What you've described sounds like a waste of perfectly good morphine.
Just use a pillow or something.
Motor stated: source post
This is a really interesting question you raise. To me what stands out is not that you are against active euthanasia (though you are), but that you are especially against the idea of medical personnel performing the procedure, as it doesn't fall within the scope of their duty. This is interesting to me mostly because I've never thought about it before. Whose duty would it be to perform active euthanasia? Perhaps if for some reason it was legalized, there would have to be a new strain of personal trained specifically for the task?
Quite right. I think a doctor actively, deliberately killing a patient (for whatever reason) would irreversibly corrupt the field of medicine. A complaint I often hear from those suspicious or disapproving of doctors and medicine is that we "play God". Well, don't ask us to >.<
Xena stated: source post
Erm... Whose responsibility should it be, if not a doctor?
Literally anyone else. It doesn't require years of medical training to kill someone. Ask anyone on Florida death-row.
If we're drawing comparisons to abortion here, y'all are reminding me of back alley butchers with coathangers. I hear they did smthg like that as part of the mummification process in ancient Egypt O.O
I personally wouldn't draw a comparison to abortion, beyond that a doctor shouldn't be forced to perform a procedure to which they morally object.
Pipsqueak stated: source post
I don't think it should be up to the doctor to do it. I feel like if you are of sound enough mind to request death, you are more than likely (in most cases) able to do it yourself without the aid of a doctor.
Another good point.
Haart, if for some reason doctors were made to actively euthanize people would you find it easier to sleep after killing an old veggie or a young kid that say was in a car accident and put in the same veggie state? something along those lines, I'm just curious to see if the line blurs at all for someone that might possibly be in the position take care of that nasty business some day. Would knowing someone led a full and long life make it easier?
I think what makes me uncomfortable about the idea is that I'd be exceeding my role, "playing God" as it were. People sometimes forget that being a doctor is a job. Sure, it's a harder job than some, but it's still a job. Doctors are fundamentally the same as cashiers or lawyers or florists or bakers. Wake up, go to work, go home. Very few people want to add "kill someone" to that schedule.
Niniela stated: source post
Since I already typed this once but lost it thanks to Luna (whole shit disappeared for typing too much) I'll just copy your statements instead of bothering with quoting a billion times again
I'll start with haart.
" I am sympathetic to the emotive arguments of pro-euthanasia activists. I can understand the enormous tragedy it must be to die an undignified, painful, protracted death. "
Can you, without ever being in that situation yourself, understand that situation? I respect you haart, but I don't think so.
I hear this a lot. Obviously I've never died an undignified, painful, protracted death. But I think I understand it better than most. Let's call it partial understanding.
" The only issue is that a doctor would be required to prescribe the means by which this person is to die, whether it be morphine or other. I'm sure there are doctors who would be okay with this (since it's once removed from patient death), but I wouldn't want them as my treating physician. "
You wouldn't want someone who respects your right to decide on your life yourself and support you in case you want to end it as your treating physician? Why?
I'd want all of the above, sure. I'd want that respect. I wouldn't want them to actually kill me, though. If my life is unbearable, I'll do it myself.
haart stated: source post
Literally anyone else. It doesn't require years of medical training to kill someone. Ask anyone on Florida death-row.
Why not set it up so that the patient is the one to kill herself? It could just be an option given to people with a serious enough diagnosis, never a doctor's recommendation. Or is that not feasible?
haart stated: source post
I personally wouldn't draw a comparison to abortion, beyond that a doctor shouldn't be forced to perform a procedure to which they morally object.
Where do you draw that line though? Can a doctor object to any procedure on moral grounds?
"Why not set it up so that the patient is the one to kill herself? It could just be an option given to people with a serious enough diagnosis, never a doctor's recommendation. Or is that not feasible?"
This would be ideal, yes. The only issue would be patients unable to kill themselves (which is a fair few), whether that be because of mobility, cognition etc etc.
"Where do you draw that line though? Can a doctor object to any procedure on moral grounds?"
Well yeah, that's a good question. (In Australia) In the private sector, your practice is very autonomous. You could morally object to applying a plaster, I guess, but it would be at the expense of your own clientele-base. Free market and all.
