dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
3860
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

IamGimli (banned) to DKS

Member

to DKS

Re: Dying in a 'free and informed manner'

said by DKS:

Ah. So the reality of one person triumphs over the standards of the rest of society. That is a perfect example of the argument "It's about me".

Yes, reality should and must triumph over romantic ideals.

The fact that you would deny a person suffering more pain than you are likely to ever experience, with no hope of the situation to get better, the right to opt out in a dignified way amounts to torture. You are willfully imposing pain and suffering on others for nothing but philosophical reasons.

I'm sorry but that is despicable. You talk about "protecting the most vulnerable" yet the most vulnerable are the ones who are physically unable to terminate their suffering themselves, so they need help. Instead of helping and protecting them and their right not to suffer you would torture them as long as you medically can.

How much value is there in a life which cannot be enjoyed, which brings nothing but pain and suffering? Life is the most sacred, personal thing we have. If someone decides that their continued life is of no value, that their continued existence actually reduces the value of their existence, who are you to tell them otherwise?

g121
play lordsgame com | Phone Cops are real
join:2004-05-28
Toronto
Hitron CODA-4680
Asus RT-AC86
Grandstream HT812

2 recommendations

g121 to jaberi

Member

to jaberi
*sigh* i keep reading this thread but have delayed posting as it brings up so many emotions, angst, anger & sorrow ..

having witnessed the ravages of ALS first hand; there are situations where a dignified end to the suffering is the humane course of action .. as Gimli has mentioned, anything less is indeed torture .. life is sacred but so is one's dignity .. & yes, when someone is in that terrible, unfortunate situation, it most definitely is "all about them" ..

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to jaberi

to jaberi
The Canadian Medical Assn. has been holding town hall meetings across Canada on end of life care. They have just released their findings.

»www.cbc.ca/news/health/p ··· .2670162
quote:
The group's conclusions include:
All Canadians should discuss end-of-life wishes with their families or other loved ones.
All Canadians should prepare advance care directives that are appropriate and binding for the jurisdiction in which they live.
A national palliative care strategy is needed.
All Canadians should have access to appropriate palliative care services.
Medical students, residents and practising physicians need more education and training about palliative care approaches and greater knowledge about advance care directives.
Should Canada change laws to allow physician-assisted dying, strict protocols and safeguards are needed to protect vulnerable individuals and populations.

The full CMA report can be found here.
DKS

DKS to eh wut

to eh wut
said by eh wut :

said by DKS:

Ah. So the reality of one person triumphs over the standards of the rest of society.

No.
This is called having a *choice*.
Something you seem to think people shouldn't have when it comes to their own lives. And in your weird vision of society, people are not allowed choice.

When one person's choice forces an unacceptable moral and legal action (at least currently) on another person in society, then no. And sometimes we do not have choices in life or in death.

TigerLord

join:2002-06-09
Canada

2 recommendations

TigerLord

I wouldn't find it unacceptable at all. Not only is it acceptable, it's the best outcome in special cases and if it were me with ALS I hope my wife would love me enough to grant me that request if I'm no longer able to.

By now I am convinced your indoctrinated mind will never admit to the pain and suffering you want to impose to validate primitive worldviews that have no root in these patients' realities. And as Gimli said, it's nothing short of despicable.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

1 recommendation

DKS to g121

to g121
said by g121:

*sigh* i keep reading this thread but have delayed posting as it brings up so many emotions, angst, anger & sorrow ..

That is the challenge in conversation about this issue. We have no other reference point than our own experience, which for many who are not in the helping professions, relatively limited or confined to immediate family. It's much more complex.
DKS

DKS to Gone

to Gone
said by Gone:

said by I_H8_Spam:

Having seen the ravages of cancer far to many times, I agree wholeheartedly.

As horrible as cancer can be and having seen more than one family member die from pancreatic cancer, I will still say that it doesn't hold a candle to something like ALS.

