Physician-Assisted Suicides

Post by **jones jones** » Tue May 27, 2008 10:52 pm

do you think that physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for terminally ill patients?

or should physician-assisted suicide be illegal?

Jj

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue May 27, 2008 11:25 pm

I think it should be completely legal and that it's a barbaric society that would forbid it.

ilona17 · Post by **ilona17** » Wed May 28, 2008 1:02 am

RedGlitter;875959 wrote: I think it should be completely legal and that it's a barbaric society that would forbid it.

Yeah I personally couldn't agree more. It's a persons own choice and if they want to die with dignity then why should anyone want to forbid that.

Of course I would stress the importance of making sure this is really what the person wants, and that they were in the correct state of mind when making this decision and made it for the right reasons.

mrsK · Post by **mrsK** » Wed May 28, 2008 2:14 am

jones jones;875956 wrote: do you think that physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for terminally ill patients?

or should physician-assisted suicide be illegal?

Jj

Yes I do & I would want to make use of it as well:-6

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 28, 2008 2:51 am

On the whole I'm in favour of physician assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness involving great pain or mental distress. I think it already happens.

I can't prove it, and I'm going to keep this a bit vague in case there are legal implications, but I knew someone terminally ill with liver cancer. There came the time when the pain bit hard and the person went to bed with a huge painkiller. The local doctor came and set up a morphine drip and I am virtually certain he set it quite deliberately at a level that would kill the person involved painlessly on the night when that person would have died anyway. I am grateful to the doctor for saving the patient much unnecessary suffering.

There are serious implications for the Hippocratic Oath, however. I forget the exact wording, but don't doctors swear never to take a human life or allow a person to die from neglect? It's an absolute statement and generally I am in favour of it for that profession. Which completely contradicts what I've just said.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:24 am

jones jones;875956 wrote: do you think that physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for terminally ill patients?

or should physician-assisted suicide be illegal?

Jj
It's a nice euphamism isn't it?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:32 am

Clodhopper;876016 wrote: There are serious implications for the Hippocratic Oath, however. I forget the exact wording, but don't doctors swear never to take a human life or allow a person to die from neglect? It's an absolute statement and generally I am in favour of it for that profession. Which completely contradicts what I've just said.
I googled it. Interesting. This is from Wiki

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepios and Hygeia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.

In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.It's a good thing they're not really required to take such an oath, eh?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:39 am

I'm not certain if all doctors are required to take it, but wiki says this is the new oath:

The Declaration of Geneva, as currently amended, reads:

At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:
I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;

I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;

I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity;

The health of my patient will be my first consideration;

I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;

I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;

My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;

I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;

I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;

I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;

I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.I think most people today would say that the statement I bolded would include not allowing terminally ill patients to suffer needlessly.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:52 am

Thanks, Acc. I suppose it comes down to what we mean by "utmost respect for human life". To me it suggests not deliberately ending it, but I'm not entirely sure about that and I do wonder what a lawyer might make of it.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed May 28, 2008 4:06 am

Hell, why not? Physician-assisted murder, called abortion to be "politically correct", is OK at the front end of the life cycle.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 28, 2008 5:10 am

hoppy;876092 wrote: Hell, why not? Physician-assisted murder, called abortion to be "politically correct", is OK at the front end of the life cycle.
Yup. All we have to do is apply the term "viable" and Bob's yer uncle.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed May 28, 2008 7:39 am

RJ and I agree on this! :-2

Post by **jones jones** » Wed May 28, 2008 8:47 am

i agree with Rg and Rj ...

and its nice to see that the Garden is still functioning normally with fors and againsts!

Jj

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed May 28, 2008 9:01 am

I think we've probably talked about this before at some point but it never hurts to get more input from members, including the new ones.

Under the classic Greek translation it states to promise to do no harm.

Original, translated from Greek.[1]

“ I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath. To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

Perhaps this is a judgement call on the part of each physician but I tend to think that a doctor who refused patient requested euthanasia (which translates to "GOOD DEATH") where it was legal, would be in fact, doing harm.

As far as the morphine drip goes, that was mentioned, I firmly believe that when my mom's doctor asked me what I wanted him to do for her in her final time, and I said to make her comfortable and let her go, that that is what he did via the morphine drip. And I continue to be grateful to him for that.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 28, 2008 12:12 pm

jones jones;875956 wrote: do you think that physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for terminally ill patients?

or should physician-assisted suicide be illegal?

Jj

You might be interested in :-

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=15771

Post by **jones jones** » Wed May 28, 2008 12:20 pm

Bryn Mawr;876546 wrote: You might be interested in :-

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=15771

thanx ... it looks very interesting ... i shall check it out!

Jj

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:38 pm

RedGlitter;876378 wrote: Perhaps this is a judgement call on the part of each physician but I tend to think that a doctor who refused patient requested euthanasia (which translates to "GOOD DEATH") where it was legal, would be in fact, doing harm.
Legal or illegal shouldn't matter, if it's truly doing harm. Unfortunately, your translation also says "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death." When a person is suffering terrible pain in the clutches of a terminal illness, which statement should take priority?

Of course, your translation also says "Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion," and that one's gone out the window, so why not the deadly drug clause too?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:50 pm

Accountable;876763 wrote: Legal or illegal shouldn't matter, if it's truly doing harm. Unfortunately, your translation also says "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death." When a person is suffering terrible pain in the clutches of a terminal illness, which statement should take priority?

Of course, your translation also says "Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion," and that one's gone out the window, so why not the deadly drug clause too?

Setting aside this discussion of a set of rules from 2,500 years ago when medicine was unrecognisable from that available today - if you had a dog that was terminally ill and in agony, would you watch it suffer or would you put it out of its misery?

The decision to be made is whether, given that the patient is terminal and in great pain, a physician does more harm by using his technology to prolong that life or to close it peacefully.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:56 pm

Accountable;876763 wrote: Legal or illegal shouldn't matter, if it's truly doing harm. Unfortunately, your translation also says "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death." When a person is suffering terrible pain in the clutches of a terminal illness, which statement should take priority?

Of course, your translation also says "Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion," and that one's gone out the window, so why not the deadly drug clause too?

You have good points, Acc. I can only offer that "do no harm" has been seen differently over the centuries. I think the original intent to harm none is still there, just that it's been modified.

I am surprised that they included that drug clause (and even the abortion clause) because we generally see them as greatly modern even for their time, so what gives? Perhaps they thought one of their Gods would get mad and come down off Mt. Olympus if they dared send one to a happy death or aborted someone? I really don't know.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 28, 2008 4:40 pm

Bryn Mawr;876770 wrote: Setting aside this discussion of a set of rules from 2,500 years ago when medicine was unrecognisable from that available today - if you had a dog that was terminally ill and in agony, would you watch it suffer or would you put it out of its misery?

The decision to be made is whether, given that the patient is terminal and in great pain, a physician does more harm by using his technology to prolong that life or to close it peacefully.
I'd put a dog down if the surgery were too expensive. I'd put a dog down for an arthritic hip. I've put dogs out of their misery after being hit by a car or attacked by other animals. Dogs are not analogous to humans in my mind.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 28, 2008 4:43 pm

RedGlitter;876775 wrote: You have good points, Acc. I can only offer that "do no harm" has been seen differently over the centuries. I think the original intent to harm none is still there, just that it's been modified.

I am surprised that they included that drug clause (and even the abortion clause) because we generally see them as greatly modern even for their time, so what gives? Perhaps they thought one of their Gods would get mad and come down off Mt. Olympus if they dared send one to a happy death or aborted someone? I really don't know.
Maybe because life was too sacred for a mere human to decide the time had come, and that sacred life was just as sacred while still in the womb. Nuts, I know, but just maybe.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed May 28, 2008 5:24 pm

jones jones;875956 wrote: do you think that physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for terminally ill patients?

or should physician-assisted suicide be illegal?

Jj

Of course. But why only physicians ?

I think there should be plumber assisted suicides and librarian assisted suicides, garbageman assisted suicides.

Everyone should bone up on their suicide assisting technique.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Wed May 28, 2008 5:35 pm

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl I'm always amazed and what goes on in your mind Nomie.

[QUOTE]Of course. But why only physicians ?

I think there should be plumber assisted suicides and librarian assisted suicides, garbageman assisted suicides.

Everyone should bone up on their suicide assisting technique.[/QUOTE]

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 28, 2008 11:27 pm

Accountable;876798 wrote: I'd put a dog down if the surgery were too expensive. I'd put a dog down for an arthritic hip. I've put dogs out of their misery after being hit by a car or attacked by other animals. Dogs are not analogous to humans in my mind.

And my second point?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu May 29, 2008 12:40 am

From Bryn:

The decision to be made is whether, given that the patient is terminal and in great pain, a physician does more harm by using his technology to prolong that life or to close it peacefully.

If I may, I think I have a prime example of overzealous physicians who put their patients through suffering to prolong a life that in actuality, is numbered.

