Euthanasia

[RDJ]

Because it's not about the doctor.

It's about the patient.

(I shouldn't really be having to teach you this).

You are not teaching anything. It's not Always all about the patient. It's sometimes simply not safe to give patients everything they want - especially if they're under informed or incapable of making a rational decision. That's not patronising, that's reality.

It's even more, and extremely, unsafe to 'give' the patients what the government thinks the patients should get. Yes, I know I'm invoking Godwin's Law, but you really ought to read outside your narrow sphere of opinion, about what happens when doctors get given too much power by governments over life and death. Literally.

You should read

Medicine, Ethics, and the Third Reich: Historical and Contemporary Issues / John J. Michalczyk.

Murderous Science: Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies, and others in Germany / Benno Müller-Hill.

These authors describe what happens when governments give the medical profession the power of life and death over Approved and Unapproved 'Treatments'.

But, based on your postings, I'm pretty sure your mind is made up, and rational discourse has no place in your attitude to life at least in this particular context. No doubt, you're saying the same / worse about me. So, you 'win' this one.

[Katman]

You are not teaching anything. It's not Always all about the patient. It's sometimes simply not safe to give patients everything they want - especially if they're under informed or incapable of making a rational decision. That's not patronising, that's reality.

Bullshit - yet again.

Your job is to do the best for your patient.

If that patient is terminally ill and very near death you have nothing to offer that patient other than their choice of death.

[puddytat]

This topic is way more deserving of a referendum than a stupid fucking flag.

[Katman]

So, you 'win' this one.

I'm pleased you're starting to see sense.

P.S. Even I would fight tooth and nail against any legislation that would 'force' you to assist someone's death.

[husaberg]

I don't get it at all, marriage celebrants are allowed to refuse to marry any couple they like. No reason needed.
Now if they were to post online it was because they were black, gay, Jewish etc that might be a different yarn. Why would a doctor not be allowed to refuse?
If he just said, sorry I don't believe that to be ethical no dramas. If on the other hand he was euthanising Jews 2 a weekend and refusing gay people perhaps he might have to answer a few questions.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ca...dding-at-their

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/0...ttlement-order

http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/110k-ra...couple-6277905

BTW There is a difference between ethics and morals.....

[husaberg]

Bullshit - yet again.

Your job is to do the best for your patient.

If that patient is terminally ill and very near death you have nothing to offer that patient other than their choice of death.

You are an first class idiot.

The doctors Job is to the do the best that can without causing harm.

With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.

Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. .

No, I saw the second sentence, but it didn't add any value.

Are you involved in the motorcycle industry in any retail capacity?

I note you were too scared to answer this question Katman. why is that..........

[Katman]

You are an first class idiot.

The doctors Job is to the do the best that can without causing harm.

With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.

Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. .

It's already been mentioned that the Hippocratic Oath has undergone considerable change over the years.

[husaberg]

It's already been mentioned that the Hippocratic Oath has undergone considerable change over the years.

Yet you hypocritically post answers to questions that are not asked while refusing to answer questions posted to you as they points towards your own simplistic ideals, you deny your own motives in doing so and refuse to consider others opinions are as valid if not more considered and balanced than your own are.

You might do better to Stick to the free energy Katamam

No, I saw the second sentence, but it didn't add any value.

Are you involved in the motorcycle industry in any retail capacity?

Why do you not answer the question? Does it not suit your agenda?

[Big Dog]

For example, consider the abortion law in New Zealand. (Please note, this analogy is not a comment in any way about the desirability or undesirability of abortions being legally available in New Zealand).

The law currently states, if a doctor refuses to refer you to an abortion provider because they don't "believe" in abortion or have a "conscientious objection", then they have a legal obligation to refer you to another doctor who will. In other words, if you go to see a doctor wanting an abortion, that doctor is obliged to facilitate your request and "make it happen".

The doctor's views on abortion are therefore considered to be irrelevant and he or she is compelled to provide the service. This element of compulsion allows no room for personal ethics.

If a similar statute was to be placed on the law books, that a doctor was legally obliged, under threat of legal sanction, to administer a dose of a drug that would result in euthanasia, this should be equally morally repugnant even to those who support euthanasia. If it is not morally repugnant, then I am afraid we have no common ground for discussion.

