General
03 Mar 03
03 Mar 03
Why not? I've got my opinions but they aren't based around personal experience. We put down animals so they don't suffer, but grandma's got to be kept alive for every second she can be, whether she likes it or not. Should people be allowed to die, and if so under what circumstances? Chronic pain? Terminal illness? Because Mondays suck?
03 Mar 03
Originally posted by belgianfreakI think the reason we don't put people down the way we do animals is that there is the belief that family and friends can find some meaning and value in "the waiting." The good news is that there are medicines that are available today that are so far superior to what we once had that there is no reason for a person to suffer in pain or anxiety if managed properly. They do not prolong life or hasten death, but I am very sympathetic with those who would just like to "go to sleep." What I try to do in my work at hospice is help them find meaning, value and gratitude in even the smallest things. My experience has been that many of my patients don't necessarily want to be Kevorkianed, but want some validation that they feel the way they do. Once they experience a significant relationship willing to listen them, they often change their perspective. But I never try to change their feeling, just be their friend. Kirk
Why not? I've got my opinions but they aren't based around personal experience. We put down animals so they don't suffer, but grandma's got to be kept alive for every second she can be, whether she likes it or not. Should people be allowed to die, and if so under what circumstances? Chronic pain? Terminal illness? Because Mondays suck?
03 Mar 03
Originally posted by belgianfreakPeople of sound mind ought to be able to make their own decision concerning when they want their life to end. Their is obviously no benefit in keeping alive the brain dead. But what ought we say about those in the depths of a coma from which there is no chance of awakening? Under what circumstances is it reasonable to consider the power of a patient's consent transferred to another?
Why not? I've got my opinions but they aren't based around personal experience. We put down animals so they don't suffer, but grandma's got to be kept alive for every second she can be, whether she likes it or not. Should people be allowed to die, and if so under what circumstances? Chronic pain? Terminal illness? Because Mondays suck?
03 Mar 03
Originally posted by bbarrPeople of sound mind can, in principle, do it themselves (even the very disabled could display some ingenuity and succeed in their macabre aim), so it is really the third group Bbarr discusses that is the center of the debate. Further, the illegality of suicide is no more than a silly throwback to theocracy, and makes little sense. I would answer with:
People of sound mind ought to be able to make their own decision concerning when they want their life to end. Their is obviously no benefit in keeping alive the brain dead. But what ought we say about those in the depths of a coma from which there is no chance of awakening? Under what circumstances is it reasonable to consider the power of a patient's consent transferred to another?
It is a moot question. The people mentioned cannot prove themselves to be of sound mind in any way, so both cases should be considered.
If they are of sound mind, they should be left to their own devices in killing themselves, as above.
If they are not of sound mind, and cannot prove their non-braindeadness (brain-non-deadness?), then, according to Bbarr, they can reasonably be killed.
So the question is: What to do with non-braindead individuals who are not of sound mind? Rephrased: should we kill insane people, or people of low intelligence?
I'd say "no" out of self-preservation.
03 Mar 03
Originally posted by royalchickenThere is also another, closely related question that often comes to the fore in debates over euthanasia. When confronted with the suffering of others, most people take themselves to be obligated to provide assistance, especially if such assistance does not require undue sacrifice. Suppose there is a terminal patient who wants to end his life for two reasons: 1) His life is filled with physical pain, and 2) The type of life he would live under constant pain-killing medication he would find undignified and personally degrading. Suppose you are in a position to help the patient end his life, and you can do so without any fear of legal prosecution. Do you have an obligation to assist the patient end his life? I say yes, for relatively straightforward ethical reasons. What say you?
People of sound mind can, in principle, do it themselves (even the very disabled could display some ingenuity and succeed in their macabre aim), so it is really the third group Bbarr discusses that is the center of the debate. Further, the illegality of suicide is no more than a silly throwback to theocracy, and makes little sense. I would answer with ...[text shortened]... kill insane people, or people of low intelligence?
I'd say "no" out of self-preservation.
