End of Life Care Discussion

[snowman10]

I am going to present my case on Euthanasia and we can discuss from there.

The definition I will be using for Euthanasia is as follows:

Euthanasia, or mercy killing, is the act of ending a life by various methods, with the sole intent of ending suffering.

There are two types of Euthanasia, active and passive. Active is taking deliberate measures to ending life. For example, the injection of lethal medications. Passive is allowing the person to die as a result of the disease that has been determined to be fatal. An example would be letting someone who is dying of cancer go without ordinary means, like food and water or any extraordinary measures, such as artificial ventilation.

Here is my argument:
The intent of those that purely wish to end the suffering of a person in agonizing and debilitating pain and in which death is imminent and all treatments are in essence futile, could be viewed upon as merciful. However, I am not advocating active euthanasia by any means. I also believe that passive is not appropriate when we deny ordinary means (food and water).

But there is a case to be made for The Law of Double Effect. The scenario plays out like this: John Smith is dying of terminal cancer. He is bed ridden and in agonizing pain. His prognosis is poor and is expected to live only a matter of days. John wants to be put out of his suffering. The medical team knows that they can ease his suffering greatly by giving him a large amount of morphine, thus allowing him to slip into a coma. They also know that giving him such a large amount will speed up his death. However, their INTENT is to make him comfortable, yet they still are aware of how their action will affect the dying process. In reality, the overdose of morphine could easily be the cause of death. But if that was not the intended effect, by The Law of Double Effect, it is permissible. This can also be applied to Ectopic Pregnancy when the child is not directly killed but indirectly by the removal of damaged and diseased parts of the mother.

So the question is if our intention is not to kill but to ease suffering, yet we know our action has a high likelihood of being the indirect cause of death, how can we reconcile this with the idea of Natural Death?

dxu

p.s. please keep in mind my definition of Euthanasia–I am not referring to the senseless acts of killing the handicapped or elderly that become burdensome to their families.

 

[wjp984]

don’t give a lethal amount of morphine. Problem solved. I don’t see how you can be flexible about this.

 

[kellie]

I don’t believe in euthanasia at all, passive or active.

I don’t believe anyone has the right to end a life, and I also think life is too sacred to try not to save it.

I had this very discussion with my sister the other day. She said she believes it is ok to give a person suffering terminal cancer, who is in pain, and who wants to end their life, a pill that will kill them.

My response to her was twofold.

Firstly, many mentally ill people are in pain every day too, with an incurable condition, such as depression, schizophrenia etc.

Many people suicide who are mentally ill, to escape the pain.

Should we allow the mentally ill, who wish to die, the right to swallow a pill to kill them too?

Secondly, pain is very personal. We all know we have different levels of pain thresholds.

Ask any man who has been with their wife through the birth of their baby whether they would wish to go through childbirth, and most would say no, due to the pain they see their wives go through.

Who are we to judge that a person’s pain is so excruciating that they should be allowed to die, just on the basis of them telling us so?

As these two things have such a grey area, I don’t think euthanasia should ever be introduced.

 

[1ke]

Snowman are you a Catholic? Your position is not compatible with Catholic teaching.

 

[snowman10]

First off, I am not flexible on this issue as I clearly stated I do not believe in Euthanasia. Secondly, I am specifically bringing into light the principle of double effect. Under this, I am allowed to administer X amount of medication with the sole intent of alleviating pain but will not be guilty of killing if a secondary effect of the medication is death.

What I am aiming for is to reconcile the theory of Double Effect with the Church teaching on Natural Death. If I am aware that X amount of drug will put a patient in a coma and help ease the pain, then that is good. But if I am also aware that a secondary and undesired effect is the dying process is accelerated and/or the result of death has a direct link to the amount of the drug given, I am still technically in the right. Please refer to my original post and the mention of ectopic pregnancy is you need another example.

It all comes down to desired effect and intent.

dxu

 

[1ke]

you wrote: So the question is if our intention is not to kill but to ease suffering, yet we know our action has a high likelihood of being the indirect cause of death, how can we reconcile this with the idea of Natural Death?

The death is not intended, it is merely foreseen. Their death is still natural, and it is still inevitable.

 

[thistle]

First off, I am not flexible on this issue as I clearly stated I do not believe in Euthanasia. Secondly, I am specifically bringing into light the principle of double effect. Under this, I am allowed to administer X amount of medication with the sole intent of alleviating pain but will not be guilty of killing if a secondary effect of the medication is death.

What I am aiming for is to reconcile the theory of Double Effect with the Church teaching on Natural Death. If I am aware that X amount of drug will put a patient in a coma and help ease the pain, then that is good. But if I am also aware that a secondary and undesired effect is the dying process is accelerated and/or the result of death has a direct link to the amount of the drug given, I am still technically in the right. Please refer to my original post and the mention of ectopic pregnancy is you need another example.

It all comes down to desired effect and intent.

dxu

The Church clearly teaches the end does not justify the means. It is a grave sin to do evil to achieve a good. There is no such thing as mercy killing. The correct word is murder.

 

[snowman10]

you wrote: So the question is if our intention is not to kill but to ease suffering, yet we know our action has a high likelihood of being the indirect cause of death, how can we reconcile this with the idea of Natural Death?

The death is not intended, it is merely foreseen. Their death is still natural, and it is still inevitable.

Good answer…

dxu

 

[snowman10]

The Church clearly teaches the end does not justify the means. It is a grave sin to do evil to achieve a good. There is no such thing as mercy killing. The correct word is murder.

Could you elaborate more on what your point is please, I don’t follow…

From what I gather, you are implying that what I have said is against Church teaching. That if I would give X amount of drug with the intention and desired effect of making a person comatose and helping alleviate the pain, but still having the knowledge that it could potentially speed up or have the unintended effect of directly linking to the death, then I am a murderer?

I am pretty sure that the specific case, one that is very prevalent in Palliative Care, is in line with Church teaching under the principle of Double Effect. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Once again, I stress that “mercy killing” is murder (ex: Terry Schivao). Ordinary means should always be in place, food and water and oxygen. Extraordinary means are a different story.

 

[1ke]

From what I gather, you are implying that what I have said is against Church teaching.

I don’t think some people read your OP carefully. And, the title of your thread is what people are keying on.

What you are discussing-- pallative care-- is not euthanasia. So, the title is a little misleading.

And, you are correct that what you have proposed regarding easing pain with the unintended but foreseen consequence of hastening death is absolutely in line with Church teaching.

 

[RyanL]

IThe definition I will be using for Euthanasia is as follows:

Euthanasia, or mercy killing, is the act of ending a life by various methods, with the sole intent of ending suffering.

I disagree with your definition of Euthanasia, and I disagree that double effect would permit euthanasia as such.

Double effect permits palliative (pain reducing) care, ***even ***if that care will accelerate the death of the suffering individual. The death of the individual is not sought, but is merely foreseen. FURTHER, you may only administer such palliative care as will reduce the suffering; this is to say that you can’t go overboard and give a person with a splinter enough morphine to kill a horse, even if you intend to reduce the pain of the person with a splinter. That’s either gross negligence or malice, and both of which are culpable states of mind.

Euthanasia is different. Euthanasia seeks the victim’s death as a means of reducing pain. Euthanasia reduces pain by means of killing an innocent human being.

Maxim One: The ends don’t justify the means.
**
Maxim Two:** It’s ALWAYS immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being.

Analysis complete. Euthanasia…out.

Make sure you don’t conflate double effect’s tolerance of an evil outcome with that outcome being tolerably sought. DE says it’s fine to kill in self defense, but just because you’re defending yourself that doesn’t mean it’s moral for you to kill the aggressor.

For a fuller treatment, please see the CDF’s Declaration on Euthanasia.

Your thoughts?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[snowman10]

I disagree with your definition of Euthanasia, and I disagree that double effect would permit euthanasia as such.

Double effect permits palliative (pain reducing) care, ***even ***if that care will accelerate the death of the suffering individual. The death of the individual is not sought, but is merely foreseen. FURTHER, you may only administer such palliative care as will reduce the suffering; this is to say that you can’t go overboard and give a person with a splinter enough morphine to kill a horse, even if you intend to reduce the pain of the person with a splinter. That’s either gross negligence or malice, and both of which are culpable states of mind.

Euthanasia is different. Euthanasia seeks the victim’s death as a means of reducing pain. Euthanasia reduces pain by means of killing an innocent human being.

Maxim One: The ends don’t justify the means.
**
Maxim Two:** It’s ALWAYS immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being.

Analysis complete. Euthanasia…out.

Make sure you don’t conflate double effect’s tolerance of an evil outcome with that outcome being tolerably sought. DE says it’s fine to kill in self defense, but just because you’re defending yourself that doesn’t mean it’s moral for you to kill the aggressor.

For a fuller treatment, please see the CDF’s Declaration on Euthanasia.

Your thoughts?

God Bless,
RyanL

Good Post Ryan…I am glad that we are all on the same page of staying in line with Church teaching and allowing us to have a much easier time being charitable than some discussions…

Anywho, my definition of Euthanasia is for this particular case and I do think it is appropriate. Euthanasia is the WILLFUL and DELIBERATE act of ending a human life by various methods with the intention and sole purpose of alleviating agonizing and debilitating pain in a person who is in the end stages of a terminal disease which has a grim prognosis and death is imminent. I do not see how this is an inadequate or misleading definition for this case. Like I mentioned before, ending a life because they are a burden or unwanted (Ex. Down syndrome child with an intestinal obstruction–very common and many are left to die w/o treatment of the blockage) is not euthanasia, it is murder.

You are very correct with your splinter example. However, a splinter is not a life-threatening condition (unless the splinter is actually a 2 X 4 embedded in your chest, ripping apart your aorta). So while I agree with you, the example you provide does not meet the criteria by which we are defining the case for euthanasia (it is not a terminal condition with imminent death, and so on).

Now on to the crux of the matter. Sometimes Euthanasia is sometimes disguised as Palliative care. A physician KNOWS that giving too much of a certain drug will cause death in a terminally ill patient with agonizing pain. His intention is to kill the patient as a means to end his suffering. This is wrong. However, lets set the scenario up differently. We have the same patient, same condition and the physician gives a certain amount of a drug with the intent of helping alleviating the suffering, but he knows very well that a secondary effect his the process of death being accelerated, and possibly being a direct cause of death, but that is not his intent.

So what it boils down to is The Principle of Double Effect protecting the healthcare provider from murder because of INTENT. Now to someone who is in favor of Euthanasia of all types, this could easily be construed as a matter of semantics. But in reality, Double Effect is a smart, safe, and effective way to manage end of life care with respect to life and natural death.

I guess the title “Euthanasia Discussion” is misleading and I apologize, it really is more about end of life care and how it can be approached using Double Effect. All in all, I think it should be used more often to help avoid problems.

One last time, Euthanasia = Bad…i’m all about following the Church

dxu

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

I guess the title “Euthanasia Discussion” is misleading and I apologize, it really is more about end of life care and how it can be approached using Double Effect.

Changed thread title.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[RNRobert]

In nursing school we had a discussion about this. It was pointed out that yes, giving larger doses of painkiller to ease the pain could bring death faster, but on the other hand, so could uncontrolled pain. Of course, that’s a different thing than giving them a high dose of pain medicine to purposely end their life.