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.
That's what hospice does. They drug the person unconscious and continue to drugthe unconscious person until death if hospice is in a hurry and whatever financially is best for them.
Yeah you or someone acting as your power of attorney signs "I agree to be treated with drugs that may shorten my life", and there you go, the drugs make the patient incoherent, unconscious and cause death.
I had a friend that died in a hospice from cancer. He was on a morphine dispenser that he controlled himself up to a point. If he used too much it would shut off so he was not able to use enough to lose consciousness. He finally passed away after a couple of months. The hospice did not seem to be hurrying his demise and they did what they could to make his last days comfortable.
When a beloved pet is suffering from very ill health or nearing end of quality life, we consider it an ultimate act of compassion to end their lives. And obviously the pets are not choosing to voluntarily end their lives.
Yet, some of these same people then consider it heresy or a moral abomination to give that same consideration to humans; the ones that want to end their lives are suffering terrible pain and zero quality of life in doing basic human functions.
Nine U.S. states allowing "aid in dying." And for those who think it's a slippery slope, the guidelines in the U.S. are not like some in other countries where the rules are looser. Two doctors have to verify that the patient has a terminal illness or is suffering, so it's not like people are ending their lives on a whim or because of some false reason.
Do we not own our bodies? If someone wants euthanasia and finds someone willing to perform comfortable euthanasia on then, should that not be the right of two consenting adults?
Well, the argument against is often rooted in religious views and then they use excuses like you aren't in your right mind and thus can't consent.
While this may be the case for some people, especially the very young or those suffering from depression, for people facing terminal illness and horrible debilitating stuff like Lou Gherigs or MS then that is a whole other story and could easily be a rational decision.
So, in general I absolutely agree with you unless the person in question seems to be suffering some temporary depression or solvable angst and thus not able to make the choice.
I know this much, if I get MS (I have a friend dying of it currently), if I really start to decline I'm going to take care of it before the horrible part myself. Something fabulous though like live-streaming a black-wetsuit surface swim around the farallon islands during seal season. Post that crap up and have the *hits* benefit some charity.
Well, one is suicide and the other homicide. It becomes a problem in the adjudication.
It could be homicide depending on how the law is interpreted. Believe it or not, there are mercy killings in hospitals. I've seen it in my 25 years in health care. Lets say a person comes in with severe burns over 80% of their bodies. They're barely alive and suffering immensely. They're also teetering between life and death. Do you give them whatever pain meds and sedation needed to control their discomfort knowing they could and most likely will die faster with meds on board, or do you watch them suffer until nature takes its course and they die an agonizing death either hours or days later?
I understand the concerns for abuses. They most definitely could exist. Unfortunately people will also take their own life or try to with bad outcomes. It's a delicate balance. I do believe we should have a choice to end suffering.
It could be homicide depending on how the law is interpreted. Believe it or not, there are mercy killings in hospitals. I've seen it in my 25 years in health care. Lets say a person comes in with severe burns over 80% of their bodies. They're barely alive and suffering immensely. They're also teetering between life and death. Do you give them whatever pain meds and sedation needed to control their discomfort knowing they could and most likely will die faster with meds on board, or do you watch them suffer until nature takes its course and they die an agonizing death either hours or days later?
I understand the concerns for abuses. They most definitely could exist. Unfortunately people will also take their own life or try to with bad outcomes. It's a delicate balance. I do believe we should have a choice to end suffering.
As you note, this is exactly the question that physician-assisted suicide is an answer for. Having worked in an ICU for several tears, the spectacle of people who tried to kill themselves and failed is all too familiar to me. People facing a terminal illness should not have to take these desperate measures, nor should a physician who knows how to help them die peacefully be criminally prosecuted for helping them.
People facing their ends have always found ways to avoid a bitter death, and herbalists/shamans/physicians/caregivers have always helped them do it. All that a physician-assisted suicide law does is lay out the conditions under which a physician/hospital cannot be prosecuted for murder for providing such help, which means that certain patients won't have to shoot themselves in the wrong spot or swallow pills or herbs which may or may not do the job and cause additional suffering in the process. A physician/institution that offers such aid in dying outside the parameters of the law may still be liable for murder.
I've taken care of severely burned people. It would be cruel beyond belief to withhold sufficient painkillers from them, regardless of whether the painkiller hastens their end or not. And the same is true of other conditions, including some cancers.
It's interesting to note that Oregon, the first state to enact a physician-assisted suicide law, keeps track of the prescriptions written for this purpose, and has found that about 20% of them are never filled. Patients have said that the mere possession of the prescription eases their minds and helps them cope with their physical and emotional pain.
I was living in Oregon and voted for this law twice - when it was first passed as a voter initiative, and when a religion-led coalition convinced the legislature to refer a repeal to the voters. Of note, the referendum support for the law was greater than the support for the original initiative. My nursing experience was a major reason why I supported this law, and still do. IMO, it contains sufficient safeguards to ensure that the decision remains with the patient throughout.
I don't like euthanasia - where someone else makes the decision that a particular person should die. I will note that I think the greatest perpetrators of euthanasia today are insurance companies, when they refuse to continue to pay for treatment, not physicians and caregivers.
I had a friend that died in a hospice from cancer. He was on a morphine dispenser that he controlled himself up to a point. If he used too much it would shut off so he was not able to use enough to lose consciousness. He finally passed away after a couple of months. The hospice did not seem to be hurrying his demise and they did what they could to make his last days comfortable.
Healthcare and health insurance can vary, but once you're in an nursing home institution and/or on hospice, they can pretty much do whatever they want, and offer or inject drugs of various types and doses. The patient and their friends and family would have no knowledge or understanding of what is being administered.
Once it becomes legal to kill patients it will be abused and misused even more than palliative care already is.
Patients will increasingly be euthanized for convenience and financial/economic reasons, and other improper reasons.
Healthcare is financially corrupt and administered dishonestly to a very large extent. It's more about maximizing revenue than it is about not harming the health and well being of patients.
Once it becomes legal to kill patients it will be abused and misused even more than palliative care already is.
Patients will increasingly be euthanized for convenience and financial/economic reasons, and other improper reasons.
Healthcare is financially corrupt and administered dishonestly to a very large extent. It's more about maximizing revenue than it is about not harming the health and well being of patients.
In addition, the so-called Hippocratic Oath might become the Hypocritical Oath.
What's odd is that the proponents aren't calling it "suicide," and MEs are noting the deaths as "natural causes" on death certificates.
Whatever one's opinion, let's be real and forget the euphemisms. These are suicides.Call it that.
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.
Post that crap up and have the *hits* benefit some charity.
