mybiddness
|
posted on November 24, 2001 04:04:46 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63019-2001Nov21.html
Oregan is the only state that allows an individual to choose a quiet, sure death as opposed to lingering toward a slow and painful one. Now, it appears that that's going to change and there will be nowhere that a person can legally turn to for help in dying. Are all countries this narrow-minded when it comes to death? IMO, a doctor who is willing to assist a patient in dying is an angel of mercy... not a criminal.
Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
|
hjw
|
posted on November 24, 2001 04:13:48 PM
Ashcroft probably had something to do with it. He wants dying people to suffer.
Helen
ed. to add
I answered before reading the link but I was right. Some people are just devils from hell.
[ edited by hjw on Nov 24, 2001 04:17 PM ]
|
saabsister
|
posted on November 24, 2001 04:21:11 PM
I hope the will of Oregon's voters prevails in this most personal decision. I can't imagine being told by the federal government that one should experience unrelenting pain because "I said so". The fact that so few people have chosen the option for assisted suicide should do something to allay the fears of those who feared mass euthanasia.
|
mybiddness
|
posted on November 24, 2001 04:32:08 PM
Helen, While I don't consider Ashcroft to be quite the devil incarnate as you seem to I do think that his decision here is based purely on his own religious beliefs. I wonder if he would be willing to suffer the same fate that he's sentencing other to?
Saabsister I agree. The broader and more frightening picture, imo is that Oregan was the only state in the country that has even offered a provision to allow assisted suicide. What's wrong with our society that causes us to believe that we have a right to make such a purely personal choice for others? And, it's done with such high "moral" authority.
Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
|
antiquary
|
posted on November 24, 2001 04:49:35 PM
"In his directive, Ashcroft said "prescribing, dispensing, or administering federally controlled substances to assist suicide" violates the Controlled Substances Act, passed by Congress in 1970 as part of the nation's war on drug use.
"Bushong argued that by applying the act to physicians who help terminally ill patients hasten their deaths, Ashcroft was interpreting the CSA in a way that was not intended by Congress."
So would Ashcroft's concern be that the recipient would become addicted? Or suffer adverse side effects?
Or would it be an attempt by the state to impose a particular religious view about suicide? But it couldn't be that since Ashcroft "promised" during the Congressional hearing on his nomination that he would not let his religious beliefs influence his actions as Attorney General. And of course a religious standardbearer would never deceive the public.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on November 24, 2001 04:56:36 PM
[i]And of course a religious standard bearer would never deceive the public.
[/i]
Pardon me while I ROFLMAO!!!
Washington has tried numerous times to pass similar legislation, allowing assisted suicides. Can't quite get it passed.
Ashcroft is not at all trustworthy. I do not trust him to look out for my best interests at all. He only looks out for his and his religions interests. Not what he promised at all. I did not like him the first time I saw him and I like him less now.
|
mybiddness
|
posted on November 24, 2001 05:12:00 PM
I'm not a big fan of Ashcroft either... but, his is only the latest nail in the coffin... or maybe not - however you want to look at it.
Bad pun aside. He may be responsible for THIS situation - but he didn't have anything to do with the fact that Oregan is the lone state that has ever allowed assisted suicide. Like it or not - he's only attempting to bring Oregan in line with what the rest of the country has already embraced. And, shame on us for that.
Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
|
antiquary
|
posted on November 24, 2001 05:24:21 PM
Are there any compelling arguments against physician assited suicides or euthanasia in general except that some people believe that it is a sin?
Yes, mybiddness, what concerns me as much as motivation in the government's challenge is another assault on states rights. But at least the proceeding will not yet be conducted in secret or by military tribunal.
|
hjw
|
posted on November 24, 2001 05:50:06 PM
|
REAMOND
|
posted on November 24, 2001 05:58:08 PM
There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive.
Passive is done legally all over the country. Passive euthanasia is when the medical caregivers take no action to prolong life. The DNR sign on a patient's meidcal chart is the most common.
Active euthanasia is also practiced all over the country, but covertly. The main problem with active euthanasia is its regulation. How do you regulate killing patients ? Few doctors and fewer politicians want to address the regulation of active euthanasia. Many doctors have taken part in active euthanasia, but do not want to publicly admit it, for obvious reasons.
|
mybiddness
|
posted on November 24, 2001 06:15:14 PM
Dan, I'm not sure how it's related but I'm not as concerned about the military tribunals. It seems that that has been the answer for our country many times before and is just as fitting today - if not more-so than it ever was. I could see why it would be difficult for you to feel even close to the same level of acceptance that I do though since President Bush will be the ultimate decision-maker in so much of the process... knowing how you feel about him. I guess I should be grateful that I have confidence in him.
Reamond, I think you're right. We can only hope that doctors who care enough will continue to assist covertly. I just think it speaks so poorly of our country that our leadership has never been able to properly and completely address such a serious issue. I have to wonder how other countries treat the terminally ill who wish to die?
Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
|
hjw
|
posted on November 24, 2001 06:28:34 PM
About the military tribunals...Bush attempts to justify them on the basis that FDR used military tribunals to try a group of saboteurs in 1942. But, in that case, FDR used the tribunal to hear the specific case of saboteurs who had already been caught.
Bush wants blanket authority to use them against any non-citizen at his discretion. FDR did this when the nation was officially at war with Germany and he took the problem to the Supreme Court rather than just issuing an executive order to grant himself the right to hold the tribunals.
This decision by the supreme court during the FDR presidency is considered a mistake and a miscarriage of justice.
Bush can't use this case to justify his concept of military tribunals.
typo ed.
[ edited by hjw on Nov 24, 2001 06:38 PM ]
|
antiquary
|
posted on November 24, 2001 06:31:38 PM
Mybiddness, I would be just as concerned no matter who was president. I find the equation of terrorism with war too broad and the potential for it to become more inclusive too great.
Yes, I have known several people who doctors covertly aided toward the end of their suffering. And I also know several doctors who believe much assistance is morally wrong. But since the Oregon law does not require either the physician or patient to choose the "procedure," I don't understand why there would be objection to it beyond the religious issue.
|
stusi
|
posted on November 24, 2001 06:54:21 PM
I believe that the same exact substance(s) that are injected for the death penalty should be used for voluntary, medically approved termination. The suffering issue is absolutely absurd. The use of narcotics should be a matter between patient and doctor.
|
mybiddness
|
posted on November 24, 2001 07:33:13 PM
Well, duh to me... All the talk about Ashcroft prompted me to look in the Asscroft thread... Now my head hurts... 
Personally, I don't look at this as an Ashcroft or government issue as much as a grossly inhumane thought process that has been completely accepted by our society. If I'm terminally ill and in pain - I want the choice of how I die. I had a non-terminal illness once that caused severe and prolonged pain. If it had been incurable I would have gratefully chosen death over that kind of life. I guess that's why it angers me to know that people aren't allowed that basic freedom without feeling compelled to hide their decision.
For the most part, I think it has to be rooted in religion. The irony is that at least imo assisting a person who is in unbearable pain to peacefully end that pain is one of the most God-like things that we could ever do. Not only does it show an enormous compassion - it also seems logical to me that a religious person should see death as a beginning of life. The logic of some religious ideals just whelms me.
Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on November 24, 2001 07:41:21 PM
A big reason why some people choose to die is because the doctors aren't allowed to give enough pain medication to lessen their suffering. I'd rather die than live with terminal pain too!
stusi, what they inject them with is salt. It stops their hearts.
|
stusi
|
posted on November 24, 2001 08:01:01 PM
I checked it out and ironically one of the three "salts" is actually sold over the counter as a salt substitute(potassium chloride).
|
REAMOND
|
posted on November 24, 2001 10:55:31 PM
I think it was H G Wells that said -'It is the job of the successful politician to know how much of the future to introduce to the present'.
Active euthanasia is one issue that many today are not prepared to accept, but will be accepted in the future. Universal mandatory health insurance is another issue that the present is not willing to accept, but will be in our future.
|
argh
|
posted on November 24, 2001 11:15:54 PM
Kraftdinner: actually, many states have legislation in place requiring doctors to give adequate pain relief for both acute and chronic pain. The pendulum is really swinging the other direction these days as far as prescribing narcotics is concerned.
The big sticking points are convincing doctors that the DEA is no longer breathing down their necks and that a huge percentage of doctors have little knowledge of how to prescribe correctly. Pain management is a growing specialty, but there are not nearly enough doctors who have put in the time yet to get the extra training needed to be competant.
Having gone through years of chronic pain myself, I know that it takes some time to come up with a good mix of medications that are well tolerated, kill the pain, and don't leave you feeling like a zombie. Changes in dosages mean more time waiting to see what the effects are. If you don't care about being lucid, you can achieve adequate pain relief much faster...and I think that's what happens a lot with older terminal patients. I'm not sure there is much quality of life when the terminal patient is sleeping most of the time and feeling drugged the rest of the time.
I think it took several months to get my medications titrated to the point where I could function O.K. I assume that in an inpatient setting, they should be able to speed that up considerably, but it would still take a while.
One other reason besides pain that people choose to ask for assisted suicide is the cost of keeping them alive. Long hospital stays add up and can bankrupt families or wipe out a lifetime of savings.
|
twinsoft
|
posted on November 25, 2001 10:19:28 AM
Government-assisted (or government-enforced) suicide is common fare for science fiction stories. I for one would be very uncomfortable with the government in any way sanctioning euthanasia. If individuals have the right to terminate their own life, it's only one small step to the government assuming that right (or perogative).
This week the Palo Alto Daily News published results of a poll showing 41% of physicians would be willing to assist in suicide. Like the abortion issue, once the AMA figures out how to cash in on euthanasia, it will become a big business.
The argument for euthanasia in some cases is very strong. But where do you draw the line? And who decides?
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on November 25, 2001 12:23:00 PM
Twiny, I don't feel that the government has any business telling me I can or can't end my life if I feel it's time. Shouldn't that be another matter between me,my family and the doctor? Like abortion? I simply do not want the government governing that aspect of my life.
Antiquary,One major reason the legislation has not passed here is that people seem to think that doctors are going to go around killing sick people willy-nilly. I really don't see that happening.They believe that people that have no families or that are on public assistance would be killed for little or no reason. I don't see that happening either. As it is they have better health care coverage that I do. Of course, we always hear the same old arguements about it being against God's will [yadda yadda yadda] and all life is sacred [yadda yadda yadda].The same arguements we hear when the abortion issue comes up.
I truely believe that these things should not be legislated at all.You cannot legislate morals and religion is supposed to be left out of our governing process. Individuals really need to be able to have the final say in all matters concerning their own bodies.
|
antiquary
|
posted on November 25, 2001 04:15:35 PM
Robin, those sound more like scare tactics than reasonable points of argument. Good analogy to the abortion debates. Of course there could be rare isolated cases of abuse, just as those that occasionally occur in the medical profession, but the provisions of the Oregon law would render abuse highly unlikely. Just skimming over the mandatory procedures and safeguards, one can see that abuse would require a cooperative effort among at least a half dozen people for any chance of success. This site outlines the Oregon law clearly:
http://www.ohd.hr.state.or.us/chs/pas/ors.htm
I'm sure that Washington or any other state that enacted physician assisted suicides would include equally rigorous safeguards.
I would not find Ashcroft's attempt to overturn the law and thwart the will of the people so thoroughly contemptible if it were based upon cases of abuse or included other valid arguments for the public good. The attempt to argue a violation of controlled substance law is obviously a technicality which begs the state's motive, a religious one.
Among some like-minded religious groups, I have come to believe that there is not only an inordinate need to control others but also innate sadistic tendencies.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on November 25, 2001 04:38:35 PM
Yes, scare tactics. Any time any legislation comes up that might allow people more freedom of choice concerning their own bodies or health [or lower taxes..their money!]we get ad after ad on TV and in the paper full of scare tactics. People actually believe that stuff. It makes me shake my head and wonder how they can be so incredibly dense as to not be able to see through it. 
My feeling is that in all religions where there is a conservative - old school faction...look at the Taliban for instance...there is a need to control at any cost. It goes on to some lesser degree in all religions at all levels but once you get to the group that is the most fanatical it is all about control. We have many in this country that do the same. Just watch a little BibleBrand TV and you see it all the time.
That is in a nutshell the thing that worries me about Ashcroft and his ilk. I do not want to be controled. The government workers,including the President, are supposed to be our to be our employees not our keepers. If I want to be kept I'll find me a rich man!!! LOL
I can't help but think of all the people who before this last election said they would not vote democratic because they wanted less government. Hmm... the joke appears to be on them.I know I'm not laughing.
|
antiquary
|
posted on November 25, 2001 05:14:27 PM
Hmmmm! I wonder if scare tactics, a propagandistic staple, will be considered acts of terrorism. They really should fit in there somewhere, but I rather doubt that they'll be designated as such. 
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on November 25, 2001 05:19:17 PM
Of course not ,silly! Then they'd have to bomb themselves.
Feels like terrorism at any rate.
|
antiquary
|
posted on November 25, 2001 05:27:53 PM
You're right of course. That would be politically suicidal, a sin against the State.
|
twinsoft
|
posted on November 25, 2001 10:05:05 PM
Raw-McB, Twiny, I don't feel that the government has any business telling me I can or can't end my life if I feel it's time. Shouldn't that be another matter between me,my family and the doctor? Like abortion? I simply do not want the government governing that aspect of my life.
As I said before, I believe in some circumstances there is a strong case for euthanasia. Terminally ill, prolonged suffering, etc. But if we allow the government to draw a line beyond which life may legally be ended, it sets a precedence and may open up a whole gray area. I wouldn't trust any politician to decide when it's okay for me to die.
You anticipated my comment about abortion. I think the question of euthanasia won't be examined closely until the question of "right to life" can first be explored. As the rights of the unborn are eroded, our own right to life is also eroded. I don't mean just abortion. Soon enough humans will be born in laboratory test tubes. Those with genetic defects will be terminated. Perhaps clones will be grown for research or organ harvesting. With each strike against the basic right to life, the argument for government-sanctioned euthanasia grows stronger. Eventually, the individual will lose out, for the sake of the "greater good."
|
Mybiddness
|
posted on November 25, 2001 10:14:35 PM
Twinsoft Here's the latest on cloning, btw:
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/112401ezzell/
None of this is easy. But, if an adult who is in full control of his/her own thought process chooses to end his/her life as opposed to suffering a slow and lingering death I can't imagine why our government should be allowed to stop it. I haven't looked at the Oregan link yet but in the interest of individual rights I would think that guidelines could be worked out to make this plausible... If we could get past the religious objections.
Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
|
Mybiddness
|
posted on November 25, 2001 10:30:40 PM
Here's another interesting cloning article:
First Human Embryo Cloned
Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
|
twinsoft
|
posted on November 25, 2001 11:45:59 PM
Yes. To quote one of the lab representatives, "human cellular life, not human life."
Until now, the concept of life has been linked to birth, IOW exiting from the womb. But if humans are created outside a womb, then how do we decide when human cellular life becomes human life? Are doctors who stand to gain millions in research grants really in the best position to determine what is not human life?
Whether you are religious or not (I am not), this branch of science demands serious ethical oversight.
|
