Euthanasia: those who "assist"

[Ozme52]

Tough topic. I think people should have the right to make that decision for themselves.

I think it's okay to "assist" if that assistance is to help bring the person and means together... but...

The person committing the suicide has to be the one, and the only one, with the "finger on the trigger". S/he has to swallow the pills, or close the circuit, or inject the drug, or tie off the plastic bag... or whatever the means of suicide, themself.

Smothering someone with a pillow, for example, takes away the possibility that the person committing suicide could change their mind at the last moment.

It's only characterized as an act of mercy (at this time) because we don't allow suicides. Give people the right to end their own lives and an act of mercy is no longer necessary.

So yes, they're murderers imo, but whether or not they require punishment, goes to the question of gain (as you pointed out.) But I would much prefer to simplify the question by making such acts unnecessary, in which case, such acts would clearly be wrong.

[leo9]

Tough topic. I think people should have the right to make that decision for themselves.

I think it's okay to "assist" if that assistance is to help bring the person and means together... but...

The person committing the suicide has to be the one, and the only one, with the "finger on the trigger". S/he has to swallow the pills, or close the circuit, or inject the drug, or tie off the plastic bag... or whatever the means of suicide, themself.

But it's the helpless who often want this most of all. I have seen my mother and my wife die slowly from starvation, helpless and in constant pain, because withdrawing tube feeding was the only way the doctors were allowed to help them to die. And in case you didn't know, that takes a horribly long time for someone who is bedridden and not using much energy.

If I had been allowed to help my wife on her way and spare her those last horrible weeks, I would have done it gladly, and with her happy thanks.

[Ozme52]

But it's the helpless who often want this most of all. I have seen my mother and my wife die slowly from starvation, helpless and in constant pain, because withdrawing tube feeding was the only way the doctors were allowed to help them to die. And in case you didn't know, that takes a horribly long time for someone who is bedridden and not using much energy.

If I had been allowed to help my wife on her way and spare her those last horrible weeks, I would have done it gladly, and with her happy thanks.

As I said, I don't have a problem with bringing the means and person together. So long as the "helpless" person can at least lift a finger to press the lightest of buttons.... or to actuate a switch with tooth or tongue...

It's just the line I feel comfortable drawing.

[Thorne]

As I said, I don't have a problem with bringing the means and person together. So long as the "helpless" person can at least lift a finger to press the lightest of buttons.... or to actuate a switch with tooth or tongue...

It's just the line I feel comfortable drawing.

Here's a question for you, then: Would you draw that line just for yourself, or for everybody?

I can understand someone not wanting to throw the switch, certainly. While you may know intellectually that you are helping your loved one, emotionally it might seem like you're killing them. I can imagine many people feeling like that. That's why they want the doctors to do it for them. Or give the patient the means to do it himself.

But legal issues aside, you run smack up against the religious prohibitions against suicide. How many patients would be unwilling to push that button because it would condemn them in the eyes of their Church? Isn't suicide the unforgivable sin?

And you still have the problem of patients who are non-responsive, virtually brain-dead, yet still breathing. They cannot push the button themselves. Could you do it for them?

I've experienced this situation myself. My mother-in-law had a massive stroke, leaving her comatose and all-but dead. The doctors said she would not awaken, and that even if she could there was too much damage. She would be a vegetable. But they could keep her alive indefinitely with a feeding tube.

I didn't have to make the decision, my wife and her father did, but I was asked for my opinion and they made what I believe to be the right decision: they refused the feeding tube. The hospital would provide no food or water, except for the little amount of fluid she would receive with the medication she was given to block stomach acids. We were also told that we could ask for morphine injections if we felt she was in any pain. This was, I believe, the doctor's way of letting us "push the button."

I don't know if my father-in-law realized that, but it doesn't matter because he wouldn't have done it anyway. Neither would my wife. I think I would have, but I can't be sure. It was hell watching her die slowly, even though there was absolutely no indication that she was in pain or aware of her situation. She lasted less than a week.

Ultimately, I think this week was good for my father-in-law as it let him acclimate himself to the idea of her death. By the time she was gone the worst of the mourning was over and we were able to make funeral arrangements in a less emotional state. But I still think she would have been better off if we'd taken the morphine option and ended it quicker. Sitting in her hospital room listening to the Cheyne-Stokes breathing as she got closer to death was about the worst thing I've ever had to experience.

[Ozme52]

Here's a question for you, then: Would you draw that line just for yourself, or for everybody?

I initially draw it in the context of the initial post, and the smothering of someone with a pillow.

