Physician-Assisted Suicide?

[Irishgrrrl]

What is your position on physician-assisted suicide for people who are terminally ill? Do you think it should be legal or illegal?

 

[LaraOnline]

Hmmm, this is a hard one. I haven't even voted in the poll, yet!!
I have really mixed feelings, I guess I'll end up 'legal with restrictions'. Those restrictions would have to be having, say, three doctors sign a document that allows ... er, gee, this is really hard...

I am so concerned that where humans are concerned, there would be abuse. How many people are in situations where they are caring for the elderly, without rest or respite, and would love to see the elderly person's life ended for their OWN needs?
I mean, the situation of carers can be really desperate.

Also, I would be really concerned about people who are motivated by money encouraging older people to put themselves to sleep.

Older people are often all-too-aware of the burden they impose on other people.

Another aspect might be that research into older peoples diseases, and levels of care for older people, might fall off slightly.

The psychological implications of living in a society where terminally ill people are assisted to die might also be rather complicated... I mean, in a way, life is a terminal condition, do you get what I mean...?

 

[Erin]

When bf''s father was dying, keeping the oxygen mask on was keeping him alive. The kids were allowed to make the decision to take it off, but what if YOU want to make that decision for yourself? That may be a weak example, but our technological advances in medicine have provided us with ways to stay alive beyond the body''s natural ability. I think being able to make the choice to not only stop treatment, but also be afforded the option to admit defeat (million dollar baby?) should be available as ying and yang.

 

[strmrdr]

State denies cancer treatment, offers suicide instead
''To say, we''ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it''s cruel''

Do you really want to open this box? Your insurance company or the state makes the decision for you.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67565

 

[purrfectpear]

Absolutely legal. Fortunately there are several reliable guides on the net for those were are terminally ill and are still able to make their own decisions. While I have total respect for those who wish to fight the good fight to the bitter end, I would not be one of them. I would decide when the quality of life has diminished if I were terminal. To be able to have a physician assist would remove that final bit of doubt about the efficacy of method.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/5/2008 6:53:30 AM
Author: LaraOnline
Hmmm, this is a hard one. I haven''t even voted in the poll, yet!!
I have really mixed feelings, I guess I''ll end up ''legal with restrictions''. Those restrictions would have to be having, say, three doctors sign a document that allows ... er, gee, this is really hard...

I am so concerned that where humans are concerned, there would be abuse. How many people are in situations where they are caring for the elderly, without rest or respite, and would love to see the elderly person''s life ended for their OWN needs?
I mean, the situation of carers can be really desperate.

Also, I would be really concerned about people who are motivated by money encouraging older people to put themselves to sleep.

Older people are often all-too-aware of the burden they impose on other people.

Another aspect might be that research into older peoples diseases, and levels of care for older people, might fall off slightly.

The psychological implications of living in a society where terminally ill people are assisted to die might also be rather complicated... I mean, in a way, life is a terminal condition, do you get what I mean...?

Well, IMO, these polls are pretty silly. The topics are great, but what do the numbers mean in the end? Nada. It''s the discussion that''s the prize.

As someone who lost her mother just 3 months ago to a disease from which there is NO appeal (ALS), I would have supported my mom in any decision she made...and did...she stayed until the disease took her, she fought until the end, which was brutal, at least from where I was standing. Never complained and took it all with grace. The bravest person I''ve ever known. I''m not that brave....

And I think it''s time for me to leave this topic. I thought I could post intelligently but I find I can''t think straight on it and need a hankie right now. Still too fresh...

Later.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 10/5/2008 10:50:51 AM
Author: strmrdr
State denies cancer treatment, offers suicide instead
''To say, we''ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it''s cruel''

Do you really want to open this box? Your insurance company or the state makes the decision for you.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67565

From a political perspective, do you honestly think that a state would do that?

For the sake of argument, assume that physician-assisted suicide is classified as "suicide." Then, an insurance company can deny payouts. But, at what price to its reputation? From a business point of view, it makes no sense for an insurer to do what you are suggesting it might do.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Karen, I am so sorry for the loss of your mom. I think I can imagine how hard that must have been for you.

I started this poll in the hope that there would be a discussion. I agree with Karen . . . the poll is just window dressing and the discussion that ensues is what''s really interesting.