03 Mar 03
The key word is "obligated." I would say that I'm not anymore obligated to end the life than I am to prolong that life. Now I might consider it and might find ways to help them find a dignified death that may include something like euthanasia. It is possible to sedate someone to the point that their body/spirit can relax enough to exit very peacefully. If I feel "obligated" it is problematic with my end of the dignity. But that may be just me. Kirk
04 Mar 03
Originally posted by bbarr
Suppose there is a terminal patient who wants to end his life for two reasons: 1) His life is filled with physical pain, and 2) The type of life he would live under constant pain-killing medication he would find undignified and personally degrading. Suppose you are in a position to help the patient end his life, and you can do so without any fear of legal pro ...[text shortened]... end his life? I say yes, for relatively straightforward ethical reasons. What say you?
Well-- let's say we take this hypothetical, but replace "physical pain" with "emotional pain", and "pain-killing medication" with "psychoactive medication." Would you still feel that there was an ethical obligation to assist in the suicide? If not, why not?
04 Mar 03
The lack of dignity late in life is usually associated with lack of meaningful work, having to depend on others, and an inability to control one's bodily functions. The irony of this is that this is precisely the state in which we came into this world and if we were lucky we were greeted with complete delight and excitement. People that have the capacity to work with and engage these kinds of people and situations are saints. Kirk
04 Mar 03
Originally posted by jgvaccaroI was operating under the assumption that the physical pain was a result of his terminal condition. Are you asking about a terminal patient without significant physical pain (nor the prospect of such pain)who is, for instance, horribly depressed because he is terminal? Or, rather, are you asking about a physically healthy person who is depressed to the point of being suicidal?
Well-- let's say we take this hypothetical, but replace "physical pain" with "emotional pain", and "pain-killing medication" with "psychoactive medication." Would you still feel that there was an ethical obligation to assist in the suicide? If not, why not?
04 Mar 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrWell-- what difference does it make whether he is terminally ill or not? We're all terminal really.
I was operating under the assumption that the physical pain was a result of his terminal condition. Are you asking about a terminal patient without significant physical pain (nor the prospect of such pain)who is, for instance, horribly depre ...[text shortened]... y healthy person who is depressed to the point of being suicidal?
Are you obligated to euthanize your patient because he's terminal, or because he's in pain, or both? Or does the euthanasia obligation only kick in when he's terminal, and in pain, and the pain is a result of the terminal condition? If so, why would it only apply in that situation?
I'm suggesting that there is something of a slippery slope here-- that the same reasoning you use to argue that euthanasia is acceptable (or ethically obligated) in one case could be very easily applied to different types of cases, in which you might find euthanasia unacceptable.
04 Mar 03
1 edit
Originally posted by jgvaccaroThe difference is in the terminal case there is little hope of improvement. The assumption is that the pain experienced by terminal patients will persist, and get worse, until death. If a patient will experience extreme pain for, say, a year, then I wouldn't feel an obligation to help him die. Under these circumstances I'd probably consider his request the result of unsound deliberation. I'd think that after the pain was gone, looking back, he would be glad that his request had gone unfulfilled. Of course, there are other ways to make this same point without stipulating that the patient in the thought experiement be terminal. Suppose I'm a prisoner, and the prisoner in the cell next to mine is being tortured daily. Suppose that he is being kept alive, adequately nourished, etc. just to prolong his suffering. Under these circumstances, if it was impossible to effect an escape, and there was no hope for rescue, I would consider myself obligated to, for instance, slip him the cyanide pill cleverly hidden in my fake tooth.
Well-- what difference does it make whether he is terminally ill or not? We're all terminal really.
Are you obligated to euthanize your patient because he's terminal, or because he's in pain, or both? Or does the euthanasia obli ...[text shortened]... t types of cases, in which you might find euthanasia unacceptable.
Now for your analogy: Suppose there is an otherwise healthy person suffereing from a depression so extreme they want to die. Suppose without medication the depression will will persist. When given the opportunity to take the medication, the patient refuses. The patient claims that taking the medication would be, somehow, even worse than death. Would I be obligated to help this person die?
I don't think so, for substantially the same reasons I gave when considering the case of the person undergoing intense pain of a relatively short duration. In the case of the depressed person, if he were to take the medication, in all probability his emotional pain would be alleviated. After the treatment, the patient would likely look back on his previous depression and be glad it had abated. He would probably be relieved that nobody had took his requests for assistance seriously. The patient after treatment would, in effect, realize that he had been previously irrational.
