What is the argument in favour of euthanasia for people who are not about to die?

In palliative care, if the patient is no longer taking food they do not force it as it is simply the body shutting down. Feeding someone at that stage can lead to the patient experiencing choking episodes which is far more distressing.

 

Reminds me of Breaker Morant

bloody good Aussie film

 

Call it whatever you like, suicide euthanasia, assisted suicide, consensual death with the assistance of a doctor, friend, spouse, or family member, whatever. Don't play semantic games with me. Yes, that is what it is about, and yes, every single person has the right to take such a path, and nobody that helps them ought be held legally accountable. Once again, period!!!

As you may know I not only came close to dying, I did! They revived me, but my wife has standing instructions that if I am a vegetable, and nothing else can be done, all life support efforts, up to and including food and hydration shall cease. I have received the same instructions from her. And so it shall be. If the day comes where one of us needs some help making that happen due to some illness, whether physical or mental, that too will happen.

 

To me there is quite an obvious distinction between a coma patient's life support being switched off, and injecting someone with something to kill them. That distinction is that with a person's life support being switched off, it leads to a natural death. Not the case with providing assisted death.

 

Life is a terminal illness. Consider a 95 year old patient being told the have a terminal illness that will kill them within five years. Of course, a 95 year old with a non-terminal illness is statistically unlikely to live much longer than that either. If they're both living with the same level of irresolvable suffering, does the first patient's terminal diagnosis really make any practical difference?

We essentially do that with coma patients or under invasive surgery. Heart function can be artificially managed or replaced, lung function can be managed or even replaced with external oxygenation and nutrition can be managed with feeding tubes or direct IV replacement. Short of physical structures of the brain (yet!), everything else needed for fundamental existence can be replicated. We don't use all of those things together to actually do this because we don't want to, but I've no doubt it would be technically possible with a little work.

Essentially yes. There are obviously practical complications around capability to make rational (or indeed any) decisions and doctors fundamentally objecting to the patient request for various reasons but they apply in general. In principle, a patient choosing euthanasia is no different to them refusing live-saving treatment.

They do (though I'd argue whether they should), but that still only applies in abstract, via majority and, in representative democracies, filtered through the practical realities for those who have to actually implement those principles. The point is that just because you individually object to the idea of euthanasia isn't a good reason for me to be automatically denied the option. You'd need a better reason than just imposing your moral principles on me (and vice-versa - I wouldn't want it forced on you in a situation where I might choose it).

 

They are NOT “coma patients” And what about the patient with the high spinal cord injury reliant on a ventilator? If we “switch the ventilator off” how is that different?

 

Who are not coma patients? I'm talking about coma patients. Coma patients are coma patients.

Well that would be another example of leading to a natural death, something which is not the case with providing assisted death.

 

No they are NOT. Brain death is different from coma

To qualify as brain dead the usual criteria that is applied is what is called “the British criteria”

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp2025326

https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-in... a lengthy,function and normal sleep patterns.

I keep telling you this is complex. There are no simple answers

 

not everyone on life support is in a coma

 

Did I say that everyone on life support is in a coma? Either way, for ANYONE on life support, if the life support is switched off it will lead to a natural death, something which is not the case with providing assisted death.

 

Yes but I did not mention "brain death." I am talking about coma patients. I can't see why you are so confused.

 

none of us did either, weird, why we asking about it then?

that is not natural death, that is a chosen death, same as the injection, just slower

 

Again I do NOT tolerate incivility - those who are are invited to read my signature.

I am being precise. We withdraw treatment on brain dead patients we do not withdraw or terminate the life of coma patients. Coma often is a reversible condition or a treatable condition. If you do not understand what I have posted please ask politely

 

No, but you're getting into my "I get it" territory which I refer to in my opening post:

"I am not comfortable with any form of euthanasia, but when it's for someone who is suffering through an incredible amount of pain in the final phase of their life, then I at least GET IT!"

So then, perhaps you can address this other part of that same post:

"In one such case, 23 year old Kiano Vafaeian had sought and been approved for medically assisted suicide, part of Canada’s “Medical Assistance in Dying” law, also called MAiD. Why was it approved? Well, he was depressed, diabetic, has lost vision in one eye and didn't have a girlfriend."

Okay, so there are limits then.

You would argue whether they should? Why did you vote for whichever party you voted for if not on a moral basis?

Well yeah, it would have nothing to do with me as an individual. But were we talking about me individually objecting to the idea of euthanasia being a good reason for you to be automatically denied the option? It would be the GOVERNMENT objecting to the idea of euthanasia, not ME!

Do you think that employers should be allowed to fire people on the basis of race?

 

Uh, no. Nobody has the right to another person killing them. What an ABSURD idea!

 

You are seeing "incivility" which simply is not there. Where is the "incivility" in my above post?

Ok, fair enough. I was wrong on my medical terminology. Thank you for the correction. So I will rephrase what I said in the post which you rightly picked me up on:

To me there is quite an obvious distinction between a patient's life support being switched off, and injecting someone with something to kill them. That distinction is that with a person's life support being switched off, it leads to a natural death. Not the case with providing assisted death.

 

Hmmmmm Define “natural death”. I had a patient who had terminal COPD (look it up). Long story short she ended up on a ventilator. She was alert, with it and interactive. BUT when you have terminal COPD it is almost impossible to “wean” off a ventilator once you are connected to one. Weaning becomes a very prolonged effort marked by bouts of breathlessness and becoming too tired to breathe - literally. As with this patient they often face a choice - be removed and pass peacefully (and yes we will medicate to ensure peace) or spend the rest of their life on a ventilator. Now I am asking YOU since you seem to have an interest - how was this different to just administering a lethal medication? The patient was alert orientated and interactive

 

What kills a person whose life support has been removed if not nature?

 

Learn

This is rude given that I am attempting to teach you about the realities of medical end of life care

 

“Nature”…….. is gasping for air like a fish out of water “natural”? To prevent that we often administer Opioids to depress the respiratory drive even though that will shorten “life”

 

The only difference as far as I can see is that administering lethal medications is not a natural action.

 

Well yeah, I mean it's not man-made. I'm not using "natural" here in a positive way. This is nature at its absolute worst, and obviously you have a regular front row seat observing it in your work.

Yes, so this is combating the worst side of nature with man made medical technology.

 

Ok, well sorry about that. And what about my rephrased post? Is it ok now? Here it is again:

To me there is quite an obvious distinction between a patient's life support being switched off, and injecting someone with something to kill them. That distinction is that with a person's life support being switched off, it leads to a natural death. Not the case with providing assisted death.

 

Each case where somebody is considering ending their life.

 

Yes, and you don't think there could be ANY case in which you would have the opinion that someone should not be killed by a doctor?