Yes, but fallacy or no fallacy, it's all they can argue. People act like that when they know they have no case for their position.
-
Features
Hope For The Dying
- Thread starter Unknown Soldier
- Start date
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
EOL has little to do with science, or more properly medical science.
It is not controversial today to say medical scince is aloowing us to ;be ;nger and have EOL qulaity of life issues.
In ICU I had a morphine drip. There may be something new, fentanyl is coiderd the most powerful pain killer.
I saw quality of life issues in a nursing home and assisted living. For many it is warehousing until death.
My first roomanye in the nirsing home knew he did not have long to live and took it out on staff and residents. He was in bad shape for a long time. He could not eat much of anything. He died during dialysis. He was kept alive by medical science.
Over the last 6 years about 10 people I have known have died. Some soldier on until it is over.
I know several with severe pain. One woman gets through it, she is outside getting around Seatte in heel chair. I have seen he in her wheelchair double over in pain unable to move. Others withdraw.
Some self medicate with alcohol, drugs, and pot. There are seniors here who use cocaine.
By rights I should have died from heart failure. The cardiologists who worked on me pulled me back from the brink of death.
So, now I have to contemplate quality of life. If I get to the point of not being to get around and have a life is it worth it?
A won with cancer in pain told me she wished she could go to sleep and not wake up so she wuld not be a burden on her family.
As our lifespan increases the more people will need care. It is already an issue with shortages of housing and health care workers to care for the increasing numbers.
There is no solution to it.Other than a right to die.
Many oppose the right to die. Christians consider it a sin that damns you.
doh.wa.gov
It is not controversial today to say medical scince is aloowing us to ;be ;nger and have EOL qulaity of life issues.
In ICU I had a morphine drip. There may be something new, fentanyl is coiderd the most powerful pain killer.
I saw quality of life issues in a nursing home and assisted living. For many it is warehousing until death.
My first roomanye in the nirsing home knew he did not have long to live and took it out on staff and residents. He was in bad shape for a long time. He could not eat much of anything. He died during dialysis. He was kept alive by medical science.
Over the last 6 years about 10 people I have known have died. Some soldier on until it is over.
I know several with severe pain. One woman gets through it, she is outside getting around Seatte in heel chair. I have seen he in her wheelchair double over in pain unable to move. Others withdraw.
Some self medicate with alcohol, drugs, and pot. There are seniors here who use cocaine.
By rights I should have died from heart failure. The cardiologists who worked on me pulled me back from the brink of death.
So, now I have to contemplate quality of life. If I get to the point of not being to get around and have a life is it worth it?
A won with cancer in pain told me she wished she could go to sleep and not wake up so she wuld not be a burden on her family.
As our lifespan increases the more people will need care. It is already an issue with shortages of housing and health care workers to care for the increasing numbers.
There is no solution to it.Other than a right to die.
Many oppose the right to die. Christians consider it a sin that damns you.
Death with Dignity Act
Important note: Changes to the Death with Dignity Act go into effect on July 23, 2023, and electronic submission will be available starting July 23, 2023. The Law The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Initiative 1000, passed on November 4, 2008, and went into effect on March 5, 2009. This Act...
doh.wa.gov
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,074
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Then it's a good thing nobody has done that, then.
Is it also a gross logical fallacy to misrepresent others, or is that just straightforward (self)deceit?
AFIAK what Canada has done is allowed people who are of a sound mind to make decisions as to what they want if they are no longer of a sound mind. They used to require a final consent just before the procedure, the patient now has the option to waive that if they are no longer of sound mind at that time.
I'm sure the reference was to the guy who posted in the other thread.
Opiates suppress breathing. There comes a point where this kills--I'm sure you're aware of all the fentanyl deaths in the news. That's how it happens. Doctors generally don't cause opiate overdoses because they're using stuff of known purity and they know where the limits are. And when they do cause them they can provide breathing support until it wears off. Ventilators are sufficiently unpleasant that the patient is kept unconscious which makes this meaningless for pain control.
