Imagine that you are a doctor caring for an extremely ill patient. It is unsure as to whether or not the patient's condition will ever improve, however they are in a great amount of pain, and ask you to kill them. Assuming for the sake of argument that all laws regarding it are not in effect, would you kill the patient?
Euthanasia is tricky subject. You can't really call it informed consent if the patient is in so much pain they want to die. This whole question is the reason why palliative care exist. I would rather attempt to ease that pain and then see what the patient wants.
I tend to agree. Memorial Hospital in New Orleans had a doctor euthanize chronic patients receiving palliative care when it didn't look like rescue was coming any time soon. She was ultimately acquitted of charges against her, but I don't think that's the right course.
However, that doesn't mean that you have to revive the patients. I'm a proponent of DNRs, but there is a big difference, ethically, between not helping someone and actively killing them.
Probably note, but only because I would fear for the repercussions that would come with the action. Ethically, following through with the patient's wishes would be the correct thing to do.
However, that doesn't mean that you have to revive the patients. I'm a proponent of DNRs, but there is a big difference, ethically, between not helping someone and actively killing them.
In some circumstances, I would argue that actively killing someone is the most moral option while passively letting them die is not.
If I were a doctor and a seriously ill patient asked me to help them end their life I would do two things. First, I would try to assess the actual possibility of improvement vs. optimism. Second, I would determine whether the patient has a healthcare proxy or some sort of document detailing their wishes regarding healthcare in certain circumstances. If recovery is impossible and there is documentation that the patient would want to end their life if there was no hope I would administer euthanasia with no problem. Heck, if only the second part were true I'd do it, albeit sad that they don't want to try to get better. If there is no documentation regarding the patient's wishes from when they were of sound mind you cannot go forward with euthanasia in good conscience.
I believe people have the right to die as much as they have the right to live (I never really understood why suicide was illegal). It sickens me to an extent when extremely sick people get used as pin cushions and testing live stock. I disagree that someone who wants to die is not in there right mind. Some are just ready and accept whats coming and want to go on their terms and not wait for it. I personally would like to see documentation like DNRs for those who are in situations where coming back to a liveable condition is unlikely can be taken out of suffering.
Your life, your choice. That is how I have always viewed it.
But do you always make the best choices if you're intoxicated, high, tripping, or in this case in extreme amounts of pain or possibly in a state of shock? What if someone had a family to take care of?
At the very least, it would have to be certain that the patient can no longer participate in society. Multiple arguments exist to the effect that we can't be letting people end their lives just on their own judgment - starting with comparing this case to outright suicide.
If I understand Kant, he made an argument like this:
We can't let just anyone end their lives, because then the very instrument of felicity - our mental engagement with the world considered in some sense - is being forfeited, and it just sounds like nonsense that this could be a "good" thing. Suicide, and assisted suicide, is contrary to goodness simply.
It appears to be a good argument.
Leaving that aside, we have the reply to "your life, your choice," in which we can deny that this is valid on some grounds that refers to the mutual dependence of us Humans as a social species. Perhaps it happens that we license ourselves to view each other in relationships of indebtedness, or something like this. I prefer the Kantian argument.
The patient you are talking about is not at risk of death from the condition itself, is he?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
At the very least, it would have to be certain that the patient can no longer participate in society. Multiple arguments exist to the effect that we can't be letting people end their lives just on their own judgment - starting with comparing this case to outright suicide.
Arguments to the effect that we can't let individuals make crucial decisions for themselves if it will indirectly hurt society in that society will no longer benefit from your participation in society are incredibly dangerous. What if I have enough money, don't need to work any more, and I'm introverted enough to want to just sit at home anymore? It's not an identical case, but you can probably demonstrate that society would be much better off with me working, right?
But do you always make the best choices if you're intoxicated, high, tripping, or in this case in extreme amounts of pain or possibly in a state of shock? What if someone had a family to take care of?
You don't, but then you're not as a general rule compelled to make good choices in your life in other respects, with the exception of cases where you're likely to hurt someone else (and a handful of antiquated 'vice' laws).
And, in any case, when you're intoxicated, high, tripping or in extreme pain *permanently*, that's just your normal thought process from then on.
Eh, it shouldn't even be necessary to prove you are terminally ill, in torturous pain, or a brain dead vegetable.
If I lost my legs, I bet I could still live, but what I consider a happy life-course is basically over. I should be able to get a shot of Diesauce prescribed and be able to go home and make it happen.
It is a grievous tyranny for a majority of other people to decide for any individual what constitutes living, and force them to continue doing it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
It's excitingly equal to forcing them live? Or did you mean =/=, which besides equals sign divided by equals sign means "not equal to".
