|
bartlebyshop posted:Should euthanasia be available for people without terminal illnesses? In Belgium it is possible to request it for psychiatric conditions, although apparently it can be difficult to find a doctor willing to administer it for depression. Yes. Even if someone is 100% physically and mentally healthy they should be able to make that fundamental choice. That's not to say you should be able to buy suicide pills in a your local cornerstore or doctors should be obligated to assist you but beyond proper regulations and tests to ensure you are of sound mind there shouldn't be anything to prevent it.
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Physician assisted suicide is different from euthanasia. Physician assisted suicide is prescribed by a doctor but administered by the patient, while in euthanasia the doctor does the administration of the drug. The latter is more open to abuse if doctor or family discretion is allowed, but the former is remarkably hard to abuse, simply because the procedures in place make it a very deliberate process. And even in the case of euthanasia, people are still removed from life support regularly or are given high doses of drugs with the expected side effect of ending life (the drug is administered for pain, however). Its rather common, actually! To be clear, I see no good reason to ban PAS and banning active euthanasia just ignores the reality of end of life care. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 05:32 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:The question is, is it different enough that the arguments against legal euthanasia would be that much stronger? If 6 months of effectively untreatable suffering can be counted as a rational reason to self-terminate, why not several decades of effectively untreatable suffering? I think the availability of a timetable is significant when considering how to approach each scenario. If someone is suffering but hasn't suffered a loss in cognitive function and is not dying, it's possible that with cognitive behavioral therapy, SSRIs, or some other sort of therapy they may cease desiring to kill themselves, so such a person should have to jump through those hoops before being permitted physician assisted suicide since it's quite possible that their suicidal ideation is a result of disordered thinking rather than the more obvious ailment (though it may not be). On the other hand, if someone has a timer set for the rest of their life (and when this happens generally the timetable is months and the diagnosis is cancer) that person's request for physician assisted suicide shouldn't be subject to so many interventions since the suffering associated with end-stage cancer makes the decision to end treatment with a painless morphine OD quite rational. The murkiest case is when someone develops dementia or Alzheimer's. I be the Europeans have something good written up for that one.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:It's not that we're all so Amero-centric we think all peoples everywheres oughta know the minutiae of our laws, it's that you are throwing out what-ifs that have already been addressed by, among others, American versions of this practice. The "cop out" is the fact that you could find answers to your what-ifs if you researched a bit, but no, you "don't know" US law! I could, if I knew where to look for relevant acts and even that they exist. I managed to find them only thanks to lonelywurm's quote which gave me enough to search for. Also, it's not that I'm expressing some strange concerns that have long been solved, given that the author of the quoted article states that some patients get pressured by medical personnel to sign a "do not reuscitate" form. I wouldn't have any problem if someone just told "Have you looked at these acts? I think they solve the problem pretty neatly". Instead, there was indignation how the gently caress do I dare even come to this thread without educating myself on the law code of Washington DC.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why are you ignoring the cases in the actual OP, where people with disabilities like cerebellar ataxia, which does not impair cognition, are mistreated because it's too much work to keep them alive? just sitting here counting the money i got from old people death. im rich bitch Xibanya posted:I think the availability of a timetable is significant when considering how to approach each scenario. If someone is suffering but hasn't suffered a loss in cognitive function and is not dying, it's possible that with cognitive behavioral therapy, SSRIs, or some other sort of therapy they may cease desiring to kill themselves, so such a person should have to jump through those hoops before being permitted physician assisted suicide since it's quite possible that their suicidal ideation is a result of disordered thinking rather than the more obvious ailment (though it may not be). On the other hand, if someone has a timer set for the rest of their life (and when this happens generally the timetable is months and the diagnosis is cancer) that person's request for physician assisted suicide shouldn't be subject to so many interventions since the suffering associated with end-stage cancer makes the decision to end treatment with a painless morphine OD quite rational. The murkiest case is when someone develops dementia or Alzheimer's. I be the Europeans have something good written up for that one. Pretty much this. There's a huge loving difference between "hospital doesn't want to pay for somebody's lifesaving organ transplant" and "doctor telling stage IV cancer patient that further treatments will only slightly prolong their life and result in considerable suffering." And yes, the cost vs. benefit does need to be considered when determining which option to push to a patient. It isn't about someone's "economic value to society".
