Terminally Ill- Mercy killing?

[DeletedUser1009]

True story of someone close. 91 Year old Uncle. Heavily decorated WWII veteran. Prisoner of war in the Phillipines where the Japanese commander cut his achilles tendons. The family says that he has always been an independent person and tough as nails- since birth. He built his own house, with his own hands after the war. Started his own sucessful company and retired at 50. His wife of 65 years died of full blown alzheimers 2 years ago. She ended up forgetting how to swallow and starved to death. He hand fed her, three meals a day, for 3 months after she couldn't work silverware. He cut her hair for her, trimmer her nails for her and kissed her goodnight - every night -after the nursing home staff put her to bed before heading to his own room in the assisted living portion of the facility. The man has congestive heart failure, he's too old and frail for surgery. The increased medication he is on isn't helping. He needs oxygen 24/7 to keep him from gasping for air. He keeps saying that he's ready to die and wants someone to ,"flip the switch off".

Should this man be allowed to take a pill, or receive an injection, to cease his life?

 

[DeletedUser]

IMO, absolutely. I am all for euthanasia. Personal experience such as pain can never be fully understood by anyone else, and so if it is the reason why someone is asking for help in ending their life, then it is disrespectful to not help them. Of course, in most situations you may want to talk to the person before doing so. But in a situation where an old or dying person is asking, there shouldn't be much hesitation.

 

[DeletedUser1091]

It is a slippery slope. If the man really wanted to die, why implicate others in the decision? If he needs oxygen, it seems all he would need to do is turn it off or take it out. To me, if someone is asking for you to kill them they are just trying to take a monkey off their own back and put it on yours. Furthermore, if we extrapolate to the general... who decides what is a "mercy-killing" and what is murder? I have rarely heard of anyone so bad off that if they can realistically and cogently tell you that they want to die that they couldn't do the deed themselves. And in that very rare case where that isn't so, it is too infrequent to establish a general rule that wouldn't be abused for some sicko's jolly. The most insincere form of debate is when one presents an emotional exception in an attempt to overrule a logical objection. When you are talking about ending a human life, there should always be VERY MUCH hesitation.

 

[DeletedUser34]

I think.......
If a person is of sound mind and are facing a decision such as this, that we do not have the right to play God. The reasoning behind the whole "no" mentality is that God gave life and we don't get to decide to take our own. I have issues on this because medical science does this all the time. Sometime I question whether we are right for keeping many people alive longer than mother nature intends. Some people want to cut it short for various reasons, be it pain, or lack of quality of life, etc etc. Well, if doctors and science can go against the grain to lengthen life, why can't the people whose life it is end it?

I think that a psychological test should be done prior to this decision being carried out, (very much like that done for a sex change operation) and if they pass that, why not prescribe a pill they can take at their leisure that will put them in a non waking sleep. I personally am 100 percent FOR mercy killings, as long as it doesn't EVER involve the hand of someone else to carry out the task. I think THAT is a burden upon the person assisting. I don't think it is ever good for a 3rd party to do someone a favor and kill them out of kindness without the First party knowing. EVER.

 

[DeletedUser]

If the man really wanted to die, why implicate others in the decision? If he needs oxygen, it seems all he would need to do is turn it off or take it out. To me, if someone is asking for you to kill them they are just trying to take a monkey off their own back and put it on yours.

Well first off, not everyone wants to die a painful death from a lack of oxygen. I sure as hell would want to go out painlessly than to have my final moments involve a burning sensation in my lungs. And there are many ways for the procedure to be done in a non-inclusive manner, like giving someone a pill to take in their own time/place of choosing.

Furthermore, if we extrapolate to the general... who decides what is a "mercy-killing" and what is murder? I have rarely heard of anyone so bad off that if they can realistically and cogently tell you that they want to die that they couldn't do the deed themselves.

If they ask you for euthanasia, it's mercy-killing. If they don't, it's not. Pretty simple. And two points to the idea of someone just killing themselves rather than through euthanasia:

1) Sometimes the person isn't entirely wanting to die. It could be a cry for help if the person is in need of someone. It gives them the opportunity to really think/talk it out before committing to ending their life.

