Doctor Assisted Suicide

[Zairak]

The question this time is:

Should Doctors legally, ethically or morally be able to perform assisted suicides? What if the person involved is in extreme pain, and is only delaying their death through even the greatest modern medical techniques? Should it matter?

Discuss.

[Aninamar]

http://www.ubercharged.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/tf2_medic.jpg

Zat vas doctor-assisted suicide!

Also, the term you are looking for is "Euthanasia".

[grimfang999]

It should only be done if the person has no hope of recovering. to relieve pain through death is one thing, but relieving incurable pain through death is another. They must not however kill someone who has a fair chance of living and being cured.

the extreme case is them being in a vegetated state. The person cannot consent, but they cannot even do anything. Whta is the point of keeping them alive but to suffer miserable thoughts of their conditions?

ill put this music video to show what i mean

EzgGTTtR0kc

[mystra]

btw pain and death are NOT synonymous. you can be dying and in no pain or very little pain.

i personally believe in euthanasia if

1. the person is old and simply doesn't want to live any longer
2. the person is in extreme pain and no medicine or natural remedy helps alleviate their suffering (such as cancer patients)
3. there MUST be well document information on the particular person's case proving beyond reasonable doubt that nothing else will help them.
4. there should be an age limit on how old a patient has to be to be able to make an informed judgement disregarding a parent's/sibling's/spouse's...etc. feelings on the matter. the patient is the ONLY one who's decision on their life matters.
5. all cases outside of a disease that already gives the person a death sentence should have to go to at least 2 different psychologists. if they disagree on the recommendation of euthanasia a third should be consulted without knowledge of the former two recommendations.

i'm sure i could probably think of some other stipulations but that's it for now.

[grimfang999]

thats pretty much what I said, but where you corrected me I was using pain as an example

[mystra]

Wasn't meant for you grim. I was referring to Zairak's original post.

What if the person involved is in extreme pain, and is only delaying their death through even the greatest modern medical techniques

seemed like he/she was saying the pain was a reason for the death. typically the pain isn't a reason for the death, it's the underlying problem causing it that is. (though trust me, severe pain can be a legitimate reason to want to die)

[darkarcher]

btw pain and death are NOT synonymous. you can be dying and in no pain or very little pain.

i personally believe in euthanasia if

1. the person is old and simply doesn't want to live any longer
2. the person is in extreme pain and no medicine or natural remedy helps alleviate their suffering (such as cancer patients)
3. there MUST be well document information on the particular person's case proving beyond reasonable doubt that nothing else will help them.
4. there should be an age limit on how old a patient has to be to be able to make an informed judgement disregarding a parent's/sibling's/spouse's...etc. feelings on the matter. the patient is the ONLY one who's decision on their life matters.
5. all cases outside of a disease that already gives the person a death sentence should have to go to at least 2 different psychologists. if they disagree on the recommendation of euthanasia a third should be consulted without knowledge of the former two recommendations.

i'm sure i could probably think of some other stipulations but that's it for now.

While I do not believe in Doctor Assisted Suicide, if we were to put qualifiers on them I would mostly agree with you. However, I would stipulate the following:

In addition to 4: The patient must not simply be old enough, but in good enough mental condition to actually make such a choice after being informed of the consequences and speaking to their closest relatives (the relatives do not have to approve, but should be informed and be allowed to attempt to dissuade the patient in question).

In place of 5: Doctor Assisted Suicide should not be allowed in the case of non-fatal conditions. In the case of fatal conditions, psychologists should be consulted and, as previously mentioned, the family should be informed.

Like I said, I do not agree with the idea of euthanasia, but if there were no other option I would want to impose these guidelines as an edit to the ones mystra posted.

[mystra]

While I do not believe in Doctor Assisted Suicide, if we were to put qualifiers on them I would mostly agree with you. However, I would stipulate the following:

In addition to 4: The patient must not simply be old enough, but in good enough mental condition to actually make such a choice after being informed of the consequences and speaking to their closest relatives (the relatives do not have to approve, but should be informed and be allowed to attempt to dissuade the patient in question).

