Euthanasia

[pearl]

As one who was a daily visitor to a loved one in a nursing home, believe me, death is often preferable to that kind of "living".

I absolutely agree. I have seen my patients in nursing homes and its the pits in many. But it must be considered that the majority of NH patients are on Medicare which has had cut backs and probably will face more. The direct care staff is overworked and underpaid, some working 2 or more shifts in different facilities. NHs attempt to make money by opening to different specialties, first it was an Alzheimer's unit, then rehab and even hospice units.

Religion should not enter into a decision made for someone who is not religious. We have a conscience for ourselves and for our own actions, but we should not impose that on someone else who is capable of making their own decisions.

The way things look in the present administration religion is once again driving its agenda through laws.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Nonetheless, you continue to show interest evidenced by your clicking the link to this thread.

But I digress. Do you plan on contributing something relevant or should we all search the forum to see what @Jeremiahcp had to say on the subject?

Search away.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

What was your answer the last time.

It was probably something adversarial and snide. That's my general flavor.

 

[Deeje]

I absolutely agree. I have seen my patients in nursing homes and its the pits in many. But it must be considered that the majority of NH patients are on Medicare which has had cut backs and probably will face more. The direct care staff is overworked and underpaid, some working 2 or more shifts in different facilities. NHs attempt to make money by opening to different specialties, first it was an Alzheimer's unit, then rehab and even hospice units.

What I have seen and heard would make people cringe as I am sure your experiences would too.
Staff were not allowed to talk to patients unless they were showering them or changing their incontinence pants.
They were so overworked that there was no time to even get people off the toilet, so the poor things sat there for sometimes half an hour or more. Pressing the buzzer but nobody coming to help.

Hospice, in the NH I visited was a trolly outside the door of someone dying. I personally sat with old folk who had no one to help them through their last days. I held their hand and told them that everything was going to be all right. Many were frightened of death but I tried hard to reassure them. One old lady was afraid to close her eyes because she knew death was close....where is the "care"? Relatives who don't visit often can assume that their mums and dads are cared about....but that is often not the case at all. It isn't that staff don't care, but that they are not paid to have time to care. Its horrible!

And the food! Speaking to kitchen staff, they were instructed to make meals as cheaply as possible. But with the laws governing what can be added to food to make it tasty, these poor old things are subjected to tasteless food with little nutritional value that no amount of complaining will fix. Its all about the money.

My only hope is that 'what goes around comes around' and that the ones who own these NH's will themselves be subjected to the same "care" as they prescribed for all their residents.

The way things look in the present administration religion is once again driving its agenda through laws.

Religion has no business in politics. Christians are supposed to be "no part of the world"...which means a separation from what the world promotes and remaining separate from its lifestyle, goals and conflicts.

Jesus demonstrated that complete separation when he walked the earth. Jews were oppressed by the Romans but still allowed to function and practice their religion. In spite of the oppression, Jesus never once told his disciples to fix the problem by any means. He simply taught them to be good law-abiding citizens and to live peacefully in spite of what others around them were doing. It was good advice I think.

 

[Father Heathen]

Anything to muddy the picture, your so clever.

I know, thank you, but how am I the one muddying anything when you're the one who made a vague, cryptic statement. What, exactly, is readily available in pharmacies that's used for suicide?

 

[Grandliseur]

What are your thoughts on euthanasia/physician assisted suicide?

If we have the right to live, we also have the right to die; everyone does eventually.

It must not be made to a forced thing, but people should be able to go and get it done without pain, etc.

 

[Deeje]

If we have the right to live, we also have the right to die; everyone does eventually.

It must not be made to a forced thing, but people should be able to go and get it done without pain, etc.

Indeed...the one thing I do not understand is, why the dying have to suffer at all? If death is days or even weeks away, why does the patient have to be conscious? They have the means to induce a comatose state so that there is no consciousness, and therefore no pain or suffering. Withdrawing all artificial means to support life will result in organ failure and a natural, peaceful passing. That would suit those who have a conscience issue with active euthanasia. The family would have the option of saying their goodbyes before the 'big sleep' is induced. It could all be handled a whole lot better than it is now.

