Guest Warwick Green Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Lords block assisted dying bill Doctors would be able to prescribe lethal medication if the bill became law The progress of a controversial bill which would allow terminally ill people to be helped to die has been blocked by the House of Lords. Lord Joffe's bill would give doctors the right to prescribe drugs that a terminally ill patient in severe pain could use to end their own life. But peers backed an amendment to delay the bill by six months by 48 votes. Lord Joffe said the move was intended to end the debate, but pledged to reintroduce his bill at a later date... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4763067.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 I think the whole concept of assisted suicide is contrary to good medical practice and places undue pressures on medical practioners. I think that if you give people the suicide option it's just a matter of time before you're going to see people dying because they're depressed or because they've lived too long to suit the tastes of their heirs. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Dear BHS, because they've lived too long to suit the tastes of their heirs.That would be like saying Hitler and Stalin simply helped millions to commit suicide. I believe that the individual must meet certain prerequisites, such as repeatedly confirming their wishes, etc. Back in the old days, elderly eskimos would find a nice 'ice floe' to retire on, and no one thought that this was wrong. Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Dear BHS, because they've lived too long to suit the tastes of their heirs.That would be like saying Hitler and Stalin simply helped millions to commit suicide. I believe that the individual must meet certain prerequisites, such as repeatedly confirming their wishes, etc. Back in the old days, elderly eskimos would find a nice 'ice floe' to retire on, and no one thought that this was wrong. And years ago it was the landlord's right to sleep with the bride on her wedding night, and everyone thought that was cool too (except for probably the bridegroom). Do you want to live like the Innu used to? I don't. Even they don't do that sort of thing anymore. Probably because it's friggin' barbaric. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Probably because it's friggin' barbaric.Only because you are imposing your prejudices on people living in a different time and place. A stone age society like the Inuit did not have surplus resources that could be spent keeping elderly people alive for long periods of time. By choosing the commit suicide the elderly were helping their children and grandchildren by ensuring more of those scarce resources are spent on the young. There is nothing barbaric about it at all. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Probably because it's friggin' barbaric.Only because you are imposing your prejudices on people living in a different time and place. A stone age society like the Inuit did not have surplus resources that could be spent keeping elderly people alive for long periods of time. By choosing the commit suicide the elderly were helping their children and grandchildren by ensuring more of those scarce resources are spent on the young. There is nothing barbaric about it at all. Isn't "stone age" pretty much the definition of "barbaric"? Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Isn't "stone age" pretty much the definition of "barbaric"?Not at all. "Barbarism" is a perjoritive term that implies someone is acting out of malice or selfishness. In this case, the suicide was an act of selflessness and altruism. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Isn't "stone age" pretty much the definition of "barbaric"?Not at all. "Barbarism" is a perjoritive term that implies someone is acting out of malice or selfishness. In this case, the suicide was an act of selfishness and altruism. You mean "selflessness". And I've looked up the definition barbaric, and the concept of "selfishness" doesn't enter into it. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Dear BHS, You mean "selflessness". And I've looked up the definition barbaric, and the concept of "selfishness" doesn't enter into it.I was going to point out this typo myself, but with the change made (mentally), it is a very good point. The question then becomes, "Is altruism a valid (and lucid) reason to choose an option?" Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 You mean "selflessness". And I've looked up the definition barbaric, and the concept of "selfishness" doesn't enter into it.You are correct. Technically, barbarism is the opposite of 'civilized'. However, we would then get into a debate about what 'civilized' is. My interpretation was that 'civilized' means people who act out of altruism or self-less-ness. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Dear BHS,You mean "selflessness". And I've looked up the definition barbaric, and the concept of "selfishness" doesn't enter into it.I was going to point out this typo myself, but with the change made (mentally), it is a very good point. The question then becomes, "Is altruism a valid (and lucid) reason to choose an option?" From my limited knowledge of economics theory, no. Altruism is irrational, and part of the reason that economics is such a complicated academic pursuit is because it has to try to take irrational behaviour into account. From a real world perspective altruism is perfectly acceptable. Whether or not you can qualify literally icing old people for the good of the tribe as altruism is a stretch though. I'd say it's more an example of harsh pragmatism. I don't believe that they stayed behind because of a sense of self-sacrifice. Probably more like "if you have to be carried...well, you won't be." Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Dear BHS, Altruism is irrational, and part of the reason that economics is such a complicated academic pursuit is because it has to try to take irrational behaviour into account.Only in economics could selflessness be called 'crazy'. In other situations it has been called 'heroism'.Whether or not you can qualify literally icing old people for the good of the tribe as altruism is a stretch though.Well, assisted suicide relies on a call from the individual, as I understand it. Living wills, or making their wishes known to the attending doctor. I'd say it's more an example of harsh pragmatism. I don't believe that they stayed behind because of a sense of self-sacrifice. Probably more like "if you have to be carried...well, you won't be."You are most likely right here. It may have simply become tradition. Parliment/Funkadelic Rocks?Clinton for prez! Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 This of course is a very important development because it certainly would be used as a legal reference in our courts and parliament for a similiar debate. I think one of the problems we face in society is that still many of us fear death, so much so that we are willing to let people suffer rather then deal with the concept of death. To me this is a no brainer. If someone is terminal and is riddled with pain, when and how they die is a private matter between them, their families and of course their treating physician. All this law was trying to do is recognize what in fact happens every day in reality, doctors who assist patients die when there is no hope and pain is the only option. The fact is our laws have to become clearer on what we can and can not do in the final days. Our population is aging and we have a major baby boomer bulge who will all grow old at the same time and strain our hospital facilities. With the advanced technologies we now have, more and more people are going to survive but be faced with a vegetative state or be faced with lingering in pain. Blindly holding to the concept that life counts at all costs reflects a spiritual value that is afraid of death. Death to me is but a transition and is as natural as life itself. If someone on an individual level fears being dead and dying, so be it. Make that decision on an individual level to keep living when you are in pain. Do not sign a do not resucitate order. Don't make a living will. Better still make one that says -leave me alive at all costs. But as for me, I do not want a doctor feeling he has to look blindly the other way while I choke in my vomit and fluids from failing lungs as I lie riddled with pain. I will summarize this issue susinctly. I had a friend die of a form of very aggressive painful cancer. Luckily he was sent home with a morphine drip and died in his home without too much pain. He had a morphine drip that eased the pain and he died with dignity and without too much suffering. This happened in Toronto. So with its over-worked doctors and clogged medical system it worked. Somebody built compassion into the medical system and it worked for him. All I am saying is the thousands of people suffering each day from cancer, aids or other diseases that are killing them should be able to die with dignity. No I am not condoning murdering the disabled or questioning the Catholic Church of people's religious beliefs etc. All I am saying is our existing criminal laws as to assisted suicide are antiquated and ridiculous. This should not even be a criminal or legal issue. This should be a decision each one of us makes as an individual. As for me I do not fear death, I do fear being forced to live as a vegetable or in a state of pain hooked up to millions of wires and pipes unable to scream but feeling every inch of pain all over my body. And if you think that makes me a coward I really don't care. To me its an issue as to quality of life not quantity. Life is precious for me. I do not believe it was intended to be imposed on us according to the views of those who are afraid of being dead. Quote I come to you to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 Only in economics could selflessness be called 'crazy'. In other situations it has been called 'heroism'. Again, my understanding of economics is limited, but irrational doesn't mean crazy when applied to economic modeling. It means unpredictable. Economic rationality is based on the understanding that an individual will always act in his own best interest. This is necessary to limit the effect of outside influences. A model attempting to incorprate irrational behaviour is vastly more complicated and inaccurate than one which assumes rationality. Even genius economists lose their minds trying to account for irrational behaviour. Clinton for prez! Get up for the downstroke. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 As for me I do not fear death, I do fear being forced to live as a vegetable or in a state of pain hooked up to millions of wires and pipes unable to scream but feeling every inch of pain all over my body.And if you think that makes me a coward I really don't care. To me its an issue as to quality of life not quantity. Life is precious for me. I do not believe it was intended to be imposed on us according to the views of those who are afraid of being dead. I don't see this issue as a question of what the patient desires. I don't think there are too many who want to spend their final days. I think the preference for a quick death by overdose is probably universal for people who find themselves in that situation. The question for me is whether it is appropriate that someone charged with keeping you alive is also the one charged with managing your death. I think there's a conflict of interest there. But I'm not really sure how that conflict might be overcome. Perhaps the creation of a new specialty that deals strictly with euthanasia, maybe even their own legislation outside of the current healthcare legislation. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 Dear BHS, The question for me is whether it is appropriate that someone charged with keeping you alive is also the one charged with managing your death. I think there's a conflict of interest thereYes and no. A heart surgeon may try to keep you alive, but if you are beyond help, he/she won't be involved in your palliative care. If you are beyond medical help, the best your doctor can do is tell you exactly how and why you are going to die, and for some it isn't very pleasant. Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 The question for me is whether it is appropriate that someone charged with keeping you alive is also the one charged with managing your death.You seem to think that it is the doctor's job to keep alive at all costs: not true. A doctor's job is to provide help to people who are sick and sometimes the most compassionate to do is to help someone die in the manner of their choosing.I think there's a conflict of interest there. But I'm not really sure how that conflict might be overcome. Perhaps the creation of a new specialty that deals strictly with euthanasia, maybe even their own legislation outside of the current healthcare legislation.The conflict of interest rests not with the doctors who gain nothing from a dead patient but with the relatives that could emotionally blackmail a sick relative into taking their own life. However, this problem could be delt with by requring each case to go through a formal review by uninvolved people. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 The question for me is whether it is appropriate that someone charged with keeping you alive is also the one charged with managing your death. I think there's a conflict of interest there. But I'm not really sure how that conflict might be overcome. Perhaps the creation of a new specialty that deals strictly with euthanasia, maybe even their own legislation outside of the current healthcare legislation. You make excellent points that go to the very pith and substance of the issue. Quote I come to you to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 You seem to think that it is the doctor's job to keep alive at all costs: not true. A doctor's job is to provide help to people who are sick and sometimes the most compassionate to do is to help someone die in the manner of their choosing. You seem to have quite a time seperating opinion from truth, at least when it comes to your own opinions. And the current status of the law seems to weigh against what you believe. While it's true that in recent years (1964 onward) medical students have favoured a more modern Hippocratic oath (an adulterated version of the original designed to accomodate the hipper attitude of the modern medical profession, which no longer precludes euthanasia, abortion, having sex with patients, etc.) there are still medical graduates who prefer to swear to "do no harm". Regardless of how warm and fuzzy the concept makes you feel, it's still against the law to commit or abet suicide. Doctors who "help" someone "choose" to die only get away from it because they are licensed to admininster poisonous substances and aren't criminally responsible for accidental deaths, not because their profession is morally, ethically or legally entitled to do so. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.