»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
A Duty to Die
| Philosophy 101 |
|
A Duty to Die |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. “there was "nothing wrong" with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2 983652/Baroness-Warnock-Dementia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html?source=EMC-new_19092008 Might have some Boomer interest . |
||
| © Copyright 2008 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
This is dizzying. Are you having fun spinning us from one end of the lifespan to the other?  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I couldn't resist. Retirement This story is too long for most of our readers, I suspect, and it's little more than an experiment in point-of-view for a creative writing class I was taking, probably around 1994. But it's pertinent, I think. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
John -- Bizarre article. The lady is clearly demented. Probably ought to be put down. I think individuals should have the opportunity to choose to avoid prolonged and ultimately pointless suffering, provided that decision is made, through a living will or Durable Power of Attorney. when that indidual is still capable of making such decisions. No government should have the right to determine who lives or dies on the basis of convenience. The obvious extention of this is the euthanizing of children who have no possibility of living a socially productive life. Then euthanizing socially "unfit" individuals, then groups of people who are socially undesireable, then outright state sanctioned genocide. One doesn't have to be hit over the head with a particularly large hammer to realize all the above has happened and is happening now. It doesn't make it any less disgusting. Ron: Two good tales going on in your piece, and, as the narrator comments self referentially in the piece, they may be a bit tenuously connected. The social implications and the Orwellian bits ring true. And, in fact, in this society, we are already seeing cutbacks in Medicare funding, penurious "cost of living" increases in earned Social Security benifits -- assuring that even the elderly and disabled who have earned benefits through work get "poorer" each year -- the "solution" to the costs of mental health care expressed as the closing, in in at least Calafornia and Arizona, to be simply closing the hospitals and putting the patients on the street, etc. The story is a projection into the future, and, in at least one aspect, is not yet universally true in this society, even though it might come to pass: Not all families as yet have institutionalized or abandoned their inconvenient elders. Some people, of course, do make that choice, and some people for many different reasons, find that choice forced upon them, or at least feel that it is. I tried to find some stats on percentages of people who put their parents in a home as opposed to those who care for their parents at home, and stats that indicate whether there is a trend, and in which direction it is going. Couldn't pin anything down. I'm sure such figures exist, and the inconclusive imformation I've found is do to my faulty search. Someone might come up with a useful link. Since this was posted in P101 rather than the Alley, I'm not ranting about anything. Philosophically, I think a humane society --and that the point of society seems to be to enhance our levels of humanity -- can not use euthanization of its weakest members as an economic tool. If the piece you wrote and John's link suggest we may be "losing" our humanity, I'm not really sure about that. I will agree that our own society is making some very questionable assements of social priorities. From a Christian referential perspective, in Mother Theresa's transliteration "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of the least of these, you neglected to do unto me!" If indeed, in a monistic, secular approach, we are all of one body, the thought it pretty much the same. Best, Jimbeaux [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (09-26-2008 05:59 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I listened to a radio interview she took part in yesterday and I found myself agreeing with everything she said. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I think with a little effort you can create a generational sense of guilt at still being alive and an obligation then to die. There’s still enough time what with Boomers just beginning to retire to work on it. And it could be made a pleasant experience. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edQNjJZFdLU&feature=related . |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Just popping in to ask Ron about his story-- um, if yer not gonna finish that, can we switch plates?  |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Grinch -- But then, you're so easily swayed. John: We, wife Deb and I, are trying an alternative approach to to the problems of aging poor and in ill health. Last month, we moved out of public housing (a subdized rent we were entitled to and could afford) and are now sharing a private home with friends of 30 years. This is a life altering commitment, since the possibility of getting back into the public system is nil. There's a philosophy behind this, which won't necessarily sit well with Libertarians. We, as I suspect is true for others, are in the process of re-inventing, yet again, the commune, or communal living -- a pooling of resources. I think this has a chance of working, since we're all quite a bit older than we were in the '60's, and actually have some resources to pool. This is the set-up: Our friends, Diana and Warren, own (with a bank, of course) a very nice, very middle class home with 5 bedrooms in the high desert on the fringe of Los Angeles County. Warren is in the final stage of Alzheimers, rigid in body and detached in mind, requiring 24/7 care. Deb is now