Euthanasia

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Euthanasia. Mercy killing. Assisted Suicide. A term that no matter which way you put it has many different reactions from many different people no matter how you put it. For those uninformed euthanasia is the practice of ending your life, usually with help of a physician in order to end an ordeal. As I missed out of the Pro-Life Abortion debate currently raging in this Cigar Lounge, I thought I would bring up euthanasia.

Euthanasia is popularly taken to mean the practice of assisting severely ill people to die, either at their request or by taking the decision to withdraw life support. This could mean ending your life due to a raging illness, or your family removing your life support if you were in a vegetative state.
Like many controversial issues, your view on euthanasia can change whether you have been touched personally or not. I know from seeing relatives go through painful ordeals such as terminal cancer that the last few weeks or even months of a persons life can often be traumatizing and painful for everyone. Terminal diseases such as cancer can often tear families apart, and with the option of assisted suicide open to people, it may allow for people to end their days in their right mind.

However there is a darker side to such practices, with many depression victims choosing to euthanize themselves, even if there is nothing wrong with them besides their mental health. This often causes controversy. Religion, as always, plays a large role in the debate over Euthanasia. The sixth commandment being "Thou shalt not Kill" and this could be interpreted to meaning thou shalt not kill, willingly wanted or not. I do not feel this way unfortunately, but I felt I should have gotten some perspective on the other side of the fence, so, when researching for this thread, I came across a column by a woman named Cristina Olvera. Here's her view on it:

I felt this way for a while, until I realized that all Euthanasia really means is an eternity in hell . Undoubtedly it goes against God's plan and it's something that cannot be forgiven. What's worse-A long painful death and an eternity in Heaven, or to die a quick painless death by means of Euthanasia, and spend eternity in hell. That's an easy decision for me. Is it for you?

I am currently unsure as to the laws pertaining to euthanasia and it's practice. Where I live, in the Northern Territory of Australia, it was legalized for a short period a few years ago by the State government, before being quickly banned by the overruling Federal Government. This caused outcry amongst the public. I also know that i some parts of Europe such as the Netherlands and Belgium, it is legal, with many places open for people with terminal illnesses to spend their remaining days.

So there is the question. Should the practice of assisted suicide be legalized everywhere, left to be practiced in selected areas or should it be banned? What is your personal stance on the issue? Any ideas or thought would be appreciated.

 

[HBK-aholic]

If people want to die peacefully in Britain they go to Switzerland. Does anyone see the point in it? Basically, if you're rich enough to be be able to afford that then you're fine, but the people who don't have the money aren't, which is hardly fair is it?

It'd have to be regulated a lot. This isn't something we could have without being policed, due to abuse of the system. But I'm definitely for it being legalised. If I was terminally ill, and knew that it was going to get worse before I died, I'd like to make sure I could put my life in order, make sure my family had everything I could give them, and then I'd want to die in a peaceful way. It's not fair on me or my family to see me the way I could get, and I wouldn't want to rely on them, and have them feel trapped in needing to care for m 24/7.

 

[Razor]

Should the practice of assisted suicide be legalized everywhere, left to be practiced in selected areas or should it be banned?

Banned. The only safe way to complete a Euthanasia procedure would be with a doctor at hand, performing the procedure. Thing is, every doctor takes an oath to "Do no harm," "Tun Sie keinen Schaden," "No haga ningún daño," "Ne faites aucun mal," or as it was first communicated more than a thousand years ago, "Primum non nocere." Pick your language, it still means the same thing. Do no harm. It may just be me, but killing someone is doing an awful lot of harm. And that view shouldn't change for a doctor just because he's seen people in pain or with terminal illness. The oaths he takes as a medical professional aren't there to forget when it's nifty and ethically easier.

What is your personal stance on the issue?

Any doctor who gives them is a hypocrite. And should have his license revoked, as he is in most every state. I think a few now have voluntary euthanasia laws, which is just plain hypocritical.

However, with that said, I couldn't care less if someone chooses the Euthanasia route. It's the same as a suicide, except they're going the way that doesn't offer any pain. Instead of slipping the rope around their heads like their depressed ancestors did, they're going to the doctor to get a designer suicide.

