I've struggled with this before. I do now believe that it should be available as long as the person has the cognitive functions to agree to it.
The whole documentary really drives home the need for incredibly stringent regulations, but this is a good snippet that explains the kind of blurred lines I was talking about:
For what it's worth, I still strongly support euthanasia in clear-cut cases like the ones people have bravely shared on this page. I have just recently found myself having to append more qualifiers to my previously total support for it, in any situation.
Thats the catch. If you have a severe illness, chances are high that the depression comes with it.Yes, provided the person is mentally stable and of sound mind. I wouldn't grant it to a person suffering from depression as it clouds their thought process.
I hear where you are coming from, but it seems like your thoughts are on "family deciding," in my mind, it's "me deciding." I don't think it should be a crime for me be like, "you know what? i'm good, lets cut things off here."As a doctor ii hope this isn't ever passed. I'd hate to have to kill someone because they want to give up on their life. Is there any way we can ever be sure that the person really wanted to die?
From my experience, all i see from allowing euthanasia is families killing people that are a burden (children with genetic diseases, old people,etc.).
- pain can be controlled with medications
- mental diseases is being better and better controlled with new approaches in psychiatric
- Cancer's complications are getting better treatment thanks to new radiotherapy and prosthesis
- Strokes can be more managed by physios and neurosurgeons
Maybe i'm jaded but i really can't see this being used for good; instead all i see is a legal means to kill someone. I don't want this on my conscience!
Yeah that's a nice and humane movie on the subject.it should be a fundamental right of every creature to choose whether or not they exist
coincidentally enough i also just watched Paddleton last night
I have so many patients where I work that are miserable and just want to go, they should be able to make that choice if they wish after a proper evaluation.Sure, it is up to the individual if they don't want to ride the ship anymore, or in some cases find they have an incurable/damaging disease that will slowly kill them/cause them a life of pain.
Some people just want to go for their own reason
You could have clicked on my profile to know where i am from. I'll save you the click, i'm from Portugal.Not sure where you live or how young you are but this is absolute nonsense. There are rules and regulations.
I can fully understand that you don't want too be there when people do this though.
diário da república Portuguesa said:Subsidy for 3rd person by social securitystage 1
you are allowed for a 3rd person subsidy if you comply for the following
Stage 2
- Can't do any basic daily activity (washing yourself, eating by yourself, able to dress yourself,etc.)
- Beneficiary must be receiving a pension from social security
- Everything before + beneficiary is permanently in bed or has severe dementia
Do you have the law? i'd love to read it.In Canada (where it is legal now) you need to have a disease that is terminal, have your quality of life be degraded (pain, etc), and also be in a rational state of mind (reviewed by a panel of doctors). And I believe a doctor is allowed to refuse, but has to then refer the patient to a doctor they know is not morally opposed.
Good point. It breaks my hearts reading this. I wish i could help you.Hey, I totally support doctors being able to refer euthanasia cases to another doctor if they don't agree or don't want that on their conscience. But, if I'm using myself as an example on your cancer point...
I already have a rare, but generally easy to cure cancer (Hodgkin's Lymphoma). But my type, no, it falls into the rare refractory group, where the standard treatments are ineffective. I've had my maximum allowed dose of radiotherapy in the region where it keeps recurring, I've had 5 different types of chemotherapy (and an anti-CD30 agent), and I'm on my second bone marrow transplant. I have paperwork in my bag for a clinical trial of what treatment options I have if I relapse again, which has only 10 patients. Things don't look good for me if this transplant fails, and the clinical trial can't get my disease back to remission.
There aren't really many advances in the field because, well, it's rare, and, in 90% of cases, simple to treat! But for us unlucky few, our options are limited, and, I'm running out of them. I can say, with all my heart, I do not want to be doped up to my eyeballs on pain medication, while my cancer strangles me from the inside out. I want my last days to be mine, to be how I choose them, to truly be able to live them, rather than merely exist on them.
