I hope that some doctors do have the courage to carry this through, even if on the sly. Unfortunately, because of the recent stream of rhetoric over "death panels", I fear we have lost years in arriving at a needed acceptance to the idea of providing humane euthanasia for humans.

I'm all for a right to die but a kid under 18 creates a very tough situation. I don't think a parent should be able to decide that sort of thing for their kid's life.

I can't judge what parents who have made the decision had to have gone through but it just doesn't rub me the right way.

A more likely scenario is that doctors increased morphine doses to ease pain, and that the children's subsequent deaths were only coincidental.

Fine line between "hastened" and when they would have died without the increase in pain medication. No winners in the equation, for sure.

What does it say about our society when we consider euthanasia of the family dog with painful cancer merciful, but humans suffering from painful terminal cancer shouldn't be allowed the same mercy when that's their wish?

No winners in the equation, for sure.

#3 | Posted by American1st

Except for a healthcare industry that makes more money for every hour they keep a terminal patient alive.

"Except for a healthcare industry that makes more money for every hour they keep a terminal patient alive."

#5 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2010-03-01 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag: sad but true

Yet the terminally ill in pain are denied heroin.

The gene pool needs some chlorine.
It happened in Europe last century.
Here every fool could find food.

Think about what kept Steve Hawking going.

#5

What a bad response WL. This isn't about the evils of healthcare it's an issue of the grey area of ethics in this situation.

Anyway, wouldn't the insurance companies promote killing off terminal patients? Big Insurance should be all for the right to die and the right for parents to decide when to end a kids life.

What a shitty thing to inject politics into, IMO.

Are you talking about the Holocaust or influenza that 'chlorinated the gene pool', Zat?

Now a small but provocative study suggests that doctors may be giving fatal morphine doses to a few children dying of cancer, to end their suffering at their parents' request.

So people don't think this is happening on a much larger scale? Not just "a few" children dying of cancer? Ok...

giving a drug for sedation or pain control that also suppresses the drive to breathe

Happens all the time with terminal patients who are in pain.

What a shitty thing to inject politics into, IMO.

#7 | Posted by andyuhenet

I had already brought politics into this thread in the first post, when I suggested that the partisan bullshit about death panels had probably set any chance of legitimate human euthanasia back by a significant period of time.

Anyway, wouldn't the insurance companies promote killing off terminal patients?

In this situation insurance companies are too afraid of the backlash from the obvious denial of coverage.

This isn't about the evils of healthcare it's an issue of the grey area of ethics in this situation.

I don't see the significant grey area that many do. If someone is dying, including a child, and is obviously in significant irresolvable pain, then the decision to end that person's life should be a legal option for the family. In cases of adults, we should have that option when it is no longer possible to have a reasonable quality of life. Too me the only issue here is the difference between what's compassionate and what's legal.

So people don't think this is happening on a much larger scale?

#9 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Of course it is, and I do believe that most people are aware of it. The question is why does it have to be such a dirty little secret? Why does it have to be the "don't ask don't tell" issue of healthcare? I think it could be much more useful to bring these issues of compassion into the open, where the decisions can be made by the family and the doctor, in a rational manner without risk of repercussion.

Is this about a Youth in Asia?

It is against the law, it is against morality, and you hope doctors do it?

You deserve what you are going to get.

Back in the days of doctors who made house calls and before the birth of the overly-litigious society a doctor euthanizing a suffering patient with a fatal condition in chronic, debilitating pain by administering a too large shot of morphine was never questioned.

It simply was how it was done.

They call it 'mercy killing' for a reason, ya know.

Nowadays, that simple, sane, moral ethical, logical solution to terminal illness is, apparently, a moral dilemma for some squeamish or overly-religious peoples.

Thinking out one's position on this issue has become a necessity in today's day and age when people's bodies can be kept alive by artificial means for long stretches of time.

Expressing one's views on the subject through a living will or a "do not resuscitate" order makes nothing but sense particularly after watching the horrible death eventually given to the husk of Terri Shiavo.

...it is against morality...

No, it isn't.

Making people spend their last moments alive on earth in unbearable agony so unnecessarily is not morality.

It's moral cowardice.

It's bullshit.

Be Well.

/As he do
stage left.

It is against the law, it is against morality, and you hope doctors do it?

Against the law? Nobody gets prosecuted for it. It's not murder. Death is inevitable. The doctors are alleviating suffering, and perhaps hastening death in the process.

Against morality? Let's see how you feel about that when you or a loved one is suffering in the final days of a terminal illness, cocksucker.

Do I hope doctors do it? You bet. Fucking dumbass.

"It's not murder...."

It is until the law is changed. You're not going into medicine, are you? Just in case, I'd like to tell you in advance that Medicaid fraud is also against the law. As a matter of fact, a list of unlawful things could be created specifically for your use.

