Death With Dignity

[Peter Quill]

Measure 16 of 1994 established the U.S. state of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act (ORS 127.800-995), which legalizes physician-assisted dying with certain restrictions. Passage of this initiative made Oregon the first U.S. state and one of the first jurisdictions in the world to permit some terminally ill patients to determine the time of their own death.

Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed by a physician with a terminal illness that will kill them within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life. Use of the law is voluntary and the patient must initiate the request. Any physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider opposed on moral grounds does not have to participate.

The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, one of whom cannot be related to the patient, be entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, be the patient's physician, or be employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to not suffer from a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time. Should either physician have concerns about the patient’s ability to make an informed decision, or feel the patient’s request may be motivated by depression or coercion, the patient must be referred for a psychological evaluation.

The law protects doctors from liability for providing a lethal prescription for a terminally ill, competent adult in compliance with the statute restrictions. Participation by physicians, pharmacists, and health care providers is voluntary. The law also specifies a patient's decision to end his or her life shall not "have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy.

tl;dr: If people are diagnosed with a terminal illness and only have six months to live they can request for a lethal overdose therefore killing them.

It's pretty simple. Should we allow this to go on?

 

[ungulateman]

If they wish so they should be allowed to. Using time and money to prolong the pain of someone who would prefer to get it over with is an incredibly cruel thing to do.

 

[Poliwag2]

There is nothing dignified about death.

"I don't care if you can walk, see, wipe your own ***. It's always ugly. Always. You can live with dignity, you can't die with it." - House

More precisely, I (being atheist) value the pay-off from dying as 0. That is, there is nothing to be gained. However, the pay-off from living will always have a probability of being non-zero, and positive (e.g. retaining the ability to do things one enjoys). Therefore, euthanasia can only be rational in circumstances where the expectation of living is invariably negative (e.g. chronic uncontrollable pain without a cure).

I realise that many people are religious and therefore the equation is not so simple. In short, if one believes that the pay-off from death is non-zero and necessarily positive (e.g. "I will go to Heaven"), then it can be rational to choose euthanasia more often.

 

[Mr. Mudkip]

Euthenasia sounds much more pleasent then dying of cancer. I've always thought this should be legal elsewhere.

 

[Kate]

It's fine and dandy until you have situations where a stroke victim that cannot talk, sign his or her power of attorney to her son or daughter, which basically means he/she has legal right to end said persons life.

 

[randomspot555]

It's fine and dandy until you have situations where a stroke victim that cannot talk, sign his or her power of attorney to her son or daughter, which basically means he/she has legal right to end said persons life.

I don't see how that's a problem. It's part of being the medical proxy. You are in charge of someone else's health care and decisions that relate to it.

 

[alakazam_1]

While I can fully understand why people think this is okay and they are entitled to their views, I personally think that this is very wrong. Being a Roman Catholic, I believe that all life is sacred and that if it is God's plan for a person to continue living then it is not in our hands - or the hands of that person - to disagree. The situation where an elderly pensioner, who, in difficult economic times, can be made to feel like a burden, even if the family doesn't intend that, can be driven into depression and basically commit suicide with the help of the government is not one in which I wish to live.
As far as I'm concerned, there's always hope in life, and the only kind of death which is, to me, at all dignified is the death which is not in a person's own control, but which happens as God has planned.

 

[BUG]

While I can fully understand why people think this is okay and they are entitled to their views, I personally think that this is very wrong. Being a Roman Catholic, I believe that all life is sacred and that if it is God's plan for a person to continue living then it is not in our hands - or the hands of that person - to disagree. The situation where an elderly pensioner, who, in difficult economic times, can be made to feel like a burden, even if the family doesn't intend that, can be driven into depression and basically commit suicide with the help of the government is not one in which I wish to live.

The thing is though, how do you know what God's plans are? What if God's plan is to let that person end their suffering via euthanasia? And anyway, prolonging the life of anyone in pain is cruel.

 

[alakazam_1]

To answer your question, BUG, whilst we don't know what God's plans are, we know that they don't involve euthanasia - He instructs us in the Ten Commandments "Do not kill", and no matter what euphemisms its supporters can find for it, euthanasia is killing. He also tells us in the Bible that our bodies are not our own but belong to him and so, by extension, if we would not have someone else killed, we cannot do it to ourselves. To me, life is a great gift from God. God is not cruel - if the suffering is honestly too intense for someone to bear, He will end their life His own way, and if it is not then they do themselves no favours by committing suicide.

 

[larynx]

Just a real quick point, whether god deems it right or wrong, don't we have free will?
If someone wants to die, let them, because, legal or not, they're probably going to do it anyway. Unless incapable of doing so.
If they are religious, they know the consequences their religion has for such.

