Anaxagoras wrote:So if he should be allowed to commit suicide, should he not also be allowed to enlist others, if they are willing, to assist him?
No. Not physicians. Not representatives of "the state." Given the details of the article, he required no such assistance. Hell, back when you were still [CENSORED
--Ed.] to magazines on some base somewhere, Dr. Kevorkian provided the means for people to do this themselves.
Most of the obvious ways are going to be either messy or painful or both. He could probably inject himself I suppose. Intentional heroin overdose maybe? What do they give these people anyway?
Understood. Painless suicide is not that difficult if someone takes a few moments to do the research. This gets into the whole matter of the mind of the suicide. It appears that [A percentage he pulls from his fundament.--Ed.] have a bit of a "spur" to it. So they do it in such a manner they cannot back out--jump in front of a train, "suicide by cop," listen to Green Day
, et cetera
Make no mistake: physicians have traditionally assisted the terminal across the River of Styx even if they will not admit to it. Up the morphine dose, "slow codes," all the way to the simply withdrawing support. Terri Schiavo was such a situation. Briefly, a physician asked her husband why they bothered to treat yet another urinary tract infection. Her husband was under the delusion that "one day" she would get better: regain consciousness. The fault in that case lay with the medical community unable to "give the bad news" honestly to families. That is another subject entirely.
You may find the infamous "Dax" case enlightening. Briefly, a guy got burned "over a hundred percent of his body" blah . . . blah . . . you can imagine. He gave Power of Attorney to Your
His Mom. Then he wanted to die. His Mom, a "good Christian" refused.
What followed was too many years and far too much case law that could have been solved if the dumb fuck simply removed Power of Attorney
from his mother. To this day, seriously, he refuses to explain "why." He eventually recovered and all of that and lectured everyone on how "T3h 3v1l" the medical community is. Neat.
He could have refused treatment, but he gave away his rights, then never reclaimed them.
So you have stories and movies with T3h 3v1l doctors and nurses "torturing him against his will!11!!" but what choice did they have?
You may guess the answer: he did not want to die. He wanted--and this is not a criticism since it is a "human thing"--someone to blame for his condition.
This man had far more power to end it himself.
It is a bit of an odd contradiction. Physicians and medical ethicists will quote the Hippocratic Oath with "first, do no harm"--usually quoting it in Latin!--not realizing that that is not actually in the Hippocratic Oath. However, said Oath forbids giving a deadly poison . . . as well as an abortifacient . . . and performing surgery! And accepting payment from students! Funny that! Be that as it may, the reason that proscription is contained in the Oath was to counter the fear that a physician would
kick your ass into the grave if Your Loving Family paid him enough!
Move through the centuries of paternalism--"doctor knows best!"--and various cases of abuse of patients, Holocaust, Tuskeegee, Obama Care and, frankly, there should
be a reticence concerning those charged with curing you/alleviating suffering killing
you. This is why it remains a major problem concerning nurses/physicians who start the IV lines for a lethal injection.
You seek an attorney you hope will do whatever he can to keep your rancid ass out of the stripey hole. He may not be able to do this--next time, Anax
, do not post what you did to that salariman
with that fish on your company's webpage--but you hope
he will do his best. He knows the law, you do not, so you trust him.
Same with physicians.
From a utilitarian/cold equation, perspective there are a lot of people who should not be on this planet. We can argue about this until we get drunk to sooth our anger. Do you want your defense attorney to have a stake
in having your ass convicted?What Follows is Distasteful but Unfortunately Real:Forgive me for making this personal
: imagine you have Another Wee Spud. Fortunately, for her sake, she takes after お母さん rather than your rancid ass. We will let her grow up a bit. Junior high equivalent. Just old enough that the idea of becoming an adult starts to form in her head--just enough so ワイフさん starts muttering to you--she starts becoming independent. ワイフさん narrows her eyes and mentions she has spent some time with "That Toshi!"
She narrows her eyes further which can only mean you have, once again, failed as 父 which means yet another night of cold ramen
She suffers a C2-3 level incomplete spinal cord injury.
Forgive me for writing that, it is unfair, but unfortunately it is a reality.
Oh there is surgery which will stabilize the spine and all of that. Bottom line is ventilator dependency with loss of use of arms and legs. Modern Medicine [Tm.--Ed.] can make it so she can live a long life . . . trapped in her body. Feeding tube. If the injury is incomplete, she can feel every pain. Multiple surgeries will follow to deal with decubitus
ulcers, urinary tract infections, spasticity, et cetera
She wants to die.
Now, as a parent, as an actual parent as you have children--apologies, again, for seemingly making this personal--this is one of the Worst Nightmares you can have. There is no end to this condition. Cancer? It will end. Permanent vegetative state? Well, it sort of "ended" long ago.
Here you have a conscious near-adult who simply does not want to live a life in that state. Oh, particularly in America where Jesus Is There For You, we can parade a crap-load of people in similar conditions who are "so happy" to be in that condition.
Actually, no. Not many are. But we have people who like to speak for them.
As a parent, what do you do?
You would, I imagine, like some advice, some objective
advice. Someone to tell you not only what the prognosis is but how people have--and have not--dealt with the condition. Generally, avoidance of decisions is the "default" position. Keep telling a person "life is worth living!" and then ship them off to someone else. It is a human thing.
But it is not for everyone. Some, in that state, do
find a meaningful existence. To that, I recommend the self-confessed sick cartoonist Callaghan:
who draws these with his teeth.
Is that the existence for your daughter? Who the fuck has the right to make that decision.
So . . . with all apologies . . . do you want a physician to advise you who also
is allowed by the government to kill her? Make no mistake: that
is what it is. The physician in the article murdered the man.
Was it "justifiable homicide?"
Whom do you ask? Whom is objective?
This is my issue.
In the distasteful example I gave, the victim is unable to act to end her suffering. Medicine can simply withdraw support and give palliative care which is what happens, in reality, in these cases where the victim chooses not to continue. You have met no greater tragedy than the one I described: where a child wants to die but the parent has to give permission.
Who could walk, talk, eat a fucking sandwich? Drink beers!
Do you want the physician who decided his life was not worth living to advise you?
Can you trust him?
That is my issue Anax
. The "right answer" may
be to let your hypothetical daughter go . . . but do you want to hear that from me? Some asshole on an internet board?
Some doctor who makes as part of his career killing patients?