Dr. Jack Kevorkian to be paroled from prison

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Just in time to die.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/13/ke....ap/index.html

One of the good guys.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

One of the good guys.

Definitely.

[Mephisto]

I agree, Dr. Kevorkian has remained consistent and has even gone to prison for his beliefs. I also am a BIG fan of his artwork.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...an/aboutk/art/

[rikzilla]

Here's a guy who will someday be honored with a statue if there's a just future.

I watched my grandfather die slowly in horrible pain from congestive heart failure. One memorable night he was writhing in pain and I asked if he could possibly get more morphine. A male nurse looked down his nose at me and said something like: "we're not going to kill him for you".

Dr. Kevorkian worked to add compassion to the competence and advances of medical science. For this they threw him in jail.

-z

[Temporal Renegade]

My wife and I both have an agreement: If either one of us loses our 'quality of life', the other has the right to end it.

AT least Jack isn't going to die in jail.

[billydkid]

Originally Posted by rikzilla

Here's a guy who will someday be honored with a statue if there's a just future.

I watched my grandfather die slowly in horrible pain from congestive heart failure. One memorable night he was writhing in pain and I asked if he could possibly get more morphine. A male nurse looked down his nose at me and said something like: "we're not going to kill him for you".

Dr. Kevorkian worked to add compassion to the competence and advances of medical science. For this they threw him in jail.

-z

Supposedly the medical profession is becoming more enlightened in regard to dealing with pain issues. I have not seen it myself having spent a fair amount of time in the hospital. Years ago my cousin was dying of liver cancer. He was obviously in agony and had but days to live. Nevertheless, the nurses and doctors were unimpressed and made sure they weren't too generous with the pain meds. I guess their thinking was that suffering is good for the soul and in as much as his would shortly be leaving his body they wanted to make sure he got sufficient amount of suffering in before it did. There are thousand of stories of pain patients being neglected or treated like criminals - not just the terminally ill. Many hundreds unable to get help and relief commit suicide every year. All this due largely to the "war on drugs" and the hysteria surrounding the use of pain meds.

[CFLarsen]

It's not that simple, guys.

While I fully understand that dying in pain is horrible, we also have a lot of other things to consider.

Who can we demand take a life? What right do we have, to demand that others take a life? What qualifications should people have? When should the decision be made?

Should doctors be the ones? Out goes the Hippocratic Oath. Now, doctors become arbiters of life and death. A medical decision overrides a person's right to life? That's called eugenics.

Nurses? That's even worse: Images of Annie Wilkes and Bigfig dance before my eyes.

The family? Imagine the suspicion that will invariably arise, especially if the patient is rich. Or, poor: They got rid of him because they didn't want to feed him.

The patient? Can we say that someone who is in great pain is capable of making rational decisions, especially one as drastic as death? Can we say that a previously given consent is valid? It is easy to write a letter when you are healthy, but when you are in the situation, could you have changed your mind?

Someone not involved at all? That's like having a judge, jury and executioner in one person.

Can we put the reponsibility of whether someone should live or die on a person? Should we?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally Posted by rikzilla

I watched my grandfather die slowly in horrible pain from congestive heart failure. One memorable night he was writhing in pain and I asked if he could possibly get more morphine. A male nurse looked down his nose at me and said something like: "we're not going to kill him for you".

Jeez, I hope you bust his nose!

[jmontecillo01]

My mother used to tell me of things that she saw during world war 2. She said she saw soldiers tied to trees with their gut hanging out and being tortured. They die after a few hours of suffering.

If you are in a position to end their suffering from afar, will you do it?

[EvilSmurf]

CFLarsen:

It's not that difficult, here is what I would want in a euthanasia act.
1. The patient's attending physician must agree that the patient's condition is terminal.
2. A concurring second opinion from a qualified specialist.
3. A psychological evaluation of the patient, to make sure they are in a position to make a rational decision.

Hmm...that sounds like the requirements of the 'Death With Dignity' act in a state in the Pacific Northwest, doesn't it?

If a doctor is allowed to give a lethal injection to a healthy criminal, they should be allowed to give one to a patient who wants their life ended.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

...snip...

Who can we demand take a life? What right do we have, to demand that others take a life?

...snip...

None. Unless of course someone wishes to practice medicine then I believe in all EU & USA countries you agree to be regulated (i.e. "licensed to practice medicine") and as part of that you are expected to perform certain actions regardless of your personal moral or ethical beliefs. Personally I would not make it part of the "regulated" job and allow Doctors to not carry out euthanasia.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

What qualifications should people have? When should the decision be made?

They should be Doctors of a (in UK terms) General Practitioner level of qualification.

The decision should be made whenever someone wishes to make the decision.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Should doctors be the ones? Out goes the Hippocratic Oath.