In place of 5: Doctor Assisted Suicide should not be allowed in the case of non-fatal conditions. In the case of fatal conditions, psychologists should be consulted and, as previously mentioned, the family should be informed.

Like I said, I do not agree with the idea of euthanasia, but if there were no other option I would want to impose these guidelines as an edit to the ones mystra posted.

i was half asleep this morning when i wrote this XD
yes i agree with you on the mental health issue, that's part of the reason for the psychologist part. i disagree with you on the family dissuasion though but that may be a moot point. i've followed many cases and see that the majority of the time the family is behind the person 100%. i'm not saying the family shouldn't be consulted/told (i mean there's a good chance they might need psych help as well to get through it) but i think in some cases the person wanting to die mayn't be strong enough emotionally to NOT give in to their family's whims on the matter.
i also disagree on this. as i said there are cases where people in severe pain do not respond to medication or natural remedies. would it be right to tell someone who's physically crippled due to sever pain they have to continue to live like that? having gone through 3 years of dealing with fibromyalgia and debilitating aches and pains (now i just have to deal with it intermittently) i can very much understand this notion.

[grimfang999]

In addition to 4: The patient must not simply be old enough, but in good enough mental condition to actually make such a choice after being informed of the consequences and speaking to their closest relatives (the relatives do not have to approve, but should be informed and be allowed to attempt to dissuade the patient in question).

what if they are in a state of permanent vegetation? they cannot respond at all, but they may be still aware of what is going on. even if they are not, they cannot do anything. this then, assuming this is permenent, contradicts your arguement, as it is not fair if they cannot live or die

I would say its only justified if there is no way the person can avoid their fate and it is too cruel to let them live through, by which i mean severe and near permanent pain, sickness, coma/vegetation, etc and have little/no chance to recovered except by a miracle

[mystra]

I would say its only justified if there is no way the person can avoid their fate and it is too cruel to let them live through, by which i mean severe and near permanent pain, sickness, coma/vegetation, etc and have little/no chance to recovered except by a miracle

you negated and proved a point in the same sentence. one who is in a coma or vegetative stated cannot make their own judgement. in that case taking someone off life support is NOT considered euthanasia and is done all the time. euthanasia is self assisted suicide meaning the person must be aware and be able to make their own decision. OR the extermination of the elderly (if you take it back to it's roots).

[grimfang999]

well take away the coma part then it comes down to limitation which ahve been mentioned on this thread several times

[darkarcher]

i was half asleep this morning when i wrote this XD
yes i agree with you on the mental health issue, that's part of the reason for the psychologist part. i disagree with you on the family dissuasion though but that may be a moot point. i've followed many cases and see that the majority of the time the family is behind the person 100%. i'm not saying the family shouldn't be consulted/told (i mean there's a good chance they might need psych help as well to get through it) but i think in some cases the person wanting to die mayn't be strong enough emotionally to NOT give in to their family's whims on the matter.
While there are cases where the family supports such a decision, I still think the matter should be discussed with them. I think this because in many cases people who wish to commit suicide are thinking selfishly do not think of what kind of emotional impact it will have on the people close to them (or if they do think on this they draw incorrect assumptions due to not actually talking to those people).

Having a better idea of how the family feels before and would feel after would give the person a greater perception regarding the choice they are going to make.
i also disagree on this. as i said there are cases where people in severe pain do not respond to medication or natural remedies. would it be right to tell someone who's physically crippled due to sever pain they have to continue to live like that? having gone through 3 years of dealing with fibromyalgia and debilitating aches and pains (now i just have to deal with it intermittently) i can very much understand this notion.
Frankly, I don't have a counter-point to this. I simply do not enjoy the thought of someone dying in a situation that they might not have. It's a personal view and I'll stick to it stubbornly, unfortunately.
what if they are in a state of permanent vegetation? they cannot respond at all, but they may be still aware of what is going on. even if they are not, they cannot do anything. this then, assuming this is permenent, contradicts your arguement, as it is not fair if they cannot live or die

I would say its only justified if there is no way the person can avoid their fate and it is too cruel to let them live through, by which i mean severe and near permanent pain, sickness, coma/vegetation, etc and have little/no chance to recovered except by a miracle
It's not suicide if there is no choice in the matter. The topic of life support for vegetative patients is a different matter entirely.

[mystra]

While there are cases where the family supports such a decision, I still think the matter should be discussed with them. I think this because in many cases people who wish to commit suicide are thinking selfishly do not think of what kind of emotional impact it will have on the people close to them (or if they do think on this they draw incorrect assumptions due to not actually talking to those people).

Having a better idea of how the family feels before and would feel after would give the person a greater perception regarding the choice they are going to make.

Like I said, I've never heard of a case where the family wasn't involved though I'm sure there must me some. I get your point but I'm trying to look at this from that person's perspective. Their pain and or suffering is the tantamount issue imo.

btw I admire the fact that you can say you don't have a counter to an arguement. It's a hell of a lot better than beligerant ranting. =)

[grimfang999]

right im just going to bring in religous views for the sake of some opposition.

many faiths believ that suicide is wrong, and i think is onsidered a sin. Euthanasia is suicide, but with assistance, so isnt that you sinning and spreading the sin to toher people?

this may be inaccurate but this is what the general argument is?

[Aninamar]

Euthanasia is suicide, but with assistance, so isnt that you sinning and spreading the sin to toher people?

How is euthanasia "suicide" when it's not you who are performing it?
How are you supposed to commit suicide when you're not even at force to do it? If you are, just commit it, you hardly need a doctor for this - you don't need a doctor to hang yourself after learning you have cancer. If you are, however, disabled and can't do anything at all but wait until your life ends (I remind you of Eluana Englaro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eluana_Englaro)), then it's a whole other bag of worms. I wouldn't call it suicide per se.

I think that the case that's more on the concern is that most of the time you can't even know the victim's wishes. You see him in the hospital bed being feeded through a tube, but his life can barely be called it. You can't even tell whether is he suffering or whether is he not. Or does he have any will to live at all. Which leads to huge ideological uproars in the media. Which sucks. (South Park did an amazing episode on the topic.)

[mystra]

Euthanasia is ASSISTED suicide so on the religious Christian view then yes you are going to hell if you decide that way. In Christianity suicide is suicide no ifs, ands or buts about it, you are giving permission to have yourself killed. I would assume you need to sign paperwork giving consent therefore you're killing yourself.

[darkarcher]

Euthanasia is ASSISTED suicide so on the religious Christian view then yes you are going to hell if you decide that way. In Christianity suicide is suicide no ifs, ands or buts about it, you are giving permission to have yourself killed. I would assume you need to sign paperwork giving consent therefore you're killing yourself.

If I may interject, I do not think it the whole suicide = automatic hell is an actual Christan doctrine, although it may be some Catholic tradition that I am unfamiliar with.

However, grimfang, yes suicide would still be considered a sin, and it would also be considered leading others to sin to have someone assist you.

[grimfang999]

How is euthanasia "suicide" when it's not you who are performing it?
How are you supposed to commit suicide when you're not even at force to do it? If you are, just commit it, you hardly need a doctor for this - you don't need a doctor to hang yourself after learning you have cancer. If you are, however, disabled and can't do anything at all but wait until your life ends (I remind you of Eluana Englaro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eluana_Englaro)), then it's a whole other bag of worms. I wouldn't call it suicide per se.

I think that the case that's more on the concern is that most of the time you can't even know the victim's wishes. You see him in the hospital bed being feeded through a tube, but his life can barely be called it. You can't even tell whether is he suffering or whether is he not. Or does he have any will to live at all. Which leads to huge ideological uproars in the media. Which sucks. (South Park did an amazing episode on the topic.)

please ot this is me bringing up a religious view. if you are going to go against it then please confront it how you would an over-obssessive christian (not saying all of them are, just saying the Christian fanatics).

my point was, while suicide is a sin, would the people who helped in that sin, the "co-conspiritors" in a way, wont they be punished? and in that perspective, isnt it best to avoid euthanasia altogether to avoid more than one soul being condemned?

edit: darkarcher just answered what i wanted to hear lol

anyone wanna bring up any other common objections?

[Aninamar]

Euthanasia is ASSISTED suicide

http://www.mzzt.net/tf2/dark/finishedoff/default/Patient%20-%7C-%20Doctor/default/Patient.png

I would assume you need to sign paperwork giving consent therefore you're killing yourself.

Eluana Englaro couldn't choose to kill herself, because she was a vegetable. Do you actually read my posts?
my point was, while suicide is a sin, would the people who helped in that sin, the "co-conspiritors" in a way, wont they be punished? and in that perspective, isnt it best to avoid euthanasia altogether to avoid more than one soul being condemned?

That can hardly be argued with; it depends on a person's personal view. For all we know there might not be any punishment after death. It all depends on the society and personal view of every human.

Then again, sanctity of life is a bunch of shit we invented because we like being alive. :P

[mystra]

Aninamar yes I read your post and I wasn't commenting on it at all, my answer was in reference to Grim's religious question.

Darkarcher afaik in all Christian derivations suicide is a straight path to hell. Though in some non Christian religions/societies suiciding is considered a noble act at the end of one's life due to old age or for other various reasons. I would assume assisted suicide would fall into the noble category in those places as well.

Ok now that I've finally woken up I'd also like to point out we've been combining self assisted suicide and Euthanasia as the same thing here and they're not. Assisted suicide falls under Euthanasia but they are not equal to each other. Euthanasia is simply ending life painlessly (broad category) and it doesn't matter if it's by consent (such as in Animar's case link where it wasn't) or as in assisted suicide (where consent is present). Think of Euthanasia as a header and assisted suicide as a sub.

[grimfang999]

really what i wanted to get out of the religious view, was to see if peopl could counter it. yes it is all personal view, but how about saying if there is a God and he is beneviolent wouldnt he prefer a good hearted but absolutely and irreversably painful (physically or mentally or whatever the problem is) life to end without needless suffering?

so far mystra has gotten the closest to answering that

[Ishikawa Oshro]

Well using logic and no god involved LAW has deemed it unjust for a doctor to assist anyone in a suicide attempt.
No matter ther pain, suffering, loss, eg. eg. Its not logical for a man to want to commit suicide unless under some kind of mental distress or state of mind. Its natural for a man to want to live. anything else is considered unnatural and needing assistance.

[MrsSallyBakura]

If I may interject, I do not think it the whole suicide = automatic hell is an actual Christan doctrine, although it may be some Catholic tradition that I am unfamiliar with.

Yes and no.

Murder is considered a 'mortal sin,' including murder of self. There are 3 requirements for it to be a mortal sin:

1. The act itself must be grave/serious in matter.

2. There is full knowledge of the fact that it is a mortal sin.

3. There is full consent of the will.

2 and 3 are the tricks. Pretty much, in order to commit a mortal sin the first place, you have to purposefully say eff you to God.

[grimfang999]

and sally, can you answer my question, being a catholic yourself (you are right?)

just want to see the view of it being in mercy rather than just because they want to and how it would be in the eyes of one of faith, if it would still be wrong or profoundly just

[mystra]

Well using logic and no god involved LAW has deemed it unjust for a doctor to assist anyone in a suicide attempt.
No matter ther pain, suffering, loss, eg. eg. Its not logical for a man to want to commit suicide unless under some kind of mental distress or state of mind. Its natural for a man to want to live. anything else is considered unnatural and needing assistance.
1. Technically you would be wrong on your first point. In Catholicism the doctor would be considered a murderer
2. Your second point is partially false. You state anything else is considered unnatural...this is only so because society and/or religion teaches us so.

just want to see the view of it being in mercy rather than just because they want to and how it would be in the eyes of one of faith, if it would still be wrong or profoundly just
Mercy killing is forbidden in the bible. The only killing allowed is in defense of yourself, your property or your loved ones. (I'm keeping this on topic, there are other reasons such as if your bull gores someone to death and you don't put it down then it does it again...then you and the bull get stoned to death XD)

[MrsSallyBakura]

and sally, can you answer my question, being a catholic yourself (you are right?)

just want to see the view of it being in mercy rather than just because they want to and how it would be in the eyes of one of faith, if it would still be wrong or profoundly just

As far as I can gather (although a Catholic more well-versed in their faith than I can answer this better), it would be wrong because it is not up to the human being to decide when to end a life.

It wouldn't exactly be merciful because... well, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter how much pain you suffer by the time you die.

This isn't something I'm particularly expert in. I came to the thread just to see people's responses and when I saw darkarcher wonder about the Catholic view of suicide, I decided to clarify a little bit.

Maybe I'll get back to the topic when I've done some more research, if I get to it.

[MrsSallyBakura]

This is the Catholic view of euthanasia in a nutshell.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea1.asp

It may or may not answer your question, grim.

EDIT: It also explains in this article that euthanasia does not necessarily mean doctor-assisted suicide. That's just an active form of euthanasia. There is also passive euthanasia where it is possible to treat the patient, but the doctors neglect to do so.

[Eia]

I have severe issues with the concept of doctors being able to assist with suicide purely for the reason of how freaking easy it would be to fake suicide notes/papers/documents and just use it as an excuse to murder someone.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I have severe issues with the concept of doctors being able to assist with suicide purely for the reason of how freaking easy it would be to fake suicide notes/papers/documents and just use it as an excuse to murder someone.

That reminds me of the movie Heathers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathers)

Scary.

[grimfang999]

well generally the euthanasia will have first hand evidence coming straight out of the persons mouth, said to witnesses aside from the doctor, normally some of the persons family

[Fat1Fared]

No major comments here really, I am wary of the power this area gives, but once you study tort law for a year, you will realise doctors kill us off quite a bit anyway, so meh may as well make it legal lol (Joke)

=But in all seriousness, I cannot say whether I am for this or not, like I think dark said that are pro and negative points all around it (though as per-normal, the fancy cathoilic agurment which came more down to twisting words and stating how little right you have to your life than anything meaningful did little to sway me either, though I do think more merit to the point, of letting them die without ether speeding up or slowing down the possess, just removing the pain, however I also think it is too board an summations and narrow a belief to think this is final answers and can easily become an equitable like for like solvation or middle ground for many reasons, such as fact only really helps those close to death anyway)

=I think that I put this is in the same sect as abortion, it does not sit well with me as an actual practice but I can see enough "practical" benefits to know why others would advocate it, as:-
1=Keeping someone alive who is for all intents and purposes already dead, is no more moral than letting them die, both are "breaches of life" and merer self-indulance to think otherwise
2=This is basically a quality of life v duty of life debate and so being poeple of sound body and minds (or so we are told) it hard for us to really understand those who have been driven to this edge of "reason." PS though I cannot agree with dark that only be allowed to those who make this choice themselves as A) Maybe the person is braindead, meaning still warrent a place in this debate and their family has more rights than us to think what right in this area B) I think anyone who is asking for suicide already will breach the accepted norn of what is generally considered sentient ability of complete self choice
3=Whether religion agrees or not, our life is our life and while I can agree we owe some duties to those around us to fundermentally not just fritter it away, I personally get feeling that A) not many poeple kill themselves for fun (in a literal sense) B) once we get to this area, the situation is extreme enough to lessen that duty naturally. (of course this is my assumption because the question never actually states where our line/power of suicide is going to fall and so could well be that this questioning if doctors have complete power to do it whenever)

On the other hand, I can see the reasons why, (though overplayed as it maybe,) poeple would fear the abuse of this, as giving poeple such power over life and ability to breach the "sanctity of human" moralisation is always going to be on gray grounds.

PS though not sure where Eia's point really comes in here, while not saying shouldn't have concerns over murderer and suicide and the extreme situations where they cross over, I think that generally Doctors want to help poeple not kill them and though sadly a few "disruptable" ones will get through, for all practical senses, as grim pointed out, assisted suicide is really illogical way to kill someone, when they can do it very easily in other ways without having anyones knowledge (hmmmm, linking about logical forms of murderer, guess I'm already at stage 3)

[darkarcher]

PS though I cannot agree with dark that only be allowed to those who make this choice themselves as A) Maybe the person is braindead, meaning still warrent a place in this debate and their family has more rights than us to think what right in this area
In response to this exact same point I already stated that if a person is not capable of making a choice then it is no longer doctor assisted suicide.

[Fat1Fared]

but in good enough mental condition to actually make such a choice after being informed of the consequences and speaking to their closest relatives

I was on about this point, though you are correct and that is not actually sucide, I still feel they warrent a place in this debate as otherwise they would need a section of their own which I "feel" would be unfairly and erroneously spliting these two debates when their merits cannot be judged in my opinion without looking at both together

=Though I suspect some will disagree with this blurring, "I" think the main problem (not disregarding several other noted ones) is that those who do fall between these two extremes, where socially and maybe even psychology, their own cogitive ability to make "major" judgments is called into question, but their is still an acute sense of self remaining, it would be impossible to place them in ether "fairly", without looking at the other side anyway and so I feel it is only fair, proficient and logical to look at all 3 sides together from the start.

PS also I use term "any" before judgments instead of "Such" because though "Such" would be a more specific word to what we are looking at, I do not think "socially" such judgments are ever regarded (want of better terms) "sane or reasonable" and so any wishing to make it will inevitability be questioned for ability to make any judgments anyway! 0_o

[MrsSallyBakura]

(though as per-normal, the fancy cathoilic agurment which came more down to twisting words and stating how little right you have to your life than anything meaningful did little to sway me either,

I didn't expect it to sway anyone. grim just asked for the Catholic side of things and I gave him something.

[greymagick711]

Hippocrates, the so-dubbed Father of Medicine once said "What medicines do not heal, the lance will; what the lance does not heal, fire will. Extreme remedies are very appropriate for extreme diseases."
At the same time, he was known for his belief in that a doctor should not take away a life. A doctor was supposed to help someone. From Hippocrates' time, they were supposed to attempt to cure (an not just alleviate symptoms) and not 'kill', a person.

Well, if a patient wants to terminate his or her life, I'd say that s/he should first see a psychologist. There is an inherent, natural, instinct in humans to fear the ultimate unknown which is death. If that feeling is lost, something's probably wrong.

Now, the question is: was the patient before the onset of the injury/disease/problem psychologically unstable enough to want to die, or is this wishing for death because of the disease?
Before someone consents to being assisted with suicide, it'd probably be best to know if they were somehow depressed to begin with, or something else happened.

Cost wise, it might be in the patient's family best interest to pull the plug. Also to do with money is the fact that doctors, too, are just human. Pay 'em enough and they'll gladly help.

I personally don't want to be artificially sustained for any more than a month. But this is me, deciding when I am not terminally ill.

So what about the comatose people, or the healthy but unable to live without assistance?

With comatose, I don't have my own opinion as of yet. Thank you, Thread for the discussion.
The latter is more complicated...

I wish to do something medical related with my life. Whether researching or being an actual doctor, this issue comes up.
It could just be a change in the world's view, but it seems to me that where the discipline of medicine was originally to help a person, now it just seems that medicine is there to make that person feel better. Or feel nothing at all.

Mercy killing--a rather gruesome term--sometimes seems almost appropriate in some cases. Other times, not so much.
In times of emergency, somethings like simply letting people die happen. This is triage, where the no-so-much wounded and the integrally-wounded people are ignored to first treat the people in between. On one hand, you have people on the lighter side of injuries in pain. The other hand contains people who would have a chance at survival if there was more time, and people on the brink of death.
But medical personal will first treat the median, leaving people to either dimly suffer or die off. But I suppose that is more like un-assisted death.

The decision to end a life, if one is to be discussed, should at least include the consent of the patient, the family, the doctor, and a court.

[maisetofan]

It should only be done if the person has no hope of recovering. to relieve pain through death is one thing, but relieving incurable pain through death is another. They must not however kill someone who has a fair chance of living and being cured.

the extreme case is them being in a vegetated state. The person cannot consent, but they cannot even do anything. Whta is the point of keeping them alive but to suffer miserable thoughts of their conditions?

ill put this music video to show what i mean

EzgGTTtR0kc

that music video is based on the film Johnny got his gun, it was a book first, written in 1939 surprisingly about the first world war and it made a clear point however the point you are making with the video is about doctor assisted suicide which the main character "johnny" wanted and in the end a sympathetic nurse gave him his wish..

i think in a circumstance like that, with no hope of life, or a normal one i personally would choose to be assisted i mean what hope would be left?