Euthanasia - I am confused

[kleinboet]

How do you work this out?

Story one: We have a man arrested on suspicion of assisting his partner to die.

His partner had inoperable pancreatic cancer and possibly did not want to put up with the pain when he was going to die anyway!!

Story two: If you had an animal and the RSPCA examined it and said it needs to be euthanized immediately because it is "suffering unnecessary pain"

They do it and you are charged with cruelty!

 

 

How do you equate them both?

Edited July 23, 2009 by kleinboet

[Sportsman]

How do you work this out?

Story one: We have a man arrested on suspicion of assisting his partner to die.

His partner had inoperable pancreatic cancer and possibly did not want to put up with the pain when he was going to die anyway!!

Story two: If you had an animal and the RSPCA examined it and said it needs to be euthanized immediately because it is "suffering unnecessary pain"

They do it and you are charged with cruelty!

 

 

How do you equate them both?

 

 

It's easy, one is a man and one is a dog.

 

The man has available to him all sorts of pain relief and palliative care that is not available to the dog.

 

It is also not illegal to put a dog to sleep.

[Ken L]

The man has available to him all sorts of pain relief and palliative care that is not available to the dog.

 

and what of the situations where the man (who unlike the dog is a thinking being with the power of self detirmination and choice) decides that he doesn't want the paliative care and that the pain relief either isn't working or is again something that he doesn't want and chooses to end his life with a degree of dignity ?

 

From the above, it should be obvious that I'm very much pro choice on this one. There obviously need to be safeguards in place, but people should be allowed to die at the time of their choosing with dignity and without fear of stigma or prosecution of the people that they love.

[RobStubbs]

and what of the situations where the man (who unlike the dog is a thinking being with the power of self detirmination and choice) decides that he doesn't want the paliative care and that the pain relief either isn't working or is again something that he doesn't want and chooses to end his life with a degree of dignity ?

 

From the above, it should be obvious that I'm very much pro choice on this one. There obviously need to be safeguards in place, but people should be allowed to die at the time of their choosing with dignity and without fear of stigma or prosecution of the people that they love.

 

Remember the guy was just arrested and will probably never be charged with any offence. It's pretty standard practice for the police to do that, but the CPS would very rarely compile a case as it's not in the public interest. If it did go further the courts would normally throw it out. Think of it as another form of safeguards really, not nice but it is an extra safeguard neverless.

 

Rob.

Edited July 24, 2009 by RobStubbs

[chesters1]

It's easy, one is a man and one is a dog.

 

The man has available to him all sorts of pain relief and palliative care that is not available to the dog.

 

It is also not illegal to put a dog to sleep.

 

its only illegal to have a human put to sleep but ok (or rather ignored as no-one has been actually prosecuted) if a human decides to put themselves to sleep but needs help from others to get abroad and in some cases here its also been ignored

i think with serious consideration and decent laws and safety built in we could legalise it here were losing trade to the swiss.

not sure we have pain relief here morphine only works to an extent going by my mums case

in the case of euthanasia animals have far more rights than humans but i disagree about the animals right to pain relief and palliative care ,if you have the money you can do pretty much what you wish if the animal isnt suffering ,you see a few dogs with wheels in times not so far back they "suffered" and were put down ,i know of one that had acupuncture after it lost the use of its back legs and lived many years after completely cured.

horses regularly get shot if they break a leg thats not kind their bones heal like any others and all but racing or jumping horses live a long and happy life after ,in the two exceptions its probably money that decides their fate rather than the option of fixing it if it costs more to care for the horse than its going to make then i expect its put down when we come to race or jumping horses they are a commodity rather than a pet

Edited July 24, 2009 by chesters1

[DavyR]

There is and always has been a very fine line between "enough" morphine-based analgesia and "too much" (which depresses respiration to the point where it stops completely).

 

Doctors have, in the past, knowingly given "too much" when they judged it was in the best interests of a terminally-ill patient. It happened to my great-grandmother in 1948, when she was dying at home from nasal cancer. The family GP administered one last shot and told the family that she wouldn't suffer any longer.

 

There is now one enormous impediment to this sort of pragmatism and it is called "The Harold Shipman Case".

[chesters1]

yes we noticed her pump wouldnt give any doses over the X doses it was programmed for

in the case of terminally ill people with no hope of recovery the old style GP probably did a better job ,you will get the shipmans but have to look at the patients wishes as well ,a living will executed and witnessed by two doctors could get around this.

unfortunately in a lot of cases though i expect the ill wait hoping a miracle cure is around the corner and end up to far gone to be able to have a living will so humans will still suffer under doctors hands

Edited July 24, 2009 by chesters1

[RobStubbs]

yes we noticed her pump wouldnt give any doses over the X doses it was programmed for

in the case of terminally ill people with no hope of recovery the old style GP probably did a better job ,you will get the shipmans but have to look at the patients wishes as well ,a living will executed and witnessed by two doctors could get around this.

unfortunately in a lot of cases though i expect the ill wait hoping a miracle cure is around the corner and end up to far gone to be able to have a living will so humans will still suffer under doctors hands

 

Don't forget the hypocratic oath specifically states a Doctors job is to preserve life. Snipped from wikipedia, but I think it's essentially correct;

 

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

 

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan"

 

Now sure things can be changed but it would take a very long time.

 

Rob.

Edited July 24, 2009 by RobStubbs

[Steve Walker]

Lethality is a matter of dose, though. My grandfather's doctor told the family that the doses of morphine necessary to control the pain of his terminal kidney cancer were likely to hasten his death. Nobody objected to this.

[wayne baker]

Its been going on for years in the medical circles its just ignored.