Physician-assisted suicide and religion (attending, hate, quote, believe)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet, it doesn't seem like the issue of adhering to a patient's written directive to withhold artificial nutrition and hydration and ventilation causes the same ethical concerns however. In this case, why no qualms over letting the body starve and dehydrate and slowly suffocate itself? We don't think this would be a very ethical thing to do when it comes to our pets.
And yet, it doesn't seem like the issue of adhering to a patient's written directive to withhold artificial nutrition and hydration and ventilation causes the same ethical concerns however. In this case, why no qualms over letting the body starve and dehydrate and slowly suffocate itself? We don't think this would be a very ethical thing to do when it comes to our pets.
This isn't the cure-all or ease of mind should I say for them if the doctor diagnosis states they have quite a few years to live as it has to be within a six-month time period.
From what I've read, it's a huge issue with doctors. So much so, that it has prompted Dr. Lisa S. Lehmann, director of the Center for Bioethics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, to suggest removing doctors from the "assisted dying" process.
Quote:
"I believe patients should have control over the timing of death if they desire. And I suggest rethinking the role of physicians in the process so we can respect patient choices without doing something at odds with the integrity of physicians," she said.
Instead of prescribing the life-ending medication, physicians should only be responsible for diagnosing patients as terminally ill, Lehmann said. Terminally ill patients should then be able to pick up the medication from a state-approved center, similar to medical marijuana dispensaries.
The cowards. They need to man up the same as veterinarians and stand with their patients through all phases of life, including death.
Besides, a weak, dying person can't simply pick up meds at a dispensary and pop a pill and pass out. It's not that simple. It should be professionally administered and monitored or you could end up like that guy Oklahoma botched the execution on last week.
Nor would I favor a "death center", a la Soylent Green. Not if were staffed by lightly trained paramedicals, especially.
The cowards. They need to man up the same as veterinarians and stand with their patients through all phases of life, including death.
Besides, a weak, dying person can't simply pick up meds at a dispensary and pop a pill and pass out. It's not that simple. It should be professionally administered and monitored or you could end up like that guy Oklahoma botched the execution on last week.
Nor would I favor a "death center", a la Soylent Green. Not if were staffed by lightly trained paramedicals, especially.
In at least some cases, it is not a matter of cowardice. It has to do with the oath a doctor takes, which is sometimes seen as a legally binding oath. There have been cases where doctors were sanctioned by the medical board for violating their oath, so it is just a small step to bring legal charges. Accessory to a crime, perhaps? Lose a medical license as a convicted felon?
In at least some cases, it is not a matter of cowardice. It has to do with the oath a doctor takes, which is sometimes seen as a legally binding oath. There have been cases where doctors were sanctioned by the medical board for violating their oath, so it is just a small step to bring legal charges. Accessory to a crime, perhaps? Lose a medical license as a convicted felon?
A fair point, but doctors should be fighting for the right to serve their patients in all life circumstances including end-of-life, including changing such laws.
The Hippocratic Oath says "first, do no harm" but it is not harmful to support a person in their dying wishes, and it IS harmful to mindlessly leave no stone unturned in prolonging life regardless of its quality or prospects for improvement or the wishes of the, ahem, patient themselves.
One could argue that there is an implied contract for your pet to leave the vet's office alive but when you request euthanasia services and they provide it, it seems to me they are not getting sued -- not even by extended family that might not have been in agreement with the euthanasia.
There are ways to work these things out, and it's not by fleeing from the issue. There is also an element here of "I'm a doctor but I'm afraid to die too, so I'm shrinking from having any part in acceptance of anyone's mortality so that I don't have to accept my own." That's the cowardice part also.
I'm not suggesting doctors should be forced into situations that are illegal or expose them to liability, but they don't seem to be fighting for what's right, just for what's safe and comfortable.
If assisted-suicide is okay or, as some people argue, even morally superior to keeping a patient alive at all costs, why reserve it only for doctors? Anybody should be allowed to assist a suicide.
If assisted-suicide is okay or, as some people argue, even morally superior to keeping a patient alive at all costs, why reserve it only for doctors? Anybody should be allowed to assist a suicide.
That would be the logical thing to do if assisted suicide is legalized.
If assisted-suicide is okay or, as some people argue, even morally superior to keeping a patient alive at all costs, why reserve it only for doctors? Anybody should be allowed to assist a suicide.
Because it is up to the discretion of how long the individual has to live, they must be within a six-month period of life left to have this procedure administered, only a physician would know this or is able to do this by law.
Because it is up to the discretion of how long the individual has to live, they must be within a six-month period of life left to have this procedure administered, only a physician would know this or is able to do this by law.
In 2004 I had a prognosis of 3 months at the most without treatment for lung Cancer. I declined treatment.
I suspect the Doctors might have missed the time frame.
Point being the 6 months still comes down to the Doctors opinion. Can not prove a person has a life expectancy of 6 months max, unless the person actually dies in that time frame.
Even the best of doctors can make errors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