I suppose you could go the Catholic route on this, and claim that any suffering a person undergoes brings them closer to the suffering Jesus felt on the cross, so Euthanasia is wrong. I'm not a Catholic nor religious, so take that as you will. Pope Benedict is also firmly against birth control.

Any ideas or thought would be appreciated.

Basically, doctors aren't fulfilling their oaths if they provide such procedures. "First, do no harm" doesn't mean "Do no harm...unless that patient is dying. Then do whatever you want."

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

It may just be me, but killing someone is doing an awful lot of harm.

But is it really? If a patient has to suffer through months of a disabilitating disorder, their body wasting away in front of them before their demise, isn't it more harmful to let them live when they're begging for the end? It seems like torture if you have a way to take away their pain but you're keeping them alive because of the hippocratic oath.

Any doctor who gives them is a hypocrite. And should have his license revoked, as he is in most every state. I think a few now have voluntary euthanasia laws, which is just plain hypocritical.

Why? For wanting to help people and fulfill their last wish? I wonder if you've ever been witness to someone's last few days, and if your position on the issue would change. It's all very good to criticise the doctors for not doing things by the book, but these arent medical dummies. These people are suffering, going through agony before they die. Why put them through that willingly?

Basically, doctors aren't fulfilling their oaths if they provide such procedures. "First, do no harm" doesn't mean "Do no harm...unless that patient is dying. Then do whatever you want."

A doctor could stuff up an appendectomy and the patient could die. They could give them a few milligrams too much of a drug and the patient could have a bad reaction. We're all dying Razor, it's just a question of when and where.

 

[Razor]

But is it really? If a patient has to suffer through months of a disabilitating disorder, their body wasting away in front of them before their demise, isn't it more harmful to let them live when they're begging for the end? It seems like torture if you have a way to take away their pain but you're keeping them alive because of the hippocratic oath.

You can give them medicine for the pain. Hell, put them in a medically induced coma until they finally die. But killing them is causing infinitely more harm than allowing them to live their final days in free of pain.

The Hippocratic oath is the one thing that runs the very basis of medicine. It gives the very ethical basis for all that medicine is built from. If it is broken, it is a big deal. There's a reason why there are ethics committees in every hospital.

Why? For wanting to help people and fulfill their last wish? I wonder if you've ever been witness to someone's last few days, and if your position on the issue would change. It's all very good to criticise the doctors for not doing things by the book, but these arent medical dummies. These people are suffering, going through agony before they die. Why put them through that willingly?

I have seen people suffering. My grandmother lived the last of her days in constant pain from arthritis and other diseases. My grandfather spend the last 2 years of his life twisting and writhing from the effects of Parkinson's Disease. Don't you dare act like I haven't seen suffering. I have seen more suffering then you will ever know.

You're right, these aren't medical dummies. But that's exactly why the oaths doctors take are so vital. If we start throwing them away just because something didn't feel right they would mean nothing. Suddenly Doctor-Patient Confidentiality doesn't mean a thing. Keeping your patient alive suddenly isn't all that important, because the required procedure is really hard.

They don't have to suffer. Drug them up with pain medication. Put them in a coma to ride out the last of that pain before they finally succumb. Both of those options don't end in the doctor having actively caused the death of the patient. Doctors outright killing their patients does not align with the Hippocratic oath.

A doctor could stuff up an appendectomy and the patient could die.

Right. But the doctor isn't giving them the appendectomy specifically to kill the patient.

They could give them a few milligrams too much of a drug and the patient could have a bad reaction.

Once again, he didn't give that extra bit of drug on purpose, now did he?

We're all dying Razor, it's just a question of when and where.

Right. And of if you're going to be murdered by a doctor who is breaking his medical oaths or not.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

You can give them medicine for the pain. Hell, put them in a medically induced coma until they finally die. But killing them is causing infinitely more harm than allowing them to live their final days in free of pain.

Are you kidding me Razor? You expect me to believe that it's right to drug someone out to the point of being comatose, and having everyone watching them like that for their last days is right? There is no fucking way you can justify that. It doesn't matter which way you slice it or how much morphine you pump into that persons body, they are still going through hell that they willingly want to end.

