How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 A Duty to Die   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

A Duty to Die

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


25 posted 09-29-2008 07:25 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Huan,

People with advanced dementia canít make a living will and Warnock knows that, she isnít planting anything as far as theyíre concerned. Sheís asking people who can make a living will to consider the possible suffering and make an informed choice now to avoid burdening someone else with an impossible choice later on.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


26 posted 09-30-2008 12:40 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Jim,

Thanks for the clarification.


BTW,

To clarify I didn't mean the discussion itself is "stupid".  What I mean is, in this discussion concepts like "mercy" and the wisdom of writing advanced directives are being confused with the real issue she is advocating:  Euthanasia.  No one is debating whether we should make our wishes about CPR and life-support unambiguous.  And no one is debating whether it is sometimes the most merciful thing to allow someone to die.  

Grinch,

She isn't talking about advanced directives under the current legal form.  She's talking about Euthanasia, not refusing CPR.  She's also saying quite clearly that anyone who requires intensive care from others is a waste, a leech on society, and should be voluntarily killed, or (if they can't make that decision by advanced directives) be killed by others.

"Mercy Killing" sounds merciful, and yet it is still wrong.  In this case, the guise of doing this out of concern for the loved one is brazenly dropped ... and openly admitted that it is mostly about the economic and psycholocial inconvenience of caretakers family or otherwise.

Frightening.


Stephen
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


27 posted 09-30-2008 12:20 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

A madest proposal might be to reread A Modest Proposal.  

Jim
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


28 posted 09-30-2008 01:50 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
She's also saying quite clearly that anyone who requires intensive care from others is a waste, a leech on society, and should be voluntarily killed, or (if they can't make that decision by advanced directives) be killed by others.


I donít read it that way Stephen, and thatís certainly not the impression I got from her radio interview.

She advocated that euthanasia should, under certain circumstances, be legalised, she advocated that the right to make that decision should lie solely with the individual. I didnít see anywhere a suggestion that she was advocating that old people should be summarily executed against their wishes, I could have missed it though - can you supply a quote?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


29 posted 09-30-2008 03:50 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

>

Would you kill a sick friend who implored you to help them to die with dignity? JANE CHRISTIE, Bath

If I had the courage.

I am, like you, in my eighties. Do you really think I am hogging space and should "shuffle off" when become ill and a burden? L CLEMENT, Hove

Yes, but only when you are sure that you are a burden, and enjoy no compensatory pleasures.

If someone is physically healthy but chronically depressed and wants to end their life, should doctors be allowed to help? CELIA ROXBURGH, London

This is an extremely difficult question. Many people with severe clinical depression will sooner or later commit suicide unless under constant surveillance. If I were a doctor, I think (but don't know) that I might supply such a person with the means. But this is not to say that I wouldn't feel guilt and sorrow.

.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/baroness-warnock-you-ask-the-questions-409096.html


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


30 posted 09-30-2008 05:22 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Huan,

Thanks for the examples - none of which, I note, advocate executing old people against their will.

Oh! You missed this one:

quote:
What was the reasoning that led you to support the right to assisted suicide? TESSA QUINN-DAVIES, Guildford

I think I am moved more by compassion than reason. I could not bear to think of the suffering of Diane Pretty. I realise that "hard cases make bad law". But I believe that sooner or later we shall have to contrive a law that, in certain strictly limited cases, will permit assisted suicide.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


31 posted 09-30-2008 07:59 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Grinch


Maneuver  as you may, she sets a tone
for the old and,(or),  infirm to believe
themselves a burden to be remedied
by assisted suicide.
I know from personal experience
how fragile some people are.   Given
a few million for a marketing campaign
on that theme of being a burden
I can almost guarantee
the State a good return, (in saved expenses),
on their investment as well as a nice profit
for myself.

John

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


32 posted 09-30-2008 10:27 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
I didn't see anywhere a suggestion that she was advocating that old people should be summarily executed against their wishes, I could have missed it though - can you supply a quote?

No, you didn't see an overt reference to having other people put them to death (politicians know that such stark honest language would be too jarring for the 'slip in', and that radical things must be eased in with one lost principle at a time).  But you did see an unabashed statement that people with dementia are simply wasting the time of others, and that if they are able they have a duty to willingly check out.  (BTW this is one of the rudest and most uncompassionate statements I've ever heard uttered-  I'm hoping it is because of the onset of dementia or something like that, and not a reflection of her true moral character).       

Just follow where the logic leads ... Who will make medical decisions for those whose brains are on the fritz?  Firsts of kin, or Powers of Attorney.  If self-determined-euthanasia is allowed and brought in under the guise of "medical treatment", it will surely follow that such decisions will fall into the hands of others when a person can't competently make those decisions.  How do we know that?  Because current end-of-life-decisions already fall into the hands of someone else whenever a person loses cognition.  By default, they have to.

To allow this is to allow it across the board.

Trust me, my work involves advanced directives and DNR forms on a daily basis.  I know how it works.

