Why cant I kill myself?

[Mrs. Frank S.]

Doc raised some very serious issues in regards to this subject.

A bit from the Hippocratic Oath...

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

I could never envy a physician having to deal with this subject as it goes against his/her training. Life and death just can't be painted in black or white. There are so many shades of grey that it's a bit confusing.

Julie

[harry hackedoff]

Of course I agree Shadders(Pardon Did I really just say that )
The reality is that we`re half way there now. Living wills are very much taken into condideration and the words Do Not Revive are printed across patients notes if that is their choice. I don`t think it will be long before it`s legal down here and there are kits available if you need one. I believe we do have the right to say Endex and allso the right to give close relatives that right by proxy. Life is sacred, for sure, but there are limits.
This subject is best discussed with relevant people in a calm manner way in advance of any actual need.
And if that means you, then good luck with it.

[going grey!]

My mum and dad have made my brothers, sisters and I promise that if they got to the stage where they where mentally and physcially unable to care for themselves that we end thier live's.

I'm not sure if I would be able to carry out thier wishe's, but I would not want to watch them suffer.

A very emotive subject.

[anglo-saxon]

This will be unpopular, but I am a nay-sayer.

I believe that the entire issue of human life goes far beyond mere human choice. For me, to think otherwise places the single most important issue of our existance on a solely humanistic plane. If I am true to the notion of a Creator (God), then it follows that I must be true to the notion that I belong to the Creator; i.e., that I am not my own. If I am not my own, then neither can the choice of the time and manner of my demise be mine, even given the potential for suffering, but is God's alone. While God would not want us to suffer, the fact (for me) remains that I would not want the issue of my mortality to be taken out of God's hands.

Again, I don't expect that to be a popular view, or well-received. It is simply my opinion and belief.

[Delboy]

[A very emotive subject for me personally.

I lost my first wife to cancer after an absolutely wonderful 33 years of marriage. In fact I lost five members of my family in a seven month period to various illnesses, Two on the same Christmas day in different hospitals.

When the doctors told me that no more could be done for my wife I kept it from her for two weeks. I was tearing apart inside. When I eventually broke the news, her main concern was for me and how I would cope.

She wanted to remain lucid and in command of her mental faculties until the end, and for that reason she made me promise not to allow the doctors to administer any drugs that would put her in a comotose state just to prolong her life. What little remaining time she had left ,she wanted it to be quality. She was a very,very brave lady. She passed away in my arms.

So yes Doc, I agree with you ,but I can see where HCR is coming from .

Any safeguards put in place will eventually be abused and the system will break down at sometime and bad practises will become the norm.

Del

[Doc]

This will be unpopular, but I am a nay-sayer.

I believe that the entire issue of human life goes far beyond mere human choice. For me, to think otherwise places the single most important issue of our existance on a solely humanistic plane. If I am true to the notion of a Creator (God), then it follows that I must be true to the notion that I belong to the Creator; i.e., that I am not my own. If I am not my own, then neither can the choice of the time and manner of my demise be mine, even given the potential for suffering, but is God's alone. While God would not want us to suffer, the fact (for me) remains that I would not want the issue of my mortality to be taken out of God's hands.

Again, I don't expect that to be a popular view, or well-received. It is simply my opinion and belief.

ahh, but to play devils advocate here, isnt plying someone with pills to keep them warm and "alive" also against your thinking? A_S Im not argueing against your belief, each to his own and I respect it totally, but thats just my point, each to his own, not dependant on a law, a religion a societies wishes.

Del, I actually knotted up reading your post, both of you were very brave and I take my hat off to you my friend. Im also sorry for yours and everyone elses loses.

I agree , an emotive subject that will have no clear ruling, and as Franks Mrs has said, lots of grey areas.

[Sonne]

Can anyone say "Logan's Run"?

Seriously though, i support the right for individuals to end their own lives. If i have the right to live without persecution i should have the right to die to avoid suffering.

Sonne

[Sisyphus]

Obviously, that decison would need to be made while I was sound of mind (ooooh that's an interesting question ) or ahead of time.

This is one of those questions to which there is no 'right' answer. It boils down to personal opinions. In the House of Lords today there was a woman [Lady, I guess} who told of her husband who had a terminal illness and was begging to die. This was ten years ago and he's pulled through and is still alive - much to her [and his] relief.

Of course, at the time he was 'of sound mind' but when we're in pain do we always make the right decisions? Simon Weston springs to mind.

And, certainly, it's not fantasy to suggest that some 'older folk' can be persuaded by their kids that it's 'all for the best'.

My dad said on more than one occasion that he wished he could die. Then he'd rally round and be fine. If he'd been minted then, of course, the first time he mentioned it I'd have had the doc and all the other professionals round And he'd have signed up. It would have been great spending my inheritance.

The notion of assisted suicide does seem to make a lot of sense but I'm on the side of those who argue the case for 'the slippery slope'.

Remember when abortion was legalised? Now there are tens of thousands of abortions each year and it's become just an expensive form of contraception for many. Next time you see a group of toddlers playing together pick out, say, 4 or 5 and imagine they'd been murdered in the womb. When an abortion is carried out the baby might be no different from any of those toddlers.

Mind you, my favourite method of abortion is when the foetus is so developed that the surgeon has to chop off an arm, dish it; then a leg, dish it; at sometime I guess it might be the head. I suppose at some point they can vacuum out what's left. Then throw the lot into an incinerator.

[flo]

I think your last two paragraphs are a bit too detailed and have taken this conversation totally of track. There are many reasons why females have abortions and not all are through choice of their own. I am not ashamed to say that i have had an abortion and it certainly was not murder as you so coloqualy put it, but my reasons were medical and it affects me and my husband to this day eight years afterwards. And i do talk about it because it helps in the grieving process. I look at my children and i know there should be a child between my 9 year old and my 5 year old and i still grieve for a child that i never saw. If it had been a 'contraceptive' choice then i would keep my mouth shut and say nothing. but unfortunately many people wrongly believe that all abortions are through choice. Mines certainly was not, as is many others. So please do not say that we are murderers as you do not know the facts and cannot tar us all with the same brush.

Now can we get back onto the thread in question because this subject is a whole new can of worms.

[going grey!]

Hear hear flo!

[proffered]

Fook me, that's a bloody articulate post from you, good sir Doc! (I know, you're not a sir, you worked for a living etc )

I have thought a lot about this, and as an atheist it is a little easier for me to reach a conclusion. I say this not to undermine the religious aspect, but when suicide is classed as a mortal sin in some religions it can only affect opinion.

I feel that terminally ill patients with competent mental capacity should be allowed to terminate their lives, with assistance if required. This is not of course carte blanche for every other patient to request physican assisted suicide when they feel like life is a little too much, and neither should relatives have any say in the matter. I speak of those with terminal diagnoses (and of course there are always the exceptions who 'beat' the disease) who have been counselled.

Unfortunately, and has been reiterated above, one can't help but wonder what the interest of the state/NHS would be. A terminally ill patient represents a potential burden upon the state with respect to medical/nursing/social costs. Would the state be willing to push for early 'termination' of such patients? This of course represents an ethical dilemma. We must push that legislation ensures that it is the patient's choice, and that the state has no input.

Some evidence exists of rationality in Oregon, a state where assisted suicide is legal. It has been revealed that only a small number of those offered the choice actually decide to end their lives (figures in BMJ from last 2-3 weeks, can't remember exact date). But I feel that we must offer people the choice.

I have seen many patients die, and I have been asked to expedite many patients deaths. As a very junior doc I have always spoken to my seniors about this - hence I have never had the responsibility. But of course I can't help but consider what I see as people dying, and wonder why they can't act in a rational fashion when they are rational, according to the law.

Somebody mentioned the conflict between a doctor's primary concerns versus the deliberate ending of life. An interesting point brought up in this week's BMA News was the issue of why doctors have to be the delivers of death in such a situation - many people can be trained to site an intravenous line and administer a drug/fluid. I thought this emphasised some of the deeper issues of regulation - why must it be doctors/NHS and

[proffered]

the associations to the state, and not an independent body with specifically trained personnel. This would eliminate (one would hope) some of the understandable doubts regarding ulterior motives from the state.

Sorry to witter on so much - I have had a lot of literature about this, and it appears that my opinion differs from that of my general profession's. But what it boils down to is opinion. And why should one person's opinion (that life should be lived until it expires 'naturally') be held higher than that of a terminally ill patient who feels that a quick death is preferable.

Again, sorry for the mighty post

[Sisyphus]

So please do not say that we are murderers as you do not know the facts and cannot tar us all with the same brush.

flo

You glossed over where I said that it's become 'a form of contraception for many'.

Clearly, there are reasons where abortion can, arguably, be justified. Danger to the mother's life or mental health are obvious examples.

Where it's done because it will affect a preferred 'life-style' or for economic reasons or, for example, if the child won't be 'perfect' because of some medical problem then it's plain wrong - and too many are exactly for those reasons. Not long ago a child was aborted just because it had Down's syndrome. The huge increase in abortions since it became legal is concrete evidence for it being in this way.

I agree that the description was graphic and apologise if it upset you - but that's the reality and we can't bury our heads in the sand and pretend it's no different than, say, having a tooth pulled. Not least for the reason you mentioned. I'm not convinced that the pro-abortion lobby gives enough weight to the terrible effect that abortion can have on the mother's [and father's] emotions.

And I don't agree that it's off-topic. I was citing it as a real example of the clear and obvious potential for the 'slippery slope' to creep in where things are introduced with the best of intentions and disaster results.

[JoJo82]

WOW - either this topic has caught a lot of attention or you all need to fill in for me at work so that I can go and lounge on the beach and attract the WWF!

Right, when a pet/animal is in great pain and a vet is unable to help or you’re pet has a terminal illness, are we not the ones who will decide whether or not that animal should stay or go?

I don't agree with this type of assistance in human terms, however, if it is seen that a person is bed ridden and there is nothing a doctor can do until they die, I think that person has a right to say whether or not they'd want to live the next yr in the same bed before passing.

However, if that same person is not bed ridden, is able to enjoy life till that final moment, then they should live it.

But I am all against legalizing this behaviour.

Right, I made no sense at all huh?

[Doc]

Thing is, all of this is idividual choice, and the state should support the individual, not broad sweeping reforms or bills that they try to fit all cases.

After all it is us that make the country, the individuals, who should come first, and not the state as an institution.

When two sides argue and debate over an issue the issue becomes secondary to the hearing of voices and inflicition of ideals.

Look at political correctness, we all hate it but 99% of those that hate would use it to their own gain if they could. The problem isnt the application of laws, its the application since these stupid laws have been introduced. A rule book has taken over from common sense and individual freedoms.