Physician-Assisted Suicide

[mattsmith48]

whats your opinion on it? should a person who as a terminally ill disease and as no chance to get better be able to request it to his doctor?

[sqishy]

People should have a right to end their own life if they are suffering chronic or terminal physical illness and have an personally evaluated insufficient quality of life to continue experiencing it.

If the person is mentally ill, then it should be evaluated if their mental illness is sufficiently responsible for the want to end their own life, and then relevant treatment be undertaken to attempt to alleviate this illness. If the illness is not to the level of being wholly responsible but rather is a possible influencing factor, then it should be determined if this is sufficient enough to count as the immediate above, or be counted as the insufficient quality of life I said at the top.

[Vlerchan]

Conditional on the patient passing a full psychological evaluation - Yes.

[Living For Love]

Yes, but only if the patient self-administers the means of death.

--------------

Also, just to clear up some terms that are often mistakenly used (especially by the media):

Euthanasia: the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.

Euthanasia is categorised in different ways, which include:

- Voluntary euthanasia: the practice of voluntarily ending a life in a painless manner.
- Non-voluntary euthanasia: patient's consent unavailable (illegal in all countries).
- Involuntary euthanasia: without asking consent or against the patient's will (also illegal in all countries).

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) involves a doctor "knowingly and intentionally providing a person with the knowledge or means or both required to commit suicide, including counselling about lethal doses of drugs, prescribing such lethal doses or supplying the drugs."


In cases of euthanasia, the physician administers the means of death, usually a lethal drug.

In physician-assisted suicide (PAS), the patient self-administers the means of death.

[sqishy]

Yes, but only if the patient self-administers the means of death.

--------------

Also, just to clear up some terms that are often mistakenly used (especially by the media):

Euthanasia: the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.

Euthanasia is categorised in different ways, which include:

- Voluntary euthanasia: the practice of voluntarily ending a life in a painless manner.
- Non-voluntary euthanasia: patient's consent unavailable (illegal in all countries).
- Involuntary euthanasia: without asking consent or against the patient's will (also illegal in all countries).

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) involves a doctor "knowingly and intentionally providing a person with the knowledge or means or both required to commit suicide, including counselling about lethal doses of drugs, prescribing such lethal doses or supplying the drugs."


In cases of euthanasia, the physician administers the means of death, usually a lethal drug.

In physician-assisted suicide (PAS), the patient self-administers the means of death.

Apologies for the unintended longer response, but there's a point I feel is important here. Hope it makes sense.

- - - - - - - -

If we had such technology available that even people physically paralysed to a point whereupon they cannot self-administer the means directly, or even physically send a signal to make some machine start to do the actual process (taking IV lines already being in place, etc), can instead send a signal by thought through a sufficiently sensitive device, would you be alright with this?
In addition, general sufficiently relevant thoughts can be 'read' as it were from the device, so that physicians know the intentions of the patient, even if the patient's mind cannot communicate otherwise physically.


I understand the POV that those who choose euthanasia should do the act only by themselves, but I'm suggesting a line be drawn between two examples of events.

A first example is that the physician asks consent of the patient before the procedure and then goes along to do it, the mental state of the person thereafter being irrelevant (the patient's previous consent was followed). I'm assuming you certainly don't go for this.

A second example is that the physician asks consent of the patient before and during the procedure, repetitive and often enough such that the procedure can be halted at any moment before a 'point of no return' where irreversible effects occur. This can be seen as a sort of 'fail-safe' if the patient changes their mind into the procedure, or wants another moment, etc.

Let us say that we have the second situation, but the patient changes their mind about the moment of being euthanised after the point of no return (for whatever reason). Here, the physician has obeyed the intentions of the patient as far as possible, and now the unfortunate circumstance proceeds where the patient enters a coma and on to death, at a moment where the patient did not want it.

Let us take a third example where the patient self-administers the drug to carry out the procedure, but changes their mind after they've passed that point of no return. Even if the patient is paralysed such that reliance upon that hypothetical (but possible) device I spoke of at the start, it is irrelevant to that the patient's done the fundamental procedure go-ahead themselves.


In the second example, the go-ahead is made continuously by the patient to the physician until the decision is changed but past a reversible point.

In the third, the only difference is that the physician is not acting solely to physically administer it, a device or the patient is. The unfortunate situation playing out of the euthanasia 'completing' at a point where the patient did not want it, happens regardless of whether a physician was involved earlier in the process or not.


