W
wabrams
Guest
The Hippocratic Oath says to “do no harm.” What part of that do you not understand?
- Status
B
Biggie
Guest
Dear Rogerteder, if you are going to take this any further, you are going to have to argue with reasons that the involvement of physicians in assisted suicide does not present a harm to society greater than the interests you are representing or you’re going to have to fold your tent and end the thread.
U
urban-hermit
Guest
Hi Roger - I have done my best to answer your question, but …
I guess you are kind of asking “why do we have the laws we have?”
For example, it is illegal for a policeman to accept money instead of writing me a speeding ticket. (at least I think this is illegal)
Why do we have laws against murder? If everyone agrees the person being murdered is no-good and should be dead, why shouldn’t this be allowed?
In some Islamic countries, I do believe murdering somebody who converts to Christianity is legal. You can use your imagination about other situations where people might agree on all kinds of laws.
I guess (and I hope it stays this way) that most people feel that doctors are healers, not killers. If somebody wants to kill themselves, until laws are changed, they will have to find some other way to do it besides employing doctors or other people to be involved. There are too many vulnerable people, like those who are terminally ill and don’t have anybody to care about them.
These vulnerable people, and all of us to some extent, rely on doctors to HELP us - we don’t want them to even be thinking about killing us. They are in a position of trust and they need to be held to a certain standard.
I’m sorry you’re having difficulty with this issue. I hope this helps. And I do very much hope that assisted suicide stays illegal.
A
agnostic
Guest
They can - and do - doctors overdose terminally ill patients all the time - yes they dress it up as pain management but they and the patient knows what they are really doing.
Personally I agree with euthanasia - we insist in keeping alive in conditions that, where they an animal, we would get jail time for it. It’s a nonsense. With the right safeguards in place - no one should have to suffer a painful, lingering death. It’s unadulterated cruelty to make them do so.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
And can you assure them what comes next?
U
urban-hermit
Guest
Pain can be managed with drugs - modern palliative care has enabled us to make the dying process less painful than in the past.
That being said, some suffering will be experienced by all of us at the end. It’s unavoidable. Even suicide can involve pain and discomfort.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Sounds a lot like Ann Arbor, about 45 minutes away from me.
I think that this “all the time” claim is exaggerated. Now I would agree that doctors fairly commonly overprescribe pain medication where the patient could OD on their own. But actively ODing them…I don’t think so. Very few doctors would open themselves up for such liability, like if family members disagreed on what to do and one of them starts an inquiry…
Get jail time for keeping an animal alive with heroic measures? Hogwash. Find me one single case where this has happened, and I don’t mean a case of cruelty/neglect, and I might be convinced otherwise. Find one single law on the books that prohibits keeping an animal alive through heroic measures and I’ll recant.
As a Veterinarian, my experience has been quite the opposite; people wanting to euthanize their pets ***before ***they get to the point of suffering. Sometimes we are able to council them to be able to medicate their pet and keep them comfortable when they’ve got some quality time left…sometimes not.
Totally agreed, though, that no person should have to suffer a painful death if there are adequate pain management options…and we can agree that at the present time, for some, such options aren’t yet available.
And let’s not compare ourselves to animals…God made us different.
A
agnostic
Guest
I was leaving out heroic measures, if I’m right in thinking what you mean by that. I was referring more to cases where an animal is in extreme discomfort and pain and there is nothing can be done for them and it’s a known certainty their condition will only get worse and they will continue to suffer terribly until death finally relieves them. Any civilised society would endorse putting that animal out of it’s misery. But when it comes to humans, we are prevented by state and church from doing the same thing. And I think it’s wrong. I’m NOT advocating that as soon as your 70 and have a toothache aunt Maude can take you behind the barn and shoot ya
But I do think, in a civilised society, when it is a known certainty that the human will continue to suffer immeasurably and with no chance of relief or improvement, IF they choose to end that suffering then they should be supported to do so in the most humane way possible.
B
Biggie
Guest
Lots of problems with this, theological and practical, but the first thought that came to mind was suffering has no value in your mind?I was leaving out heroic measures, if I’m right in thinking what you mean by that. I was referring more to cases where an animal is in extreme discomfort and pain and there is nothing can be done for them and it’s a known certainty their condition will only get worse and they will continue to suffer terribly until death finally relieves them. Any civilised society would endorse putting that animal out of it’s misery. But when it comes to humans, we are prevented by state and church from doing the same thing. And I think it’s wrong. I’m NOT advocating that as soon as your 70 and have a toothache aunt Maude can take you behind the barn and shoot ya
A
agnostic
Guest
In brief, and not wishing to appear blunt - no - it doesn’t.
R
rpp
Guest
And that is where you, and most of the rest of the civilized world, Christian and non-Christian, differ.
‘’ 
A
agnostic
Guest
cough
B
Biggie
Guest
Then why post pone the obvious? There’s a lot of suffering between now and then. So it would seem some level of suffering has value, not so?
N
Newbie2
Guest
Ah, the “known certainty”. Dr. Kevorkian had that “known certainty” on one of his victims until it was determined by the medical examiner that the person didn’t have any significant pathology.I was leaving out heroic measures, if I’m right in thinking what you mean by that. I was referring more to cases where an animal is in extreme discomfort and pain and there is nothing can be done for them and it’s a known certainty their condition will only get worse and they will continue to suffer terribly until death finally relieves them. Any civilised society would endorse putting that animal out of it’s misery. But when it comes to humans, we are prevented by state and church from doing the same thing. And I think it’s wrong. I’m NOT advocating that as soon as your 70 and have a toothache aunt Maude can take you behind the barn and shoot ya
Much better, methinks to support better and more widely available long-term pain control measures. In a perfect secular world, theology aside, there would still be abuses with such a system where the doctors who are responsible for keeping us healthy end the life that they’re supposed to protect.
Sorry, I feel that I’m above being treated like an animal.
- Status