Assisted suicide - poll

[JoltinJoe]

Because doctors are supposed to treat patients and pain ... not intentionally kill their patients.

There's a lot of doctor can do in order to treat pain in a terminal patient. Often, in treating pain, the doctor may prescribe some drug which turns out to have a lethal effect. We should leave it to the discretion of the doctor, working in consultation with the patient and the family, on how to proceed in such cases when the administration of pain medication to treat pain may also have a lethal effect. We should presume that the doctor is not intending to kill the patient, but is rather trying to treat pain, and trust in his good faith and medical judgment.

But there's a huge difference between what is discussed above and setting out intentionally to kill a patient. Setting up some machine to provide a person with a lethal dosage of carbon dioxide is not the practice of medicine -- it is murder. Euthanasia -- intentionally setting out to kill the patient -- is likewise murder.

JJ, I can't argue the legal merits of this and I want you to understand that this is not what I'm doing in spite of how this may look. On a philosophical level though if the two parties in question are in agreement that this is the best way to have a compassionate ending for the patient whether it be through drugs or through a machine that does the job in a humane fashion I just can't see why this shouldn't be a contract or procedure that ought to be recognized as something other than murder. I don't think I'm alone or even that you wouldn't agree that this is a pretty loose definition of murder and does not strike at the spirit of the definition.

But there just simply has to be some firm guideline. As I said, I would leave it to the doctor's discretion, acting in consultation with the patient and the family, in how to proceed to treat pain, even if that decision had the unintended consequence of killing the patient, so long as the intent is to treat pain and not kill the patient. Moreover, I would presume the good-faith of the doctor (even in cases where the patient died) that he was acting and intending to treat pain, not cause the death of the patient.

Of course, that permits a doctor to "mask" his intention sometimes. We have to live with that, because proving an actual intent to kill in such circumstances would be difficult and it is, of course, virtually impossible to second-guess the medical decisions of the doctor.

But the example above of leaving lethal pills next to a patient is excruciating pain -- that's a prosecutable offense.

Creating a machine so that a terminal patient can inhale carbon monoxide (like Kevorkian did) -- that's not even the practice of medicine. IMO, he got off light.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I find it very interesting that Kervorkian didn't request the "physician assisted suicide" during his final days.

Why? His days were not nearly as many or as pain filled as the people he tried to help were they? He very well made the point that what he was doing was not for every case and his own end may not have fallen into what he considered unusual or unnatural so he showed integrity in his stance by letting nature carry out it's business instead of stepping in or having someone else step in since it was not an unusually bad case.

He didn't try and extend his life with life support either. Seems like he had integrity in his mindset until the end to me.

[SuperHornet]

That's all in one's perspective. Some would hold that providing the means is tantamount to doing it.

It's ultimately their choice. Period.

No. It goes beyond ethics to provide the means, be it for financial gain or not. We prosecute those who provide the "slow" means of medicating oneself to death; that applies here, too.

[AZGrizFan]

A doctor has a responsibility to ease pain and suffering - for a terminal patient whose life has become mere existence - nothing short of daily pain and suffering - they ought to have the right to say "no mas" It's an act of compassion - not of murder.

A doctor's obligation is to treat pain and the patient. He has no right to assist in the intentional death of his patient.

I know a guy who's mother had complications from a heart surgery (mitrovalve replacement) and had to go back in for a second surgery. Immediately upon coming out of surgery, her vital organs started shutting down (kidney, liver). They had her on a ventillator and a blood filter machine (for the liver) and dialysis (I believe) for the kidney failure but her heart was strong as an ox. Then she started throwing mini-strokes and her brain activity was essentially zero...but her heart was strong as an ox. The doctors gave this guy's family about a .5% chance that she'd ever regain consciousness, and even if she did she'd be a vegetable for the rest of her life (she was 61 at the time). The entire family (almost 60 people) got together in a room at the hospital and the husband made an impassioned speech about his wife and her wishes....she was very religious and had no fear of death....she was comfortable dying and had no desire to live as a vegetable. The family took a vote and decided it would be best to just let her slip away. Unfortunately, the laws in the state of Montana didn't allow for "assisted suicide" of any kind, so the only way they could do i was to unplug the liver and kidney machines and let her slowly poison herself to death. It took 4 days. The end result was KNOWN and DEFINITE...the same as assisted suicide...the only difference was they couldn't predict the exact time. So, instead of being able to gather everyone around her bedside, say their goodbyes, and push a plunger full of morphine into her the family spent a 4-day vigil in the hospital after her surgery and she finally passed at about 6:30 in the morning with only a few members of the immediate family present. By the time she finally passed she was so jaundiced that no amount of makeup by the mortician could hide the fact that she'd died without a functioning liver and she looked absolutely horrible.