To answer your question, BUG, whilst we don't know what God's plans are, we know that they don't involve euthanasia - He instructs us in the Ten Commandments "Do not kill", and no matter what euphemisms its supporters can find for it, euthanasia is killing. He also tells us in the Bible that our bodies are not our own but belong to him and so, by extension, if we would not have someone else killed, we cannot do it to ourselves. To me, life is a great gift from God. God is not cruel - if the suffering is honestly too intense for someone to bear, He will end their life His own way, and if it is not then they do themselves no favours by committing suicide.

So, does "Do not kill" apply to war as well?

 

[Tim the turtle]

Larynx although your questions are valid they are in danger of dragging this thread off topic and turning it into another religious thread which would be a shame.

There is one thing I am curious about when it comes to euthanasia and America. What is the stance on capital punishment in those states that do or do not allow euthanasia? It seems like somewhat of a contradiction in morallity that euthanasia, killing someone who wants to die, is (the way I see it) more contraversial than killing someone who does not want to die. (Obviously I'm aware that in the case of the latter the condemned would have transgressed in some major way)

I'm just curious here.

 

[alakazam_1]

One point that could be made against that argument is that if a person sees that the facility for a quick, painless death is available, they may start to think about how they don't really enjoy life any more, and they're a burden to their families etc, and might start thinking about the possibilities of death, whereas if the facility was not made available and the government did not sanction it, it may not even cross the person's mind that this is a possibility. Making it available will make people accept it who wouldn't think of ending their lives otherwise.

 

[larynx]

Larynx although your questions are valid they are in danger of dragging this thread off topic and turning it into another religious thread which would be a shame.

Sorry, just curious, it was going to lead into my debate.

 

[Tim the turtle]

No need to apologise at all Your first question about free will is a very good one and definitely needs to be brought up in this debate, I was mainly referring to your question about war which, although a very interesting question, is more about religious beliefs in general than it is about euthanasia.

Perhaps you could debate it with Alakazam 1 over PM if he is willing

 

[larynx]

One point that could be made against that argument is that if a person sees that the facility for a quick, painless death is available, they may start to think about how they don't really enjoy life any more, and they're a burden to their families etc, and might start thinking about the possibilities of death, whereas if the facility was not made available and the government did not sanction it, it may not even cross the person's mind that this is a possibility. Making it available will make people accept it who wouldn't think of ending their lives otherwise.

That's why the law has certain rules.
The person who wants to die must be diagnosed with a terminal illness that leaves them with a life expectancy of 6 months or less. The law does not allow random people to come in and get lethal doses of medication.
Chances are, with or without the law, someone in pain from a terminal illness has probably thought of suicide.

 

[Peter Quill]

Tried my best here not to make this sound like a debate over religion. First time trying this stuff so yeah ^_^;;

It's fine and dandy until you have situations where a stroke victim that cannot talk, sign his or her power of attorney to her son or daughter, which basically means he/she has legal right to end said persons life.

I don't see how that's a problem. It's part of being the medical proxy. You are in charge of someone else's health care and decisions that relate to it.

I'm pretty sure Kate is trying to make a link to saying after the son/daughter has the right to kill said stroke victim after they can't give consent because of their illness. Isn't that murder? But there's written consent needed to be given from the patient himself. So a doctor can deny the wish to be killed after the amount of pain/suffering the patient has gone through because of no consent. So in a way I think it goes both ways.

While I can fully understand why people think this is okay and they are entitled to their views, I personally think that this is very wrong. Being a Roman Catholic, I believe that all life is sacred and that if it is God's plan for a person to continue living then it is not in our hands - or the hands of that person - to disagree. The situation where an elderly pensioner, who, in difficult economic times, can be made to feel like a burden, even if the family doesn't intend that, can be driven into depression and basically commit suicide with the help of the government is not one in which I wish to live.
As far as I'm concerned, there's always hope in life, and the only kind of death which is, to me, at all dignified is the death which is not in a person's own control, but which happens as God has planned.

I think most people would try and tell their families and have a discussion with them before doing such an act.

To answer your question, BUG, whilst we don't know what God's plans are, we know that they don't involve euthanasia - He instructs us in the Ten Commandments "Do not kill", and no matter what euphemisms its supporters can find for it, euthanasia is killing. He also tells us in the Bible that our bodies are not our own but belong to him and so, by extension, if we would not have someone else killed, we cannot do it to ourselves. To me, life is a great gift from God. God is not cruel - if the suffering is honestly too intense for someone to bear, He will end their life His own way, and if it is not then they do themselves no favours by committing suicide.