Depending on the programming language, != means "not equal." But anyway.
This is the sort of situation I was talking about earlier. There are cases with a patient where they are unable to kill themselves.
Say you draw this distinction between active and passive killing.
In this case, you might say it is acceptable to let the patient die of starvation/dehydration/horrible illness badness. But this course of action results in far more suffering than actively killing the patient. We end up in the same position, but one course of action has caused much more suffering. This is inconsistent with a moral principle I hold dear, which is that you should minimize suffering all else equal.
In this case, you might say it is acceptable to let the patient die of starvation/dehydration/horrible illness badness. But this course of action results in far more suffering than actively killing the patient. We end up in the same position, but one course of action has caused much more suffering. This is inconsistent with a moral principle I hold dear, which is that you should minimize suffering all else equal.
On the other hand, wasn't suffering evolved to enhance survival so that you know something's wrong with your body? If your arm hurts because it's broken, you better not use it so it can heal properly.
And in addition, the main monotheistic religions don't like suicide, they decided god wanted people to suffer at least somewhat, so there's multiple views that could suggest living through suffering is better.
And then there's also the use of life. Why should someone throw their life away when they can do more with it? If thy are terminally ill it may be a different story, unless there's a cure being developed.
Im not saying someone has to do it for you, but it being illegal means you have to use a gun, or a building tall enough, or busy traffic, or a house fire, or something else that is violent and ugly.
Instead, I'd rather it be possible for someone to pick up a cianide pill or something from a hospital without a mountain of red tape or a self righteous doctor refusing to sell it to you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Im not saying someone has to do it for you, but it being illegal means you have to use a gun, or a building tall enough, or busy traffic, or a house fire, or something else that is violent and ugly.
Instead, I'd rather it be possible for someone to pick up a cianide pill or something from a hospital without a mountain of red tape or a self righteous doctor refusing to sell it to you.
Doctor's can prescribe lethal doses of cyanide pills? What disease does cyanide cure? Living?
If you personally want to kill yourself or objectively, you should be able to, but you can't rule out that if you're doing it because you're depressed that you're facing a chemical imbalance. If you're terminally ill and there's no cure in sight, there should't be a problem if they have all of their business wrapped up like with their family.
If it wasnt a crime, im certain the demand would be filled by a supplier, maybe "Planned Personhood" clinics?
You'd probably be right, but "I feel depressed" and "I must kill myself so my family isn't in danger from this person hunting me down" or "I will kill myself because I have no use for my life and there is nothing more I want do" are different things.
I agree they are very different things. Now, convince me why I should care so much as to bar the market from facilitating whatever motivation one might have.
Because "I need a car or I won't be able to get to work","I need a car so I can show off to girls", and "I need a car because I love the thrill of driving through stop signs" are very different things - but I don't care what, when, why, or how people want to buy cars. Let the market provide what people want it to provide for them.
If they cause harm to OTHERS with their purchases, then punish them, but if not...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I agree they are very different things. Now, convince me why I should care so much as to bar the market from facilitating whatever motivation one might have.
Because people's objective judgement's could be impaired by extreme pain or chemical imbalances such as depression. It's true for nearly any drug, but hospitals don't want to deal with defining who is actually ill and has impaired judgement and scenarios like "Why on Earth did you give my son those pills!!?? He was suppose to see a psychiatrist!! We were so close to figuring it out!! I'm suing you for everything you have!!!".
Because "I need a car or I won't be able to get to work","I need a car so I can show off to girls", and "I need a car because I love the thrill of driving through stop signs" are very different things - but I don't care what, when, why, or how people want to buy cars. Let the market provide what people want it to provide for them.
If they cause harm to OTHERS with their purchases, then punish them, but if not...
So I could sell rotten meat to people, call it a special, and if they buy it, get sick and die, everything's their fault, there's no responsibility of the seller in any way shape or form. The only reason the market would sell it is to make money, not because it cares that people want to kill themselves. Why would you let something incapable of the most basic human capacities like a market or company hand out a drug that kills people almost instantly? Who is the market to say there isn't a better alternative? Well it probably didn't say anything anyway because that's a human decision, not a market decision. Why don't we just let everyone buy weaponized pathogens, not necessarily for killing anyone, just to play around with? Free market, no problem there. Why don't we just let people buy fluorosulfuric acid instead of water and call it "the most sour drink in the world"? It's a free-market, I should be able to, right? I'm not going to harm others by ingesting my own fluorosulfiric acid drink. As long as it makes money, it's completely ethical, right? In the same way, you could market cyanide pills as "Want to end all your suffering and misery and never have to deal with pain again and possibly go to heaven? Well try out new strawberry flavored cyanide pill!". It's more about a society trying to have the decency to care about the lives of others and uphold a better way of life than saying "hey let's do anything we feel like". Or, would you rather live in such a dump of a society that there's suicide booths on every block?