That guy...was me. And that wonderful lady was my mother. Since her death on June 16, 1993 I have been a huge proponent of assisted suicide. She was the most religious person I know and she had absolutely no problem with it...oh, the doctors treated her PAIN, but they were powerless to step in and EASE her pain.

The laws as they are currently written are absolutely fucked.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

JJ, I can't argue the legal merits of this and I want you to understand that this is not what I'm doing in spite of how this may look. On a philosophical level though if the two parties in question are in agreement that this is the best way to have a compassionate ending for the patient whether it be through drugs or through a machine that does the job in a humane fashion I just can't see why this shouldn't be a contract or procedure that ought to be recognized as something other than murder. I don't think I'm alone or even that you wouldn't agree that this is a pretty loose definition of murder and does not strike at the spirit of the definition.

But there just simply has to be some firm guideline. As I said, I would leave it to the doctor's discretion, acting in consultation with the patient and the family, in how to proceed to treat pain, even if that decision had the unintended consequence of killing the patient, so long as the intent is to treat pain and not kill the patient. Moreover, I would presume the good-faith of the doctor (even in cases where the patient died) that he was acting and intending to treat pain, not cause the death of the patient.

Of course, that permits a doctor to "mask" his intention sometimes. We have to live with that, because proving an actual intent to kill in such circumstances would be difficult and it is, of course, virtually impossible to second-guess the medical decisions of the doctor.

But the example above of leaving lethal pills next to a patient is excruciating pain -- that's a prosecutable offense.

Creating a machine so that a terminal patient can inhale carbon dioxide (like Kevorkian did) -- that's not even the practice of medicine. IMO, he got off light.

Well I totally agree with your philosophy on it...I think. I've watched every interview and documentary and so forth I can on the guy and I have just not seen anyone that was intimately involved with him or his patients lives that did not say he was trying to do it in the way you stated though. He never tried to cause anyone un-needed suffering that I've ever seen from what he did. I am sure he would have used better tools but worked with what he was able to and in spite of that still held to the basic principle of causing no more harm to the people.

He was a very straight line thinker and a brilliant dude and not everyone is gonna agree with him I totally understand that.

[93henfan]

Ursus.
Tits.
Ripped off.



My plan for getting old is to always have a gun readily available and a living will in place in case I become incapable of using that gun.

[soul man]

The "beauty" of the posts in this thread show us that this is more than a yes/no answer. Context and circumstance do matter. There are passions on both sides and in the hospices, hospitals, nursing homes, and "dying" rooms we find ourselves. A blanket answer of yes/no will not work. Unfortunately, there will be those who abuse it if allowed and those who will suffer exceedingly if it is not.

In my experience, I have been in those rooms and have seen all sides/opinions. There are times when those rushing for a quicker solution, are really looking at their own discomfort rather than the patient's. There are also those who find ever means to prolong life because we don't want to let go of a loved one.

I voted no, because as it is now, I see how conversations happen around deathbeds and I fear the legal system will take options away.

Regardless, death comes to us all.

[JoltinJoe]

A doctor's obligation is to treat pain and the patient. He has no right to assist in the intentional death of his patient.

I know a guy who's mother had complications from a heart surgery (mitrovalve replacement) and had to go back in for a second surgery. Immediately upon coming out of surgery, her vital organs started shutting down (kidney, liver). They had her on a ventillator and a blood filter machine (for the liver) and dialysis (I believe) for the kidney failure but her heart was strong as an ox. Then she started throwing mini-strokes and her brain activity was essentially zero...but her heart was strong as an ox. The doctors gave this guy's family about a .5% chance that she'd ever regain consciousness, and even if she did she'd be a vegetable for the rest of her life (she was 61 at the time). The entire family (almost 60 people) got together in a room at the hospital and the husband made an impassioned speech about his wife and her wishes....she was very religious and had no fear of death....she was comfortable dying and had no desire to live as a vegetable. The family took a vote and decided it would be best to just let her slip away. Unfortunately, the laws in the state of Montana didn't allow for "assisted suicide" of any kind, so the only way they could do i was to unplug the liver and kidney machines and let her slowly poison herself to death. It took 4 days. The end result was KNOWN and DEFINITE...the same as assisted suicide...the only difference was they couldn't predict the exact time. So, instead of being able to gather everyone around her bedside, say their goodbyes, and push a plunger full of morphine into her the family spent a 4-day vigil in the hospital after her surgery and she finally passed at about 6:30 in the morning with only a few members of the immediate family present. By the time she finally passed she was so jaundiced that no amount of makeup by the mortician could hide the fact that she'd died without a functioning liver and she looked absolutely horrible.