quadriplegic with MS, requiring 24/7 care. Warren and Diana have a decent retirement income from Warren's career as a police officer and Social Security. Because of the help required in maintaing his health, even a decent retirement doesn't float the boat. Deb and I have modest disibility incomes, about $22,000 a year, below, I think, poverty for two people, or darned close. On the other hand the state of California allots $24,000 a year for in home care-givers, which is less than what it would cost for both of us to be, ah, instituionalized. It's all win-win. Warren is not entitled to the care-giver benefit, because his retirement income is above poverty level. Warren and Diana are paying for needed full time caregivers out of pocket. It's a stretch, and in fact, they go deeper into the credit card hole each month. Such is life. Now, by combining resources, and with the addition of one more person to this "commune," we all have the potential to live with some degree of security, pizza, and Chinese take-out. Philosophically, this requires a mind-set shift from what is "mine," (including all of us) to what is "ours," (including all of us.) I think it takes special, though not unique, people to be able to do this. In the 80's, Ram Dass attempted to set up a similar communal situation for people with AIDS. It didn't work because there was no commonality between the people other than a shared disease. Too much emphasis on individuality as opposed to "group," and too much tension as a result. (To say nothing of the difficulty of watching people die, and an inability to accept the process with some degree of dispassion.) Today, there are services in most communities which attempt to match seniors with roommates, sharing the load. These seem to be only modestly successful -- too much "me" and not enough "us" involved. This is perfectly understandable. As "boomers," we got involved in a whole lot of "me-ness" and not too much "us-ness." I don't know how this one possible alternative living and mind set is going to work out. It didn't seem to work for kids, there are innumerable instances of it not working out for mid-life adults, but maybe it has a chance among old farts with long time friends. We're here to help each other out. Best, Jimbeaux Added postscript: Boomers can be a bit different. I would never have occured to my Father, for example, not to "take care" of his and my Mom's aging parents, regardless of the sacrifices involved. At the same time, I think the notion of living with others would be entirely outside of his inculcated world view. And I still love my long gone Dad. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: So do I Jim, and oddly enough so does Baroness Warnock, please re-read the article with that in mind, or better still read one that keeps her quotes in context instead of trying to twist her words into some sort of manifesto for compulsory culling, this for instance: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article401956.ece She’s advocating the right for people to choose, granted she uses blunt and sometimes seemingly cold and clinical language but she’s not advocating anything very different than what you or I already agree on. All three of us are either demented, easily swayed or in need of putting down, singling out one of us on the strength of a single article seems a little unfair. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "She’s advocating the right for people to choose" But she's also trying to influence their choice in favor of suicide as relieving the burden of their still living on the state. (It reminds me a WWII story where a speaker made a distinction that while Japanese were asked if not expected to die for the Emperor no one was asking Americans to die for President Roosevelt). . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I don't have a problem with the old, sick, or feeble. Not so long as they're smart and well educated, like Warnock so obviously is. Indeed, I think the criteria for life should be intelligence. With education tied in there some way? Anyone with an I.Q. of less than, say, 150, is clearly just a drain on society. No, I'm certainly not suggesting we should start killing all the stupid people in this world. That would be cruel. We should, however, much as Warnock suggests, start instilling a greater sense of duty into our children. If they don't have the intelligence and education to contribute in a meaningful way, they should at least have the decency to make their stay a short one. And we definitely have to stop subsidizing stupidity by providing social doles for the intellectually challenged. No more government assistance. Let them pay for their own limitations. I mean, okay, we have to give the rich and stupid a bit more leeway, I guess, than the poor and stupid? Just so long as it doesn't come out of the pockets of the truly gifted. Uh, wait a minute. I just checked some old paperwork and I think an I.Q. of 150 might be a little too optimistic. But definitely anyone less than 142? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Ron, Maybe there could be a test at retirement. Above a certain mark the door to the right, below the door to the left. John PS And let's appreciate: we're not talking going off to green fields with the sun on your face. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Huan, If someone reads what she writes, or hears what she says, and decides not to write a living will are they being influenced? Your statement suggests that there’s a danger that people will blindly, and without seriously considering the options, listen to Warnock and opt for euthanasia. That they will decide to write a living will based solely on the fact that Warnock points out the level of future suffering. I think that believing Warnock has such an influence is an untenable notion and that, in fact, pointing out the possible consequences of extreme dementia can‘t be a bad thing as it allows an informed choice. My mom had a saying that seems fairly apt, she used to say “if someone told you to jump into a fire, would you just do it?” what she was trying to point out was that at the end of the day it was my choice. People will read what Warnock writes, hear what she says and do exactly what Baroness Warnock is suggesting they do - they’ll make their own mind up. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
