How do we feel about legal assisted suicide

As the laws around assisted suicide prepare to change in Canada, I wonder if it will be possible for Americans to access this service? I certainly hope so.
 

Good friend's mother-in-law is 87 and terminal. She can no longer eat and can barely get liquid down. Morphine diet. Family of two daughters and one son have to split time to stay with her. The experience has completely uprooted the lives of three families. The lady would prefer to be "assisted" in a painless death. Can't, because it's against the law. So... how much longer will this go on? They gave her 2 weeks, almost 2 months ago.

Three years ago, we had a good friend breathing her last. Her husband was also ill and having difficulty remaining with her in hospice. No family except some nieces and nephews, many miles away, who were just waiting for both to die so they could split the spoils. My wife and I sat with the lady, so her husband could get some rest at home.
She had a pacemaker. The doctor said that all one had to do was lay a magnet on her chest and it would stop the pacemaker. He couldn't, legally. Her husband did not want "killing" his wife on his conscience. So, she suffered almost a week longer than she should have had to.

My Mother fought cancer for a little over 10 years. The last 6 months, she begged. Instead, we had to watch her almost drinking morphine... not knowing anyone due to the drugged state... until she finally passed.

In the hugely evangelical State, we will never have any chance of relief through doctor assisted death.
 
Grumpy Ol' Man said:
Good friend's mother-in-law is 87 and terminal. She can no longer eat and can barely get liquid down. Morphine diet. Family of two daughters and one son have to split time to stay with her. The experience has completely uprooted the lives of three families. The lady would prefer to be "assisted" in a painless death. Can't, because it's against the law. So... how much longer will this go on? They gave her 2 weeks, almost 2 months ago.

Three years ago, we had a good friend breathing her last. Her husband was also ill and having difficulty remaining with her in hospice. No family except some nieces and nephews, many miles away, who were just waiting for both to die so they could split the spoils. My wife and I sat with the lady, so her husband could get some rest at home.
She had a pacemaker. The doctor said that all one had to do was lay a magnet on her chest and it would stop the pacemaker. He couldn't, legally. Her husband did not want "killing" his wife on his conscience. So, she suffered almost a week longer than she should have had to.

My Mother fought cancer for a little over 10 years. The last 6 months, she begged. Instead, we had to watch her almost drinking morphine... not knowing anyone due to the drugged state... until she finally passed.

In the hugely evangelical State, we will never have any chance of relief through doctor assisted death.
Click to expand...

But its all part of God's plan, and He loves us. Right? ..Right??
 

In Canada many physicians feel it does more harm to leave terminal patients to suffer needlessly, I concur. No one should be forced to die in agony. It is barbaric. It should be a matter of personal choice.
 
koala said:
Warrigal.........what about their Hippocratic Oath.Does this stop them from taking any part in the matter ??

I would think so !!!!!
Click to expand...

I think it depends on how you look at it. Their big thing is "First, do no harm." My question is, where is the harm, or the greater harm? Assuming the patient is hopelessly terminal and suffering greatly, is the greater "harm" in ending that suffering which precedes the inevitable death? Or is the greater harm in allowing that patient to suffer on and on through the final ravages of disease which end in the inevitable death? Mind, we are not talking about discomfort here, nor are we talking about patients who have a legitimate hope of survival -- we are talking about patients in extreme unrelenting pain that can no longer be relieved, along with the other godawful things that go along with it -- continual vomiting, diarrhea, struggling for breath, as the systems shut down, hallucinations, flailing about, etc., and the concomitant suffering of the family as they watch their loved one go through it. I just watched my niece go through all this, including the indescribable last few days, which were like something out of Dante's Inferno. For myself, I would gladly jump in front of an oncoming train rather than suffer as she did.

There was no hope for her -- even if the cancer could have been stopped in its tracks, she could not have continued to live with her damaged organs. Where is "First, do no harm" in insisting she go through every bitter minute of final suffering?
 
koala said:
Simple............Because there are more against than fore
Click to expand...

In my experience, there are more FOR these measures than against. Besides which, such legislation would not REQUIRE assisted dying, but merely allow it to be a personal decision made by the patient, as it is in Oregon. The problem is certain loud right wingers who want to cram their beliefs down the throats of others, for whatever reasons.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
The real question would be, where does the medical profession stand on this issue?
Click to expand...
dw
[h=3]Medical ethics[/h] [h=4]Hippocratic Oath[/h] Physician-assisted suicide is contrary to the original Hippocratic Oath of 400 B.C.E., stating "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel".[SUP][/SUP][SUP][/SUP][SUP][/SUP]The original oath however has been modified many times and, contrary to popular belief, is not required by most modern medical schools,[SUP][/SUP] although some have adopted modern versions that suit many in the profession in the 21st century.

[h=4]The Declaration of Geneva[/h] The Declaration of Geneva is a revision of the Hippocratic Oath, first drafted in 1948 by the World Medical Association in response to euthanasia, eugenics and other medical crimes performed in Nazi Germany. It contains, "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life."



[h=4]The International Code of Medical Ethics[/h] The International Code of Medical Ethics, last revised in 2006, includes "A physician shall always bear in mind the obligation to respect human life" in the section "Duties of physicians to patients".[SUP][/SUP]
 
koala said:
Warrigal.........what about their Hippocratic Oath.Does this stop them from taking any part in the matter ??

I would think so !!!!!
Click to expand...

The Hippocratic Oath is not Holy Writ. It originally forbad a physician to assist a women to procure an abortion.
Helping someone to die more easily could easily pass through the "first, do no harm" filter.

But how do members of the medical profession regard it, because without their general support it won't happen unless we are willing to allow veterinarians to do the deed.
 
