I agree. I think public debate has squeezed two issues into one.
Should the terminally ill be allowed to commit suicide?
Should doctors assist that suicide?
I say yes to #1, no to #2.
I do realize that Anaesthesiology is one of the most complicated medical careers–but at the same time, a great deal of those complications are caused by the fact that you have to keep the patient from dying. It seems to me that, in our high-tech world, we could come up with a suicide machine (paging Futurama!) so that the terminal patient would be able to actuate a trigger by themselves that causes the computer-controlled machine to administer the proper drugs in the proper order to anaesthetize them and then stop their heart. You could make the trigger in different ways so that most patients could just push a button, but those that were, say, paralyzed, could activate it by biting it with their mouth, etc.
This would leave doctors to do their job of “First doing no harm” and caring for the health of people. Use science to eliminate that moral quandary, I say.
Of course, after we’ve solved that, then we move out of suicide and into the stickier situation of euthanasia–which is what we’re talking about when the person doesn’t have the mental capacity to commit suicide. I have much more of a problem with someone coming in and euthanizing a senile person, even one in great suffering, as we would put down a dog.
But this situation could also be solved. Here’s how: Right now, we require Citizens to fill out mandatory paperwork at certain times. We make young men sign up for Selective Service. We make married couples get a marriage license. People have to file tax returns. Etc. I say we make it that law that people MUST fill out and file a living will at certain points in their life: when they turn 18 (and, presumably, will be leaving the guardianship of their parents); when they get married (so that there will be no question later as to how a spouse would have instructed the other to act when the one became terminally ill/vegetative, etc.–as in Schiavo); and when they start collecting Social Security benefits (generally related to retirement, and a good point to reassess one’s final arrangements); maybe even at the birth of each child they have (to reassess guardianship contingencies, as well as to decide what to do if the child has an accident and is put in a vegetative state and the parents killed, etc.). This way, the person would state exactly how they wish to be treated in these situations. And the default state can always be, “never pull the plug, use all measures to sustain life, etc., despite what my spouse says.”
When your suicide machine fails to function correctly, who will deal with the consequences? Doctors (or other medical professionals) who agree with assisted suicide can help people who want it, doctors who do not agree need not participate at all.
Granted, we should not be pressuring doctors to do it, but if they think it is acceptable, who are we to say they shouldn’t?
No physician would ever be required to aid in a patient’s suicide if he/she chose not to.
A physician as myself would be willing to assist if proper conditions are met such as:
A patient is in constant severe pain from inoperable cancer or has the “locked in syndrome” whereby the only muscular control would be movement of the eyes and many other legitimate circumstances.
The physicians who would participate ethically would be trained in making the pt. comfortable with proper knowledge of anestheia and hopefully the compassion and empathy toward the pt.
imho, euthansia has its place among compassionate, caring people who put the pt. first and religious beliefs in a secondary position.
Idon’t think that constant pain or “locked in syndrome” should be the only possibilities.
Two years ago we visited my wife’s sister who drifted in and out of senile demensia being sometimes reasonably lucid and other times not recognizing anyone. She knew that her condition was irreversible and would degenerate. In one of her lucid periods she told my wife, “What’s the point?” meaning why go on like this.
My wife wanted to visit her one more time so we went back the first of this month. Her sister is now totally unresponsive and justs sits semiconscious in a wheel chair. She is unable to do anything for herself and all of her needs must be taken care of by others.
Even though she wasn’t in any pain before, and doesn’t seem to be now, it seems reasonable to me that during one of her lucid periods of two years ago she should have been able to say, “that’s enough.”
We put animals down all the time. Humans are a type of animal. Evolutionary theory combined with a lack of a God should tell you that a person has no divine purpose. Humans just are. Animals can’t give informed consent but a person can. Therefore, putting a person down should be less of a controversial act than putting down a dog.
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with your premise of “lack of a God” here - it has no place in this discussion. Making assisted suicide available doesn’t mean that someone who is against it on religious grounds has to choose it. Nor does it mean that someone who has no religious beliefs has to choose it. When you bring religious beliefs into the discussion you have people making decisions for others based on religions beliefs that the others may not share.
Human Beings are ranked ( by us) on the very top of the evolutionary scale. Because of our cognitive abilities, comprehension and so called top IQ, we made the decision that our lives are more precious than any other animal.
If one omits personal religious beliefs, each person should be able to decide his or her fate as far as his/her life is concerned…The guy across the st. or in another city or state should be able to determine his/her own fate imho.
In the meantime we have to set some rules to get started…
Suppose my sister Heather takes her dog Daisy for a walk. Some idiot yapping on a cell phone mows them both down, irreparably maiming them, but not mortally wounding them. They’ve both in a great deal of pain, and neither of them are likely to recover any function. The humane thing to do is to bring Daisy to the vet and have her put down so she won’t continue to suffer. Current law dictates that my sister, on the other hand, should be forced to remain alive so she can continue to suffer. If Heather wanted to die too, I couldn’t really blame her for wanting the same peace offered freely to a mere pet.