That guy...was me. And that wonderful lady was my mother. Since her death on June 16, 1993 I have been a huge proponent of assisted suicide. She was the most religious person I know and she had absolutely no problem with it...oh, the doctors treated her PAIN, but they were powerless to step in and EASE her pain.

The laws as they are currently written are absolutely ****.

I think this example falls within the discretion of the doctor, acting in consultation with the family and the patient. I don't think there is any obligation to continue extraordinary means, like dialysis or liver & kidney machines. I suppose that the problem in this case was that the doctor could not document a medical need to administer morphine and was afraid to do so. So it still would take a few days before death happened on its own accord. That's truly an awful situation and there is no easy answer.

But Kevorkian is nothing like what you've discussed above. Nor is the example of leaving lethal pills next to the patient's bed.

[JoltinJoe]

But there just simply has to be some firm guideline. As I said, I would leave it to the doctor's discretion, acting in consultation with the patient and the family, in how to proceed to treat pain, even if that decision had the unintended consequence of killing the patient, so long as the intent is to treat pain and not kill the patient. Moreover, I would presume the good-faith of the doctor (even in cases where the patient died) that he was acting and intending to treat pain, not cause the death of the patient.

Of course, that permits a doctor to "mask" his intention sometimes. We have to live with that, because proving an actual intent to kill in such circumstances would be difficult and it is, of course, virtually impossible to second-guess the medical decisions of the doctor.

But the example above of leaving lethal pills next to a patient is excruciating pain -- that's a prosecutable offense.

Creating a machine so that a terminal patient can inhale carbon dioxide (like Kevorkian did) -- that's not even the practice of medicine. IMO, he got off light.

Well I totally agree with your philosophy on it...I think. I've watched every interview and documentary and so forth I can on the guy and I have just not seen anyone that was intimately involved with him or his patients lives that did not say he was trying to do it in the way you stated though. He never tried to cause anyone un-needed suffering that I've ever seen from what he did. I am sure he would have used better tools but worked with what he was able to and in spite of that still held to the basic principle of causing no more harm to the people.

He was a very straight line thinker and a brilliant dude and not everyone is gonna agree with him I totally understand that.

Well, we have a lot of common ground.

Honestly, I have no desire to second-guess family members weighing an awful decision over a loved one and would tend to always look the other way even if their decisions don't line up in accord with what I think or perhaps would have done (and frankly, I really have no way of knowing what I will do in such a situation unless I actually experience it).

But I also think you can't rub society's face in it the way Kevorkian did.

[JoltinJoe]

The "beauty" of the posts in this thread show us that this is more than a yes/no answer. Context and circumstance do matter. There are passions on both sides and in the hospices, hospitals, nursing homes, and "dying" rooms we find ourselves. A blanket answer of yes/no will not work. Unfortunately, there will be those who abuse it if allowed and those who will suffer exceedingly if it is not.

In my experience, I have been in those rooms and have seen all sides/opinions. There are times when those rushing for a quicker solution, are really looking at their own discomfort rather than the patient's. There are also those who find ever means to prolong life because we don't want to let go of a loved one.

I voted no, because as it is now, I see how conversations happen around deathbeds and I fear the legal system will take options away.

Regardless, death comes to us all.

That's a fascinating perspective. While I have never been bedside for such discussions, I have always felt comfortable presuming people are doing their best to make an informed decision under trying circumstances and that we should presume they acted lawfully.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Well I totally agree with your philosophy on it...I think. I've watched every interview and documentary and so forth I can on the guy and I have just not seen anyone that was intimately involved with him or his patients lives that did not say he was trying to do it in the way you stated though. He never tried to cause anyone un-needed suffering that I've ever seen from what he did. I am sure he would have used better tools but worked with what he was able to and in spite of that still held to the basic principle of causing no more harm to the people.

He was a very straight line thinker and a brilliant dude and not everyone is gonna agree with him I totally understand that.

Well, we have a lot of common ground.

Honestly, I have no desire to second-guess family members weighing an awful decision over a loved one and would tend to always look the other way even if their decisions don't line up in accord with what I think or perhaps would have done (and frankly, I really have no way of knowing what I will do in such a situation unless I actually experience it).