Butterfly said:
In my experience, there are more FOR these measures than against. Besides which, such legislation would not REQUIRE assisted dying, but merely allow it to be a personal decision made by the patient, as it is in Oregon. The problem is certain loud right wingers who want to cram their beliefs down the throats of others, for whatever reasons.
Click to expand...

Their beliefs are their reasons.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
The Hippocratic Oath is not Holy Writ. It originally forbad a physician to assist a women to procure an abortion.
Helping someone to die more easily could easily pass through the "first, do no harm" filter.

But how do members of the medical profession regard it, because without their general support it won't happen unless we are willing to allow veterinarians to do the deed.
Click to expand...

In Oregon, I believe the physician prescribed the drugs, the patient fills the prescription and keeps it on hand to use when they wish. The physician does not directly participate in giving the drugs to the patient.
 
Butterfly said:
In Oregon, I believe the physician prescribed the drugs, the patient fills the prescription and keeps it on hand to use when they wish. The physician does not directly participate in giving the drugs to the patient.
Click to expand...

I would love to have something like that at hand, but that sounds awfully dangerous. Couldn't those drugs be used to kill anyone? There must be some kind of safeguards.
 
I watched my Dad die a slow death with cancer, at the very last he was given much morphine, I think it is an unspoken thing that the doctors help the patient to die a peacefully and pain free death, I know I was very grateful.
 
As an RN, there are times that life is prolonged, use to extra measures- such as feed tubes, defibrillation, ventilators etc. There should also be a way, that a person, that has pain, or a terminal illness should be able to die with dignity. Seniors are taking matters into their own hands. Sadly, there is a huge growth in the completion of suicide in those over 80! Yes, there are actually terms used "rational suicide" - here is an article here- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/opinion/sunday/prophylactic-suicide.html?_r=0
 
I feel sure there are times when assisted suicide would be merciful but the potential for abuse is great and that is worrisome to me.
 
Josiah, this is what I most fear. That dementia will prevent me from being able to commit suicide for myself. I have instructed my family in making sure I can be given something to
insure that I don't linger. I am not sure I have one that will carry through my desire. My Mom was in a state that she could not do this for herself. She lingered for 14 yrs like this. Finally her system started breaking down and we called in hospice. She lingered with us for about 7 days. I was lucky enough to have her out of the nursing home and with me for those days.
 
Underock1 said:
I would love to have something like that at hand, but that sounds awfully dangerous. Couldn't those drugs be used to kill anyone? There must be some kind of safeguards.
Click to expand...

I don't know a whole lot of end-stage terminally ill cancer patients who are homicidal. This is like the argument that patients shouldn't be prescribed too much morphine because they might become addicted. Yeah, they'll become addicted, but they are DYING! SO???

There are a lot of safeguards in place -- you can't just walk into a doctor's office and say I want meds to kill myself. You have to have a terminal diagnosis and go through assosrted hoops (second opinion), waiting time to get meds, etc. before you can get the meds.
 
Butterfly said:
I don't know a whole lot of end-stage terminally ill cancer patients who are homicidal. This is like the argument that patients shouldn't be prescribed too much morphine because they might become addicted. Yeah, they'll become addicted, but they are DYING! SO???

There are a lot of safeguards in place -- you can't just walk into a doctor's office and say I want meds to kill myself. You have to have a terminal diagnosis and go through assosrted hoops (second opinion), waiting time to get meds, etc. before you can get the meds.
Click to expand...

I hear you. I wasn't thinking about the patients, but the fact that once they have the drug it might be easily stolen.
I assure you, I am all for having it. I wish I had it handy myself.
 
Don't get crazy and come rushing to Oregon for their Death with Dignity legislation, guys. Read this first.

In the late autumn of 2008, after a particularly grueling summer of heavy yard work, my beloved wife of 25 years came up with a fairly severe hernia. I put her in the hospital to have it repaired and they told us after the surgery that she had stage four cancer "from her neck to her knees" stemming from an untreated lump in her breast that never managed to break the surface. It was, by this time, a terminal diagnosis; one which had been inexplicably 'missed' through a faithful series of mammograms. Upon learning of her fate, she made the instant decision to opt out of the inevitable long, agonizing decline and I reluctantly agreed with her.

But the doctors had other plans. They hemmed and hawed and stalled, eventually convincing her to let them "try a few things" first. What followed was ten soul-crushing months of pointless chemotherapy, radiation and surgeries, leaving her a sodden, pain-wracked lump who pleaded with me to just let her die every single day. But without the doctor's consent, my hands were tied. They were indifferent to her suffering, as I'm certain that I put several of their kids through college with these useless and debilitating 'treatments'.

By the time the cancer had spread to her liver and she began bleeding internally, they finally threw up their hands and released her to the euthanasia program, giving her two weeks to live at the outside anyway. Unfortunately, it takes SIX weeks to initiate the program from the time of the doctor's authorization. I brought her home where she promptly lapsed into a coma and finally died ten days later. Her last words were unintelligible to me but, knowing her as I did, I imagine that left the stage mocking the wonderful freedom that we Oregonians supposedly have with our Death with Dignity law.
 
That's a terrible story Truespock, my sister and brother in law went through those costly painful treatments, only to die from cancer in the end. That doctor didn't care about your wife, his goal was to encourage as many "treatments" and write as many prescriptions before he lost a patient, who was only a faceless number I'm sure. Money takes priority over human compassion too many times. I didn't think it would be that difficult in Oregon to have your wishes granted. My heart goes out to you, sincere condolences for you loss. :rose:
 
I am so sorry Truespock, both for your loss, and the terrible ordeal suffered by both you and your wife. Such callousness by members of the 'healing professionals'$ is truly appalling. :love_heart:
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top