Evidence for God from Science

Would euthanasia be ok for someone who is obsessed with Trump?

Would euthanasia be ok for someone who is obsessed with Trump?

Why would you want to harm ACB?



Speaking of which - anyone contact him - he's been strangely missing.

Philip wrote:

Would euthanasia be ok for someone who is obsessed with Trump?

Why would you want to harm ACB?



Speaking of which - anyone contact him - he's been strangely missing.

I'll pm him.

I guess the dividing line, and its kind of a clear one, would be:
Allowing someone to die, as painless as possible, is OK.
Killing them is not.

PaulSacramento wrote:I guess the dividing line, and its kind of a clear one, would be:
Allowing someone to die, as painless as possible, is OK.
Killing them is not.

I would agree, but sometimes it's not a clear line in certain situations.

I agree sometimes it's not so cut and dry but more than anything it comes down to a question of conscience and ethics.
In terminal patients decisions made by medical staff and family are not done to kill because unfortunately they don't have too, it becomes more about alleviating suffering. The reality is the more intense suffering gets the narcotics increase. No one should have to live out their last days in agony and large doses of morphine can lead to death. Often it's in their sleep and peaceful.
Apart from deviants and psychopaths nobody wants people to die and don't have any desire to kill, in actual fact nurses and doctors live their profession to save lives but at times make decisions to ease patients with dignity into death.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I guess the dividing line, and its kind of a clear one, would be:
Allowing someone to die, as painless as possible, is OK.
Killing them is not.

I would agree, but sometimes it's not a clear line in certain situations.

How so?

Then there is the scenarios where people are 'helping' (coercion) others decide to die so they don't have to live with responsibilities of that person in their life, or the other extreme of Munchhausen disorder and projecting it upon the other person. The true debate does (as I think all here see) lie in the quality life of the patient. I have a hard time thinking I/we can't reach anyone; and anyone suicidal due to mental illness/distress needs exploration in being helped.

A little while ago a women in her 20s came to Portland, Oregon who had terminal cancer. She wanted to 'die with dignity' without a fight (slim-0 chance to live). Instead of going through chemo and surgery and all that entails, she moved to a place where she could be put to sleep. I have a hard time of going out without a fight (and fighting for others) but am also conflicted over this scenario of whether it was enabling destruction or giving a 'dignified death'. Thoughts?

And P.s. If I'm the one (even though I don't write the orders) to do the interventions to 'help someone die', I still know I'm killing them, even if it's a mercy killing (because I'm the one removing life support and titrating the morphine).

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I guess the dividing line, and its kind of a clear one, would be:
Allowing someone to die, as painless as possible, is OK.
Killing them is not.

I would agree, but sometimes it's not a clear line in certain situations.

How so?

For one, I'd say it can be a fine line between giving enough medication to relieve pain, and giving too much of certain meds that hasten death.

Morphine is one such drug, which I was told by my dad's hospice nurse, can hasten death if given too much.

Rick, I'd say the line is pretty much indistinguishable, even with much knowledge and experience in light, moderate and heavy sedation... But the point remains? Especially if we are talking about IV vs oral. I've done both (helped my great aunt pass, too and it was oral morphine). And taking oral meds when a body is in that state can be hard to predict the right dose (forget weight based even [although that's not how we dose adults]).

*Edit: To clarify, we give morphine on the more generous side (and I don't think that is a bad thing).

RickD wrote:
For one, I'd say it can be a fine line between giving enough medication to relieve pain, and giving too much of certain meds that hasten death.

Mallz wrote:
Rick, I'd say the line is pretty much indistinguishable...

I agree. The way you worded it is more accurate.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I guess the dividing line, and its kind of a clear one, would be:
Allowing someone to die, as painless as possible, is OK.
Killing them is not.

I would agree, but sometimes it's not a clear line in certain situations.

How so?

For one, I'd say it can be a fine line between giving enough medication to relieve pain, and giving too much of certain meds that hasten death.

Morphine is one such drug, which I was told by my dad's hospice nurse, can hasten death if given too much.

Ok, what are your issues with hasten death? I mean, by that you are saying that the medication takes away the pain AND lowers the bodies ability to stave off EVENTUAL death ( since the person will die anyways), so what is the issue?
You can't predict time of death ever.
Sometimes pain is what is keeping the system stimulated enough to continue living, so to cut off pain will "accelerate" death.
BUT this is not the same as INDUCING death DIRECTLY, correct?

Mallz wrote:Rick, I'd say the line is pretty much indistinguishable, even with much knowledge and experience in light, moderate and heavy sedation... But the point remains? Especially if we are talking about IV vs oral. I've done both (helped my great aunt pass, too and it was oral morphine). And taking oral meds when a body is in that state can be hard to predict the right dose (forget weight based even [although that's not how we dose adults]).

*Edit: To clarify, we give morphine on the more generous side (and I don't think that is a bad thing).

My point is that death is inevitable and you do NOT know if it was the drug or natural causes.
Pure speculation and far different then actually inducing death via inert gas for example.

I would like to really portray clarity, here, but I think it's going to be a bit hard for me. What if the reduction in pain = sedation which speeds up death? There is no easing the pain. There is no pain beyond the pain of dying (in my opinion including the comorbidities and disease/trauma leading to the death event). When you depress a dying body, (even without the pain of comorbidities and disease/trauma) you are disabling it's ability to keep going, and/or keep fighting. Sometimes the fighting process is something no one would want to go through and asks for mercy; which I see as a core process in end of life care that a lot of people face (even if it's needing help to die peacefully in sleep in bed...).

*edited'

*Aka: I know what my effects have on patients, and when I depress them, and how much, and how it affects their hemodynamics (which is in union with consciousness). I can tell someones cardiac index by seeing and feeling them.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I guess the dividing line, and its kind of a clear one, would be:
Allowing someone to die, as painless as possible, is OK.
Killing them is not.

I would agree, but sometimes it's not a clear line in certain situations.

How so?

For one, I'd say it can be a fine line between giving enough medication to relieve pain, and giving too much of certain meds that hasten death.

Morphine is one such drug, which I was told by my dad's hospice nurse, can hasten death if given too much.

Ok, what are your issues with hasten death? I mean, by that you are saying that the medication takes away the pain AND lowers the bodies ability to stave off EVENTUAL death ( since the person will die anyways), so what is the issue?
You can't predict time of death ever.
Sometimes pain is what is keeping the system stimulated enough to continue living, so to cut off pain will "accelerate" death.
BUT this is not the same as INDUCING death DIRECTLY, correct?

From my understanding, which comes mostly from my dad's hospice nurse, is that morphine can shut down organs. So, in lower doses, it helps with pain. In higher doses, it basically hastens organ failure. Is organ failure and death inevitable? In many cases, yes. But if someone is given high doses of morphine to hasten death, how is that different, morally, from someone performing euthanasia?

As Mallz said, I think in can be indistinguishable.