Right to die
Right to die
The esteemed journal of philosophy, the boston "Metro," today ran a story today about a terminally ill UK woman paralyzed from the neck down who failed to get approval for her husband to help her die, as well as "Miss B" a 2nd UK woman who won the right to ask her life support be turned off. Is there a difference between injecting a lethal medicine or flipping a switch withdrawing a life sustaining therapy? Should none, either or both be allowed?
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
Right to die
(1) The Nine Wise in Washington ruled that there is no Constitutional Right to Die.
(2) As a result of No. 1, states may make it legal or illegal to assist in a suicide, as they so wish.
(3) A Federal judge ruled that the Feds can't interferw with Oregon's assisted suicide law, nor may they punish physicians who assist in suicides.
(4) The right of a competant individual to make their own medical decisions, including refusing life saving/sustaining treatment is settled case law. People can make their own medical decisons, whether they are wise or unwise.
As for me:
I agree with No.1, No.2 (partially) and No. 4, but I disagree with No. 3. But that's just me. So I guess to answer your question: Lethally injecting someone or giving them pills with the full knowldge they are going to take their own life is, well, wrong (MY opinion-no flames, por favor). Turning a machine off (flipping a switch), stopping life-saving/sustaining treatment, at the patient's request, is allowable.
I'm against assisted suicide. I'm not against:
*Turning the ventilator off, if the patient desires it
*Turnig the morphine drip up in the cancer patient in order to relieve pain. If his breathing stops, well so be it. That's the reason we use the word "terminal"
Again, my opinions. No flames please.
What do your physician collegues think, Ian?
Gene
[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited May 01, 2002).]
(2) As a result of No. 1, states may make it legal or illegal to assist in a suicide, as they so wish.
(3) A Federal judge ruled that the Feds can't interferw with Oregon's assisted suicide law, nor may they punish physicians who assist in suicides.
(4) The right of a competant individual to make their own medical decisions, including refusing life saving/sustaining treatment is settled case law. People can make their own medical decisons, whether they are wise or unwise.
As for me:
I agree with No.1, No.2 (partially) and No. 4, but I disagree with No. 3. But that's just me. So I guess to answer your question: Lethally injecting someone or giving them pills with the full knowldge they are going to take their own life is, well, wrong (MY opinion-no flames, por favor). Turning a machine off (flipping a switch), stopping life-saving/sustaining treatment, at the patient's request, is allowable.
I'm against assisted suicide. I'm not against:
*Turning the ventilator off, if the patient desires it
*Turnig the morphine drip up in the cancer patient in order to relieve pain. If his breathing stops, well so be it. That's the reason we use the word "terminal"
Again, my opinions. No flames please.
What do your physician collegues think, Ian?
Gene
[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited May 01, 2002).]
Right to die
If we own ANYTHING, it is our life. You can do what you want with it, for 'better' or 'worse'. It sickens me that someone thinks they own, well... ME. Not allowing someone to die = slavery. I am not anyone's possession. God gave ME my life, he didn't give YOU my life.
If it really came down to it, there are plenty of ways to kill yourself.
If it really came down to it, there are plenty of ways to kill yourself.
Right to die
Gene: haven't had long discussions about providing lethal meds to anyone with colleagues, but we generally think that we can make people comfy one way or another and therefore don't need to kill them. Never met anyone who wasn't ok with the "second effect" scneario of turning up the morphine, as you described.
I also support the "you can turn off the vent but you can't bolus morphine" philosophy, but find it really unsatisfying. Let's say there's a room with an unconscious patient on a ventilator and there are two switches one which would bolus morphine or whatever and the other which would turn off the vent, both having exactly the same result in this hypothetical situation: a rapid painless death. (assume the vent is patient triggered).
It's ethical to walk in and pull one switch but not the other? Let's say you couldn't figure out which was which, now you can't pull either? What difference does it really make, you pull a switch the guy dies a painless death. All I can come up with that's concrete (vs the philosophical point that one is active killing and one is withdrawal and letting nature take its course) is that this prevents us from heading down the road of active killing which can lead to more and more abuses, as has been the case in the real world.
TSDguy: there are a lot of ways to die, but only so many of them are advisable, and when you're paralyzed, you need someone's help. Re: preventing someone from dying, the patient in question isn't really going through that, which would be pretty nasty. They're saying she can die as soon as her body is ready, but that no one has permission to kill her. And the reason is a lot of the people who ask to die have a number of other issues that can be worked through or treated: anger, pain, loneliness, fear, other symptoms, religious issues, family issues, and so on. And it serves them better and prevents a slide toward euthanasia to draw the line at supporting the killing of people. Not that this helps her right now, but there may be something else that can.
I also support the "you can turn off the vent but you can't bolus morphine" philosophy, but find it really unsatisfying. Let's say there's a room with an unconscious patient on a ventilator and there are two switches one which would bolus morphine or whatever and the other which would turn off the vent, both having exactly the same result in this hypothetical situation: a rapid painless death. (assume the vent is patient triggered).
It's ethical to walk in and pull one switch but not the other? Let's say you couldn't figure out which was which, now you can't pull either? What difference does it really make, you pull a switch the guy dies a painless death. All I can come up with that's concrete (vs the philosophical point that one is active killing and one is withdrawal and letting nature take its course) is that this prevents us from heading down the road of active killing which can lead to more and more abuses, as has been the case in the real world.
TSDguy: there are a lot of ways to die, but only so many of them are advisable, and when you're paralyzed, you need someone's help. Re: preventing someone from dying, the patient in question isn't really going through that, which would be pretty nasty. They're saying she can die as soon as her body is ready, but that no one has permission to kill her. And the reason is a lot of the people who ask to die have a number of other issues that can be worked through or treated: anger, pain, loneliness, fear, other symptoms, religious issues, family issues, and so on. And it serves them better and prevents a slide toward euthanasia to draw the line at supporting the killing of people. Not that this helps her right now, but there may be something else that can.
