The right to die: A compromised approach.

SuperInfinity

Watching my elderly parents deteriorate... it's extremely depressing. These once great people, trying to fight to hold it together, doing everything almost comically slowly , when in the end it's a losing battle. Death wins over us all in the end. One thing I learned about being elderly from my parents is that things never get better, just worse. There might be occasional respites, but those things tend to come back again stronger the next time.

Instead of going to extremes...: "euthanasia for all", "no euthanasia for anyone", I think we should write up extremely strict criteria for euthanasia.

* The person should be over 80 years old or have a terminal or near-terminal illness which means barring a miracle they would die in the next 5 years anyway.
* The person should have to sign a euthanasia form every day for 100 days, and read out parts of it. The times should be mixed up so it doesn't become routine. If they don't have the ability to sign, then some other intricate movement on asked.
* The person should be tried to be talked out of it at multiple times during this process. The reason for this is that there's a big danger that corperate interests or family members or spouses wanting an inheritance or even just to get rid of the person could influence their decision hugely and that would be devastating. Perhaps a priest or a doctor would do this for elderly religious people. No advertising about euthanasia "services" or making elderly people made to feel like "it's time".

hardCopy

80 seems a bit of an arbitrary age, lots of people suffer debilitating terminal illnesses at much younger ages than that.

My own feelings on it are a bit mixed up, mainly because it's so hard for anyone else to say when it's appropriate and when it's not.

Lando Griffin

Once again it the have vs the have nots.
I would imagine it very expensive to be exterminated and not everyone would be able to afford, therefore forcing those who cannot afford to get a sizeable bank loan, and another financial headache added to an already stress burdened life.

Markcheese

Well since my grans been pretty much unresponsive for the last 4 years, she won't be signing or agreeing/disagreeing with anything .... Life or death.
Before that she hadn't made sense for ages... If there is a spark still there put her out of her misery , please
If there's not a spark of consciousness left ...why bother... 4 years in a specialist alsimers unit ain't cheap... How many more people with hope of recovery / quality of life could be treated instead of my gran and those like her...

HeyThereDeliah

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Watching my elderly parents deteriorate... it's extremely depressing.

Instead of going to extremes...: "euthanasia for all", "no euthanasia for anyone", I think we should write up extremely strict criteria for euthanasia.

* The person should be over 80 years old or have a terminal or near-terminal illness which means barring a miracle they would die in the next 5 years anyway.

You want everyone to die at 80yrs of age, what about people who are happy to live longer even if their life is a little slower.
I don't think anyone wants to die even those who take their own lives don't want to die.

Mr Benevolent

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Watching my elderly parents deteriorate... it's extremely depressing. These once great people, trying to fight to hold it together, doing everything almost comically slowly , when in the end it's a losing battle. Death wins over us all in the end. One thing I learned about being elderly from my parents is that things never get better, just worse. There might be occasional respites, but those things tend to come back again stronger the next time.

What's wrong with your parents? Arthritis? Dementia? Got to be bad for you to consider talking to them about euthanasia. What age are they anyway? Do they seem genuinely unhappy or are you just sitting there with the will, alternatively pointing to it and the spoons you have generously stuck in a convenient electric socket?

TheChizler

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

You want everyone to die at 80yrs of age, what about people who are happy to live longer even if their life is a little slower.
I don't think anyone wants to die even those who take their own lives don't want to die.

I don't think they were suggesting it should be forced...

Spread

Why not do a "Living Will" online. This was launched by Enda Kenny last October on behalf of The Irish Hospice Foundation. Have a look at their easy to navigate www.irishhospicefoundation.ie

SuperInfinity

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

You want everyone to die at 80yrs of age, what about people who are happy to live longer even if their life is a little slower.
I don't think anyone wants to die even those who take their own lives don't want to die.

No, I said you should at least 80, or have a terminal illness. Sorry to anyone who thinks that is ageist. I suppose being in chronic and unbearable pain could also be a criteria. These criteria are because a lot of people would change their minds and have changed their minds about it. If it were as easy as pressing a button, lots of people would do it fast, so you have to make it hard. However, making it illegal and impossible if you're disabled or something, is that wrong also?

