PDA

View Full Version : Medical help to die.


The Boom
October 25th, 2016, 10:17 AM
Sorry I didn't know how to translate this topic from french!!!

Anyway, in my country(Canada) we have this important debate right now. The governement is considering if we should help those who are in too much pain or think they can't live anymore.I don't follow the news that much, but I know if it's a child's request then he or she must have a certain age.

Do you think we should agree to this?
At what age should you be able to decide?

mattsmith48
October 25th, 2016, 10:34 AM
You should have the option if anyone ever come to a point where what they have cannot be cured or any treatement won't change anything but adding a few more weeks in a hospital bed. Most politicians here agree on this, the debate is more on what should the limits be, how to control this and how to prevent abuse. For kids I think 18 is a good age to decide this, in some cases it could be left to the parents, but I see how it could go wrong and why some people wouldn't want to allow it for childrens.

PlasmaHam
October 25th, 2016, 01:41 PM
I am against euthanasia from a moral standpoint, but I am very against the government taking tax payer money like you seem to be suggesting to help people commit suicide.

mattsmith48
October 25th, 2016, 02:36 PM
I am against euthanasia from a moral standpoint, but I am very against the government taking tax payer money like you seem to be suggesting to help people commit suicide.

So helping people who suffer greatly and have no chance of getting better helping them to die if they want to is morally wrong, but murdering someone because he killed someone else is morally good?

Government is paying to keep them alive so if they can't get better and wish to why not help them end their life without or almost no pain?

Arkansasguy
October 25th, 2016, 02:37 PM
Sorry I didn't know how to translate this topic from french!!!

Anyway, in my country(Canada) we have this important debate right now. The governement is considering if we should help those who are in too much pain or think they can't live anymore.I don't follow the news that much, but I know if it's a child's request then he or she must have a certain age.

Do you think we should agree to this?
At what age should you be able to decide?

Euthanasia and assisted suicide should remain illegal.

mattsmith48
October 25th, 2016, 02:40 PM
Euthanasia and assisted suicide should remain illegal.

Any reason you think this way?

Arkansasguy
October 25th, 2016, 02:43 PM
Any reason you think this way?

Because society can't function if murser is legal.

PlasmaHam
October 25th, 2016, 02:57 PM
So helping people who suffer greatly and have no chance of getting better helping them to die if they want to is morally wrong, but murdering someone because he killed someone else is morally good?

The hypocrisy here is so typical of you. You wouldn't even respond to my abortion argument in the death penalty thread, saying that abortion has nothing to do with the death penalty. Yet now you expect me to answer your death penalty argument in an Euthanasia thread? Can you come up with an argument that I don't find comical?

mattsmith48
October 25th, 2016, 03:00 PM
The hypocrisy here is so typical of you. You wouldn't even respond to my abortion argument in the death penalty thread, saying that abortion has nothing to do with the death penalty. Yet now you expect me to answer your death penalty argument in an Euthanasia thread? Can you come up with an argument that I don't find comical?

I did answer you should go back and look if you missed it.

If you want other arguments you just have to look in same post you just quoted two lines lower or my 1st reply to this thread.

Because society can't function if murser is legal.

Murder stays illegal even if euthanasia becomes legal.

Posts merged. Use the multi quote button next time. ~Mars

PlasmaHam
October 25th, 2016, 03:08 PM
I did answer you should go back and look if you missed it.

Your "answer" was that abortion wasn't relevant to the Death Penalty discussion.

If you want other arguments you just have to look in same post you just quoted two lines lower or my 1st reply to this thread Are you talking about your post where you said since the government is keeping them alive the government has the right to kill them? Yea, for someone like myself, who doesn't already like government healthcare, that is a very lacking argument.

Murder stays illegal even if euthanasia becomes legal.
Hm, this reminds me of something I read earlier. Very simplistic, so you should be able to understand it.
Premeditated killing of one human being by another. sounds like murder to me
Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human.

mattsmith48
October 25th, 2016, 03:23 PM
Your "answer" was that abortion wasn't relevant to the Death Penalty discussion.

Basically my answer was abortion is a choice, death penalty is not.