I didn't know Doctors still swear to such an out dated concept of a Doctor's duty to their patients. Consider what the oath actually says (I think this is quite an acceptable version):

Quote:

I swear by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.

To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot

Personally I don't want a Doctor that practices medicine on me being constrained by that oath - the world has moved on somewhat in the last 2000 years or so!

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Now, doctors become arbiters of life and death.

They already are. (Well some are - depends on what they specialize in of course.)

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

A medical decision overrides a person's right to life? That's called eugenics.

No it's called everyday life in the field of modern medicine.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

...snip...

The patient? ...snip...

That's the fellow whose life it is so I would say yep it's their decision to make.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by EvilSmurf

CFLarsen:

It's not that difficult, here is what I would want in a euthanasia act.
1. The patient's attending physician must agree that the patient's condition is terminal.
2. A concurring second opinion from a qualified specialist.
3. A psychological evaluation of the patient, to make sure they are in a position to make a rational decision.

Hmm...that sounds like the requirements of the 'Death With Dignity' act in a state in the Pacific Northwest, doesn't it?

None of this addresses the questions.

Originally Posted by EvilSmurf

If a doctor is allowed to give a lethal injection to a healthy criminal, they should be allowed to give one to a patient who wants their life ended.

Should doctors be allowed to kill people at all? Why isn't that a violation of their oath?

The California Medical Association, the American Medical Association (AMA), and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) oppose the use of doctors in executions.

Quote:

When Law and Ethics Collide — Why Physicians Participate in Executions

In 1980, when the first execution was planned using Dr. Deutsch's technique, the AMA passed a resolution against physician participation as a violation of core medical ethics. It affirmed that ban in detail in its 1992 Code of Medical Ethics. Article 2.06 states, "A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution," although an individual physician's opinion about capital punishment remains "the personal moral decision of the individual." It states that unacceptable participation includes prescribing or administering medications as part of the execution procedure, monitoring vital signs, rendering technical advice, selecting injection sites, starting or supervising placement of intravenous lines, or simply being present as a physician. Pronouncing death is also considered unacceptable, because the physician is not permitted to revive the prisoner if he or she is found to be alive. Only two actions were acceptable: provision at the prisoner's request of a sedative to calm anxiety beforehand and certification of death after another person had pronounced it.

The code of ethics of the Society of Correctional Physicians establishes an even stricter ban: "The correctional health professional shall . . . not be involved in any aspect of execution of the death penalty." The American Nurses Association (ANA) has adopted a similar prohibition. Only the national pharmacists' society, the American Pharmaceutical Association, permits involvement, accepting the voluntary provision of execution medications by pharmacists as ethical conduct.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Darat

None. Unless of course someone wishes to practice medicine then I believe in all EU & USA countries you agree to be regulated (i.e. "licensed to practice medicine") and as part of that you are expected to perform certain actions regardless of your personal moral or ethical beliefs. Personally I would not make it part of the "regulated" job and allow Doctors to not carry out euthanasia.

Why not? Isn't that a violation of their oath?

Originally Posted by Darat

They should be Doctors of a (in UK terms) General Practitioner level of qualification.

The decision should be made whenever someone wishes to make the decision.

Good Medical Practice (2006)

It would be in violation of that if we allowed doctors to kill their patients.

Originally Posted by Darat

I didn't know Doctors still swear to such an out dated concept of a Doctor's duty to their patients. Consider what the oath actually says (I think this is quite an acceptable version):

Personally I don't want a Doctor that practices medicine on me being constrained by that oath - the world has moved on somewhat in the last 2000 years or so!

That's not the oath they take.

Originally Posted by Darat

They already are. (Well some are - depends on what they specialize in of course.)

But not in a deliberate manner. Sure, a doctor can stop treatment which will result in death, but that is another matter than actively kill him.

Originally Posted by Darat

No it's called everyday life in the field of modern medicine.

Not when the person loses his life.

Originally Posted by Darat

That's the fellow whose life it is so I would say yep it's their decision to make.

It would probably be the right choice, yes. But is it a responsibility a patient in pain is capable of taking? And it still doesn't answer the question of what right we have to demand of another person that he kill someone. Especially if that person is a doctor, one that is supposed to save lives.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

...snip..

Should doctors be allowed to kill people at all? Why isn't that a violation of their oath?

...snip...

They already are now (in the UK) and which oath would it be in violation of?

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Darat

They already are now (in the UK) and which oath would it be in violation of?

Protect and promote the health of patients, for starters?

How are UK doctors allowed to kill their patients? (I'm not thinking "Harold Shipman" )

[Darat]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Why not? Isn't that a violation of their oath?

Why not what? And which "oath"?

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Good Medical Practice (2006)

It would be in violation of that if we allowed doctors to kill their patients.

Where? And Doctors in the UK are already allowed legally to kill their patients.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

That's not the oath they take.