But I also think you can't rub society's face in it the way Kevorkian did.

Agree with ya but that last line is where Kevorkian lost his brilliance. He did not try very hard to convince everyone that he was trying to do something good for people suffering. He was not willing to pay homage to those he didn't see as his equals on the matter and had little time or patience for them because he thought his cause was much more important than that.

To me, it looks like a lot of people that would otherwise have a wide cross over area of agreement with him on the matter fought against him because he didn't care about winning them over. He did not move this issue forward as far as he could have by making a lot of people feel better about it because they were being heard.

If you ask yourself honstly though and find that in spite of him being a dick about it you still agree with a large amount of his stance yet go against what you know is right then you are letting yourself and your feelings on the matter be defined by Kevorkian anyway and a lot of people fight against what they truly feel just out of spite for the way he presented it.

He was certainly no salesman.

[AZGrizFan]

Well, we have a lot of common ground.

Honestly, I have no desire to second-guess family members weighing an awful decision over a loved one and would tend to always look the other way even if their decisions don't line up in accord with what I think or perhaps would have done (and frankly, I really have no way of knowing what I will do in such a situation unless I actually experience it).

But I also think you can't rub society's face in it the way Kevorkian did.

Agree with ya but that last line is where Kevorkian lost his brilliance. He did not try very hard to convince everyone that he was trying to do something good for people suffering. He was not willing to pay homage to those he didn't see as his equals on the matter and had little time or patience for them because he thought his cause was much more important than that.

To me, it looks like a lot of people that would otherwise have a wide cross over area of agreement with him on the matter fought against him because he didn't care about winning them over. He did not move this issue forward as far as he could have by making a lot of people feel better about it because they were being heard.

If you ask yourself honstly though and find that in spite of him being a dick about it you still agree with a large amount of his stance yet go against what you know is right then you are letting yourself and your feelings on the matter be defined by Kevorkian anyway and a lot of people fight against what they truly feel just out of spite for the way he presented it.

He was certainly no salesman.

You know something, you're not NEARLY as dumb as you look.



And thank god for that.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Agree with ya but that last line is where Kevorkian lost his brilliance. He did not try very hard to convince everyone that he was trying to do something good for people suffering. He was not willing to pay homage to those he didn't see as his equals on the matter and had little time or patience for them because he thought his cause was much more important than that.

To me, it looks like a lot of people that would otherwise have a wide cross over area of agreement with him on the matter fought against him because he didn't care about winning them over. He did not move this issue forward as far as he could have by making a lot of people feel better about it because they were being heard.

If you ask yourself honstly though and find that in spite of him being a dick about it you still agree with a large amount of his stance yet go against what you know is right then you are letting yourself and your feelings on the matter be defined by Kevorkian anyway and a lot of people fight against what they truly feel just out of spite for the way he presented it.

He was certainly no salesman.

You know something, you're not NEARLY as dumb as you look.



And thank god for that.

Thanks man, I really appreciate that!

[ASUG8]

I think it would be a nice option to be able to include something like this in your living will. Ideally, you're conscious and able to communicate your wishes to those around you, but many times the patient isn't able to do so. To my knowledge, you can't include anything in a living will dictating that under certain circumstances it is OK for a loved one to act on wishes a patient has predetermined aside from a DNR order keeping you from persisting in a vegetative state. Stories like AZ's happen to families across the globe daily and, while it would never be an easy decision to make, sometimes you have to put the wishes of the patient ahead of your own personal wishes. This issue has plenty of grey area, but in situations where it's pretty black and white I personally would like to have that option.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

A doctor's obligation is to treat pain and the patient. He has no right to assist in the intentional death of his patient.

I know a guy who's mother had complications from a heart surgery (mitrovalve replacement) and had to go back in for a second surgery. Immediately upon coming out of surgery, her vital organs started shutting down (kidney, liver). They had her on a ventillator and a blood filter machine (for the liver) and dialysis (I believe) for the kidney failure but her heart was strong as an ox. Then she started throwing mini-strokes and her brain activity was essentially zero...but her heart was strong as an ox. The doctors gave this guy's family about a .5% chance that she'd ever regain consciousness, and even if she did she'd be a vegetable for the rest of her life (she was 61 at the time). The entire family (almost 60 people) got together in a room at the hospital and the husband made an impassioned speech about his wife and her wishes....she was very religious and had no fear of death....she was comfortable dying and had no desire to live as a vegetable. The family took a vote and decided it would be best to just let her slip away. Unfortunately, the laws in the state of Montana didn't allow for "assisted suicide" of any kind, so the only way they could do i was to unplug the liver and kidney machines and let her slowly poison herself to death. It took 4 days. The end result was KNOWN and DEFINITE...the same as assisted suicide...the only difference was they couldn't predict the exact time. So, instead of being able to gather everyone around her bedside, say their goodbyes, and push a plunger full of morphine into her the family spent a 4-day vigil in the hospital after her surgery and she finally passed at about 6:30 in the morning with only a few members of the immediate family present. By the time she finally passed she was so jaundiced that no amount of makeup by the mortician could hide the fact that she'd died without a functioning liver and she looked absolutely horrible.