John, I wasn't talking about retirement. The test should be given to five-year-olds. Stupidity shouldn't be tolerated for six decades. Grinch, the fact that Warnock is entitled to her opinion doesn't make her opinion right. I will be the first to argue for her right to tell people their lives have no meaning. I will also be the first to argue she's horribly wrong in suggesting that only rich parents get to decide whether their child is more trouble than it's worth. Beware anyone who tries to tell you what your duty is. Such advice is invariably self-serving. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, I nearly argued that stupidity wasn’t fatal, then realised that it very often is. As far as Warnock goes her ideas regarding wealth and a willingness to pay being a determining factor as to whether a child survives is, as far as I’m concerned, complete twaddle. I think Warnock, like Dawkins pushing evolution, shoots herself in the foot by using sensationalism and controversy to highlight an issue that needs to be discussed. The title of her article “A duty to die” suggests an imperative that doesn’t sit easily with her insistence that choice is, and should be, the only imperative. “A duty to consider death” would have been closer to what she said in the radio interview and what I get as the underlying message in the article. I read “Here are the possibilities, think about them, then make your own mind up”. I heard the possibilities, I thought about it and I decided that, as far as dementia goes, I don’t need to make that choice, at least not today (stupidity is another story). What I did decide was that when it comes to other people I don’t think I have any moral right to deny them that choice. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim: quote: What could be wrong about people coming together to help one another and love one another even to the point of holding their belongings in common? Would your father have objected to such, or are you implying something more ... something remotely akin to wife swapping? I don't mean to insult or accuse you here, but your language seemed ambiguous yet suggestive. I could be totally misreading you, and If so I'll be embarrassed. I suppose the question came because of what you said about your father. I can't understand how even a conservative mind could oppose a communal situation of brotherly love, while the sacred bonds of marriage are still held as such. your friend, Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
The stupid thing about this whole conversation is that people with dementia can't rightly make that decision anyway. This is just another plug for active Euthanasia, when it all boils down. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Steven -- Sorry to have been unclear about my Dad. Many of his generation, like him, and many folks now, were and are strong advocates of self reliance. The notion of pooling resources, (not wives!)was beyond the scope of there thinking. That may be why the notion of of of a commune implied communism, and in in part, why counter-culture communes were viewed with distaste and suspicion. It's possible that one of the reasons most "hippie" communes were short lived, is that they had to much romance of the social and moral sort, and not enough planning beyond getting through the day. And they were often foredoomed by a lack of the very thing most rejected and most needed. Money. It may be more common today to pool resources, the point of mutual funds, investment banks, and insurance policies, to anticipate a greater return or benefit from combined investment and shared risk. That these strategies have proven more risky than assumed, re the current economic quandry, the bank runs and market collapse of the 20's, may be more due to abuse of investment vehicles than the general notion. When there is a commonality of purpose, I think the mini-commune still has a chance of success, as you also suggest. It works in religious communities, in the Hawaiian notion of forming a "hui," in small farm co-ops, and so forth. I don't know if other small groups of like minded seniors, without a single charismatic leader, are forming to take care of themselves. but I'm not suggesting that it is the answer for everybody. I think it may take an openness to a differnt kind of thinking. The idea, of course, is far from new, but this particular implimentation by the aging and/or infirm may be somewhat different. It's just one way of taking care of ourselves while taking care of others. It is a way of remaining self-reliant while group dependent. I let that thought hang out there. Wish us luck. Grinch: I should have put a smiley face after my initial comment. Indeed, I am in agreement with "choice." It was a snarky remark. Apologies to anyone offended. The creation of a Living Will and Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care is pretty straightforward, at least in the US. The forms may be downloaded for free from the Internet, fill in the blanks, and sign them. It doesn't require an attorney, but the signatures should be notarized. This is why it is a good idea to complete these instruments while one can still sign things. Ron: There seems to be something valid to the "intelligence" business. It doesn't take genius, but it does take the ability to act with foresight. The fact relatively few people make even rudimentary plans for the "future" -- on the off hand that we have one -- may be an indication of willful