24 Aug 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell the government has set up health panels for our health care, so maybe we should up the same people in charge of these decisions.
It potentially qualifies someone to judge whether or not someone is capable of making the decision to end their life.
After all, if doctors are not qualified to decide what are best for patients in terms of insurance costs, how can they be qualified for this?
24 Aug 14
Originally posted by gortWe have all heard cases where doctors misdiagnose patients who were told they only had a short time to live, and live for years and years after.
He may have been, but it's possible he can battle through those demons because that is mental, maybe even classified as a disease, to be put out of misery, you have to have a pretty serious condition where there is no hope, even if he couldn't overcome those demons there's hope there. There's certain scenarios where there isn't a hope and the suffering with nothing left to do is miniscule.
After all, we are all human, so why pretent we are not by playing God?
24 Aug 14
Originally posted by gortThere are other methods of helping to relieve suffering other than assisted suicide.
assisted suicide? give me a break. You answer the question? if a person is suffering beyond what we would say is repairable besides a substance abuse problem, no matter how dark and deep it is it's possibly repairable, alot is repairable, but when a disease breaks down a body to such an extent and we relieve the pain and suffering your term for it is assisted suicide?
26 Aug 14
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHippocratic Oath – Modern Version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere
Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.
Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with
great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness
may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems,
if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings,
those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection
thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long
experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Also, many people consider it "doing harm" when the patient wishes to die and the one person that can make that happen "neatly" refuses it simply on the basis of personal bias.
26 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIn The Netherlands euthanasia is "in principle" forbidden by law. However, when the doctor performing the final act of euthanasia follows certain strict rules, it is deemed not forbidden. These rules are:
Have it your way.
So when should euthanasia be implemented? When should assisted suicide be chosen?
Should we set up a death panel to assess the situation? Would you like to be on it?
(Note: I translate from the Dutch Wikipedia site. Translation errors may occur):
1) The doctor has to be convinced the patient has chosen euthanasia freely and while sound of mind.
2) The doctor has to be convinced the patient suffers "unbearably" without any forseeable chance of change.
3) The doctor has to have explained the patient his current situation and his prognosis.
4) The doctor has to be convinced - together with the patient - that there is no "cure".
5) The doctor has to have conferred with at least one other, independent doctor who has also observed the patient and has written down his thoughts concerning steps 1 to 5.
I see nothing wrong with these steps and agree with them.
I don't know what you mean by death panels and whatever it is, I wouldn't be on it anyway, seeing how I have no medical knowledge and wouldn't and couldn't decide one way or the other.
26 Aug 14
Originally posted by whodeyIt is not my place to decide one way or the other.
Thumbs up or down Emperor Nero. Does Robin live?
Had he knocked on my door I would have referred him to his physician.
It may suprise you, but even though I knew "Robin" as that unfunny actor guy, I actually didn't know him at all.
And neither did you.
Or did you??
26 Aug 14
Originally posted by DeepThought"Compulsory euthanasia" doesn't exist. "Compulsory euthanasia" is a fancier term for murder.
My problem with euthanasia is that it could become compulsory. Especially with the privatisation by stealth of the NHS. The chronically ill are not profitable. I do not regard withdrawal of treatment as euthanasia, and I also do not regard a decision to forget cure and go for pain or symptom management at the expense of life expectancy as euthanasia. ...[text shortened]... infirm being told they are being selfish wanting to live on and should die in an orderly manner.
And are we really going to have such far fetched, paranoid, 70's Sci-Fi movies fears stop us from implementing euthanasia for people who suffer greatly and just wish to die?
Why not also have the same fear when it comes to "shutting down the machine" when in life support? Seeing how those patients can't even communicate whether or not they wish to die it seems far more sensitive to abuse than having a patient of sound mind deciding when he no longer finds joy in life.
26 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWe also "play god" by putting criminals to death, unplugging life support machines and trying to keep people alive for as long as possible. You keep ignoring all those instances where we also "play god".
We have all heard cases where doctors misdiagnose patients who were told they only had a short time to live, and live for years and years after.
After all, we are all human, so why pretent we are not by playing God?
26 Aug 14
Originally posted by Great King Rat1) Who judges what a sound mind is?
In The Netherlands euthanasia is "in principle" forbidden by law. However, when the doctor performing the final act of euthanasia follows certain strict rules, it is deemed not forbidden. These rules are:
(Note: I translate from the Dutch Wikipedia site. Translation errors may occur):
1) The doctor has to be convinced the patient has chosen euth ...[text shortened]... y, seeing how I have no medical knowledge and wouldn't and couldn't decide one way or the other.
2) Doctors are convinced of a great many things. It is in their best interest to be right the majority of the time, but they are not always right.
3) As I have pointed out, some prognosis' are wrong. This goes back to the flawed nature of man.
4) This reminds me of a doctor in the US who helped people kill themselves. He would set up machines where all they needed to do is hit a button and they die. So they had both agreed to the situation before it happened. It is rumored that one such patient changed his mind at the last second, but it was too late. In fact, I remember reading about a chap who jumped off the San Fran Golden Gate bridge and lived. At the last second he had instant regret, but again, it was too late.
5) Had the suicide doctor gotten the approval of the example above, I don't see how it would have changed anything.
I see nothing wrong with questioning human judgment when it comes to killing, especially since it is a permanent fix to a continually changing situation.
26 Aug 14
Originally posted by Great King RatI don't ignore them.
We also "play god" by putting criminals to death, unplugging life support machines and trying to keep people alive for as long as possible. You keep ignoring all those instances where we also "play god".
Killing someone who has murdered is a punishment for their crime. Would you kill someone in order to save you or a loved one?
What about after the fact? Would you prefer to kill a murderer who just killed a loved one, or let them rot in jail for the rest of their lives, or just let them go?
As for removing medical treatment, I see nothing wrong with that. What I do have a problem with are people who actively kill.
26 Aug 14
Originally posted by Great King RatI did not have the pleasure of knowing Robin, but if I had, I would have sent him to those whom I knew would try to give him hope, and if need be, slap him up side the head for being so narcissistic. He had a wife and kids to consider.
It is not my place to decide one way or the other.
Had he knocked on my door I would have referred him to his physician.
It may suprise you, but even though I knew "Robin" as that unfunny actor guy, I actually didn't know him at all.
And neither did you.
Or did you??
26 Aug 14
Originally posted by whodeyConvenient how you ignore the aspect of medical treatment to save someone's life. Why is that not "playing God"? What about seatbelts? Safety helmets?
I don't ignore them.
Killing someone who has murdered is a punishment for their crime. Would you kill someone in order to save you or a loved one?
What about after the fact? Would you prefer to kill a murderer who just killed a loved one, or let them rot in jail for the rest of their lives, or just let them go?
As for removing medical treatment, I see nothing wrong with that. What I do have a problem with are people who actively kill.
26 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWe all have to use our minds and bodies to survive. Medical treatment is just an extension of this.
Convenient how you ignore the aspect of medical treatment to save someone's life. Why is that not "playing God"? What about seatbelts? Safety helmets?
Some may think that trusting completely on prayer is preferable to medical treatment. Some may think that they have a superior treatment. Some may simply not want the adverse side effects to the treatment, which probably won't help much in the long run. In fact, we all know people who have died sooner than later seeking medical treatment. It's like getting into a car. You think you will be safe, but you may bring a quicker end to your life than anticipated.
Again, taking life is a far cry from thinking you have the fix they need to live.