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
The fear that insurance companies would take the availability of assisted suicide into account is a valid one. It wouldn't suprise me in the least if it were used to deny payment for all manner of quality of life treatments. That pressure would eventually trickle down to the physicians themselves. Nothing trumps the bodily autonomy of the individual though. At least it shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
I think we should accessible suicide booths in every major city, that merely require you to fill out certain paperwork, accept certain conditions, and deposit 1 US quarter or national equivalent in order to work. People should have the right to choose their own destiny, and in reality they do. We need to provide a better alternative than jumping off buildings or throwing themselves in front of trains, alternatives that will safely and easily handle the circumstances of disposal while notifying the next of kin and making sure that the person has a will of some sort written up, alternatives that allow us to save lives by ending them in controlled circumstances where organ donation is a real possibility.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The fear that insurance companies would take the availability of assisted suicide into account is a valid one. It wouldn't suprise me in the least if it were used to deny payment for all manner of quality of life treatments. That pressure would eventually trickle down to the physicians themselves. I will probably look in a week (because I teach the topic next week), so if this thread is still active I'll report my findings. That said, I think it should still be an option, and not kept from patients for specious reasons. The waiting periods and patients who are eligible are enough, I think, to safeguard the procedure (a long waiting period, and they must be capable of mixing and taking the drug themselves) are helpful for this, and all kinds of end-of-life care ARE covered now under the ACA and can't be denied payment anyway. The really expensive patients are incapable (ICUs are staggeringly expensive), and the patients seriously considering PAS are the patients likely to have a strict DNR order, and so wouldn't be cost burdens even if PAS wasn't legal. Obviously it's a real possibility, but I'm not convinced that it's a serious risk, any more than passive euthanasia without patient consent already is. EDIT: More people should consider how they want to be cared for, and since one of the common refrains you'll hear from people of all kinds of ages is that they don't want to be stuck on tons of life support machinery I think that, if it was less of a taboo topic, a lot more people would have DNR orders. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 14:20 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
In this thread concerns that sick and disabled people could be pressured into dying are "specious reasons". Okay.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:In this thread concerns that sick and disabled people could be pressured into dying are "specious reasons". Okay. Why shouldn't they be, given that these laws already exist and that the people (like you) can't be bothered to look sry then rather than spreading purely in hypotheticals? Post some data, some first hand accounts, anything more than this lazy poo poo. Or at the very least tell us why someone should be kept alive and suffering with complete loss of autonomy. Go on, tell us why sometime in such a condition should have to continue to suffer, since no one else posting the same poo poo you did is bothering to.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
If the human population were slowly reduced to a couple billion the world would be a much better place. Ideally this can be voluntary by giving people the conceptual tools to liberate themselves from their biological drives - you don't need to hold on so tight, you don't need to have kids. The freedom to kill yourself is arguably enshrined in the Second Amendment.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
McDowell posted:If the human population were slowly reduced to a couple billion the world would be a much better place. Ideally this can be voluntary by giving people the conceptual tools to liberate themselves from their biological drives - you don't need to hold on so tight, you don't need to have kids. The freedom to kill yourself is arguably enshrined in the Second Amendment. This isn't about population control, this is about preventing what appears to be religious fundamentalists from forcing the terminally ill to suffer needlessly.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:religious fundamentalists forcing the terminally ill to suffer needlessly. Yes, this is the enemy. They are motivated irrationally to 'be fruitful and multiply'.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:In this thread concerns that sick and disabled people could be pressured into dying are "specious reasons". Okay. The only people who can get a prescription are patients with a terminal illness. In 2013 in Washington, 77% of patients had cancer, 15% had a neurodegenerative disorder like ALS, and 8% had 'other illnesses', which includes heart and lung diseases. Oregon's numbers are very similar, as is their law. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 15:30 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
The problems suggested aren't solely about people being pressured into accepting euthanasia, or even primarily about that. They are about the psychological effects of saying "some lives are worth less than others, so it's alright if they want less medical care" when people already believe that disabilities make your life worth less. This in turn produces effects, which are not encapsulated in PAS/euthanasia rates, where medical providers and insurance companies make it much more difficult for disabled people to get the necessary accommodations. The likelihood that medical professionals will encourage suicide of severely disabled people is secondary. The argument isn't even that euthanasia laws should be stopped, but that they should be amended to account for this, in the legal domain. So all the natter about condemning people to suffer resolves to plain ignorance and contempt for the disabled. Solkanar512 posted:This isn't about population control, this is about preventing what appears to be religious fundamentalists from forcing the terminally ill to suffer needlessly. For example, apparently believing that you can have a fulfilling life even if you suffer from a muscular degenerative disorder is religious fundamentalism.
|
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Alternatively, once you become ill or disabled, your life is worth less because we will not allow you the autonomy to choose what to do with it. The right to die is something everyone has, except those too infirm to exercise it, apparently.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Everyone should have the legal option of ending their life, but it shouldn't be the first choice, even if you have a serious illness.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Autonomy's a red herring: I can't kill get a doctor's help to kill myself if I'm "healthy".
