The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Assisted dying - a question of misplaced trust > Comments

Assisted dying - a question of misplaced trust : Comments

By Mal Fletcher, published 22/7/2014

Good intentions do not necessarily make good public policy. It is very often the fear of suffering, not actual suffering itself, that is at the core of the debate about assisted dying.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Yes, I certainly agree that the options are wider with medical progress, care available for longer lifestyles, and social science to improve the quality of living.
Recent tends to integrate the three needs of living: physical, spiritual and will, can be seen in the efforts of Integrative Medicine (IM). Integrative Medicine (IM) is the Art and Science of Healthcare..... The best of conventional and complementary medicine informed by scientific knowledge and implemented through a collaborative healthcare team that recognizes the uniqueness of each patient. Integrative medicine recognizes the body’s profound healing mechanisms and seeks to mitigate barriers to healing by using nutrition, activity, mind-body medicine, and, where appropriate, conventional and complementary therapies. In the US, Australasia and a few countries in Europe, Integrative Medicine (IM) has become a paradigm shift in the way that primary medical doctors deliver healthcare to patients. IM offers patients more time for consultations, a self-empowered partnership with their healthcare practitioners, and a wider range of scientific evidence based treatments that are complementary to conventional medicine. Currently, there is an IM Consortium of over 50 academic health centers for integrative medicine established in association with academic hospitals in North America and IM centers associated with an European Congress of Integrative Medicine in Europe; CHAMP at Charité University of Berlin, Children’s Clinic for Integrative Medicine at Slotervaart Hospital Amsterdam and the Royal London Hospital of Integrated Medicine.
Sunshine regeneration Centre (SRC), http://www.sunshineregenerationcentre.com provides services on IM in Australia, with Stem Cell Regeneration integrated with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) that will give hope and longevity to many persons. facing the difficult decisions of living, suffering the pains of disease and decrepitude with the rejuvenation from stimulating the growth within using this leading edge Bio-tech application, with social science to improve the will to live, as in"spirituality": and TCM for the entrenchment of long term healing with the wisdom and knowledge gained over many thousands of years in dedicated pursuit of health, happiness,and longevity.
SRC is a member of The European Society of Integrative
Medicine and IM Consortium in USA http://www.imconsortium.org/
and International Society for Complementary Medicine Research http://www.iscmr.org/
Posted by Dr. Roy Lau PhD, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 9:15:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Both Mal's article and Roy's comment above deal with cases where there is hope, but the problem is precisely those cases where there is no hope and further medical intervention only increases the patient's pain and misery.

My own dreadful experience of this was when we had the palliative care of my aged demented mother-in-law, who moved in with us for the last six months of her life in 2011. She had advanced breast cancer which she had elected to leave untreated; a decision I respected as I think on the whole it left her with better quality of life considering the risks and downsides of surgery.

All went well, and she had pretty good quality of life considering, until the last 6 weeks, when her life became a living hell. By this stage she wanted to end her life, but lacked the mental competence to do it. I won't go into the details, but her life was absolutely dreadful, and ours wasn't so good either! She used to say "Oh this is dreadful. Call a doctor and put me down." But of course we couldn't, because it's illegal. We had 3 family members, 24/7 plus me supporting them. The burden of administering her care fell to her daughter.

The problem is, on the one hand you can't just let your aged mother die of thirst or sit in her filth. But on the other hand, every single thing you do must be done physically to this aged lady, it is intrusive, undignified, and unwanted. The worst was when she fixed her daughter with a stare and said "I want a policeman here to make sure you're doing the right thing by me!" Terrible.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 2:24:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As she was on morphine and paracetemol, it would have been an easy matter to say "You want to end it all? Here. Take all this, and all this."

But it's illegal, and why should we be placed in that position?

If we had kept a dog or a sheep in that condition we would have been prosecuted for cruelty.

