Kevin's Watch

Agree with Vraith and Ali.

If it's my life, I get to decide if I want to live or not.

--A

ali wrote:I think that as soon as you start saying that one outcome (i.e., preserving life) is always Good in all cases, then *all* medical procedures tread an ethical knife edge.

I didn't say in all cases; another example would be a person dying of multiple myeloma. The first round of treatment can give the person 3-5 years of life. The second round, a few months. Worth it? Not really in the people I've known. Those last few months were drawn-out agony.

Anyway the point is not that legal assisted suicide could ameliorate suffering in some cases. The point is that people always twist things to their advantage. What was supposed to be the Huntington's or ALS or cancer victim's path of choice, dignity, and personal sovereignty, quickly morphs into society's way of getting rid of the unwanted ("the poor, the lame, the maimed, the blind".) The measure of a society is in how it treats its weaker members-- children, old ones, disabled. Our record is not so good on that point.

I just see it becoming euthanasia overnight.

Hi Guys - been at work for a couple of days so first chance to see the thread. Sorry about the poll problem - there was a 'yes' option when I posted originally but (not for the first time) I seemed to have trouble getting my poll options recognised. Thanks for fixing the poll Av.

re the placing of the thread in the General Discussion Forum. This was deliberate as I wanted to canvas opinion (because after all, this is all any of us can have on this subject) from as wide a selection of members as possible and not just from 'the beasts' . One line answers with the rational 'just because' are as valid here as 3 page long, minutely argued theses. There is I suppose a bit of me that believes that taken en mass, the opinion of a large number of people is probably most likely to hit the 'correct mark', if there is such a thing in this type of question.

One of the main problems I have with this proceedure is not so much with the idea itself which can be intellectually justified (?) with sound arguments about limiting suffering etc - but with how the decission making process can actually be made to work in the way it is intended to - or if indeed it can be at all. Orlion comes closest to putting in place the caveats that might be needed but it has been pointed out that already he has created a framework beyond which no case would ever be likely to proceed.

The emphasis in thinking about this subject is nearly always with the idea of 'pain' (with no reasonable prospect of relief or recovery) in the forefront. This is central to our idea of the type of suffering that we might wish to avoid by opting for assisted suicide. But would we really wish to lose our (quite possibly) last ever few days/weeks of independant existence because of the sake of pain. Is this truly the only way. Strangely the people most in favor of the 'yes' option (not here but generally) tend to be the non-believers for whom one would think that those precious few moments of life (being as they believe, all we are ever going to get) would be all the more valuable. Clearly for believers a 'scriptural' basis for their 'against' position can be posited, which will be backed up with the general arguments used by the anti side of the debate.

The co-opting of the idea of dignity by the pro-lobby groups in this argument is I think disingenuous. There is nothing undignified in needing to be cared for on the terminal stages of an ilness - or indeed at any other stage either. In fact there is (or can be at least) the greatest expression of both humility and dignity (not to mention tenderness and love) possible within the human condition in the very acts we would eschew. That we no longer see that the care and love which a parent bestows on a child can be re-paid in kind by the child on the parent - with equally beneficial psychological results for both - is a fact that our forebears would find strange indeed. I think that re-bonding at the end of life could be as important for those left behind as their nurture was in their infancy. Still - maybe not,

Back to suffering though. Orlions caveat of the process of assisted suicide applying only to painfull and terminal disease is of course as I said above where most of ue see it's function. But in so doing we deny this avenue of escape to those whose suffering goes beyond and lasts infinitely longer than that of sufferes of merely terminal physical disease. I refer of course to the chronically mentally ill. How could we justifiably deny this proceedure, if it be allowed, to those whose daily torments from schizophrenia, clinical depression etc go beyond our worst nightmares in the realms of physical pain and with no prospect of a 'cure' in sight. (That we know this is exemplified by the fact that not the one of us would choose madness over physical disease in a month of sundays.)

Now these things above refer only to the proceedure working in the way it is intended to - they don't even scratch the surface of the mountain of problems related to whether people will feel 'coerced' into opting for the proceedure, or whether they, in their vulnerable and easily manipulated state (the normal condition of the terminally ill) may not be able resist allowing the decision to be made for them - even with the best of intentions. And how, as above mentioned, the proceedure can be effectively controlled when money (as it inevitably will) becomes an issue. (Will we, like the railway/hotel system, have 1st class, 2nd class and 3rd class routes of exit). And then you move into the potential for problems with huge estates in the offing for benefficiarys of the (soon to be, if we can persuade him) deceased. My head hurts just thinking of how this will all opperate if it becomes the normal and prefered route of assisting people to thier end. Surely we are best just to concentrate on the elimination of suffering while people are alive and leave the end to it's own devices. It has after all been doing it a long time and probably knows it's own business best.

Undecided. For myself, when and if the time comes, I would hope that if I chose not to undergo any more treatment, my wishes would be respected. Not quite the same as assisted suicide. It is such a personal thing and the decision should always be made by the dying person.

I'm sure that my mother was "assisted" to die. She had an operation followed by a year's remission, it came back so she had radiotherapy followed by another year's remission. The third time it came back she deteriorated rapidly, and the docters decided to give her chemo. Three days after the first bout of chemo she died. The next morning the doctor rang my Dad (I answered the phone as I stayed with him a few days after she died) and wanted to know exactly what had happened! I'm convinced that he gave her the chemo knowing that it would have that result. I don't blame him mind, by that time she was very poorly indeed and obviously would not recover. She was only 63, 3 years older than I am now.

I have two friends currently making the journey. One of my friends has had cancer for 8 years, from breast, to ovary to colon and now the brain. She fights every day. She takes every option available to her and keeps going. At 57 I have watched her deteriorate into a child. They have cut and cut and cut and radiate and radiate and radiate. But she keeps fighting. And good for her.

My other friend is dying of stage 4 pancreatic cancer at 62. She has about 2 months to go and is in constant unrelenting agony. Medication doesn't work, she can no longer see the tv or the computer screen, she can no longer eat due to the masses in her pancreas, stomach and liver, she can hardly talk due to the pain, she can't even pet her dogs anymore. She wants me to help her exit. She is afraid if she tries to take an overdose of pills she will just throw them up, and she is probably right. I think if she took all her morphine patches and put them on at once with pills etc it might work. But, I don't say this. What if it goes wrong and she goes into a coma? Maybe though, a coma is better than daily suffering. Why isn't there someone to assist her. What is the point of all this medicine if this is the outcome?

So sorry for your friend, lorin. In her case, the docs are probably afraid to give her the level of pain amelioration she deserves because they're afraid of lawsuits.

Has she tried marijuana? I am thoroughly in support of medical marijuana because of what I've heard it can do. But probably an opiate is more the level of what she needs.

Lorin - all arguments fade into insignificance in the face of this telling.

For.
Just because.

(Actually, I have many arguments - the belief we are allowed /advised to put our pets down when their suffering becomes cruel but not ourselves or our human loved ones chief among them - but Peter gave me the 'brief post' option so I'm using it )

That said, I really must say it's a human freedom issue in so far as I'm concerned. That someone's personal religious beliefs should prevent me from having the right to choose when I've had enough incredible pain and suffering makes me angry. Obviously measures to prevent abuse need to be in place, but I'd like my wishes, made either ahead of time or when of a sane mind, to be respected damn it.

I hear you Shaun, but it's not personal religious beliefs that are the issue, it is an ethical and legal issue about the definition of suicide and murder.

I used Holland as a case in point because "assisted suicide" transformed almost immediately into "doctor-controlled euthanasia" and I see no reason why that wouldn't be the ramification in any other country.

I also think it should be said that there is a big difference between assisted suicide and withdrawing medical treatment in hopeless cases, and allowing the person to die. That may be the most merciful thing to do.

A whole different problem there, is that "medical treatment" has been interpreted as "providing food", as in the case of a Pennsylvania boy born in the 80s with Down Syndrome, but no other handicaps, who was allowed to starve and dehydrate to death in the hospital because his parents chose to "refuse medical treatment"-- when all the baby needed was normal (not heroic) care. That's the kind of slippery slope we're looking at.

If someone really wants to end their life, they will generally find a way to do it without it becoming societally-sanctioned. Once sanctioned, it becomes an open door to abuse.

deer of the dawn wrote:So sorry for your friend, lorin. In her case, the docs are probably afraid to give her the level of pain amelioration she deserves because they're afraid of lawsuits.

Has she tried marijuana? I am thoroughly in support of medical marijuana because of what I've heard it can do. But probably an opiate is more the level of what she needs.