The Hippocratic oath is the one thing that runs the very basis of medicine. It gives the very ethical basis for all that medicine is built from. If it is broken, it is a big deal. There's a reason why there are ethics committees in every hospital.

If a serial rapist comes into a hospital with a bullet wound, the doctors must step in and save him. If a mass murder had a ruptured spleen, the hippocratic oath can save his ass. But how can you define harm? The doctor isn't going to break that rapists fingers as he takes that bullet out, so why should he draw out the cancer patients pain by letting him live? Thou shall do no harm, define harm to me. Pain, suffering? Right.

I have seen people suffering. My grandmother lived the last of her days in constant pain from arthritis and other diseases. My grandfather spend the last 2 years of his life twisting and writhing from the effects of Parkinson's Disease. Don't you dare act like I haven't seen suffering. I have seen more suffering then you will ever know.

We've all seen suffering. So I ask you, why do you still feel the same way? You've seen the suffering, and even if your grandparents didn't feel that particular way, why do you want to condemn a doctor that has the right intentions? You said you don't give a damn if someone gets euthanasia or not, so why condemn the doctor? What if he takes off that white coat and stabs the patient with a needle? Is that ok?

You're right, these aren't medical dummies. But that's exactly why the oaths doctors take are so vital. If we start throwing them away just because something didn't feel right they would mean nothing. Suddenly Doctor-Patient Confidentiality doesn't mean a thing. Keeping your patient alive suddenly isn't all that important, because the required procedure is really hard.

Oh yes, because thats what euthanasia is all about right? Oh no, I'm on my lunch break but this guy has a broken leg. euthanise him. Obviously it's not like that. What if there is no "required" procedure. You should know as well as I do that there isnt a cure for Parkinsons, much less as there is no cure for old age . A doctor can't just look at a person in pain and not do something about it, whether mending a cut or prescribing medicine. he's not a robot. How is this any different?

They don't have to suffer. Drug them up with pain medication. Put them in a coma to ride out the last of that pain before they finally succumb. Both of those options don't end in the doctor having actively caused the death of the patient. Doctors outright killing their patients does not align with the Hippocratic oath.

This is just outright callous. You're talking like the patient is just some slab of meat that the doctor just injects with drugs to clear his conscience. So in order for the doctor to keep a bit of dignity, an entire family has to watch the slow, inevitable death of their relative/friend before their eyes while the doctor does nothing but watch and pop in some more pills.

Right. And of if you're going to be murdered by a doctor who is breaking his medical oaths or not.

Somehow, if you have a terminal disease, I think 1 month is a long amount of time

 

[Razor]

Are you kidding me Razor? You expect me to believe that it's right to drug someone out to the point of being comatose, and having everyone watching them like that for their last days is right? There is no fucking way you can justify that. It doesn't matter which way you slice it or how much morphine you pump into that persons body, they are still going through hell that they willingly want to end.

Yeah, I can justify that. It's better than murdering them. Murder is, you know, against the law. It's the ending of another person's life. Anyone who assists in a suicide is guilty of murder in the United States, and for good reason. You killed someone.

But how can you define harm?

The Medical Dictionary defines it as:

the condition of promoting injury or damage. The injury or damage can be described as physical, psychologic, or both.

The doctor isn't going to break that rapists fingers as he takes that bullet out, so why should he draw out the cancer patients pain by letting him live? Thou shall do no harm, define harm to me. Pain, suffering? Right.

You cannot promote injury or damage. Breaking that rapist's rib to get to a bullet behind it is legal, because if that bullet were left there the measure of "I broke the dude's rib, which will heal" over "That bullet can do serious harm just laying there in his body" is justified.

Let's take the idea of giving someone pain drugs to mask the pain over killing the patient. You can make the pain bearable with pain medication. And even if you couldn't. You can't outright kill someone because their pain is to much. A physician's duty is to do no harm, and the ultimate physical harm is to kill someone.

