|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Choosing a candidate for voluntary euthanasia
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
The difference is in the phase of life.
Withdrawal is utilised in the 'dying' phase. It is utilised to reduce suffering induced by protracted dying in a terminal patient.
Euthanasia makes no distinction between living and dying phases of life.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
The difference is in the phase of life.
Withdrawal is utilised in the 'dying' phase. It is utilised to reduce suffering induced by protracted dying in a terminal patient.
Euthanasia makes no distinction between living and dying phases of life.
A person can order treatment withdrawn at any time, for any reason, even if they had every chance of recovery.
In most jurisdictions, a person can't have themselves euthanized at any time, even if they've only hours to live, and are in unbearable pain.
So "phase of life" fails even on its own terms.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
The difference is in the phase of life.
Withdrawal is utilised in the 'dying' phase. It is utilised to reduce suffering induced by protracted dying in a terminal patient.
Euthanasia makes no distinction between living and dying phases of life.
A person can order treatment withdrawn at any time, for any reason, even if they had every chance of recovery.
In most jurisdictions, a person can't have themselves euthanized at any time, even if they've only hours to live, and are in unbearable pain.
So "phase of life" fails even on its own terms.
But you are free to off yourself anytime you like, Byron.
Why exactly should other people be co-opted into that? Especially people who have gone into a profession whose aim is improve people's health?
This isn't about your right to die. This is about your right to get other people to make decisions. Bloody great big decisions.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leftfieldlover
Shipmate
# 13467
|
Posted
My sister in law died in February this year after been told she was terminally ill with widespread cancer last November. Fortunately she was in a hospice to begin with and was kept pain-free and comfortable. However, she was keen to return home and arrangements were made. After just a few days, and in great pain she was taken to a Nursing Home [the hospice had no spare beds] where she spent a week or so in agony as the doctors tried to sort out her pain regime. They did not succeed and she told my husband that she would love just a little something to finish her off. Eventually she was moved back to the hospice where her pain relief was sorted out and pain free at last she mercifully died in her sleep. There are two points here. One, when she was so near to death and in great pain, why could not the Nursing Home ease her suffering for good? Second, hospices are wonderful institutions, but there aren't enough of them. Either money could be put into building more, or money could be provided for better end of life care in hospitals and nursing homes.
--------------------
I can gauge your mood from your approach to food.
Posts: 164 | From: oxford | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
I would certainly agree that euthanasia can only be opposed ethically in the setting of adequate access to palliative care. I am concerned about the closure of hospice beds as although nursing homes can deliver good palliative care, some patients have symptom burdens beyond their capabilities. I personally would argue for better palliative care services.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But you are free to off yourself anytime you like, Byron.
Why exactly should other people be co-opted into that? Especially people who have gone into a profession whose aim is improve people's health?
This isn't about your right to die. This is about your right to get other people to make decisions. Bloody great big decisions.
No one would be "co-opted." The English bill would allow physicians to refuse on grounds of conscience. Participation would be voluntary.
Besides, even accepting your claims arguendo, medical professionals choose to enter a profession in which they make life and death choices on a daily basis. Some of the more odious arguments against assisted suicide demand that individuals suffer for the greater good. If a patient with bone cancer can be expected to die in agony, a doctor's conscientious scruples would be mild by comparison. This is another one that fails even on its own terms. (Terms I disagree with. No one should be forced to participate in a mercy killing.)
The only people being "co-opted" are those who wish to be helped to die, and those caregivers who are willing and able to relieve their suffering. They're forced to act against their conscience ... why, exactly? This thread's been unable to serve up a single substantive and consistent reason.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Nobody is saying that those who want to die can't choose to do that. Tony Nicklinson, the man with locked in syndrome who campaigned for the right to be killed, refused food and died of pneumonia a week after he lost his last case. He had every right to choose to die, and did eventually do that. What we are saying is that the person choosing to die cannot insist someone else helps them.
The 1967 Abortion Bill was intended for abortion to be a rare occurrence which allowed for the outlying cases. It contains a conscience clause for GPs and other medical professionals. But what actually happened is that abortion clinics were set up and there are 200,000 odd abortions a year in the UK. So there's a huge lack of trust in opt out clauses working in practice.
