No More Death with Dignity...

[Makalakumu]

The Bush Administration would like to fight the physician assisted suicide law in Oregon.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/09/06/prsc0906.htm

Legal action connected to Attorney General John Ashcroft's effort to stop assisted suicide in Oregon may finally get to the Supreme Court now that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ashcroft's request to rehear the case before an 11-judge panel.

Is this the ethical thing to do? Is this just another attempt by the christian right to control how people do things? Does this truly violate the Hippocratic Oath?

What do you think?

upnorthkyosa

 

[OUMoose]

How well did Kevorkian fair in Michigan?

If you go by the books, Assisted Suicide is not much different than deactivating life support. They're causing a patient to expire when they don't have the means and ability to do it themselves, and it's too painful (emotionally, physically, or financially) to keep them going. In every case I've read, there is family consent as well.

Honestly, as long as there is justifiable cause (such as a terminal and debihiltating illness), I don't think it's the right of the government to tell someone they don't have control over their own life.

but what do I know... I voted for Kerry... :idunno:

 

[shesulsa]

For one to participate in assisted suicide, one must pass a psychological exam amongst other things to determine that one is not just depressed about their situation.

Why not die with dignity? Isn't that what we all want?

I suppose dying with dignity means something different to each of us. For some of us it means going down fighting, kicking and screaming. For some of us it means knowing when there is no longer any possibility of your winning the war. And I suppose the circumstance matters a great deal.

Death is a door and I think "we" fear it so much that this belies our rejection of the inevitable.

Assisted suicide has been happening for a very, very long time - it's just never been out in the open. Many have been caught, convicted of murder and sent to prison and even been executed for helping someone to meet their maker a littler earlier.

Goodness. What savages deny a person dignity?

 

[Flatlander]

Anyone that I have ever talked to supports euthanasia. I don't know where the non-support comes from. I have never spoken to a non-supporter.

I can understand having reservations, wanting to ensure there are sufficient checks in the system that only those wanting to go, go, but as Shesulsa said, who could deny a human their dignity?
From this site, the contemporary version of the Hippocratic Oath, for reference:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.


Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Goodness. What savages deny a person dignity?

The same people who would put down their dog or other animal such as a horse with a broken leg when things are bad. Yet, they personally cannot deal with the loss or the grief, and hang onto the person.

I think there should be a good list of questions and requirements, I also think it Humane to help our other humans out of pain when there is no help or hope. Now for instance a Brain Alive Coma patient should be left alive for even though they may spend the rest of their life in a coma, they have a chance to "wake up" and be alright.

As to Dr. Jack Kevorkian, he made some mistakes and he is now in Jail/Prison. Yet, for many more than people thougt possible he was able to help people and stay out of Jail/Prison.

 

[Brother John]

The Bush Administration would like to fight the physician assisted suicide law in Oregon.
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/09/06/prsc0906.htm
Is this the ethical thing to do? Is this just another attempt by the christian right to control how people do things? Does this truly violate the Hippocratic Oath?
What do you think?
upnorthkyosa

still painting Christians as the attempted "overlords" of our society?
Oh well...
I think you are wrong.
You think I am.
It will probably stay that way.... so lets move on anyway.

This Christian (Me, your Brother, John), who is on the right, probably agrees with you. I don't think it unethical to allow a person to end their life when their quality of life and chance for reversal is Nil. But the qualifications MUST be very specific and met to the -T- ! Mere depression (as horrible as that may be) is not a reason.

Since it seems you agree, then what do You feel would be the proper, ethical, reasons to do this? What qualifications need to be met?

Your Brother
John

 

[loki09789]

How well did Kevorkian fair in Michigan?

If you go by the books, Assisted Suicide is not much different than deactivating life support. They're causing a patient to expire when they don't have the means and ability to do it themselves, and it's too painful (emotionally, physically, or financially) to keep them going. In every case I've read, there is family consent as well.

Honestly, as long as there is justifiable cause (such as a terminal and debihiltating illness), I don't think it's the right of the government to tell someone they don't have control over their own life.

but what do I know... I voted for Kerry... :idunno:

It is a subtle thing but the difference between assisted suicide and shutting off life support is action. In the first, you are actively causing the death of a human being - that is your intention. In the second, you are letting the body go through the natural/biological process (and for some allowing that opportunity for 'miraculous' things to happen).

Suicide is illegal. Assisted suicide is illegal for the most part.

This is an interesting question because it brings into conflict the idea that governments are there to protect the individual life as well as (in a democracy) their civil liberties. This is, essentially the same values/ideals that underly the abortion issue - choice or life preservation.

 

[someguy]

No two people are alike. Each of us values life differently. I'm sure none of use don't value life alot but to some it means differnt things than it does for others.
I see no reason to judge your lifes value and say if I should force you to live on. Actually I would be robbing you of freedom to control the end of your life.
I would probably keep going under most every circumstance but I am not everyone else.
Do as you will with your life as long as It does not harm me.

