Reply
Fri 14 Apr, 2006 05:37 am
Hello all,
Lately a thought has been circulating in my brain. Please, if you will, consider the following hypothetical situation.
There is a person of middle age, say around 30-40, who is growing more and more depressed with his/her life and looses the will to perpetuate it. (S)He has filled out a donor codicil, and is willing to leave his/her organs behind for the medical facility to distribute as they see fit, hoping that said organs could/would be used to save people who need a donor organ of some sort.
(S)He is in good to reasonable health, without any obviously disqualifying diseases or handicaps (although I honestly do not know if requirements are set for such things, in this situation I want to cover that loophole). (S)He approaches doctors and clinics and asks them if they are willing to help end his/her life.
If asked for a motivation, (S)He will respond that (s)he feels his/her life has been wasted so far, and (s)he sees little hope for it to improve in the future. Additionally, (s)he sees little hope for mankind and the way they brutally impinge on the environment without much thoughts for the future.
(S)He explains that (s)he is feeling increasingly unable to close his/her eyes for the changes mankind is causing, and his/her own (perhaps consciously limited) role within said system.
The argument used to persuade the doctor is that if such help is not given, (s)he might well resort to suicide.
This would not be expedient because:
a) It would cause unneeded suffering on behest of the suicidee and the eventual innocents discovering the body
b) Depending on the method chosen, some organs could well be damaged or ruptured, and become useless
c) Depending on how quickly the dead body is found, the organs may well
have died off too much to be of any medical use.
d) The suicide attempt may fail, leaving the victim perhaps physically, obviously mentally, scarred for life.
If you were a doctor receiving such a request with argumentation, what would you respond? Let's assume your government allows euthanasia under very stringent conditions.
Najmelliw
Najmelliw - I am a strong supporter of assisted suicide and euthanasia. I believe that people have the right to determine their own fate. But, in this case, if I had the power to approve euthanasia. I would turn it down.
In the scenario that you have described, the person sounds depressed. I think that in the case of depression, especially where the person is relatively young and healthy, a psychiatric intervention needs to be attempted.
Yes, of course, you are right. I will correct my original case to reflect that psychiatric intervention has been sought, but without seeming succes.
Or at least, I would if I could find the edit option
So, instead, I'll amend it in this post by saying that indeed psychiatric intervention has been tried unsuccesfully before.
I totally agree with Phoenix (and that doesn't always happen).
Doesn't the Hippocratic Oath say "First do no harm?"
I believe if the person feels strongly enough about dying, and are physically capable of taking matters into their own hands, they should not involve another person in their plans.
The possibility of unusable organs, a botched suicide attempt, etc should be a personal choice, not blood on someone elses hands.
Chai Tea- That would be fine, if concoctions were available that someone could buy, that would do the job of suicide efficiently. I think that many people want to take matters in their own hands, but are concerned about doing an incomplete job.
Also, what about a person who has a condition where he does not have the wherewithal to do the job himself? (quadriplegic comes to mind).
Well, I said in my post if they are physically capable of taking matters into their own hands...which is what naj was saying....as to available concoctions....that would be great, but like I also said, the possibility of a botched suicide attempt should be a personal choice (that they are willing to take)
Phoenix - No suicide has been attempted yet by said person. But (s)he, having sought psychiatric alleviation and not found any, is reluctant to try and fail (yet) again.
Chai - But is it blood on someone's hand if he is asked by a person to help in taking their life? And could it not be argued that doing harm cannot be the case if the recipient of such harm is actively seeking said harm as a 'cure'?
I know it is expanding on the case yet again, but lets say the doctor in question has been alerted to the fact that a vital organ is needed soon. What then?
Further on, does a doctor not have 'blood on his hands' if he knows a person seeks euthanasia and will kill him/herself if (s)he does not receive it?
Even worse, what if said person botches a suicide attempt and severely wounds or kills an innocent bystander in the process?
It all comes back to personal responsibility naj - looks like s/he is looking for a moral loophole to get someone in a healing profession to help them die.
