It's quite sad when our pets get more humane treatment than our loved ones. I agree it's inevitable and practically essential too, as end of life care is obscenely expensive in many cases.
What I hesitate with is the simple dumbing down of the process. We have to do it right and not waste life either. It's a tough balance, but balance is needed. We simply cannot force our loved ones to suffer needlessly. It's cruel.
I also get irritated with people's careless perceptions and projections. There was a comment here from someone about hospice people who were against euthanasia were biased because they're worried about job security. If you meet these people, that's incredibly mean. They're around death and dying everyday and they would have just as much to do if euthanasia was permitted. Their opinions are important, as they deal with this stuff literally everyday.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
There was a comment here from someone about hospice people who were against euthanasia were biased because they're worried about job security. If you meet these people, that's incredibly mean.
You can quote my comment, I don't mind.
I may have worded it poorly though, as my comment was specifically about that website /group (which is very much pro-"hospice", anti-euthanasia, and denies things like brain death). The website in fact doesn't necessarily support all hospice workers or the validity of their opinions (that we can both admit are generally great, caring individuals) but rather only those that adhere to their own policy of how one should care for a patient (which includes treatment even without benefit, staying in a hospice even if not physically required, and letting the patient decide their own treatment but not their own outcome).
Certainly wasn't a broad-shot at hospice workers. Sorry if it was worded that way.
The Following User Says Thank You to Chill Cosby For This Useful Post:
When people speak with lawyers to set up wills and living trusts and such (I probably got the terminology incorrect), they're asked about situations where they'd want life support removed. I don't really see situations like Thor's described as different in any meaningful way. If people don't want to be alive anymore due to physical or mental suffering, I believe we owe them the option to end their lives with some dignity. As mentioned by Street Pharmacist, we do give this dignity to our pets.
When people speak with lawyers to set up wills and living trusts and such (I probably got the terminology incorrect), they're asked about situations where they'd want life support removed. I don't really see situations like Thor's described as different in any meaningful way. If people don't want to be alive anymore due to physical or mental suffering, I believe we owe them the option to end their lives with some dignity. As mentioned by Street Pharmacist, we do give this dignity to our pets.
Might come across as a usual "post youtube clip for funny reference" but this one always resonated a bit with me.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ranchlandsselling For This Useful Post:
Euthanasia is too hard to talk about on a 'public' level. There are way too many variables that can be argued. 'What if they give everyone the right to commit suicide?' 'What age do we initiate 'the right?' 'What diseases qualify or do not qualify?'
The variables make the entire question too cumbersome to debate.
Hospice workers are very compassionate people who- like it or not- euthanize people all of the time. But here's the thing- hospice patients have to 'meet the criteria'
In order to be eligible to receive this service, a beneficiary must:
-be determined to have a terminal illness (which is defined as having a prognosis of 6 months or less if the disease or illness runs its normal course;
-not have made a hospice election, and
-not previously received the pre-election hospice services
Certification or re-certification is based upon a physician’s clinical judgment, and is not an exact science. Congress made this clear in Section 322 of the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA), which says that the hospice certification of terminal illness “shall be based on the physician’s or medical director’s clinical judgment regarding the normal course of the individual’s illness.”
My point is- euthanasia is already prevalent- it's used on millions of people every year. Morphine stops the heart and makes dying people comfortable. I see no problem with it, and I hope if something horrid happens to me that I will be fortunate enough to have hospice care.
I don't think that anyone will ever agree on Euthanasia in and of itself. Like abortion and the death penalty, there are just too many variables that go into that decision. Just my opinion.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Canadian Medical Association Votes to Continue Opposing Euthanasia
Quote:
The Canada Health Network reported that the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), at their annual general meeting in Ottawa, maintained their policy opposing euthanasia while the Canadian Press reported that the CMA voted on a compromise motion on euthanasia and assisted suicide that supports:
“the right of all physicians, within the bonds of existing legislation, to follow their conscience when deciding whether to provide so-called medical aid in dying.”
This is such cherry picking of the actual story and a sensationalist headline by a site that is by its own admission dedicated to a pro-life message.
The actual article http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/doctors...ting-1.1966254 states nowhere that the CMA is "opposing euthanasia" but that "the right of all physicians, within the bonds of existing legislation, to follow their conscience when deciding whether to provide so-called medical aid in dying."
So what they are saying is that they support a physicians right to decide to participate in medically aided dying regardless of the legislation.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hanni For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanni
This is such cherry picking of the actual story and a sensationalist headline by a site that is by its own admission dedicated to a pro-life message.
The actual article http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/doctors...ting-1.1966254 states nowhere that the CMA is "opposing euthanasia" but that "the right of all physicians, within the bonds of existing legislation, to follow their conscience when deciding whether to provide so-called medical aid in dying."
So what they are saying is that they support a physicians right to decide to participate in medically aided dying regardless of the legislation.
It's still a crime and all they done is to support ways that are still within the law. So not much has changed.
Quote:
The carefully crafted position is an acknowledgment that, while assisting death is still a crime in Canada, the attitudes of Canadians, including those of physicians, are changing quickly, and so is the law.
While the group’s official policy has not changed, “it’s only a matter of time,” said Louis Francescutti, outgoing president of the CMA. Dr. Francescutti said the “conscience” resolution, which was adopted by an overwhelming 91 per cent of delegates, means that the CMA supports a doctor’s right to refuse to hasten the death of a terminally ill patient, but it will also support a doctor’s right to hasten death if the law allows.
In Belgium, like the Netherlands, euthanasia started with terminally ill people, then it was allowed for the mentally ill. Now, even though the law itself hasn’t changed, anyone with unbearable physical or psychological suffering can be killed this way.
I don't think this article is supporting the position you think it does.
It's saying that the CMA itself is growing increasingly supportive of allowing euthanasia so long as doctors who do not wish to perform the practice can opt out. That seems entirely reasonable, and I imagine the exact same provision existed when abortion was legalized in Canada -- no doctor was forced to perform abortions, but those who supported its legalization can now do so without being thrown in prison.
Here's a more representative excerpt from the article you linked:
Quote:
The Canadian Medical Association, which has a long-standing policy saying doctors should not participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide, is substantially softening its stance.
Delegates to the organization’s general council decided Tuesday that the CMA now “supports the right of all physicians, within the bounds of existing legislation, to follow their conscience when deciding whether to provide medical aid in dying.”
The carefully crafted position is an acknowledgment that, while assisting death is still a crime in Canada, the attitudes of Canadians, including those of physicians, are changing quickly, and so is the law.
[...]
A poll of Canada’s doctors showed that 44.8 per cent think physician-assisted death should be legalized, while 41.7 per cent think it should remain illegal. The balance, 13.5 per cent, were undecided. (By contrast, polls show that about 70 per cent of Canadians support the legalization of physician-assisted death.)
[...]
The subject of euthanasia has, in the past, caused deep divisions and sparked emotional debate among Canada’s doctors. But, in the last year, the CMA has made the issue a priority and conducted a series of town halls to get input from physicians and the general public.
At the CMA’s general council meeting Tuesday in Ottawa, a sea change was evident. “Canada’s doctors engaged in a reasoned, honest, empathetic discussion on end-of-life care,” Dr. Francescutti said in explaining the attitudinal shift. “This in the new CMA.”
The debate was nonetheless emotional at times.
“There are conditions where no level of oxygen, morphine or supportive counselling will provide relief,” said Sarah Bates, a family physician from Calgary, after relating that both her mother and sister were diagnosed with early onset dementia in their 40s. “There is no physician who would not offer a patient death without first offering them life,” Dr. Bates said, adding that “as a caregiver and future patient,” she believes both choices should be available to the terminally ill.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
It's still a crime and all they done is to support ways that are still within the law. So not much has changed.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle20129000/
The carefully crafted position is an acknowledgment that, while assisting death is still a crime in Canada, the attitudes of Canadians, including those of physicians, are changing quickly, and so is the law.
While the group’s official policy has not changed, “it’s only a matter of time,” said Louis Francescutti, outgoing president of the CMA. Dr. Francescutti said the “conscience” resolution, which was adopted by an overwhelming 91 per cent of delegates, means that the CMA supports a doctor’s right to refuse to hasten the death of a terminally ill patient, but it will also support a doctor’s right to hasten death if the law allows.
This is exactly what I was trying to say, the original article that was posted from lifenews.com had a sensationalist headline that misrepresented what the CMA was actually saying.
I keep running into the slippery slope argument, it eerily reminds me of the anti gay marriage arguments, not surprisingly in Iceland the biggest opponents of euthanasia is the religious right.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
I keep running into the slippery slope argument, it eerily reminds me of the anti gay marriage arguments, not surprisingly in Iceland the biggest opponents of euthanasia is the religious right.
I find this parallel offensive. Euthanasia and gay marriage have nothing at all to do with each other, and to lump them together is to diminish heavily the well-reasoned arguments against euthanasia.
There are no reasons to outlaw gay marriage outside of religious hatred and ignorance.
There are a number of reasons to be wary of euthanasia, all of which have nothing to do with religion.