I'm taking you have your view because you believe patients should have total control over themselves, without any possibility of abuse by others which could get away with it taking the circumstance. I'm offering situations where the abuse of the patient here, cannot happen. The issue of (I think) absence of the device I spoke of, doesn't take away from this; also, I'm leaving aside the possibility of ill-intention or carelessness on the part of the physician, because that can be counteracted.

If we are to consider slim possibilities of a physician going against a patient's intentions at a crucial time, against even their career's reputation (even a far way to go), then I feel it is viewing the importance of the patient's choice in euthanasia to over-the-top paranoia levels. Rejection of any form of help from another suitable person is taken to a level of unnecessary problem-arising, in the practicality of self-administration in some and relatively probable situations of large degrees of physical paralysis.

Of course, where the process is seen to begin is also relevant, so I'm open to hearing where you see that to be.

[Living For Love]

If we had such technology available that even people physically paralysed to a point whereupon they cannot self-administer the means directly, or even physically send a signal to make some machine start to do the actual process (taking IV lines already being in place, etc), can instead send a signal by thought through a sufficiently sensitive device, would you be alright with this?
In addition, general sufficiently relevant thoughts can be 'read' as it were from the device, so that physicians know the intentions of the patient, even if the patient's mind cannot communicate otherwise physically.
So you're saying they would be able to kill themselves using solely their minds and thoughts? Well, I guess I wouldn't see a problem with that.

A first example is that the physician asks consent of the patient before the procedure and then goes along to do it, the mental state of the person thereafter being irrelevant (the patient's previous consent was followed). I'm assuming you certainly don't go for this.
Not sure what you mean by this, but the mental state of the person is certainly not irrelevant.

Let us say that we have the second situation, but the patient changes their mind about the moment of being euthanised after the point of no return (for whatever reason). Here, the physician has obeyed the intentions of the patient as far as possible, and now the unfortunate circumstance proceeds where the patient enters a coma and on to death, at a moment where the patient did not want it.
You see, that is precisely one of the things that makes euthanasia so wrong. Who's fault is it, then? If the patient changed his mind in the middle of the procedure, it means the whole process was a failure, this is, the evaluation of the patient's mental state, the drug provided which allowed him to feel regretful and the whole counseling he had to undergo before making the decision of ending his life.

The unfortunate situation playing out of the euthanasia 'completing' at a point where the patient did not want it, happens regardless of whether a physician was involved earlier in the process or not.
So the only problem you see with euthanasia is the unfortunate situation that arise when patients suddenly switch their minds? I would like some sort of statistics on how often that kind of situations happen.

If we are to consider slim possibilities of a physician going against a patient's intentions at a crucial time, against even their career's reputation (even a far way to go), then I feel it is viewing the importance of the patient's choice in euthanasia to over-the-top paranoia levels.
Physicians going against a patient's intentions can't happen.

Rejection of any form of help from another suitable person is taken to a level of unnecessary problem-arising, in the practicality of self-administration in some and relatively probable situations of large degrees of physical paralysis.
Can I ask you what you mean by "practicality of self-administration". In cases of physical paralysis, I wouldn't mind the physician choosing a close family member as the one responsible for administrating the drug.

[Babs]

I take no issue with it. I understand why someone with a terminal illness may want to take that route rather than a prolonged and painful death.

[Flapjack]

I have mixed opinions on this. On one hand I think those that want to end their own lives for whatever reason are mentally ill and so doctors should help them. However I am a massive believer in individual freedom and that includes the ability to end one's own life and so if a patient cannot end their own live, they should be given the option to. The same as an able bodied person.

[sqishy]

So you're saying they would be able to kill themselves using solely their minds and thoughts? Well, I guess I wouldn't see a problem with that.

Using their thoughts to trigger a physical device to do the job, not just barely thoughts.
Alright.

- - - - - - - -

I apologise again because I may have misinterpreted your viewpoint. I was assuming that you were for only oneself having a right to go through euthanasia, because of being implied by it being wrong to see anyone else do it for them.



You see, that is precisely one of the things that makes euthanasia so wrong. Who's fault is it, then? If the patient changed his mind in the middle of the procedure, it means the whole process was a failure, this is, the evaluation of the patient's mental state, the drug provided which allowed him to feel regretful and the whole counseling he had to undergo before making the decision of ending his life.

I was using the hypothetical situation because I anticipated that it was such situations that you'd see as showing why euthanasia would be wrong.

I don't think that the patient's mind would be that unstable with intentions to change their mind during a procedure, I suspended that for this. Euthanasia should only be granted to those relevantly mentally stable.



So the only problem you see with euthanasia is the unfortunate situation that arise when patients suddenly switch their minds? I would like some sort of statistics on how often that kind of situations happen.

