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.
My dad had a do not resuscitate order registered at his hospital and when he was 94 he was there with pneumonia and a candy striper walked in and brought him back. I guess we could have sued the hospital but we just aren't that kind. He didn't know it happened or he would have been very mad.
The only seriously bad thing for his last years was that my brother died of cancer when the old man was and he didn't think his kids should be dying before he did. About 3 years later I had a heart attack with the resulting 6 by pass surgery and nobody told him about that. He passed alost two months after I got out of the hospital. I'm not sure which of us looked the worst at the funeral.
I'm on the side of people taking it in their own hands.
If the pain is so great, take matters into your own hands, or have a family member do it.
What's considered "dignified" anyway? A bullet in the head or a pillow over the face?
It becomes a slippery slope when government gets involved.
It's simply a matter of drinking a mixture made up by your doctor, then you pass in your sleep, by your own hands.
you said "or have a family member do it" - they can't, they risk going to prison.
You really need to see this from a very sick person's view, alpha. Some don't have the physical ability to do it themselves, and who wants to leave a bloody mess for their family to find, and what if it doesn't work, and you end up a vegetable? Physical assisted is the most dignified solution.
There was a movie I watched recently about a woman in Oregon that had cancer. You grew to know her, love her, and experience her ordeal with fighting the pain until it became intolerable. With her physician's help, she was able to die in the comfort of her home, with her family by her side.
I'm on the side of people taking it in their own hands.
If the pain is so great, take matters into your own hands, or have a family member do it.
What's considered "dignified" anyway? A bullet in the head or a pillow over the face?
It becomes a slippery slope when government gets involved.
Why provide such grizzly options? A terminal patient with chronic pain could opt for a painless shot into their IV that lets them drift off to sleep permanently.
If this is a liberal issue, why wouldn't it be legal in CA?
I suspect extremely-conservative California would be one of the last states in the union to embrace this. Why? Unions, powerful lobbyists!
I've worked in a medical facility for 10 years now, and if you want to risk losing your job, just mention a potential Right to Die law being enacted in your state among Nurses. Off with your head!!!
Jobs! That's what it's all about!
I knew Obama's Universal Health Care plan was a sham, the fact that it didn't include a National Right to Die amendment. Catering to the big unions and lobbyists once again!
Any number of people who prayed daily for someone to intervene and end their lives, in Germany, are still blowing kisses to Hitler. What did he do when he seized power?!!!
I suspect extremely-conservative California would be one of the last states in the union to embrace this. Why? Unions, powerful lobbyists!
I've worked in a medical facility for 10 years now, and if you want to risk losing your job, just mention a potential Right to Die law being enacted in your state among Nurses. Off with your head!!!
Jobs! That's what it's all about!
I knew Obama's Universal Health Care plan was a sham, the fact that it didn't include a National Right to Die amendment. Catering to the big unions and lobbyists once again!
Any number of people who prayed daily for someone to intervene and end their lives, in Germany, are still blowing kisses to Hitler. What did he do when he seized power?!!!
CA is not extremely conservative - always votes blue as a whole in national elections. Now, Orange County is very conservative, but San Francisco is about as uber liberal as you can get. That's why I said if you split the state in two most likely NorCal would have it.
What does this have to do with Obamacare? People were already freaking out with death panel language and the last thing he would have needed to mention was death with dignity as the repubs would have called it euthanasia for old people.
RE: Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders and other types of medical treatment (however minor - including so much as slapping on a Band-Aid) done on unconscious persons.
I'm going to go ahead and offer my (no doubt) quite different opinion on this topic which I am sure differs from most. I think the legal default should run in the opposite direction. It should be a resuscitate order, not a do not resuscitate order.
The default assumption should be to not assume consent, when consent has not been given when it comes to medical treatment. Yet, that is sometimes the opposite of the way the system works now, and I find that morally objectionable.
You should no more have the liberty to assault a person with any form of medical treatment just because you (as a bystander, EMT, paramedic, nurse, doctor, etc...) assume consent, than a sex pervert should have liberty to assume consent of an unconscious person they want to have sex with.
Unless you have explicit, or damn well implied consent to resuscitate or perform any other medical procedure on that person, keep your filthy hands off other people.
A double slap in the face, the second assault (as if the first one was not bad enough as it is) is then when that assaulter tries to stick a medical bill on the non-consenting party for things they did not even ask for. Any work done should be done with the expectation that it is free. A landscaper doesn't go around assuming that somebody with long grass wants their lawn cut, and then they proceed to cut peoples lawns without asking them, and then dropping a bill in peoples boxes and expecting to be paid, and so too should hospitals not expect to be paid. If the customer is grateful and wants to pay, should they recover, then all the better. Don't have that expectation, though. Don't like the idea of not being remunerated? Good. Perhaps that will be the necessary incentive to keep your hands off of people and not render services (however minor) without consent.
RE: Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders and other types of medical treatment often done on injured or unconscious persons.
I'm going to go ahead and offer my (no doubt) quite different opinion on this topic which I am sure differs from most. I think the legal default should run in the opposite direction. It should be a resuscitate order, not a do not resuscitate order.
The default assumption should be to not assume consent, when consent has not been given when it comes to medical treatment. Yet, that is sometimes the opposite of the way the system works now, and I find that morally objectionable.
You should no more have the liberty to assault a person with any form of medical treatment just because you (as an EMT, paramedic, nurse, or doctor) assume consent, than a sex pervert should have liberty to assume consent of an unconscious person they want to have sex with.
Unless you have explicit, or damn well implied consent to resuscitate or perform any other medical procedure on, keep your filthy hands off other people, because you have no business touching them.
A double slap in the face, the second assault (as if the first one was not bad enough as it is) is then when that assaulter tries to stick a medical bill on the non-consenting party for things they did not even ask for. Any work done should be done with the expectation that it is free. A landscaper doesn't go around assuming that somebody with long grass wants their lawn cut, and then they proceed to cut peoples lawns without asking them, and then dropping a bill in peoples boxes and expecting to be paid, and so too should hospitals not expect to be paid. If the customer is grateful and wants to pay, should they recover, then all the better. Don't have that expectation, though.
Ok, I'll go along with this, but death with dignity would eliminate all this hassle. When my dad went into hospice he didn't die for five months. He could have well signed a death with dignity something or other (or maybe not, as he had Alzheimer's and therein lies the slippery slope). However, all of us in the family know and knew he would not want to live in a lockdown ward for four years. So these cases are somewhat exceptional but I'd still argue that someone, when lucid, could sign some form saying in the event of being diagnosed with six months or less to live they want to go the death with dignity route. Mind you, this is not for people who are depressed, rather people who have no hope of recovery and why force someone to go through a miserable and painful death (as they sometimes are).
Mind you, this is not for people who are depressed, rather people who have no hope of recovery...
I would place no limitations on it. Legal limitations on who can have avail themselves of death are motivated by purposes of political expediency to placate one group of another who wants to draw distinctions on which group shall be entitled to this legal privilege.
The limitation intentionally turns it into a privilege, rather than a broad based moral right which can be exercised by anyone.
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.
