Euthanasia/right to die - yes or no?

[Smackety]

My work involves contact with the terminally ill on a frequent basis, and I have found that many people will choose to no longer eat or drink in an attempt to die. There has to be a less painful way to go.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

I am pro-euthanasia, and pro-suicide. (anecdotes to follow)

My best friend, and father like figure had the terminal cancer...he had 6 months of pain to go. He chose to eat his fentanyl patch the day when I said, "I'll see ya in 3 days". His oncologist let him know that doing so would be a one way ticket...and the doctor knew "Schmitty" wanted to check out. He chose NOT to live in pain and humiliation, I only was mad he didn't tell me.

I cared for my grandmother until her death. I was given a bottle of morphine, and they installed a (is the word catheter) in her vein for me when the time was "right". Her life was over, and it was time to say goodbye...did I "kill" her? No. I eased her death. It was her wish NOT to be in a "home" and die in her own bed, she was 91, and had stopped eating for 4 days. Not to mention complete dementia, and she hadn't opened her eyes for the 4 days. I was concerned that the police would interrogate me here in the US, but hospice rules allow for euthanasia. (it's really NOT illegal)

If I choose to check out early from my "hotel room", I hope there will be no penalties other than what Hunter S. Thompson got.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

My work involves contact with the terminally ill on a frequent basis, and I have found that many people will choose to no longer eat or drink in an attempt to die. There has to be a less painful way to go.

Both my mother who was more or less in her right mind and my father who had dementia attempted to go that way. I say attempted because in my mother's case her doctor "increased her morphine dose" shortly before she died. My dad survived a round at hospital where the medical staff expected him to go but the old bugger (love you Dad) was too strong and recovered enough to go back to the nursing home where he lingered on for a couple of months. He died within less than a day after my brother, my son and I saw him for what turned out to be the last time.

My thoughts on assisted dying were formed by a CBC TV documentary I saw about 50 years ago. One of the participants had watched her mother die in horrible pain from eye cancer over a period of a few months. I would not want that for me and I would not want that for someone I loved.

 

[Fiona]

It seems to me that both Gord and XBoxWarrior are confirming that the "tacit agreement" I mentioned is common. So what I am wondering is what is wrong with this system as it currently operates?

What seems to happen is that those who are most intimately involved make this decision in practice. To do it the doctors and the family and the patient (if able) have to be in agreement. That being the case there is no practical danger to anyone of prosecution, and I am fairly confident that every one knows this happens.

If the law is changed to remove the threat of prosecution, we bring this out into the open. That is very often a good thing, no question. Perhaps this represents a step forward in our attitude to death. A breaking of taboos maybe? More realism and more compassion arguably

On the other hand I do think that the law against it is a safeguard, and I think it is quite important. I want to be sure that the decision is taken exclusively in the interests of the person who is dying. I do not want it to be easy. I do not want that person to be thinking this is a choice they can make, and so be more conscious of being a burden; or using up money they could leave; or any other consideration of that sort.

I do not want hard pressed hospitals to be able to even think that they can influence the timing of this decision to bring it forward even by an hour or a day. A lot of babies don't get born on weekends now: maybe that is a coincidence and maybe it is not

If this was going to be implemented what safeguards should be in place and how would they be enforced? Does anyone think that a legal process would be more dignified or more compassionate than what we have quietly done to date?

I worry that we are presented with articulate and mobile people making this decision publicly and going to Switzerland or wherever to exercise this choice. Do they really represent most people who are dying?

Those people have a freedom which many of the rest of us do not have: but is it the case that people are forced to live on when they do not want to? If not then is it wrong that this is done privately? Some might prefer "secretively" and they may be right.

What is the case for the openess if that is what this is about? Is it just always better to be public about what happens? Perhaps it is. Perhaps it would avoid shame or guilt? I do not think so but I have only my experience and what has been shared here to go on. I think privacy has a value too

 

[Smackety]

... but is it the case that people are forced to live on when they do not want to? I...

The rest is not really in my realm of experience, but to this question, the answer is yes. Once the feeding tube is in people lose their method for suicide, and some of them desperately plead for someone to let them go.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I really didn't agree with any of the poll options. I believe that a person of sound mind should have enough ownership of their body and their fate to do whatever they wish with said body. Ideally this is a simple property decision. If I own a stack of firewood, and I want to burn it I burn it. If I own a car and I want to have it crushed and salvage-titled I can.

The problem comes in when we try to determine who is sufficiently sound of mind to make such an irreversible decision, and where the balance between the state's interest in the investment it makes in its slaves falls with respect to the slaves interest in their own body and fate. Persons of truly sound mind, in who the state holds no investment are just so rare, so this will never be a simple decision, lending itself to black and white laws.

A

 

[Ove]

There is no reason for it, -in my country at least, because medical treatment is free. In my country (Denmark) terminally ill patients can get the painkillers they need and be kept totally pain free to the end. I can se in a system where pain killers are a huge economical burden, there can be an economic reason for wanting euthanasia, "just one injection and i'll spare the family for a lot of money". That is a horrible way of thinking IMHO but hey, you have choosen to live in such a system.

AND for the record, i have experienced a close relative dying from multiple sclerohsis (sorry for the spelling). In the last months she was in a Hospice under constant medical care and basically she could control the morphine herslef. She died very peacefully, and told everybody how much she enjoyed the last period.

Opening up for euthanasia is a VERY slippery slope.

 

[Darat]

It seems to me that both Gord and XBoxWarrior are confirming that the "tacit agreement" I mentioned is common. So what I am wondering is what is wrong with this system as it currently operates?

...snip...

I suspect one reason would be that this "tacit agreement" happens less and less as more people end their days in hospital rather than in the privacy of their or a relative's home and our society has changed. For instance today a Dr administrating a large dose of diamorphine which is followed by the death of patient will be under intensive scrutiny, especially since the very proper changes that followed the Shipman inquiry.

 

[Darat]

There is no reason for it, -in my country at least, because medical treatment is free. In my country (Denmark) terminally ill patients can get the painkillers they need and be kept totally pain free to the end.

...snip...

Sadly all too often that is not the case, despite medical progress many people with many forms of terminal illness will suffer terrible pain at the end stage no matter what pain control methods are employed.

 

[Mister Earl]

When it's time for me to go, I will go on my own terms. You can only die once, you know? I want mine to be special. Like getting caught in the gears of a combine, that's the way I want to go. Something messy and newsworthy. Something memorable.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

When it's time for me to go, I will go on my own terms. You can only die once, you know? I want mine to be special. Like getting caught in the gears of a combine, that's the way I want to go. Something messy and newsworthy. Something memorable.

I personally want to die by jumping from a cliff. Into the mouth of a lion. Who happens to be on fire.

Simultaneous death by falling, mauling, and burning.

Failing that, chased to death by naked women on roller skates might work. I think I remember the Pythons doing that once...


A

 

[Rolfe]

One of the difficulties at present is that with the law the way it is, all the cases that are highlighted are the ones where people have suffered for the lack of a legal means of euthanasia. It's very hard to say what the other side of the coin might be like if the law were different.

I read a most moving article by a colleague of mine who had had to nurse his wife through pancreatic cancer. It was quite upsetting because I knew his wife too, but hadn't known she was ill. He described a final month where the best efforts of the palliative care team were ineffective, and Pauline was in severe pain and pleading to die. As a vet, Bob knew what to do and could have done it, and said it was only concern for the consequences for their children should he be convicted and jailed, that stopped him.

On the other hand, the mother of a friend of mine also had pancreatic cancer. I went with my friend to visit her in hospital on Christmas Eve (several years ago). She was bright and conversational - indeed, argumentative. She was a lifelong smoker, and defended her choice to smoke in the spirited way that had been typical of her personality. I could hardly believe she was as ill as I knew she was. Towards the end of the visit she asked the nurse for "another injection", and the nurse cheerfully obliged.

She died on Boxing Day.

It's so hard to predict how these things will go, and I don't know what the answer is. I do know that terminal euthanasia to spare someone the final painful days (in Pauline's case, Bob said it was about a month) would be much more likely to get my support if it could be guaranteed that it would only be used in extremis.

Rolfe.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I would like to hear from people in countries where euthanasia/assisted suicide has been legalised/decriminalised like the Netherlands or Swizerland, to see what the perceptions are in those countries - has it brought any of the problems that are feared etc?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/

 

[Rolfe]

I have heard worrying things about the Netherlands, but I don't know if these were biassed reports by people wanting to make a point, or a true account of the situation.

Rolfe.

 

[Emerson Street]

Meh, I have mental health problems, and would like the option to just check out, I wont get better, and actualy feel it would be more of a kindness to my family to be allowed a medical intervention than for them to find me swinging from a rope, but that is just me.

 

[DC]

however, i agree with the status quo, making suicide attempts a crime.

if you are not terminally ill, and u are not in prison for life, and you are not being abused every day, life is not that bad..and u can get help.

no there should be a right to die.
my life, my decision, none of your bussines.

 

[Blackadder]

Some stats about the Netherlands:

The law legalising euthanasia is in effect since April 1, 2002. It's about active euthanasia. this means that a person can request to end his life. If you are 16 years or older you can make a legal statement on this in case you become mentally incompetent. Important is to note that it is not a right. A doctor has to decide if the request should be granted, and another independent doctor has to confirm the case.

in 2003 , the authorities received 1626 registered cases of euthanasia.
in 2007 , the authorities received 2300 registered cases of euthanasia.
in 2008 , this was 2331 cases.
for 2009 an 20% increase is expected.

population in the Netherlands is between 16M and 17M people.

There are many checks before, during and after the life ending procedure. My view is that the current situation is broadly accepted in the Dutch society. It's very rare these days to hear anything about it in the serious newspapers, opinion magazines and tv shows. A small Christian minority might still be outspoken against it but are not generating much media coverage.

However, the CDA political party (prime minister JP Balkenende) still opposes most forms of euthanasia, but they were in the opposition when the law was changed. The majority of political parties supports the current laws.

 

[Rolfe]

Meh, I have mental health problems, and would like the option to just check out, I wont get better, and actualy feel it would be more of a kindness to my family to be allowed a medical intervention than for them to find me swinging from a rope, but that is just me.

I think you're getting into difficult territory when you, as a physically healthy person, ask a doctor to kill you.

Rolfe.

 

[Emerson Street]

I think you're getting into difficult territory when you, as a physically healthy person, ask a doctor to kill you.

Rolfe.

Although I know what you are getting at, I must say the misery mental illness can provide seems to me at least, on a par with physical ruin, but I wouldnt want to muddy the waters too much with that debate

 

[Drewbot]

Suicide isn't suicide if someone else is facilitating the death. It is homicide.

(at least in the U.S.)