2) Killing yourself isn't the easiest task in the world. I'm not sure why you think people can end their lives so easily. Yes, there are many tools, devices, contraptions, methods, etc. available to us in a second. But if someone wants to do it painlessly then there are far fewer alternatives, if any. Not to mention that they may not even want to use certain methods.

When you are talking about ending a human life, there should always be VERY MUCH hesitation.

I disagree. Well, just for clarification I said that there should not be much hesitation in the instance of an old or dying person. It's their choice, and there's not much else you can do for them. If they really are in such pain, or they've lost the will to live/fight, then who are you to tell them that they are wrong or deny them the help they want? You don't know what they are going through, and though you can talk through it with them to make sure that it really is what they want, there shouldn't be MUCH hesitation in granting their request.

I think.......
If a person is of sound mind and are facing a decision such as this, that we do not have the right to play God. The reasoning behind the whole "no" mentality is that God gave life and we don't get to decide to take our own.

Not everyone is religious, and so I don't know if we can really use this argument for everyone (perhaps between religious people).

I think that a psychological test should be done prior to this decision being carried out, (very much like that done for a sex change operation) and if they pass that, why not prescribe a pill they can take at their leisure that will put them in a non waking sleep.

If the person is in agony/pain, I don't know if putting them through a test would be the best idea, although I do agree.

I don't think it is ever good for a 3rd party to do someone a favor and kill them out of kindness without the first party knowing. EVER.

Absolutely agree, and I'm sure everyone would, since it'd be too similar to murder. But let me ask this for the sake of covering all the bases: if someone were on life-support and they couldn't respond, and it's been quite some time and they haven't woken up or whatever, would it be right or wrong, good or bad, etc. for a third party to pull the plug on the first party?

 

[DeletedUser34]

The religious part was because back when it became a huge no no to assist in suicide it was because the vast majority of those who were against it WERE of the religious community. I am not talking about now, I refer to the "back when"

Edit:
Yes..But in your example, it isn't a case of a problem with a third party pulling the plug as much as it is multiple third parties each with different opinions. Like I stated before, it HAS to be the patients choice, and in that thought, Everyone should have a medical power of attorney done....just to be safe.

 

[DeletedUser1091]

I still do not see where any of this is anything other than using an exception to legislate a rule. If a person wants to kill themselves, have at it. In fact, there is a player in my neighborhood that I wish would proceed with haste. Nonetheless, to implicate another person or expect that another person implicate themselves in your death is the height of selfishness and inconsideration. I hope no one in my life is ever the ass enough to ask me to off them. If they are, I may just consider killing them because they were big enough jerks for even asking me to do it.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, a guy that is stud enough to have is Achilles tendons cut and still build a house is too much of a wuss to doze off from oxygen deprivation? Give me a break! This is sounding more and more like a sick conclusion looking for a question rather than a genuine intellectual dialogue.

 

[DeletedUser34]

By the way, a guy that is stud enough to have is Achilles tendons cut and still build a house is too much of a wuss to doze off from oxygen deprivation? Give me a break! This is sounding more and more like a sick conclusion looking for a question rather than a genuine intellectual dialogue.

the man in the OP is a man of Philippine decent, who was a prisoner of war, he didn't cut his own Achilles. They were cut for him by an enemy. In time the pain got to him. (edit) among other things. It isn't that he is a wuss, it is that he is tired.

 

[DeletedUser1009]

Dom, my Uncle is an American of English and German decent. Sorry for the confusion. He was captured by the Japanese in the Philippines during WWII. Afterwhich he was tortured and had his tendons cut.

 

[DeletedUser]

well i guess its okay for someone to pull the plug or recieve an injection or pill as long as they want to die. but for poeple who are in acoma or a vegeiatble who dont have a say shouldnt have the plug pulled unless it is highly damaging their families financial situation.i know if i was in an acoma or a vegetable i wouldnt want the plug pulled but wouldnt want to tear my family down in the proccess.I am the kind of person who wants to live through thick and thin through hell and highwaters i will not die untill god rips me from this earth.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Dom, my Uncle is an American of English and German decent. Sorry for the confusion. He was captured by the Japanese in the Philippines during WWII. Afterwhich he was tortured and had his tendons cut.

Same difference...either way, he was not a Japanese who cut his tendons on purpose.