Because people's objective judgement's could be impaired by extreme pain or chemical imbalances such as depression. It's true for nearly any drug, but hospitals don't want to deal with defining who is actually ill and has impaired judgement and scenarios like "Why on Earth did you give my son those pills!!?? He was suppose to see a psychiatrist!! We were so close to figuring it out!! I'm suing you for everything you have!!!".
Why does someone need to be depressed or in sever pain to want to commit suicide? Who is the mother to say what a child of legal age can and can not do? I totally agree if the child is under 18 years of age. What gives the mother the right to feel there is anything to figure out or to sue anyone?
The logic works both ways. I have no idea what gives them the "right", but I just imagine that's what would happen anyway because the mother would be in such distress. Logically there isn't a conclusion on why you should end your life because you are in pain or depressed because that's a completely emotional basis anyway.
Ultimately it just depends on what standard of society you want to live in, how much are you willing to care about the lives of others vs saying "screw it, if they wanna end their life let them do it, I don't care what they went through and I don't care about them feeling better, I'd rather just have people die". If no one in the government ever cared about the well-being of other people, then absolutely the free-market could decide everything...everything. We wouldn't have restrictions on gun laws, no social safety nets to help the poor, elderly and disabled, no public policemen (privately OWNED policemen?), no public fire department, ect. And for a long time in humanity's history, that's exactly what it was like.
You don't have a real or physical responsibility to do anything for anyone, but would you really want to live in that type of society? The fact that society is where it is now says ultimately, people got tired of that, or at least are still in the process of getting tired of it.
On the other hand, wasn't suffering evolved to enhance survival so that you know something's wrong with your body? If your arm hurts because it's broken, you better not use it so it can heal properly.
Evolution is filled with nasty badness and is not a model for how we should live our lives.
And in addition, the main monotheistic religions don't like suicide, they decided god wanted people to suffer at least somewhat, so there's multiple views that could suggest living through suffering is better.
And those people get to suffer all they want. They do not get to force other people to follow their religious beliefs.
And then there's also the use of life. Why should someone throw their life away when they can do more with it? If thy are terminally ill it may be a different story, unless there's a cure being developed.
Who exactly decides when someone can do more with their lives? And why does that person get to force their views about life on other people?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Here is the AMA's opinion on the subject:
http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion221.page
I tend to agree. Memorial Hospital in New Orleans had a doctor euthanize chronic patients receiving palliative care when it didn't look like rescue was coming any time soon. She was ultimately acquitted of charges against her, but I don't think that's the right course.
http://www.npr.org/2013/09/10/220687231/during-katrina-memorial-doctors-chose-who-lived-who-died
However, that doesn't mean that you have to revive the patients. I'm a proponent of DNRs, but there is a big difference, ethically, between not helping someone and actively killing them.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Those are very specific circumstances, though, and frequently isn't necessary with palliative care.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
― Anthony Bourdain, Kitchen Confidential
I will always firmly stand by the belief that Magic is a game first and a collectable second.
But do you always make the best choices if you're intoxicated, high, tripping, or in this case in extreme amounts of pain or possibly in a state of shock? What if someone had a family to take care of?
If I understand Kant, he made an argument like this:
We can't let just anyone end their lives, because then the very instrument of felicity - our mental engagement with the world considered in some sense - is being forfeited, and it just sounds like nonsense that this could be a "good" thing. Suicide, and assisted suicide, is contrary to goodness simply.
It appears to be a good argument.
Leaving that aside, we have the reply to "your life, your choice," in which we can deny that this is valid on some grounds that refers to the mutual dependence of us Humans as a social species. Perhaps it happens that we license ourselves to view each other in relationships of indebtedness, or something like this. I prefer the Kantian argument.
The patient you are talking about is not at risk of death from the condition itself, is he?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
That's a bit circular.
Arguments to the effect that we can't let individuals make crucial decisions for themselves if it will indirectly hurt society in that society will no longer benefit from your participation in society are incredibly dangerous. What if I have enough money, don't need to work any more, and I'm introverted enough to want to just sit at home anymore? It's not an identical case, but you can probably demonstrate that society would be much better off with me working, right?
You don't, but then you're not as a general rule compelled to make good choices in your life in other respects, with the exception of cases where you're likely to hurt someone else (and a handful of antiquated 'vice' laws).
And, in any case, when you're intoxicated, high, tripping or in extreme pain *permanently*, that's just your normal thought process from then on.
If I lost my legs, I bet I could still live, but what I consider a happy life-course is basically over. I should be able to get a shot of Diesauce prescribed and be able to go home and make it happen.