There are many nasty ways to die. But what does our reaction say about our understanding of suffering?

TigerLord

join:2002-06-09
Canada

2 recommendations

TigerLord to DKS

to DKS
said by DKS:

That is the challenge in conversation about this issue. We have no other reference point than our own experience.

What about Gloria Taylor, Sue Rodriguez, and the countless others who took the stand and demonstrated the reality of their existence?

Can you not look at those as points of reference too? Or is their suffering acceptable collateral damage so long the sanctify of life is protected?

I am going to repost this because it is very relevant:

The Life and Death of Gloria Taylor
»www.cbc.ca/fifth/episode ··· a-taylor

What would you, DKS See Profile, or Styvas See Profile, say if Gloria were still alive, and she stood in front of you?

"Sorry Gloria, you must suffer, it's the Lord's will that we protect the value of life, he will come for you eventually, just ride it out!"

You think this reflects empathy, or care?

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

2 recommendations

Gone to DKS

Premium Member

to DKS
said by DKS:

There are many nasty ways to die. But what does our reaction say about our understanding of suffering?

If I was afflicted with ALS, I would give two shits what anyone else thought. It would be about my suffering and dealing with the emotions with having to contemplate and ultimately decide how my life is going to end and how my family will deal with that. Everyone else who has an opinion on the issue can screw the hell off.

TigerLord

join:2002-06-09
Canada

TigerLord

said by Gone:

If I was afflicted with ALS, I would give two shits what anyone else thought. It would be about my suffering and dealing with the emotions with having to contemplate and ultimately decide how my life is going to end and how my family will deal with that. Everyone else who has an opinion on the issue can screw the hell off.

They're going to say you're selfish for thinking that and that your attitude reflects the "all about me" attitude that is current.

Calling it now.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

There is nothing more "all about me" in this world than reconciling the end of one's own life.

TigerLord

join:2002-06-09
Canada

2 recommendations

TigerLord

said by Gone:

There is nothing more "all about me" in this world than reconciling the end of one's own life.

No kidding.

Wanting to control your own life in the end is selfish, but imposing suffering and pain on others to safeguard a philosophy is not selfish?

There's a divide here.

eh wut
@184.162.4.x

eh wut to DKS

Anon

to DKS
In the TorStar:
»www.thestar.com/news/can ··· vey.html
“We’re hearing from the premier of Quebec saying that they’ve instructed their Crown prosecutors not to prosecute any physicians that follow their perspective of what (Bill) 52’s about.

No different than when Qc allowed abortions while the rest of Canada did not. It's all about *choice*.

However, I have no doubts it's also about money in an aging society.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to Gone

to Gone
said by Gone:

said by DKS:

There are many nasty ways to die. But what does our reaction say about our understanding of suffering?

If I was afflicted with ALS, I would give two shits what anyone else thought. It would be about my suffering and dealing with the emotions with having to contemplate and ultimately decide how my life is going to end and how my family will deal with that. Everyone else who has an opinion on the issue can screw the hell off.

I know a few family members who have had loved ones die of ALS who would disagree with your opinion.
DKS

1 recommendation

DKS to TigerLord

to TigerLord
said by TigerLord:

What would you, DKS See Profile, or Styvas See Profile, say if Gloria were still alive, and she stood in front of you?

"Sorry Gloria, you must suffer, it's the Lord's will that we protect the value of life, he will come for you eventually, just ride it out!"

You think this reflects empathy, or care?

It does not. And no one with any kind of Christian theology would say that kind of shit. And it is complete stinking, theological shit. It reflects your own lack of understanding of suffering and death and religious faith. No one must suffer. But suffering is a part of human existence. No matter how hard we try, we can't run from it.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

2 recommendations

Gone to DKS

Premium Member

to DKS
said by DKS:

I know a few family members who have had loved ones die of ALS who would disagree with your opinion.