 

[loki09789]

No two people are alike. Each of us values life differently. I'm sure none of use don't value life alot but to some it means differnt things than it does for others.
I see no reason to judge your lifes value and say if I should force you to live on. Actually I would be robbing you of freedom to control the end of your life.
I would probably keep going under most every circumstance but I am not everyone else.
Do as you will with your life as long as It does not harm me.

It would be interesting to see how a person (in general, not you or anyone here in particular) could rationalize the contrast if his position on abortion (which is ending a life by intentional choice and not biological process) and his position on assisted suicide (euthenasia?) if they differ.

 

[someguy]

Actually it wouldn't be to hard
Ending a persons life by choice or ending a persons life when they have no choice.

 

[Makalakumu]

still painting Christians as the attempted "overlords" of our society?
Oh well...
I think you are wrong.
You think I am.
It will probably stay that way.... so lets move on anyway.

This Christian (Me, your Brother, John), who is on the right, probably agrees with you. I don't think it unethical to allow a person to end their life when their quality of life and chance for reversal is Nil. But the qualifications MUST be very specific and met to the -T- ! Mere depression (as horrible as that may be) is not a reason.

Since it seems you agree, then what do You feel would be the proper, ethical, reasons to do this? What qualifications need to be met?

Your Brother
John

My intent in starting this debate was not to bash the Christian Right. I wanted to see if there was a separation of this issue from religion. Loki brought up some interesting secular points, for instance.

Your brother

upnorthkyosa

(whose name also happens to be John)

 

[Brother John]

Is this the ethical thing to do? Is this just another attempt by the christian right to control how people do things?

What do you think?
upnorthkyosa

On thinking of this further, I believe that what Ashcroft is doing is most ethical and right.
WHY?
Because it is the job of the Attourney General to uphold and enforce the existing laws... not to change or control the laws.
If assisted suicide is illegal in Oregon, then Ashcroft is simply doing his job.
If you want the law changed, it is Not done the the Attourney General's office.
IF he did change the law, he'd be overstepping his bounds and would be condemned soundly.

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

My intent in starting this debate was not to bash the Christian Right. I wanted to see if there was a separation of this issue from religion. Loki brought up some interesting secular points, for instance.

Your brother
upnorthkyosa
(whose name also happens to be John)

Okay, my mistake man.

Your Brother
John

PS: Us John's stick together! :CTF:

 

[shesulsa]

The assisted suicide law in Oregon was voted IN by the people of Oregon, but overturned by the state congress - TWICE!

The people have made their voices heard - they wish to allow assisted suicide. But the state government in OR has once again heavy-handed the voice of the people. This has happened many times in that state. I lived there for a couple of years before moving north to Washington and voted for allowing assisted suicide.

To have the government squash the wishes of the people is an earmark of fascism, is it not?

Brother John, I am going to start a separate thread to avoide gankage regarding Christianity and politics.

 

[loki09789]

Actually it wouldn't be to hard
Ending a persons life by choice or ending a persons life when they have no choice.

That is how you could categorize the issues. My point was about a person who says that a person should have the 'right to choose' about abortion but doesn't think that a person 'has the right to choose' in terms of 'assisted suicide.' YOu are correct in using the choice idea as an organizing idea, but how would a person who is on one side about abortion but the other for 'euthenization' explain that contrast is my question.

 

[loki09789]

The assisted suicide law in Oregon was voted IN by the people of Oregon, but overturned by the state congress - TWICE!

The people have made their voices heard - they wish to allow assisted suicide. But the state government in OR has once again heavy-handed the voice of the people. This has happened many times in that state. I lived there for a couple of years before moving north to Washington and voted for allowing assisted suicide.

To have the government squash the wishes of the people is an earmark of fascism, is it not?

Brother John, I am going to start a separate thread to avoide gankage regarding Christianity and politics.

Facism is a bit of an over statement I would say. People are not forced to turn everything over to the state, people are not arrested for saying "I don't agree" (though they can be held accountable for the form that their disagreement may take when it becomes 'civil disobedience' but that is a separate charge) and so on.

This is a legislative authority. If you don't agree with this power in the hands of representatives you can vote to have it taken out. The lack of voting/representation would be the earmark of facism IMO.

 

[shesulsa]

The lack of voting/representation would be the earmark of facism IMO.

Not to be argumentative, but ... isn't the state congress overturning the voted-in legislation synonymous with lack of representation? How have the people been adequately represented here?

I seem to remember that OR tried to get the overturn revoked but were unsuccessful - will have to research that a bit more, though.

 

[loki09789]

Not to be argumentative, but ... isn't the state congress overturning the voted-in legislation synonymous with lack of representation? How have the people been adequately represented here?

I seem to remember that OR tried to get the overturn revoked but were unsuccessful - will have to research that a bit more, though.

If you don't like the way a rep is doing business, vote him out and try getting someone who does business better in. In a facist state, that isn't even an option.

 

[PeachMonkey]

In a facist state, that isn't even an option.

You're confusing fascism with dictatorship.

 

[shesulsa]

You're right - my bad.