What this difference emphasizes is the importance of the patient's being substantially in posession of his faculties. Requests for assistance in dying ought to be carefully considered. But if the patient is rational, are obligated to assist.
So apparently you'll need to work a bit harder to establish that the principles I'm using to determine when we're obligated to assist someone to die require assistance in intuitively unjustified circumstances. No slippery slope apparent yet, jgvaccaro, but I'm interested in whether you can point one out.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 02
- Moves
- 873440
04 Mar 03
Originally posted by bbarrperhaps he's already got his own pill and has decided not to take it ?just because you think his life is not worth living doesnt mean he feels the same way.who should decide upon what is 'quality of life' worth living?what about the millions of babies being born in africa with aids? are their lives worth living?what about the actor Christopher Reeve..would you have switched his life support off?there seems to be far too many different circumstances to make judgement .although Im not religous..there could also be an arguement that mortals shouldnt play god.
The difference is in the terminal case there is little hope of improvement. The assumption is that the pain experienced by terminal patients will persist, and get worse, until death. If a patient will experience extreme pain for, say, a year, then I wouldn't feel an obligation to help him die. Under these circumstances I'd probably consider his request th ...[text shortened]... No slippery slope apparent yet, jgvaccaro, but I'm interested in whether you can point one out.
your bit about the tortued prisoner raises another debate.It is simply this...do we agree with tortue ? this was raised in a newspaper here in England today and refers to the terrorist K S Mohammed.he is the man recently captured and is the third most important man in the Al Qaeda organisation.should he be tortured to find out if there are any more attacks being planned?or would this destroy our values? i await poeples opinion on this?.. peter
04 Mar 03
Originally posted by peterhI think that torture of a prisoner gets you nothing. It undermines your moral authority and moral authority is the sole argument for the destruction of terror supporting nations. Abide by Geneva all the way and live by our laws, not the laws of our enemies.
perhaps he's already got his own pill and has decided not to take it ?just because you think his life is not worth living doesnt mean he feels the same way.who should decide upon what is 'quality of life' worth living?what about the millions of babies being born in africa with aids? are their lives worth living?what about the actor Christopher Reeve..woul ...[text shortened]... attacks being planned?or would this destroy our values? i await poeples opinion on this?.. peter
04 Mar 03
1 edit
Originally posted by peterhOf course I wouldn't force the cyanide pill on the poor tortured prisonser, that would be murder. But the presupposition of the example is that the prisoner asks for assistance to die. I'm assuming that the prisoner doesn't want to go on living, given the certainty of continual torture and the lack of alternatives. So your objectiion is just misguided, and results from not paying close attention to the chain of argument.
perhaps he's already got his own pill and has decided not to take it ?just because you think his life is not worth living doesnt mean he feels the same way.who should decide upon what is 'quality of life' worth living?what about the milli ...[text shortened]... this destroy our values? i await poeples opinion on this?.. peter
As for babies born with aids in Africa, presumably they cannot make an informed decision about the quality of their life ('cause they're babies) and could not ask for assistance to doe ('cause they're babies), so the problem doesn't arise. Christopher Reeve never wanted to die, he wanted to fight it out and apparently made the right decision, so bully for him. But because he never wanted assistance to die inthe first place, his case is really irrelevant to the issue. Concerning who ought to determine what a life is worth, the answer is simple: the person whose life it is, given that person is of sound mind. I have nothing to say about the God argument....we make lives too, and presumably were not playing God in that case, so why is this any different?
04 Mar 03
"Living" Wills are the best way to get around the problem of DNR's and assisted suicide. I have one filled out and it is very specific as to what I want in my medical care in the event I cannot make decisions. The only problem is that if you have a family member who cannot or does not want to carry it out, then Living Wills tend not to hold water in court.
I think that assisted suicide is a decent thing to allow in our society. It would eliminate murder/suicides that you see on the news involving 80 year old couples killing a loved one becuase they do not want to go on anymore. All this leads to is a jury trial where any 12 jurors will acquit based on the emotion factor.
Yes, this is a hard decision to make. Mostly it is a personal faith/belief decision. But, I do believe it is something that needs to be regulated in some way. How, I don't know.