This is a plug for Euthanasia (nothing new I suppose except the despicable guilt trip part), and if self-determined-euthanasia is confused for a valid medical intervention, it will fall into the control of others at some point.  And from dementia it will also find a path of application to any number of medical conditions ranging from bothersome to severely stressful.


Stephen  
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


33 posted 10-01-2008 02:17 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
This is a plug for Euthanasia


Of course it is, nobody as far as I can see, is saying itís anything else but what you seem to completely ignore is that whatís suggested isnít some kind of imposed euthanasia, itís euthanasia by choice, carried out if, and only if itĎs what the individual wants.

I believe that I should have the right under certain circumstances to determine whether I continue to live or whether Iíd prefer to peacefully shed this mortal coil. To insure against the possibility that Iíll be unable to voice my opinion when the time comes, leaving that decision to others, I want the right to state clearly in a living will the circumstances and criteria so that everyone knows what my choice would be and can act accordingly.

If you donít want the option of euthanasia thatís fine you have the right to choose - donít make a living will, or better still make one and clearly state that you want everything possible done to keep you alive. All I, and Warnock are asking is you extend the right to choose to everybody else.

quote:
I'm hoping it is because of the onset of dementia or something like that, and not a reflection of her true moral character


If this is a reflection of your moral character Stephen Iím not sure youíre the right person to judge. You know, or should know, how horrifying dementia is, wishing it on someone else, under any circumstances isnít clever and it certainly isnít funny.

On that note I think Iíll make this my last post, before I say something I may regret.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


34 posted 10-01-2008 11:26 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
what you seem to completely ignore is that whatís suggested isnít some kind of imposed euthanasia, itís euthanasia by choice, carried out if, and only if itĎs what the individual wants.



And an advance directive is only a guide to allow families to know someone's wishes.  However, when that person loses legal cognition to make decisions, the family always take precidence over a piece of paper.

Someone else will have always have the say when it comes to patients with dementia or mental illness ... period.

Why are you not responding to this argument?

quote:
If you donít want the option of euthanasia thatís fine you have the right to choose - donít make a living will, or better still make one and clearly state that you want everything possible done to keep you alive. All I, and Warnock are asking is you extend the right to choose to everybody else.


There's a difference between MD-assisted-suicide and opting to refrain from treatment, to allow impending death to ensue.  We're talking about two different things since, if death were about to ensue, there would be no need for MD-assisted-suicide.  Euthanasia would apply to terminal illness perhaps which has little to do with imminent death and "code-blue" situations.  The very fact that things like dementia are being brought into the conversation indicates that euthanasia will be applied to a non-descript host of long-term-conditions which render people legally unable to make their own medical decisions.  Using Warnock's present reasoning, Mental Retardation, Down's Syndrome, and Schizophrenia (and childhood, if you push the logic) would all be valid reasons for Euthanasia.  And since, as I've mentioned before, Next of Kin and Powers of Attorney will have the say, guess where that would lead?

quote:
If this is a reflection of your moral character Stephen Iím not sure youíre the right person to judge. You know, or should know, how horrifying dementia is, wishing it on someone else, under any circumstances isnít clever and it certainly isnít funny.


I don't wish mental retardation on anyone Grinch ... That doesn't mean I would be so unfeeling as to chide them for being a wasteful burden on their caretakers (this is Warnock, not you), or desire to see them put to death willingly or otherwise.  Again the absurd thing about what Warnock has said, is that dementia patients cannot decide for themselves, and so that decision will by default pass to someone else.


In the final analysis, there are two things you're not addressing:

1)  Advance Directives have to do with end-of-life-decisions which are different than prolonged illness or chronic conditions which make a person unable to make choices.  

2)  The medical choices of those unable to decide for themselves always fall in the hands of others.


What have I failed to address?  I understand that you are only opting for individual choice about Euthanasia.  I've responded by saying Advanced Directives are simply directives not legally binding beyond the choice of Kin or Power of Attorney ... and that others who say no to euthanasia or do not specify will be subject to having others decide as well.  


Stephen        
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


35 posted 10-02-2008 06:20 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch,

I wanted to also say that my comment about hoping Warnock's thinking was due to dementia was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.  I apologize ... I didn't intend to offend you.  I do not wish dementia upon anyone.  

But if any virtue can be found in my joke of poor taste, perhaps it is this:  That sometimes a functionally sound mind can be worse-off (in many ways) than the mentally handicapped; and the kind of cold utilitarian thinking that I perceive from Warnock, I believe falls into this category.

From your offense at my jest, might you begin to understand how offensive to some it is for her to say (not at all in jest) that people with senility or other forms of dementia are simply "wasting" other people's lives?


Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (10-04-2008 09:59 PM).]

oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


36 posted 10-03-2008 04:45 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Steven: re  "And an advance directive is only a guide to allow families to know someone's wishes.  However, when that person loses legal cognition to make decisions, the family always take precidence over a piece of paper."

DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY "A legal document that enables an individual to designate another person, called the attorney-in-fact, to act on his/her behalf, even in the event the individual becomes disabled or incapacitated. An "advance directive" (sometimes called a "healthcare directive") combines a living will and durable power of attorney, either in one document or two separate ones."

This content can be found on the following page:
http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?id=1601&term=Durable%20Power%20of%20Attorney

I'm getting a little confused here, given the above definition. Per your experience in dealing with these issues, your post suggests that the Durable Power or Advanced Directive is subordinate to the wishes of an individual's family, and that it is not a legally binding document or set of documents.

If this is so, it makes the whole thing pretty pointless if a relative simply doesn't choose to honor a relative's choices.

Brings up some other questions:  Is a religiously founded/funded hospital entitled to ignore a patient's DNR request if such a request is contrary to the institution's philosophy?

Is a primary attending physician in any hospital, on the basis of his/her moral belief, entitled to ignore a patient's DNR request.  

If a patient has stipulated in an Advanced Directive that they wish to be creamated after after death, or donate body or organs upon death, and a relative objects for whatever reason, does the relative's view take precedence?

I'm not arguing a position, just looking for more information.

Best, Jimbeaux


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


37 posted 10-03-2008 08:43 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Jim,

I appreciate your questions.  I'll give it a shot (forget the pun), though I'm still learning things myself about these issues.    

quote:
I'm getting a little confused here, given the above definition. Per your experience in dealing with these issues, your post suggests that the Durable Power or Advanced Directive is subordinate to the wishes of an individual's family, and that it is not a legally binding document or set of documents.

If this is so, it makes the whole thing pretty pointless if a relative simply doesn't choose to honor a relative's choices.



You're right.  In some cases it can be 'pointless', though not entirely.  I've seen next-of-kin go against living wills in many cases, and in those cases the wishes of the living family always take precedence over the piece of paper.  There are practical/ legal reasons for that, I suspect.  The family can always claim that they know better the patient's most recent and intimate wishes than a document (that was often signed years before) can provide.  In a considerable number of cases, however, the family does go ahead and honor the written wishes.  Like I said before, the living will (I used the word 'advance directive' which you're right to point out is not exactly the same - more on that in a bit) is in reality more of a guideline.  And questions can always arise in the minds of those presently conversant with the Medical Staff, about whether the layperson in the hospital bed really understood (before they were unable to respond) what they were signing way back when.  The bottom line is, if the next-of-kin second-guesses any of this, they may act contrary to the ink.  


What about the Power of Attorney?  In that case, the POA does override next-of-kin (though often they are one and the same).  But just like the previous scenario, the POA is not bound to a piece of paper, but is the source of the final decision.


So for good or for ill, written statements work sometimes and to limited degrees.  We still value living decisions more than documents I suppose.  


I am for Living Wills, but more than that ... I'm for clear communication to whoever (spouse or otherwise) is likely to be making those kinds of decisions.  For when the time comes you'll likely be cognitively absent from the decision.


That's where the rub comes in this discussion.  The mentally demented are already legally "absent" from the decision.  And if they may be euthanized (something quite different from withholding treatment in an actively dying situation- which is what is currently supported under our laws) based upon a previously signed document perhaps years old, there will be a strong argument that next of kin, POAs, and medical professionals (where there are no family members or POA involved) should be able to make the same kind of decision.  And Voila ... you have state sanctioned homocide of those who cannot legally make their own decisions.


I'm actually glad this discussion has taken place, because I feel that there are a lot of misconceptions ... and often not the clearest view of what would ensue if such a course were followed.  Talking it through helps, I think.

quote:
Is a religiously founded/funded hospital entitled to ignore a patient's DNR request if such a request is contrary to the institution's philosophy?

Legally the patient (along with Physician approval, though this MD requisite is legally questionable when it comes to DNRs) has the say.  But, having said that, I am also aware of no religious perspective that would condemn the refusal of life support by the actively dying.  What is religiously condemned (in most if not all major religious views) is the subtle step forward into interventional causation of death via pharmocology.        

quote:
Is a primary attending physician in any hospital, on the basis of his/her moral belief, entitled to ignore a patient's DNR request.


I'm pretty sure that the patient's wishes to refuse any medical treatment is  legally binding.  The physician in this case would only have to option to "quit" or "fire" the patient, while turning over care to another physician.  But again, I've never known of a doctor (religiously minded or otherwise) who would oppose a DNR request.  The tension runs mostly in the other direction ... where the physician doesn't want to "code" imminently dying patients whose decision-makers keep insisting on the full expression of ACLS (advanced Cardiac Life Support) over and over again.      

quote:
If a patient has stipulated in an Advanced Directive that they wish to be creamated after after death, or donate body or organs upon death, and a relative objects for whatever reason, does the relative's view take precedence?


The same answer as I gave above.  Ultimately a living decision-maker takes precedence over a document.  The best option is to have harmony of wishes among your close kin, or if not, then the willingness to honor your wishes even if they don't quite agree.  And in many cases, this is (thankfully) exactly the way it is.


Stephen
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> A Duty to Die   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors