Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia

[communique]

I am extremely passionate about this subject. I watched someone very close to me completely degenerate to wearing a nappy, unable to do anything for himself he was fed, moved and cleaned by someone else. This person strongly believed in Euthanasia but because of our draconian laws this person was not allowed an assisted suicide. For five years he existed in this state with absolutely no dignity. Having been very involved with EXIT, the options available were not suitable because he could not travel. Finally, he realised that he was susceptible to pneumonia and did everything in his power to get it. Finally, he succumbed.

Eighty percent of our population agrees with Euthanasia! The only way we can change the laws in this country is by people power and the media. I would gladly support a national march highlighting this cause?

 

[Chris45]

Completely agree, Chris. The best we can do in Australia is to have a document which is variously called a "Living Will" or an "Advance Health Directive", depending on which State you live in.

Thanks Julia. I must do something about that. ... However, the news about doctors ignoring them is a major concern.

Something to consider about wallet cards: I saw an episode of the ABC's MDA series where the enthusiastic young doctor sneakily removed the card from his patient's wallet and then proceeded to treat him regardless of the instructions.

It might be worth considering a difficult-to-remove wristband or tattoo saying, "Before any treatment, consult my AHD".

 

[Chris45]

I am extremely passionate about this subject. I watched someone very close to me completely degenerate to wearing a nappy, unable to do anything for himself he was fed, moved and cleaned by someone else. This person strongly believed in Euthanasia but because of our draconian laws this person was not allowed an assisted suicide. For five years he existed in this state with absolutely no dignity. Having been very involved with EXIT, the options available were not suitable because he could not travel. Finally, he realised that he was susceptible to pneumonia and did everything in his power to get it. Finally, he succumbed.

This is exactly the sort of situation I fear more than death itself!!!

 

[awg]

I agree that it's unlikely at least in the next decade.
What are the other 'disadvantages' you see associated with voluntary euthanasia?
Btw I think "voluntary" is an important descriptor. One of the hysterical claims that is made by opponents is that cliche about the 'slippery slope' wherein every second person over the age of 70 will automatically become a victim of the law if legislation is passed to allow voluntary euthanasia in limited circumstances.

At the risk of poking my head up, after making some comments regarding preventing suicide in depressed persons on another thread, that didnt seem to come across the way I intended them to.

I am firmly in favor of peoples right to choose Euthanasia, which may seem contradictory, however;

In response to your inquiry, some issues;

I have been in the same position you were when an elderly relative begged me to fetch a rifle and allow him to shoot himself.

Everyone, me included, thought he was sure to die, but he recovered, and lived several more years with quite reasonable quality of life.

I am of the opinion that, whilst he certainly wished to be euthanased at the time, he was, on balance, glad that didnt happen

Also, it is my belief that that many people with serious illness, become extremely depressed, which then means technically, that the psychiatrists wont agree to euthanasia.

Family members (and medical professionals) do not agree on the course of action.

"Involuntary" euthanasia...a very complex issue, I'll leave it at that.

I give no credence to religious prohibitions, but many do

You can pluck some really hard ones out, say for instance a case of Anorexia Nervosa, when do you give up?

 

[Julia]

Two news reports in thelast 24 hours which further demonstrate the need for open discussion (and hopefully law change) on the right to die.

A man in his 70's who developed septic shock, all his organs shut down, and he was placed on life support. He had a document making clear his wish not to be kept alive in such a circumstance.
Did the hospital respect his clearly defined wishes? No. They applied to the Court for a decision. Fortunately the judge ruled that the patient had made his wishes clear and the hospital must remove the life support.

A patient in a nursing home, a quadriplegic, who is being kept alive by feeding into a tube in his stomach. He does not want to live like this and has requested the feeding cease. The nursing home continues to force this and he, of course, is helpless to do anything about it.

I simply can't think of any more gross violation of our basic human rights than what is happening in both these cases which probably are replicated hundreds of times across the country.

 

[Mr J]

I don't understand why people would insist on keeping them alive.

 

[MrBurns]

A patient in a nursing home, a quadriplegic, who is being kept alive by feeding into a tube in his stomach. He does not want to live like this and has requested the feeding cease. The nursing home continues to force this and he, of course, is helpless to do anything about it.