Trying to be as close to nature as possible, the idea of euthanasia used to horrify me. However lots of people are being kept alive only by medical interventions. If it got to a stage where I could no longer on as the human that I was born as but as some kind of weird new age monster, and couldn't contribute anything to anything ever again, I would want to be able to off myself.

Wee Willy Harris

hardCopy wrote: »

80 seems a bit of an arbitrary age,

my nan sure as hell can't even lift herself at that age, not sure if due to the strokes from years before or a muscle deficiency but..

if a person wants it; is determined to such a level then it may be worth one less suicide statistic.

SuperInfinity

Confab wrote: »

What's wrong with your parents? Arthritis? Dementia? Got to be bad for you to consider talking to them about euthanasia. What age are they anyway? Do they seem genuinely unhappy or are you just sitting there with the will, alternatively pointing to it and the spoons you have generously stuck in a convenient electric socket?

My parents are fine and happy now and though suffering with progressive arthritis and "unofficial" cognitive problems, they are extremely nice and never get the type of bad dementia where people lash out. I'm talking about how things never get better, and my parents are seeing so many people that they knew dying or deteriorating badly, gradually going one by one.

This is for me personally I'm talking about, I would like the option. I think that was a strange way to interpret the thread, cause I just said they make me feel scared of getting old and incapacitated myself.

HeyThereDeliah

Wee Willy Harris wrote: »

my nan sure as hell can't even lift herself at that age, not sure if due to the strokes from years before or a muscle deficiency but..

if a person wants it; is determined to such a level then it may be worth one less suicide statistic.

You think euthanasia is different than suicide?

Mr Benevolent

SuperInfinity wrote: »

However lots of people are being kept alive only by medical interventions. .

A vague and rather disturbing statement. I am alive only because of a heart operation at 24 months old. You need to define what a 'medical intervention' is to you.

Spread

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Once again it the have vs the have nots.
I would imagine it very expensive to be exterminated and not everyone would be able to afford, therefore forcing those who cannot afford to get a sizeable bank loan, and another financial headache added to an already stress burdened life.

Hard enough to get a loan ............ even if the bank realises that you'll be around for 25 more years

belcampprisoner

There should be no right to die,but it happens every day
I was in intensive care and they were dropping like flies
Doctor assisted,as the techs were turning off the machine of one
The other said lets wait,what's a few extra minutes going to hurt,
One cancer patient was sitting up saying good bye to all her family
40 minutes later,dead,extra morphine,when they want your organs
There is awfull pressure on family,they asked me who would make my health decisions,I said no one resuscitate me after fighting for my life for an hour I don't want any machines turned off

Sauve

belcampprisoner wrote: »

There should be no right to die,but it happens every day
I was in intensive care and they were dropping like flies
Doctor assisted,as the techs were turning off the machine of one
The other said lets wait,what's a few extra minutes going to hurt,
One cancer patient was sitting up saying good bye to all her family
40 minutes later,dead,extra morphine,when they want your organs
There is awfull pressure on family,they asked me who would make my health decisions,I said no one resuscitate me after fighting for my life for an hour I don't want any machines turned off

This has to be one of the most sensationalist, exaggerated posts I've read in a long time, and that's saying something.


How did it come about that you overheard all of these conversations?
If you were there as a patient, it's extremely unethical that medical staff should have allowed such decisions to be overheard.
If you were there as a visitor, same thing.

Stheno

I think it should be a right for anyone with a terminal illness.

I'd not have age as a criteria, I'd have terminal illness, with endless pain and suffering as my criteria.

Ideally, I'd want the person with the illness to be able to agree to it, but if you have someone who goes from well to terminally ill and dead within two weeks as happened with a family member, then I think there should be a guardian able to do itl

Wee Willy Harris

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

You think euthanasia is different than suicide?

well.. now that you say it like that; not really but statistically would it count as one?

HeyThereDeliah

Wee Willy Harris wrote: »

well.. now that you say it like that; not really but statistically would it count as one?

It would not be a natural death no matter how you look at it.
It would be interesting to see how many people would avail of euthanasia if it were legal, I'm not sure too many people would when the time came.

SuperInfinity

Sauve wrote: »

This has to be one of the most sensationalist, exaggerated posts I've read in a long time, and that's saying something.