It is after all, the suffering that we want to avoid....no one can avoid death.

 

[ChristineM]

Humans have no qualms about euthanizing a pet or an animal that is terminally ill or suffering. We say it's because they cannot communicate their will to us. Because of this, humans feel they have the right and the moral obligation make the decision to terminate a pet's or animal's life.

However, when a human is terminally ill or suffering, it is socially considered immoral to end his/her life, regardless of his/her suffering. Sure, a human can communicate better than an animal whether or not s/he wants to live or die, but that point appears to be moot, because whether the person wishes to die or s/he cannot communicate these wishes, we have laws against assisted suicide and/or euthanasia (unless there are laws that I am unaware of in different parts of the world - check local listings).

What are your thoughts on euthanasia/physician assisted suicide?

Do other humans have the moral license to tell another what s/he is allowed to do with regard to his/her suffering?

Does a human have the right to tell another that s/he is not allowed to die until whatever is killing her/him takes her/him naturally?

What are the spiritual/religious implications of such a decision?

If this subject interests you start your search with Switzerland, Dignitas (there are others) is a company that specialises (bad word) in assisted dying.
I believe its legal in some states in the US too.

The author Terry Pratchett made a documentary on the subject.

Its an hour long and explores real life reasoning for taking the option

Also a shorter tv interview

.

 

[Jumi]

I read today about a 93-year old man who remembered a battle in WW2. One of the soldiers fighting with him had lost a limb and his stomach was open and he was asking for release under the horrible pain. He couldn't do it and pretended he was going to look for a medic. It's the thing he regrets most in his life, letting a man suffer needlessly like that.

 

[Little Lunch]

It would be good if euthanasia was legal.
Then, if I ever found out I had cancer, I might get a little more time, instead of having to blow my brains out while I still had the means and the energy.

 

[ChristineM]

It would be good if euthanasia was legal.
Then, if I ever found out I had cancer, I might get a little more time, instead of having to blow my brains out while I still had the means and the energy.

It is, in places. It should be everywhere. But who can dictate to religious influence?

 

[Kemosloby]

Humans have no qualms about euthanizing a pet or an animal that is terminally ill or suffering. We say it's because they cannot communicate their will to us. Because of this, humans feel they have the right and the moral obligation make the decision to terminate a pet's or animal's life.

However, when a human is terminally ill or suffering, it is socially considered immoral to end his/her life, regardless of his/her suffering. Sure, a human can communicate better than an animal whether or not s/he wants to live or die, but that point appears to be moot, because whether the person wishes to die or s/he cannot communicate these wishes, we have laws against assisted suicide and/or euthanasia (unless there are laws that I am unaware of in different parts of the world - check local listings).

What are your thoughts on euthanasia/physician assisted suicide?

Do other humans have the moral license to tell another what s/he is allowed to do with regard to his/her suffering?

Does a human have the right to tell another that s/he is not allowed to die until whatever is killing her/him takes her/him naturally?

What are the spiritual/religious implications of such a decision?

I don't see anything wrong with it, a person wants to go, let them go.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is, in places. It should be everywhere. But who can dictate to religious influence?

The issue we have here in Ontario is that even though all of our hospitals are publicly funded, many are run by Catholic organizations and won't participate in euthanasia (or abortions, or IVF, etc.).

If someone has an issue that needs hospitalization, it's basically a coin flip whether they'll be sent to a Catholic or secular hospital... but there are significant differences in the services each one provides. It's ridiculous.

 

[ChristineM]

The issue we have here in Ontario is that even though all of our hospitals are publicly funded, many are run by Catholic organizations and won't participate in euthanasia (or abortions, or IVF, etc.).

If someone has an issue that needs hospitalization, it's basically a coin flip whether they'll be sent to a Catholic or secular hospital... but there are significant differences in the services each one provides. It's ridiculous.

Its not right that religious hospitals claim public funding and selectively opt for what they will treat becaus certain procedures conflict wih a bronze age belief.

 

[Milton Platt]

Humans have no qualms about euthanizing a pet or an animal that is terminally ill or suffering. We say it's because they cannot communicate their will to us. Because of this, humans feel they have the right and the moral obligation make the decision to terminate a pet's or animal's life.

However, when a human is terminally ill or suffering, it is socially considered immoral to end his/her life, regardless of his/her suffering. Sure, a human can communicate better than an animal whether or not s/he wants to live or die, but that point appears to be moot, because whether the person wishes to die or s/he cannot communicate these wishes, we have laws against assisted suicide and/or euthanasia (unless there are laws that I am unaware of in different parts of the world - check local listings).

What are your thoughts on euthanasia/physician assisted suicide?

Do other humans have the moral license to tell another what s/he is allowed to do with regard to his/her suffering?

Does a human have the right to tell another that s/he is not allowed to die until whatever is killing her/him takes her/him naturally?

What are the spiritual/religious implications of such a decision?

I am okay with it on a general level. The devil is in the details. I have had a living will for many years which gives the authority to another person to decide when it is time to pull the plug.

 

[Deeje]

Its not right that religious hospitals claim public funding and selectively opt for what they will treat becaus certain procedures conflict wih a bronze age belief.

Its about respect, not the beliefs per se, or anyone else's opinion of them. People's beliefs are sacred to them, and they have a right to hold whatever beliefs their hearts consider important to them....what they don't have is the right to impose those beliefs on others. Forcing someone to comply with something that is against their own conscientious beliefs is dead wrong. (pardon the pun) It is just as wrong as forcing a baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple when that is against his Christian conscience to do so.

If religious hospitals receive public funding and accept public patients, then they have no more right to demand that certain practices that they consider a violation of their religious beliefs, be imposed on others who are not offended at all. If they became self-funded and independent religious institutions....then, different story.

I guess it's a matter of respect all around. A baker should be able to post a notice in the window of his shop stating that he will not be making cakes specifically for gay weddings, but if they wish to purchase a cake that they can take home and decorate themselves, then no harm done. He doesn't refuse to serve gay people in his shop.

We see notices in shops sometimes saying that patrons should 'not ask for credit because refusal may offend'. Same principle applies here, as far as I can see.

Religiously based hospitals who have objections to certain procedures can also make it known that those procedures will not be performed in their establishments. There are always alternative places to buy a wedding cake or have a medical procedure carried out.....why does there have to be a fight about it? Why are humans so prone to wanting to force their will on others, yet complain when others want to do the same to them?

Free will should be free......and as long as there are alternative options, what does it matter in the big scheme of things if you can't get what you want at one place and have to find another? Is it really that hard?

 

[ChristineM]

Its about respect, not the beliefs per se, or anyone else's opinion of them. People's beliefs are sacred to them, and they have a right to hold whatever beliefs their hearts consider important to them....what they don't have is the right to impose those beliefs on others. Forcing someone to comply with their own conscientious beliefs is dead wrong. (pardon the pun) It is just as wrong as forcing a baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple when that is against his Christian conscience to do so.

If religious hospitals receive public funding and accept public patients, then they have no more right to demand that certain practices that they consider a violation of their religious beliefs, be imposed on others who are not offended at all. If they became self-funded and independent religious institutions....then, different story.

I guess it's a matter of respect all around. A baker should be able to post a notice in the window of his shop stating that he will not be making cakes specifically for gay weddings, but if they wish to purchase a cake that they can take home and decorate themselves, then no harm done. He doesn't refuse to serve gay people in his shop.

We see notices in shops sometimes saying that patrons should 'not ask for credit because refusal may offend'. Same principle applies here, as far as I can see.

Religiously based hospitals who have objections to certain procedures can also make it known that those procedures will not be performed in their establishments. There are always alternative places to buy a wedding cake or have a medical procedure carried out.....why does there have to be a fight about it? Why are humans so prone to wanting to force their will on others, yet complain when others want to do the same to them?

Free will should be free......and as long as there are alternative options, what does it matter in the big scheme of things if you can't get what you want at one place and have to find another? Is it really that hard?

The key is public funding, if religion based hospitals collect public funding then they should be obliged to perform any procedure it is equipped to perform. It its no way the same as a small private business,

But onto the small company model, if that company is set up to sell cakes to the public it should sell cakes to the public, if decorating one type of cake offends sensibilities which on turn leads to discrimination then they have no right being on the business of selling cakes to the public.