stupidity, since the tools are readily available. I was watching an episode of "Dirty Jobs" in which the host learned the rudiments of ostrich wrangling. It is in fact, a tough and dirty job. I found it impossible, though, not to laugh when ostrich's with a snood covering their beaks and head, became, if not quite passive, at least highly manageable. Then, of course, it struck me that this is living metaphor. Are there too many snoods on too many heads? A review of P101 and The Alley suggests that many merry Pipster's think so. The differences revolve around the individually percieved nature of the snoods. Best, Jimbeaux [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (09-28-2008 06:08 PM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Stephanos “ The stupid thing about this whole conversation is that people with dementia can't rightly make that decision anyway. “ You have a point. Yet that helplessness is what makes the possibility possible. If they were able to stand at the top of the stairs and kill anyone coming up after them, after a thousand shot down those in favor would think about it; after ten thousand those in favor would probably give up the idea altogether. PS "Are you having fun spinning us from one end of the lifespan to the other?" Actually, Yes. Makes things a little less distant and abstract doesn't it? John . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Why not? |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Grinch -- There is a problem with people with dementia being subject to manipulation. As are we all. But some folks have more awareness of it than others. I don't think it is a stupid discussion. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Isn’t that exactly what a living will is designed to avoid? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Isn’t that exactly what a living will is designed to avoid?" Are those with dementia capable of authoring such a thing or would it be a case of someone else directing their fingers on the keys? . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Huan, A person with extreme dementia couldn’t make a legally binding living will, with or without the aid of someone else. The standard strap line - “I being of sound mind..” that prefaces most peoples expectations in a standard will counts exactly the same for a living will. That’s not to say that sufferers of early stage dementia are automatically excluded, dementia is, after all, a terminal but progressive condition. Warnock isn’t suggesting that sufferers of extreme dementia are permitted to opt for permanent retirement via euthanasia - that‘d be just plain stupid, she’s suggesting that people make living wills in case and before the worst happens. My living will covers dementia and a whole host of other possibilities not because I suffer from any of them, I just want everyone to know what my choice is if and when it comes time for my family to make a difficult and really big decision. That’s what Warnock is advocating. [This message has been edited by Grinch (09-29-2008 06:42 PM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives because they are a burden on the NHS and their families, according to the influential medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock. . . . The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives" because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain. " This seems to about people who are already in mental decline, not anticipating it. Simple fact is she has planted the seed. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Huan, People with advanced dementia can’t make a living will and Warnock knows that, she isn’t planting anything as far as they’re concerned. She’s 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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
A madest proposal might be to reread A Modest Proposal. Jim |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don’t read it that way Stephen, and that’s 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 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? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
> 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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Huan, Thanks for the examples - none of which, I note, advocate executing old people against their will. Oh! You missed this one: quote: |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. 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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: 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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Of course it is, nobody as far as I can see, is saying it’s anything else but what you seem to completely ignore is that what’s suggested isn’t some kind of imposed euthanasia, it’s euthanasia by choice, carried out if, and only if it‘s what the individual wants. I believe that I should have the right under certain circumstances to determine whether I continue to live or whether I’d prefer to peacefully shed this mortal coil. To insure against the possibility that I’ll 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 don’t want the option of euthanasia that’s fine you have the right to choose - don’t 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: If this is a reflection of your moral character Stephen I’m not sure you’re the right person to judge. You know, or should know, how horrifying dementia is, wishing it on someone else, under any circumstances isn’t clever and it certainly isn’t funny. On that note I think I’ll make this my last post, before I say something I may regret. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: 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: 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: 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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