This is something I''ve always wondered about, and I believe it''s a relevant issue with a presidential election looming in the near future. My Grandfather died of non-Hodgkins lymphoma several years ago. As a result of his cancer treatment, he developed a horrible condition known as Toxic Epidermic Necrolysis (TEN). Basically, his body began rejecting its own skin. It was a horrible way for him to die, and he was in a tremendous amount of pain. Ultimately, he was in a coma and we had to make the awful decision to take him off of life support. (Which, of course, is a completely different animal from physician-assisted suicide.) I know that, if he had been offered the option while he was still awake and able to communicate with us, he would have chosen assisted suicide and we would have supported his decision. I think everyone should have the right to die with dignity.

Karl, you brought up a good point about insurance companies screwing this up like they have screwed up so many other aspects of health care. I think that, if laws are passed that allow assisted suicide, those laws should also contain a provision requiring insurance companies to stay the hell out of it. Insurance companies should not be ALLOWED to cover assisted suicide. That way, they wouldn''t be able to offer coverage of assisted suicide as an alternative to coverage of palliative care, and the decision would truly be up to the patient.

I don''t know for sure what all the answers are. I just feel very strongly that we should have an assisted suicide option for people like my Grandfather.

 

[Kaleigh]

ksinger,
I am really sorry about your Mom. ALS is such a tough disease, I lost a dear friend to it.

I am for this, but do worry about the potential for abuse.

 

[risingsun]

Both of my parents died dreadful deaths. I will not go into the details, but my sister and I prayed that their suffering would end. My mother could have made her own decision, my father not. When I consider my own mortality, I want to have a choice. I have a benign blood disorder with the potential to progress to Multiple Myeloma. I'm a patient at our regional cancer center. My oncologist orders tests every six months and this will be the protocol for the rest of my life. I have already had the pleasure of a bone marrow biopsy--which was negative. I am unable to take narcotics for pain. I already have chronic pain and deal with that challenge on a daily basis. I would certainly not choose to end my life due to my current medical problems, of which there are many. If I developed a terminal illness and could not control intractable pain--that would be entirely different situation. I want the right to choose death with dignity, should that be the path my life takes.

 

[Harriet]

Ksinger, Irishgirl, Kaleigh, Risingsun,
My condolences on your losses.

Risingsun,
I agree with you. Dignity, as well as autonomy, are important. My best wishes for you.

 

[ksinger]

Thanks to all, and my sympathies back to you also. We all have our sorrows, do we not? The not so nice part of the human condition.

In anything like this, when it becomes tainted by anything other than total compassion for the other, when that focus is lost, it is rife for abuse...

I''m like most here - I want to see something, but would want it to be as abuse-proof as possible. The end of life is so fraught with pain and guilt for so many people, I can''t see anything that would add to that as acceptable.

 

[risingsun]

Date: 10/5/2008 1:21:32 PM
Author: Harriet
Ksinger, Irishgirl, Kaleigh, Risingsun,
My condolences on your losses.

Risingsun,
I agree with you. Dignity, as well as autonomy, are important. My best wishes for you.

Thank you , Harriet. I have some of the same GI problems as you, which makes daily living an ongoing challenge. I appreciate your use of the word autonomy. That is a key element of this topic.

 

[galeteia]

We recently watched a PBS program on Alzheimer's, in which a woman was so far gone that she was a functional 3 year old, babbling at people, screaming in rage and then laughing randomly, hugging them and then striking them without warning, unable to care for herself. Watching the family struggle to deal with the devastation of losing someone while their body is still technically alive, reminding them day after day of what they've lost, was beyond distressing. I cried at the prospect of becoming like that, and pray that they have a medical breakthrough to combat this horrible disease.

Two of my close friends have had deaths of family (sibling and grandparent) within the last few years where I found myself relieved for the sake of my friends, because their constant suffering over what their family members had become was terrible to watch. Even racked by fresh grief, they acknowledged it was also a relief, because the people they loved died years before their actual bodies did.

I have said many times to my loved ones that if I am 'gone', I don't want to be kept alive in a strictly physical sense, hurting them daily and also burdening them. The people we love are so much more than their corporal shells, and if the corporal shell is all that is left, then I want them to let me go.

I'm getting teary writing this, so that's all I have to say.

 

[iheartscience]

I am definitely a proponent for physician-assisted suicide. I voted that it should be legal, but maybe I should have voted that it should be legal with restrictions. The only restriction would be that I think there should be some sort of ethics board so abuse can be prevented.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 10/5/2008 3:49:20 PM
Author: thing2of2
I am definitely a proponent for physician-assisted suicide. I voted that it should be legal, but maybe I should have voted that it should be legal with restrictions. The only restriction would be that I think there should be some sort of ethics board so abuse can be prevented.