The problem is, the risk of abuse cuts both ways, and it is not okay to assume that state decision-making is automatically less abusive. The fact is, those arguing against assisted dying are arguing on the basis of facts that they do not and cannot know, and are the cause of untold unnecessary suffering, and their interference is intrusive, negative, ignorant, self-opinionated, and unwarranted.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 2:26:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The sanctity of human life, where on earth is it? , who cares that people are being killed right left & centre between Israel & Gaza, fighting weapons being supplied by America to Israel to bomb the living daylights out of the Gaza inhabitants, the Ukraine situation where to kill is the order of the day, weapons being supplied by Russia, the poverty in the world where millions of children are dying each year from lack of nutrition & medicine, they could be saved by those that preach the sactity of human life and do nothing about it.
Then there are people like myself who wish to have access to Voluntary Euthanasia when death is imminent and no hope of recovery, then every one, especially the God given religious shout from the rooftops, you can't, you can't, after all it is the sanctity of human life, if sanctity of human life is so important then stop the suffering in the world where life means absolutely nothing, stop using that expression as it does not exist and never has.
Posted by Ojnab, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 2:37:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The question whether people have the right to XYZ is all wrong - the real question is what gives a state/government any right to forbid people to XYZ.

The "social contract" fantasy assumes that all people just woke up one morning and decided "let's have a state to protect us"; or "we have common values, so let's have a social order accordingly". None of that actually happened!

Yes, those people who want to enter a voluntary mutual-protection contract may indeed do so, but here we deal with people who say loudly and clearly: "No, I do not wish to be protected by the state. I do not authorise the state to act in my name and punish those who kill me". What then gives the state any right to interfere and attempt to "protect" them against their will?

Once a person of sound mind comes forward and signs a formal declaration, perhaps in court or in the presence of a JP, that they no longer wish to have their life be protected by the state, then the state no longer has a right to prosecute those who kill them or assist them to die.

And for the record, I am well, I don't wish to die as yet, I don't wish to suicide as I believe it's a spiritually poor choice, yet I state that if someone were ever to kill me, including against my will, then I do not authorise the state to punish them in my name. I do not want my murderer to be imprisoned. Let my legacy not include a person languishing in jail because of me.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 3:59:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any doctor or nurse can give you details of terminal patients who had the option of ending their own life, with help from their GP or specialist. It has been happening for hundreds of years. Doctors prescribe large doses of morphine/fentanyl/pethidine, along with sedatives. The patient is well aware they have the ability to end their own life using these drugs. Most don't.
On a personal note, my best friend had motor neuron disease. She watched her mother and brother die a slow, lingering, dehumanising death and vowed never to go the same route. With the help of a very sympathetic GP she accrued a "tool kit" to enable her to end her life, once it became unbearable, especially once she would became totally dependant on others for her survival. I was asked if I would administer the drugs, if at the time, she lacked the physical ability. I agreed.
BUT, as many others before her have found, the moment never arrived. Even when totally incapacitated, unable to move even a finger, she found life still worth living. Every moment was savoured, every experience treasured. She held a living wake with friends and family in her hospital room, drank wine through a straw and celebrated her life with her loved ones. She died naturally a few days later.
Like most people she came to appreciate the reality that we only get one shot at life and we need to live it every minute we can.
Posted by Big Nana, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 10:47:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whichever way you choose to look at it - that some of those going through the ghastly process of slow dying prefer to hang onto whatever life they have left and others prefer to end their own suffering and the mental suffering of those who love them - the fact is that a very substantial majority (70-90%, depending on which poll) are in favour of voluntary assisted euthanasia.

Democracy - or what's left of it - is based on majority rule. The stubborn resistance of conservative-minded politicians (is there any other kind?) to the will of the majority makes a mockery of so-called democracy.
Posted by Killarney, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 11:29:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to see a referendum on the issue of voluntary euthanasia, given that it is known that the majority of Australians support the issue.

Our spineless Politicians either listen too hard to religious claptrap, or are too scared of changes in medical law like this.

The question that should simply be asked is "Do you support the formation of strict laws allowing VOLUNTARY euthanasia for terminally ill residents of Australia?"

All those who don't agree can take as long to die as they wish, given that it is only legalised voluntary euthanasia we are asking for.
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 12:28:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Suse,

<<or are too scared of changes in medical law like this.>>

What has this to do with medicine? Surely euthanasia is not a medical procedure!

<<The question that should simply be asked is "Do you support the formation of strict laws allowing VOLUNTARY euthanasia for terminally ill residents of Australia?">>

I would have a hard time responding to that question because I wouldn't agree with having even more strict laws than we already have.

Instead of a general referendum, the question should be a personal one:

"Do you wish the state to protect your life?"

For those who do, everything stays as it is. For those who don't, killing them should no longer be a criminal offence, regardless whether it is done by medical doctors or otherwise. Whether I live or die simply stops being the state's business (which shouldn't have been its business to begin with without my consent).
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 1:49:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet another attempt to clothe religious objections to assisted dying in the garb of an imagined concern for 'society' and dire warnings about the 'slippery slope'. The response to claims like this is obvious: identify some states (like Switzerland) where assisted dying is legal and has been for some time, and examine whether they are indeed facing disruption, despair and the breakdown of society as a result.

And the answer, of course, is No.

"Eighty four percent of voters opposed any ban on access to assisted suicide, while seventy eight percent were opposed to banning overseas individuals access to such services."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Switzerland
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 7:06:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu "What has this to do with medicine? Surely euthanasia is not a medical procedure."
Well I guess that depends on how one would wish to be euthanised .
If it is to be legal, I doubt the Government would go with shooting or strangling as the method for euthanasia ...

""Do you wish the state to protect your life?""
No Government can 'protect your life'.
We will all die from something eventually.
As I said, you can choose not to avail yourself of euthanasia if you wish, but just don't refuse it for everyone else.

Like it or not, we would have to have state sanctioned laws if we want legalised voluntary euthanasia.
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 10:02:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Suse,

Of course in the ultimate sense no government can protect one's life - but they do try their "best" and in doing so, they often step beyond their limits, such as when they demand people to wear seat-belts or helmets "for their own good".

We could discuss endlessly the philosophical point whether "My life is mine" - but in any case it's clearly not the government's. The only thing which allows governments to try protecting my life, is my permission, my authorising them to do so. What I seek is to be able to deny (or withdraw) my consent for them to protect me, to exercise self-defence measures in my name which I do not approve of and am unwilling to delegate to them. This includes the criminalisation, prosecution and imprisonment of my murderer(s).

I therefore wouldn't settle for such a limited version of the right to be killed - only by doctors, only by this method or another and only if/when I'm terminally ill. There is a fundamental principle involved and any limitation thereof would imply as if the government owns my life, something we should never accept.

(and just to make it clear, I have no intention of ever using this right)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 2:10:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, you live in a democratic society, not on your own on an island.
We have to have laws.
There are laws I don't like either, but I have to weigh that up with all the laws I consider necessary.

Seat belts and helmets save lives and lead to less severe injuries in accidents, and thus less money we all have to pay out for their hospital bills.

You may not ever want to ask for euthanasia, but please allow others to exercise their rights to be able to have it.
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 8:12:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Suse,

<<We have to have laws.>>

Some laws are legitimate, others are not.

No society, irrespective of how it is internally organised (democratically for instance) may legitimately use more powers than the sum of the legitimate powers of its constituents that was delegated to it by those constituents.

<<Seat belts and helmets save lives and lead to less severe injuries in accidents, and thus less money we all have to pay out for their hospital bills.>>

Who said we have to pay, especially the bills of those who do not want us to pay them?
I never asked the state to try save my life or prevent my injuries. I certainly didn't request it to pay any hospital fees on my behalf - I was not even consulted!

I want to be able to pledge, in a formal and binding statement, that under all circumstances I desire no financial assistance from the state, in any shape or form, including of hospital bills. If I ever choose to go to hospital, then the onus is on me to pay for it.

Once I can make this pledge (but not before), it would become legitimate for the state to tell everyone: "look, if you don't sign this pledge then you must wear seat-belts and helmets".

<<You may not ever want to ask for euthanasia, but please allow others to exercise their rights to be able to have it.>>

I am not your father nor your mother, so how come you ask me to allow you anything? What makes you think that you need my permission?

Since I am not your guardian, I neither allow nor disallow you anything, including euthanasia. Rather, it is your puffed-up government which considers itself to be your guardian (or nanny), without your consent I presume, and therefore DISALLOWS euthanasia. Those hooligans have no moral right to do so, never did.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 24 July 2014 1:08:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy