How is this RIGHT?

[Steezie]

There is something I am utterly confused on.

If there is a person who is in the hospital with an intractable and painful disease for which there is no cure...why is it HUMANE to end this person's life by removing feeding tubes and ventilators so they essentially STARVE to death?

Why is it INHUMANE to give this person a massive OD of something like morphine or narcotic so that their life is ended quickly and without pain?

Im seriously confused about the arguments against euthanasia. Why is it inhumane to allow someone who's in pain and suffering to end their life the way they desire?

One thing that...truly scares me is losing my mental faculties as I grow older. If I have a bout with a disease that leaves me a vegetable, I want to know that I have the option of going out with dignity and in peace rather than turning into a blubbering baby thats a drain on his family for years and has to be fed, washed, and wear a diaper.

 

[Beanieboy]

I read about this in my ESL class. In the story, a man's mother had a heart attack. The man was called and asked if they wanted them to resuccitate. He of course said, yes, do anything you can. As it turned out, his mother would never recover, and was in a coma. Often, she convulsed. He asked that they pull the plug, and was told that legally, they couldn't. He could have let her die previously, but once hooked up to the machine, there was nothing that they could do. He ended by saying, "Why is this humane? I wouldn't even make a dog suffer like this."

 

[Blue Olive]

All drugs are essentially poisons. Morphine or other narcotics are certainly not painless. Just because you sedate someone does not mean that they feel better.

Of course, starving a person is not humane either.

 

[PassionFruit]

I've thought about this, too. Now with euthanasia it's another one of those complex issues, and assisted suicided can come into play here. Personally, it doesn't seem right if a person is chronically ill and has no chance of ever getting better to allow them to continue to suffer. But I can understand the arguments against euthanasia. The issue with assisted suicide is finding a doctor who will assist you.

There are a lot of ethical issues involved. Like the Terri Shivo case, who had no chance of getting better, because she was in a consistent vegetative state for 15 years, I felt that it was better for her feeding tube to be removed, I couldn't watch someone I loved deteriorate like that for that long.

 

[Washington]

There is something I am utterly confused on.

If there is a person who is in the hospital with an intractable and painful disease for which there is no cure...why is it HUMANE to end this person's life by removing feeding tubes and ventilators so they essentially STARVE to death?

Why is it INHUMANE to give this person a massive OD of something like morphine or narcotic so that their life is ended quickly and without pain?

Im seriously confused about the arguments against euthanasia. Why is it inhumane to allow someone who's in pain and suffering to end their life the way they desire?

One thing that...truly scares me is losing my mental faculties as I grow older. If I have a bout with a disease that leaves me a vegetable, I want to know that I have the option of going out with dignity and in peace rather than turning into a blubbering baby thats a drain on his family for years and has to be fed, washed, and wear a diaper.

As I understand the laws governing medical practice, no one is allowed to administer any drug or procedure that will hasten a patients natural death. A life support system is an artificial means of keeping one alive. Removing it merely returns the patient's functions to its natural state.

That said, I think the law should be amended to allow for assisted death.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I've spoken with hospice workers who get angry when family members demand they resuscitate a dying person, because they know that either the person will die again next week or the person will become brain dead and what the OP describes, starvation, would be a worse way to go. Its seems to be a case where morality and medical science don't jive yet.

 

[Mling]

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION!!! (please don't ignore this post because I've fought with you in the past and you don't like me. This is completely non-personal and contains no opinion.)

The Terry Shiavo case was a terrible representation of the removal of feeding tubes (ok, no opinion except for that). That is not how it usually happens.

When a person is very close to death, they stop breathing, but their heart keeps beating. Force air into their lungs, and you can keep their heart beating longer. Stop, in this state, and the person *does not suffocate.* Death simply progresses as it would have.

Back up on the time line a little. Often, when a person is close to death, they will completely lose their appetite (if conscious). Keep forcing food into them, and you can keep them breathing and keep their heart beating for a little while but, again, if you stop doing that, they will continue dying as they would have. They will die of whatever was killing them in the first place, before you interrupted the process. It is much quicker and not nearly as painful as starving.

If done properly, and at the right time, the person does not starve.

This is not just rewording the situation or a debate over terms. What happens when this procedure is followed properly is biologically different than starvation. It is not a case of deliberately killing a person because they are going to die anyway. It is simply removing all impediments when their body is already trying to die. Ultimately, what kills them is the cancer or pneumonia or whatever they have.

 

[LightHorseman]

I read about this in my ESL class. In the story, a man's mother had a heart attack. The man was called and asked if they wanted them to resuccitate. He of course said, yes, do anything you can. As it turned out, his mother would never recover, and was in a coma. Often, she convulsed. He asked that they pull the plug, and was told that legally, they couldn't. He could have let her die previously, but once hooked up to the machine, there was nothing that they could do. He ended by saying, "Why is this humane? I wouldn't even make a dog suffer like this."

Thats... odd. Most jurisdictions, it is perfectly legal for either the patient or their empowered atorney to decline any further medical intervention. Its illegal to actively kill someone, but it it usual perfectly legal to stop something that is keeping the person alive artificially, thereby letting them die.

 

[Bombila]

Thats... odd. Most jurisdictions, it is perfectly legal for either the patient or their empowered atorney to decline any further medical intervention. Its illegal to actively kill someone, but it it usual perfectly legal to stop something that is keeping the person alive artificially, thereby letting them die.

Agreed. I am in Canada, and at the end of life, in consultation with the attending doctor/s, it is common to decline extreme measures, and just do medically whatever will keep the person as comfortable as possible.

I've been present at the deaths of several family members in hospital, and this has always been the procedure when someone has no hope of surviving. When there has been any chance of recovery, the approach is completely different, even if the patient is very old.