More states are considering bills allowing medically assisted death this year

[Desk trauma]

This is not how good hospice care actually works. Good hospice care doesn't allow patients to languish in high levels of intractable pain.

Are you familiar with the ethical principle of Double Effect? If a person is terminally ill, and in so much intense, intractable pain that only a potentially lethal dose of pain medication can end their pain, then it is ethical to administer the medication, because the intention is to alleviate pain, with the consequence that they will die. This is different from the logic of euthanasia, where a person simply wants to die because they are afraid, depressed, or facing social pressures to end their life.

There's an example of the principle of Double Effect in the movie, Five Days in Memorial, about a doctor, Anna Pou, who had to administer fatal doses of pain killers to patients at Baptist Memorial Hospital in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Alot of people did not understand the ethics behind her actions, she was investigated heavily and her actions were found to be completely ethical, because the patients were either too ill or physically incapable of being transported out of the hospital. Dr. Pou is a practicing Catholic who is opposed to euthanasia and her actions were in keeping with medical ethics, and she was not charged with any wrongdoing, and continued to practice medicine in New Orleans.

It's not just Catholics that recognize the legitimacy of the Principle of Double Effect, it's found in Protestant thought as well and is accepted as an ethical standard widely among mainstream bioethicists.

This goes back to what I said, alot of the support for euthanasia comes from a place of either fear, ableism or ignorance about hospice care's ethical standards.

Ah,I understand, it’s ok to get medical aid to end one’s life as long as everyone involved lies to themselves about what they are doing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

all theoretical, they have oxygen too.

Nothing I mentioned in that post was theoretical...it was blunt, and used direct (somewhat confrontational) language, but it was all grounded in reality and data.

People making very poor health choices does lead to their life ending earlier than if they hadn't made those choices.

We know that food choices that lead to obesity shorten peoples' lives. And my reference to the Baptist Church wasn't merely a hypothetical example.

Does Religion Increase the Prevalence and Incidence of Obesity in Adulthood?

Previous research reveals that religion in America is related to variations in body weight. This article examines the relationships between religion and both body mass index (BMI) and obesity, which have increased in prevalence in the United States over ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And even Baptist leaders & publications have acknowledged that the Ferraro study was accurate (and indeed a problem)

So, my original assertion/question still stands. Why is there pearl clutching about a person choosing to end their life 6-10 weeks early so they're not agony, but virtually nothing said about people doing things that will end their life 10 years early? Not only is very little said about it, it's actively encouraged in many cases per the two Baptist publications I linked.


And with regards to "they have oxygen" comment, that sounds like the thing a person would say who hasn't personally stood by a family member's bedside in the final weeks of late stage cancer where you can't get the relief drugs in them (because they vomit them up if you try) and the oxygen is providing little to no reprieve.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ah,I understand, it’s ok to get medical aid to end one’s life as long as everyone involved lies to themselves about what they are doing.

It's not lying... it's adhering to sound medical ethics. Engaging in actions that result in the death of people who are merely afraid or depressed is immoral and wrong.

 

[Desk trauma]

It's not lying...

Sure is.

Engaging in actions that result in the death of people who are merely afraid or depressed is immoral and wrong.

Unless you lie to yourself about it when doing it.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's called progress and should be celebrated.

Be careful with this kind of logic. It's been used in history to justify genocide. The German Aktion T4 program, for instance, was justified as mercy killing of "life unworthy of life". And they thought they were being "progressive", too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nothing I mentioned in that post was theoretical...it was blunt, and used direct (somewhat confrontational) language, but it was all grounded in reality and data.

People making very poor health choices does lead to their life ending earlier than if they hadn't made those choices.

We know that food choices that lead to obesity shorten peoples' lives. And my reference to the Baptist Church wasn't merely a hypothetical example.

Does Religion Increase the Prevalence and Incidence of Obesity in Adulthood?

Previous research reveals that religion in America is related to variations in body weight. This article examines the relationships between religion and both body mass index (BMI) and obesity, which have increased in prevalence in the United States over ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

View attachment 343865

And even Baptist leaders & publications have acknowledged that the Ferraro study was accurate (and indeed a problem)

So, my original assertion/question still stands. Why is there pearl clutching about a person choosing to end their life 6-10 weeks early so they're not agony, but virtually nothing said about people doing things that will end their life 10 years early? Not only is very little said about it, it's actively encouraged in many cases per the two Baptist publications I linked.


And with regards to "they have oxygen" comment, that sounds like the thing a person would say who hasn't personally stood by a family member's bedside in the final weeks of late stage cancer where you can't get the relief drugs in them (because they vomit them up if you try) and the oxygen is providing little to no reprieve.