Saw that report and the grinning do gooder taking delight in running other peoples lives, " oh we should be showing him why he has reasons to live - big grin " pull his spine out and see how fast the optimism fades.

Tragic case.

 

[skyQuake]

Two news reports in thelast 24 hours which further demonstrate the need for open discussion (and hopefully law change) on the right to die.

A man in his 70's who developed septic shock, all his organs shut down, and he was placed on life support. He had a document making clear his wish not to be kept alive in such a circumstance.
Did the hospital respect his clearly defined wishes? No. They applied to the Court for a decision. Fortunately the judge ruled that the patient had made his wishes clear and the hospital must remove the life support.

They just wanna cover the a$$e$, didn't want to get sued for negligence. Also with the document about not wanting hospital treatment, that opens a can of worms. Was he sane when he wrote that? Does he want to change his mind now facing imminent death? Was it a forgery so his heirs can claim his assets? etc

A patient in a nursing home, a quadriplegic, who is being kept alive by feeding into a tube in his stomach. He does not want to live like this and has requested the feeding cease. The nursing home continues to force this and he, of course, is helpless to do anything about it.

I simply can't think of any more gross violation of our basic human rights than what is happening in both these cases which probably are replicated hundreds of times across the country.

This on the other hand is just plain wrong. Nursing homes syphoning money from the edlerly, then the hospitals syphoning the rest (and prob into debt) before they die.

 

[Trevor_S]

A man in his 70's who developed septic shock, all his organs shut down, and he was placed on life support. He had a document making clear his wish not to be kept alive in such a circumstance.
Did the hospital respect his clearly defined wishes? No. They applied to the Court for a decision. Fortunately the judge ruled that the patient had made his wishes clear and the hospital must remove the life support.

That's a little disnegious isn't it ? My understanding was they applied to the court to make sure it was okay to follow his wishes. Once the Court said it was okay, away they want. Last thing the hospital would want is some 1/2 ass'd relative taking them to court for being callous ? No harm in a double check IMO.

I am all for euthanasia, always have been, it's an affront to have other people make that decision for me. As was my Dad, who ended up riddled with cancer, rotting him and his body and brain away away, imploring to be let go but kept on the edge until he succumbed.

 

[Julia]

That's a little disnegious isn't it ?

What does 'disnegious' mean?

Re applying to the court, imo whether it was reasonable or not depends on how long it took. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be enduring the machinery of life support while days or weeks went by waiting for a court opening.

And this question goes back to the absolute need for a properly executed document like the "Advance Health Directive", regularly reviewed with the person's doctor, thus providing assurance to medical staff that instructions contained in said document are made by person of sound mind etc etc.

 

[Happy]

Two news reports in thelast 24 hours which further demonstrate the need for open discussion (and hopefully law change) on the right to die.

A man in his 70's who developed septic shock, all his organs shut down, and he was placed on life support. He had a document making clear his wish not to be kept alive in such a circumstance.
Did the hospital respect his clearly defined wishes? No. They applied to the Court for a decision. Fortunately the judge ruled that the patient had made his wishes clear and the hospital must remove the life support.

A patient in a nursing home, a quadriplegic, who is being kept alive by feeding into a tube in his stomach. He does not want to live like this and has requested the feeding cease. The nursing home continues to force this and he, of course, is helpless to do anything about it.

I simply can't think of any more gross violation of our basic human rights than what is happening in both these cases which probably are replicated hundreds of times across the country.

Removing life support and stopping supply of food in my opinion is quite cruel in itself if one wants painless clean death.

Animals are put to sleep to die, but for some reason Australia all is warried about is ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM.

It tells me only one thig, Australia is corrupt to the core and we have no hope that this will not be abused. Wrong?

 

[Julia]

Removing life support and stopping supply of food in my opinion is quite cruel in itself if one wants painless clean death.

Agree, Happy. It's far from ideal. But better than force feeding to keep alive, surely?

 

[veni_vedi_vici]

A patient in a nursing home, a quadriplegic, who is being kept alive by feeding into a tube in his stomach. He does not want to live like this and has requested the feeding cease. The nursing home continues to force this and he, of course, is helpless to do anything about it.