I'm sure they would. People typically fear the loss of someone they love more than they fear their own death, and when people are confronted with their own death it's not themselves that they're worried about but the people they are helpless to leave behind. I've already had this talk with my wife. She knows how I feel, and likewise I know how she feels. The opinion of others beyond this is of little concern or consequence.

TigerLord

join:2002-06-09
Canada

2 recommendations

TigerLord to DKS

to DKS
said by DKS:

But suffering is a part of human existence. No matter how hard we try, we can't run from it.

That is horseshit with a twist, shaken, not stirred.

Who the hell do you think you are to tell people they should suffer and not run from it? If you want to martyr yourself for your version of what suffering and death means, go right ahead. It doesn't mean we should all embrace the suffering, or have to endure it, to please you or anyone else for that matter.

You don't see the irony in telling us people wanting PAD are selfish and only think about themselves, then saying we shouyld all suffer because it's part of the human experience and we can't run from it? Why the hell did they invent morphine for, then?

g121
play lordsgame com | Phone Cops are real
join:2004-05-28
Toronto
Hitron CODA-4680
Asus RT-AC86
Grandstream HT812

5 recommendations

g121 to DKS

Member

to DKS
said by DKS:

.. But suffering is a part of human existence. No matter how hard we try, we can't run from it ..

geez DKS ... the 10+ months prior to ALS diagnosis & the 18 months post diagnosis was ample suffering ..

i appreciate this is a delicate, complex topic .. & yes, ample "safe guards" must be in place .. but .. there comes a point where "the victim & family" should have the option to decide on a dignified end if they deem it's the most humane course of action ..

again .. life is sacred .. but there are times where ending the horror is the most compassionate decision ..
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

1 recommendation

PX Eliezer1 to DKS

Premium Member

to DKS
said by DKS:

said by Gone:

said by DKS:

There are many nasty ways to die. But what does our reaction say about our understanding of suffering?

If I was afflicted with ALS, I would give two shits what anyone else thought. It would be about my suffering and dealing with the emotions with having to contemplate and ultimately decide how my life is going to end and how my family will deal with that. Everyone else who has an opinion on the issue can screw the hell off.

I know a few family members who have had loved ones die of ALS who would disagree with your opinion.

Isn't that the point---that they have a [choice] to agree or disagree.

modemport
join:2013-08-26
Montreal, QC

modemport to DKS

Member

to DKS
said by DKS:

said by modemport:

I haven't scrolled through and read the 5 pages on this topic. But this is what happened about 20 yrs ago in an old age home.

Administering a specific drug for the relief of pain by a physician is not euthanasia. It is relief of pain. That a side effect is depression of respiration (which is what happens with morphine) and eventual death is acceptable. You may think it was active euthanasia, but it was not. There is a huge difference, ethically and medically.

I'd like to clarify that my mother was not euthanised. Cancer had riddled her entire body. At 3a.m. the previous evening, something happened, I can't recollect what, but her back was in terrible pain. She was screaming to my sister how much it hurt.

It took a solid hour of administering painkillers before she managed to fall asleep (praps from the quantity of drugs given) or fell unconscious.

At 4p.m. I was notified that things were looking bad, so I was at the hospital by 4h30p.m.

At approx 9h50pm, not having woken at all since 4a.m. she took an audible breath, audibly exhaled, and that was it.

We did check her pulse to be certain, but we did not immediately yell for a nurse or doctor. My mother at that point would not have wanted any sort of extreme measure to keep her alive.

Again, there was no hope. She was placed in palliative care with no treatment plan. It was all focussed on pain management. A day or two in palliative, a tumour snapped the bone in her upper left arm. Nothing was done about it. She was very careful to not move it.

Was I & my family satisfied with the quality of care she received ? In some instances, no. Once a week a new doctor would be in charge of the floor, walk into my mother's room and happily announce that my mother would soon be going home. There were at least 4 doctors who did that.

When my mother was in the palliative section on the first day, the head nurse walked into her room and made some nasty comments.

From the time her arm snapped from the tumour to the time she died, damn near nothing was done. The week previous to dying, they finally dragged her around the hospital to do various tests, and then bluntly announced the type of sling she would need was not in stock and the family would have to pay for it. Who the fuck cares what it costs it should have happened a.s.a.p. They tried a different size, but after a few hours my mother told them to take it off, it was making her arm worse. We didn't have enough time at that point to go out and find the proper size because, as we discovered, they didn't take the proper measurements.

On the other hand, 2 or 3 nurses' performance was exceptional. One nurse in particular.

The doctors ? Fucking idiots in my opinion.

Bear in mind the year previous she had lost her bladder and 1 kidney due to cancer. She spent one year on ostomy products. The first two times she was admitted into the hospital they didn't do proper tests, did a few wrong things, and insisted she had to go home. This is per the doctors. The third time was the final time she went in. Cancer had riddled many parts of her body and there was no hope for treatment. Her remaining kidney had also shut down shortly after being readmitted to the hospital for the third time, so a few times a week she had to go for dialysis.

She insisted on going home for Xmas for one final celebration, and I am extremely happy she was able to do it. Three days later she was rushed back to the hospital and there she stayed until she died February 13.

This was not euthanasia, not a death from too many painkillers. She simply died because it was her time to go.

My brother, sister, and aunt were superb in managing to provide my mother with daily (and sometimes they stayed overnight on a cot in her room) family assistance for the bulk of the time my mother was in the hospital.

The duty doctor, having been assigned the floor for the week would announce she was well enough to go home. And it was only due to family members that we were able to intervene to the point where we overruled the fucking doctors. My mother was often confused, forgot things. The one thing she did remember was simply to say "you'll have to discuss it all with my son and daughter they'll make the decision".

Needless to say, that was enough to shut up the doctors.

We are all extremely thankful that the pain she endured was finally over, that she died in peace, in her sleep, with all of us around her. We couldn't hope for anything better.

So this is my story. We all loved my mother very much, but no fucking extreme measures to keep her alive. It wasn't viable, it would just prolong her pain. The drugs she was given were not the cause of her death, her body simply gave up.

I have a lot of compassion for the patients/families who do make the decision for euthanasia.

Months later I'm still dealing with the shock of her death.

R.I.P.
jaberi
join:2010-08-13

jaberi

Member

modemport...you wrote a story i know well...sending you positive thoughts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

this next story might not be here, but the battle is the same, do we or don't we...are the family members selfish, or just hopeful?

Casey Kasem to stop receiving food, water

»www.edmontonsun.com/2014 ··· od-water
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1 to modemport

Premium Member

to modemport
I am very sorry to hear of your mom's passing.

Thank you for sharing the story, which I know must have been difficult.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to TigerLord

to TigerLord
said by TigerLord:

said by DKS:

But suffering is a part of human existence. No matter how hard we try, we can't run from it.

That is horseshit with a twist, shaken, not stirred.

No. It is reality. And I have seen more than my share in my life and work. Euthanasia is nothing more than running from suffering; fear incarnate. Morphine is one of the pharmacologies for palliative care. There are, fortunately, others.
DKS

DKS to modemport

to modemport
My deepest sympathies to you on the death of your mother. Yours is a textbook case of how hospitals and inexperienced physicians don't get good palliative care. Many nurses do, as you testify. We do need a palliative care strategy in Canada, as your story suggests.

TigerLord

join:2002-06-09
Canada

TigerLord to DKS

to DKS
Running from suffering, if that is all there is to look forward to as is the case with ALS or Huntington, is a rational reaction. Ultimately if you feel the best choice for you is to not run from it and embrace it fully, then you have the choice to opt in for palliative care and no one will stop you. What these people want is the option.