Within the public sector, you're very much guided by your institution's policies and procedures. I'm employed at a major metropolitan public hospital, and I'd lose my job if I "morally objected" to this and that. However, in the case of abortion, it's within a physician's rights to object as long as they provide a referral to another physician.
That's an unfortunate example of physician moral objection though. Recently, at The Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, the treating teams refused to release refugee patients (children) to offshore detention - risking their jobs. It's not always a bad thing to practice with your conscience.
haart stated: source post
This would be ideal, yes. The only issue would be patients unable to kill themselves (which is a fair few), whether that be because of mobility, cognition etc etc.
I'd imagine it'd be a press of a button and thus wouldn't require much mobility from the patient. Reduced cognition would simply forfeit the option until the patient is sufficiently aware enough again.
"Where do you draw that line though? Can a doctor object to any procedure on moral grounds?"
Well yeah, that's a good question. (In Australia) In the private sector, your practice is very autonomous. You could morally object to applying a plaster, I guess, but it would be at the expense of your own clientele-base. Free market and all.
Within the public sector, you're very much guided by your institution's policies and procedures. I'm employed at a major metropolitan public hospital, and I'd lose my job if I "morally objected" to this and that. However, in the case of abortion, it's within a physician's rights to object as long as they provide a referral to another physician.
That's an unfortunate example of physician moral objection though. Recently, at The Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, the treating teams refused to release refugee patients (children) to offshore detention - risking their jobs. It's not always a bad thing to practice with your conscience.
We have an ongoing case in Sweden where a midwife has sued public hospitals because they repeatedly denied her a job due to her being unwilling to perform abortion. I assume clinics in the private sector can make up their own rules so I'm not sure why she didn't get a job there instead. Anyway, she's opposed to abortion on religious grounds and argue she has the right to practice her religion. She obviously believes it's the moral thing to do (deny abortion) but so does Jehovah's Witnesses when it comes to blood transfusion.
I think they (we) should decide which leg we want to stand on and not try to appease both camps (ie. allowing physicians to object as long as they provide a referral). That only risks making it all vague and unclear, while also opening up for other and less acceptable moral objections (denying services based off of sexual orientation for example).
"I'd imagine it'd be a press of a button and thus wouldn't require much mobility from the patient. Reduced cognition would simply forfeit the option until the patient is sufficiently aware enough again."
True. As with everything, you could get quite punctilious about the logistics of enacting such a policy, but you are generally right. There would be ways of enabling even seriously disabled patients to suicide.
"We have an ongoing case in Sweden where a midwife has sued public hospitals because they repeatedly denied her a job due to her being unwilling to perform abortion. I assume clinics in the private sector can make up their own rules so I'm not sure why she didn't get a job there instead."
$$
"I think they (we) should decide which leg we want to stand on and not try to appease both camps (ie. allowing physicians to object as long as they provide a referral). That only risks making it all vague and unclear, while also opening up for other and less acceptable moral objections (denying services based off of sexual orientation for example)."
It hasn't really been an issue here. I think compromise might actually be the best-case scenario.
Sexuality, gender, race etc. are generally covered by other anti-discrimination laws. Non-issue.
Wikipedia stated: Source page
Typically, three drugs are used in lethal injection. Sodium thiopental is used to induce unconsciousness, pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) to cause muscle paralysis and respiratory arrest, and potassium chloride to stop the heart.
Or if you want an economic middle ground, just use the first drug and then the pillow.
Cadaver stated: source post
Euthanasia to me is very cut and dry.
(...) it's an individual's choice and anyone who is qualified to carry it out in a dignified manner should be able to euthanize someone who has undergone some sort of program which would make sure that that person is fully aware of the consequences of that decision.
I agree with Cad. That way you're making sure that A) you're not pushing people into suicide who might change their mind during a program as mentioned B) the persons who'd kill themselves anyways without that program can die with minimal pain or the risk of being too retarded to kill themselves (people are dumb, you know) and C) if you can't have doctors doing it for whatever reason, the ones who carry it out instead of them are qualified to do so.