There was actually a case in I think the UK I cant re-call the name (dont have time to go through my notes) where a lady was involved in a car crash. She was taken to the hopsital where the surgeon began to work on her. One of the nurses found a card in her pocket saying that, "under no circumstances am I to recieve a blood transfusion" and it was also signed by the lady. The doctor, to save her life did a blood transfusion disregarding the note which in turn saved her life. Once the lady had recovered she sued the hospital for battery and was sucessful in claiming damages (quite problematic as with compensation they try to put the plaintiff in the position they would have been in had the tort not occured - which in this case would have been death).

Just reading your post made me think of that case, and im quite sure that if this was brought to the courts they would find for the plaintiff and enforce an injuction or w/e he/she is seeking.

(ino its a bit of a random rant I had there but just came to mind)

Kind regards,

V

 

[Julia]

That's a good example of what can happen, vvv. But I guess all the successful court outcomes in the world aren't going to make up to the person for a living hell of a life when they did their best to ensure their life would not have been saved in the event of not being able to fully recover.

 

[gav]

A patient in a nursing home, a quadriplegic, who is being kept alive by feeding into a tube in his stomach. He does not want to live like this and has requested the feeding cease. The nursing home continues to force this and he, of course, is helpless to do anything about it.

It has been revealed in todays news that this man tried committing suicide in the early 90's because he was depressed - this is before he became a quadriplegic.

Not the clear-cut case it first appeared to be...

 

[Happy]

It has been revealed in todays news that this man tried committing suicide in the early 90's because he was depressed - this is before he became a quadriplegic.

Not the clear-cut case it first appeared to be...

Naughty boy, but also reflection of his surroundings that allowed him to slip into depression.

People start to be depressed most of the time when something goes wrong, then every next step is sort of different, but all lead to similar end if there is no helping event or helping hand to snap out of it.

Being 90 years old is alone good reason to be depressed, wrong?

 

[James Austin]

did anyone see this?

just 3 days remaining if you want to view it.

go to http://www.abc.net.au/iview/
and select "the suicide tourist"

understandably a subject few wish to think about, . . . . . but we all stand in the same queue

 

[stocksontheblock]

My view: its an individuals choice, and thus an individual should have the right - without question - to make his or her own decision about what to happen to him or her when the time comes.

Personally, this is irrespective of the nature for the decision. This is not to say that the person should be able to make this sort of decision while in a straight-jacket, locked in a padded cell and doped to the eyeballs. They should be of a reasonably sound mind when the decision or the request is made - whether this be at the time of wanting it done, or when a declaration is made - such as a will.

I guess it’s the last real taboo, and while the majority want it, I don’t think anyone person (or political party) has the balls to be the one to implement it.

My choice should be respected, regardless of the reason for it, and especially regardless of your own values and morals.

If you wish to live/carry on then do so, if I wish to die/end it then I should be allowed to do so.

 

[gav]

My view: its an individuals choice, and thus an individual should have the right - without question - to make his or her own decision about what to happen to him or her when the time comes.

Well then an individual should also have the right - without question - to make his or her own decision about what they put in their own body. Just because the govt says smoking dope is illegal (or any other illegal drug for that matter), who are they to say what I can/cannot do with my own body? ESPECIALLY when there are legal drugs that cause massive health problems in society Eg. ciggies and alcohol...

Personally, this is irrespective of the nature for the decision. This is not to say that the person should be able to make this sort of decision while in a straight-jacket, locked in a padded cell and doped to the eyeballs. They should be of a reasonably sound mind when the decision or the request is made - whether this be at the time of wanting it done, or when a declaration is made - such as a will.

I guess it’s the last real taboo, and while the majority want it, I don’t think anyone person (or political party) has the balls to be the one to implement it.

My choice should be respected, regardless of the reason for it, and especially regardless of your own values and morals.

If you wish to live/carry on then do so, if I wish to die/end it then I should be allowed to do so.

So a healthy person who is sound of mind wishes to die, that's OK?

stocksontheblock, I'm not against euthanasia but it's not as simple as you make it sound...

 

[Julia]

stocksontheblock, I'm not against euthanasia but it's not as simple as you make it sound...

That's true, it's not simple.
And even finding a foolproof means of dying isn't easy.
(With apologies to anyone who finds this comment too graphic.)