[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

If you can't understand the difference between killing and letting somebody die a little easier rather than prolonging their dying, there's no point continuing this discussion.

I'm quite willing to let innocent people die with dignity as long as it's their choice and nobody else's. But from what you've posted you're quite willing to allow a single doctor to be the arbitrator of life and death over people whether the patient wants it or not yet, you continually recoil at the thought of the state doing the same thing with the death penalty.

Condoning a doctors actions as just being humane and not wasting valuable health care dollars is hypocritical because when you take a life without consent it doesn't matter if it's in an emergency room or prison because the end result is still the same.

Understandable enough for you?

[OnTheIce]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

[

My wife and daughter were in a car accident years ago and my daughter ended up in emergency in a bed besides some old guy who was obviously quite ill and basically in a coma.

Well long story short. One of the nurses behind the screen asked the ER Dr. why no one was treating the elderly gentleman and the doctors reply chilled me to the bone. He said the gentleman was going to die soon so why waste resources on him. After hearing that I've become extremely paranoid about doctors, hospitals and the health care system as a whole playing god with the elderly, infirmed or mentally ill just to save money.

Either you're in a coma or your not. You don't know the medical history of the man let alone if he was in a coma.

This type of thing happens all the time. It's pain management. They manage the patient so that they aren't in pain and can pass away peacefully.

[Yogi]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

Pretty vicious stuff there, Bart, to wish intolerable suffering on me.

Not at all. I'm just passing along my sincere best wishes that you get to benefit from the policies that you promote.

Or is this only a good policy to you when it applies to other people?

In order to "benefit" from this policy, I would have to suffer from a grievous and irremediable medical condition and that i have to face the grim decision of whether to ask for death because my suffering has become so intolerable. That is what you are wishing one me.

I am glad that if it comes to it, and I face that choice, will be allowed to make it, and if I choose, end my life in a relatively pain free way. Personally I go further, and say that if I'm no longer able to make the choice in an informed manner, please somebody make it for me. But nobody has to make that choice that doesn't want to - it doesn't affect you one bit.

I don't understand all the hoopla about this topic. We have always had the right to die! I have a bottle of pills here that would only require me to take 10 of them aand I would be off to a peacefull demise. By my own choice. I sure as hell don't need a Dr.s help, and don't understand why anyone else would. Be quiet. Take your pills, pull the trigger, jump off the chair/bridge. Drive off a cliff. Take your pick.

[Brenda]

If you are not capable of taking those pills YOURSELF, anyone who would help you taking them, would be charged with murder. That is exactly what this is about. The doctor who prescribes you the pills and the nurse who administers them will NOT be charged with murder now.

[andyt]

Yep. Don't think I could bullshit the doctor sufficiently that I'm in such pain I need opioids or benzos when there's no demonstrable proof of it. And, take too much drug and you might actually wind up puking it out and not dying, often. Dosage needs to be matched to your body weight.

And, what people are forgetting, is that this is only for grievous and irremediable medical condition, it's not just suicide r us. Many of those folks can't administer their own meds.

What i wonder about is the us death penalty. If it's so easy for a doc to make you die, why don't they just use that method, instead of one that seems to go off the rails every so often, with the victim suffering and thrashing about for many minutes, then dying of a heart attack from the strain?

[Yogi]

andyt andyt:

Yep. Don't think I could bullshit the doctor sufficiently that I'm in such pain I need opioids or benzos when there's no demonstrable proof of it. And, take too much drug and you might actually wind up puking it out and not dying, often. Dosage needs to be matched to your body weight.

And, what people are forgetting, is that this is only for grievous and irremediable medical condition, it's not just suicide r us. Many of those folks can't administer their own meds.

What i wonder about is the us death penalty. If it's so easy for a doc to make you die, why don't they just use that method, instead of one that seems to go off the rails every so often, with the victim suffering and thrashing about for many minutes, then dying of a heart attack from the strain?

I maintain that once you are dead, how you got that way is immaterial!

As far as administering drugs to a person who cannot do so themselves. It must be imperitive that they have clearly expressed their desire to end their lives in the event of...
Otherwise it will be misused by those just wishing to get at the money sooner or end their own responsibility to the infirm person.

[andyt]

Yogi Yogi:

As far as administering drugs to a person who cannot do so themselves. It must be imperitive that they have clearly expressed their desire to end their lives in the event of...
Otherwise it will be misused by those just wishing to get at the money sooner or end their own responsibility to the infirm person.