In all seriousness, if you are going to be a physician, wear a bell around your neck. Some of would like a few moments warning of your approach.

"Fucking dumbass..."

If doctors want the ability to make this decision of life/death---By appearances all by their lonesome---They should lobby for it publically and let people see their faces.

Doesn't seem like much to ask.

"Nobody gets prosecuted for it...."

Because it's hard to catch them, isn't it. Just imagine all the things doctors can do simply because it's hard to catch them.

See any problems with your point of view yet?

but humans suffering from painful terminal cancer shouldn't be allowed the same mercy when that's their wish?

#4 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-01 06:48 PM

Because it's hard to catch them, isn't it.

In order to "catch" them, they would have to be doing something criminal. They're not. Nobody with their head screwed on straight would claim otherwise.

In all seriousness, if you are going to be a physician, wear a bell around your neck. Some of would like a few moments warning of your approach.

#17 | Posted by Zed

Regardless of the legalities, an ethical doctor should not need a bell, because they would respect the wishes of the patient. I would gather from your posts that you would prefer to let a family member wait in agony instead of doing what might be companionate, but not necessarily legal.

In cases where this happens I would guess the patients have already made a choice that the doctors should take no extraordinary measures to extend their lives. By extension, a choice should be available and legal for the patients, or those with medical power of attorney to give the doctors permission to take one more measure that is extraordinary, and compassionately end the pain of a dying patient. It should not be up to the doctors to lobby for the mentioned choice. It should be up to us, the potential patients.

"I would gather from your posts that you would prefer to let a family member wait in agony instead of doing what might be companionate, but not necessarily legal.
#22 | Posted by Whatsleft"

Yes.

Zed

I would gather from your posts that you would prefer to let a family member wait in agony instead of doing what might be companionate

It's especially ridiculous considering that Zed believes everybody's going to some big cosmic party after they die. I guess maximizing the amount and duration of suffering at the end of life is a requirement to get on the guest list.

Sounds like the guy throwing the party is a sadistic douche.

"I'm all for a right to die but a kid under 18 creates a very tough situation. I don't think a parent should be able to decide that sort of thing for their kid's life.
#2 | Posted by andyuhenet"

Should the kid under 18 be allowed to decide that for him or herself? What if the parents don't agree with his or her decision to take a lethal dose?

Yes.
Zed
#23 | Posted by mOntecOre

At least Zed is being consistent. I remember my priest talking about suffering at the end of life being one of many of god's mysteries that has a higher purpose. We are to work toward extending life, but never to hasten it.

I might not necessarily agree with that point of view, but I can respect it. As long as it has no bearing on my choices of course.

I remember my priest talking about suffering at the end of life being one of many of god's mysteries that has a higher purpose. We are to work toward extending life, but never to hasten it.

Saying something is a "mystery with a higher purpose" is a spooky way of saying "accept what I tell you but don't expect me to justify my blathering". If there is some redeeming aspect of prolonging misery at the end of your life, these self-righteous assholes certainly have no evidence of it. They're still alive.

Again, why are these people so inclined to rage against the dying of the light when doing so will bring a few extra days of suffering? Are they delusional or sadomasochistic?

These fuckers in funny clothes have no business telling other people how to die. When it's their turn, let them go out how they please. Until that day arrives, it would be nice if they would keep their pontifications to themselves.

"These fuckers in funny clothes have no business telling other people how to die."

Inflammatory characterizations aside, I don't disagree.

Inflammatory characterizations aside

Where's the fun without the inflammatory characterizations?

fair point.

#16 z
Against morality? Let's see how you feel about that when you or a loved one is suffering in the final days of a terminal illness, cocksucker.

Do I hope doctors do it? You bet. Fucking dumbass.

from ^your^ pathetic...

I did not read any respones. I think these doctors should be given medals.

Against the law? Nobody gets prosecuted for it. It's not murder. Death is inevitable. The doctors are alleviating suffering, and perhaps hastening death in the process.

Who is doing an autopsy on a terminally cancer patient, or an unresponsive patient from a car accident, or any number of conditions that would have eventually lead to death. Nobody is being prosecuted for it, because in these circumstances no one is looking for an overdose of morphine as the cause of death. Or even if they did, it can be played off as a medical error, or even just a poor reaction to the medication by the patient.

That's not to say I'm against this, I think its a decision between a patient and a doctor, but if some DA wanted to they could probably make a case that the doctor killed him intentionally.

I do not know how it is now, but 20 years ago terminally ill cancer patients were not autopsied in our county, maybe it was a state thing, I do not know.

"I do not know how it is now, but 20 years ago terminally ill cancer patients were not autopsied in our county, maybe it was a state thing, I do not know.
#35 | Posted by em385guy"

Perhaps. If they died in a car accident or a house fire they were, but if they died in a hospital they probably weren't.