We've all seen suffering. So I ask you, why do you still feel the same way? You've seen the suffering, and even if your grandparents didn't feel that particular way, why do you want to condemn a doctor that has the right intentions? You said you don't give a damn if someone gets euthanasia or not, so why condemn the doctor? What if he takes off that white coat and stabs the patient with a needle? Is that ok?

Because. It's not the doctor's place to kill the patient. If my grandfather had wanted to kill himself, then okay. I'd have understood that. But the doctor took an oath not to cause harm in his life. and the ultimate physical and emotional harm is killing someone. You know, that action that ends life.

Oh yes, because thats what euthanasia is all about right? Oh no, I'm on my lunch break but this guy has a broken leg. euthanise him. Obviously it's not like that. What if there is no "required" procedure. You should know as well as I do that there isnt a cure for Parkinsons, much less as there is no cure for old age . A doctor can't just look at a person in pain and not do something about it, whether mending a cut or prescribing medicine. he's not a robot. How is this any different?

Yeah. That's why you have various drug treatments to ease the progression of diseases and make the patient comfortable for when the diseases progress too far. Euthanasia is never the only option, so it is never the right option.

This is just outright callous. You're talking like the patient is just some slab of meat that the doctor just injects with drugs to clear his conscience. So in order for the doctor to keep a bit of dignity, an entire family has to watch the slow, inevitable death of their relative/friend before their eyes while the doctor does nothing but watch and pop in some more pills.

It's callous to not kill a person? Doctors have multitudes of pain and other drugs that will make the person more comfortable during their last days.

and besides. The doctor isn't treating the family. He's treating the patient. A doctor can't say "Well..I would give you this life-saving procedure, but it'll be hard for your family to see you go through rehab."

Somehow, if you have a terminal disease, I think 1 month is a long amount of time

Which is why the doctor should fight to keep you alive for that month and not kill you because you're going through pain.

 

[Felderino]

The way I see it is it's my life. Why should someone else have a say in what I choose to do with it?
If I want to end my life because of a terminal illness to save months of pain and suffering then thats my business and no one elses. For people to say you should go on suffering just because they believe it's murder is Bollocks!
So if you disagree with euthanasia and think it's murder then imagine you are a US or UK soldier on patrol in afghanistan, you're friend and colleague is ahead of you and steps on an IED ripping his legs from his body. You rush over to him blood pumping everywhere and obviously not going to live very long, and he pleads with you to end his life by shooting him in the head. Now if you do this in my eyes compassionate act by the logic of someone against euthanasia this would be murder, which is a warped view in my opinion, you see it all depends on the circumstances.

 

[Dexter]

Whether or not you think doctors are violating their Hippocratic Oath by performing Euthanasia isn't really at issue here. Clearly there are doctors that are fine with it and are willing to do the procedure. So that's a moot point of argument.

What's at issue is the legality of it. More specifically, what's at issue is that the government is stepping in on this issue and dictating terms... telling you that it's not ok for you to call an end to your own life if you'd rather go out on your own terms. Essentially, they're telling you that your life belongs to them, not you. That's completely unacceptable.

 

[JenovasWitness]

Whether or not you think doctors are violating their Hippocratic Oath by performing Euthanasia isn't really at issue here. Clearly there are doctors that are fine with it and are willing to do the procedure. So that's a moot point of argument.

What's at issue is the legality of it. More specifically, what's at issue is that the government is stepping in on this issue and dictating terms... telling you that it's not ok for you to call an end to your own life if you'd rather go out on your own terms. Essentially, they're telling you that your life belongs to them, not you. That's completely unacceptable.

In no way do I condone or discredit the regulation of Euthenasia, but the question that came to my mind when reading your argument is this:

If government should not be able to regulate something because it is our personal choice, what are they good for?

This line of thinking can be used to justify any action in society. If it is someone's personal belief that they are justified to do something, then they should be allowed that action? Some people have some pretty reprehensible and sick beliefs that I think should not be allowed, regulated and punished by a Government that is fairly elected to represent the people.

As for Euthanasia, my personal beliefs side with Razorback. I know that the idea of Euthanasia is that it is a compassionate act, but just because it appears as such, it doesn't make it right. It is still for all intents and purposes the ending of a life. I am all for intensive palliative care for terminal patients that makes them comfortable and gives them the opportunity to spend there last days peacefully with their families and loved ones.

