Ok, good. Now, at what point are you ok with a doctor killing someone - how about the logger who amputated his own leg? Is that reason enough - permanent disability?
[/quote]


As I clearly indicated, this should be a last resort for terminal patients with NO quality of life. There is a clear difference between no quality of life and a diminished quality of life. The logger can get a prosthesis and therapy. A patient in a permanent vegatative state cannot get a new brain, body, or therapy.

i think j's point is that there is a slippery slope.

perm vegatative state is a living will/end treatment decision. assisted suicide is a "do something more" not "discontinue what was being done".

i think that the ethics of the medical community would provide a good framework to assure that AS is only used for the terminally ill and in pain. j essentially posits that since there is no perfect way to guarantee that this isn't abused by "lesser" suicide-worthy events that an absolute prohibition is the best way to go. nothing in society is perfect, j.

If you refer to my post from yesterday evening, you will see that the SCOTUS referenced the very fact that just such slipery slopes did in fact come into play, costing the lives of thousands in the Netherlands at the hands of doctors. To presume that it cannot happen here is sheer folly.

If AS is allowed, how do you keep a doctor from making his/her own value judgments on whether a life should be ended?

perhaps those statistics show that there are thousands of people who are living in severe pain with no hope of recovery but yet we have a moral crusade to save them from he!!.

what is the public policy concern to outlaw this practice? the same as or related to the concern of what gay marriage will do to society?

I believe it would be up to the patient, not the doctor.

Precisely, this was among the disasters pointed out in the Remmelink Report, and among the factors contributing to the SCOTUS decision in Washinton vs. Glucksberg 1997.

Read it again Ron. There was no evidence in thousands of those cases that people were terminal or in unremitting pain. They were killed without controls in place and based uppn the doctors subjective judgment. The doctors became God.

dq, i think the point is that proponents have to satisfy the concerns of those opposed that doctors who agree to this won't take liberties in how broad the circumstances are where they will agree to help.

straw, to answer the question, i think that you have to objectivize the criteria as much as possible. terminal or no hope of recovery and unnecessary suffering. i think you can make those things pretty objective.

i think it's possible to create criteria to account for this though. if there are no lack of controls, create them. i don't think that's impossible to do.

The public policy concern is we do not want others, even medical professionals, ending people's lives. Why bring gay marriage into this?

So Fella has cited Danish studies showing AS in questionable circumstances. Protecting life is a public policy concern and even an atheist can look at this study and say that AS might not be a good thing.

I have said, I have not made up my mind on this, but again, stop demonizing everyone who argues against you.

I think we can create some objective criteria, although quality of life is inherently subjective. Additionally, I am not sure what controls could be put in place. Any thoughts on what control might work in these scenarios?

Ron, the Netherlands had created the controls. The requirements of defining terminal illnes; the necessity of at least two doctors who did not practice together agreeing and showing evidence that each was present when the patient made the request; no hope of recovery, family notification etc.

In spite of these, the doctors played God, because rather than adhering to the Hippocratic Oath, they applied the "Quality of Life Ethic" which is a very subjective standard. Doctor does not believe the patient is worth further medical treatment or palliative care, then do away with them, controls be damned.

Attorney Wesley J. Smith details this and far far more in his landmark book "Culture of Death - The Assault on Medical Ethics in America". As an attorney, you may find this very informative.

the patient is ending the life. the doctor is merely facilitating it. much like the gun shop owner is facilitating another suicide victim's death. i brought gay marriage up because, just like AS, the rationale for making such a law is what will happen to society if it is allowed.


that's a very broad public policy. sounds like a general policy. we are talking about a specific, limited set of circumstances.


i'm not demonizing, i'm trying to get through to the psychology/motivation behind the arguments.

It's legal in Oregon. As you can see below, many of the "controls" in Oregon are carried out and certified by the attending physician. Here are Oregon's controls:

(more information on Oregon's website at: Oregon govt. FAQ on assisted suicide law)

Q: How does a patient get a prescription from a participating physician?

A: The patient must meet certain criteria to be able to request to participate in the Act. Then, the following steps must be fulfilled: 1) the patient must make two oral requests to the attending physician, separated by at least 15 days; 2) the patient must provide a written request to the attending physician, signed in the presence of two witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the patient; 3) the attending physician and a consulting physician must confirm the patient's diagnosis and prognosis; 4) the attending physician and a consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself; 5) if either physician believes the patient's judgment is impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder (such as depression), the patient must be referred for a psychological examination; 6) the attending physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives to the Act including comfort care, hospice care, and pain control; 7) the attending physician must request, but may not require, the patient to notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. A patient can rescind a request at any time and in any manner. The attending physician will also offer the patient an opportunity to rescind his/her request at the end of the 15-day waiting period following the initial request to participate.

Physicians must report all prescriptions for lethal medications to the Department of Human Services, Vital Records. As of 1999, pharmacists must be informed of the prescribed medication's ultimate use.

true enough. but future prospects and pain are pretty objective.


future prospects and pain.

And if the motivation is religious in nature, you automatically dismiss it. While you are tyring to get to the psychology, we all clearly know yours.

You further argue there is basically no public policy that would want to prevent people from being killed. While we may want to define this type of killing as an exception to murder, there is clearly public policy implications, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.

Interesting gun analogy. Does the gun shop owner pull the trigger? If not, the analogy doesn't really hold.

Not entirely true. AMLF's point (or at least one of them) is what will happen to specific people (perhaps euthanized against their will) if it is allowed. As the Netherlands study showed (even if its statistics are only half right), this is a very real concern.

then perhaps this is what needs policing. it's like one argument in the immigration debate: "why do we need all these laws when we should just start enforcing what exists".

if we policed the objective criteria, they wouldn't be able to follow the subjective "quality of life".

THat is only part of the control. By control, it is how would we know the patient wants this?

Then we have to determine eligibility. Prospects and pain aare both subjective i.e. pain threshold varies from person to person.

Prospects are completely subjective, as some who are paralyzed become suicidal and depressed, while others move on with extremely productive lives.

Any other ideas on how we control the process and qualify the individuals?

not so, i just want it on the table so people aren't hiding the ball so to speak. as weird as it may seem, i'm a very religious/spiritual person.


stop saying it this way. i am talking about terminally ill people in pain. the public policy is limited to termianlly ill in pain people in my opinion. this isn't a culture of death.


does kevorkian pull the trigger?

the analogy stands.

they ask.

i think prospects are pretty objective. medicine is a science. pain is also something that is tested rather objectively.


those people wouldn't meet the requirements of the test.

For an ALS patient, I believe he did.

No, no one has said that a teenager should be able to legally obtain a physician's "assistance" for their suicide because of acne. No one has said that they shouldn't either. I want to know where you are drawing the line.



You don't think very clearly, then, because I could not have been less vauge about my opinion on the matter.



Then I don't understand why you support Dr. Kevorkian, who killed patients who weren't terminal, and had were certainly not vegetative. Most of his patients, as I posted previously, suffered from disabilities and depression, not terminal illness.

So, I'm still confused about where you are drawing the line.



It tells me that you ought to look to the statement that I responded to. Becka appeared to be positing that since people suffering from depression committed traditional suicide, it ought to be ok for a "doctor" to "assist" them.

ok, but did kevorkian decide or was he essentially an attorney-in-fact in that situation. (and i realize that that is effectively like the gun store owner actually shooting the guy buying the gun to commit suicide)

other than the situation where because of pain condition that the person cannot "pull the trigger" themself, isn't this still a matter of the person choosing their own fate?