How could you know it's so "sensationalist, exaggerated"? Have you worked in the types of hospital he's talking about? Do you have access to records pertaining to treatment of terminally ill individuals?

Sauve

SuperInfinity wrote: »

How could you know it's so "sensationalist, exaggerated"? Have you worked in the types of hospital he's talking about? Do you have access to records pertaining to treatment of terminally ill individuals?

You're misreading my point.
What was sensationalist and (I'm presuming) exaggerated about it was the tone of her/his post more than the content.

To answer your other questions- no, and where's the relevance?

dark crystal

Stheno wrote: »

I think it should be a right for anyone with a terminal illness.

I'd not have age as a criteria, I'd have terminal illness, with endless pain and suffering as my criteria.

I agree completely. Age should not be a factor - suffering should.

Ideally, I'd want the person with the illness to be able to agree to it, but if you have someone who goes from well to terminally ill and dead within two weeks as happened with a family member, then I think there should be a guardian able to do itl

I don't believe anyone but the person in question should decide. Their life, their choice. You're entering into very murky waters letting others decide when someone else should die.

Lingua Franca

I live in a country where euthanasia is legal.

The only time i have heard of someone using it was when my son came home and told me that one of his friend's mothers was going to die on November 13th of last year, two weeks beforehand. She'd been fighting breast cancer for 3 or 4 years and it was now terminal. It had been discussed in class and the little girl had come to terms with it. She died as she planned, at home surrounded by her loved ones and in no pain.

They're not bumping off the elderly and useless here. It's only available on request. Most people choose to die natural deaths. It's a very kind service, IMO.

So long as it's tightly monitored and most importantly, the choice of the afflicted via consent or living wills, I believe it can be the kindest thing to do, and should be an option for everyone, everywhere.

I'll certainly be writing a living will in my future pointing out under what circumstances I would want to end my life. One of my uncles developed early onset Alzheimers at around the age of 50, was practically an infant within about 2 years and went on to live for another 9. I would rather not exist in that state, myself.

Lingua Franca

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how many people would avail of euthanasia if it were legal, I'm not sure too many people would when the time came.

According to wiki, 1.2% of deaths in the Netherlands in 2003 were down to euthanasia, and that almost of of the people who choose it are cancer sufferers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands

Mr Simpson

belcampprisoner wrote: »

There should be no right to die,but it happens every day
I was in intensive care and they were dropping like flies
Doctor assisted,as the techs were turning off the machine of one
The other said lets wait,what's a few extra minutes going to hurt,
One cancer patient was sitting up saying good bye to all her family
40 minutes later,dead,extra morphine,when they want your organs
There is awfull pressure on family,they asked me who would make my health decisions,I said no one resuscitate me after fighting for my life for an hour I don't want any machines turned off

Stop talking shíte. No doctor in Ireland is going to help a patient die by topping up their morphine, its to much risk to their livelyhood.

As someone who has lost somebody close in a matter similar to how you have described, I find your statement completely disgraceful and without basis.

I've seen first hand how hard ICU and HDU doctors and nurses fight to keep their patients alive. I've also seen their patients demise affect them emotionally.

Lingua Franca

I reported that guy a few hours ago for a terrible anti-travellers post. It was simply deleted rather than warned, for some odd reason. I think they're drunk and /or trolling.

say_who_now?

I think euthanasia should be legalised and legislated for, and that every case would be looked at on an individual basis. I don't know the full in's and out's of it but I have already made my wishes known that if I ever show symptoms of unrecoverable mental illness or in the unlikely event that I am left in a permanent vegetative state, I would wish that they would withhold artificial means of keeping me alive. To me there is a world of a difference between living, and just being kept alive, and a lot of that difference for me centres around the brain.

I just think, in my opinion, that the body is only a functionally assistant device to enable us to carry out our minds inner thoughts and desires, nearly all of our physical body parts now are either biologically or physically replaceable, but if there is a disconnect between our mind and our physical state of living, then in my opinion keeping the brain of someone alive purely because we are not ready to let them go is what would scare me about third parties being allowed to make my decisions for me should I be one day incapable of doing so.

