Reasons For Assisted Suicide

[yogi]

When you think about doctor assisted suicide, you probably are sympathizing with a victim who is suffering extreme pain and want to give them a choice in the matter. I supported that notion for exactly that reason. I don't know about your country, but in the country I live in the legalization of assisted suicides is increasing. You might get the impression that compassion and sensitivity has invaded our legislatures. But, as we all know, love does not make the world go round. It's money. The sad truth in the matter is that it costs A LOT to keep a terminal patient alive, but it is free to get them to die.

Oh, do you think we are above that kind of thinking? Read the linked article for a dose of reality.

As Smith says, the assisted suicide movement “is about allowing killing as an acceptable answer to many causes of suffering, whether terminal or chronic disease, disability, mental illness, or existential despair.” Once you open that door, it leads to “virtual death-on-demand.” And that is something we should all oppose.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/28/when- ... -coercive/

[pilvikki]

if it's that expensive to keep a person alive, you'd think the drug companies would be right there saying "hey! stick around, we can still get a quarter million out of you!" and vehemently oppose assisted suicide.

the way I figure is that if you need an assist to kill yourself, you're in pretty rough shape and need none of this guy's opinions.

the broken wrist bit was ridiculous. there's a lot more to that than that.

[yogi]

The problem with the drug company argument is the source of the funds. Insurance companies are the ones paying out the quarter million and they never get that much in premiums from the patient. Thus there is a lot of pressure on them to cut costs to remain profitable and in business.

There is no argument over helping desperate people with no alternatives. We all agree there. The article points out that in some instances the patient is being coerced to choose suicide for financial reasons not for medical reasons. The broken wrist story is a classic example of something that already is documented.

[Kellemora]

Technically, physician assisted suicide has been around as long as I can remember. It's just not called that.
Terminal patients in pain or given a Morphine Drip, and in some cases, the patient themselves can increase the amount as necessary for pain control. We all know the result of increasing your own dosage, or having it turned up beyond the limit.

[pilvikki]

so, it seems there's something really wrong with system then, as some people simply could not afford to survive. shudder.

yes, gary, that's been going for as long as there's been doctors, just not officially.

[yogi]

Yes, there is something VERY wrong in the system when an insurance company is allowed to decide whether a person gets to live or not. Trying to resolve that issue just opens a whole new can of worms. Should we be interfering with nature in the first place and artificially prolonging life with medications? Is prolonging life with health care an inalienable human right?

[Icey]

I think the choice should be left up to the patient.

In the UK, it's not mandatory that doctors swear on the Hippocratic Oath, but most promise to uhold the ideals of the faculty they graduate from.

In the UK, the closest to a modern Hippocratic Oath are the core values and principles set by the General Medical Council (GMC), laid out as the duties of a doctor under the title "Good Medical Practice". These are virtually the same as taking the Oath.

Summary of principles from the Hippocratic Oath: The classical Hippocratic Oath has been summarised as:

"A solemn promise:

Of solidarity with teachers and other physicians.
Of beneficence (to do good or avoid evil) and non-maleficence (from the Latin 'primum non nocere', or 'do no harm') towards patients. (In fact the well-known "first do no harm" phrase does not feature in the classical Hippocratic Oath.)
Not to assist suicide or abortion.
To leave surgery to surgeons.
Not to harm, especially not to seduce patients.
To maintain confidentiality and never to gossip."

The third one becomes debatable on several levels, but I don't think that doctors have the right to "play God". They should do what they can for a patient, within the knowledge, experience and sadly, budget, of their job, taking into account what the patient wants him or herself.

[yogi]

The problem, as pointed out in the article, is that patients are being coerced into choosing suicide.

[pilvikki]

'being coerced' is criminal, pure and simple. assisted murder.

[Icey]

Yes, it's dreadful.

[Kellemora]

Way too many insurance companies are practicing medicine without a license!

[Icey]

It's a very deep subject which can turn nasty .

If a person puts it in writing, or on a recording that being assisted to die is what they want in the event of life becoming too much for them to bear, then so long as this's been witnessed by, say, 2 reliable, unrelated people, and doctors feel that there'd be no quality of life for that patient, then I think it's up to them, but no method's foolproof. If someone's determined that they're going to help someone on their way, by fair means or foul, then they're going to do it, and because this causes so much controversy, it's my belief that it's wrong. The day after someone dies, might be the day that a cure's found for their illness. Then how many friends and relatives'd be left thinking: "If only they'd held on ...." Being coerced into such a final decision IS criminal, because seeming miracles CAN happen. Coercion's just a nice word for helping to murder someone.

[pilvikki]

on the other it's equally criminal to force someone to stay alive, while screaming in agony. which I know happens, especially in catholic hospitals in Quebec...

[Icey]

That sounds appalling. I know that both hospitals, and doctors treating patients at home, give the best pain relief that they can, so that the person gently slips away without having to go through the trauma of any prolonged agony.