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Autonomy's a red herring: I can't kill get a doctor's help to kill myself if I'm "healthy". Nor do you need to. You are likely in a suitable mental and physical state to kill yourself unassisted. Telling someone who lacks the ability to kill themselves, but has the desire to do so, that they can't, is preying on their lack of autonomy to carry out an action, in a manner which is not enforceable on the physically and mentally capable.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:For example, apparently believing that you can have a fulfilling life even if you suffer from a muscular degenerative disorder is religious fundamentalism. There's no reason to grossly mischaracterize what I'm saying, so why don't you take a moment and actually answer the things I've posted. Do you think we're all too stupid to use the quote button? The reference to religious fundimentalism comes directly from my post here, where Stephanie Packer justifies the continued suffering of everyone as "God's Plan" and such should not be changed. Please explain to me how this is ethically justifiable. Solkanar512 posted:These aren't mutually exclusive issues, and if you're going to be in favor of letting no one have access to death with dignity policies, you're going to have to justify the continued suffering of those who are terminally ill, in untreatable pain, of sound mind and wish to end their lives. You still haven't answered this. Go on, please justify the forced suffering of someone who has exhausted all forms of useful treatment, is in significant pain, and is of sound mind to make such a decision? And maybe this time you can do it without the lovely attitude or putting words in other people's mouths.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Autonomy's a red herring: I can't kill get a doctor's help to kill myself if I'm "healthy". We try to intervene when a healthy person attempts suicide because under normal circumstances we consider suicidal ideation to be a symptom of an underlying mental disorder.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:We try to intervene when a healthy person attempts suicide because under normal circumstances we consider suicidal ideation to be a symptom of an underlying mental disorder. How we can tell that a patient who wants to die isn't suffering from depression (hint: most of them are)? You'd be surprised how often terminally ill patient's lives can be vastly improved through palliative care including mental health care.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:How we can tell that a patient who wants to die isn't suffering from depression (hint: most of them are)? I'm waiting for an answer to my question.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I'm waiting for an answer to my question. In order for the question to be relevant you have to explain how and when we'll know that someone in such a position is of sound mind. I'll give you another hint since you don't seem to understand the problem: look up the diagnostic criteria for depression and think about it in the context of terminally ill patients considering suicide. Hospice care can be really exceptional guys. The bottom line is that if someone's only option is dying then something that could be done for them isn't being done and throwing these patients in the garbage isn't a good solution to that problem. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 03:19 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Nor do you need to. You are likely in a suitable mental and physical state to kill yourself unassisted. Sure I can, but I don't have the advantage of medical technology by my side to ensure a painless death
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
And I would support your right to have access to that as well, but I don't think "You might get a slightly better version of this right than me so you shouldn't have it at all." is quite the best approach to basic bodily rights.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Everyone should have the legal option of ending their life, but it shouldn't be the first choice, even if you have a serious illness. How is this no different than some contrived argument about abortion? Again, opposition to suicide in any form, assisted or not, is founded on religious principles and religious ideas. And whatever form it exists in today in America is Protestant creep, along with Protestant Work Ethic, Manifest Destiny, ect.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:In order for the question to be relevant you have to explain how and when we'll know that someone in such a position is of sound mind. I'll give you another hint since you don't seem to understand the problem: look up the diagnostic criteria for depression and think about it in the context of terminally ill patients considering suicide. Why does being depressed mean that someone doesn't get to make decisions about their own life?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
"Should mentally ill people be allowed to vote? They shouldn't be allowed to commit suicide." - D&D circa 2015
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
I don't actually think that medical suicide should be an option to otherwise healthy patients. It's largely because I don't think the depressed should be helped to commit suicide by the medical establishment. Depression is a medical condition, and while I have no moral qualms with suicide, the medical treatment for depression should not be suicide. And in any event, the morality of PAS for patients with certain mental illness (the 2013 Netherlands report on PAS/euthanasia has a case of a patient with mental illness that I'm torn on, but it's certainly a borderline case that's a lot harder than people here might think) needs different considerations than the morality of PAS for the terminally ill. The reasons given in terminal cases are very different than the reasons anyone depressed would give, and that is an important difference. Permitting suicide for the non-terminally-ill may very well conflict with the aims of medicine. Doctors aren't there to do what we tell them to, they're there to help us have good health in order for us to accomplish the goals we want. In cases where the preservation of life is not actually conducive to good health or our goals (as in the case of terminal patients), medical suicide is probably justifiable. But in other cases? Depression is not a terminal illness, and can be cured, or treated, at least. I'm just not sure we should offer depressed patients the drugs to kill themselves, since even if they are rational and can make good decisions (I think this is true), it's not the medically indicated approach to take. Nearly 4% of Americans experience suicidal ideations every year; I'm not sure making it easier for them to act on it is good for their health. NOTE: I say this as someone who's struggled with depression for nearly two decades now. I wouldn't be here if I could get a doctor to prescribe drugs to end my life, and that would have been the absolute wrong 'treatment' for me, even when I continue to struggle with depression. EDIT: The right to PAS/euthanasia for terminal patients is just a different thing than a generalized right to medical suicide, and even if you want to base the former on autonomy, it doesn't guarantee the latter. And I think it's probably okay to outright kill dementia patients if their advance directives say that, if they get dementia, they want to be killed, even if they're not terminal and are actually quite happy, so it's not like I'm against PAS generally. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 05:28 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
If your family has a history of depression and suicide, you are practically guaranteed to have it. Saying it's temporal or something that can be cured is incredibly misleading, especially when it involves anti-depressants and expensive therapy. Americans in particular have weird preconceptions about death.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:If your family has a history of depression and suicide, you are practically guaranteed to have it. Saying it's temporal or something that can be cured is incredibly misleading, especially when it involves anti-depressants and expensive therapy. Americans in particular have weird preconceptions about death. If Americans have weird preconceptions about death, that needs to be taken into consideration as a policy matter, not dismissed.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
If people want to kill themselves they should be able to kill themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Why does being depressed mean that someone doesn't get to make decisions about their own life? You're joking right?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Why does being depressed mean that someone doesn't get to make decisions about their own life? Ogmius815 posted:You're joking right? Why would that be a joke? The only situations in which I am not entitled to make decisions regarding my own life are situations where I have previously prevented another from being able to freely exercise that same right against their will. Whether depressed, angry, happy, etc. My emotional state is just that. Mine. No one else has any right whatsoever to force me into any actions regarding my own life. I don't give a poo poo what the law says, if I want to shoot heroin into my eyeballs or not wear a seatbelt and the law attempts to punish me for those actions then the law is wrong, not me. That goes for everyone. How dare you or anyone else claim more right to the life of an individual than that individual himself has? Hitlers Gay Secret posted:If people want to kill themselves they should be able to kill themselves. P.S. Smudgie's avatar is my favorite. But Wittgenstein was better.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
The thread for libertarians to be mocked in is that way broski.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The thread for libertarians to be mocked in is that way broski. Good argument. You really refuted my point...
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Good question: should people who provide a gun to a suicidal person who couldn't legally acquire one for themselves be charged with murder. Because thats what's happening here manslaughter charge.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:06
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:There's no reason to grossly mischaracterize what I'm saying, so why don't you take a moment and actually answer the things I've posted. Do you think we're all too stupid to use the quote button? The reference to religious fundimentalism comes directly from my post here, where Stephanie Packer justifies the continued suffering of everyone as "God's Plan" and such should not be changed. Please explain to me how this is ethically justifiable. Well, I would say that killing you would not be ethically justifiable, so we are already accepting that some unnecessary suffering cannot be ethically removed, and it's only a matter of degree from that point on. You are quite simply a closeminded little prick of a man, and I am not going to engage in a farce of a discussion where you take an extreme case and pretend that everything in between is irrelevant. Indeed, by emphasizing "sound mind", you are agreeing with the quote in the OP that we should focus first on treating people in severe pain from a terminal sickness for depression. Or else you are denying that depression is a disorder, like many of the contemptible worms in this thread. But that's a side note to the basic problem that you're unwilling to treat the arguments put forth in the OP at all seriously. So if I were to point out that your argument is simply that an infinite amount of disabled people should suffer inadequate care and repeated humiliations lest one person die of a terminal disease without euthanasia, you would make accusations and refuse to engage with it. Smudgie Buggler posted:Why does being depressed mean that someone doesn't get to make decisions about their own life? So we shouldn't treat depression, because it's clearly not actually a disorder? What other "disorders" should we not treat? Anxiety? Bipolar disorder? Panic disorder? OCD? PTSD? Schizophrenia? The entire definition of depression is that it warps people's perceptions. According to you, someone with major depression who falls into a suicidal despondency after bungling a presentation at work, -this person should absolutely be able to kill themselves and trying to convince them otherwise is interfering with their ability to make decisions about their own life. You're a monster of ideology.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, I would say that killing you would not be ethically justifiable, so we are already accepting that some unnecessary suffering cannot be ethically removed, and it's only a matter of degree from that point on. You also still need to explain in more detail how allowing a small class of people access to medicalized suicide in very specific circumstances will lead to treating the disabled poorly. I don't see it at all, as I said earlier, since they're just wildly different cases. I've got no qualms with your argument against the right to suicide at any time folks, that's a crazy position and a red herring.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:50
|
|