I have a reletive (a distant cousin) who has bone cancer. Apparently from what I have heard this is supposed to be an extremely painful situation which toward the last stages even heavy doses of Morphine cannot control the pain.

This has brought up the issue of the patients right to die in my family, and I thought I would see what the comclusions around here are.

<font color="#0099cc">I voted yes in all three instances based on what I would wish for myself, I cannot even imagine what my cousin is going to have to face :( </font>

I voted yes to all as well. The last is a tricky one. Who knows what the victims decision would be? No one. We can only hope that his/her family and friends know what the incapacitated person would've done.

i think its just silly NOT to vote yes to all but the last one....if someone is dying and they know it, why does it have to be dragged out?

i voted yes for the last one too, but that one is kind of iffy...as someone else said, you don't know what the patient wants...but i wouldnt want to be hooked up to a machine if i was incapacitated for... more than a month, i guess

I voted yes to the first two, based on the assumption that the patient is conscious and mentally sound enough to voice his or her own preference. In such a situation, I agree that the person has a right to make that decision.

As for the last question, I voted no, my interpretation being that the patient was not conscious or mentally sound enough to state his or her preference. I guess I am on the slightly paranoid side, because I feel that there is a risk of some person wanting to end the patient's life (assisted suicide would be the perfect opportunity to finish the patient off) and gaining from his or her death.

A compromise might be for the patient to indicate his or her decision earlier on. But again, there is always a probability that the patient changes his or her mind towards the end (and is unable to reverse the decision due to incapacity). That is also why I am uncomfortable with voting "yes" to the third question, too.

<font color="#0099cc">I completely understand what you mean about #3 Mistral, I had a hard time with that myself, but in the end I based it on the fact that I trust my loved ones to do the right thing and not get greedy. It is something that will make me think. </font>

Tough one Magik. I mean, in my faith, suicide is a sin, so for the patient to request termination would be considered suicide. But if the patient is unable to make that decision, and it was up to family members, ack... I'd have to say if it is terminal, I would probably not want a loved one to suffer.. :(

<font color="#0099cc">That is exactly the dilemma our family is in. The religion (Catholic) forbids it, and yet what we are told is that in time his pain will be excruciating and medication will not help....I would not want to live that way for long.</font>

[ 06-01-2002, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

I was just struck by another idea. As third parties, we observe the suffering experienced by loved ones. Yet are we certain that they definitely wish to be rid of their suffering, at the cost of their lives? There may be brave patients (I will not say they are a majority, as I've no idea of the statistics) who want to fight on for as long as they can... dying in pain may also be a dignified death, to some of us.

So if we allow others the right to make the decision for the patient, that person would have to know the patient intimately enough to make the appropriate call.

<font color="#0099cc">Well when I made the poll, I was assuming that the family and doctors would know in advance what the wishes of the patient were before they became incapacitated and unable to decide for themselves. I also assumed that it would be close family and not just casual friends making the decision If this is not the case..thats a whole different can of worms.</font>

My sympathy to your cousin and your family Magik :(

I voted 1 on all three, however I do share the concerns of Mistral about the third question. I think definitely if the person in question who is now incapacitated and unable to make the decision themselves has previously expressed a wish to have assisted suicide, then the family should respect their wishes. If they have not specified anything then it's tougher, and I don't know what would be right in that situation. Obviously if they say they do not want to have assisted suicide then their wishes should be respected also.

my only problem is the wording on your last question.

first off, doctor's take an oath to not kill so they are hand-tied with this option. and i would rather that some kind of statement from myself (if it were me) or the dying patient stating that such and such a family member was entrusted with this decision, be prepared long before the patient could be said to "not be in her right mind".

and for the grieving family, there's too much emotional distress for this decision to be made as someone is dying.

i have seen a dear friend of my tia's go this way. she was given morphine by the bushel and it never seemed to make any difference, except that she would fall asleep alot. but she was always in pain. it was the most horrible thing in the world to watch her and her family go through. they tried so hard to set something like this up and were rebuffed at every turn.

no one should have to fight so hard to die gracefully in this country.

V***V

[img]graemlins/chaos.gif[/img]

Thanks for clarifying [img]smile.gif[/img] In terms of operationalising this, the legislation would definitely have to be worded very carefully [img]smile.gif[/img]

I am so very sorry about your cousin, MagiK! It's never easy on a family when tragedy like that hits. :(

I have to vote no. Same as with Wendy, it is against the tenets of my religous beliefs. It's not an easy choice, but it's the only one I can make in good conscience.

Because it puts greater importance and urgency in making pallative care better. Terminally ill patients should not be suffering in the way they do.

I wonder when the medical world is going to focus on preventative medicine in the same way they do reactive medicine.

Oh yes, when it make the same money.... silly me.

The danger in universally accepting or advocating euthenasia is that it will decrease the importance of making pallative care better, and could lead to situations where sick, old people consider suicide, so as not to burden their families.

But this is a sensative issue. We all hate seeing our loved ones suffer.

I'm so sorry to hear of your cousin MagiK. :( I hope he finds peace.

I've lost two relatives to cancer.

I've also had Morphine for extreme pain. I'd hate to be on that and not have it work...

I voted yes to all 3 because I am assuming that the paitent made their wishes known BEFORE they became incapacitated. I have told my wife and family that if I am in a permanent coma to NOT hook me up to any machines to keep me breathing or my heart beating. As for the other 2 , if someone wants to end their life it is no ones buisness but their own. With the second question , I think doctors already assist people in suicide , but do it unknowingly. With constant pain , most doctors I have gone to will write a perscription for something and put a certain number of refills on it. For my last surgery I had a prescription for 100 , 350mg percoset pain pils with 3 refills. If I wanted to die all I would have had to do is go fill all 3 refills and take all 300 pills. 300 Percoset would surely kill me , but would people blame me for takeing them or the doctor for perscribeing them??

For magik,I am definately NOT an expert on Catholicism but, unless I am mistaken the God in the bible is supposed to be all loveing and all forgiveing. If your family member truly cant live with the pain then an all loveing and forgiveing God would understand.

[ 06-02-2002, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: The Hunter of Jahanna ]

I voted yes to all of them ! It must be a wery bad situatoin to be in and the life is no more greate so !!

Indeed, it would be a shame if this became common occurance.

<font color="#0099cc">
I know this will sound kind of callous, but this is a weird situation for me. I barely know this cousin (Tim) so I don't really feel a deep sense of ..loss over this, what is impacting me the most is that This disease..one of the most ugly ones I have seen much information on is happening to someone that I have met is making a bigger shock to me. I thank you all for your wishes and prayers for him. The issue of him being able to end his life in a quiet and dignified way is causing me to think in a lot of different directions. I still cannot understand it being illegal, especially in this kind of case.</font>

Yes to the first two - the 3rd one with the wording of it, well I went with no in the end. Tough issue.

Yes to the first two and yes to the last although that is not a question that should be answered in haste.
Another thing to point out is if the person who is terminally ill is not religious themselves then religious morals should not enter the picture even if some of the relatives are.

I voted yes for the first and last. a doctor should never have to kill a patient under ANY circumstances, he took an oath. Perhaps a nurse but not a doctor. But preferably a family member should do it. A sad situation, but part of our harsh reality I suppose.

Yes to the first two - no to the third

It has be be the choice of the individual when his/her life is going to end.

Yes, but the problem of incapacity is they CANNOT make their choice known.

Personally I wouldn't like to see someone suffer like that. If there was a choice, it should indeed be maded by them. Even then, however, it is still not going to be easy for the loved ones to go through with it

I voted yes to the first two and no to the last as well. Yorick, I share your concern but I honestly think this is the best way in a minority of cases. And I stress that, it has to be the exception rather than the rule in order to avoid exactly what you are describing. Death should not be taken lightly under any circumstances and as such this really must be a last resort in my mind.

The major worry I had with number three is that there is no real way of being certain it is the patients wish. If the patient is able to express a wish to die, in certain circumstances and if there really is no hope, then I think there is nothing wrong with it happening.

I believe that every person should have the right to end his or her life... but it would depend on the circumstances more then anything.... as to family deciding.... I am unsure... again it would depend on the situation. As to doctors helping... probably yes... but... it is a very 'grey' area, in my opoion, there *is* no 'right' or 'wrong'... still...

Dr. Kavorkian started carrying a handgun around with him which he claims is to protect him from angry people who'd like to see him dead, if you ask me, I just think he's gettin' lazy [img]smile.gif[/img]

I voted yes to all three. Although I think I would do it myself when I knew it was time. A handful of oxycotin oughta do.......

I would tentatively vote yes to all three as well, haven't voted yet though. Like some of the others, the wording in question three makes me doubt.
I am completely decided on the first two questions, however. I think a person should have the right to decide about his/her life anyway (even though I certainly think someone with suicidal tendencies should be prevented from doing it in any way possible, in the end it's their own decision to make), but in the case of a terminal illness, this holds true even more. I mean, the relatives/loved ones of the patient have no idea what excruciating pain he/she is going through, so they cannot make a judgement about whether the patient should be "allowed" to end the suffering. How CAN they judge about that when they don't have to go through the same suffering, let alone imagine what it would be like?
Sorry, but especially in the cases where the patient will eventually die of the illness anyway, I think it is inhuman to deny them the right to die in a reasonably dignified way.

<font color="#0099cc">
I have to apologize for the wording of the last question. Due to the space limitation on the question form I had a hard time trying to think of a way to phrase it so that it would fit. The last question..was in my mind concerning the occurance of a massive head trauma where there is little or no sign of personality, or the patient is in so much agony that they are not coherent (as I am told that some bone cancer patients get this way)...All I could think of was being in sheer agony and being unable to muster the strength or control to make my wishes known. I guess this throws into light another issue, in that we all should have some sort of legal document outlining our wishes made while we are still healthy.</font>

Ah, well I was also a bit confused due to the wording, but I also went for yes on option 3, guessing that you meant this, so that'a bit of a relief. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I think a good way to go about that would be to notify what you would like to happen to you if such a situation did occur. Just like you sign a form saying whether you would like to be an organ donar or not.

Ah OK.
Well in that case I agree that in an ideal situation, it would be good for everybody to make their wishes known, preferably on paper, so that IF something happens (like a coma, head trauma, rapidly developing Alzheimer, etc), there is a document for the medics to consult. I do realise however that the situation's often less than ideal: a lot of people don't realise that they too can have an accident. It's really surprising how many people have an 'oh well, that won't happen to me anyway' attitude. My own attitude is more like 'I sure hope it won't happen, but just in case it does...' LOL

Anyway, in the case of people without a 'will', I don't think I have a fixed opinion. I'd judge that on a case-by-case situation. For example, I can understand that after several years of coma, the family of the patient decides to 'pull out the plug', so to speak. On the other hand, I often hear people ignorantly comment that 'if I get Alzheimer, you can shoot me in the head'. Alzheimer, however, is an illness with a usually very gradual decline, and in fact is often worse for the patient's loved ones to endure than for the patients themselves. So this could lead to the family deciding in favour of euthanasia even when the patient still has some degree of happiness. That would be very wrong. So if there were to be made a law stating that family members can decide on euthanasia in special cases, I would say that there would have to be made some VERY strict regulations, if such a law should be made at all. I understand that it's the only solutions in some cases (when someone is clearly in unalleviatable* agony and unable to request death)(* - is that a word?) but I can also think of many cases in which the family, deliberately or not, could make the wrong decision.

<font color="#0099cc">I don't think it is a word, but I understood what you mean..and I agree with what you said.</font>

<font color=orange>I answered yes to all three, though I am a religious person. Once the pain can't be stopped, I just don't see the point in continuing. I also agree with Yorricks post about preventatives and money.

One thing that burns me up with the Federal Government, is it's adament stand against Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law. Of course, I also get a bit perturbed with the Feds stand against State Legalized Marijuana use, where the people of that state have voted to make it legal. But that's another topic.</font>

<font color="#0099cc">I agree with you Sir T. Origially the idea was States were free to govern them selves and the Fed just handled interstate policy, but now they use the massive fist of "federal money" to beat the states into submission or be left out of the dole. Another black mark against the Federal Income Tax right there.</font>

I was unable to complete the poll, since as was stated previously questions two and three mention doctors assistance and the hippocratic oath stricly prohibits doctors to intentionally harm or terminate a patients existence except under very strictly regulated circumstances.
I do believe terminally ill patients should have the right to end their lives if they so choose, especially when they are in advanced stages and there is no hope for recovery.
What I have not seen mentioned and is a major bone of contention for me is profitability and required financial gain for the medical profession to keep terminally ill people alive as long as possible. I agree that any of us who really love someone would be more than willing to do whatever we can financially to help them, even when they are terminally ill, but when should the line be drawn. Would we take out 3rd, 4th mortgages on our homes to help pay the expenses, sure we would. Will the patients family gradually have to sell and mortgage everything they have to remain alive? Unless they are independantly wealthy, or the pass quickly, you bet they will if they continue to live that long. And if they do, what then, they get booted out of the hospital when the insurance runs out, and there is no more money to pay the expenses, nothing left to sell, can't take out anymore mortgages, and hopefully they can be placed in a state run hospital. Unless people are independantly wealthy, many of them will be totally destitute by the time it is over and have nothing left to bequeath to their loved family members. Would we help them anyway? Of course we would. But I can guarantee that the vast percentage of terminally ill people would prefer to be allowed to pass with dignity rather than to put their loved ones through all of this and have nothing or little left. We want to be able to share what we have gained in our lives with our loved ones, not have everything stripped away for no certainty other than to line peoples pockets. And we definately don't want them to put themselves into often irredeemable debt to prolong our tormented lives. How many of us would honestly want to be terminally ill, being forced to exist in agony and have our loved ones devestate themselves financially. I certainly would never wish such a thing.

[ 06-02-2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: The.Relic ]

<font color=Orange>Yes, No and NO</font>

yes on all three, and euthanasia is legal in holland so it was no tough decision.

Just a bump so that some who didnt might vote.