Add a Comment
Email This
StatisticsADDENDUM: pt = patient
First, thank you for your input.
I agree that there are cases when you can "get a better pain doctor", however there are many cases when pt's have to take so much pain medicine to function that it keeps them from functioning mentally. There are also many circumstances where depression cannot be managed despite many efforts.
This is exactly why this issue becomes such a hot debate; there are always extraordinary cases where no help can be found, no matter how hard everyone tries. I just don’t want it to get to the point where no one tries anymore and just ends it all without seeking alternatives first. These exceptions are probably what is really driving the debate; but how do you apply public policy to the relative few without drastically changing society over time?
The question is really a question of quality of life.
Quality of life is another thing that is subjective enough to be almost indefinable by legislative means. Certainly the ALS example would probably in most cases fall under the “better off dead” category; but what happens when the definition begins to change over time? It can be conceived that each case as time goes on, may have a slightly higher quality of life attached to it. This very thing can be seen in the Kevorkian timeline where, yes, some of his cases were people with no hope and a terrible quality of life, but in his ten year period many of the cases were not quite as bad. Some of the autopsies revealed no trace at all of whatever disease the person claimed to have. Granted, Kevorkian was acting as an activist and maybe even an anarchist in many ways to try and make his point.
In the hospital all a pt has to do is say, "I don't want to be resuscitated" and a doctor documents it and they are allowed to die. Why aren't they allowed to ask for it before it gets to that point?
I think there is a big difference between ”Do not resuscitate”/removing life support and PAS/euthanasia. When life support is removed we are taking away a machine that was keeping the body alive which wouldn’t be alive without it; when PAS/euthanasia is used, a machine or device is brought anew into the picture and another person or people are involved in actively seeking the death of someone who in many cases is cognizant of the proceedings.
In general I think the PAS issue is an easier thing to think about when taken on an individual case by case basis. When a general policy has to be formed to include everyone, that’s where the hard questions start to come out. My problem with PAS/euthanasia becoming legal is not so much about whether it is right or wrong in these individual cases, but what it can eventually turn into as time passes. I could very easily see 100 years from now; a guy loses his job and his girlfriend leaves him. He walks down to his local euthanasia clinic, signs a few papers, lays on a gurney or table waiting for the technician to come back from break, and ends it all.
(Or what if life imprisonment is decided to be “no quality of life?)
Medical Experience..
gnifyus, what is your medical background?
To answer the question, I am not in a medical profession, but many of the same arguments have been made by people who are.
I’m posting twice to your reply because the first post had a lot of words and I didn’t want to go in too many directions in one reply. By asking the above question (and by reading your nerdlog) I’ve deduced that you are in the medical profession. By asking this I am really not trying to antagonize; but do you think that people in the medical field are more qualified to decide and debate this issue?
RSS
RE: Legalization depends on how much it is a legal issue
gnifyus, what is your medical background? I agree that there are cases when you can "get a better pain doctor", however there are many cases when pt's have to take so much pain medicine to function that it keeps them from functioning mentally. There are also many circumstances where depression cannot be managed despite many efforts.
The questions is really a question of quality of life. Have you ever known anyone with a seriously debilitating pathology, say ALS? If so, then you might find that sometimes there are not "happier outcomes". There are also many elderly who feel just as trapped for whatever reason, be it illness or social isolation.
All religious debate aside, if someone has no quality of life and feels as though they are simply a drain on society then should they be allowed this option? How do we decide who is allowed to have PAS and who isn't? In the hospital all a pt has to do is say, "I don't want to be resuscitated" and a doctor documents it and they are allowed to die. Why aren't they allowed to ask for it before it gets to that point?
View Full Discussion