You were the one that said "Out goes the Hippocratic Oath." - Which has to mean you believed that it was in force - it was me that questioned your statement are I did not believe that it was still in force. Your cite shows that I was correct and you was wrong.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

But not in a deliberate manner. Sure, a doctor can stop treatment which will result in death, but that is another matter than actively kill him.

They can deliberately stop treatment that is keeping a patient alive knowing that stopping such treatment will result in death. I do not see the distinction you are trying to make.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Not when the person loses his life.

Yes it is.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

It would probably be the right choice, yes. But is it a responsibility a patient in pain is capable of taking? And it still doesn't answer the question of what right we have to demand of another person that he kill someone.

Already answered in the first part of post #11

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Especially if that person is a doctor, one that is supposed to save lives.

That is an appeal to emotion.

A Doctor is supposed to do their "best" for a patient, that may or may not mean they should attempt to save a patient's life ("best" as in all the ancient and modern oaths/guidelines cited in this thread so far).

[Katana]

I have no problem with physician-assisted suicide if administered with the checks & balances mentioned already. It's not about killing off someone who is no good to society any longer. It's about respecting the wishes of a human being whose quality of life has been irreversibly destroyed. Above all, though, it's about relieving suffering. Will every patient with the same terminal illness choose this route? No, and I would never consider forcing that choice on someone. But it should be available to those who wish to do so.

It's interesting that society has become comfortable with more passive means of "killing" like withdrawing life support, but we can't accept more active means of producing the same result. My hospital has something called "comfort measures" which is an option for patients for whom no further treatments are available. The decision is made only after extensive discussions between physicians and patients (or family members if patients are unable). The patients are administered only those things that relieve discomfort such as pain meds, sedatives, oxygen, even fluids. Things like narcotics are dosed gradually but are given in whatever doses are required to relieve suffering even if they slow respirations to an extent that we would not tolerate in other circumstances-even if they may hasten death.

The intent is not to kill, but can any of us say that we didn't make it happen more quickly than it would have? No, but not one of us feels that we did something wrong. In fact, the move to comfort measures often marks a big step towards acceptance on the part of patients and their family members. What was a stressful situation is transformed into a peaceful one, and this can change the way families remember the final moments of loved ones. Rather than gasping for breath or moaning in pain, patients are calm and often become lucid enough to express some final thoughts, which is perhaps the greatest gift that any of us could give to those present.

It's not a part of medicine that physicians enjoy, but it's a reality when you deal with patients with terminal illnesses. We have the capacity to prolong life, but, at the same time, we have the ability (and I think the responsibility) to provide as peaceful and comfortable a death as we can in accordance with the patient's wishes. I don't see that this is in conflict with our fundamental duties to our patients.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Darat

Why not what?

Why wouldn't you make it part of the "regulated" job and allow Doctors to not carry out euthanasia?

Originally Posted by Darat

Where? And Doctors in the UK are already allowed legally to kill their patients.

How are UK doctors allowed to kill their patients?

Originally Posted by Darat

You were the one that said "Out goes the Hippocratic Oath." - Which has to mean you believed that it was in force - it was me that questioned your statement are I did not believe that it was still in force. Your cite shows that I was correct and you was wrong.

The ancient H.O. is not the one they use today:

Quote:

Several parts of the oath have been removed or re-shaped over the years in various countries, schools, and societies as the social, religious, and political importance of medicine has changed. Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the ancient version, which praised non-Abrahamic deities, advocated teaching of men but not women, and forbade general practitioners from surgery, abortion and euthanasia. Also missing from the ancient Oath and from many modern versions are the complex ethical issues that face the modern physician.
Source

Originally Posted by Darat

They can deliberately stop treatment that is keeping a patient alive knowing that stopping such treatment will result in death. I do not see the distinction you are trying to make.

There is absolutely a distinction: Doing nothing and actively being the instrument of death.

Compare it to involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder. It's not the most appropriate analogy, but...

Originally Posted by Darat

Yes it is.

How so?

Originally Posted by Darat

Already answered in the first part of post #11

But those certain actions do not include killing your patients.

Originally Posted by Darat

That is an appeal to emotion.

A Doctor is supposed to do their "best" for a patient, that may or may not mean they should attempt to save a patient's life ("best" as in all the ancient and modern oaths/guidelines cited in this thread so far).

No, it is absolutely not an appeal to emotion. It is describing what doctors do. In those cases where they can't do more for the patient, they can step back and let Nature run its course.

But I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was quietly accepted that doctors sometimes prescribe so much painkiller that it actually kills the patient.

[CFLarsen]

In 2003, the Danish Council of Ethics (incidentally headed by Ole Hartling, member of the Danish skeptics) issued a statement where they advised against the legalization of euthanasia. Some good points:

Quote:

En definitiv aftale mellem to mennesker om, at den ene tager livet af den anden, vil være en fornægtelse af, at livet også er sit eget formål og ikke endegyldigt kan bedømmes til at være mindre værd end at dø. Livets værdi er ikke til forhandling. En relativering af princippet om menneskelivets ukrænkelighed vil også betyde, at omsorgen for lidende mennesker ikke konsekvent og som en selvfølge holder sig på livets side. Omsorg og palliativ pleje bør holde sig til at gøre livet for patienten så tåleligt og godt som muligt, indtil døden indtræder. At tage lidelsen bort ved at sørge for, at der ikke længere er nogen patient at tage sig af, er derimod en modsigelse af omsorgens væsen. Omsorgens væsenskende består i at hjælpe mennesker i deres tilværelse. Ved at støtte og lindre patientens fysiske og/eller psykiske lidelser har den omsorgsgivende person til hensigt, at patienten oplever sin tilværelse som mere tålelig. Eutanasi kan ikke have dette formål, da eutanasiens succeskriterium er, at patienten afgår ved døden og derved ikke oplever noget som helst. Eutanasi er derfor ikke lindring af lidelse.

Den etiske motivation for at opretholde princippet om menneskelivets ukrænkelighed er i konkrete tilfælde også begrundet i det enkelte menneskes interesse i at bevare sit liv. Det betyder imidlertid ikke, at man kan tage livet af mennesker, der har erklæret, at de ikke længere har en interesse i at leve videre, fordi døden for dem fremtræder som det bedste af to onder. Samfundets beskyttelse af menneskers ret til at leve er af så afgørende betydning for muligheden af et trygt og godt samliv mellem mennesker, at eksistensen af et generelt forbud mod at tage livet af mennesker - på begæring eller ej - er nødvendig. Derfor kan eutanasi ikke lovliggøres af hensyn til de ekstraordinære og sjældne tilfælde, hvor det eventuelt ville være etisk acceptabelt at tage livet af et menneske på dennes anmodning herom.
Source

Quote:

A definitive agreement between two people that one takes the life of the other, will be a rejection that life also is its own purpose and cannot definitively be judged to be of lesser value than dying. The value of life is not up for negotiation. Making the principle of the inviolability of human life relative will also mean that caring of people who suffer is not consistent and as a matter of course stays on the side of life. Care and palliative nursing should aim to make the patient's life as endurable and well as possible, until the time of death. To take the suffering away by ensuring that there no longer is a patient to care for, is on the other hand contradictory to the nature of caring. The nature of caring is to help people in their lives. By supporting and ease the patient's physical and/or psychological suffering, the caregiver aims to make the patient feel his life as more endurable. Euthanasia cannot have this purpose, since the success criterium for euthanasia is that the patient dies and therefore cannot experience anything. Euthanasia is therefore not easing suffering.

The ethical motivation for sustaining the principle of the inviolability of human life is in concrete cases also be substantiated with the interest of the individual to keep his life. That doesn't mean that one can take the life of people who has declared that they no longer have an interest in living, because death to them appears as the better of two evils. Society's protection of human's right to live is of such fundamental importance for the possibility of a safe and good life between humans, that the existence of a general ban against taking the lives of other people - requested or not - is necessary. Therefore, euthanasia cannot be legalized with regards for the extraordinary and rare cases where it possibly would be ethically acceptable to take another human's life at his/her request.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Why wouldn't you make it part of the "regulated" job and allow Doctors to not carry out euthanasia?

Same reason that many procedures are not forced on Doctors i.e. society determines what they are required as part of being allowed to be Drs to do. As I said my personal opinion is that they should not be forced to use euthanasia. I hold that opinion because I doubt there would be such a huge requirement for euthanasia that Drs being able to opt-out of killing patients would not interfere with a patient receiving the medical care they require.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

How are UK doctors allowed to kill their patients?

Answered in post #16.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

The ancient H.O. is not the one they use today:

If it isn't the ancient "one" it isn't the Hippocratic oath (by definition). Fair enough if by "Hippocratic Oath" you were meaning to refer to the legal duties that licensed medical practitioners have to agree to and uphold. But they really should not be called the Hippocratic oath if you want to avoid confusion.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

There is absolutely a distinction: Doing nothing and actively being the instrument of death.

But that distinction does not exist, they are both doing something.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Compare it to involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder. It's not the most appropriate analogy, but...

It's not a good analogy at all.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

But those certain actions do not include killing your patients.

Yes they do that is why it is legal in the UK for Drs to kill their patients.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

No, it is absolutely not an appeal to emotion.

Yes it is because the "save lives" is nothing more then a misleading, simplistic generalization of what Drs are supposed to do wrapped up in emotional language.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

It is describing what doctors do.

No it doesn't. See the various oaths and guidelines for Drs that have already been cited in this thread. How many of them use the term "save lives" or say "You duty above all else is to save a patients life" - you will find not one of them uses that phrase.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

In those cases where they can't do more for the patient, they can step back and let Nature run its course.

Another appeal to emotion, indeed the whole of Drs duty could quite accurately be summed up as "not allowing Nature to run its course"!
[/quote]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

But I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was quietly accepted that doctors sometimes prescribe so much painkiller that it actually kills the patient.

Which is terrible. Forcing Drs to break the law and as the Dr in the OP exposing them to potentially terrible punishment for doing what is best for their patient i.e. for upholding their (as you call it) "oath".

[Darat]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

In 2003, the Danish Council of Ethics (incidentally headed by Ole Hartling, member of the Danish skeptics) issued a statement where they advised against the legalization of euthanasia. Some good points:


A definitive agreement between two people that one takes the life of the other, will be a rejection that life also is its own purpose and cannot definitively be judged to be of lesser value than dying. [Opinion] The value of life is not up for negotiation. [Assertion]Making the principle of the inviolability of human life relative will also mean that caring of people who suffer is not consistent and as a matter of course stays on the side of life [Assertion]. Care and palliative nursing should aim to make the patient's life as endurable and well as possible, until the time of death [Opinion]. To take the suffering away by ensuring that there no longer is a patient to care for, is on the other hand contradictory to the nature of caring [Assertion]. The nature of caring is to help people in their lives [Opinion]. By supporting and ease the patient's physical and/or psychological suffering, the caregiver aims to make the patient feel his life as more endurable[Assertion]. Euthanasia cannot have this purpose, since the success criterium for euthanasia is that the patient dies and therefore cannot experience anything. Euthanasia is therefore not easing suffering.[Semantic argument.]

The ethical motivation for sustaining the principle of the inviolability of human life is in concrete cases also be substantiated with the interest of the individual to keep his life[Assertion]. That doesn't mean that one can take the life of people who has declared that they no longer have an interest in living, because death to them appears as the better of two evils[Assertion]. Society's protection of human's right to live is of such fundamental importance for the possibility of a safe and good life between humans[Assertion], that the existence of a general ban against taking the lives of other people - requested or not - is necessary[Assertion]. Therefore, euthanasia cannot be legalized with regards for the extraordinary and rare cases where it possibly would be ethically acceptable to take another human's life at his/her request.[Opinion not a conclusion of an argument and I think also contradicting other statements in the article.]

As you may have gathered from my comments their little opinion puff made no impression on me, it is a collection of opinions and assertions and the only actual argument they attempt to support by logic is nothing more then a semantic argument playing with the meaning of words.

[Katana]

Originally Posted by Darat

Another appeal to emotion, indeed the whole of Drs duty could quite accurately be summed up as "not allowing Nature to run its course"!

Exactly. It's absurd to expect physicians to do everything they can to save or prolong a patient's life only to abrogate all responsibility when death is the inevitable next step. They still have something to offer patients during that last phase even if only to respect the wishes of the patients who wish to shorten its duration.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Darat

Same reason that many procedures are not forced on Doctors i.e. society determines what they are required as part of being allowed to be Drs to do. As I said my personal opinion is that they should not be forced to use euthanasia. I hold that opinion because I doubt there would be such a huge requirement for euthanasia that Drs being able to opt-out of killing patients would not interfere with a patient receiving the medical care they require.

That would open up yet another bag of fleas: What if no doctor will do it, yet you have a right to be killed?

Originally Posted by Darat

Answered in post #16.

That's not killing them. That's letting them die.

Originally Posted by Darat

If it isn't the ancient "one" it isn't the Hippocratic oath (by definition). Fair enough if by "Hippocratic Oath" you were meaning to refer to the legal duties that licensed medical practitioners have to agree to and uphold. But they really should not be called the Hippocratic oath if you want to avoid confusion.

I didn't say anything about the H.O. being the ancient one. But, I suppose they keep the name for historical reasons.

Originally Posted by Darat

But that distinction does not exist, they are both doing something.

No, one of them is doing nothing.

Originally Posted by Darat

It's not a good analogy at all.

Why not? One is not deliberate, the other is. One has no intent, the other has intent.

Originally Posted by Darat

Yes they do that is why it is legal in the UK for Drs to kill their patients.

Let them die, yes.

Originally Posted by Darat

Yes it is because the "save lives" is nothing more then a misleading, simplistic generalization of what Drs are supposed to do wrapped up in emotional language.

Simplistic? I could easily fill out page after page about what doctors do, but that's what it boils down to.

Originally Posted by Darat

No it doesn't. See the various oaths and guidelines for Drs that have already been cited in this thread. How many of them use the term "save lives" or say "You duty above all else is to save a patients life" - you will find not one of them uses that phrase.

But, what does a doctor do, if not, at the end of the day, save lives?

Originally Posted by Darat

Another appeal to emotion, indeed the whole of Drs duty could quite accurately be summed up as "not allowing Nature to run its course"!

Not at all: In this case, he lets Nature run its course because he can't do more for the patient. I could also say "do nothing", or "stop intervening".

Originally Posted by Darat

Which is terrible. Forcing Drs to break the law and as the Dr in the OP exposing them to potentially terrible punishment for doing what is best for their patient i.e. for upholding their (as you call it) "oath".

I am talking about the cases where the doctor silently, without being forced, gives his patient an overdose as "painkiller".

Have you read the arguments from the Danish Council of Ethics?

ETA: Yes.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Darat

As you may have gathered from my comments their little opinion puff made no impression on me, it is a collection of opinions and assertions and the only actual argument they attempt to support by logic is nothing more then a semantic argument playing with the meaning of words.

I take it you don't find much value in having a Council of Ethics, then?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

That's not killing them. That's letting them die.

Which can still be a crime...

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

Which can still be a crime...

Sure, for "normal" people. It is here, too. But Darat is talking about doctors.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Sure, for "normal" people. It is here, too. But Darat is talking about doctors.

So you accept that things can be different for doctors?

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

So you accept that things can be different for doctors?

When it comes to actively killing someone, no. But if people are dying, a doctor should definitely be present.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

When it comes to actively killing someone, no. But if people are dying, a doctor should definitely be present.

So the law should be no different for doctors in respect to shortening someone's life, but you don't mind making them a special case for allowing someone to die through inaction?

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Katana

I have no problem with physician-assisted suicide if administered with the checks & balances mentioned already. It's not about killing off someone who is no good to society any longer. It's about respecting the wishes of a human being whose quality of life has been irreversibly destroyed. Above all, though, it's about relieving suffering. Will every patient with the same terminal illness choose this route? No, and I would never consider forcing that choice on someone. But it should be available to those who wish to do so.

It's interesting that society has become comfortable with more passive means of "killing" like withdrawing life support, but we can't accept more active means of producing the same result. My hospital has something called "comfort measures" which is an option for patients for whom no further treatments are available. The decision is made only after extensive discussions between physicians and patients (or family members if patients are unable). The patients are administered only those things that relieve discomfort such as pain meds, sedatives, oxygen, even fluids. Things like narcotics are dosed gradually but are given in whatever doses are required to relieve suffering even if they slow respirations to an extent that we would not tolerate in other circumstances-even if they may hasten death.

The intent is not to kill, but can any of us say that we didn't make it happen more quickly than it would have? No, but not one of us feels that we did something wrong. In fact, the move to comfort measures often marks a big step towards acceptance on the part of patients and their family members. What was a stressful situation is transformed into a peaceful one, and this can change the way families remember the final moments of loved ones. Rather than gasping for breath or moaning in pain, patients are calm and often become lucid enough to express some final thoughts, which is perhaps the greatest gift that any of us could give to those present.

It's not a part of medicine that physicians enjoy, but it's a reality when you deal with patients with terminal illnesses. We have the capacity to prolong life, but, at the same time, we have the ability (and I think the responsibility) to provide as peaceful and comfortable a death as we can in accordance with the patient's wishes. I don't see that this is in conflict with our fundamental duties to our patients.

What do you think of the arguments from the Danish Council of Ethics?

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

So the law should be no different for doctors in respect to shortening someone's life, but you don't mind making them a special case for allowing someone to die through inaction?

I mind, inasmuch as I don't like it when doctors have to give up. I accept that they have to step back.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

I mind, inasmuch as I don't like it when doctors have to give up. I accept that they have to step back.

We're not talking about giving up or stepping back. We're talking about withdrawing treatment and allowing the patient to die a dignified death, instead of prolonging life for a few more days and weeks, and so prolonging suffering.

[Cleon]

Claus, answer me this.

If a person is painfully dying, what makes "allowing Nature to take its course" any more ethical than allowing that person to pass on painlessly? Death is imminent either way, so it seems to me the only differentiating part of the equation is the "painfully" part.

Also, I'm curious as to whether your problem is more with the "suicide" or the "physician-assisted" part. It might make things easier to address one at a time.

[Ducky]

* Ducky wonders what would happen if the doctor was performing euthanasia with a gun on an armed sky marshall on a plane CFLarsen is on...

[Ian Osborne]

Originally Posted by fowlsound

* fowlsound;2178215 wonders what would happen if the doctor was performing euthanasia with a gun on an armed sky marshall on a plane CFLarsen is on...

He'd ask for evidence...

[Darat]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

That would open up yet another bag of fleas: What if no doctor will do it, yet you have a right to be killed?

Then you wouldn't be able to find a Dr to do it but since rights are nothing more then what society agrees on if a society was to agree that euthanasia was a "right" then there is no reason to assume there would be no Drs willing to carry it out. Indeed even when society only gives a very limited approval to euthanasia there are Drs like Kevorkian who are willing to help.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

That's not killing them. That's letting them die.

No it isn't, it is taking an action to cause someone's death, that is killing in my book.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

I didn't say anything about the H.O. being the ancient one. But, I suppose they keep the name for historical reasons.

I see no evidence for your conclusion.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

No, one of them is doing nothing.

No both are deciding on a certain course of action knowing the consequences of that action.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Why not? One is not deliberate, the other is. One has no intent, the other has intent.

The intent in removing (for example) feeding from a patient who cannot feed themselves but could be kept alive if the food was not removed is to kill the patient.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Let them die, yes.

No they cause the death i.e. choosing a course of actions that the Drs know will result in death.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Simplistic? I could easily fill out page after page about what doctors do, but that's what it boils down to.

The UK site you cited disagrees with you and a medical practitioner in this thread disagrees with you.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

But, what does a doctor do, if not, at the end of the day, save lives?

See your post #13.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Not at all: In this case, he lets Nature run its course because he can't do more for the patient. I could also say "do nothing", or "stop intervening".

"Do nothing" and "stop intervening" are not equivalents.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

I am talking about the cases where the doctor silently, without being forced, gives his patient an overdose as "painkiller".

Which is as I said a terrible state of affairs. That really does open the door to the "Shipman Cure".

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Have you read the arguments from the Danish Council of Ethics?

ETA: Yes.

Well I've read their opinion piece... if you have their arguments to hand I'll happily read them...

[Darat]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

I take it you don't find much value in having a Council of Ethics, then?

How is that implied in what I posted?

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

We're not talking about giving up or stepping back. We're talking about withdrawing treatment and allowing the patient to die a dignified death, instead of prolonging life for a few more days and weeks, and so prolonging suffering.

I don't see the difference. Unless, you mean with "dignified" that the patient is actively killed.

Originally Posted by Cleon

Claus, answer me this.

If a person is painfully dying, what makes "allowing Nature to take its course" any more ethical than allowing that person to pass on painlessly? Death is imminent either way, so it seems to me the only differentiating part of the equation is the "painfully" part.

We are not talking about easing pain, but ending life. It's an important distinction. I have no problems with ending pain. I have problems with ending life to stop pain.

I think it is a pretty strong argument that, when we start putting people to death, we negate that the (or a) purpose of life is life itself. We start accepting that death is a better solution than life. That seems to me like a very dangerous path to take.

Think about it: What is it we, as skeptics, tell creationists, when they talk about the meaning of life? We say, the meaning of life is...life itself. We got one shot, let's enjoy it, and then we can fertilize daffodils.

I think we shoot that argument to pieces, if we negate that the meaning of life is life itself. The Big Question here is really: Is life inviolable? The one life we have?

It also doesn't make much sense to discuss euthanasia without having very clear guidelines. How do we agree on those? On what ethics do we decide? I understand perfectly those who have experienced a dying family member, but are those the ones who should decide for me? We don't let families of murder victims write the laws, for very good reasons. The subject of euthanasia is way too emotional, and we run a very real risk of letting it get out of control.

Originally Posted by Cleon

Also, I'm curious as to whether your problem is more with the "suicide" or the "physician-assisted" part. It might make things easier to address one at a time.

The biggest problem I have is with the physician-assisted part. I don't see how we can demand of anyone that they take lives. I can't see how it will work if we leave it up to a personal choice.

Of course, there is also the suicide part: Do we allow people to commit suicide? If we allow them to commit suicide when they are in bed, rotted up by cancer, do we also allow them to die when they are told that doctors can't do more for them, yet they are still in relatively good health? People are told "You got 6 months to live" (for some reason, it's never 5 or 7), should they get assisted suicide, even though they are far away from the grave?

If anything, euthanasia sounds very much like an appeal to emotion. We should be very careful not to let our emotions decide, without having done a lot of consideration what it is we are doing.

It certainly isn't something we should do, just-like-that. It's not that simple.

Originally Posted by Darat

Then you wouldn't be able to find a Dr to do it but since rights are nothing more then what society agrees on if a society was to agree that euthanasia was a "right" then there is no reason to assume there would be no Drs willing to carry it out. Indeed even when society only gives a very limited approval to euthanasia there are Drs like Kevorkian who are willing to help.

That would require for the decision to be made often a considerable time in advance. Or, have such a willing doctor on each watch.

How many doctors would do such a thing? Judging from the difficuly in finding doctors to assist executions in the US, I'd say not many. And definitely not enough to cover the need.

Originally Posted by Darat

No it isn't, it is taking an action to cause someone's death, that is killing in my book.

Then, what is the difference between involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder?

Originally Posted by Darat

I see no evidence for your conclusion.

The H.O. has been changed since days of yore. Did you not read the link?

Originally Posted by Darat

No both are deciding on a certain course of action knowing the consequences of that action.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Darat

The intent in removing (for example) feeding from a patient who cannot feed themselves but could be kept alive if the food was not removed is to kill the patient.

I disagree. One, you actively do something to kill the patient. The other is when you don't do anything.

Originally Posted by Darat

No they cause the death i.e. choosing a course of actions that the Drs know will result in death.

By that definition, Danish doctors are also allowed euthanasia. They are not, but they are allowed to stop treatment in (on?) terminal patients. I don't think your definition is valid.

Originally Posted by Darat

The UK site you cited disagrees with you and a medical practitioner in this thread disagrees with you.

See your post #13.

I don't understand which part you mean.

Originally Posted by Darat

"Do nothing" and "stop intervening" are not equivalents.

Why not? I don't understand what you are getting at.

Originally Posted by Darat

Which is as I said a terrible state of affairs. That really does open the door to the "Shipman Cure".

Yes, it does, and I would much rather prefer to have clear rules on this, as well as (more) control that it doesn't happen. But I can understand why doctors do it. I just don't agree with it.

Originally Posted by Darat

Well I've read their opinion piece... if you have their arguments to hand I'll happily read them...

Why don't you think they are arguments?

You can read the whole shebang here.

(And it would have saved me the translation, if I had seen it...)

Originally Posted by Darat

How is that implied in what I posted?

By the dismissive way you treated their arguments.

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Katana

I have no problem with physician-assisted suicide if administered with the checks & balances mentioned already. It's not about killing off someone who is no good to society any longer. It's about respecting the wishes of a human being whose quality of life has been irreversibly destroyed. Above all, though, it's about relieving suffering. Will every patient with the same terminal illness choose this route? No, and I would never consider forcing that choice on someone. But it should be available to those who wish to do so.

It's interesting that society has become comfortable with more passive means of "killing" like withdrawing life support, but we can't accept more active means of producing the same result. My hospital has something called "comfort measures" which is an option for patients for whom no further treatments are available. The decision is made only after extensive discussions between physicians and patients (or family members if patients are unable). The patients are administered only those things that relieve discomfort such as pain meds, sedatives, oxygen, even fluids. Things like narcotics are dosed gradually but are given in whatever doses are required to relieve suffering even if they slow respirations to an extent that we would not tolerate in other circumstances-even if they may hasten death.

The intent is not to kill, but can any of us say that we didn't make it happen more quickly than it would have? No, but not one of us feels that we did something wrong. In fact, the move to comfort measures often marks a big step towards acceptance on the part of patients and their family members. What was a stressful situation is transformed into a peaceful one, and this can change the way families remember the final moments of loved ones. Rather than gasping for breath or moaning in pain, patients are calm and often become lucid enough to express some final thoughts, which is perhaps the greatest gift that any of us could give to those present.

It's not a part of medicine that physicians enjoy, but it's a reality when you deal with patients with terminal illnesses. We have the capacity to prolong life, but, at the same time, we have the ability (and I think the responsibility) to provide as peaceful and comfortable a death as we can in accordance with the patient's wishes. I don't see that this is in conflict with our fundamental duties to our patients.

I just want to know if they swab the executioneé with betadine or alcohol before they start the IV?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

I think it is a pretty strong argument that, when we start putting people to death, we negate that the (or a) purpose of life is life itself. We start accepting that death is a better solution than life. That seems to me like a very dangerous path to take.

Your concern is valid, on the assumption that a slippery slope is created and allowed to stand. In the course of this thread, a number of points have been made on the choice of the victim of a terminal disease, or whose Alzheimer's is both diagnosed and progressing rapidly. I do not see the benefit in denying these people a choice, but the checks and balances already discussed are necessary: sound mind and body, second opinion, etc.

While the Danish Council of Ethics makes an interesting statement of principle (thanks for the quote), it has nothing to do with Dr Kevorkian, who understood mercy, and showed that in the US, the law is, now and again, unable to flex and address human needs. The laws are well intentioned: to avoid euthanasia that is involuntary is a point in favor of the law. The matter of unintended outcomes, or maybe the better word is paradox, is what Kevorkian addressed: the enforcement of suffering on persons for which there is no relief, nor hope, due to a law that intended to protect people.

It may be uncomfortable for some to admit, but we all die, and will all eventually face death. Rather than be afraid of it, or a victim of death's inevitabilty, it seems very rational to approach death in a practical matter. Wills, living wills, bequests, insurance, and estate planning are all ways that people deal with death. Why is it that dealing with terminal disease shouldn't be allowed to fit into that? Why must people turn control over to a doctor, who forces them to suffer? When the doctor can no longer heal you, he is no longer the major party to your health. All that is left to do is manage suffering, which decisions I feel should be held by the citizen, not someone else, considering advice of those who the citizen feels have his/her best interests at heart.

DR