I’ve seen too many friends suffer needlessly, their families torn apart, and their loved ones left penniless.
I was raised Catholic, so many of my relatives are horrified by the idea, and I want a legal way to keep them from deciding my fate at the end.
I want a will format that’s required to be made public before death, and challenged then if anybody has the nerve, but not to be overridden later. And I want the final choices left completely in my hands, so that if I’m incompetent at the end, the choice will revert to the document, not a doctor or hospital policy or the nearest nephew.
I want the “plug” put on a 48-hour timer that only I can reset to zero, and If I’m in long-term pain I want a bottle of sleeping pills in my fist at all times. And yes, I’m going to take them when I’m crazy with pain and that is the point.
There is a legal way. It’s called a “power of attorney for healthcare”. You grant someone of your choice the legal right to make decisions for you if you become incapacitated. Without a power of attorney for healthcare, your next of kin will make the decisions for you. Another tool is a DNR (do not resuscitate order) which prevents healthcare personnel from shocking you, doing chest compressions, or shoving a tube down your throat if you suddenly try to die. Without a DNR order, they must try to resuscitate you whether they want to or not.
If you kill yourself with sleeping pills, that’s suicide, not euthanasia or even assisted suicide. If you’re in long-term pain, I would suggest consulting a pain specialist. In cases of terminal illness, hospice doctors are very talented at controlling pain. Some doctors are not good at controlling pain and suffering; if you or a loved one gets hooked up with one of them, I would suggest consulting a specialist before you pull out the vial of potassium.
Terminal illness is not an excuse to throw in the towel; it doesn’t mean your life is already over. With adequate pain control and emotional support, the last days/weeks/months can be just as meaningful and worthwhile, if not more, than the healthy years that came before. A person does not lose value just because he is sick. If he’s hurting, he needs pain control. If he’s depressed, he needs treatment for depression, and so on. He doesn’t need to be discarded.
No, death is definitely not the worst thing that can happen to a person. But dying is a part of life; we could all benefit from learning to do it well and with dignity.
Be very careful with the terminology you choose; “euthanasia” is generally considered to consist of the physician making all the decisions. That includes yanking the plug without the consent of the patient or the family. “Physician-assisted suicide”, on the other hand, sounds a bit more like what you’d want legalized: allowing a doctor to prescribe lethal medication to the terminally ill. Oregon, by the way, has already legalized physician-assisted suicide; the state government is watching the program very closely, and so far it doesn’t appear that it will be abused.
As far as I know, every state considers a clearly-written “living will” to be valid, and doctors will honor its requests. The right of a patient to refuse medical care is unquestioned; giving treatment to an unconsenting patient is a medical battery. However, if a patient is unconscious, consent is assumed, and the state’s interest in preserving life requires that the patient be treated.
Three states (Missouri, New York, and one other, I forget which) are real sticklers about living wills. They will not allow surrogates (family members or otherwise) to terminate treatment without a clear indication of the patient’s intent to discontinue treatment.
The problem with living wills and DNR orders is that, because they’re a fairly recent development (around 30 years old or so), the patient has to make damn sure that everyone who needs a copy gets a copy: the nursing home staff, local hospitals, family members, and so forth. Many people have been treated against their wishes simply because no one knew that a DNR existed.
The problem with “euthanasia” (or “physician-assisted suicide”, etc. I’m using “euthanasia” to refer to both) is that it’s one of those policies that’s very difficult to get a clear-cut picture of. Patients with mental instablities, for instance, could demand to die when their painful condition is merely temporary, or if euthanasia would be otherwise injustifiable. In addition, it’s a program that could easily be abused, by greedy relatives who want their rich old uncle to die so they’d get a slice of his pie, for example. While I hardly mean that this would be a common occurance, I use it to show that it’s one of those programs that has to be carefully regulated and practically micro-managed down to the last detail.
Personally, I believe that if a person truly wants to die, he should be permitted. However, the key point is “TRULY wants… etc.” If their desire to terminate their existence is brought about by simple depression or misunderstanding of their condition, then euthanasia isn’t the key, good ol’ fashioned counseling is.
So, while I agree that the practice shouldn’t be illegal, it shouldn’t be encouraged, either. Only if all other alternatives are eliminated (after all, life is a nifty thing to have… compared to death, anyway) should self-termination be implemented.
Before anyone makes up their mind on this subject, I highly recommend visiting the following URL and browsing around a while: http://www.iaetf.org/
These folks are obviously anti-euthenasia (it’s in the name) but they make good points. I had to do a presentation for my college history class on the Nazis not too long ago and one of the things I found was that the doctors who killed in the death camps started out doing euthenasia. Who was eligable to be euthenized became a broader and broader group, from “those terminally ill” to eventually “those not useful,” and the control was taken from people. I found a report on the above cite about the Oregon law, and it related statistics from the Netherlands about how their system of safeguards is working, which according to the report, was basically “not at all.” I can’t remember statistics, but the proportion of people who had even indicated they wanted to die was shockingly small, and many were euthenized without the consent of their families or themselves, based on a doctor’s opinion. One of the Americans involved in the Nuremburg trials was of the opinion that euthenasia was the first step in the Nazis plan to exterminate unwanted folks, and historical evidence shows that they did push propaganda to have it accepted by the public (see book “The Racial State”).
I’m not saying “Soon the Nazis will take over Oregon,” but just that lots of issues become very messy when you allow euthenasia. Ideally the person is totally in control and makes the rational decision to end it, based on unbearable pain, unliklihood of recovery, etc. But there can be pressures on the old and senile from family members, loss of control to the government, etc. I personally am highly against it, mainly because I think that it becomes very difficult to tell who “consents” to have it done and why, and whether their motive is okay (like “I’m dying of AIDS” not “I’m very depressed”), etc, epecially when the patient is older and their mind is going.
Fanny May, I’ll allow euthanasia if you are the first and last person to undergo it.
No, not even if it is you undergoing it do I favor it. As for me, I want to live until my last dying breath, no matter what condiditon I’m in. 12 billion years of oblivion has led me to this life, 12 billion more years of oblivion is waiting for me after my life. Oblivion can wait just a little longer thank you, as I will live my life until the sweet or bitter end.
Euthanasia is putting people to sleep like unwanted pets, and is obviously wrong. Physician assisted suicide, though, should not only be legal but all doctors should be required to provide assistance in such a difficult situation. If a patient wants to die then there is definitely a need for a doctor’s help, either to diagnose depression and provide medication/therapy, or to convince the patient to live a bit longer and hope for a cure, or to give advice and assistance in ending the pain once and for all if there really is no hope.
I think something that’s important to remember is that when a lot of people (like me, for instance) refer to euthanasia, they probably mean “physician-assisted suicide”. It’s just the fact that “euthanasia” is easier to say (and to fit onto newspaper headlines), I guess.
I, for one, don’t like “euthanasia1- doctor decides to kill you”, but am all for “euthanasia2- physician-assisted suicide”.
When my grandfather died of cancer, before I fealt sad, I fealt relieved. He was in a great deal of pain, and now he didn’t have to go through that. Luckily, my grandfather didn’t have to suffer very long; he died only a couple weeks after becoming very sick. I support physician assisted suicide, given a few preliminary requirements:
The patient is unconscious or incompotent, and can not make medical decisions for himself.
1a. If the patient is incompotent, two doctors must complete two seperate psychological examinations and sign a statement to that effect.
Two doctors must conduct two seperate examinations to determine if the patient is terminally ill, and prolonged life will only result in more pain.
The consent of the next of kin is given.
I think these are reasonable safeguards. We’re not talking about people saying, “Oh, my back hurts, kill me.” We’re talking about people who are unconscious or brain dead and WILL die anyway, and are doing nothing but suffering.