Most of you know my mom died of brain cancer. Before we knew it had attacked her brain she was being radiated and chemo'd for cancerous lumps all over her body. Then we found out about the brain lesion. The doctors immediately presumed she would want surgery to remove it but my mom refused. We all felt the same way, that when it goes to your head, it's just time to enjoy the time you have left. Also my mom's sister had received brain surgery years before and it left her damaged and she died a few months later from the cancer spreading internally. It was a waste essentially and destroyed the remaining time my aunt had left.

When my mother was in the hospital for the final time, which was only about two months after she had the Gamma Knife procedure done on her brain (a procedure using bursts of gamma rays concentrated on the lesion- there actually is no knife or cutting involved) she was complaining of stomach pain. My mom never complained about little stuff so it must have been bad. The nurses would give her Milk of Magnesia. It didn't help. Finally one night after she'd been moved to ICU, she was having more stomach pain and the nurse brought her the usual MOM. I asked the nurse privately what would cause that pain and she said "Well, when the cancer spreads through the stomach area....it can cause a lot of pain." I was stunned. I said "You mean it's in her stomach?!" She was so apologetic. She said "I thought the doctors had told you, I'm so sorry!" Well I promised her I wouldn't cost her her job and I thanked her profusely for telling me the truth. Then I got pissed off. Those doctors knew the cancer was still spreading and that my mom had no chance of recovering from it, had already received the maximum dosages of chemo and radiation and yet they wanted to cut open her head anyway just because they could! My mother died June 4th which was about two months after being diagnosed with the brain cancer. That would have been two months of pain and difficult recovery for what?? Because life is sacred so we have to try to fight death even when it's not the enemy?

When Mom was dying, I was going back and forth to the nurse for pain medication. The morphine injections stopped working and they tried several other things including the Fentanyl patch. Mom was still in pain. Finally they called the pain specialist in and he came to me and asked me what I wanted to do. I told him to make her as comfortable as possible and let her go. So he ordered a morphine drip put on Mom and set it just so. When Mom went, as far as I can be aware, she went with dignity and in peace. That was what she wanted and what we wanted for her.

I am seeing the same pain specialist myself currently. I was grateful to have the opportunity to thank him on behalf of myself and my family and most importantly, my mom, for giving her a peaceful death.

Life IS sacred. That's why we must treat death with the same respect.

-Red

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 29, 2008 2:55 am

Bryn Mawr;876876 wrote: And my second point?
You only had one question.

To your second point:

"To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death."

Oops. Forgot you're not honoring history this time.

In that case, you're right. So at what point do doctors start ignoring patients' desires to go on suffering because it's causing too much harm?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 29, 2008 3:00 am

koochikoo;876880 wrote: I have seen people die long, painful, undignified deaths. If we let an animal suffer so, we would be prosecuted. Where is the humanity in letting our loved ones? Yes life is sacred, too sacred to let fall into the slow, painful decline that some terminal illnesses allow it to. If it were me on the end of that decline, I would like the option of physician assisted suicide to be mine to make.
Why "physician assisted"? Why not accept the full responsibility and simply commit suicide?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 29, 2008 3:48 am

Just the way my warped mind works -- when someone else pays for a service that someone else decides what the service will be ... and when it will stop.

Someday this issue and the issue of universal healthcare will collide. I'm sure it already has elsewhere, but sooner or later a policy will be written. What will that policy look like?

In absence of the patient's publicised wishes, if body system functions fall below the level of viability, heroic resucitation measures will not be authorised. Usable organs will be harvested as per stated wishes and policy.

It's too important a question to be left to others. Get yourself a living revokeable trust.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Thu May 29, 2008 4:01 am

Id be in favour if their was no shadow of a doubt that their illness was terminal and that they were in so much pain they wished they were dead and their quality of life had diminished so much that they infact were not living, just exsisting and wishing every last breathe was their last.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu May 29, 2008 8:38 am

Accountable;876937 wrote: It's too important a question to be left to others. Get yourself a living revokeable trust.

But how would that make a difference? All a LRT would do is allow for your wishes of No resuscitation to be known, that presumes you can take care of your own death yourself. But what if you cannot? What if you have a disease that prevents you from being able to get or swallow the poison, the pills, or pulling the trigger? That would be when a Kevorkian type arrangement would need to be in effect, no?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 29, 2008 4:20 pm

Chezzie;876939 wrote: Id be in favour if their was no shadow of a doubt that their illness was terminal and that they were in so much pain they wished they were dead and their quality of life had diminished so much that they infact were not living, just exsisting and wishing every last breathe was their last.
But even then, if they can do it themselves don't you think they should, rather than hiring an executioner?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 29, 2008 4:28 pm

RedGlitter;877102 wrote: But how would that make a difference? All a LRT would do is allow for your wishes of No resuscitation to be known, that presumes you can take care of your own death yourself. But what if you cannot? What if you have a disease that prevents you from being able to get or swallow the poison, the pills, or pulling the trigger? That would be when a Kevorkian type arrangement would need to be in effect, no?
I dunno. You've been alot closer to it than I, but I'd think that a situation like you describe would be very rare without the patient having quite a bit of time to think about things and make decisions before it advanced to that stage.