Thing, I agree 100%. I also voted that it should be legal, but I guess I should have voted "legal with restrictions" too. When I created the poll, the "restrictions" that I had in mind were, for example, allowing only people with certain diseases (or certain degrees of those diseases) to have access to physician-assisted suicide. I don't think it should be up to anyone but the patient to decide when their condition becomes unbearable to the point where they would rather just not be alive anymore . . . provided that the patient's condition is in fact terminal. In other words, access to physician-assisted suicide should not be determined based on which disease the patient has, but only on the fact that the patient is terminally ill. For example, I wouldn't want someone with ALS to be "allowed" access to physician-assisted suicide while someone with cancer isn't "allowed," or vice versa. (Just as a random example.)

I do believe that physician-assisted suicide should be available only to the terminally ill. It should be required that the patient is in a situation where the doctors have done everything they possibly can to cure the patient, and are unable to do anything more for the patient . . . when the patient is just being made comfortable and awaiting the inevitable.

And I think an ethics board would be absolutely vital in order to prevent abuse. Also, as I stated in an earlier post, I would want the insurance companies to remain COMPLETELY uninvolved!

 

[Harriet]

Date: 10/5/2008 3:25:46 PM
Author: risingsun
I appreciate your use of the word autonomy. That is a key element of this topic.

It is. I''ve thought about this issue, applying both deontology and utilitarianism (the two main moral theories) and can''t come to any other conclusion.

For those of you who are interested, here''s an excellent paper by one of my grad school profs: http://homepages.nyu.edu/~jrs477/David%20Velleman%20-%20Against%20the%20Right%20to%20Die.pdf

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/5/2008 4:08:45 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl
I would want the insurance companies to remain COMPLETELY uninvolved!

Do you think they will?
They have invaded every corner of health care.
From a humanitarian aspect I can support it but it is a very slippery slope that I don''t trust the medical and insurance industries to have as an option.


I would like to send condolences out to those that lost loved ones.
Been there done that and have the scars to prove it.
*hugs*

 

[Harriet]

Insurance companies are very heavily regulated by states.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 10/5/2008 4:30:23 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 10/5/2008 4:08:45 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl
I would want the insurance companies to remain COMPLETELY uninvolved!

Do you think they will?
They have invaded every corner of health care.
From a humanitarian aspect I can support it but it is a very slippery slope that I don''t trust the medical and insurance industries to have as an option.


I would like to send condolences out to those that lost loved ones.
Been there done that and have the scars to prove it.
*hugs*

Karl, I promise you, you''d be hard-pressed to find someone who dislikes insurance companies as much as I do. I''m a litigation paralegal, and I work on A LOT of personal injury cases. We represent the plaintiffs, NEVER the insurance companies. I agree that insurance companies have invaded every area of health care, and they often tie the doctor''s hands as far as what treatment the doctor can provide to the patient. I think this is absolutely unacceptable, and I think we need some SERIOUS insurance reform in this country.

Do I think the insurance companies would remain uninvolved in the issue of physician-assisted suicide? Not if they have a choice. I think the legislature needs to make sure the insurance companies DON''T have a choice. If we allow physician-assisted suicide to remain illegal solely due to the possibility of abuse by the insurance companies, doesn''t that allow the insurance companies to win anyway? In essence, they would be affecting patient care in a negative way (which seems to be their mission) by acting as a deterrent to the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

 

[neatfreak]

Should be legal, and with a doctor''s blessing/assistance, whatever, should not be termed suicide either. They are very different animals IMO.

 

[FrekeChild]

I have a feeling that this is something that I''m going to feel very strongly about very soon.

Not to say that I don''t already, but emotions are not tied to it yet.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 10/5/2008 4:55:55 PM
Author: neatfreak
Should be legal, and with a doctor''s blessing/assistance, whatever, should not be termed suicide either. They are very different animals IMO.

Neatfreak, I agree. The word "suicide" has bad connotations, and there''s almost a stigma there. Someone who is terminally ill and chooses to end his/her life is not committing suicide, IMO.

 

[LaraOnline]

I think it would be pretty much impossible to prevent interference from outside interested parties, no matter what legislation is written. Including insurance companies, family members, estate recipients and carers. Even hospital boards, who don't wish to keep a non-profitable patient..? There would be criminal investigations happening all over the place. Who could prove anything?