If my mind no longer functions at full and coherent capacity, then I am not the person I was, and I'm not coming back, and no amount of medical intervention, as brilliant and all as we think we are, is going to bring back the person I was. To me my body is only a physical vessel for my mind, and once my mind ceases to exist, I have no further use for my body. To me my body only then becomes a parasite, draining resources that could be better utilised to give somebody else whose mind would be fully functional, a better chance at recovery from a physical ailment.

philologos

I'm an advocate of palliative care. Alleviating the suffering using medication rather than killing the individual.

This is a tried, and tested solution in respect to people with terminal illnesses and helping people to die naturally with the least suffering possible. I think this solution is by and large a lot more ethical than euthanasia. I oppose euthanasia because it is very likely to be abused, and it is possible for people to be pressurised into dying. I think if people were given the alternative of palliative care there would be far fewer considering euthanasia.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I oppose euthanasia because it is very likely to be abused

That sounds a bit self serving actually given you do not oppose all the other things in this life that can be potentially abused. Everything from cars and money to religion can be abused but you do not oppose them.

More likely therefore is that you pre-decide what you are opposing and then cherry pick which things to append the "it can be abused" non-argument to.

A better approach would be to decide if there is anything wrong with euthanasia in and of itself and oppose it on those grounds. I imagine the reason you do not do this is that you have no such arguments against it.

say_who_now?

philologos wrote: »

I'm an advocate of palliative care. Alleviating the suffering using medication rather than killing the individual.

This is a tried, and tested solution in respect to people with terminal illnesses and helping people to die naturally with the least suffering possible. I think this solution is by and large a lot more ethical than euthanasia. I oppose euthanasia because it is very likely to be abused, and it is possible for people to be pressurised into dying. I think if people were given the alternative of palliative care there would be far fewer considering euthanasia.

Palliative care has been used for centuries, and in my opinion is no way to let people live with dignity, let alone die with dignity. I was talking to a care worker during the week and it really brought home to me the indignity of palliative care. She had to leave suddenly because one of her patients, an elderly male, had a blockage in their catheter bag that needed fixing. I asked was there not anyone in the family that would check up on him? "They have no interest", I was told. I was told that this man cannot bathe himself, can just about feed himself, and now a stupid malfunction or just badly designed equipment would prevent him from the most basic characteristic of what scientists consider a life form- the ability to excrete waste product? I don't know did the man himself have any wish to die, that didn't enter the conversation, but now I think about it, I know if that was me I'd have said "I won't allow myself to exist like this!".

In terms of cancer sufferers that receive palliative care, having watched a good friend die of lung cancer, it was horrific to see this once beautiful girl in the space of two years turn into an unrecognisable shell of her former self, medicated up to the eyeballs because of particularly aggressive radiotherapy, and the chemo did nothing either, only prolonged the inevitable and had her suffer longer and more painfully than she should have done. I believe that once a diagnosis is determined to be terminal, if a person chooses that they do NOT wish to "fight" it, their decision should be constitutionally protected and be respected by third parties and relatives involved while they are still of sane mind and body to be able to express that right, and not leave it till later on when they have lost complete control of self-determination.

Rascasse

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That sounds a bit self serving actually given you do not oppose all the other things in this life that can be potentially abused. Everything from cars and money to religion can be abused but you do not oppose them.

More likely therefore is that you pre-decide what you are opposing and then cherry pick which things to append the "it can be abused" non-argument to.

A better approach would be to decide if there is anything wrong with euthanasia in and of itself and oppose it on those grounds. I imagine the reason you do not do this is that you have no such arguments against it.

The "it can be abused" reason isn't a non argument. In the UK it is probably the biggest concern of those that aren't religious zealots, though they use it too knowing the 'because Jesus says no' cuts little ice in modern day Britain.

I am very much pro the right to decide the time and manner of ones death in the usual cases (terminal illness, no quality of life, locked in syndrome etc). But I am also concerned that, for example, people with elderly relatives may try to pressure them into making that decision to get hold of their assets. Or Granny in her old age starts to think she's a burden so goes to the doctor for help to die.

It's something that I think will come, but it needs to be done properly with the appropriate safeguards.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rascasse wrote: »

The "it can be abused" reason isn't a non argument. In the UK it is probably the biggest concern of those that aren't religious zealots, though they use it too knowing the 'because Jesus says no' cuts little ice in modern day Britain.

I think it is a good point, but it is not an argument against Euthanasia per se. If we were to oppose everything that "might be abused" we would have very little left. Humans abuse people, systems, objects, laws and more all the time.

If there are ways it might be abused then we need to formulate the rules and regulations around the issue to minimize and eliminate that potential as best as possible.

But using it as an argument against Euthanasia in and of itself I think is a bit self serving. Especially when one is cherry picking what issues to apply that argument to, and what issues to withhold it from, as ones personal biases dictate.

As you say yourself this argument just means we need to engage with the subject "properly with the appropriate safeguards.". That is what the "Could be abused" argument tells us. Not that Euthanasia in and of itself must be opposed as our Christian Evangelic visitor wants to suggest.

philologos

say_who_now? wrote: »

Palliative care has been used for centuries, and in my opinion is no way to let people live with dignity, let alone die with dignity. I was talking to a care worker during the week and it really brought home to me the indignity of palliative care. She had to leave suddenly because one of her patients, an elderly male, had a blockage in their catheter bag that needed fixing. I asked was there not anyone in the family that would check up on him? "They have no interest", I was told. I was told that this man cannot bathe himself, can just about feed himself, and now a stupid malfunction or just badly designed equipment would prevent him from the most basic characteristic of what scientists consider a life form- the ability to excrete waste product? I don't know did the man himself have any wish to die, that didn't enter the conversation, but now I think about it, I know if that was me I'd have said "I won't allow myself to exist like this!".

In terms of cancer sufferers that receive palliative care, having watched a good friend die of lung cancer, it was horrific to see this once beautiful girl in the space of two years turn into an unrecognisable shell of her former self, medicated up to the eyeballs because of particularly aggressive radiotherapy, and the chemo did nothing either, only prolonged the inevitable and had her suffer longer and more painfully than she should have done. I believe that once a diagnosis is determined to be terminal, if a person chooses that they do NOT wish to "fight" it, their decision should be constitutionally protected and be respected by third parties and relatives involved while they are still of sane mind and body to be able to express that right, and not leave it till later on when they have lost complete control of self-determination.

In short (on phone) - pallative care has improved a heck of a lot in recent decades. Take a look at www.carenotkilling.org.uk. On abuse the House of Lords ruled when considering this in 1994 that there was too much likelihood of emotional abuse persuading people to commit suicide for it to go ahead. The risks are too great and we can deal with terminal illness already and give people the chance to see family for as long as they can before they leave this life. I value that too much to support euthanasia at present.

Lingua Franca

philologos wrote: »

I'm an advocate of palliative care. Alleviating the suffering using medication rather than killing the individual.

That is what people already get in their end days so you shouldn't need to advocate for it. What is it that you do to advocate for it? Who do you lobby? Are there some areas where palliative care isn't on offer?

This is a tried, and tested solution in respect to people with terminal illnesses and helping people to die naturally with the least suffering possible. I think this solution is by and large a lot more ethical than euthanasia. I oppose euthanasia because it is very likely to be abused, and it is possible for people to be pressurised into dying. I think if people were given the alternative of palliative care there would be far fewer considering euthanasia.

Tried and tested but not a true and proved solution for all, not by a long shot. For example, stomach and bowel cancer are notoriously agonising and it's well known that the only painkiller that can allieviate pain in the stomach and bowel is potentially lethal doses of diamorphine, which you may know by it's more common name of heroin. This is why you're prescribed opiates like cocodamol for diarrhea, and why kaolin-morphine exists for bad stomachs.

When my grandfather was sent home to die of lung cancer he was provided with an airbead bed, some macmillan nurses and a whopping great syringe of loads of diamorphine (you had to twist the syringe to push each dose out, iirc. It was never used.). Thankfully he died on his first night home, despite us being told he might hang on for a couple of months months.

Does that sound callous? If so, I don't give a toss. I lost 4 family members in 2 years and he's the only one whose death wasn't a massive drawn out ordeal with the whole family crying beside a hospital bed with an animated corpse in it for weeks, or months in one case. I loved my grandad deeply and I'm glad he didn't suffer.

