Voluntary Euthanasia?

I though the church was strongly against such actions?

Dear Adam,

I am sure that you are correct about that, but somehow we are all the products of our own experiences as well aren't we?

The question in my mind is one of allowing for free choice for individuals.

Yes, quite possibly I will rot in Hell for my thoughts on it!

ATB from George

http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5801938...712980217#2712980217 the question was just in the light of this.

Dear Adam,

You point is taken in the kindest way and points up a dissonance in my thoughts that have existed for 32 years, when I first considered this very seriously during a long illness that was initially thought to be much more serious than it turned out.

At fifteen I was off my feet for six weeks ... My phlegmatic attitude to the situation and possible outcome were thought extra-ordinary at the time by the consultant, who thought that it was amazing that I did not panic. I was really the only one who did not, though being spoken "about" rather than "to" as if the end had already happened surely does concentrate the mind! But such an experience does colour future thoughts on the subject.

I don't deny the dissonance, though it is not one that costs me much worry any more. I suspect that many more overtly completely compliant religious people have such dissonances, which they keep completely hidden, which is a cause of pent-up stress, I am sure. I have to accept that in many ways I am far from worthy in the conventional religious sense, but I am fairly phlegamtic about my fate.

In many ways I suppose that, with respect to formalised Religion, I am content to see what kindly aspect I can find to bring out, and accept that the Faith I might have is flawed to the extent of neither being a Biblical literalist, nor even someone without a good many doubts about some of the promisses made. That does not stop me drawing comfort and strength from it, but certainly it curtails my ability to take it all hook, line, and sinker.

ATB from George

Relief from suffering should be a right for everyone, not just animals. I have witnessed many peacefull "humane" deaths of animals under my care but have seen several close relatives "suffer" prolonged deaths. No question in my experience.

quote:

The question in my mind is one of allowing for free choice for individuals.

The crux of the matter, in my opinion. The modern liberal worldview affirms the right of the individual to choose. In many religions, including Catholicism, the individual will is secondary to the will of God. Therefore, who are we to decide the time and manner of our own death? What God has given, so God shall take away - or something like that.

For what it's worth, I favour the right to choose, but it is no longer the "no-brainer" it once was.

Regards
Nigel

The Netherlands is strong on the rights of the individual.

This applies to Euthanasia which is legally allowed under controlled conditions.

A doctor is allowed to agree and perfrom voluntary euthanasia. The law insists patients must be adults, have made a voluntary, well-considered and lasting request to die, must be facing a future of unbearable suffering and that there must be no reasonable alternative.

A second doctor must be consulted, and life must be ended in a medically appropriate way.

THis is not without controversy especially from religious orginisations. Personally I applaud it.

Geoff

Chaps

I also think that you have to take dignity into account.

There is no way I want to end my days lying in a bed with a plastic mattress and floating in my own urine or in a home dribbling into a towel wrapped around my neck.

I have a shotgun and that is my insurance policy.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

Yes, quite possibly I will rot in Hell for my thoughts on it!

ATB from George

Luckily for you, hell doesn't exist. Or at least I won't believe it until I see it!

Steeve

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:

I have a shotgun and that is my insurance policy.

Regards

Mick

Sounds like the sensible thing to do.

But, I doubt your insurance company/pension provider would pay out any benefits to your wife or dependants if you shoot yourself.

DEar All,

This is simple.

It is my life and only i have the right to decide my future.

So should the decision ned to be made then i would want my express wishes what ever they may be complied with.

We are born we live we die.

So life is in effect simple.

Society makes it so bloody difficult.

ps in Oregon USA they have proved you live longer when you have the choice. Fear is the key.

regards David

Just to clarify a very important distinction that is being confused so far in this thread.

Voluntary euthanasia is the deliberate administration of medication to end life by a health professional to the patient for that purpose alone.

Assisted suicide is the actions of the patient themselves to end their own life by their own hand. It may be assisted by the provision of suitable drugs. There is a very important moral and practical difference between these two things.

The dutch have voluntary euthanasia, the 'swiss clinic' is assisted suicide.

My own thoughts;

Life (or death) is absolutely not simple. The issues at the end of life are easy to debate when one is well (and intelligent and articulate) but sometimes become very different when faced by that situation. There are a great deal of possibilities for ailing and vulnerable indivuduals to be influenced in end-of-life choices by others, not always for good reasons. I have seen a number patients whio have stated clearly and consistently they do not wish active treatment if they get ill in old age desire every last possible medicine to attempt to survive even longer when a significant illness actually occurrs-which is fine of course but illustrates that such decisions need to be reviewed and updated. Despite my own clear and unequivocal 'living will' I might be the same.

A good death is possible without euthanasia, including the administration of drugs which hasten the end of life provided that is not their sole purpose (ie pain relief first and foremost). This is allowed and protected by law as the rule of 'double effect'.

I have supported people in good deaths, and been involved in bad ones. We need as a profession to be more flexible, skilled and comfortable about managing death. This applies most pressingly to hospitals in my opinion. Helping a patient acheive a good death is one of the most satisfying things I do, and can be the same for the family.

My personal opinion has gradually shifted over the years to be in favour of a regulated system for voluntary euthanasia. My professional view is that this will need great care and thought to be implemented with appropriate safeguards.

In the meantime talk to you doctors so they now about your thoughts and beliefs, and keep talking to them if these issues become more pertinent.

Bruce

Bruce - thank you for your informative, intelligent, and, above all, humane post.

Regards
Nigel

Dear Bruce,

There is nothing to add to our words from me. Thanks.

George

over the past 6 years, i've gone through this pain medication in the final stretch with five relatives. it is an absloute nightmare. actually, everything about their medication was handled poorly, not just pain medication.

it left me feeling small and dirty, a feeling that still sneaks around my mind from time to time.

God preserve us.

This is a major issue, I"ve had my health problems and had a huge shock in 92, almost died and recovery was slow and painful but I made it. My parents are 87 and take a lot of care. They don't want to live to extremes and neither do I. Amazingly awful thoughts are behind holding back end of life moments. Mainly religious ideas. For some strange reason they think it's the grace of god to suffer.

We do for our pets what we should do for ourselves. It's awful to be in pain or in hospitals and not be able to die peacefully.

The best case being Jackie O. she had a full life. and at the end she went home and died peacefully with those around her. Not one word was said about "S". It was a graceful exit.

It is sad to hear of peoples upsetting experiences.

One thing to be aware of in this debate is that we are not always talking about people approaching the end of life when discussing voluntary euthanasia. A not insignificant number in the Dutch experience requested that life is ended because of intolerable sufferring but may actually have a normal span of years ahead. They request euthanasia because of an intractably painful condition, severe depression unresponsive to treatment or perhaps a severe and enduring disability (such as quadraplegia). The purpose of euthanasia in such cases is not to accelerate a natural dying process, but to actively and prematurely end life. It is thus 'medical killing'. Quite a thought.

Incidentally don't confuse euthanasia with withdrawing treatment to allow someone to die. Different again entirely-and already allowable under UK law.

Even with a system of voluntary euthanasia we would also be some distance from a situation where we each name a time and place of our death. A very elderly patient must still prove 'intolerable sufferring' to receive the treatment. I have a fair few patients who feel quite clearly they have reached the end of 'useful life' and for whom death holds no fear and would indeed be welcome. However they are essentially 'well' and would not qualify in any of the systems used worldwide.

Bruce

PS I don't think the pet analogy is terribly hepful, yet it is often used. That is involuntary euthanasia. The owner is making a judgement about the quality of life of a pet which has no autonomy (or rights). The moral and ethical decision to request and receive euthanasia for oneself is a whole different idea.