... it might help if church bodies (excuse the pun) lay off of all those Sunday morning offerings of free donuts and potluck, transfat filled lunches.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sure is.


Unless you lie to yourself about it when doing it.

That's not a serious rebuttal, as it's bad faith and attacking a strawman (I already made it clear there's a clear ethical distinction between intended to kill somebody because you consider their life unlivable, and intended to alleviate pain despite reasonable certainty of death). You seem to be motivated by spite of any kind of principle ethics that doesn't align with your libertarian values.

 

[comana]

It's not lying... it's adhering to sound medical ethics. Engaging in actions that result in the death of people who are merely afraid or depressed is immoral and wrong.

What is the benefit of forcing a terminal patient through the final course of their disease? And why is it a problem if they choose to cut that short for themselves?

 

[Desk trauma]

That's not a serious rebuttal,

Giving lethal doses of drugs and pretending it’s not an action to end someone’s life isn’t a serious position. It’s lying to yourself.

(I already made it clear there's a clear ethical distinction between intended to kill somebody because you consider their life unlivable, and intended to alleviate pain despite reasonable certainty of death).

That decision , that their life isn’t worth continuing, is up to the person not a third party.

 

[FireDragon76]

What is the benefit of forcing a terminal patient through the final course of their disease? And why is it a problem if they choose to cut that short for themselves?

The state has an interest in preserving human life. Life is what makes all other values possible. The dead have no freedom. So killing somebody is ultimately taking away their freedom, permanently. It doesn't matter whether they choose it or not. I wouldn't help a friend smoke or drink, why should I help them die?

 

[comana]

The state has an interest in preserving human life. Life is what makes all other values possible. The dead have no freedom. So killing somebody is ultimately taking away their freedom, permanently. It doesn't matter whether they choose it or not. I wouldn't help a friend smoke or drink, why should I help them die?

No one is asking you personally to do anything, certainly not approve, but it is an individual’s choice. It is not up to you, me, or the state to determine the value of a person’s life, that is for the person to decide. If they have weeks to live and each of those remaining weeks is a prospect that person does not want to live through, well it is their choice. If a doctor prescribes a medication to hasten this, where it is legal, then that is merciful care.

 

[stevil]

Be careful with this kind of logic. It's been used in history to justify genocide. The German Aktion T4 program, for instance, was justified as mercy killing of "life unworthy of life". And they thought they were being "progressive", too.

I don't live in fear, slippery slope argument is nonsense. What we are talking about, is giving people dignity and compassion. People do not need to suffer.

 

[Belk]

The state has an interest in preserving human life. Life is what makes all other values possible. The dead have no freedom. So killing somebody is ultimately taking away their freedom, permanently. It doesn't matter whether they choose it or not. I wouldn't help a friend smoke or drink, why should I help them die?

It's doesn't matter? At what point did you decide you get to make choices for ME on how I spend the final time of MY life? The utter arrogance of acting as if forcing a person through a painful end is somehow there moral high ground. My life, my choice, not yours.

 

[Neostarwcc]

This is currently legal in Canada where I was born and am from. My Elder (Who also is from Canada) has done many sermons attacking this idea because to him it interferes with the sanctity of life and is basically legally allowing suicide. Now if somebody is genuinely in pain and agony from Cancer or something along those lines than this is a good thing to both of us. Because, it is widely legal and acceptable to put an animal out of its suffering and misery But, in Canada its being treated as if its legalizing suicide. There's a difference between complete suffering and wanting to harm yourself and being legally allowed to just because you failed your math test for an example.

If this is legalized in the United States than it needs to be made clear that it is for those suffering and not just for any person who wants a legal reason to off themselves.

 

[Desk trauma]

I wouldn't help a friend smoke or drink, why should I help them die?

Who’s asking you to be involved in helping with this?

 

[Unqualified]

What is the benefit of forcing a terminal patient through the final course of their disease? And why is it a problem if they choose to cut that short for themselves?

they can stop eating.

 

[stevil]

they can stop eating.

I've heard starvation is a lengthy and painful way to go.

 

[Unqualified]

Everybody has to suffer even if you have enough money to throw at it.

 

[Unqualified]

I've heard starvation is a lengthy and painful way to go.

It’s not really when you are terminal and two weeks is all it takes. It’s very dignified And noble. Why not chemically induce a coma they don’t suffer then. With draw feeding and life support. Keep the pain meds flowing.

 

[stevil]

It’s not really when you are terminal and two weeks is all it takes. It’s very dignified And noble. Why not chemically induce a coma they don’t suffer then. With draw feeding and life support. Keep the pain meds flowing.

This is insanity. For what purpose????
This approach would never be approved for murderers on death row.