No. The only problem I see with euthanasia is that incorrect or improper practice of it leaves open the possibility of abuse by others who murder in its guise, either through some way of altering the now-victim's mind to see euthanasia as an option, or through killing the victim and saying after that the person wanted it and wanted help doing it. I response for the rest of this above.



Physicians going against a patient's intentions can't happen.

Yes - I incorrectly assumed you thought it could.



Can I ask you what you mean by "practicality of self-administration". In cases of physical paralysis, I wouldn't mind the physician choosing a close family member as the one responsible for administrating the drug.

Alright, so someone else helps the patient.

Are you for the view that someone can only euthanise themselves without help, or against it? Hope I'm not getting a wrong picture - it appeared earlier that you were for it.

[ValentinClarke]

whats your opinion on it? should a person who as a terminally ill disease and as no chance to get better be able to request it to his doctor?

It's weird, we just covered this topic in R.E. , anyway. I believe that if a person is suffering a life debilitating disease, which causes them daily pain and suffering, then they should be allowed to receive euthanasia, due to the fact that they lead a poor quality of life. A person should be able to request it- request being the keyword, it must be voluntary in my opinion, unless the patient is in a condition where they cannot communicate (coma). I think that if someone is suffering from a mental illness, that medication, therapy and all other possible solutions should be exhausted before the consideration of Assisted Suicide. This should be a last resort, imo.

[mattsmith48]

request being the keyword, it must be voluntary in my opinion
For sure it as to be an option some people might not want it because they want to live as long they can and spend as much time they can with their loved ones or for other reason like religion

unless the patient is in a condition where they cannot communicate (coma). I think that if someone is suffering from a mental illness, that medication, therapy and all other possible solutions should be exhausted before the consideration of Assisted Suicide. This should be a last resort, imo.

If they have a disease they know when it will get worse theyll be in a coma or be unable to request it due to mental illness they should be able to request in advance so when they arent able to make a decision there is one that already has been made when the person could

[Microcosm]

I'd say the person must be determined to be totally rational when making the decision. If the decision is made on an emotional whim, then it is not rational and shouldn't be made. I also believe there should be a sort of waiting period of at least two weeks(the patient can extend the period of time of course, but at least two weeks) to ensure that they have time to think it over. Such a precaution could be nullified in very specific cases where they would only be in some degree of intense pain, mental or physical, throughout the entire waiting period.

As long as they are determined to be emotionally stable at the time the decision is made, I think it is their decision to make.

[Judean Zealot]

While I maintain that suicide is almost always wrong, I do not believe it lies within government's power to ban. I grant government almost absolute power with regards to public mores and arbitrations, but that only extends so far as does civic maintenance. The matter of suicide, however, is an evil that doesn't extend beyond the individual level, and is thus not under governmental jurisdiction. I am tempted to say the same for abortion, were it not for the undercurrent of sexual licentiousness which animates the entire movement.

[Living For Love]

Are you for the view that someone can only euthanise themselves without help, or against it?
I am for the view that people shouldn't have the right to oblige another person to kill them.

[Body odah Man]

I guess, if they're fully rational

[Just JT]

We put our pets down so they are not suffering any longer. Although they are not able to make that decision on their own in a way that we understand, we choose to take on that responsibilypty and rill as their owners. Why would we not want the same option for ourselves or our loved ones? Yes I know we are not dogs and cats, but why do we accept that we can put down an animal in the name of incurable disease and suffering, and not want the same option for us to make the same choice for ourselves?

[Judean Zealot]

We put our pets down so they are not suffering any longer. Although they are not able to make that decision on their own in a way that we understand, we choose to take on that responsibilypty and rill as their owners. Why would we not want the same option for ourselves or our loved ones? Yes I know we are not dogs and cats, but why do we accept that we can put down an animal in the name of incurable disease and suffering, and not want the same option for us to make the same choice for ourselves?

Primarily because we, as humans, have responsibilities to those around us, to our families and communities. We do not have the right to terminate that responsibility whenever we wish. Animals, on the other hand, have no responsibilities or duties, and therefore need not be preserved despite pain

I'm notably excluding the clinically dead from this judgement.

[Just JT]

Yes, I her that animals have no responsibility, and have no ability to make those choices either. We do, and do so for them. I was more equating that we will so something that seems so....compassionate, for our pets, but not for our our selves

Sorry, I don't understand the part below


[QUOTE=Judean Zealot;33688I'm notably excluding the clinically dead from this judgement.[/QUOTE]

[Judean Zealot]

Yes, I her that animals have no responsibility, and have no ability to make those choices either. We do, and do so for them. I was more equating that we will so something that seems so....compassionate, for our pets, but not for our our selves

Sorry, I don't understand the part below

You're right: it probably is more compassionate. I would still say it's wrong though. What I was saying at the end is that I don't necessarily think it's wrong to pull the plug on someone who's basically brain dead and isn't going to recover. That's no life as far as I'm concerned.

