Should society take another look at human euthanasia ?

[rfuerst911sc]

The dementia posting made me think of this question . When a loved one is mentally gone but the body keeps going should euthanasia be an option ? Of course driven by doctors providing facts to the decision makers .

This is not a simple idea or solution , there are deep emotions, religious beliefs etc to be taken into account . Just speaking for myself when I reach a point when I mentally or physically can't function I would prefer to be in bed surrounded by love ones as they give me the final cocktail .

Pet owners know all too well of going down this path . It's never easy but our reasoning is we don't want them to suffer . These are animals we have had in our lives for 10-15 years . Should we not provide the same logic and service to those we have loved for 60-80 years ? I am in NO WAY comparing a pets life to a human life just using that as an example .

What do you guys/gals think about this ? Should it be an available option ? Or do we say let nature take it's course ? I can honestly say I can see both sides of the discussion .

[cstreit]

Who makes that decision? You could see if it wasn't the person in question how upsidedown this could get legally and ethically .

Thats why we have living wills, DNR orders, etc.. The person themselves has to make that decision BEFORE such time as it would have to be made for them.

[stevej37]

The Thanatron...

[GH85Carrera]

Yes. No one at all wants to be in the sate my FIL was in for the last year of his "life". He could not talk, he could not even follow your face with his eyes. He was just a shell of a human. He no longer even had the ability to swallow on his own. The nurses or his wife had to feed him like a baby, but even a new born baby know how to swallow. They had to rub his throat get him to swallow food or water. In the end, he would not even do that, and he most likely died of dehydration. It was beyond pointless to put him on life support as his brain had gone away two years earlier.

My uncle died of Multiple myeloma. They tried all the chemo and treatments and nothing really helped. In the end the doctors sent him home with hospice care. He was on the maximum doses of morphine, and if they gave him more, it would have killed him. He would scream in agony when they rolled him over enough to change the soiled sheets. That is even a worse torture than my FIL endured as no one wants to suffer endless agony. I always try to remember him as the strong vigorous man that was a Methodist Minister, not that version that looked like the Gollum in Lord of the rings with shrunken face and body ravaged by cancer.

So yes, in medical end of life situations, death is far better than dying in crippling pain from cancer.

We need to change the laws to allow it.

[Sooner or later]

I am fine with it. Aren't there a few states (10/12?) where it is legal?

[JackDidley]

I'd like to make the choice before its needed. At the age of 75 I think I would know how much longer I want to live. 70 now and healthy but I know it is temporary.

[otto_kretschmer]

I can think of a couple...

[masraum]

I feel like "minefield" is putting it lightly. I feel like our best bet is the ability to refuse treatment while hopefully being able to get meds to ease any suffering. I have heard that there are hospitals/drs that will refuse pain meds for folks that refuse treatment, presumably in an effort to get folks to accept treatment. But even refusing treatment can lead to a long ugly end.

This is super tough, and not a question that I want to have to answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide#Legality

[GH85Carrera]

It for sure needs a case by case review. No blanket policy for everyone.

If the patient signed a DNR while they were still lucid with a third party witness, then yes when the prognosis is just more suffering and misery form the body or mind dying.

Certainly not just for a walk in that says please euthanize me.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

It for sure needs a case by case review. No blanket policy for everyone.

If the patient signed a DNR while they were still lucid with a third party witness, then yes when the prognosis is just more suffering and misery form the body or mind dying.

Certainly not just for a walk in that says please euthanize me.

And there will always be people that try to use/abuse the system, much like there are folks that elect for suicide by cop, I can't imagine the number that will try to get this other option.

[rfuerst911sc]

A good healthy discussion so far . Obviously there are huge legal hurdles . But even if you have a living will/DNR or any other document that doesn't stop being kept alive unless you have a heart attack or stroke where you need to be revived . If you can't think/remember/communicate/walk etc etc but modern meds keep you going what good are the documents ?

In many cases a person " lives " for years with zero quality of life . I don't pretend to have the answers hence the discussion . The case by case suggestion is certainly a good idea . Abuse of the euthanasia law is a real concern . Like all problems the solutions don't make everyone happy .

[Rikao4]

Originally Posted by rfuerst911sc

I am in NO WAY comparing a pets life to a human life just using that as an example .

perhaps we should..
rabid animals don't get third or fifth chances..
neither should the 2 legged ones..
don't waste space or time..
it would clean the cesspool and others would learn..
and I will choose my bridge companions..
over todays trash all day long..


Rika

[cockerpunk]

of course we should.

it should be up to the person. DNRs should always be followed.

[KFC911]

Yep .... I'll take a shot or drip for $1000 Alex!

[ckissick]

We love our dogs very much and don't hesitate to put them down when it's time. It's more complicated with humans, but still...

[3rd_gear_Ted]

The nursing home has to call 911 and to not do so brings them great legal risk.
The 911 responders don't ask about a DNR
They come in and do a forced airway with massive bruising results then CPR and break ribs every time.

[jhynesrockmtn]

Thats why we have living wills, DNR orders, etc.. The person themselves has to make that decision BEFORE such time as it would have to be made for them.

The problem in the current environment is that these do not cover situations like dementia where someone can live for years with the condition. In WA and I believe OR was the first, you have to have a terminal illness as defined by and signed off by a doctor.

I my mom, 10 years ago, could have seen her quality of life over the last 3-4 years, she would have signed up to be put down.

[Bill Douglas]

I'm OK with it as long as I get to brush my teeth find a new owner for the cat.

[Evans, Marv]

Of course it should be an individual decision made at a time the person is still mentally able and present. I had talked about this with my doctor, and we had a plan in case I got to the point the situation was obvious. Unfortunatly he recently retired. I read an afticle some time back talking about if a person is over 75 and suffering a potentially terminal disease, he/she should not strive to prolong things. Some of us are pretty old by now and looking at the end being in relatively close proximity. When you get to that point, you wonder if you would have the guts to be positive about it when the time comes. It should be an accepted altenative that can be done in a dignified, painless manner. In my case, my wife is younger than I. I'm not inclined to hang around, burning up money she would need just to prolong a crappy existence.

[jcommin]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

of course we should.

it should be up to the person. DNRs should always be followed.

My mom had a DNR - and my brother and I abided by it. Not easy when it comes to crossing that line - I'm thankful for my brother and family for a unified front when we had to make that decision.