Arctickat Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 The terminally ill B.C. woman who was granted the right to a physician-assisted suicide by a B.C. judge last Friday says she was overwhelmed by the "momentous" decision, but she has no immediate plans to end her life. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/06/18/bc-gloria-taylor-assisted-suicide.html I did a paper on this in university. I approve of this decision.
chbare Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 What a physician and a consenting, well informed patient decide to do regarding end of life care should be their business. IMHO of course. 1
rock_shoes Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 This was a surprising but timely decision on the part of the judge involved. I must admit this judgement closely mirrors my own values on the subject. Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2 1
DwayneEMTP Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 Yeah, what RS and chbare said... Thanks for sharing the article...
Chief1C Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 Anyone who is terminally ill, with no chance of survival, and a dimming quality of life...should have the right to end their life by any means they choose. As with anyone who is in physical pain that cannot be managed. Over the past five years, I've lived with the consequences of intervening in someone's right to live without pain; and taken a lot of hostility for resuscitating someone that pretty goddamn near succeeded. All I did, really, was prolong their pain, now compounded by more pain, mental defects from a massive OD and even more medical bills than before. Courts should have nothing to do with it; someone wants out, with just cause, let them be in control of their own life.
Just Plain Ruff Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 Why is it that we have no problems ending a suffering animals life with a overdose of whatever drug the vet's give but we go bat shit crazy that we consider doing the same for our fellow man. It seems that animals are given more consideration than humans. hmmmmmmmm 1
mobey Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Ha! I love it!! A thread where we can all agree! Finally.... after all this time. Just wish Dr. J. Kevorkian could read the article. 1
Kiwiology Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 We do this now for animals so why not for people? Makes sense
WestMetroMedic Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 PBS's Frontline did a really decent job of addressing it in their episode, " The Suicide Tourist." I watched it on Netflix, and would suspect it is still there.
Eydawn Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 We don't all agree... sorry to burst the bubble chaps, but I disagree with this decision. I think it is not ethical to initiate the intentional termination of life, under any circumstances. There is something unique about human life that makes it different. Yes, we put our animals down out of compassion... but an animal is not a human being. The sentience that comes with being human, and in my opinion, the existence of the soul, makes suicide (whether assisted via a physician or not) an act that I feel to be very wrong. I also would caution that there is another group of individuals who feel that euthanizing non-functional human beings is appropriate, and that is a very difficult and pitfall-ridden path to be walking along. Human life is invaluable. It is precious. While I empathize with those suffering from chronic, debilitating, progressive diseases, I do not feel that opting to intentionally end your life is an appropriate intervention, nor should it be sanctioned by the medical community. I know many disagree with me on this, but this is something I am very firmly convicted of. I would like to add that I do not make this statement out of ignorance, or lack of exposure to what individuals and families go through as someone deteriorates from an incurable disease. I have provided care to many of these individuals, suffering from a range of conditions and possessing a range of cognitive functions. It is that experience that sets me so firmly against euthanasia and assisted suicide. I do agree that it is ethical to control pain, alleviate suffering, and through those measures perhaps shorten the span of a life that otherwise might have gone on for longer. For example, I have no problem in the administration of benzodiazepines and narcotic pain relievers in hospice care, where you know full well that said administration will shorten the person's life. I also agree that it is ethical to remove the artificial prolongation of life via medical interventions such as feeding tubes, artificial ventilation, intra-aortic balloon pumps, etc. Especially when the individual in question has created advanced directives indicating their preference with regard to this sort of care. Yes, you are removing an intervention that is directly supporting the individual's life... but you are not intentionally administering something to end that life. There is a very discrete ethical difference here. Make of it what you will.... Wendy CO EMT-B RN-ADN Student
Recommended Posts