People with non-terminal condutions requesting to die devalues the lives of those with non-terminal conditions wanting to live. It's a rights issue. Period.
Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning
- Thread starter blackbelt1961
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Perhaps. Generally. What if someone dying wants something else though. Something like the human press?
RitaTG - I'm just seeking to draw attention to important questions that I haven't heard raised elsewhere. Should the person requesting assisted suicide have the right to choose by what method said suicide takes place. And what - if any - should be the limits.
RitaTG
Well-Known Member
I just have to respond to this post....... too important to let slip by.....
This is analogous to a strongly held argument against same sex marriage.....
I will agree that it is a human rights issue....
I will further state once again that in my opinion the supreme court got it right.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Void said:
Fair enough.
A) Patient must initiate discussion of and request for access to life ending options.
B) Criteria to be reviewed by no fewer than three physicians. The panel of physicians should be comprised of:
1. The GP who is responsible with the patient and is most familiar with the patient's medical history.
2. A Psychiatrist who can provide a reliable assessment of the patient's current mental health status.
3. A Specialist familiar with the presenting illness which is the primary motivatior for the patient's request.
C) The Panel shall look for the following indicators before recommending access to end of life options for the patient.
1. Presence of a terminal illness.
2. Absence of conditions which may unduly influence or make the patient vulnerable to end of life decisions.
3. Presence of physical pain beyond the ability to manage safely or sufficiently.
4. Presence of mental anguish which will adversely affect quality of life. In essence an anguish beyond the typical grief associated with terminal diagnosis of illness.
5. Presentation of options which are not in and of themselves life-ending options ( ie. specific pain treatment regimens and their expected effectiveness.
6. Presence of an Advanced Health Care Directive.
7. Demonstration of sufficient mental competence and clarity to make such a request.
There's two cents from me.
RitaTG
Well-Known Member
Thank you for the clarification.....
Yes ... within reason there should be a number of medically vetted options available.
Where more than one option would be appropriate for a particular case I have no problem with the person being able to choose.
For what reason did you limit such an important panel to physicians? You have taken care of the patient's physical and mental state. What about their spiritual life?
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
One would hope they would consult their minister/pastor/rabbi/imam/whatever before taking such a decision, if they have one.
Last edited:
I didn't write the above quote. ?
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Pr. Jae said:
In jurisdictions where assisted suicide is a legal medical option the choices of means to that end tend to be limited to delivery mechanisms which are less graphic in producing results.
Two options typically offered are an injection or a drink. Both delivery vehicles are designed to sedate individuals prior to effectively stop the heart. In essence both are overdoses of sedative agents.
I would at minimum add a registered social worker to the panel. And a next of kin. And a spiritual director/ minister/ rabbi etc. if they have one or request one. And anyone they might be seeing professionally like a counsellor. I don't know how anguish can be quantified though.
Last edited:
So - are we to be willing to give people the freedom of choosing assisted suicide - but not actual freedom in choosing the method of that suicide? Must there be a limit on options chosen and enforced by the medical system.
Yes - that might be good. Perhaps have the three physicians as Rev. John suggested - but also have it so that the patient could choose to include other people on the panel including a certified/qualified religious leader of their own faith group, counsellor, dentist, spiritual director, and/or social worker.
Just get anyone who could possibly prevent someone from slipping through the cracks on board - and whenever possible the patient must be at the hearing to be part of the proceedings. Doctors should not hold the power. And there should be no room fr doubt that the patient might've regretted their decision later.
We have had judges decide what are the reasonable and sober limits on the freedom to choose assisted suicide. Who is to decide on what is reasonable and sober when it comes to the method?
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Pr. Jae said:
For the reason that it is a medical service being sought.
Pr. Jae said:
I would expect that their spiritual life would be reflected by their emotional state and as such I think that a psychiatrist provides a more objective measurement.
Typically some faith positions do not view end of life issues with anything approaching objectivity and as such the presence of religious figures on such a panel could prejudice patient response and skew the observations.
Since the original legislation was concerned with individuals being induced to commit suicide it follows that an objective decision could not be arrived in an atmosphere where individuals were potentially induced to continue to suffer.
RitaTG
Well-Known Member
Of course the patient should have the right to include anyone they wish in the discussion.
As for requiring a social worker ... I would like to point out that a psychiatrist would be an even higher representative of that field.
I would not make it mandatory that a social worker be part of the group but certainly should be included at the request of the patient.
As for requiring a social worker ... I would like to point out that a psychiatrist would be an even higher representative of that field.
I would not make it mandatory that a social worker be part of the group but certainly should be included at the request of the patient.
RitaTG
Well-Known Member
This would be within the realm and expertise of the medical community.
Were it my loved one making such a decision I would certainly want a medically approved method.
To me this is just common sense ...... use the right experts for the right thing.