I find myself able to argue both sides of this argument.
Good Life/Good Death
I know I would want PAS to be an option for me. I would hope if I felt encased in my body and my will to be here was gone, never to return, that someone would help me move on. I want to leave this place on my terms. I don’t want to leave my family unable to grieve my death or celebrate my life. How unfair it is for me to make them choose because I was too lazy or fearful to choose while I still could.
I am also very aware from my experience in the hospital setting euthanasia is practiced fairly commonly only under terms that make it seem less alarming like hospice or “comfort measures only”. Patients are given different painkillers when they express their desire to end chronic suffering. The patient is given the new meds and is told to be careful because more than 1or2 would certainly be lethal. With a handshake and a smile they get the message. Hearts slow to a stop and breathing becomes shallow, autopsies are performed only at the families request after a certain age (unless circumstances indicate a reason otherwise). Then there are friends and family that insist their loved one be sent home to die in more peaceful surroundings than the overcrowded floors of the hospital. It just doesn’t make headlines but these practices are practices of euthanasia. The fear behind it becoming a slippery slope seems to loose ground if it hasn’t “slipped” thus far. I know people who don’t want to be organ donors because they think medical staff will be less likely to use resuscitative measures. Maybe the idea people will be euthanized against their will is just as hollow. Lastly, as obvious as it sounds we do seem to condone euthanizing animals. There are many differences between animals and humans but at its core it is the same principal.
Hope for the Hopeless?
On the other hand, I too have trouble ignoring the fuzzy line between one’s right to die and one’s obligation to die. Sick people are vulnerable and need advocacy. After this reading and countless “you tube” videos I still wonder whose suffering people really want to relieve. Is it always the patient’s? I learned that within a year of a paralyzing spinal injury more than 90% of patients wanted to end their life but after 5years only 10% said they would. I can’t help but feel like we have an obligation to those people to make them stick around. I don’t trust the government to regulate euthanasia simply because of a poor track record otherwise. There are far too many ideas of what “quality of life” consists of. When it is up to others to decide what another person’s quality of life is some degree of misinterpretation is bound to occur.
The debate is far from dated. As context changes people are faced with new aspects to consider. Unless we plan for ourselves plans will be made for us, period.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"I learned that within a year of a paralyzing spinal injury more than 90% of patients wanted to end their life but after 5years only 10% said they would. I can’t help but feel like we have an obligation to those people to make them stick around." Good point. I agree with Arra's argument that the major issue at hand is the incompetence of our medical system to properly diagnose and treat depression in those with terminal illness and chronic pain. To restrict a patients ability to make their own life choices but at the same time not providing any guidance or help with the mental aspects of their condition essentially leaves the patient helpless and hopeless. To further complicate matters, pain relieving medications depress the mervous system and can intensify the effects of the depression. How can we expect patients to make a informed decision as well as choose to live when they are stuck in a cycle of despair we have helped put them in by refusing or ignoring to treat their depression.
ReplyDeleteFrom theological standpoint, many religions believe Suicide to be a sin, resulting in damnation. If patient believes this to be true,then suicide is not an option. Therefore by the medical community simply stating "we can tell the family and patient how to do it themselves" is not a pratical solution. Again, the patient has no choice or liberty in their death and no help from the medical system that ignores their pleas.
*As a side note the figure is not from formal research rather a quote I noted while listening to a Dr. Paul McDaniel. He was referring to the patients he saw. He is a very experienced surgeon and not publicly for or against euthanasia. I really meant to shed light on the fact that people may not see life getting better when it fact it can. Suicidal feelings can be transient. Thanks for your comment though because it raised another point, religion. Also, the mode doctors employ now to "help" their patients.
ReplyDeleteI know Wasabi didn’t imply religon should guide our choice on the morality of euthanasia but I it made me consider that as a reason for its ban. I think her point is people are diserviced by doctors, society and religon leaving them confused and worse off. I contend doctors are the saving grace of patients in this “cycle”. They are the one’s who save the person from a life of simply existing.
On January 11, 1983, Nancy Cruzan lost control of her old car that had no seat belts, was thrown from it and landed face down in a water-filled ditch. Paramedics found her with no vital signs, but they resuscitated her. After a couple weeks of remaining dormant within a coma, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Surgeons inserted a feeding tube for her long-term care. Her husband and parents waited for a more substantial recovery, but eventually, after four years, accepted that there was no hope. They petitioned to have the tube feeding stopped and where denied time and time again. Eventually the request was granted and it took 11 days for her to die.
If there is a god (give him/her any name you like) how would they feel about that?
Is it fair people ask someone else to take responsibility for your death? When Jack Kevorkian administered lethal cocktails no one else could be present because they too may be found guilty of "murder". Wasabi says giving the patient the tools to end their own life is not practical either. It is a practical/useful metod because it removes the doctor from liability.
Senator and former Vice Presidential Candidate Joseph Lieberman said doctors need to learn more about pain control and should be protected from prosecution "if they prescribe pain killers that may increase the possibility of death so long as their specific intention was not to end life." "Doctors should do everything they can to reduce pain, but not to administer drugs to end life, I think we go over a line then." ... Joseph Lieberman (From a March 19, 2001 article in the Post-Intelligencer Washington Bureau. "http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/suicides19.shtml" )
So, protect them from prosecution if you can determine their intent? It's a system that has been in place for years. Why? Because it is the most practical one we have thus far. Whether or not it is sinful is negotiable.
Back to the Cruzan story. Does the family go to hell in that case? Is it me or are there just too many ways to be damned when it comes to this topic? Religion will be interpreted differently by all so isn't that why a separation should exist between church and state here. The state in this case and cases like it imposed their morality. Day to day life for the people with power was a walk in the park compared to the hell this family had to endure. The price paid to uphold laws and provide a good night’s sleep for policy makers was paid by this family. How is that merciful and compassionate? Add religion to this situation and you would need to be apply it to policy across the board. So, no abortions, alcohol, work on Sunday and lets do away with electricity too. Then we may all have a shot at salvation. Can’t be against euthanasia and for liberty.
For the most part there are no killers there are no heathens just people who want to the liberty to choose.
my_silent_orchestra, you're opening line stood out to me because I thought the same thing during my reading of these articles on PAS. I can judge my own suffering, I know my own values, etc. Patient autonomy, right?
ReplyDeleteAnd although there exist cases where PAS is morally unacceptable (a suicidal teen), it is those minor, nuanced issues that make every individual case different and unique. Sometimes it is acceptable, sometimes it is not. And, a lack of effective control in the administration of PAS does not mean every person should have that freedom to chose taken away.