That guy...was me. And that wonderful lady was my mother. Since her death on June 16, 1993 I have been a huge proponent of assisted suicide. She was the most religious person I know and she had absolutely no problem with it...oh, the doctors treated her PAIN, but they were powerless to step in and EASE her pain.

The laws as they are currently written are absolutely fucked.

Almost exactly how I came to my perspective on the matter. I was a teenager and watched my family make the same decision regarding my grandmother who had emphysema and was quite literally choking to death...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Well, we have a lot of common ground.

Honestly, I have no desire to second-guess family members weighing an awful decision over a loved one and would tend to always look the other way even if their decisions don't line up in accord with what I think or perhaps would have done (and frankly, I really have no way of knowing what I will do in such a situation unless I actually experience it).

But I also think you can't rub society's face in it the way Kevorkian did.

Agree with ya but that last line is where Kevorkian lost his brilliance. He did not try very hard to convince everyone that he was trying to do something good for people suffering. He was not willing to pay homage to those he didn't see as his equals on the matter and had little time or patience for them because he thought his cause was much more important than that.

To me, it looks like a lot of people that would otherwise have a wide cross over area of agreement with him on the matter fought against him because he didn't care about winning them over. He did not move this issue forward as far as he could have by making a lot of people feel better about it because they were being heard.

If you ask yourself honstly though and find that in spite of him being a dick about it you still agree with a large amount of his stance yet go against what you know is right then you are letting yourself and your feelings on the matter be defined by Kevorkian anyway and a lot of people fight against what they truly feel just out of spite for the way he presented it.

He was certainly no salesman.

Kevorkian wasn't wrong - but he was not a great public face for the movement that's for sure.

[grizzaholic]

Ursus.
Tits.
Ripped off.



My plan for getting old is to always have a gun readily available and a living will in place in case I become incapable of using that gun.

I won't make it to the age of being all old and crap. I will die young...probably in the hills. Lots of Montanan's go out that way.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Ursus.
Tits.
Ripped off.



My plan for getting old is to always have a gun readily available and a living will in place in case I become incapable of using that gun.

I won't make it to the age of being all old and crap. I will die young...probably in the hills. Lots of Montanan's go out that way.

That's the plan. It was supposed to be a surprise though.

[AZGrizFan]

I won't make it to the age of being all old and crap. I will die young...probably in the hills. Lots of Montanan's go out that way.

That's the plan. It was supposed to be a surprise though.

Well, unless you've told him which hunting trip it's to happen on, I'm sure he'll STILL be surprised, buddy.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

That's the plan. It was supposed to be a surprise though.

Well, unless you've told him which hunting trip it's to happen on, I'm sure he'll STILL be surprised, buddy.

Hunting trip...good idea!

[ASUG8]

Well, unless you've told him which hunting trip it's to happen on, I'm sure he'll STILL be surprised, buddy.

Hunting trip...good idea!

Yep, give him the "Cheney" when he starts piddling in his diapers.

[grizzaholic]

Hunting trip...good idea!

Yep, give him the "Cheney" when he starts piddling in his diapers.

Don't you have some wine to go drink?

[ASUG8]

Yep, give him the "Cheney" when he starts piddling in his diapers.

Don't you have some wine to go drink?

Are you on bath salts again, Barney?

[grizzaholic]

Don't you have some wine to go drink?

Are you on bath salts again, Barney?

I would have a good comeback but I haven't finished brushing up on my MOD 33 stuff yet. Still a few clips on Youtube I have yet to check out.

I want to take my new MOD 33 duties seriously.

[ASUG8]

Are you on bath salts again, Barney?

I would have a good comeback but I haven't finished brushing up on my MOD 33 stuff yet. Still a few clips on Youtube I have yet to check out.

I want to take my new MOD 33 duties seriously.

Unless you bring him here I don't care.