But again, this is my personal point of view which I don't expect everyone to accept.

 

[Razor]

The way I see it is it's my life. Why should someone else have a say in what I choose to do with it?

I don't. The government doesn't. However, the doctors should not take a life. It's against their Hippocratic Oath.

If I want to end my life because of a terminal illness to save months of pain and suffering then thats my business and no one elses.

You're completely right.

For people to say you should go on suffering just because they believe it's murder is Bollocks!

You can end your life all you want. Doctors, however, can't.

So if you disagree with euthanasia and think it's murder then imagine you are a US or UK soldier on patrol in afghanistan, you're friend and colleague is ahead of you and steps on an IED ripping his legs from his body. You rush over to him blood pumping everywhere and obviously not going to live very long, and he pleads with you to end his life by shooting him in the head. Now if you do this in my eyes compassionate act by the logic of someone against euthanasia this would be murder, which is a warped view in my opinion, you see it all depends on the circumstances.

The main difference, however, is that the soldier doesn't take an oath to do no harm. He pledges to defend his country. Two completely different professions there, and the comparison is null.

 

[Razor]

Whether or not you think doctors are violating their Hippocratic Oath by performing Euthanasia isn't really at issue here.

Actually, it is. The Hippocratic Oath is a big deal.

Clearly there are doctors that are fine with it and are willing to do the procedure.

So? Doctors are routinely suspended by hospital Ethics Committees because they did something they thought was moral, but the hospital deemed wasn't. Doctors aren't the complete end all, be all of the Hippocratic Oath. They are routinely examined by other doctors.

So that's a moot point of argument.

Not at all.

What's at issue is the legality of it.

Sure, that's another aspect. It's illegal in most every state.

More specifically, what's at issue is that the government is stepping in on this issue and dictating terms...

Actually, they're just saying that doctor's can't murder you. You can kill yourself all you want. But the minute you get a friend, or a doctor to help is the minute that friend or doctor is committing murder.

telling you that it's not ok for you to call an end to your own life if you'd rather go out on your own terms.

Not at all. Kill yourself all you want. Just don't ask a doctor to break his Oath to do it for you.

Essentially, they're telling you that your life belongs to them, not you.

No, they're telling you a doctor can't end it. Which is legit. Doctors promise they won't.

That's completely unacceptable.

It's completely legal to tell a doctor not to kill his patients. The government isn't policing suicide. It's policing doctors, whom are licensed by the state.

 

[Dexter]

All this chopping up and responding line by line makes it exceedingly difficult to respond to your overall theme, but I'll do the best I can. I would respectfully request that you reply to my post as a whole next time instead of slicing it up if possible, please, should you choose to respond again. It's a complete thought and I'd prefer it to be addressed as such.

If I'm understanding the point you're trying to make, it's that the legality of the issue speaks not to the right of the individual to take their own life, but to the right (for lack of a better word, I'm sure you wouldn't use that term) of the doctor to perform the procedure.

It's interesting to note that the AMA actually agrees with you on this point. Here's the link on their policy, if you're interested:

http://euthanasia.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=549

The reason I link this article that completely contradicts the whole point I'm trying to make is this one particular quote...

The physician who performs euthanasia assumes unique responsibility for the act of ending the patient's life.

That seems to get to the heart of their objection, and yours, if you don't mind me summing up your argument for you. That's exactly where I believe you and the AMA are mistaken.

It's very important to note that the doctor does not... repeat... does NOT kill the patient. Ultimately, the act is placed (literally) in the hands of the patient. All the doctor does is provide the means. There are several devises invented for the purposes of patient-administered euthanasia (wikipedia article here ), but in the devise used by Dr. Kevorkian for example, the patient is given an IV of saline, with a separate syringe which administers the lethal injection connected to that IV and activated by a button pressed by the patient.

Why is this such an important distinction? Because the patient MUST at least be mentally competent enough to push a button. It's not something that's done TO them, it's done BY them. Taking this a step further, and I like this system even better, another system was developed that used a laptop computer to ask the patient a series of questions, to verify full mental competence. The lethal injection was only made if the patient proved, via responding to a series of questions on the computer, that they were in possession of their mental faculties.

At best, a physician administering a system such as this could be accused of aiding and abetting and already suicidal patient in full possession of their mental faculties. The doctor is absolutely in NO way assuming "unique responsibility for the act of ending the patient's life" as the AMA suggests. They're simply meeting the needs of a mentally competent patient with sovereign right over their own lives and bodies. I think you really have to make a significant logical leap from that to murder. I just don't see it.

 

[Razor]

That seems to get to the heart of their objection, and yours, if you don't mind me summing up your argument for you. That's exactly where I believe you and the AMA are mistaken.

It's very important to note that the doctor does not... repeat... does NOT kill the patient. Ultimately, the act is placed (literally) in the hands of the patient. All the doctor does is provide the means. There are several devises invented for the purposes of patient-administered euthanasia (wikipedia article here ), but in the devise used by Dr. Kevorkian for example, the patient is given an IV of saline, with a separate syringe which administers the lethal injection connected to that IV and activated by a button pressed by the patient.

Why is this such an important distinction? Because the patient MUST at least be mentally competent enough to push a button. It's not something that's done TO them, it's done BY them. Taking this a step further, and I like this system even better, another system was developed that used a laptop computer to ask the patient a series of questions, to verify full mental competence. The lethal injection was only made if the patient proved, via responding to a series of questions on the computer, that they were in possession of their mental faculties.

At best, a physician administering a system such as this could be accused of aiding and abetting and already suicidal patient in full possession of their mental faculties. The doctor is absolutely in NO way assuming "unique responsibility for the act of ending the patient's life" as the AMA suggests. They're simply meeting the needs of a mentally competent patient with sovereign right over their own lives and bodies. I think you really have to make a significant logical leap from that to murder. I just don't see it.

A doctor who gives his patients a saline drip and a syringe of lethal chemicals is giving his patient a means to kill themselves. It's equivalent to giving a suicidal man a loaded gun and saying "Here you go. Do it quick, now." The patient may want to, but you are giving them the means. And by giving them the means to complete such an act you are complicit and responsible for said act.

As far as calling it murder goes, this is a matter of intent. Intent is what legally separates murder from manslaughter, for instance. If the doctor accidentally gave a patient too much morphine, that would be negligent manslaughter, perhaps. The doctor did not mean to give the patient too much medication, and complications arose from that action that killed the patient.

However, suppose a doctor meant to give the patient too much morphine in that syringe when he handed it to the patient. The doctor knew exactly what would happen when he gave that syringe over. He was intent on killing that patient, and whether the patient wanted to die or not, it doesn't matter. Legally he's responsible, and his oath is broken. You can not commit any harm as a doctor, either directly by injecting the overdose on purpose or indirectly by giving the patient the overloaded syringe and watching as he injects it.

 

[JenovasWitness]

All this chopping up and responding line by line makes it exceedingly difficult to respond to your overall theme, but I'll do the best I can. I would respectfully request that you reply to my post as a whole next time instead of slicing it up if possible, please, should you choose to respond again. It's a complete thought and I'd prefer it to be addressed as such.

If I'm understanding the point you're trying to make, it's that the legality of the issue speaks not to the right of the individual to take their own life, but to the right (for lack of a better word, I'm sure you wouldn't use that term) of the doctor to perform the procedure.

It's interesting to note that the AMA actually agrees with you on this point. Here's the link on their policy, if you're interested:

http://euthanasia.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=549

The reason I link this article that completely contradicts the whole point I'm trying to make is this one particular quote...



That seems to get to the heart of their objection, and yours, if you don't mind me summing up your argument for you. That's exactly where I believe you and the AMA are mistaken.

It's very important to note that the doctor does not... repeat... does NOT kill the patient. Ultimately, the act is placed (literally) in the hands of the patient. All the doctor does is provide the means. There are several devises invented for the purposes of patient-administered euthanasia (wikipedia article here ), but in the devise used by Dr. Kevorkian for example, the patient is given an IV of saline, with a separate syringe which administers the lethal injection connected to that IV and activated by a button pressed by the patient.