Euthanasia crucially relies on the goodness of people as one of its safeguards. Unfortunately, while most people are good, many are not. One argument against euthanasia, for example, is doctor-caregiver collusion. The family wants the sick person in question's money, and makes a thinly veiled suggestion to the doctor. Don't think this happens? Think again. Also, many people choose euthanasia themselves because they think they are a burden on their family. Is this a good reason? There are zero safeguards against this.
It's wrong to think, just because you are a good person, that everyone else is a good person. It's not the case. Legislation based around the goodness of people's hearts is destined to fail. The worst part is you will likely never know it fails, since the industry is incredibly hush-hush.
And if you think the slippery slope argument is bunk, then what is the Groningen protocol (neonatal euthanasia)? If not three steps down the slippery slope, then what is it? Look at three of the requirements of regular Dutch euthanasia:
1. the patient's request has to be voluntary - whoops!
2. the patient has to understand his/her situation fully - nope!
3. the patient has to be 12+ - not even close!
It took less than 20 years for these "strict" criteria to be obliterated by the Dutch medical authority. What's coming 20 years from now?
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan Freedom consonant with responsibility.
The Following User Says Thank You to evman150 For This Useful Post:
The thing is so much said about the Dutch is blown out of proportion and dishonest, but they do have problems and we have to learn from them, they are afterall the first country to really go for this and of course problems will come up.
Lets get some perspective here, hospices routinely help people die, doctors in hospitals do the same, what we are talking about is taking the lessons from these people, putting in proper safeguards and going forward. I don't doubt we will not get it perfect, because something like this is not a simple matter, but we can't just ignore it and hope it goes away.
Its happening all over the world in hospitals and hospices, and we should be legislating and putting in safeguards.
I'm curious as to you that are opposed to Euthanasia, in the original post this BC woman committed suicide, do you think she was wrong to end her life?
I'm curious as to you that are opposed to Euthanasia, in the original post this BC woman committed suicide, do you think she was wrong to end her life?
No, not at all. I'm not even against euthanasia, in itself. I just think there are too many practical and "human nature" problems associated with it.
There are many things that would work in a perfect world that are impractical in reality. I think euthanasia is one of those things. The Dutch situation bears this opinion out.
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan Freedom consonant with responsibility.
The Following User Says Thank You to evman150 For This Useful Post:
I might be in the minority here, but I think that everyone should have the 'right' to commit suicide if they feel it is their only option, regardless of whether there is anything clinically wrong with them. I think that it's so bizarre that people who are terminally ill, manically depressed & not finding relief through treatment, etc. are forced to live out their lives in misery and pain because society thinks it's wrong to let them end things when they feel it's time to go.
I might be in the minority here, but I think that everyone should have the 'right' to commit suicide if they feel it is their only option, regardless of whether there is anything clinically wrong with them.
Well, everybody has a right to commit suicide. That's not what's at issue.
When you say someone has a right to die in the absence of something being clinically wrong, you seem to be implying that a doctor should have the ability to kill a patient (with their permission) if that patient is unhappy.
Euthanasia is not just about patients, it's about doctors too. You can't ask a doctor to kill an unhappy, but healthy patient. The doctor then has to live with the fact he killed a healthy person. Having "permission" is nowhere near good enough.
The first realization people have to make in this debate is that it's much more complicated than everyone realizes. This debate is arguably even more complex than abortion, though perhaps less controversial.
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan Freedom consonant with responsibility.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to evman150 For This Useful Post:
No, not at all. I'm not even against euthanasia, in itself. I just think there are too many practical and "human nature" problems associated with it.
There are many things that would work in a perfect world that are impractical in reality. I think euthanasia is one of those things. The Dutch situation bears this opinion out.
So you think because one nation, which has had much more success than any failures with its program, we should not even attempt it and just go on with how things are now? Because its not easy, is no excuse for not doing it, the Dutch have given us lots of lessons on the right and wrong things to do.
Well, everybody has a right to commit suicide. That's not what's at issue.
When you say someone has a right to die in the absence of something being clinically wrong, you seem to be implying that a doctor should have the ability to kill a patient (with their permission) if that patient is unhappy.
Euthanasia is not just about patients, it's about doctors too. You can't ask a doctor to kill an unhappy, but healthy patient. The doctor then has to live with the fact he killed a healthy person. Having "permission" is nowhere near good enough.
The first realization people have to make in this debate is that it's much more complicated than everyone realizes. This debate is arguably even more complex than abortion, though perhaps less controversial.
I completely agree that a doctor would have to be given a choice whether or not to participate in such procedures. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a process that must be followed, all I'm saying that if someone feels that the only solution for whatever it is they're going through is suicide, I believe there should be avenues these people can take to achieve that, legally. With doctors who consent to euthanasia processes, even individual cases.