Blurring the boundaries between medical care and medical death would have a long term effect on our culture, as assisted suicide became at first a well-publicised, and then increasingly mainstream choice.

Children would be born into a world where they would be expecting to put themselves to sleep. Older people would be under pressure 'not to cause any more fuss'.

It's very 1984...

On the other hand, with-holding treatment is another matter, and is common practice.

I think that really, physician assisted suicide should remain a 'grey area' culturally, not ratified and held up as a common and popular practice.

Yet I know that many people look at their own individual cases, and feel there is a need.

From the individual to the mass, it's a giant step.

Interesting topic!!

 

[miraclesrule]

Yes, and even when it isn''t exactly legal it is practiced in almost every state and in every hospital to one degree or another. The medical staff could have kept my father on a ventilator for an indeterminate amount of time, but they espoused the "Death with Dignity" philosophy and stopped short of urging me to remove the respiratior, but the message was clear. They felt it was the only merciful step to take. Therefore I allowed them to do so. It was nothing short of physician assisted suicide when they removed the tube after injecting him with morphine. It''s the way he would have wanted to die. I just wish I would have brought my iPod so I could have had him listen to music instead of my voice as he faded into his last breath.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 10/7/2008 1:23:34 AM
Author: miraclesrule
Yes, and even when it isn''t exactly legal it is practiced in almost every state and in every hospital to one degree or another. The medical staff could have kept my father on a ventilator for an indeterminate amount of time, but they espoused the ''Death with Dignity'' philosophy and stopped short of urging me to remove the respiratior, but the message was clear. They felt it was the only merciful step to take. Therefore I allowed them to do so. It was nothing short of physician assisted suicide when they removed the tube after injecting him with morphine. It''s the way he would have wanted to die. I just wish I would have brought my iPod so I could have had him listen to music instead of my voice as he faded into his last breath.

Aw, Miracles, I''m sure your voice is what he really wanted to hear! ((((HUGS))))

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 10/5/2008 10:50:51 AM
Author: strmrdr
State denies cancer treatment, offers suicide instead
''To say, we''ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it''s cruel''

Do you really want to open this box? Your insurance company or the state makes the decision for you.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67565

Well, what do you know - that big, bad, mean ol'' pharmaceutical company gave her the drugs for free.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 10/7/2008 11:57:04 AM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 10/5/2008 10:50:51 AM
Author: strmrdr
State denies cancer treatment, offers suicide instead
''To say, we''ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it''s cruel''

Do you really want to open this box? Your insurance company or the state makes the decision for you.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67565

Well, what do you know - that big, bad, mean ol'' pharmaceutical company gave her the drugs for free.

I''ve never thought the pharmaceutical companies were the problem. In fact, I have a friend in a similar situation. She has cancer, and her health insurance dropped her because her employer conveniently forgot to pay the premium. So, she had no health insurance and couldn''t find another health insurance company who would cover the pre-existing condition (her cancer). Fortunately, she was able to work something out with the manufacturer of her chemo meds, and she is now paying only around $400 per month or so for her meds. They would normally cost about $4,000 per month.

The insurance companies are the problem, NOT the pharmaceutical companies, IMO.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 10/7/2008 12:06:03 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 10/7/2008 11:57:04 AM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 10/5/2008 10:50:51 AM
Author: strmrdr
State denies cancer treatment, offers suicide instead
''To say, we''ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it''s cruel''

Do you really want to open this box? Your insurance company or the state makes the decision for you.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67565

Well, what do you know - that big, bad, mean ol'' pharmaceutical company gave her the drugs for free.

I''ve never thought the pharmaceutical companies were the problem. In fact, I have a friend in a similar situation. She has cancer, and her health insurance dropped her because her employer conveniently forgot to pay the premium. So, she had no health insurance and couldn''t find another health insurance company who would cover the pre-existing condition (her cancer). Fortunately, she was able to work something out with the manufacturer of her chemo meds, and she is now paying only around $400 per month or so for her meds. They would normally cost about $4,000 per month.

The insurance companies are the problem, NOT the pharmaceutical companies, IMO.

I completely agree.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Yes, it should be legal! I guess I could provide many reasons, but my primary one is it's barbaric to allow a person to live in excruciating pain when there is no chance of he/she recovering from that. I wonder if we should also consider those who have chronic conditions that have completely destroyed their ability to have a functioning life and what should be done to allow them to move on with dignity.