I can understand someone not wanting to throw the switch, certainly. While you may know intellectually that you are helping your loved one, emotionally it might seem like you're killing them. I can imagine many people feeling like that. That's why they want the doctors to do it for them. Or give the patient the means to do it himself.

But legal issues aside, you run smack up against the religious prohibitions against suicide. How many patients would be unwilling to push that button because it would condemn them in the eyes of their Church? Isn't suicide the unforgivable sin?

Bringing religion into the conversation makes it about religion and not ethics. But in that context.. it's an easy answer. "Thou Shalt Not Kill"
If you believe one religious precept, then you might as well believe them all.
Not to mention...Unforgivable sin? It's a rule of the church, not one of God's rules. Like eating fish on Fridays. (A rule that was created for economic reasons.) Even the commandment has unspoken text. It's full of loopholes. "Thou Shalt Not Kill (people of our faith.)"

And you still have the problem of patients who are non-responsive, virtually brain-dead, yet still breathing. They cannot push the button themselves. Could you do it for them?

I probably couldn't. Should you, without having discussed it first? If the patient is terminal and knows it, and didn't discuss it? Nope. You shouldn't. If they did, then there is clearly a point in the progression of the disease where s/he can make that decision of when and still push the button themself.

I've experienced this situation myself. My mother-in-law had a massive stroke, leaving her comatose and all-but dead. The doctors said she would not awaken, and that even if she could there was too much damage. She would be a vegetable. But they could keep her alive indefinitely with a feeding tube.

I didn't have to make the decision, my wife and her father did, but I was asked for my opinion and they made what I believe to be the right decision: they refused the feeding tube. The hospital would provide no food or water, except for the little amount of fluid she would receive with the medication she was given to block stomach acids. We were also told that we could ask for morphine injections if we felt she was in any pain. This was, I believe, the doctor's way of letting us "push the button."

I don't know if my father-in-law realized that, but it doesn't matter because he wouldn't have done it anyway. Neither would my wife. I think I would have, but I can't be sure. It was hell watching her die slowly, even though there was absolutely no indication that she was in pain or aware of her situation. She lasted less than a week.

A very difficult question. An unexpected and sudden debilitating event. I don't have a good answer for you. I just don't know.

What I do know, (with no intent to point fingers... just noting the situation...) euthanasia is against the law but we allow morphine overdoses and/or starvation to side step it. It's a hell of a loophole.

I'd be much happier with a change to the law first, and then identifying the circumstances under which direct assistance is allowed.

[Thorne]

Bringing religion into the conversation makes it about religion and not ethics.

It's about religion for the patient, perhaps, but not for the doctors or family. For them it's ethics.

But in that context.. it's an easy answer. "Thou Shalt Not Kill"

Except that the accepted translation is, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder". Killing is quite acceptable, given the proper justification.

So, is euthanasia just another name for murder, or is it justified?

A very difficult question. An unexpected and sudden debilitating event. I don't have a good answer for you. I just don't know.

That's the best answer anyone could give. I don't know either. Unless one is actually in the position where he has to make such a decision, I don't think anyone can know.

I'd be much happier with a change to the law first, and then identifying the circumstances under which direct assistance is allowed.

I could agree with that. As long as lawmakers alone are not the one's setting the guidelines. Doctors, nurses, patient advocates, should all be involved. Perhaps lawyers in an advisory capacity, but that's about it.

[Ozme52]

It's about religion for the patient, perhaps, but not for the doctors or family. For them it's ethics.

Fine. In which case, for that patient, in what way is asking someone to terminate you any different than pulling the trigger yourself?

Except that the accepted translation is, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder". Killing is quite acceptable, given the proper justification.

Semantics. Especially considering that in the Roman Catholic version... the religion that says suicide is an unforgivable sin, they use the word "kill". So my argument against that instance is still fine.

So, is euthanasia just another name for murder, or is it justified?

That's really another conversation. This one however... regarding assisting suicide, is clearer in my mind for me.

That's the best answer anyone could give.

Thanx

I don't know either. Unless one is actually in the position where he has to make such a decision, I don't think anyone can know.

I agree.

I could agree with that. As long as lawmakers alone are not the one's setting the guidelines. Doctors, nurses, patient advocates, should all be involved. Perhaps lawyers in an advisory capacity, but that's about it.

That won't happen. If it could, euthanasia laws would be enacted by now. In the meantime, we're stuck with suicide, and as I have said, aside from not knowing about the debilitation question, I think such assistance must stop short of "pulling the trigger" for them.