The Bible is contradictory, I'm sure there's even euthenasia in the bible. Besides that, what if God's time is wrong for said victim. Help I'm in pain wait I shouldn't kill myself because God doesn't want me to? I can't get in heaven without his divine help, let me suffer some more.

Just a real quick point, whether god deems it right or wrong, don't we have free will?
If someone wants to die, let them, because, legal or not, they're probably going to do it anyway. Unless incapable of doing so.
If they are religious, they know the consequences their religion has for such.

Religion is so powerful to the point that they won't try and kill themselves because they need a place in heaven. So no they really wouldn't do it.

One point that could be made against that argument is that if a person sees that the facility for a quick, painless death is available, they may start to think about how they don't really enjoy life any more, and they're a burden to their families etc, and might start thinking about the possibilities of death, whereas if the facility was not made available and the government did not sanction it, it may not even cross the person's mind that this is a possibility. Making it available will make people accept it who wouldn't think of ending their lives otherwise.

A psychological assesment is done for those that can speak. But in the end after that thinking, Wouldn't they want to die? Sure they might not have thought about it before such an act was made, but a more humane alternative should be allowed for these people. If the family already have a chance to see their terminally ill family member shouldn't they accept the choice their family member has made? If that was the point you were trying to give.

 

[Kate]

I don't see how that's a problem. It's part of being the medical proxy. You are in charge of someone else's health care and decisions that relate to it.

Apparently I have to spell this out.

You are ill, you have had a stroke. You are unable to speak. Before, you signed over your power of attorney to your son, or other relative. You do not wish to die, because let's say your actually recovering from whatever ailment. Yet the son/daughter/whatever still holds legal capability to end your life.

Now tell me, once more, that you do not see a problem with this.

 

[randomspot555]

I'm pretty sure Kate is trying to make a link to saying after the son/daughter has the right to kill said stroke victim after they can't give consent because of their illness. Isn't that murder? But there's written consent needed to be given from the patient himself. So a doctor can deny the wish to be killed after the amount of pain/suffering the patient has gone through because of no consent. So in a way I think it goes both ways.

The point of having a medical proxy is that the responsibility is either given or assumed to one because they'll know the patient's wishes. Usually, it's the spouse or some form of immediate family that automatically gets the medical proxy. But people are able to set up a medical proxy any time, and can pretty much give it to anyone (though without a marriage or blood relation, it can be a lot of paperwork).

So there. That's done with. The whole "omgzers someone making a decision about someone's health?!?!?!?!".

Apparently I have to spell this out.

You are ill, you have had a stroke. You are unable to speak. Before, you signed over your power of attorney to your son, or other relative. You do not wish to die, because let's say your actually recovering from whatever ailment. Yet the son/daughter/whatever still holds legal capability to end your life.

Now tell me, once more, that you do not see a problem with this.

Again, that's the whole point of a medical proxy. In case something happens where you can't communicate, you have made a decision where this person makes the decisions for you. So no, I don't see what's wrong with having a medical proxy, or why giving them this option is a reason to be against the issue.

Your hypothetical raises an issue totally unrelated to the topic. That the patient didn't communicate with their medical proxy, and the proxy made a decision against the patient's wishes. And that's the fault between those two, and is not a reason to be against the issue at hand.

Turn your hypothetical around and think of it like this:

The patient has fully explained to his proxy that he doesn't want to be put on machines to extend his live, he would rather die. When asked if he'd like nature to take it's course or utilize physician-assisted suicide, he chooses the latter. The proxy makes the decision in the future when the patient can't communicate. The physician administers a lethal dose of whatever.

You can use this scenario for any type of proxy ethics debate.

Now there's an issue to talk about. Not "what if the medical proxy is wrong?!?!?" because frankly, there's nothing that can be done about that. It happens, but the point of the system is the assumption that the proxy knows what's best because hopefully, the patient chose someone that knows their wishes. Otherwise, you throw the entire system out just because of rare cases where they make bad decisions.

 

[Rensch]

Well we have such regulation here in the Netherlands. If is has been done with the approval of close relatives and/or friends and the doctor, it is probably better the spared from the worst. The performing doctor should also have some legal protection from being persecuted as a (semi-)killer.

My sister has a good friend whose father was terminally ill. He was in a lot of pain and probably didn't have much longer than a week. To spare himself from the worst he decided to opt for euthanasia.

I do not see how, especially on the basis of your own faith that may not be shared by the patient, it is humane to be against such a policy. The Lord sure works in some pretty darn mysterious ways.

As long as it is regulated I think it is very good to have special laws for euthanasia.

 

[.TraX.]

It doesn't have any consequences to me personally, or any of you god bothering "NO EUTHANASIA" types, so let it happen.

Case firmly shut.