Which is exactly what the court ruled. To the point that only the mentally sound can make this choice. But does it really make sense to keep someone alive who is mentally incompetent, as well as having a grievous and irredeemable medical condition and who has written a living will while of sound mind saying they want to be euthanized in that case? We should be respecting those written wills as well.

[Canadian_Mind]

andyt andyt:

Which is exactly what the court ruled. To the point that only the mentally sound can make this choice. But does it really make sense to keep someone alive who is mentally incompetent, as well as having a grievous and irredeemable medical condition and who has written a living will while of sound mind saying they want to be euthanized in that case? We should be respecting those written wills as well.

Andy, in my mind if it was written into the will, the person was of sound mind when they made their choice.

However, this is a very slippery slope at this point. Wills get challenged all the time, often successfully. It wouldn't take much for a grieving family to try to trump the will because they want to keep a vegetable around. This in turn, leads to where other people are making decisions against the sufferers original wishes and intentions. The whole "but he confided in me that he didn't want to die at the last minute" scenario. From here it wouldn't take long for it to devolve into a scenario where the suffers will states that he/she does not want to be euthanized; however, some oddball chain of events leads to their being killed prematurely.

That is what people worry about, and that is why a very hard line will need to be drawn. Whatever the last will states (and so far as I am concerned it must be mandatory to state one way or the other), is the course of action that must be taken.

[Tricks]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Fair enough and I wish that they'd done that with my father inlaw but, there have been stories about the elderly left alone in emergency rooms dying because of a lack of attention which makes me wonder if some of those were slow codes initiated by the medical profession and not the patient.

That sounds more like shitty health care providers.

[bootlegga]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Well long story short. One of the nurses behind the screen asked the ER Dr. why no one was treating the elderly gentleman and the doctors reply chilled me to the bone. He said the gentleman was going to die soon so why waste resources on him.

That's called triage and is commonly used in medical facilities, especially after natural disasters or on the battlefield.

The same line of thinking is why morons who go to the ER with a sniffle wait for 16 hours while those with heart attacks or gunshot wounds get immediate medical care.

[andyt]

Already told him that, he doesn't want to hear it. By his lights, if we don't do heroic measures to prolong life (and suffering) at all costs in someone who's dying anyway, means we're going to start with the meat wagons yelling "bring out your old' any time now.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

Already told him that, he doesn't want to hear it. By his lights, if we don't do heroic measures to prolong life (and suffering) at all costs in someone who's dying anyway, means we're going to start with the meat wagons yelling "bring out your old' any time now.

And how do you know that it only happens with a terminally ill person? Can you unequivocally state that the medical profession has never neglected a person or made a conscious mistake that led to that persons death based on age, infirmity, or other mitigating factors because, until you can your stance is untenable.


And just so you know. Not every terminally ill person wants to die but I guess to you that doesn't matter because you're all about saving a buck.

$1:

And that we don't have unlimited resources, which I would rather see go to somebody who still has a chance.

"I'm terribly sorry sir but, you've just been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Could you please step into my office so I can administer a lethal dose of morphine and save the system some money because, since you're incurable we want that woman who's kid has a cold to get the best health care treatment possible and you're now a liability to the program.

Choice? I'm sorry sir but, as a doctor it's been decided that whether you want to live a little longer or not I get to make the call and like I said before. We can use your treatment money more effectively somewhere else in the system like the Hospital administrators bonus package."

[Freakinoldguy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Well long story short. One of the nurses behind the screen asked the ER Dr. why no one was treating the elderly gentleman and the doctors reply chilled me to the bone. He said the gentleman was going to die soon so why waste resources on him.

That's called triage and is commonly used in medical facilities, especially after natural disasters or on the battlefield.

The same line of thinking is why morons who go to the ER with a sniffle wait for 16 hours while those with heart attacks or gunshot wounds get immediate medical care.

I understand triage quite well thanks and I realise that it happens when there's major disaster or an unusual upswing in patient admissions but, using it as an excuse to withhold treatment when those factors are non existent is morally and legally wrong not matter what our resident hippie claims..

[andyt]

too many straw men to be worth discussing.

[Canadian_Mind]

I think FoG is paranoid that if this law passes he will be killed the moment he enters the ward.

FoG, I get you had some bad experiences. But this is something for people that want it. If you don't want to die before you start suffering, you have sweet fuck all to worry about. You'll be allowed to suffer to the bitter end. Hell, a point may even come where, if you change your mind and decide you want to die, that they wont let you die and force you to live because you are no longer of sound mind, despite the "waste" of resources it would be..