I agree compelling someone to act as an executioner is repugnant.
I agreed a long time back that this was not about compelling the doctor to stick a needle in someone, but surely if there is a demand for the service and there are practioners willing to dispense the service within credibile guidelines then that should be the end of it.
Not the local gp has to assist you to euthanise your otherwise healthy 2 year old becuase they have a runny nose, but something you need to go and see the specialists in the field and be referred to them because you no longer have a quality of life.
To go with your abortion analogy, when someone I know was referred for an abortion there were many hoops.
They were referred by family planning to a counselor who checked that the person in question knew what they were doing. That councilor referred them to a doctor who checked they met the physical criteria, the medical councils ethical criteria and that they had an ok from the counselor.
They were then sent away for a minimum of 24 hours and had to make a booking for the next business day after that cooling off period.


To draw that analogy, the gp would have referred say a cancer patient to an Oncologist. The Oncologist would have done their best to treat the condiiton and its symptoms.
Once all hope was lost the patient would express to the doctor that they could no longer fight.
They would have to get a clearance from a counsellor that they knew what they asked for, and had given it reasonable thought.
The Oncologist if they were not equipped or willing would refer on to a specialist. This seems like the bit that sticks in your craw and I would respect your decision to refuse to make that referral, perhaps the legislation needs to make that the right of the doctor because you are dealing with a living breathing conscious human and not a collection of cells.
The specialist would make sure that your case stacked up. Guess what, not everyone who asks will. Some get turned away from abortions too, for a different friend they were too much of a risk to themselves if they had proceeded. I am sure she could have presented to a different counsellor another day given different answers and got the answer she wanted though.
Then and only then could the proceedure be carried out.


One of my greatest fears is that I will experience a slow and painful death and that I won't give up before it is too late for me to do the neccesary myself.
To play devils advocate for a moment.
How many people give up before all avenues are exhausted because the assisted route is not there?
Would you fight for longer if you new you left it too late someone would do what you couldn't?

[Big Dog]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ca...dding-at-their

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/0...ttlement-order

http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/110k-ra...couple-6277905

BTW There is a difference between ethics and morals.....

I don't get your point? Perhaps you need to use more words?

I know that there is a difference between ethics and morals.

It would be ethically repugnant to me to allow someone to suffer when I was able to ease that suffering.
It woudl be morally and ethically repugnant to make me end that suffering irrespective of my views.
It woudl be morally corrupt for me to marry for money.


I am not a doctor so I have the fortune to never have to make this call for another.

[husaberg]

I don't get your point? Perhaps you need to use more words?

Ethics are different than morals its pretty simple.
The second point was people are prosecued for refusing deny a legal service request.

You didn't when you posted your reply hence why you edited it

[Big Dog]

What I don't get is:
If doctor a finds it ethical to ease suffering via a deep sleep and doctor b does not why does doctor b get to be right?
Why is it that most of the times this topic is brought up it does not recieve robust discussion?

[PrincessBandit]

i would like to say that I fully support someone's right to stipulate their "do not resusitate" instructions. My own example where a person's mind can change is an aunt of my husband. When she was first deathly ill all whe wanted was to die and join her husband and not be resusitated; she recovered to go home for several months before having to return gravely ill to hospital. When discussing her prospects with one of her daughters in her hospital bed her words vehemently to her daughter were (in thick Dutch accent) "I want to live!"
I suppose my point from this is that people can and do change their mind. The choice to be terminated is obviously irreversible once done so there is no room for "what ifs" or breast beating after the fact.

[Big Dog]

Ethics are different than morals its pretty simple.
The second point was people are prosecued for refusing deny a legal service request.

Yes, but how your response relates to the quoted post is not clear.

In the given context you might as well have said the sky at night is a different colour.

[husaberg]

Yes, but how your response relates to the quoted post is not clear.

In the given context you might as well have said the sky at night is a different colour.

Things are really black and white which is why Katmaam has trouble with what is a complicated topic not fitting his own over simplistic views.

What I don't get is:
If doctor a finds it ethical to ease suffering via a deep sleep and doctor b does not why does doctor b get to be right?
Why is it that most of the times this topic is brought up it does not recieve robust discussion?

You don't know the difference.

Morals are the principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based.
Morals are more abstract, subjective, and often personal or religion-based.
Ethics are principles of right conduct.
Ethics are more practical, conceived as shared principles promoting fairness in social and business interactions.

It does receive robust discussion and debate but it is a complicated subject but it is fraught, I my self I are in favour of it, but the whole legality of it needs to be correctly framed around it.