If it’s not okay to let a pet suffer, then why is it okay to let a person? If the pain is too great, than a patient ought to be able to choose to terminate their life.
I don’t actually have a sister, but you get the idea.
The hypothetical sister inho SHOULD be allowed to be afforded the same termination to her suffering as the dog received. But so many laws are proposed and passed that are interlaced with religious overtones placing human life in a totally different category than animals.
Well, if I gotta die (and I do gotta die sooner or later), and there’s a reliable and painless way I can go about it when the day finally comes, why not? I’ve seen death pretty up-close-and-personal, and, quite frankly, I wouldn’t wish the suffering of many people approaching their end on a mad dog. In fact, many people seem to have no problem putting down a maimed animal to end its agony, but recoil at the thought of showing the same mercy to a human being whose time is up and knows it.
So, hey, palliative care and hospice are already valuable aspects of end-of-life medicine, so why not leave the euthanizing to the experts too, rather than to sick people who might botch it and make matters worse? Ever been high? Ever taken an opiate? Ever drifted into narcotic slumber at the hands of a trained anaesthesiologist? Those are a damn sight more pleasant sensations than some we might experience, and I’d much rather end life in that state than in abject torture.
I can’t put it in better words, myself, so I’m going to go with what Isaac Asimov wrote regarding the book Final Exit: The Practicalities of Self-Deliverance and Assisted Suicide for the Dying by Derek Humphry.
As Bill Maher put it, “I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving quicker.”
Seriously though, people should be allowed to have control over their lives, including the end. Sometimes a person might need or just want help to accomplish this, and if a doctor is willing to assist, then great.
There seems to be some misapprehension here regarding the role of the doctor in PAS. I’m from Oregon, BTW, and voted for the Death With Dignity act both times it came up on the ballot. The only actual involvement of the physician in the process is consulting with the patient to insure he/she is compos mentis and able to make the decision to die. Then the doctor prescribes a lethal dosage of sedatives which the patient then takes whenever he/she feels ready. So far, 208 people have taken advantage of the right to die, and all have gone well with the exception of one man who took the drugs but woke up afterward–only to die naturally two weeks later. The patients want to make their own minds up about when to check out, to get their affairs in order and give their families a chance to say goodbye. There has been little fanfare, it’s all been very dignified and low key and in all a positive and worthwhile program.
The key here is the word “dignity.” Terminal illness is not only painful, but it robs the patient of their sovereign control over their lives, their decisions, even their own bodily processes. Terminal illness is invasive and painful and embarrassing and sometimes the only tiny fraction of control the patient has is deciding not to continue with treatment. PAS gives them back a little more control, to be able to decide for themselves when and how they will die, while they can still make the decision and implement it themselves with a modicum of dignity and class.
And now the damned republicans and their tame court want to strip this tiny shred of decency away, sacrificing those who have already lost everything on their altar of “sanctity of life,” which is just a code word for “we want control over every facet of every citizen’s life from the cradle to the grave, for their own good, because we know best what’s good for them, the poor feckless children.” They’re hiding behind the specious reasoning that PAS violates federal drug laws, as though these laws have the force of divine mandate. Bah, I say.
The government doesn’t own us and the sooner they’re told in no uncertain terms that this is the case the better.
My work takes me into nursing homes five and six nights per week. On each and every one of my visits, I see people who are simply being warehoused; people who are so far gone that their every need must be attended by others. I have been told that many of these people have been in such plights for years and might well continue for years to come. I DO NOT want to go out that way; I would much prefer to have a choice as to when to end it all. For another reason, I frequently deliver heavy-duty narcotics, up to and including morphine sulphate. I am told that the really heavy-duty narcotics are used on people who are in intractable pain and who have no hope of recovery----terminal cancer patients, for instance. I DO NOT want to go out that way; I see nothing to be gained by enduring never ending pain for any reason at all. For another reason, I watched my father die by inches; totally helpless, bedridden, unable to assist himself in any way. He often begged me to bring him a pistol; I probably should have done it. I DO NOT want to go out the way he did.
If I am responsible for the way I live my life, I should have some responsibility in the way it ends.
I suppose I favor Physician-assisted suicide, because a “do-it-yourself” suicide may very well misfire, leaving you not only live, but possibly even worse-off than before.
Why does it have to be Physician-assisted? I guess it doesn’t. How’s about “Professionally-assisted suicide?” Why not a new breed of 21st-Century executioners? Dedicated professionals who can guarrantee that your death will be quick, painless and certain- Or your money back!!