As you say, its about respect

 

[Deeje]

The key is public funding, if religion based hospitals collect public funding then they should be obliged to perform any procedure it is equipped to perform. It its no way the same as a small private business,

I agree to a point....public money should be spent on the public....all of them.

Religious people have no right to impose their beliefs on others, and the atheists have no right to impose their views on people of faith. Respect for the other person's right to believe whatever they wish should be mutual.
That being the case, there would be no grounds for complaint.

But onto the small company model, if that company is set up to sell cakes to the public it should sell cakes to the public, if decorating one type of cake offends sensibilities which on turn leads to discrimination then they have no right being on the business of selling cakes to the public.

"Discrimination" is the cash cow of the 21st century. It's earned lawyers a lot of money, but it never removes the cause. The bad feelings just continue to run under the surface, making people's anger fester. Education is the better way to deal with the problem. Putting yourself in the other person's shoes help to mitigate the friction.

We all need to 'discriminate' to some degree and I thank God that we do in many ways.

Its a big planet....surely there is room for all opinions? When the law steps in and has to force someone to do something that is against their beliefs, that is not a good solution. If you don't want something forced on you, don't force it onto others.....the old "golden rule" works if everyone would stop being so selfish.

As you say, its about respect

Mutual respect is always the better option IMO.

 

[ChristineM]

I agree to a point....public money should be spent on the public....all of them.

Religious people have no right to impose their beliefs on others, and the atheists have no right to impose their views on people of faith. Respect for the other person's right to believe whatever they wish should be mutual.
That being the case, there would be no grounds for complaint.



"Discrimination" is the cash cow of the 21st century. It's earned lawyers a lot of money, but it never removes the cause. The bad feelings just continue to run under the surface, making people's anger fester. Education is the better way to deal with the problem. Putting yourself in the other person's shoes help to mitigate the friction.

We all need to 'discriminate' to some degree and I thank God that we do in many ways.

Its a big planet....surely there is room for all opinions? When the law steps in and has to force someone to do something that is against their beliefs, that is not a good solution. If you don't want something forced on you, don't force it onto others.....the old "golden rule" works if everyone would stop being so selfish.



Mutual respect is always the better option IMO.

First point agreed to a point, faith ot lack of it should be irrelevant to the question.

Second, yes both your points, education and empathy will help, in the meantime all we have is law.

I cant agree that we all need to discriminate, except perhaps when Trump ot Theresa May are under discussion.

The law is a last resort, it shouldn't get to that stage among reasonable people but sometimes it is inevitable. Laws are made (generally) with the good of the majority's in mind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Free will should be free......and as long as there are alternative options, what does it matter in the big scheme of things if you can't get what you want at one place and have to find another? Is it really that hard?

I agree with you on the matter of funding: publicly-funded hospitals shouldn't be able to pick and choose which services they will and won't perform on the basis of religion.

However, I also believe this for privately funded religious hospitals, and the reason why touches on something you said: as long as there are alternative options.

If a privately-funded religious hospital is, say, the only place in the area for an oncology patient to go, or if a patient might not get a say in being admitted there - for instance, if the ambulance will take patients there by defaul when it's the closest hospital - then it should be required to provide every service it can be reasonably expected to provide that the patient might need.

Also, medicine is a licensed profession with a code of ethics. Every doctor has sworn an oath (or affirmed a statement) that they will put the interests of their patient first, in accordance with established medical practice. A doctor who puts their religion ahead of their patient to deny them care is violating this oath.

It's the duty of the doctor, not the patient, to resolve any conflicts between their professional duty and the tenets of their religion. A doctor who can't put the needs of her patient first should find another discipline where she can... or find a career outside of medicine.

If a medical student realizes that the Hippocratic Oath they're being asked to take will conflict with a religious oath they've already made, then the proper course of action is clear: don't take that second oath. Anything less is dishonest and unethical.

However, once someone has taken that oath, it's reasonable to assume that they can be held to it because they freely declared they would be able to - and would - honour it.