Lawsuits? In many places they're getting more and more worried about jail cuz they're being charged with drug-dealing and/or murder. [some certainly deserve it, but often the charges aren't based on any medical investigation...they just track the number of pills, then arbitrarily say "that's too many."]
Heh...there was even a case where a patient and his doctor were both arrested. And then, while in jail, the patient was given EXACTLY the same treatment by the state prison system that his doctor had prescribed!. Eventually they were both acquitted...but only after almost a year in jail [no bail for flight-risky drug dealers!]

On your other post...I looked at the Holland thing. It doesn't seem to me that it is the Doctor's decision. The patient has to be mentally healthy, definite, consistent over time, voluntary [not under influence of drugs or other people] and a number of other requirements [though for me, only those ones are relevant].

deer of the dawn wrote:Once sanctioned, it becomes an open door to abuse.

You think we'll be over-run by terminally ill people killing themselves? I don't see it as that much of a problem.

--A

Avatar wrote:

deer of the dawn wrote:Once sanctioned, it becomes an open door to abuse.

You think we'll be over-run by terminally ill people killing themselves? I don't see it as that much of a problem.

--A

No! I think terminally ill people will be overrun by "assistance" in offing themselves!! And by extension, those whose treatment will cost too much, or isn't "worth it" because they are "too old"; or whose mental illness is too difficult to contain, or whose handicap is too expensive to maintain, etc....

Re: Holland, these stats were given me by a surgeon who also taught an ethics class-- I don't know his original source:

D. Holland has gradually loosened the criteria for euthanasia since 1990.
1. 8,100 cases doctors prescribed lethal doses of pain medications and 61% patients had not consented to their death.
2. 45% cases of involuntary euthanasia, doctors didn’t even consult family members.

It may be "assisted suicide" on the books, but this is what happens. Also in Belgium. And Australia. And of course, Nazi Germany.

Interesting statement from a Parliamentary Paper (Australia):

It needs to be recognised that voluntary Euthanasia is only an initial goal of the Pro-Euthanasia Lobby leaders... they have a clearly documented agenda to introduce involuntary euthanasia and their current
writings clearly state as much. This means that they support the killing by euthanasia of deformed children, mental
defectives, severely disabled people and the frail aged especially if they are senile. Voluntary euthanasia is the first
step in their plan, it establishes the principle that life can be taken under certain circumstances.

Avatar wrote:

deer of the dawn wrote:Once sanctioned, it becomes an open door to abuse.

You think we'll be over-run by terminally ill people killing themselves? I don't see it as that much of a problem.

--A

It's funny but true. The dr. told my friend he wouldn't increase her percoset because of the risk of dependency

deer of the dawn wrote:

Avatar wrote:

deer of the dawn wrote:Once sanctioned, it becomes an open door to abuse.

You think we'll be over-run by terminally ill people killing themselves? I don't see it as that much of a problem.

--A

No! I think terminally ill people will be overrun by "assistance" in offing themselves!! And by extension, those whose treatment will cost too much, or isn't "worth it" because they are "too old"; or whose mental illness is too difficult to contain, or whose handicap is too expensive to maintain, etc....

I would help her in a flat second if I knew what the hell I was doing. I would have absolutely no problem doing that. None.

deer of the dawn wrote: It may be "assisted suicide" on the books, but this is what happens. Also in Belgium. And Australia.

Sorry Deer, buy not exactly unbiased source for Belgium. And the Australian one has as many pro as anti arguments...and those arguments are not scientific studies, but submissions by people and organisations supporting or opposing.

According to the Dutch Patients Rights Council it's 7% that were done without the explicit request of the patient. And Dutch law allows written requests from a previous date to be taken into consideration, so an explicit request is not always necessary, just as it is not always possible.

Look, I'm not saying abuse is impossible. I think it would be considerably less significant than some people seem to fear though.

--A

which 7% are you ok with offing Avatar?

Ok, I withheld judgment before, but this is clearly a Tank topic. Can I get a move?

[Syl] wrote:Ok, I withheld judgment before, but this is clearly a Tank topic. Can I get a move?

Amen! sorry misunderstood the request.

[Syl] wrote:Ok, I withheld judgment before, but this is clearly a Tank topic. Can I get a move?

IMO this thread belongs in The Close.

null wrote:which 7% are you ok with offing Avatar?

That is a total distortion of what Av said.

Which 100% are you ok with locking up to torture and treat no matter what?