 

[DeletedUser1091]

the man in the OP is a man of Philippine decent, who was a prisoner of war, he didn't cut his own Achilles. They were cut for him by an enemy. In time the pain got to him. (edit) among other things. It isn't that he is a wuss, it is that he is tired.

I said that a person tough enough to endure those things is tough enough to do it themselves. I am also saying that if someone wants to implicate another person or expect that another person implicate themselves in their death is the height of selfishness and inconsideration.... and cowardice. If the person is incapable of doing it themselves, they are probably incapable of communicating to you their intentions accurately. Yes, there may be very very rare exceptions. But then again, like I said... this is an exception looking to legislate a rule.

 

[DeletedUser]

I have been faced with the decision of ending the life of my ten day old child. He was born without a trachea, and while he was intubated directly into his lungs through a tracheostomy, he would not have lived much longer. The doctors said that there were no heroic measures that could be used to prolong his life, but had I wanted, we could have continued to give him nourishment and oxygen and he could have lived a little longer. He was given a very large dose of morphine regularly by this point, likely because of pain, (newborns have a disproportionately higher pain response than we do as we age) and his life held little of quality that he could get. So... did I let the doctors prolong his life because life is sacred, or did we take him off the oxygen and allow nature to take it's course?

We of course allowed him to die, cradled in my arms, (the first I was allowed even to hold him). He was given enough morphine to remain comfortable, and he died when his body gave in. Not being able to get oxygen into his lungs, it would have really been suffocating, and it was the hardest thing I've done, but had the doctors been able to euthanize him I really do not know what route I would have taken, and when would have been the right time to do so. And knowing how desperately precious life was at this point, who was I to decide for another that they could take theirs? Allowing someone to die, is not the same as helping them to.

With a loved one, you need to take into account their comfort. Can you keep them comfortable to allow them to die peacefully? (Note, I did not say with dignity, there is little that is dignified about much of the human condition, birth and death among them) Can you provide pain control for them? Can you keep them calm? Those are important things.

As to a person who can foresee the future, and their own death... I have read stories in which they will sometimes kill themselves to spare themselves the indignities, to spare themselves the pain. I cannot judge them for this, however, knowing that I would have given anything for my child to live, I do despair of those who end their own lives, and I find it selfish. There is no reason in the world that can justify killing yourself, that is more justifiable than another. All it takes is for them to justify that it's okay for THEM, and to them, it is.

My son's father killed himself several years after this, and even though for him, his life was an emotional torment, not a physical one, who's to say that one torment is any less of a torment than another?? Why should it be okay for a sick, demented old person to kill themself, but not for a sick, mentally ill person? If suicide is allowed to be okay for one reason, how do you determine where to draw the line? How?

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that a psychological test should be done prior to this decision being carried out, (very much like that done for a sex change operation) and if they pass that, why not prescribe a pill they can take at their leisure that will put them in a non waking sleep. I personally am 100 percent FOR mercy killings, as long as it doesn't EVER involve the hand of someone else to carry out the task. I think THAT is a burden upon the person assisting. I don't think it is ever good for a 3rd party to do someone a favor and kill them out of kindness without the First party knowing. EVER.

I wonder how many suicidal people will ever be able to "pass" a psychological test...

 

[DeletedUser]

I find it odd that we can continue to what is tantamount to torture a person in this state of body and mind and not allow them to die peacefully if that is their wish. Surely all they have to do is up the medication. It isn't the cancer that kills a patient ultimately it's the medication they have to turn to to remain pain free. Who are we to say that we know better? Patients already sign no-resuscitation. Patients will willingly sign for an operation that puts their life at risk. Society makes too much of this "life above all else" when innocents are being killed in wars all over the world. If a person wants to end their life, they should be allowed to. Simples.

 

[DeletedUser]

If I'm remembering correctly from my Ethics class some years ago, a lot of the concerns voiced here are addressed in existing assisted suicide laws. Where it is legal, there are some very strict guidelines you have to meet: the person must be it extreme pain, the illness must be terminal, the person must be sound of mind (though I have no idea how this is measured), and the person must be able to take the pill autonomously.

In the case of suicide by mentally ill people, I can personally attest to the torture suicidal people endure. There are a few differences, though. For one, most mental illnesses are at least partially treatable, though finding the right medicine or the right combination of medicines may be a Herculean task that takes a lifetime. But with all the medicines out there and considering how many new drugs are in the works, there's always hope that you may eventually find something that works. However, due to the lack of government-provided health care, it is not at all unlikely that the suffering person has no access to treatment of any kind, in which case they are plum out of luck and suicide might be justified. A severely ill and unmedicated person is not really living, anyway.

Second, though the lowest of lows might last a very long time, it will not last forever. There is a chance that, however briefly, you might be able to live a little.

Third, a person that is suicidal due to a mental illness is not making a rational decision when they choose to end their life. Under such circumstances, a rational decision is simply not possible. Your own mind is coercing you and convincing you of things that are not true, like that it will never ever get better and your loved ones are better off without you. I know my death would just break my parents beyond repair and that I will feel better in spring, but that doesn't stop my mind from trying to convince me otherwise sometimes, and many people as sick as I am cannot hang on to that little bit of rationality like I do. If I were not medicated at all, I might not be able to, either.

As a note, people not understanding what this is like will not offend me and discussing it doesn't bother me. It's not something you can relate to if you haven't experienced it yourself, and seeing as it's such a serious issue, I think it's very important to clear up any misconceptions. Unlike my illness in general, suicidal feelings are something I have repeatedly overcome for many years, so talking about it doesn't upset me in the least.

Also, Firefly, you get all my hugs.

 

[DeletedUser34]

I wonder how many suicidal people will ever be able to "pass" a psychological test...

This is about assisted suicide, not suicide in general. If there is any doubt about the sanity of the person then no I don't think assisted suicide is an option. But a sane person making a logical choice, I think has a right.

As I stated before, you have to get counseling before you can get a sex change....same concept here.

and diggo, you are beginning to replace your bossman as the PIA who keeps singling me out on this forum, what is up with THAT?

Do you guys really think I need two kooky liberals dogging my steps?

 

[DeletedUser]

This is about assisted suicide, not suicide in general. If there is any doubt about the sanity of the person then no I don't think assisted suicide is an option. But a sane person making a logical choice, I think has a right.

As I stated before, you have to get counseling before you can get a sex change....same concept here.

I don't care if they want to point a gun to their head or balance on the top of a tilted chair whilst balancing a bowling ball on their middle finger whilst receiving a lethal injection from a sniper dart, it's still suicide, and the state of being suicidal is the de facto definition of "failing" a psychological test. Don't get me wrong, it's a reasonable line of thought, but it's kinda self-contradicting in practise...

Catch 22 is the term I'm looking for. You can only choose to have your life terminated if you are mentally stable. But (as far as a psychological test is concerned) you cannot possibly be mentally stable if you choose to have your life terminated.

and diggo, you are beginning to replace your bossman as the PIA who keeps singling me out on this forum, what is up with THAT?

Do you guys really think I need two kooky liberals dogging my steps?

Hey, it's still only one at a time, we just tag team :laugh:

 

[DeletedUser]

Catch 22 is the term I'm looking for. You can only choose to have your life terminated if you are mentally stable. But you cannot possibly be mentally stable if you choose to have your life terminated.

Sure you can.

Right now, I'm in a good place in my life. I'm planning for my future; among other things, setting aside money each month for my retirement. I would be considered mentally stable. If there were a service available to me that would ensure that I would be eased gently out of this life in the event of a catastrophic event or illness, I would sign up. Just as a person plans for a future of living life to the fullest, so too should she be able to plan for a future of a lingering, painful death. But I want to make that decision. I don't want to leave it up to someone else.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Catch 22 is the term I'm looking for. You can only choose to have your life terminated if you are mentally stable. But you cannot possibly be mentally stable if you choose to have your life terminated.

I disagree. I think if you have a terminal illness, and make an informed choice not to go out in terms you are not acceptable of, you have the right to make and informed decision. This has nothing to do with mental illness. There was an episode of the Mentalist which portrayed this point very well. Now, I have to say specifically, while I get it, I would really hope that someone would NOT choose to do it.......but I do get it, and I don't think you can compare that to say...Kassandra Kharis (whom we scattered her ashes this weekend) who did in fact have mental issues that caused her to be irrational.

I think MaryBethCandySue states it perfectly.