And that is your choice. But what about others? Who are you to say that your choice is right for them? And who are you to say that your current choice will still be your choice if you’re old and in pain from a terminal illness?
Nobody is talking about forcing you to kill yourself; they’re talking about allowing each individual to choose.
Euthenasia will become a way of forced killing, David B. It may start out noble, but soon there will be groups of people who will talk others into killing themselves. And the victims will do it, if not to relieve pain from the illness, then so as to not listen to them anymore. Kervorkian is in trouble because one of his victims–yes victims–did not suffer a terminal illness.
I have been in terrible pain all of my life, mental and physical. Sometimes I don’t feel like going to work because of it, and and times it keeps me up all night. It may have made me a very cranky person. But I will never give up life because of a little or a lot of pain.
Terminal illness is not an excuse to throw in the towel
who needs an excuse?? if someone wants to end their own life they [should be] free to do so. i feel it is a basic right that i may do as i wish with my body, mind, and life. why should someone else have the right to decide for me what is right for me?? of course if what i want to do with my life encroaches upon another [theft for example], then i have gone beyond the bounds of my body/mind/life.
That’s a pretty far-reaching assumption, I think. We’re not talking about allowing doctors to walk around with a shotgun, popping anyone who mildly annoys them, we’re talking about allowing the option should it be deemed necessary, AFTER all the stipulations and regulations have been met and followed (incapacitated people living in horrible pain, without any hope of being cured). While there’s always the danger of something getting out of hand, we can’t force people to suffer simply because of a fear like that.
I’m pretty sure your family or the doctor can get around a living will. They just ignore your wishes. Who’s left to do the suing? The point about hospital rules is well founded. They do a lot of things in religious hospitals that nobody wants to take on.
Yes, Spoof, there is a danger for something to go out of hand. That is why the Death Penalty is being held in review, in order to prevent it from getting out of hand. Euthenasia will be treated like abortion, getting rid of a person who would otherwise have an expensive medical bill. Corporations, as having rights as citizens, will try to exercise euthenasia on individuals who work for them. What is to prevent their insurance companies or HMO’s from thinking that killing patients will be more conducive to their bottom line than paying for the necessary medicine or surgery or care? Wait a minute, they think that already. See where it goes, right?
That would three “I’s” and two “me’s” above. How does this answer David’s question about OTHER people?
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, 2 hours, 47 minutes and 54 seconds.
3644 cigarettes not smoked, saving $455.58.
Life saved: 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 40 minutes.
Doctor-assissted suicide is sometimes the only honorable way to do things if the patient is in extreme pain and there is no other way out. It should be a heavily regulated way out, and only used in severe cases, but a way out nonetheless. When a few drugs can end an existence of pain and suffering (Don’t try to call that state living. It isn’t. I’ve seen some of my relatives die of cancer and they were reduced to babbling vegetables still suffering even though they were getting pain medicine.) there is no moral reason not to go that route. In fact, it goes against morality to refuse someone relief from pain.
I agree we should maintain a distiction betwee “euthanasia”, which implies a policy of so-called mercy killing by a government or a hospital, and “assisted suicide” which keeps the focus on an individual exercising his or her rights.
I also agree that the “slippery slope” argument is nonsense. There has to be a strong impetus among the masses for a form of illicit behavior to increase and worsen once a restraint is removed. Drug use, illicit sex, and macho violence all have slippery slope potential in their own way, but consider this example: There are lots of nude beaches and have been for decades. Suppose in addition to that we were to abolish all laws against indecent exposure. Would more and more people go around naked and soon begin defacating in public? No, most people prefer to keep their clothes on. It’s as simple as that.
Most people have better things to do than go around looking for old and sick people to kill. Our culture places a strong emphasis on keeping people alive when they are ill and that isn’t going to change. Of course any legal assisted suicide procedure will ensure the patient meets strict criteria and is participating of his or her own free will.