Are you talking about your post where you said since the government is keeping them alive the government has the right to kill them? Yea, for someone like myself, who doesn't already like government healthcare, that is a very lacking argument.

Actually the person who is chose that they don't want to have a long and painfull death so when the moment comes the doctor give that person drugs to kill them without pain. The only thing the government is doing is paying for it.

Hm, this reminds me of something I read earlier. Very simplistic, so you should be able to understand it.

Talking about when I said that death penalty is murder? Like abortion euthanasia is choice, death penalty is not.

Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human.

When legal euthanasia is only allowed with the consent of the person who is dying

Flapjack
October 26th, 2016, 07:45 AM
I agree they should be allowed to, they should have the freedom to choose to die. Age I would suggest should be either 16 or 18. Obviously there should be safeguards in place.
I am against euthanasia from a moral standpoint, but I am very against the government taking tax payer money like you seem to be suggesting to help people commit suicide.
I believe all healthcare in Canada is free so it makes sense that this is also free.

Jason Mark
October 26th, 2016, 10:46 AM
I am against euthanasia and assisted suicide. And I think it's a Pandora's box to forced or encouraged suicide. There's no reason pain can't be managed.

Flapjack
October 26th, 2016, 11:13 AM
I am against euthanasia and assisted suicide. And I think it's a Pandora's box to forced or encouraged suicide. There's no reason pain can't be managed.
That is easy to say when you have never experienced it. What about the terminally ill that are in excruciating pain? Why should you have the right to remove their freedom to end their life because you don't believe in it?

Mars
October 26th, 2016, 11:28 AM
I am against euthanasia and assisted suicide. And I think it's a Pandora's box to forced or encouraged suicide. There's no reason pain can't be managed.

a-actually there is. It's called money. Medication and medical equipment and space used to keep these people alive and vegetables costs a lot of money.

I personally believe that if someone is terminally ill and wishes to end their life, they should be able to do so. If it's a child, their parents should have the choice (only because their the child's legal guardians and in charge of them, not because the choice should ultimately depend on how the parents feel).

Jason Mark
October 26th, 2016, 12:42 PM
[QUOTE=Mars;3449576]a-actually there is. It's called money. Medication and medical equipment and space used to keep these people alive and vegetables costs a lot of money./QUOTE]

Agreed, that's an issue.

PlasmaHam
October 26th, 2016, 04:08 PM
a-actually there is. It's called money. Medication and medical equipment and space used to keep these people alive and vegetables costs a lot of money. I doubt very many people decide to kill their sick friend because it costs money. I sure hope I don't get any friends like that.

Mars
October 26th, 2016, 04:13 PM
I doubt very many people decide to kill their sick friend because it costs money. I sure hope I don't get any friends like that.

I wasn't saying that. I was responding to another user and how they said why not just keep them alive.

The second part of that post is my opinion on the topic

Flapjack
October 26th, 2016, 04:15 PM
I doubt very many people decide to kill their sick friend because it costs money. I sure hope I don't get any friends like that.
We can agree on that xD The reality is that the burden cost of healthcare on the families of people with conditions like locked-in syndrome may cause many to want to die. Especially in countries like the USA where healthcare is crazy expensive. Obviously free healthcare for all would help this but that will not resolve the family of all costs in this situation. There are many other reasons why people would want to die however and I think they should have the freedom to choose to do so.

mattsmith48
October 26th, 2016, 06:30 PM
I doubt very many people decide to kill their sick friend because it costs money. I sure hope I don't get any friends like that.

Its not your friends who decide this its you

Uniquemind
October 26th, 2016, 08:16 PM
I'm for euthanasia and I do not believe it is the same as off-the-cuff suicide.

It can have legal restrictions like requiring a diagnosis of a terminal illness, whereas the latter does not.

Bob billy
December 21st, 2016, 12:39 PM
I think it should be a persons choice. What if someone is a vegetable and their value of life is small?

Pyromaniac27
December 21st, 2016, 12:49 PM
icpersonally think its sick and cruel to have someone you know is going to die in pain, or die incgeneral, and keepcth in a hospice for the remainder or their life

Trevor.
December 28th, 2016, 05:19 AM
Sorry I didn't know how to translate this topic from french!!!

Anyway, in my country(Canada) we have this important debate right now. The governement is considering if we should help those who are in too much pain or think they can't live anymore.I don't follow the news that much, but I know if it's a child's request then he or she must have a certain age.

Do you think we should agree to this?
At what age should you be able to decide?

As a catholic I don't think the government should help people kill them selves. They should be starting suicidal prevention and find way for people to be happier. It upset me that people can die just because they weren't thinking right on that one day.

NewLeafsFan
January 2nd, 2017, 02:37 AM
I think that you should have the right to end your life through medically assisted suicide. I know that I would rather die peacefully on my own terms than I would suffering in a hospital bed in pain and unable to move.

So the criteria of medically assisted suicide includes being a certain age, unable to recover from that disease, you must be in a lot of pain, and you must be mentally stable.

However, I also believe that just as you should have the right to die through medically assisted suicude, others should have the right to die naturally. This is so everyones wishes and religious views are respected.

Bluehumaninavacuum
January 4th, 2017, 02:02 AM
I am against euthanasia from a moral standpoint, but I am very against the government taking tax payer money like you seem to be suggesting to help people commit suicide.

So you don't believe in a society pitching in to help the very ill?

As a catholic I don't think the government should help people kill them selves. They should be starting suicidal prevention and find way for people to be happier. It upset me that people can die just because they weren't thinking right on that one day.

I think you might have missed the point. It's helping people who are very sick to die. Don't you think it's inhumane to force them to suffer?

Posts merged. Please use the multi-quote button or edit your post. ~Amethyst_

WhoWhatWhen
January 7th, 2017, 02:32 AM
I believe that it should be legal for anyone to make that choice, no matter their age. If you are extremely ill and in pain, and especially if your chances of surviving are already slim, why not give them the choice? It is their life and their pain. It's ultimately their choice.

nebula
January 7th, 2017, 03:14 AM
Like an above user said, I think it should be legal but it should also have restrictions like the medical diagnosis of a terminal or life threatening illness or condition.

A close friend of mine has a bad condition where she lives in excruciating pain daily and she takes multiple doses of "pain killers" a day without them helping at all. When seeing someone like that, you have to take into account their quality of life and if they would prefer to end the suffering.

Somewhat similar to veterinary care, the vet would only operate if it were to give the animal a better quality of life and improve the condition that they are in. If they feel that it will only add a small amount of time to what they have left, or doesn't significantly improve their condition, they usually tend to lean towards putting the pet down in order to end the suffering of their patient. I personally feel that it should be the same with humans. It is, ultimately, their life and they should make that decision for themselves.

Living For Love
January 7th, 2017, 11:07 AM
I'm not against assisted suicide, but I'm against euthanasia. Euthanasia kind of contradicts itself, because people rely on their so called self-autonomy to die or their right to die while admitting they need the help of others to do it. There are also a number of questions that arise, such as how can we determine if the person is 100% mentally sane, or in the case if it's a child (legally speaking).

bentheplayer
January 10th, 2017, 02:17 PM
Since I had to write an essay on this topic on whether physician assisted suicide (PAS) should be legalized not too long ago, I guess I will share some excerpts of it with you guys. Do note that it was submitted to-turn-it in so don’t plagiarize it for your home work if you get this topic. I had references in my original article but removed them for this. Pm me if you want those links.
First off to make things clear on euthanasia the following are the 4 main forms of it.

-Voluntary euthanasia/active: the patient has requested or consented to a medical intervention designed to cause or hasten death
-Involuntary euthanasia/active: the positive act of killing a patient where the patient’s wishes are ignored, unknown or unknowable
-Assisted suicide/passive: provision by a doctor of the means by which the patient can take their own lives
-Refusal of treatment/passive: withdrawing all care, including food and water(nasogastric tubes/medically given) and allowing the patient to die "naturally"

Globally, refusal of treatment is accepted in the medical community. All forms of active euthanasia are ILLEGAL and are considered as murder usually. There have been cases of doctors who were charged for performing active euthanasia. In some countries like Switzerland, assisted suicide in the form of passive euthanasia is allowed. Under this, patients must switch off life-support equipment on their own and then consume a cocktail of drugs entirely on their own without any help. Currently, all international physician societies do not endorse euthanasia but obviously some local (country specific)medical councils have their own sets of guidelines on this topic.

Background
Purposely, a referendum was passed in 2001 in Zurich to allow foreigners access to PAS if their country of origin does not accommodate it. With a few hundreds of terminally ill foreigners having exercised this option in Zurich, the pressure is on for every country to offer its citizens the “right” to die in their homelands. As a highly divisive topic, this paper seeks to critically review the literature to educate and unify as many, if not all, (Insert citizenship) on a common stand against PAS based on our local laws, social values, ethics and morals. However, to cater to the needs and wishes of the minority, effective alternatives are also explored and proposed to benefit all (Insert citizenship).

Constitutional rights and social values
Traditionally, the English common law considers all forms of killing a person, even oneself, as a criminal offence apart from the limited rights of private defence as spelled out under the penal code. It is hence a crime to abet a person in the commission of suicide and the penalty depends on the mental status of the alleged person. This means that the current legislation does not allow any physician to assist a person in suicide, and a person should only die from natural causes except when sentenced for capital punishment by the law.

The Constitution also further defines the rights and responsibilities of the state and all its citizens. Related to PAS, the constitution enshrines the basic human right of all to life and liberty except in accordance to the law. This means that everyone has the right to live to the fullest within the constraints of the law.

Supporters of PAS had often argued that if a person has a right to life he or she should by extension also have a right to die. However, many courts of law have already rejected such a view as legally unsound. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the right to life does not by extension create a right to choose death over life. This means that even with the right to life, it cannot be used to justify a right to die under the hands or assistance of a third party without a change in the current law.

Ethics of the local medical community
All doctors practising medicine are registered and bound by the ethical code and guidelines issued by the (Insert Country) Medical Council. Registered doctors are required to respect the right of every individual to refuse treatment. As a result, many proponents of PAS often claim that there is no difference between refusing treatment and PAS as a justification to legalise PAS. Both are difficult decisions for a terminally ill patient, compounded by ignorance of the difference. Refusing treatment is fundamentally and legally different from PAS as the purpose of treatment is to extend life, while PAS is a deliberate action to cause death. As some treatments for terminally ill can be very aggressive and can severely damage a patient’s physical and mental status with the possibility of causing death, a responsible doctor will always carefully advise the patient on their potential harms and benefits. The intent of the conversation is to extend life with the benefit of letting the patient to assess the potential harms and benefits before accepting or refusing the treatments. As such, accepting or refusing treatments is about extending life while PAS is about terminating life. The ethical code of doctors is to extend life as long as the patient desires, and they are bound by the law from assisting anyone to end life.

Morals and religious values
The moral values of most individuals are shaped largely by their racial and religious beliefs. As the majority of the population, comprising of Christians, believe that the sanctity of life is bestowed by the Creator and that no one should be allowed to terminate his or her own life other than natural death, PAS has limited ground. In addition, most other religions such as Buddhists and Hindus also believe that killing regardless of reasons is a cardinal sin. Hence, there is clearly little room for PAS to gain a foothold in society, without a foreseeable change in its moral and religious beliefs to force a change in the law to legalise PAS.

Undue burden of informed consent and execution of PAS on the medical community
A key cornerstone of PAS is to ensure that each terminally ill patient is able and competent of making a well-informed decision whether to terminate his or her own life. This criterion is however difficult, if not impossible, to meet with complete certainty and the burden of proof is often shouldered by the medical community. Medicine is not an exact science. There are many anecdotal accounts of people surviving for years despite their doctors telling them that they will be dead in a matter of months. Even the best physicians are unable to ascertain precisely when a person will die other than making an educated guess. Particularly, in (Insert country), patients often rely on what a single, trusted physician tells them at face value. If the prognosis is inaccurate or poorly conveyed, the decision for wanting PAS can be significantly biased on a single postulation which places a heavy burden and responsibility on the physician.