In another case, my ex's uncle had emphysema and it was literally killing him. He had to struggle for breath and suck oxygen down every few minutes, and couldn't leave his house because he needed that oxygen supply every few minutes. He was in this state for years. He had a phobia of drowning and yet that was to be his fate. He told me that he had squirreled away a bunch of temazepam, about 40 or so, so that he could commit suicide/end his life peacefully and on his terms, but he feared that he'd be found and brought round and end up in a worse, even more restricted state than he was before. He told me that he had been delighted to get a diagnosis of lung cancer at one stage because he hoped it would off him quickly, and he refused to go for further investigation and treatment for it, much to the confusion of his GP. He wasabsolutely gutted when he found out that he didn't have lung cancer. I can't tell you how weird that was to hear, but that was the reality for him.

And then he developed MS.

At that stage he started looking into selling his flat and going to Dignitas and asked us for help because his own children refused to support him through that decision.

Again, thankfully, this guy died of an unexpected heart attack before we need to do anything for him.

(These stories are all hearsay to you, of course. I am repeating stories from my own life that are influenced by my own experiences and you do not know me nor have you walked in my shoes. I may even be outright lying about them, who knows. But I know for a fact that you will find other cases that gel with mine, and I have nothing to gain from the legalisation or lack thereof regarding euthanasia. I'm just pointing out that palliative care is not always effective enough and that it's not always in the interest of the patient)


Yes, palliative care is the most ethical course of action in the vast majority of cases and I support that to the fullest extent. But in some cases the kindest thing to do is not to draw out a painful death, and worse, many bodies are capable of fighting for life long after the actual life in them is extinguished. In other cases even palliative care won't help the diseases ravaging them or extinguish the symptoms.

Who are you to decide that for any person? Do you know better than what my dad, grandfather, uncle-in-law or my early onset Alzeheimers uncle wanted them for themselves? Do you believe in expending effort to sustain even in the case of terminal patients who cannot bear to live anymore? Because I don't. And I'm ok with that.

I would have helped my in law to get to Dignitas. I would have shoved that whole syringe of heroin into my grandad if he'd begged me for it. I sat over my dad for 22 hours and I sat with my gran for 4 days on and off, and let them get the palliative care they were getting.

I wish it was as simple as you're making out, I truly do. But it isn't. And sometimes, not often but sometimes, it's the kindest thing to do. Honestly, human life isn't that precious and we do not need to go to heroic measures to sustain it for as long as possible.


By the way, if you really believe that

it is very likely to be abused, and it is possible for people to be pressurised into dying.

can you show some statistical figures or even news stories from the countries that already allow it and have done for decades which will give credence to your fears? That having euthansasia is a great risk. Anything that shows that docs are hastening death to appease families, get folk off their books or harvest organs would be great. The official stats show that even in countries which allow euthanasia

given the alternative of palliative care

that most people opt for palliative care and only 1-2% choose euthanasia and those are the very sickest of people for whom palliative care isn't enough, but if you know better I'm open to having my mind changed.


Edit: I'd also be interested to know if you'd be happy having a lift installed in your house (after 3 years on a waiting list) by the social welfare so that your SO can bring you up and downstairs to wipe your arse and clean up your drool for a good decade, just so that your family can have the chance to see you. for as long as possible before you leave this life. Do you reckon 10 years would be enough?

MagicMarker

Ah yes, palliative care, because having someone wipe my arse for me won't make me want to top myself.

shopaholic01

belcampprisoner wrote: »

There should be no right to die,but it happens every day
I was in intensive care and they were dropping like flies
Doctor assisted,as the techs were turning off the machine of one
The other said lets wait,what's a few extra minutes going to hurt,
One cancer patient was sitting up saying good bye to all her family
40 minutes later,dead,extra morphine,when they want your organs
There is awfull pressure on family,they asked me who would make my health decisions,I said no one resuscitate me after fighting for my life for an hour I don't want any machines turned off

Organs are not harvested from cancer patients - metastasis may have occured from the site of origin. Receiving an organ with tumour cells would be fatal, as the recipient would need to take medication to suppress their immune system to prevent rejection.