posted on April 10, 2001 05:31:30 PMToke: Euthanasia has been practiced, albeit behind the scenes, for years in the Netherlands. I remember watching a documentary about several people who had reached a point in their lives that, because of health or terminal illness, simply wanted to end their lives. They made all the arrangements and their families were well aware of their plans. Their doctors assisted them and they each died comfortably at home with their families around them. Seemed like the way to do things.
On the other hand, there were news reports of family members coercing docs into wrongfully terminating another's life. The reasons for doing so varied but it all boiled down to the docs didn't follow the standard procedures. I can't say if the docs were held accountable or if the families were.
It should be interesting to follow the situation, to see if the safeguards mentioned to prevent questionable euthanasias work.
The topic made for some interesting dinner table discussions at our house, that's for sure.
posted on April 10, 2001 05:39:35 PM
With stringent safeguards in place (& policed) to deter misuse, I think it is a good thing. So often these days people are kept alive simply because it can be done, prolonging suffering in horrible ways. There has to be a point when a person is allowed to say "enough is enough."
posted on April 10, 2001 05:46:27 PM
I agree. It does seem like the way to do things. Any law can be abused...doesn't make it bad law, IMO.
I see no reason to require a terminally ill person to suffer...if they have no wish to remain. Speaking for myself, I fear pain far more than death.
When my MIL was dying, I spent days in the hospital...a cot in her room. You could smoke in hospitals then, so I spent a lot of time in the smoking room. There was a family there...in misery...because their wife/mother/sister was in unbelievable pain. In the final stage of bone cancer. The docs wouldn't up her pain meds. The reason? She might die of an overdose. What can you say to reasoning like that? I could hear her screaming down the hall.
Her family begged the doctor...not for euthanasia...but just enough meds to stop the pain. Nope.
Someday, I hope we become a more humane society and allow people more choice at the end of life.
posted on April 11, 2001 03:20:16 AM
Seems like they should model their laws upon the Oregon Assisted Suicide law. It goes a lot further to be careful than the laws in the Neatherlands do. Maybe this new set of laws there will be based upon Oregon's success.
posted on April 11, 2001 06:39:23 AM
Regardless of how you may feel about Euthanasia, we are making progress in the US as far as Hospice or Palliative Care goes.
There is no need for someone in the final stages of a life-ending illness to suffer from pain. I saw this first hand when my father passed away last August. His last days would have been horrible for him as he lost the battle with congestive heart failure. He would have gasped for breath and would have drowned in his own fluids had it not been for the Palliative Care Unit at Cleveland Clinic.
There is a huge need for this type of care in all hospitals across this country. While I have my reservations concerning euthanasia, I don't belive in allowing dying patients to suffer one bit more then is necessary. It is possible to keep a person from needless suffering. Hospice does a great job with home care also. I've also seen that first hand with my sister's in-laws.
Sometimes that suffering comes in the form of prolonged and drawn out "medical care" as the doctors do all they can do to keep the patient alive. Again, we saw this with our Dad. Some of the doctors wanted to be able to do all they could do, shock his heart, do cardiac massage, etc. in a futile attempt to keep him alive. Since there was nothing they could do to actually fix the problem, allowing them to perform those procedures would have caused suffering and extended the natural dying process for no reason.
Everyone needs to come to terms with their beliefs and convictions on these matters. Sooner or later you will be confronted with them.
And for the record...I am against euthanasia on moral grounds. In theory, it is fine. In practice, I believe it is opening the door for much abuse. We've already seen this type of abuse in the form of Dr. Kevorkian. It is well documented that many of the people he killed were not dealing with a life-threatening illness.
posted on April 11, 2001 06:45:20 AM
Well there is the solution for the 12 billion dollars they are worried it will cost to treat the coming crop of Alzhiemer's patients.
posted on April 11, 2001 07:12:27 AM
I had a very close friend pass away from lung cancer. He was Muslim, so he would not take advantage of Oregon's Assisted Suicide laws. For the pain, they gave him so much morphine that he was vegetative for most of the time and in great pain the rest of it. His lungs kept filling up with fluids and after is insurance ran out and his money ran out, he slowly laid back and let his lungs fill full of fluid until he drowned. Was it worth it to live so hopped up on painkilling drugs that you can't remember how to use the bathroom? Was his final alternatitve any different than what assisted suicidee would have allowed? I think that if he had been able to, he should have taken advantage of the laws and saved himself from "naturally" drowning to death.
Morally, I believe that it is the least that we can do for the dying who want that way out. Being told that you can't administer your own death is the ultimate insult IMO.
posted on April 11, 2001 07:56:18 AM
Legislating a moral issue of this nature will be a monumental task in this country. When you look at the continual struggle involved with the abortion issue. The problem arises from who will have the ultimate decision to end a life, when the person who's life is hanging in the balance, can no longer express their desire to have their life prematurely terminated or not. If you extend this option to a family pet, it only seems logical that you could do the same for another human being.
posted on April 11, 2001 08:05:57 AM
As a health care worker, I will be affected if something like this passes here. While I don't have a problem with stopping extraordinary life support or giving meds to control pain, I will not give a med such as KCL to directly cause death, or be involved in that procedure.
posted on April 11, 2001 08:42:15 AM
"On the other hand, there were news reports of family members coercing docs into wrongfully terminating another's life"
This would be my concern......and not only family members but
also insurance companies.
posted on April 11, 2001 09:10:33 AM
I am all for allowing a person to choose when he/she should die if having a terminal illness. I, too, am fearful of pain, although I have a high tolerance for it. If it ever comes to me laying in agony and someone tries to keep me alive, I will find a way, believe me, to end my own suffering. Hopefully before I get too far gone and in the control of people in control of how much pain meds they think I should or shouldnt have.
What a scarey thought. To be in such pain and the ones sworn to help, dont.
posted on April 11, 2001 10:03:05 AMHepburn, when you said, " . . . I will find a way, believe me, to end my own suffering." That is EXACTLY why Oregon allows the Assisted Suicide program. There were so many people suffering terminal illness and trying to take their own lives because it was illegal for anyone to help them do it on their own that the emergency rooms saw quite a few botched attempts. You may not realize that simply swallowing a whole bottle of painkillers at once may not work out, nor does slashing the wrists, nor even gun fire! I feel sorry for you, snowegret, that you can not honor a person's last wish to die with dignity. Go about the Emergency rooms at hospitals and ask them about the terminally ill patients that botched the job up, simply because they were not sure how or did not really have the means at hand. I'm sure that you and others would find the compassion to help someone out that needed it. If this sort of thing wasn't all so HUSH-HUSH in the media, every state would have Assisted Suicide laws in place!
posted on April 11, 2001 10:14:56 AM
HJW - exactly what I was trying to say - the insuramce companies will want to anaylize how cost-effective it is to keep you alive.
I have seen plenty of families where there is no love to make them want to give Granny a few more months when they vare itching to get their hands on her china and house.
After seeing my Mom die of cancer with not enough meds I would end it myself, and no botching it with half measures, before I got to the point I was bedridden and at the doctor's mercy to end it.
posted on April 11, 2001 11:35:41 AM
Cant botch a 357 crammed in your mouth, aimed UP. Top of head, gone. Kaput. And thats exactly what I would do BEFORE ending up in the hospital. I watched my neighbor (and friend) die a slow painful death, with cancer. I will NOT suffer that. And I wont let my family watch me suffer that.
posted on April 11, 2001 11:37:53 AM
Whether or not I would vote for a law on allowing Euthanasia would depend on how the law was worded.
I do believe each terminal patient should have a right to choose for themselves. I don't believe and would never support a bill where someone else could make that decision for me.
I would have voted to approve the bill which Oregon passed:
quote/ Death With Dignity law, a person who sought physician-assisted suicide would have to meet the following criteria:
The person:
must be terminally ill
must have 6 months or less to live
must make two oral requests for assistance in dying
must make one written request for assistancemust convince two physicians that she/he is sincere, is not acting on a whim, and that the decision is voluntary
must not have been influenced by depression
must be informed of "the feasible alternatives, including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care and pain control."
must wait for 15 days
If they meet all of these requirements, then they could receive a prescription of a barbiturate that would be sufficient to cause death.
Mercy killings by a family member or friend would not be allowed.
Assisted suicides of the type performed by Dr. Jack Kevorkian would not be allowed.
Physicians would be prohibited from inducing death by injection or carbon monoxide./end quote in article
http://www.religioustolerance.org/euth_us.htm This site shows which different states have tried to pass their own euth. laws and how they were worded. Also gives a ruling by the USSC on the subject.
posted on April 11, 2001 11:46:52 AM
Meya - I agree with you on the 'Palliative Care'. I think if this was used more widely, then the call for legal euthanasia would be very small.
Also wanted to mention that while reading on this subject, I was surprise to learn that in 1998, in Oregon, only 27 patients chose to end their lives after this bill was passed. I would have thought there would have been many more seeking this method. Maybe the law being passed brought peace to those who want to have the choice?
...and not only family members but