be up to individuals rather than doctors, lawyers, or anyone else especially trained for it.  Anyone doing this sort of thing regularly would seem to get hardened to it.  How could one not?

 

But I might also feel that way simply because I wouldn't particularly want to involve anyone else (or get permission or whatever).

 

If someone needed assistance (Alzheimers or paralyzed) then I would hope they would have a trusted family member or friend who would be willing to help (requested mercy killing).  That ought to be fairly rare though, or yes, it could be abused.  Or maybe at that point some sort of outsider would need to be involved.

 

Still, with the situations we're talking about, anyone ought to be able to look at it all and see it's reasonable.  We're not talking about depression due to loss of a relationship or job or finances.  We're talking about the end of life being near (mentally or physically) and the individual choosing not to suffer until the bitter end.  The chance of recovery/restoration is nil.  It's only time.

[bolt.]

I still really think it needs to be up to individuals rather than doctors, lawyers, or anyone else especially trained for it. Anyone doing this sort of thing regularly would seem to get hardened to it. How could one not?

 

But I might also feel that way simply because I wouldn't particularly want to involve anyone else (or get permission or whatever).

 

If someone needed assistance (Alzheimers or paralyzed) then I would hope they would have a trusted family member or friend who would be willing to help (requested mercy killing). That ought to be fairly rare though, or yes, it could be abused. Or maybe at that point some sort of outsider would need to be involved.

 

Still, with the situations we're talking about, anyone ought to be able to look at it all and see it's reasonable. We're not talking about depression due to loss of a relationship or job or finances. We're talking about the end of life being near (mentally or physically) and the individual choosing not to suffer until the bitter end. The chance of recovery/restoration is nil. It's only time.

That's not entirely true.

 

For one thing, disabled people exist at all ages, with various life expectancies, and -- yes -- they do experience depression (as in: clinical depression, depression caused by adverse events, and depression caused by the adversity of being disabled).

 

Disability, while "rare" proportionally, with large populations is quite a *lot* of people.

 

ALL of those people (and their caregivers) need to know which things are legal (or illegal) and how, and why -- especially around "mercy killing" which is often enacted not *for* disabled individuals, but rather *against* them (using emotional to help them be open to the idea is a form of coercion).

 

It can't be up to individuals. It needs to be governed by laws and monitored by 'outsiders'. Otherwise it is forced to exist covertly without any controls: open to greater abuse.

 

For another thing we will all die, and very few of us will do it instantly. Almost all of us will have somewhere between 'a day to live' and 'xyz months to live' pronounced over us at some point. This is a decision that will effect every person that is dying while under medical care of any kind -- almost every one of us. By the time someone is in a bed they can't leave, in a room they can't control, supervised by people with a duty to care for them (keep them alive and safe)... No, it's not a simple thing to imagine that 'no help suicide' is realistic. At that point most people will face the scenario, either: 'live to the end' or 'get help in some form'. If 'help' is a crime, there is no DIY option, and only 'live to the end' remains. That might be morally right... Or it might not be. I have such a mixed up perspective on it.

[Bluegoat]

I suspect that if we managed to take much better control of how we manage interventions, this question would be much diminished.  I remember hearing that doctor a year or so ago who said that after about 70 or 75, he had no intention of being treated to cure problems - that might be more extreme than many would choose, but I think his point was a good one.  I remember him particularly talking about pnemonia as something that in those who are dying slowly can be a fairly quick and straightforward death, and people should really think about whether they want to be treated for that.

 

I wonder at the confidence that people feel that euthanasia or assisted death could be confined to people who are dying and not suffering from things like depression.  It doesn't seem to have played out that way so clearly where it has been made legal - having admitted the principle that it is a matter of personal choice, and up to the individual to make the decision about the time, it seems to become very difficult to restrict that decision making by the individual, and courts seem to end up finding that it should not be allowed.

[Laura Corin]

 

 

I wonder at the confidence that people feel that euthanasia or assisted death could be confined to people who are dying and not suffering from things like depression.  

 

It can be so hard to disentangle.  In a case personally known to me: a very elderly person with a history of depression tried repeatedly to end her life.  Yes, she had a history of depression, but was she depressed when she made the attempts?  Or was she making a rational decision that she had lived long enough and didn't fancy continuing.  A lot of the hospital stay was involved in trying to tease that out.  The first psychiatrist thought that the attempts were the result of illness; the second that she had been in her right mind.  I tend to agree with the second, so all attempts at present are (in addition to medication for the recurring depression) to make life seem an attractive prospect.  And it that fails, so be it.

[ktgrok]

I'm staunchly against it.

 

That said I do not think being against helping someone die faster is the same as not prolonging their pain or keeping them alive longer.

 

For example, if the patient is in physical pain, I have no qualms about giving them pain relief IF they want it. The goal there is not to kill them faster, though it might have that effect. The goal is simply to reduce their suffering.

 

Another example, I don't think forcing them to endure extraneous measures that will not reduce their pain or change their prognoses is required either.

 

One can be for reducing pain and not extending life past its natural course and also not be for assisted suicide.

 

Exactly.

[Mrs. Tharp]

Let me put it this way. I do not think it is immoral for people to do what they like with their own bodies, provided they minimize harm to others. So suicide isn't inherently immoral, so long as you don't leave behind helpless minor children or give a train driver PTSD or something like that. And certainly, whatever issues of morality might come up are strongly mitigated with a painful, terminal disease - after all, you'll be gone soon anyway, so your kids are going to have to cope, right?

 

However, I have grave concerns about the issue of coercion. In our world today it is not unheard of for people to kill their disabled dependents and then get away with it because they were 'so loving' and after all, their loved one didn't want to be a 'burden'. In our world today, there are business that kick up huge fusses over why they shouldn't have to be ADA-compliant - and that law's only been in place longer than I've been alive! It's 40 years old, when are they going to get it together?

 

So even though I understand the compassionate basis behind physician assisted suicide, and quite agree that people shouldn't be forced to suffer extreme pain when the end is nigh anyway, I feel justified in having some doubts about the real-world applications of these procedures. I would want to make extremely sure that there's no way to co-opt this in order to push people who don't want to die into taking an easier way out. I also feel justified in being concerned that a push for this sort of suicide may cause people to put less work into fixing society to make life better/easier/less painful for people with disabilities or terminal illnesses.

 

This exactly. 

[livetoread]

I used to wonder about why doctors needed to be involved at all, but after googling some suicide sites, it appears that at least in the US, it's hard to get ahold of the drugs that allow a peaceful death without one. Sleeping pills have been altered to become much less lethal and taking enough to cause death can result in vomiting instead. The drugs that allow you to take them and pass peacefully and quickly into death are not readily available. It actually isn't that easy to kill yourself in a non-messy, assuredly lethal way with family around in the US.

[regentrude]

The more I think of this, the more I think, "Why doctors?" -- I can't imagine it takes much (if any) medical skill to assist a person with suicide (if it were legal to do so). I think doctors have a hard role, and it might not be necessary to add this element to it. What about "lawyer assisted suicide"?

 

Doctors can prescribe and administer the medications with which a quick and painless death can be accomplished.

I assume this is the kind of death patients have in mind when they request doctor's assistance.

How is a lawyer helpful here? or any other person? They don't want to be smothered with a pillow or whacked on the head.

Edited March 7, 2016 by regentrude

[bolt.]

I was imagining that a lawyer can do whatever diligence, releases, consent -- whatever would become necessary then (in a scenario where this is legal) perhaps there would be something like a court order permitting a person to obtain/possess the substance -- which would make it possible/legal for the designated individual to purchase it (plausibly at a pharmacy), transport it, administer it, and safely dispose of any residue.

 

I'm fairly sure there must be some substance on earth that would be effective if administered orally. So, don't see where the skills of a doctor are the only way to approach it. (If injection is the only option, then some training would be required, do, then, not "just anybody" but not a medical degree.)

[Audrey]

Just wanted to say that I am reading.  At some point yesterday, I ran out of likes.  I think I've got everyone now, but if I happened to miss someone, it isn't personal.  Everyone's perspectives are interesting and 'like' worthy.

[mamiof5]

No, there is no comparison. Which is why we should not withhold from a fellow human being the compassion we are willing to show towards to a mere animal. If human lives rank higher, so does human suffering.

 

I just look at it from a total different perspective

[Guest2]

I think our lives are intertwined in many ways. I have seen relationships that I never thought could be loving, healed by cargiving at the end of life. I don't think I am explaining this well, but being able to love and care for someone at the end is a gift and changes those they leave behind . That said, I am all for any and all pain relief available as the suffering person desires and support and respite for caregivers.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Silver Brook

[creekland]

It can't be up to individuals. It needs to be governed by laws and monitored by 'outsiders'.

 

...

For another thing we will all die, and very few of us will do it instantly. Almost all of us will have somewhere between 'a day to live' and 'xyz months to live' pronounced over us at some point. This is a decision that will effect every person that is dying while under medical care of any kind -- almost every one of us. By the time someone is in a bed they can't leave, in a room they can't control, supervised by people with a duty to care for them (keep them alive and safe)... No, it's not a simple thing to imagine that 'no help suicide' is realistic. At that point most people will face the scenario, either: 'live to the end' or 'get help in some form'. If 'help' is a crime, there is no DIY option, and only 'live to the end' remains. That might be morally right... Or it might not be. I have such a mixed up perspective on it.

 

Sorry.  It's going to remain up to this individual at the very least.  I really don't have any respect for others claiming control over my life.  What I do is none of their business.

 

Yes, we have rules and laws for society and our safety.  We all need to agree that a stop sign means we stop and look for traffic or that we should be quiet during a performance we're watching, but things like that are entirely different than what we're talking about.

 

And the bolded part is what I alluded to having to make sure we don't reach if the laws stay as they are now.  Except for accidents, it isn't really that difficult.

 

 

I wonder at the confidence that people feel that euthanasia or assisted death could be confined to people who are dying and not suffering from things like depression.  It doesn't seem to have played out that way so clearly where it has been made legal - having admitted the principle that it is a matter of personal choice, and up to the individual to make the decision about the time, it seems to become very difficult to restrict that decision making by the individual.

 

All of this, to me, is a good thing.  The individual should get to make their own decisions.  It's difficult for me to comprehend why some feel differently.  It's not their life to control.

 

I used to wonder about why doctors needed to be involved at all, but after googling some suicide sites, it appears that at least in the US, it's hard to get ahold of the drugs that allow a peaceful death without one. Sleeping pills have been altered to become much less lethal and taking enough to cause death can result in vomiting instead. The drugs that allow you to take them and pass peacefully and quickly into death are not readily available. It actually isn't that easy to kill yourself in a non-messy, assuredly lethal way with family around in the US.

 

I guess... if one wants family around to watch.  That's definitely not my choice.

 

But seriously, one really only needs to take a Bio and/or BioChem course to understand what the body needs and some ways things can go wrong - then put two and two together.

 

I have no desire to share on here.  If one is interested... they'll have to figure it out.

 

Or... if I get teaching Bio again, perhaps you could sit in on my class when we get discussing the human body and how it works/what can go wrong.  We discussed it often.

 

I wouldn't hold out for that though.  I'm not fond of long term teaching and I get less inclined to do it at times like now when we're far from home and I've already had two beach walks this morning (an early one by myself and one with hubby and middle son when they got up).  They frown upon long term teachers taking oodles of time off in the winter.  I'm too selfish to give up these trips or take them solely during planned time off (summer).  We're already getting plans in our mind for next year's winter.

Edited March 7, 2016 by creekland