Your two main arguments against euthanasia (violates sanctity of life, and puts vulnerable people at risk) are invalid. The SCC in Rodriguez v Canada maintained that euthanasia had to remain illegal because the risk for the vulnerable was unacceptable. Because of changes on how section 1 is tested in the 90s, and new information coming from other countries the SCC did not have at the time, Justice Smith came to the conclusion that the vulnerable could be adequately protected with the proper security measures. As for the other part, the SCC never used spirituality or theology to deny Sue Rodriguez what she wanted, it was never in the cards.

It comes down to what you can demonstrate in court, and what Gloria Taylor proved is that even the best palliative care cannot alleviate all suffering, a fact recognized by the courts and medical professionals. In her words, palliative care amounts to stoning you until you are out of your mind. This is not care, in her definition, nor it is life.

Ultimately, all they want is a choice.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

said by TigerLord:

Ultimately, all they want is a choice.

to take out the emotional "human" side of it for a second, the choice also makes sense in other ways.

our health care system is already strained (financially and resources)...for people who have terminal illnesses, and make a choice to end their life in a more peaceful manner, that does free up resources and money for others in the health care system...money, beds, nurses, doctors, medications...all of these things cost our system money...some people who would choose to end things sooner, free up those resources for others, many of whom are not terminally ill, so their "sacrifice" helps others...stringing them along, through a drug induced haze, for months (or years) does nothing for them other than tie up resources, cost lots of money and provide little to them in way of quality of life (if they do choose to be kept alive)...i don't think we should simply start putting people down at will, but having the choice hurts no one and can benefit many.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1 to TigerLord

Premium Member

to TigerLord
It's always perplexed me that we give peace to dogs and horses but not to our own kind.

Extensive safeguards must be in place, but when people are in conditions such as the recently departed Casey Kasem, humanity demands that we not subject them to more suffering.

PX Eliezer1

PX Eliezer1 to dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

to dirtyjeffer0
said by dirtyjeffer0:

to take out the emotional "human" side of it for a second, the choice also makes sense in other ways.

our health care system is already strained (financially and resources)...for people who have terminal illnesses, and make a choice to end their life in a more peaceful manner, that does free up resources and money for others in the health care system

Now [that] is going down a very slippery slope indeed.

Bringing in things like that reinforces the concerns of those who [oppose] euthanasia.

And it's a short step to things like pushing the benefit of euthanasia as making more organs available for transplant.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

said by PX Eliezer1:

Now [that] is going down a very slippery slope indeed.

Bringing in things like that reinforces the concerns of those who [oppose] euthanasia.

And it's a short step to things like pushing the benefit of euthanasia as making more organs available for transplant.

not a slippery slope at all...in fact, the organ thing you mentioned could be another benefit (if those organs are of any use).

my dog had kidney failure and we had to put him down last month...i could likely have kept him alive to die "naturally", but what kind of selfish cruel action would that be??...he wasn't eating, and barely even drinking water...at best, he likely would have lasted a few more days...i made the sad decision to spare him the suffering (which our previous dog endured) to let him go, while we were with him, in peace.

i don't understand why that same compassion can't be made for ourselves (humans).
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

said by dirtyjeffer0:

my dog had kidney failure and we had to put him down last month...i could likely have kept him alive to die "naturally", but what kind of selfish cruel action would that be??...he wasn't eating, and barely even drinking water...at best, he likely would have lasted a few more days...i made the sad decision to spare him the suffering (which our previous dog endured) to let him go, while we were with him, in peace.

i don't understand why that same compassion can't be made for ourselves (humans).

Exactly, as I said a couple of posts up.

But in your post you also brought up the issue of limited funds and resources. [That] is the area of concern!

Regarding the very difficult decision for your dog (sorry for your loss), I know that you made it on the basis of love and compassion.

I am sure that you did [not] make it based on financial considerations of any sort.

If family budget issues did not enter into the decision for your dog (as I know they did not), then national budget and resource issues should not enter into decisions for people (while your recent post seemed to say that they should).