[ 24. July 2014, 07:48: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But you are free to off yourself anytime you like, Byron.
Why exactly should other people be co-opted into that? Especially people who have gone into a profession whose aim is improve people's health?
This isn't about your right to die. This is about your right to get other people to make decisions. Bloody great big decisions.
No one would be "co-opted." The English bill would allow physicians to refuse on grounds of conscience. Participation would be voluntary.
Besides, even accepting your claims arguendo, medical professionals choose to enter a profession in which they make life and death choices on a daily basis. Some of the more odious arguments against assisted suicide demand that individuals suffer for the greater good. If a patient with bone cancer can be expected to die in agony, a doctor's conscientious scruples would be mild by comparison. This is another one that fails even on its own terms. (Terms I disagree with. No one should be forced to participate in a mercy killing.)
The only people being "co-opted" are those who wish to be helped to die, and those caregivers who are willing and able to relieve their suffering. They're forced to act against their conscience ... why, exactly? This thread's been unable to serve up a single substantive and consistent reason.
OK.
1) If palliative care services are available, then suffering should be able to be alleviated (It is not perfect).
2) Suffering is independent of pain or other symptoms. Pain can lead to suffering as can feeling like a burden on your family. This is really important. Symptoms do not equal suffering.
3) Euthanasia can induce suffering in its own right.
4) Good palliative care responds to the needs of the patient, their family/friends and wider society, including the treatment teams.
5) Physicians make life and death decisions daily according to the bioethical principles of
---1) beneficence do good for your patient
---2) non maleficence do no harm to your patient
---3) Justice, allocation of resources
---4)Autonomy- patient choice ( and physician choice)
You are ranking autonomy as supreme and it is not.
I would also advocate that euthanasia should be carried out by a technician rather than a doctor if implemented as the loss of trust would be terrible. How can you trust that the doctor would act in your best interest?
I have also worked out that we are approaching the issue from different ends- my view is that of a health professional rather than a patient (I think this is where some of my confusion was stemming from).
Nobody has the right to say autonomy is paramount. There are wider issues, including society mores etc. But, there must be scope to deliver comprehensive palliative care.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
[...] You are ranking autonomy as supreme and it is not. [...]
Not the case, as the judgment of physicians is involved throughout: in addition to the diagnosis that triggers the request for euthanasia, they assess whether the patient's competent to give consent, and if so, prescribe the drugs. If autonomy were absolute, I recommend the patient be left alone with a revolver and a bottle of whiskey. I don't. (Well, a good Scotch, perhaps.)
For what reason are you raising the suffering euthanasia can cause? Many treatments cause immense suffering (chemotherapy, amputation, etc). It's just one factor to consider. If a patient is in continuous, unbearable pain, then it's a lesser evil.
Medicine is full of trade-offs. "Do no harm" is not used as grounds to avoid sometimes devastating surgery, since the alternative is worse. If a person is hours from death, and helped on their way, the harm done is a lot less than, say, cutting the arms and the legs off a baby with meningitis.
Assisted suicide and euthanasia are fully consistent with the four principles of biomedical ethics.
[ 24. July 2014, 10:53: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
You are merely using a physician as a revolver and a bottle of whiskey.
To address the pain issue, palliative sedation is occasionally utilised. It is a team decision and discussion and involves a lot of soul searching.
I'd rather my doctor thought and cared rather than was simply a means to an end. There is always something that can be done to assist with suffering. Euthanasia lack the creativity , the compassion and the care of good medicine. And it can rob the family patient and community. And it can dehumanise the treating team.
This is why I cannot support it.
In my opinion, your argument is valid only in areas where palliative care cannot be provided.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
[...] Euthanasia lack the creativity, the compassion and the care of good medicine. [...]
Creativity?! Medicine's an applied science, not performance art.
As for care and compassion, they've been covered in detail. If caregivers feel euthanasia is in the best interests of the patient, and patients agree, there needs to be compelling reasons for banning it by force of law.
Doctors expressing their muse just don't cut it.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
