Assisted Suicide - Sinful or the humane choice?

Is it right to end someone's life in times of immense suffering?

 

Since there's a little bit of confusion here, I'd like to point out that the term "Assisted Suicide" does not mean the person is suicidal and you somehow provide the means for them to end their life.

The proper term (which I should have used to begin with, my apologies) is Euthanasia. Euthanasia describes the act of mercifully ending someone's life if they were, say, in a car accident and lost 90% of their brain function. In the 'interesting' (ie. debatable) cases, the person who is being provided with an assisted suicide does not wish to die, nor are they (often times) able to make such a decision.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, since everyone seems to be on the 'no' side of the debate. Here's something to ponder: If a dog is hit by a car and loses its legs and is dying a slow horrible death, it will typically be euthanized via lethal injection.

If a human being is hit by a car, and is dying a slow horrible death... what is an appropriate course of action? Should they not be entitled to the same rights that a mere dog has?

 

Brandon:

dev·il's ad·vo·cate






Noun:

• A person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments.

I'd also like to point out that if someone is 'brain dead' then they are, according to current medical science, dead. Life support cannot work to preserve a body indefinitely that has no brain function. In the case of euthanasia, we're not dealing with people who have complete and utter brain death, we're dealing with people who have a difficult or debilitating prognosis, who believe (or their proxy believes, in the case of brain damage) that recovery is no longer possible, and simply want to alleviate some suffering. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, or "Lou Gehrig's Disease" is a good example, as it is a very slow, 1-2 year decline in motor function. Ultimately, it's a year long suffocation (suffering), and there have been no known survivors to this day (grim outlook).

In the case of the dog, what I meant was that the dog was not only going to lose its legs, but was dying of blood loss (a relatively slow and painful process). In such cases, veterinarians are authorized (given familial consent) to administer a lethal injection.

What if it's your own body, that's being considered?

Khroma: Getting a shotgun blast to the stomach is much more painful than starvation...it's not a very pleasant way to die, because your body can operate without your stomach and so you will remain alive for a long time, until you lose so much blood that your body can't deliver oxygen to your brain (which could take up to an hour or two...keep in mind this is an hour or two with your stomach blown open). Lethal injection is probably what you mean to use in your argument, as that is believed to be a more 'humane' (ie. less unpleasant) approach, in any location that euthanasia and/or the death penalty is legal.

EDIT: Sorry that pasted in so big, pasted it directly from my browser.

 

You can't...I'm pointing out that you said brain dead, which has other, completely different implications. That's not what we're discussing here because it's not assisted suicide.

Yes, this is my point, you have a say in the matter if you want to live. But this slightly clashes with what you said in your prior post:

"But anyway, even if someone is dying a slow death, I still do not want to choose the option of killing them off right then and there. To me, that is not my decision."

You've established in this new post, that it is ultimately someone's decision. If the person is conscious and able to make the decision it should be theirs, just as you're saying you would like to make it for yourself.

What then, if someone makes the opposite decision you're making? What if someone, in their moment of weakness, chooses death? Are we then obligated to obey their orders and end their suffering?

The big logical leap here is the use of the word "can." Sure we can all concoct hypotheticals where things work out, or don't work out until the cows come home. I gave one example of a disease that has virtually no chance of recovery (at least barring significant medical breakthroughs). But when you're making a statement that suggests there are multiple possibilities, should there not be multiple outcomes? (ie. some have the strength to go one, and some don't) How do we describe what it means to 'have the strength to go on?'

Are you claiming that in those cases they should still live? Because then, you're making that decision for them, which contradicts what you've just said.

 

You said you should have the right to make the decision for yourself...and then you're saying everyone should adhere to the decision you're making for them (that life is always the right choice). That is a contradiction. What you actually believe is that no one has that choice...which is a bit different from what you said. In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with believing this, but you have to be clear about what you mean.

I'd now like to point out that someone who is "breathing just fine" as you say, would not be hooked up to life support and hence the decision is completely out of the doctor's control. In such a situation it would be entirely the person's choice to request a lethal injection.

And actually one other thing you may not have considered: It's all fine and good to leave people hooked up to life support indefinitely, if we had infinite resources. Unfortunately, if someone has very little chance of recovery, and someone else is administered who has a good chance for recovery, they cannot both use the same machine...and if all machines were occupied, this person who may survive would actually die.

The prioritizing of medical aid/resources to optimize survival rates is called Triage. You begin learning about it during your beginner's first aid course, if you ever took/will take one.

 

In principle, of course. Whoever is 'dead' should be left to die, and whoever will 'live' should continue to live right? It's so simple that it's elegant.

The problem however, is that we don't currently know anything about life or death. We're reasonably sure that, once brain function ceases, people are not coming back, they will not regain that function. ("Brain death" is also called "biological death") This does not mean that we could never revive people, it simply means with our current medical knowledge/technology, it's not happening. Someday we may be able to 'zap a brain' back to life for some time period after biological death.

"Clinical Death" is when someone has lost their breathing/circulation functions. When someone's heart is being shocked back into its normal rhythm, they literally go from 'dead' to 'alive' by this definition. The reason we call this clinical "death" is because usually this leads to biological death. The definition of clinical death is relevant to things such as organ donation, where those extra seconds can save a different life (different story completely).

From the religious perspective (I can clearly tell you subscribe to a religious perspective), when is it that the soul leaves the body? And I'm talking specifics. Ultimately, we don't know exactly what happens, be it a purely scientific or purely religious perspective. What is the 'point of no return' ? Maybe given the best possible medical equipment, and another 500,000 years of medical knowledge we would be able to bring people back to life indefinitely, so long as they are treated within a certain time frame.

In short, all I'm saying is that the issue of when life ends is a delicate one. Given that we don't know what happens on the other side (at least scientifically), we can't really test this scientifically and make any meaningful predicitions....ever. You can't test what you can't measure.

 

We have to be a little bit careful here, because if miracles do happen (for whatever reason), we have no scientific way of measuring it or ever knowing that it was indeed a miracle.

So for the sake of argument, I could say that miracles happen all the time, and it's no less valid than the claim that they rarely occur. (Not to be annoying, but someone may believe they happen all the time)

Note that miracles, should they exist, are 'in the eye of the beholder' so to speak. A miracle for one person may be the fact that they get accepted to a certain college, or get a job. Someone else will point at this and say "that's not a miracle, you simply worked hard and are reaping the benefits."

 

Over the past week, in British Columbia, an elderly woman suffering from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, or "Lou Gehrig's Disease" fought for her right to a physician assisted suicide. (Note that this is slightly different from Euthanasia, as this is completely and entirely her decision). She was granted special permission to do so, while the government debates the issue for the next two months.

Here is the article: Court grants terminally ill B.C. woman legal right to doctor-assisted suicide - Winnipeg Free Press

Personally, I feel this is something that requires a lot of reflection on my part, as I'm studying to become a physician in Canada (not in BC, but elsewhere). I feel that if it ever became encouraged, or obligatory, that I would have to respectfully resign from the medical profession (assuming I finish haha). In essence, I'm not becoming a doctor to end lives.

What are your thoughts?