| Author |
Message |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 9541
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 11:36 am: |     |
My Mom died of pancreatic cancer 9 years ago. She wanted to die at home with hospice care and no pain. That is what happened. Hospice administered the meds. Mom had no pain. I am thankful that it was Mom's decision and not ours.
Diana L |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1406
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 1:27 pm: | |
Goose,
I don't think anyone in this discussion suggested that God does not continue to love those who choose to shorten their suffering. I think the opposition raised was whether that was the desired course, and the ethically correct one. |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1873
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 2:42 pm: | |
Hey, Ric_b, I sent you an e-mail and have not received a reply. Did you get it?
Hec |
Gregkleinig
Registered user
Username: Gregkleinig
Post Number: 55
Registered: 12-2010
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 8:04 am: | |
G'day all. Brilliant discussion. I have really appreciated the respectful empathetic nature of the posts. While the discussion seems to have focused mainly on our care of other people we need to also be proactive in leaving clear guidelines for our own demise. Please be patient while I try to explain what I mean.
My SDA wife (which makes it sound like I might have a non-SDA wife as well; I hasten to reassure you I don't) is a senior nurse at an aged care facility. We live in rural Australia. It is against the law in Australia to assist someone to die. However it is not against the law to keep someone pain free in a terminal illness. This leads to some difficult situations. Especially in big nursing homes in the major cities where there is a much higher degree of scrutiny and what appears to be less common sense or at least less opportunity to exercise that common sense. For myself I hope that someone will have the opportunity to help my end be gentle when my time comes. As a farmer I have always terminated an animal's life if there is no other way to stop it suffering. I have done this out of humane compassion. Should we be less humane to humanity? I know in nature most things are eaten alive by their natural predators once they are incapable of fight or flight. Very few animals kill completely before they start eating their victim. The point being inhumane suffering is the realm of animals. People however by default are human hence by default should strive for a greater humaness to each other than that which we responsibly exercise over animals.
Another concern that I have for my demise is that I don't become a financial burden on society. By that I mean that once keeping me alive in a state of terminal suffering is using up resources that would give some child a meanIngful life in an impoverished country I don't want that to happen. I have talked with my family about this in an attempt to make their way easier if difficult decisions have to be made. Being of an age that nasty things become a greater possibility (56 -not for a while yet I hope) I have told my family DNR if I have no prospect of a reasonable quality of life. Also I have made my organs available if usable and/or needed. Do you have that in America?
Bless you all
Greg |
Goose
Registered user
Username: Goose
Post Number: 44
Registered: 11-2011
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 9:39 am: | |
Ric wrote:
"I don't think anyone in this discussion suggested that God does not continue to love those who choose to shorten their suffering. I think the opposition raised was whether that was the desired course, and the ethically correct one."
Yes, Ric. That is the gist of what I am hearing, too. But I don't think anyone can have an objective point of view unless they can actually get in the shoes of people who face a horrible demise.
I'm not saying that there is no one in this forum discussion who hasn't had to come up against situations where a loved one had to go though unthinkable suffering before finally dying. What I am saying is that none of us, no matter how close we may be to the situation, are able to enter into that person's torment, and therefore can not say what is ethical or moral. Before we can say what is ethical or moral, we would have to first step into that person's shoes. And because we can not do that, we really can not make such judgments. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1407
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 10:02 am: | |
Goose,
What is ethical, moral, and Biblical does not vary based on our personal experiences. Perhaps in the midst of great suffering isn't the best time to consider objectively what is "right". Do I need to take a step in a pedophile's shoes to conclude that it is wrong no matter how much they yearn for it? Do I need to be pregnant with an unwanted child to make an ethical conclusion about abortion? Do I need to be a drug addict desperate for a fix to make a moral conclusion about robbing someone?
Besides, the question here isnt whether they can take their own lives, it is whether it is moral to assist them in taking their lives. We are asking about the ethical behavior of the Doctor, not the patient. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1408
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 10:06 am: | |
Hec,
I didn't see your email. Let me double check the spam folder and see if it ended up there for some reason. Or resend.
Thanks |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1409
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 10:23 am: | |
Goose,
Sorry for the two-part post, but i had another thought and it was too late to edit the last post.
The argument that you have put forth from the palliative care doctor contains an interesting fallacy. Basically it say, "I have concluded this is ethical, while anyone can agree that it is ethical, the only people qualified to say that it is unethical are those who are suffering greatly at the end of a terminal illness." if one person, who is not facing an immediate painful death is qualified to form an opinion on the ethics of euthanasia, how can that same person claim that others are not qualified to evaluate the ethics if they disagree with his conclusion? |
Goose
Registered user
Username: Goose
Post Number: 45
Registered: 11-2011
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 11:55 am: | |
A physician takes an oath to "do no harm."
Modern medicine and technology have made huge advances in treating all sorts of injuries, illnesses and disorders. Yet, modern medicine and technology is also able to extend biological life, when the body would otherwise die.
The disease that has ALREADY given someone a death sentence is the killer, not the physicians who agree on the prognosis of 6 months or less of biological life.
To one person, "To do no harm" could mean doing everything medically and technologically possible to keep a person "alive," biologically; hooked up to every machine available. I think just about anybody out there would agree, subjecting a human being to these things IS doing harm.
To another person, "to do no harm" would mean to relieve suffering by whatever means. The physician is simply respecting the wishes of the sufferer.
I don't think we can describe the physicians who prescribe the lethal drugs as murderers. The disease is the murderer, and we must face that fact squarely. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1410
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 8:34 pm: | |
Exactly Goose,
The question of what it means to "do no harm" is not a question that is limited to those who are terminally ill. It applies directly to the doctors. Suggesting that one can not evaluate the ethics of performing this act is simply wrong. Furthermore, the suggestion that morality can only be defined subjectively by our experiences is not only wrong, it is dangerous.
I don't think labels like "murderer" help us to honestly examine a complex issue. For instance, is there an ethical difference between providing the means and the necessary instructions compared to performing the act for the person? Is a morphine overdose in the last few days of life morally distinct from a lethal injection with a few months left to live? If it is ethical to end some lives early, is it acceptable to do so without the direct consent of the person?
I believe that these are questions for patients, healthcare providers, and even society to weigh. |
Goose
Registered user
Username: Goose
Post Number: 57
Registered: 11-2011
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2011 - 7:42 pm: | |
Ric asked: "If it is ethical to end some lives early, is it acceptable to do so without the direct consent of the person?"
That would be genocide. I think it is a bit of s stretch to connect Death With Dignity with Genocide. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1438
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2011 - 11:37 pm: | |
Goose, forget the useless labels.
What makes taking a persons life without their permission different than taking it with their permission?
And, is it always moral to take someone's life if that is their wish, or is it only moral in some circumstances?
If it is only acceptable in some circumstances, on what basis do we make a decision about which ones are morally acceptable?
I have tried to engage you in a meaningful, non-judgmental discussion of the underlying moral considerations. Since you raised this ethical question, I am curious why you avoid directly discussing the underlying assumptions and reasoning associated with the ethical question. |