I wonder how much pressure some patients might feel to agree to their life being ended prematurely? And who ends it? I thought doctors were sworn to do the opposite.

Tony

quote:

Originally posted by Tony Lockhart:
I wonder how much pressure some patients might feel to agree to their life being ended prematurely? And who ends it? I thought doctors were sworn to do the opposite.

Tony

a) The risk of pressure being applied to a patient is real and a major concern when setting up such a system.

b) Doctors do not swear any oath, they are bound by professional guidance and the law. The law at present prohibits the administration of any treatment solely for the purpose of ending life (which is currently murder). The law would need to change to allow euthanasia.

Bruce

It certainly isn't something you have to set up checks and balances. Long slow progressive diseases like Parkinson's and MS are just so debilitating. I would go for a while but at some point when I could still talk I would want to end it.

I have a friend that had his brother in a care facility for MS, year by year he lost the ability to get around then to talk, even pointing to a keyboard they gave him was too much and then it was a couple more years till they decided to let Pneumonia take over. Oh, it was crushing. I helped for a bit when I was in town or Norm had to travel, I gave him my small painting of a bird refuge in a gray morning he liked. But I'd want to go much earlier than that.

Dear Glenn,

I would go without reference to asking assistance, which means a certain degree of physical competence, let alone mental.

In fairness, I personally would feel entirely unable to ask for assistance, which relates back to Bruce's most admirable posts.

Also I consider that the parallel between an animal suffering and a human is fairly tenuous. Of course the pain must somehow be not dissimilar, but a sentient human surely has the right to self-determination without reference to the judgement of other humans. Now where that leaves the individual with regard to his God, is of course very much between him and the Mercy of his Creator. I have a suspiscion that his Creator may see the point, if that is not too presumptious. God is Merciful. I see no reason to believe that the Sin of suicide may not be forgiven as much as an other ...

George

I think there is still debate about the legal acceptance of it, but a "Living will" in which a person in full possesion of their faculties, but knowing they will experience great suffering, declares their wish for voluntary euthansia once stricken and suffering, has its merit for people who are so minded.

There is logic to it, based on the recognition that people often pass into a stage of deep depression or dementia and are then not condidered able to make a valid decision that their life be ended.

regards
Geoff

The current status of living wills (or Advance Directives) is discussed here. There is advice about setting one up and a pro-forma too.

Thay have attained greater legal weight in recent years (partly due to the new Mental Capacity Act), but they fall short of euthanasia becuse are only about the witholding or withdrawal of treatment not the active ending of life.

Bruce

The public issue of euthanasia is often tagged to sufferers of rare progressive diseases.
Much more likely for us all is an Alzheimer's death where the capacity to make such decisions gradually erodes over a long period. I find it difficult to see when a euthanasia decision could be safely applied in those cases.
With this more likely diagnosis and his chosen solution, Mick Parry's family would have to face washing his brains off the bedroom walls when he was still relatively fit and able.

I agree that voluntary euthanasia is an incredibly complex area, and one could say that because of the inherent conflict of interest a medical professional has in the relationship with their patient, the decision making process, if ever we go down this road, would need to be very robust and include legal representation[and presumably theological if relevant to the individual's situation].
With better treatment of malignant disease and prevention of cardiovascular disease[ still the biggest killer in the western world], we will probably see an increasing number of people getting dementia, and likely dying from it: as Rockindoc says, these patients will lose their capacity to decide on their future management.This will be extremely challenging to our society, especailly as the pool of carers will be dwindling[relatively]as the population ages.
With regard to caring for people with severe, non-malignant conditions[e.g.chronic lung disease,musculo-skeletal and neurological conditions], the hospice movement is starting to develop its skills in managing the terminal stages of these equally distressing conditions. The difficulty is that, unklike progressive malignant disease, it is harder to predict when an acute exaccerbation is the last, so we often end up keeping on trying.
Simon