It's ok for you as a doctor to opt out from having to carry out euthanasia. But your weak justifications to force people to continue a painful, suffering filled and/or otherwise shitty not-worth-living-anymore existence doesn't mean people shouldn't have the option to go through euthanasia when the alternative is not a humane life to live anymore. We can train/educate people who are willing to carry out the euthanasia, we can make it so that no one is forced to do it to anyone.
Like, we euthanize animals on the regular when their health deteriorates to a point where we see it as there being no point to continue their suffering, why shouldn't humans themselves be able to decide when the pain, disability or whatever is too much and go on their own terms, rather than suffer through to the prolonged end?
I see your points but that's why there would need to be stringent laws in place around the process to ensure that it's not being done by someone not of sound mind. Also, if it ever did come to pass I don't think they'd let a 'standard' doctor or GP be responsible for authorising or administering the process/drugs. I think as with most medical fields it'd be people trained in that particular specialisation.
I am curious as to what your definition of euthanasia is? Is it actually taking a life or does it also include withdrawing treatment that you know will result in that persons death?
I hear where you are coming from, but it seems like your thoughts are on "family deciding," in my mind, it's "me deciding." I don't think it should be a crime for me be like, "you know what? i'm good, lets cut things off here."
Is that a portugese law? I'm not sure i fully understand.Long post, sorry for the delay answering. I appreciate this discussion, thank you for everyone that commented on my post, hopefully we can keep going. It is a bit hard on me because English is not my first language, hopefully my comments don't come across wrong. If they do I appreciate you telling me.
You could have clicked on my profile to know where i am from. I'll save you the click, i'm from Portugal.
You might think it is nonsense but i'll translate this law right here that is absolute bunkers and breaks my heart whenever someone has to apply it.
My problems with it:
Personally speaking if an euthanazia law is made I think it will be full of "holes" like that that can and will be exploited.
- an old person with a small pension can't receive a subsidy to hire someone cleaning their home and buying their groceries just because they can eat their meal by themselves. IMO these old people need help and this subsidy would give some quality of life to them, instead they are abandoned by the society they helped to create.
- You can only get stage 2 if either the person you are supporting is very close to dying OR you don't give a fuck about your beneficiary and leave him always on the bed. Even if the beneficiary is incapable of leaving the bed by himself IF there is someone that helps him move from bed to a chair they legally lose the right to get a stage 2 subsidy.
Don't even get me started on to give a pension by invalidity! the person has to have "permanent inability to earn 50% of their salary in the next 3 years".
I'd like you to explain those 2 laws to me. Explain:
I apologize that my concerns are nonsense and i hope you enlighten me the above so i can sleep better the rest of my life.
- How is Stage 1 subsidy fair?
- How is stage 2 subsisidy not rewarding people that treat the beneficiary badly?
- What does "earn 50% of their salary" mean? (can't work 50% of their hours? they do their work 50% slower?)
Do you have the law? i'd love to read it.
I've struggled with this before. I do now believe that it should be available as long as the person has the cognitive functions to agree to it.
This type of thinking is tricky. what happens when they begin to be a vegetative state? how do we test their cognitive functions? Euthanasia is the same as a DNR as it needs to be discussed prior to the event or else we leave it up to the legal guardian.
Ive been a nurse for 26 years and have mixed feelings about it. In theory I support it but I guarantee it would be abused. Ever hear of a dnr order - do not resusitate? That order means if you stop breathing, you do not resusitate. However, I can tell you Ive sent residents with dnr orders from my facillity to the emergencey room and had EMTs, Nurses, MDs question why we were sending out a patient out who has a dnr order ( as though they had an order to not treat ). Add to that the reallity that many long term patients are not properly medicated for chronic pain anymore due well intentioned but over zealous regulations put on MDs to curb overprescription of narcotics, I worry people would choose euthanasia who might have quality of life if they were free of pain.