Posted on 05/23/2010 10:11:46 AM PDT by wagglebee
Revisionist history has been released to an impressionable public in the HBO Movie “You Don’t Know Jack.” Contrary to Al Pacino’s portrayal of Jack Kevorkian that makes him the compassionate defender of patients’ rights, physician-assisted suicide enters a world of potential mixed motives and moral chaos.
By any standard, assisted suicide (or active euthanasia) is quite different from simply allowing nature to take its unimpeded course. It is popularly called “mercy killing.” Both morally and practically, this is easily distinguishable from simply permitting the death of a hopelessly ill woman or man (i.e., passive euthanasia). It should be opposed by ethically sensitive people.
Physician-assisted suicide is in direct conflict with our tradition of upholding the sanctity of human life. Whether preserved in the Ten Commandments or the Hippocratic Oath, that tradition says we are to affirm, nurture and give aid to people in pain.
For active euthanasia and assisted suicide will communicate the message that persons who are terminally ill have a duty to get out of the way of the living.
For example, suppose a cancer patient for whom treatment has been ineffective tells his or her family, “I know I’m a terrible burden to you, and I wonder if I shouldn’t just end my own life!”
I can imagine two responses.
“What do you mean!” says one family. “You are central to our lives. We love you, and you could never be a burden to us!” That answer communicates a relationship that inspires a will to live for the patient.
“Perhaps we should think about that,” replies another family member. “You might suffer toward the end, and we’re not really rich enough to hire nurses so you can be cared for while we stay at our jobs.” With such openness to the idea of dying, what feelings are likely to go through the mind of that patient?
Studies show that treatment for depression moves the vast majority of sufferers to think of active euthanasia as unacceptable for themselves. The alternative to making suicide easier and more acceptable is effective palliative care — which includes treatment for depression as well as degenerative disease or injury — and loving concern from family and friends.
In the Netherlands, where active euthanasia by medical personnel has been practiced for some time now, the issue quickly ceased to be assistance to persons requesting it and initiated debates over euthanizing some who had not.
“I don’t care about the law,” Kevorkian once said. “I have never cared about anything but the welfare of the patient in front of me.” What a strange claim from a pathologist who has no experience in the clinical treatment of patients! But most of us do care about the law. We care about law grounded in serious ethical reflection that affirms human worth in ways that affirm people rather than eliminate them when they need us most. Our call is not to become gentle executioners. Instead, it is to provide effective and morally responsible care to the suffering.
Rubel Shelly is president of Rochester College and professor of philosophy and religion at the college.
The pain of a terminal condition can be incredible. I have a friend right now that has days if not hours to live due to a glioblastoma brain tumor; inoperable in her condition and has and is causing strokes. She has had no relief from pain and any amount of drug therapy to relieve the pain just puts her out. She no longer has any muscle control including swallowing. Imagine a continuous migraine headache. She would prefer to say goodbye. There is nothing medical science can do for her anymore. Her husband and kids are living a nightmare watching her slowly die in painful agony. Just think about that.
“Physician-assisted suicide is in direct conflict with our tradition of upholding the sanctity of human life.”
No, it is not. Mercy killings are also a human tradition.
Read the Hippocratic Oath some time.
Mercy killings are also a human tradition.
Not in Judeo-Christian tradition.
Exactly.
Quite right. “First, do no harm”.
Palliative care is amazingly advanced and, as a last resort, doctors can induce a coma. There is no reason to kill anyone.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, "exceptional cases make for bad case law."
Terminal sedation is now being used routinely as a form of active euthanasia, to hasten death from terminal dehydration.
Euthanasia by terminal dehydration and terminal sedation is the pro-life battle of our generation.
Good. Then you agree that an IV tube is simply a dirt cheap method to deliver a drink of water that last couple inches, and thus is rarely if ever extraordinary care.
I agree, it should only be used as a last resort for terminal patients when conventional palliative method simply don’t work.
Fine. If the question is so simple, you answer it as well.
What’s YOUR stand on it?
Funny how wagglebee’s threads flush out the deathbots.
It’s really quite amazing.
“Read the Hippocratic Oath some time.”
You assume I haven’t. How arrogant of you.
“Palliative care is amazingly advanced and, as a last resort, doctors can induce a coma. “
And that is different how?
“deathbots”? What are you, 12? Is that the limit of your vocabulary; “bots”, “truthers”, etc?
Really?
This is what you wrote in #142:
Mercy killings are also a human tradition.
Here is what the Hippocratic Oath (which dates from about the 4th century B.C.) says on the matter:
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;
So, please explain to me how it is "arrogant" to suggest to someone who is talking about the "human tradition" of "mercy" killings to read the oath that physicians have taken for thousands of years which expressly FORBIDS euthanasia?
Palliative care (including palliative sedation) is different from euthanasia in that it is designed to comfort the patient, not KILL THEM.
What would YOU have us call those who are pushing the culture of death?
Nazi is not specific enough.
Abortionist is unfortunately only half-correct now.
Murderer is too vague.
If you've got a term that you think would be better than "deathbot" then by all means tell us.
How did “truther” enter into this? Despite the efforts by some here, I don’t recall this thread having anything to do with the “truther” issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.