Should euthanasia be legalized?

When the suit is filed the doctor counter-sues for legal fees. When the family's suit is tossed out and they are ordered to pay the doctor's fees they'll complain loudly. The press will undoubtedly report on it and the next person that thinks about suing will have something more to think about. After a few times with this happeneinglawyers will start advising their clients that filing a lawsuit will not only NOT get them an award but will cost them money and refuse to take their cases to court.

No matter what is done with anything someone will feel the need to sue. Most of those never make it through the initial consultation with their lawyer before they rethink their position.

One would hope!

Heeven, I too was concerned about many of the things you have mentioned, most particularly people abusing the law. It just doesn't seem to be happening in Oregon. Also, the doctor doesn't actually end the patient's life but prescribes medication so that the terminally ill patient has the option to use it if he/she wants to. Here is a paragraph from the link I posted earlier:

The Death with Dignity Act allows terminally ill Oregon residents to obtain from their physicians and use prescriptions for self-administered, lethal medications. The Act states that ending one's life in accordance with the law does not constitute suicide. However, we have used the term "physician-assisted suicide" rather than "Death with Dignity" to describe the provisions of this law because physician-assisted suicide is the term used by the public, and by the medical literature, to describe ending life through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose. The Death with Dignity Act legalizes physician-assisted suicide, but specifically prohibits euthanasia, where a physician or other person directly administers a medication to end another's life.

Bottom line, and much to my surprise, it seems to be working well in Oregon.

patio:

It's against the law to take your own life in the USA. It's called suicide.
Attempted suicides are taken very seriously by the medical community.

chat:

You actually don't need an Rx for C-II,C-III or even C-IV drugs to commit suicide. Many of the OTC meds in the proper dosage for suicide, could kill you.

Ethics prohibits me from listing them.

Question:

Why does American society frown on the act of suicide, yet based on many comments posted here, approve of mercy killing?

Is there any difference between the two acts?

While suicide disturbs me, I don't frown on it, it makes me think long and hard about the person who died and the family/friends they leave behind. A friend of mine committed suicide when we were in our early 20's and I've never been able to forget him. That said, it was his decision to do so and I cannot hate him for it even if it hurt a lot of people he left behind. He must have been dreadfully unhappy to not want to live any longer.

In the case of wanting to die for reasons of physical suffering I cannot quite bring myself to find it acceptable for another human being to take the life of another, even if it is merciful to do so. I would rather the dying person do the deed themselves and relieve anyone else of the responsibility - like the Death with Dignity Act described above. I still wonder about the doctors who prescribe/provide the drugs being held responsible even if the patient administers the dosage to themselves.

I know that there are many differing views to mine and who is to say I would not be in a quandry if put in the position of being asked by a loved one to help them die. It is something I struggle with.

New Haven, when people are terminally ill, have no quality of life, nothing to look forward to except pain, burdening their family with their illness and tremendous expenses, I believe they should have the option to end their life with dignity if they so choose. The family is informed beforehand.

On the other hand, people who commit suicide are otherwise generally healthy and can be helped. Their act is completely selfish and a shock to their loved ones who very likely will suffer with tremendous guilt. The two are very different.

Heeven- I agree that the ideal situation is where the person who wants to die does it himself. In a perfect world, you could go to the drugstore, and buy yourself a "kit" of medications that would be sure to kill you, and not leave you in a persistent vegetative state.

What about those persons who are not physically capable of committing the deed themselves?

Exactly Phoenix. I am completely accepting of people who are physically able to do so themselves, deciding their own fate. But I hesitate over those who require someone else to actually do it for them. That is where my struggle lies.

Right to Die: An Overview



Am still searching for corroboration or contradiction of this. Sorry to folks elsewhere for this post's US-centric bent...

chat:

There's no dignity in anyone taking their life or even having their life taken from them by a mercy killer.

chat:

I know that there are many MDs and RNs, who are intimately involved with the care of terminal oncological patients who would disagree with you.

New Haven, I'm sure there are a lot of people in the medical field who would disagree with me. Some (not all) are in it for the money. The longer the patient lingers, the more $$$ those people see.

However, I think the majority of MDs and RNs would agree with me that a better alternative to "mercy killings", as you put it, is to medicate people who are in pain as much as possible and let them die as natural a death as they can.

There was a time when I was totally against euthanasia. I've seen how well it's worked here in Oregon, and how few times it's been implemented. I do think it is merciful for those who choose to die this way. I'm not sure I would, but I'm glad I have the option.

I respect your opinion on this matter, and I'm just stating mine. It's an interesting subject!

If you can be sure the patient is not suffering pain, most families would like ( I think ) to see their loved one die naturally.

"As much as possible" is a very gray definition in terms of pain medication. It's very hard to know just how functional all of the bodies' systems are at a given time, and what might be calculated to be "as much as possible" could end up being enough to send a patient into cardiac arrest, which, if there is a DNR order in a living will, is tantamount to killing them. There are no substantial protections in place for a physician in such a situation, which is probably a major contributing factor in the emergence of the assisted suicide debate in recent years.

The passing of my girlfriend's stepfather was actually quite revealing in this regard. He was diagnosed with cancer and began treatment in the United States. His pain was severe, and the medication prescribed him, both in and out of the hospital, still left him in a debilitating amount of pain. Nonetheless, he and his wife proceeded to Scotland for a last vacation. There, he collapsed and was admitted to a hospital -- where the doctors were appalled at the treatment he'd been receiving. Already bleeding from his liver, he was given large doses of morphine and died within the day. They implied that, because of risk of litigation, he would not have been accorded such comfort in his last hours in a U.S. hospital.

Not entirely germaine to either side of the argument, but to me it spoke volumes about the relative priorities of the health care officials in the two countries (or at least in the two hospitals.)

Anyway, here's an interesting discussion of the topic from a circuit court appeal. I daresay it's a bit more informed and complete (and just as lacking in conclusiveness) as what we've managed...
Compassion in Dying v Washington

Oh, by the way, footnote 14 states "Research indicates that the last prosecution in the U.S. for attempted suicide probably occurred in 1961. The North Carolina Supreme Court relied on the English common law to determine that attempted suicide was punishable as a misdemeanor. State v. Willis, 121 S.E.2d 854 (N.C. 1961)."

Patiodog:

Hospice care for terminal patients in the US is excellent from a medical, nursing and pharmacological standpoint.

In terms of pain quantification, several methods are availabe to be used with the conscious patient. In terms of analgesics, we are not in an short supply. Problems arise however, when the patient doesn't seek out pain relief out of fear .

Anyone who's ever had experience in an intensive care unit knows that today , with our modern medical technology, the moment of death can be quantitatively followed on monitors right up to the end. When the beeping stops and the BP/HR lines etc. descend, you know the hour of death is approaching.

This one is not so easy for me. I agree with the posters who pointed to legalization being misused on retarded citizens; wards of the state; by greedy or unloving family members,...

I disagree with some of NH's assertions that God is pleased with natural death. Not that I pretend to know God's mind on this, but that many people don't believe in God, and to hold them to the assumed tenets of a God they don't know is ridiculous.

Here, I believe that the choice is the individual's. fishin' was right on when he pointed to living wills, DNRs and the like. (I think it was fishin') Like most of you, I've had to make the decision for a family member. He was being kept alive by a machine. The DNR had been ignored.

In case of lingering, painful death, the patient's wishes should be followed. My dad suffered with cancer. I let him know I would do whatever he wanted me to do. I would have procured the drugs he needed. Wasting and hurting for months, and the fear of choking to death, or dying from bowel blockage (think about it) is not something we should decide for someone else.