I have noticed that Danni hates all companies that think making a profit is a good thing. I imagine her to be a very low level employee somewhere, lamenting why her life has turned out not as she had hoped. Bummer

With Obama care, the death panels will take the burden of child euthanasia from doctors and parents.

This has been going on for years in terminally ill cancer patients--- in fact you don't necessarily have to give increased doses of painkillers to accomplish the end---if you know the degradation of the medication (usually liver &/or kidney) and that organ(s) is compromised by the malignancy, normal doses of the painkiller will often ultimately bring expiration.

I can't express how grateful I am that my sister's doctor and nurses compassionately allowed her pass in comfort rather than struggling for every breath - as she was doing when I arrived that last hospital stay. Everyone should have the option of a peaceful and comfortable rather than struggling and horrible death.

AU,

My Grandma on my mom's side plus my wife's grandpa endured similarities - they mysteriously were denied treatments that would have prolonged the inevitable for less-than-a-week. Instead, their suffering was shortened and the closure among family-members was more pronounced.

Let it go. We don't care.

Terminally ill cancer patients sent home to die were not autopsied.

idea of providing humane euthanasia for humans.

#1 | Posted by Whatsleft

That's Dr. Death talking.

---------

Unfortunately, there are abuses.

We are a culture of life--not death--or should be a culture of life.

And I'm not talking about folks who have their living will with their wishes recorded.

I can only imagine the pain of the child and the parents in this situaiton. It must be unbearable.

"ZED believes that everyone is going to a cosmic party when they die...."

No, not everyone.

#38 | Posted by Constuct at 2010-03-02 07:34 PM
***"With Obama care, the death panels will take the burden of child euthanasia from doctors and parents"

WE HAVE A WINNER: "Dumbest thing I read today" AWARD...

Wear it with pride dumb ass...

"In order to catch them (doctors), they would have to be doing something criminal...."

Well, they obviously are in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions.

You don't want physicians to have quite as much SECRET power as some seem to argue for. You've allowed yourself to think that doctors will always and forever kill their patients out of the most altruistic of reasons. That hostile and mercenary motivations will never hold sway.

That's pretty damned naive.

This thread has been a textbook case in unconscious biases. Clergy bad, doctors good? Many of you don't start your analyses with the truism "people are people". This must have bitten you on the ass before now.

#1 | Posted by Whatsleft

That's Dr. Death talking.

#44 | Posted by MURPHY

No, that's compassion for anyone who's in tremendous agony and dying anyway. I fail to see where a "culture of life" allows excuse for that kind of suffering.

And I'm not talking about folks who have their living will with their wishes recorded.

In case of adults, it's actually tragic that our culture can't allow for a living will to give instruction for a doctor to administer a lethal injection under such end of life circumstances.

Terminally ill adults should be allowed to hasten their own death with the assistance of a doctor. I don't think the government should be in the business of forcing people to stay alive who don't want to, and are suffering in immeasurable ways.

I don't think children are competent to make that decision though, especially since they would only be basing it on loaded information from their parents, and parents shouldn't be allowed to make it for them either. Just like with any other adult decision, an arbitrary line would have to be drawn. I'd say age 25 minimum.

This thread has been a textbook case in unconscious biases. Clergy bad, doctors good?

#49 | Posted by Zed

While you are aware that I do not share your views regarding faith, I have deliberately left that issue out of my posts on this thread. If there are any unconscious biases you might want to look at yourself first. A couple of posters bringing up religion do not make a "textbook case" out of an entire thread.

Good on these doctors.

and parents shouldn't be allowed to make it for them either.

#51 | Posted by JOE

I disagree. I think there are circumstances where there is no doubt that a juvenile patient is terminal and the suffering is acute enough, that parents together with doctors could and should certainly make that decision. Some young cancer patients may be a good example.

I think that people often extend the lives of suffering relatives too make themselves feel better, while unconsciously disregarding the suffering of the actual patient, or while consciously and fervently hoping for a miracle.

#38 | Posted by Constuct at 2010-03-02 07:34 PM
***"With Obama care, the death panels will take the burden of child euthanasia from doctors and parents"

WE HAVE A WINNER: "Dumbest thing I read today" AWARD...

Wear it with pride dumb ass...

#47 | Posted by Capt_Of_Uranus at 2010-03-03 01:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

It was meant to be sarcasm, the ironic part is that when the progressives drive our economy totally into the ground and government has to take over and ration health-care then it is likely to become reality.

#55 | Posted by Constuct at 2010-03-03 12:42 PM
***"It was meant to be sarcasm, the ironic part is that when the progressives drive our economy totally into the ground and government has to take over and ration health-care then it is likely to become reality."

Since there is so much partisan rhetoric here I'm sure that you can understand my misinterpretation of your post...

And, as for the above statement; that is just another un-provable "Beck-ism", as-well-as partisan rhetoric...

AT THE PARENTS' REQUEST. I'm not in that position. I pray to God I never will be. It's none of my business.