WARNING! Morbid joke ahead:

If they did the Kevorkian thing, should the hospital charge it to their health insurance or life insurance?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu May 29, 2008 5:02 pm

Accountable;877608 wrote:

WARNING! Morbid joke ahead:

If they did the Kevorkian thing, should the hospital charge it to their health insurance or life insurance?

Heh!

Levity in these discussions is a good thing. Good point too!

watermark · Post by **watermark** » Thu May 29, 2008 8:21 pm

jones jones;875956 wrote: do you think that physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for terminally ill patients?

or should physician-assisted suicide be illegal?

Jj

I definitely do think that assisted sucide (maybe wrong terminology) should be a legal option. I'm in agreement with Nomad about training others for the task. Why does the physician have to be responsible for this if it goes against his or her convictions?

Personally I would vote yes for legalization of this and will include this option in my will if and when the option is made available legally. Why would I want some articfical prolongation of pain and suffering when I could have more peace in going?

Sorry about your mom, Red Glitter.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu May 29, 2008 11:18 pm

I agree with you Erin.

And thank you..... :-4

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:05 pm

Accountable;876917 wrote: You only had one question.

To your second point:

"To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death."

Oops. Forgot you're not honoring history this time.

In that case, you're right. So at what point do doctors start ignoring patients' desires to go on suffering because it's causing too much harm?

No, I had two - they were quite clear.

As you missed it, I will repeat it :-

Bryn wrote:

The decision to be made is whether, given that the patient is terminal and in great pain, a physician does more harm by using his technology to prolong that life or to close it peacefully.

As to doctors ignoring patients' desires, I only ask that doctors act on the patients' desires when they ask for release.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:12 pm

Accountable;310108 wrote: My compliments to my fellow debaters. Masters all.

In my mind, the issue is simple. Who owns the life? We love our freedom and our power of self-determination. Our love of freedom should dictate that an adult of sound mind should be allowed to decide how he should die. When our love of life and love of freedom collide, freedom takes priority.

No law allowing an action requires that action, meaning that no one would be required to commit suicide, assisted or otherwise. Along the same lines, no doctor ever has to perform a surgery to which he or she objects, such as abortion. He or she would likewise not have to assist with a suicide against his or her will.

The Hipocratic Oath is "first, do no harm." The act of extending a life of suffering arguably violates that oath, so assisting suicide can be argued as upholding it.

So, to allow assisted suicide supports freedom of choice, supports the Hipocratic Oath, supports our love of self-determination.

Accountable;876937 wrote: Just the way my warped mind works -- when someone else pays for a service that someone else decides what the service will be ... and when it will stop.

Someday this issue and the issue of universal healthcare will collide. I'm sure it already has elsewhere, but sooner or later a policy will be written. What will that policy look like?In absence of the patient's publicised wishes, if body system functions fall below the level of viability, heroic resucitation measures will not be authorised. Usable organs will be harvested as per stated wishes and policy.

It's too important a question to be left to others. Get yourself a living revokeable trust.

Accountable;877603 wrote: But even then, if they can do it themselves don't you think they should, rather than hiring an executioner?

You have, apparently, changed you opinions markedly.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:54 pm

Bryn Mawr;879460 wrote: You have, apparently, changed you opinions markedly.
Hmm. Seems that I have. My views of suicide are static. The logic I used about assisted suicide make sense, legally. There are lots of things I have argued for that I don't personally agree with.

I don't like entrusting any vital decision-making to a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies lack sense, lack soul, lack compassion. Such an important decision as life & death should be kept as far away from red tape as possible.

Plus, I actually read a translation of the Hipocratic oath since that first post.

Could this be the first issue that I support being kept behind closed doors with a wink and a nod? Not sure yet.

watermark · Post by **watermark** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:18 pm

Accountable;879577 wrote: Hmm. Seems that I have. My views of suicide are static. The logic I used about assisted suicide make sense, legally. There are lots of things I have argued for that I don't personally agree with.

I don't like entrusting any vital decision-making to a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies lack sense, lack soul, lack compassion. Such an important decision as life & death should be kept as far away from red tape as possible.