Why is this such an important distinction? Because the patient MUST at least be mentally competent enough to push a button. It's not something that's done TO them, it's done BY them. Taking this a step further, and I like this system even better, another system was developed that used a laptop computer to ask the patient a series of questions, to verify full mental competence. The lethal injection was only made if the patient proved, via responding to a series of questions on the computer, that they were in possession of their mental faculties.

At best, a physician administering a system such as this could be accused of aiding and abetting and already suicidal patient in full possession of their mental faculties. The doctor is absolutely in NO way assuming "unique responsibility for the act of ending the patient's life" as the AMA suggests. They're simply meeting the needs of a mentally competent patient with sovereign right over their own lives and bodies. I think you really have to make a significant logical leap from that to murder. I just don't see it.

This is like saying that drug dealers do not kill the adults or underage teens that purchase the drugs and use them. "Well, I did not make them take the drugs, I didn't put a gun to their head." No, you may not have, but you might as well have slipped the bullet into the chamber, pulled back the hammer and showed them where to point it.

It is the same argument used by doctors who are for euthanasia. Without their actions in providing patients the means to end their own lives, the act cannot be carried out. If the doctor in question provides the patient with the button to push, they are as fully responsible as said dealer on the street corner dealing out crack.

Don't pour an alchoholic a drink, don't provide a needle for a drug addict and definitely don't provide a suicidal individual a weapon with which to use.

 

[Dexter]

You make an excellent point on the topic of intent. That's exactly the point I'm arguing too, and I think that's the basis of the contention here. What IS the doctor's intent? I don't think anyone would argue that a doctor assisting a suicide is committing premeditated murder with malice in his heart. He or she genuinely believes he's helping his patient, and I believe that fulfills the spirit of the *modern* Hippocratic Oath.

It's important to note that the Hippocratic Oath has changed significantly over the years. The older version specifically prohibits a doctor from engaging in assisted suicide:

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect

So any doctor that took this particular oath would be blatantly violating it if they helped a patient die. However, also note that this oath prohibits performing abortions and even removing kidney, bladder, and gall stones.

Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Clearly an outdated oath. That's why it was updated to a more modern version. Full text here.

Of particular interest is this passage, which relates directly to this discussion:

Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

This particular oath implicitly ALLOWS a physician to assist in suicide as long as they give the act due consideration. I attempted to find out if this particular version of the oath is universally applied in medical schools but I didn't have any luck. I don't know where to look to find out. Obviously, though, if this oath is the one my physician took, he's perfectly within his rights under that oath to hook me up to an IV drip of potassium chloride and hand me a button if I ask him to do so.

 

[Razor]

But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

This right here. You claim it means the Doctor may take a life if he weights it out morally. However, I highlighted the part that speaks against this.

I must not play at God. Is deeming a person no longer fit to live not playing God? Is giving them that syringe of morphine not playing God in that you are giving them the way to die? It goes the same way for suicide. God, if you were to believe in such, decides when we die. Not us. However, when we commit suicide we decide. Tis why it's so frowned upon by the Catholics and other religious orders.

If you can somehow argue that;

A) Committing the euthanasia yourself as a doctor

or

B) Giving the patient the way to kill himself

is not playing God, then you'll have the point. However, I see giving a man the way to suicide or even committing the Euthanasia yourself as the ultimate act of God.

 

[Dexter]

It's funny, I started to crop that part out of the quote because I KNEW you'd latch onto it. Figured that'd be underhanded though, and I'd probably get busted.

You are, of course, right to notice that, and it is absolutely crucial to the point, but I think you're ignoring the rest of the statement and plucking out the one part that might support you. The fact remains that it specifically states:

But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.

Emphasis mine. Responsibility. Not choice, not option. Responsibility. This, to me, comes across as a moral imperative. If it becomes necessary, as judged by the patient, to end suffering, the doctor has a responsibility to see it done safely and humanely.

So how does not playing god fit in with all this? That might be up to the interpretation of the physician taking the oath, but if I'm in any position to answer, it stems from the patient making the decision. Playing god, to me, would be the doctor choosing to end the life of a mentally incompetent patient. As in, lets say I'm the doctor, and you're in a horrible car accident and you're brought in comatose and kept alive by machines. If I, in the absence of consent from you or your family, take it upon myself to terminate life support, that's playing god. I don't see anything like that taking place in any of the modern assisted suicide cases I've read about.

 

[Dexter]

This is like saying that drug dealers do not kill the adults or underage teens that purchase the drugs and use them. "Well, I did not make them take the drugs, I didn't put a gun to their head." No, you may not have, but you might as well have slipped the bullet into the chamber, pulled back the hammer and showed them where to point it.

It is the same argument used by doctors who are for euthanasia. Without their actions in providing patients the means to end their own lives, the act cannot be carried out. If the doctor in question provides the patient with the button to push, they are as fully responsible as said dealer on the street corner dealing out crack.

Don't pour an alchoholic a drink, don't provide a needle for a drug addict and definitely don't provide a suicidal individual a weapon with which to use.

You seem to be insisting here that people have a responsibility to take upon themselves the well-being of someone else whether by their consent or not. That, my friend, is just plain immoral.

Don't pour an alcoholic a drink? Respectfully, who the hell are you to decide that? As I stated in a different thread when a similar subject came up, ultimately everyone is responsible for his or her own actions. If you judge it wrong to pour an alcoholic a drink, by all means don't do it, but you're absolutely in no position to tell me it's wrong, much less the alcoholic who's demanding the drink.

Also, keep in mind that clinics DO provide needles to drug addicts. They provide clean, HIV-free needles, in order to help stop the spread of that disease.

 

[JenovasWitness]

You seem to be insisting here that people have a responsibility to take upon themselves the well-being of someone else whether by their consent or not. That, my friend, is just plain immoral.

Don't pour an alcoholic a drink? Respectfully, who the hell are you to decide that? As I stated in a different thread when a similar subject came up, ultimately everyone is responsible for his or her own actions. If you judge it wrong to pour an alcoholic a drink, by all means don't do it, but you're absolutely in no position to tell me it's wrong, much less the alcoholic who's demanding the drink.

Also, keep in mind that clinics DO provide needles to drug addicts. They provide clean, HIV-free needles, in order to help stop the spread of that disease.

Respectfully, who the hell are you to think aiding people in their addictions, addictions that if encouraged and untreated lead to lifelong debilitation and death, is a moral thing to do?

Are the people at Alchoholics Anonymous in the wrong for telling people to remain sober? I certainly hope not.

As for doctors providing clean needles and the like, why are they not providing a means for said drug addicts to deal with their addiction? Then the need for said needles would be moot.

If a person can help another person, is it not the right thing to do to offer a helping hand? Or is that just too much effort?

 

[Razor]

But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

The oath, as I re-quote it, speaks to something else than what you're supposing it does. It speaks to the ability of doctors to both kill and save a patient. As a doctor I can relieve suffering, prolong suffering, ease the suffering, cure the suffering, or kill. And I have all the drugs at my finger tips to do so.

This oath is proclaiming that we should weigh the awesome responsibility that society gives us with this tools and avoid playing God with our "new toys," so to speak. We have the responsibility to our patients and to other doctors not to take the drugs we use to cure and use them to do harm.

As far as your example of the car accident patient, no doctor would remove a patient from life support unless the patient is brain dead and no other kin are available to sign the release. This instance is different than playing God with the death of someone with Leukemia because the car accident patient is brain dead. Medically there is no life. The issue of killing is thereby nullified, because you are not ending a life. You are doing something no more unethical than digging up a plant that has become withered and lifeless.

That is the main problem with Euthanasia. You are ending an existence. An existence that is marked by adequate mental processes. That is not your position as a doctor to end such a process, but to preserve it. The patient may choose for themselves, and may steal the morphine to end their own lives. They may shoot themselves, hang themselves, overdose themselves. However, as a medical professional, you can not hand them the gun, the rope, or the morphine.

 

[Dexter]

I've said all I set out to say on the subject, so I'm going to let your post stand as the last word in our debate. You summed up your point nicely, and at the very least I think we've more than established why this particular subject isn't going to be settled anytime soon.

Well argued.