[Just JT]

You're right: it probably is more compassionate. I would still say it's wrong though. What I was saying at the end is that I don't necessarily think it's wrong to pull the plug on someone who's basically brain dead and isn't going to recover. That's no life as far as I'm concerned.

Ok, yeah, I think we see it the same way. I mean, if there's no hope, brain dead or terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, looking at a long painful slow dosing process, it should be the persons choice to die. But not someone else's.

[Judean Zealot]

Ok, yeah, I think we see it the same way. I mean, if there's no hope, brain dead or terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, looking at a long painful slow dosing process, it should be the persons choice to die. But not someone else's.

I disagree with terminally ill. Even if one's dying painfully of cancer, they can still smile at someone, tell them something nice, or a million other things to better the world around them. They have no right to end that.

[Just JT]

I disagree with terminally ill. Even if one's dying painfully of cancer, they can still smile at someone, tell them something nice, or a million other things to better the world around them. They have no right to end that.

Even if the person dying, wants to die?
I'm not judging you, you have a right to your belief and I'll respect that, but respectfully disagree.
Just wanting to clarify is all

[Judean Zealot]

Even if the person dying, wants to die?
I'm not judging you, you have a right to your belief and I'll respect that, but respectfully disagree.
Just wanting to clarify is all

Yes, even if they want to. They have a responsibility and do not have the right of rejecting it.

[sqishy]

I am for the view that people shouldn't have the right to oblige another person to kill them.

Then I'm not seeing how my response before was being seen as taking your view wrongly.


We do not have the right to terminate that responsibility whenever we wish.

What is your stance on painkillers, and other means of alleviating pain?

[Just JT]

Yes, even if they want to. They have a responsibility and do not have the right of rejecting it.

That's your opinion, that's cool, we all have our own

[Judean Zealot]

What is your stance on painkillers, and other means of alleviating pain?

There's nothing wrong with killing pain, the problem is escaping one's other duties.

[sqishy]

There's nothing wrong with killing pain, the problem is escaping one's other duties.

I would not want to continue going along with duties, if it meant continuing to endure pain that I have gone past a point living with.

[JordanB777]

I think I'm for it if you're terminally ill but not for depression and stuff like that.

[Living For Love]

Since someone mentioned depression...

Holland allowed a 20-something sexual abuse victim to be euthanized last year after doctors convinced her that treatment for her mental disorders was hopeless, according to The Daily Mail.

Euthanasia is a rampant problem in the Netherlands where it has been legal since 1973. Numerous reports indicate on-going abuses, including the killing of infants, the disabled and elderly without their consent.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/05/11/woman-dealing-with-depression-anorexia-euthanized-when-doctors-decide-she-cant-be-cured/


Basically, in the Netherlands, if you accidentally hit your head against a door and say "Ouch!", you'll probably end up being euthanised by someone who wants to end your suffering. No offense for all the Dutch people here :D

[sqishy]

Basically, in the Netherlands, if you accidentally hit your head against a door and say "Ouch!", you'll probably end up being euthanised by someone who wants to end your suffering. No offense for all the Dutch people here :D

From what I heard of the news, all treatments were tried but it didn't work out. This is an exception for mentally ill people not having the right to be euthanised willingly, because the vast majority of cases will have treatment which solves the suffering without ending the life.

Not getting the comparison of that with getting your head hurt after hitting a door.

[Living For Love]

From what I heard of the news, all treatments were tried but it didn't work out. This is an exception for mentally ill people not having the right to be euthanised willingly, because the vast majority of cases will have treatment which solves the suffering without ending the life.

Not getting the comparison of that with getting your head hurt after hitting a door.
I wasn't comparing, it was just a joke on their really liberal laws.

[sqishy]

I wasn't comparing, it was just a joke on their really liberal laws.

Ah, right.

[everlong]

Sure. It's their life.

[Just JT]

It is their life, but I think that's a bit over the top
Yeah people can lose hopefulness in their darkest time, but....with the proper help, maybe their God, can come through from some very traumatic things. Banging your head or being raped.....yeah, no, not even a funny, just plain wrong.
Should not be allowed to kill yourself for something like that

[Judean Zealot]

I would not want to continue going along with duties, if it meant continuing to endure pain that I have gone past a point living with.

Since when do duties have anything to do with what you want?

[mattsmith48]

Since someone mentioned depression...



Basically, in the Netherlands, if you accidentally hit your head against a door and say "Ouch!", you'll probably end up being euthanised by someone who wants to end your suffering. No offense for all the Dutch people here :D

Thats why it needs to be highly regulated like no matter what you try you will die from that diseases, you have to be mentally capable of making a decision, if you suffer from diseases like alzheimer and dementia you should be able to request it in advance so when your unable to make the decision it was already made. your the only person who can ask for it no one can request it for you.

[sqishy]

Since when do duties have anything to do with what you want?

For sure, there's no necessary connection there, but I don't see it being a justified reason to face pain that cannot be escaped in any controlled way.


I am assuming you see duty to have a greater value than reasonable ease of living, and the life of a human being. What are these duties for?

I will assume other people. Our lives are not fundamentally totally lived for the lives of others, because everyone doing that is making some vague directed intention to help the guy who helps the guy who helps the guy, etc. We can help ourselves sometimes. I don't see it as being selfish (I assume you see it as) to want to alleviate pain by accessing something beyond it, in this case death. I'm assuming also you do stuff that's about only making yourself feel better and nobody else. Making oneself feel better is not tied to making others feel worse, there is no necessary connection there.

Is it selfish to deny oneself basic control over one's own body, if I am aware and have acted upon informing others and helping others as much as I can?

Is it a fulfilled duty to continue living / dying to a point where loved ones may suffer at seeing you lose control of your physical and/or mental health?

[Judean Zealot]

For sure, there's no necessary connection there, but I don't see it being a justified reason to face pain that cannot be escaped in any controlled way.

What is virtue if not when a person perseveres in his duty despite his pain or disinclination?


I am assuming you see duty to have a greater value than reasonable ease of living, and the life of a human being. What are these duties for?

Duty is ultimately for oneself, but it consists of sacrificing the self for the whole.

I will assume other people. Our lives are not fundamentally totally lived for the lives of others, because everyone doing that is making some vague directed intention to help the guy who helps the guy who helps the guy, etc. We can help ourselves sometimes. I don't see it as being selfish (I assume you see it as) to want to alleviate pain by accessing something beyond it, in this case death. I'm assuming also you do stuff that's about only making yourself feel better and nobody else. Making oneself feel better is not tied to making others feel worse, there is no necessary connection there.

Again, there is no problem with ensuring one's own pleasure, so long as that pleasure doesn't comprise a negation of one's duty.

Is it selfish to deny oneself basic control over one's own body, if I am aware and have acted upon informing others and helping others as much as I can?

Once you are dead there is no more helping others - that in itself is sufficient to be regarded as a rejection of duty.

Is it a fulfilled duty to continue living / dying to a point where loved ones may suffer at seeing you lose control of your physical and/or mental health?

Ahh, here we get to a different discussion: suicide to help others. Notice how this flies in the face of the egocentrism you've been espousing until this point. In certain cases I would be inclined to accept this argument, such as martyrdom to further a cause or prevent some sort of civic disaster (Cato in Utica and King Saul on Mount Gilboa spring to mind). Nonetheless, in the event of sickness, so long as one maintains basic sentience, they have the capacity to comfort his loved one's through his own good cheer, despite the pain.

[sqishy]

What is virtue if not when a person perseveres in his duty despite his pain or disinclination?

Perseverance in this context kinda makes sense when you have an other side to reach, in this case you don't.



Duty is ultimately for oneself, but it consists of sacrificing the self for the whole.

What is this 'whole'?



Again, there is no problem with ensuring one's own pleasure, so long as that pleasure doesn't comprise a negation of one's duty.

Not seeing how even this is violated with assisted suicide.



Once you are dead there is no more helping others - that in itself is sufficient to be regarded as a rejection of duty.

All our actions are carried out with the expectation that a certain effect will occur - it does not mean we are there to see it happen or not. In most cases of this we are in a different location in the world to where the anticipated event will be; for death we're not in any location, but we're not any more not-there to see the event than with what I said above.


Ahh, here we get to a different discussion: suicide to help others. Notice how this flies in the face of the egocentrism you've been espousing until this point.

I was not being egocentric, and I was not being inconsistent.



Nonetheless, in the event of sickness, so long as one maintains basic sentience, they have the capacity to comfort his loved one's through his own good cheer, despite the pain.

Everyone has a capacity of mostly anything doable - I'm comparing what you're saying here with saying that a depressed person has a capacity to be happy and should work on it, rather than taking an easy way out with medication/treatment. May sound different, but death for assisted suicide is a treatment for the suffering too.