It is a grievous tyranny for a majority of other people to decide for any individual what constitutes living, and force them to continue doing it.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Not killing someone else =! forcing them to live.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
It's excitingly equal to forcing them live? Or did you mean =/=, which besides equals sign divided by equals sign means "not equal to".
This is the sort of situation I was talking about earlier. There are cases with a patient where they are unable to kill themselves.
Say you draw this distinction between active and passive killing.
In this case, you might say it is acceptable to let the patient die of starvation/dehydration/horrible illness badness. But this course of action results in far more suffering than actively killing the patient. We end up in the same position, but one course of action has caused much more suffering. This is inconsistent with a moral principle I hold dear, which is that you should minimize suffering all else equal.
On the other hand, wasn't suffering evolved to enhance survival so that you know something's wrong with your body? If your arm hurts because it's broken, you better not use it so it can heal properly.
And in addition, the main monotheistic religions don't like suicide, they decided god wanted people to suffer at least somewhat, so there's multiple views that could suggest living through suffering is better.
And then there's also the use of life. Why should someone throw their life away when they can do more with it? If thy are terminally ill it may be a different story, unless there's a cure being developed.
Instead, I'd rather it be possible for someone to pick up a cianide pill or something from a hospital without a mountain of red tape or a self righteous doctor refusing to sell it to you.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Doctor's can prescribe lethal doses of cyanide pills? What disease does cyanide cure? Living?
If you personally want to kill yourself or objectively, you should be able to, but you can't rule out that if you're doing it because you're depressed that you're facing a chemical imbalance. If you're terminally ill and there's no cure in sight, there should't be a problem if they have all of their business wrapped up like with their family.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You'd probably be right, but "I feel depressed" and "I must kill myself so my family isn't in danger from this person hunting me down" or "I will kill myself because I have no use for my life and there is nothing more I want do" are different things.
Because "I need a car or I won't be able to get to work", "I need a car so I can show off to girls", and "I need a car because I love the thrill of driving through stop signs" are very different things - but I don't care what, when, why, or how people want to buy cars. Let the market provide what people want it to provide for them.
If they cause harm to OTHERS with their purchases, then punish them, but if not...
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Because people's objective judgement's could be impaired by extreme pain or chemical imbalances such as depression. It's true for nearly any drug, but hospitals don't want to deal with defining who is actually ill and has impaired judgement and scenarios like "Why on Earth did you give my son those pills!!?? He was suppose to see a psychiatrist!! We were so close to figuring it out!! I'm suing you for everything you have!!!".
So I could sell rotten meat to people, call it a special, and if they buy it, get sick and die, everything's their fault, there's no responsibility of the seller in any way shape or form. The only reason the market would sell it is to make money, not because it cares that people want to kill themselves. Why would you let something incapable of the most basic human capacities like a market or company hand out a drug that kills people almost instantly? Who is the market to say there isn't a better alternative? Well it probably didn't say anything anyway because that's a human decision, not a market decision. Why don't we just let everyone buy weaponized pathogens, not necessarily for killing anyone, just to play around with? Free market, no problem there. Why don't we just let people buy fluorosulfuric acid instead of water and call it "the most sour drink in the world"? It's a free-market, I should be able to, right? I'm not going to harm others by ingesting my own fluorosulfiric acid drink. As long as it makes money, it's completely ethical, right? In the same way, you could market cyanide pills as "Want to end all your suffering and misery and never have to deal with pain again and possibly go to heaven? Well try out new strawberry flavored cyanide pill!". It's more about a society trying to have the decency to care about the lives of others and uphold a better way of life than saying "hey let's do anything we feel like". Or, would you rather live in such a dump of a society that there's suicide booths on every block?
Why does someone need to be depressed or in sever pain to want to commit suicide? Who is the mother to say what a child of legal age can and can not do? I totally agree if the child is under 18 years of age. What gives the mother the right to feel there is anything to figure out or to sue anyone?
Ultimately it just depends on what standard of society you want to live in, how much are you willing to care about the lives of others vs saying "screw it, if they wanna end their life let them do it, I don't care what they went through and I don't care about them feeling better, I'd rather just have people die". If no one in the government ever cared about the well-being of other people, then absolutely the free-market could decide everything...everything. We wouldn't have restrictions on gun laws, no social safety nets to help the poor, elderly and disabled, no public policemen (privately OWNED policemen?), no public fire department, ect. And for a long time in humanity's history, that's exactly what it was like.
You don't have a real or physical responsibility to do anything for anyone, but would you really want to live in that type of society? The fact that society is where it is now says ultimately, people got tired of that, or at least are still in the process of getting tired of it.