To complicate matters further, patients with terminal illnesses are often burdened with other emotional and financial woes which can reduce their desires for life and competence to make a well-informed decision. According to the literature, such emotional and financial depression can severely hamper one’s ability to make good and rational decisions. Consequently, without a good and comprehensive system to assess and support the needs of terminally ill, allowing them to choose between life and death is an irresponsible behaviour of an otherwise caring and inclusive society. As an example, a terminally ill patient with financial distress and deep fears of pains may opt for death due to the lack of good and affordable palliative and hospice cares. Clearly, most countries are still lacking in these aspects to ensure that patients do not choose PAS simply because of inaccurate prognoses, financial distress or emotional depression.

In addition, even if a society is willing to incur much cost to assess and assist terminally ill patients against choosing PAS for the wrong reasons, it is still an unbearable responsibility for a physician to advise and endorse a person to terminate life. Instead the same resources can be more positively deployed to develop other alternatives, such as affordable palliative and hospice care, to assist patients to choose life rather than death.

Social costs of allowing PAS
The legalisation of PAS can be detrimental to a society on many fronts. Firstly, with legalisation, it is an affirmative action that PAS is good, and suicide rates have actually increased in places that have legalised PAS. Unwittingly, the legalisation of PAS can legitimate the notion of suicide among the population. While the minority may argue for the freedom of choice, this freedom cannot be offered at the expense of the majority to nurture the right values to the future generations. This is precisely the reason that suicide is still a criminal offence in some countries even though practitioners of suicide are usually sent for mental health treatments instead of punishments. Even in countries where suicide has been decriminalised, it is normally done with liability on third party assisting such an act.

Secondly, allowing PAS will only result in moving down a slippery slope where the boundaries of acceptable suicide is pushed and eventually expanded to legalise the right to suicide. As an example, the boundary of euthanasia has recently been extended to minors in Belgium.

Thirdly, if PAS becomes prevalent, it will become a natural choice during the end of life care. It can create a pressure and even a duty to die once a person is deemed to be living beyond one’s economic worth. Instead of legalising PAS, we should thus recognise that humans are fragile, interdependent and connected by bonds of support. The desire for PAS or suicide should be perceived as calls for helps. If nothing is done to assist those who call for helps, it will only serve to confirm their fears and make it difficult for them to seek alternative solutions. Instead of making suicide routine under the travesty of PAS, we should therefore focus on providing better care that promotes life rather than death. The way that we care for our poor, ill and dying will determine the kind of society that we aspire for our future generations.

Alternative solutions for the terminally ill
In a study in Oregon, where PAS is legal, it was found that the key reasons that people opted for PAS are worries and concerns of their future. More importantly, it found that no patients felt that their physical condition or suffering was the main motivator for PAS. This finding is very important as it shows that pain or suffering can be managed well among dying patients, debunking the myth that PAS is needed to minimise uncontrollable pain and suffering. Instead it shows that patients’ worries and concerns for the future should be better managed. To address their worries and concerns of the future, the model of Shared Decision Making (SDM) was employed. Under this model, patients are actively engaged and involved in their own care. The physician will explain and provide clinical evidences on various treatment options, and the patient is empowered to choose the treatment plan that best meets his or her own personal goals. Living wills can also be offered in advance to assure patients of their continued autonomy even when they are unable to communicate their wishes. While there is limited practice of SDM currently, SDM combined with quality palliative and hospice care can offer terminally ill patients an effective alternative to PAS.

Conclusions
In summary, it is easy to be swayed by emotion and fear like most proponents of PAS. Ultimately the question of whether PAS should be offered is basically philosophical as the current legal structure, ethics, morals and social norms in (Insert country) are directly against PAS. As such, unless there is a seismic shift in social norms, PAS cannot be offered to terminally ill patients. However, as a civilised society, we should always recognise the needs of those who are going through a trying time. Adequate supports should be developed and offered by the state and society to the terminally ill in the form of a robust national palliative and hospice care system, with shared decision making to balance idealism with pragmatism.