Yes, blood would be on the persons hands, even if they were asked. An OATH was taken to first do no harm. I don't know about other people, but an oath, vow, promise is not to be tossed aside when it become inconvenient to the situation.
A vital organ is needed? Well first, this would depend on a blood match and other considerations as to whether the reciepiant would accept the donors organ.
No one can ever know for sure what a person is going to do naj....if a person is seen as a suicide risk, as much help should be offered to help the person in understanding why those feelings are there, and hopefully change their minds. However, there's only so much one person can do....If I know someone who chain smokes, is morbidly obese, they are in effect commiting slow suicide. Should I help them by buying them cartons of smokes and creme pies?
As far as s/he harming someone else? Well, they better make damn sure they do it in a way and in a place where no one else will be hurt. Again, that's s/he's responsibility.
I would not get the physician involved in the first place, alleviating him/her from any responsibility.
Preservation of one's own life is a prime survival instinct. Someone, not in pain, wishing to end theirs is physically or mentally ill.
i think that in most societies that person can be forced into treatment to overcome that death wish.
i am for euthanasia in cases of suffering where the pain is intolerable. i am against euthanasia in cases where the individual is healthy but just in a "low" period.
To be honest, though, i don't know where i'd stand if it was a 40 year old who was donor-compatible to his child who needed a heart transplant not otherwise available.
For a doctor not to assist a patient escape unendurable pain is to violate his Hippocratic oath (do no harm).
It is cruel to take a man's life, but it is more cruel to deny him his death (Nietzsche).
JLNobody wrote:For a doctor not to assist a patient escape unendurable pain is to violate his Hippocratic oath (do no harm).
It is cruel to take a man's life, but it is more cruel to deny him his death (Nietzsche).
The physician would not be denying anyone their death....in the case put forth, they just would not be aiding someone take their own life when the person in capable of doing it by themselves.
If someone chooses to do this, and are able to on their own, they have no right to ask someone else to be a party to the death.
I never cared much for Nietzsche.
JLNobody wrote:For a doctor not to assist a patient escape unendurable pain is to violate his Hippocratic oath (do no harm).
It is cruel to take a man's life, but it is more cruel to deny him his death (Nietzsche).
In the scenario given there is no one in pain. There is a person with (apparently severe) mental issues that could just as easily break free of their depression and go on to live another 40 or 50 years.
I suspect even Nietzsche (who suffered from depression himself) wouldn't condone the killing of a person who's mental impairments may not allow them to make rational decisions.
Call me the penultimate solipsist, but how can anyone declare a person's thoughts are not rational, just because they do not conform to the norms of society? (S)he may well feel despondent about the state of affairs in the world today, and grow steadily more depressed because his/her negative views of human interaction with each other and the planet are confirmed day after day after day by doing nothing more then skimming the headlines in the papers.
I understand that the thought of taking life would be abhorrent to any professional who studies for years in order to be able to save lives.
But why should mental pain be treated as different from physical pain, when both can hurt just as much?
And why should this individual, who is seeking a humane way out, be forced to find another, probably more painful, way to end his/her life?
What if said person tries to take his own life, but again, botches up, not hurting another being, but him/herself ending up severely crippled and maimed. (For instance, a non fatal frontal collision with a car against a tree). In such a way that (s)he does indeed qualify for euthanasia now.
So basically, a lot of human suffering later, the doctor can now legitimately end this life. The net result is the same, but in between lies damage to property and needless human suffering.
I'm sorry people, if I keep on drilling on this point, but I think it's a very difficult problem indeed.
Naj
najmelliw wrote:Call me the penultimate solipsist, but how can anyone declare a person's thoughts are not rational, just because they do not conform to the norms of society?
You tell us? You are the one that created the scenario and labeled the person in question as depressed. What justification do you have for labeling somoneone just because they don't conform to the norms of society?
I am in error, the quoted statement you tackle stems from a misinterpretation of your earlier post.
However, being depressed seems to increasingly become the norm in todays society.. .which frankly frightens me even more.
Many patients never respond to anti-depressants. Are they, then supposed to live out their lives in perpetuation phsychological pain?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace