Serious Discussion-Stress and Psych Disorders- Page 7

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 11:36am

I've very much come to the conclusion that this debate stems on a value comparison.

Which is more important:

autonomy or the sanctity of human life?

Each side co-opts the other (i.e. without autonomy, it isn't life, or without life, there is no autonomy), and the debate become muddled every time. I guess I may find myself closer to a mediated centrist view -- that employs a situational ethic, and can't absract the issue apart from particular examples (although I would tend to almost always say that life is sacred especially in suffering).

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 11:41am

Thank you for sharing your experience with such an emotionally charged, iflit.

[Jess1483]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 11:43am

Quick response to touchme, then I'm really going.

I think more importantly than the autonomy/sanctity argument is justice in healthcare (which, of course, you may disagree with me on). Consider two men, both in the same medical condition, with the exception of the first man also being on a ventilator. Now this man (through power of attorney to a family member) may choose to end his life, while the other cannot. They may be in the same measure of pain, but only one is able to end their suffering.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 11:44am

I think this issue also gives rise to a very important question: at what point do we truly admit that medicine/science is only prolonging a life, with little to no hope of restoring it to its former state?
If we know, for example, patient A will continune to live as long as she is hooked up to a respirator, when can we admit that this quality of life is unsustainable, unfair, and unwelcome?

[Bluemoon]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 11:44am

Touchme - my thoughts exactly and beautifully stated.

My husband and I have Living Wills and our directives are very different. Each of us has an on-going medical condition that may eventually play a role in our individual end of life scenarios, so it was (is) an important issue to face for our family's sake. This is something you do, not only for yourself, but for your loved ones' sake.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 11:45am

I'm not sure who brought up the distinction between active and passive euthanasia, but I have to disagree that there truly is a distinction. The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is colloquially the same as between killing and letting die. It's based on the Doctrine of Double Effect, which essentially means that if something is (even a foreseen) effect of a different action that is at least morally neutral if not morally good, then even if it is bad, it can be acceptable. In this case, it's argued that aleviating suffering (the good intent) outweighs the bad effect (death) of the action.
So my argument is that I don't think "letting die" is devoid of morally questionable action.

I disagree, I think that there IS a distinction between killing and letting die. It's sort of difficult to explain, but removing something that is keeping someone alive is letting nature take its natural course, while actively administering something that induces death carries more weight (although at times would be more humane). It's soemwhat different if you're withdrawing something like a feeding tube if that's the only assistance that the person needs to stay alive, but if you take them off of a respirator and they can't survive, I don't think that you've "killed" them. To clarify, I'm not morally opposed to the voluntary use of either active or passive euthanasia. Updated On: 1/23/06 at 11:45 AM

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 11:45am

and also, when do you feel as if you have to give up hope?

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 11:50am

bwaysinger, why does a life need to be restored to its former state? How often in life do we experience changes that alter our lives forever? I believe those are the moments we feel most human. I agree that this decision should be made ahead of time and documented legally so that if, God forbid, this issue comes up, we will know what the person wants.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 12:06pm

I meant that the purpose of health care is to make someone better. I didn't mean to imply restoring someone to the prime of their youth.
But, take my grandmother. When she entered the hospital, the doctors were pretty much in agreement that all they could do was make her comfortable and as pain-free as possible. But they could do nothing real and tangible to reverse this process.
Why, in our society, is a lifetime of medication/machinery seen as the more righteous moral stance to take than to give someone their exit without pain and with dignity? now, before someone infers something, I don't mean we shouldn't have asthma puffers or amputations to save lives. I'm discussing a lifetime being hooked up to a respirator, being fed through a tube, being unable to move on your own, etc.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 12:12pm

Yet another reason why we, as individuals, should decide for ourselves what we require for our own dignity. That way, our wishes will be known, and no one will be able to blame it on depression if it comes to that.

[JailyardGuy]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 12:14pm

"(although I would tend to almost always say that life is sacred especially in suffering)"

So you *want* people to suffer and live their days in agony, because that's particularly sacred? Where is the sense in that?

I don't believe that a person who has no chance of ever returning to a "normal" life should ever be kept alive any longer than necessary, however, without a living will, it will inevitably become a big freaking mess, so I think really, the only answer to this debate is to think about it NOW, when one is able and healthy, so that it isn't a problem later. Are you willing to be suspended in a vegetative state, or kept alive in agony, just to make the people around you happy that you're still there; or do you want your suffering to be ended and move on to whatever it is that there is after we shuffle off this mortal coil?

Don't we think it's just a *little* selfish to keep someone alive just so we don't have to miss them when they're dead? I mean, if you're laying unconscious in a hospital bed for years, you're not exactly going to the movies with me, having dinner with me, and engaging in those long, wonderful talks we used to have anyway, now are you? So, really, you're ALREADY gone, and if there really is no hope of a recovery, I mean, just get it over with already!

[Elphaba]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 12:21pm

bway you said

"I meant that the purpose of health care is to make someone better"

I disagree, the purpose of healthcare is to make money...the doctors, the hospitals, the drug companies.......

[DramaDork925]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 12:21pm

My grandmother suffered for over 30 years with ALS, finally in '96 she decided she didn't want to live anymore and my mom had to fight for her mother's right to die. This caused a lot of tension in my mother's family and now her brother doesn't speak to her anymore, but in my eyes and my mother's eyes my mom was only fulfilling her mother's wishes. I support euthanasia completely. It's unfair to make people suffer through a disease or through a vegetable state just so those who are close to them will not have to miss them. I can see where people who do not support it come from, but overall, imagine how the person in question must be living.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 12:25pm

"So you *want* people to suffer and live their days in agony, because that's particularly sacred? Where is the sense in that?"

The sense is that our humanity is not determined by how much suffering we avoid, and in fact, our humanity is elevated in suffering (which is the premise of religious and non-religious fasting). Does that mean I am against PAS? Not at all. Like I've said before, this subject requires a situational ethic for me. There have been a myriad of documented cases where people have petitioned for PAS, and not recevied it, recovered fully, and were glad they were not killed. There have also been cases where people were not allowed to die and were not allowed -- and it just added on a painful extra chapter into the biography of their lives. But, that is neither here nor there. The point is that people should make this decision before trauma occurs, so their wishes can be met.

Updated On: 1/23/06 at 12:25 PM

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 12:27pm

Elphaba: I think the insurance companies are more to blame than the doctors themselves...

[Bluemoon]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 12:32pm

Dramadork - I'm sorry for your Grandmother's suffering and the difficult position your mother was in. It would be very unusual for your Grandmother to have suffered with ALS for 30 years, though, as most sufferers (over 95%) die within 3 to 5 years. No one has been known to live more than 8 years. I've seen two good friends through this disease and it is a horrible way to die. I'm sorry for your loss.

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 12:34pm

Elphaba - while that's certainly true for some, I would beg to disagree. While it may be true that there are corrupt CEOs and greedy businessmen and women climbing the healthcare ladder simply for prestige and profit, there is also a quiet majority who came into healthcare out of a genuine desire to help people, to do research for the good of humanity and to be able to make a meaningful difference in their corner of the world. Every system has corrpution, unfortunately - governments, school systems, law enforcement branches, healthcare fields - but unfortunately it's really that the most corrupt folks are the ones making all the noise, while the hardworking and honest folks go about their business unnoticed.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 12:35pm

Kiss, and the drug companies....you are probably right, most of the doctors aren't to blame

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 12:55pm

Oy! What a way to begin the week. I'll try to make sense here, but sometimes I ramble and quite get the point across.

Assisted Suicide is a very personal choice, and very different, in my eyes, from stopping a respirator/feeding tube. I think most people have less of a problem with 'pulling the plug' than with assisted suicide.

For me, 'pulling the plug' is truly letting nature take its course. At that point, when there is no hope for the individual to regain any semblance of a normal/conscious life, or for their body to be able to support itself again, all we're doing is taking science out of the equation and see what happens. Some people have lived longer than expected once the equipment is turned off. I have been very clear that I do not want to be kept alive by artificial means, and if I'm ever in the hospital and terminal, I do not want heroic measures taken to keep me alive.

Assisted suicide is a horse of a different color. Again, in my eyes. And one I struggle with. In my set of beliefs (which is not one particular religion but a mish-mash of many), taking someone's life, your own included, has the most negative karmic (sp) weight. It might sound simplistic, but the point of life is to experience it all, the good and the bad. That's how our spirit (soul) grows and learns. I don't think I personally would resort to such a thing. But, that's just ME and MY beliefs. And I really like the way the law in Oregon is written, which requires patients who are considering doctor assisted suicide to go to counseling first. As bway said (I think it was bway) it could just be depression that can be overcome.

All this said, I have no idea how I would react if I was in pain 24/7, and the quality of my life was miserable. And I would like to have the option to change my mind about it.

I know it's a fine line, but I would see as quitting treatment to keep me alive different from taking medication to end my life.

I hope my rambling makes some sense. If it does, please explain it to me.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 1:00pm

In my mom's situation, she had a variety of problems...medical, surgical, and early, but rapidly advancing Alzheimers. I noticed that in her case, which is often the norm, each doctor focused on his own specialty without stepping back and seeing the whole patient or situation. The surgeons fixed a surgical problem, which created vascular problems. The medical treatment for the vascular problems created a new surgical problem, and that treatment led to cardiac issues. And so on and so on. Everyone was myopic in trying to work magic in their own field. But they were unintentionally leading my mom to picture herself in her own home, driving her own car, living her old life, when the reality at the most optimistic extreme was that the best that she could hope for in terms of recovery was living out the rest of her life in a nursing home being fed and hydrated through a tube and evacuating bodily waste through other tubes. She would never regain enough mobility to even change her own position in bed ever again, and would have not known who she was or who I was in a matter of months, if not weeks. And what's worse is that she would have had to go through it alone because she wasn't in the position to be moved across several states so that she could be near me. And yet, it was excruciating to have to ask the doctors "What are we doing here? Can we all just stop for a minute and look at the big picture?"

Brutal times, I tell you. And a scenario that many of you are likely to find yourself in at some point in time...

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 1:07pm

Wow, Iflit. There are no words to say to what you just shared with us...except what a journey and a challenge you and your mother were given.
And I can only say, if euthanasia/assisted suicide/whatever you prefer to call this life-ending decision was the best way for you to both come to terms with her mortality with a measure of dignity and grace, then you did the right thing. There is no blood on your hands.

[beacon1]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 1:11pm

I, personally, do not see exiting this life as an awful thing. When the time comes through illness or injury I see it as a door opening to something else.

There's a great line in "City of Angels" when the female doctor says that she's begun to ask her self (after trying to resucitate a patient) "I sometimes wonder who we're fighting with..."

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 1:13pm

I'm grateful everyday for having handled things the way I did. I feel like it's one thing in my life I truly did the right way with no regrets.

I am sharing my story more for the benefit of those who may find themselves in a similar situation someday. Just having a familiarity of the conficting forces, who may all mean well, that can create a whirlwind of chaos may help someone, someday, to step back during a difficult time and examine what is really going on.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 1:14pm

I value each day and live it fully. If this is the last one, it was a good ride. No regrets!

[Bluemoon]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 1:15pm

It must be hard for members of the medical profession to switch gears, so to speak, and not intervene when their training has been to save lives without "seeing the big picture". Each is a trained technician, mindful of what they CAN do rather than if they should do it.