Plus, I actually read a translation of the Hipocratic oath since that first post.

Could this be the first issue that I support being kept behind closed doors with a wink and a nod? Not sure yet.

Accountable, that was stated with such truth behind it imo! I hadn't read the previous page of posts, but wanted to reply to what you wrote only because it's a sentiment I hold for most important decisions people have to make. Erin

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:15 pm

Accountable;879577 wrote: Hmm. Seems that I have. My views of suicide are static. The logic I used about assisted suicide make sense, legally. There are lots of things I have argued for that I don't personally agree with.

I don't like entrusting any vital decision-making to a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies lack sense, lack soul, lack compassion. Such an important decision as life & death should be kept as far away from red tape as possible.

Plus, I actually read a translation of the Hipocratic oath since that first post.

Could this be the first issue that I support being kept behind closed doors with a wink and a nod? Not sure yet.

Who is suggesting that any bureaucracy is involved? Simply finding a set of words to allow patient requested euthanasia to be legally administered but which contain sufficient safeguards to prevent the mentally disturbed from using it as a means of suicide. Once that is in place there is no bureaucratic process involved.

BTW - doctors have not worked to the Hippocratic Oath for many years.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:18 pm

watermark;879596 wrote: Accountable, that was stated with such truth behind it imo! I hadn't read the previous page of posts, but wanted to reply to what you wrote only because it's a sentiment I hold for most important decisions people have to make. Erin

Seconded.

On the other hand, this issue is no longer open to any form of decision because it is a straight legal ban with no exceptions.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:12 am

Bryn Mawr;879622 wrote: Who is suggesting that any bureaucracy is involved? Simply finding a set of words to allow patient requested euthanasia to be legally administered but which contain sufficient safeguards to prevent the mentally disturbed from using it as a means of suicide. Once that is in place there is no bureaucratic process involved.

BTW - doctors have not worked to the Hippocratic Oath for many years.
It's that slippery slope argument that I hate, but can't help but see sometimes. If the patient can't communicate, let the next of kin decide on assisted "suicide" (it ain't suicide if the patient's not part of the act). If there's no next of kin, let the hospital decide. Hospital decisions are made based on policy. Policy is often budget-driven rather than by humaneness or compassion.

If it becomes law, how long before the first lawsuit of a patient requesting assisted suicide and the doctor refusing?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:19 pm

Accountable;879658 wrote: It's that slippery slope argument that I hate, but can't help but see sometimes. If the patient can't communicate, let the next of kin decide on assisted "suicide" (it ain't suicide if the patient's not part of the act). If there's no next of kin, let the hospital decide. Hospital decisions are made based on policy. Policy is often budget-driven rather than by humaneness or compassion.

If it becomes law, how long before the first lawsuit of a patient requesting assisted suicide and the doctor refusing?

No slippery slope - if there's no form of election signed by the patient and duly witnessed stating that in these circumstances I wish my life to be terminated then it does not happen.

As for the lawsuit - of course doctors can opt out of the programme just as no-one can for a doctor to perform an abortion.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:59 pm

Bryn Mawr;880098 wrote: No slippery slope - if there's no form of election signed by the patient and duly witnessed stating that in these circumstances I wish my life to be terminated then it does not happen.
yet

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:59 pm

Accountable;880135 wrote: yet

The fact that an idea could possibly be abused if the rules that governed it were changed is not a valid basis for refusing to consider that idea - even the best of our institutions and practices could be used to bad effect if the rules were changed.

Argue against the proposal by all means but taking potshots at something that isn't there is just not cricket

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:52 pm

Bryn Mawr;880208 wrote: The fact that an idea could possibly be abused if the rules that governed it were changed is not a valid basis for refusing to consider that idea - even the best of our institutions and practices could be used to bad effect if the rules were changed.

Argue against the proposal by all means but taking potshots at something that isn't there is just not cricket

No but it works when on presidential quail hunts

.

My point is that this hits too close to home to ever entrust to some future bureaucracy, even one that is unfathomable today, because we just don't know how far value for life will erode. The best way to prevent erosion is to keep roots in place.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:08 pm

Accountable;880250 wrote: No but it works when on presidential quail hunts

.

My point is that this hits too close to home to ever entrust to some future bureaucracy, even one that is unfathomable today, because we just don't know how far value for life will erode. The best way to prevent erosion is to keep roots in place.

I value life to the highest possible extent - that is why I would not force anyone to endure a living death.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:54 pm

Bryn Mawr;880258 wrote: I value life to the highest possible extent - that is why I would not force anyone to endure a living death.
Nor would I allow anyone besides that person to impose a premature one.

(let's remember the context)