However, this is one of many cases where situations arise where the minimum effective dose is higher than the maximum safe dose.
I have also seen what happened to my father--in the end, the minimum effective dose took out his ability to make long term memory. His memories were as intact as they had been but nothing new was being recorded--if I wasn't in the room he would be asking when I was going to come.
There is a problem with patients being denied adequate pain control. The opiate mess has lead to a witch hunt on long term pain control. Yes, that stuff is addictive--but that's typically unimportant for chronic pain as it's usually a lifetime thing anyway. And if the problem is solved you slowly taper down the dose.
southernhybrid
Contributor
I'd also like to add that not all end of life is related to pain. In fact, based on some things I've read this morning as well as all the years I spent caring for older adults, I know that suffering can be related to many things other than pain, like shortness of breath, inability to tolerate food, other than liquids and total dependency. I've had patients who experienced all of those things. O2 didn't relieve the shortness of breath. Nothing helped the GI distress and if one is dependent secondary to a severe stroke or a disease like advance MS or one of the more rare neurological diseases, there's not much that can be done to relieve that suffering. I don't want to live if I'm totally dependent, so I can understand those who feel the same way as I do. But, unless one has less than 6 month of life left, legal euthanasia won't end that type of suffering.
I agree that voluntary euthanasia can be abused just like anything else. If the protocols aren't followed exactly, it's possible that someone died unnecessarily. That doesn't always mean that someone died who didn't want that. It could just be that someone who chose end of life help, didn't get everything that was expected. For example, some countries require three different doctors to approve the decision, but maybe only two were used. Sometimes there is a requirement to be examined by a psychiatries to evaluate for depression etc. In the states, I think the person must say they want to have help with dying on two different occasions about two weeks apart, witnessed by different people. It's possible that's not always followed as it should be. That is something that needs to be improved. Like any other area of medicine, there will be mistakes, but as for me, I'd rather die than end up in a nursing home, especially now that most of them have been bought by large corporations, who cut back on staff in the name of profit.
Elder abuse is a huge problem, but fixing it won't be easy, especially since our society doesn't appreciate older adults, like some cultures still do. If we not only allowed, but encouraged more immigrants to come here, who like caring for older adults, it certainly would help. The few immigrants I worked with as a nurse were much better than most of the other workers.
The only abuse I saw by any staff member in long term care, was verbal abuse. Sometimes the person simply needed more education regarding how to care for someone with Alzheimers, but other times, the person wasn't fit to care for frail older adults and they needed to be fired. I'll end here as I could go on all day about all the good and bad things I've seen as a nurse, including some of the mistakes I saw nurses make.
I agree that voluntary euthanasia can be abused just like anything else. If the protocols aren't followed exactly, it's possible that someone died unnecessarily. That doesn't always mean that someone died who didn't want that. It could just be that someone who chose end of life help, didn't get everything that was expected. For example, some countries require three different doctors to approve the decision, but maybe only two were used. Sometimes there is a requirement to be examined by a psychiatries to evaluate for depression etc. In the states, I think the person must say they want to have help with dying on two different occasions about two weeks apart, witnessed by different people. It's possible that's not always followed as it should be. That is something that needs to be improved. Like any other area of medicine, there will be mistakes, but as for me, I'd rather die than end up in a nursing home, especially now that most of them have been bought by large corporations, who cut back on staff in the name of profit.
Elder abuse is a huge problem, but fixing it won't be easy, especially since our society doesn't appreciate older adults, like some cultures still do. If we not only allowed, but encouraged more immigrants to come here, who like caring for older adults, it certainly would help. The few immigrants I worked with as a nurse were much better than most of the other workers.
The only abuse I saw by any staff member in long term care, was verbal abuse. Sometimes the person simply needed more education regarding how to care for someone with Alzheimers, but other times, the person wasn't fit to care for frail older adults and they needed to be fired. I'll end here as I could go on all day about all the good and bad things I've seen as a nurse, including some of the mistakes I saw nurses make.
I'm already hurting, and I don't want the death you insist I can demand. One of the reasons I say no is because very obviously I know better than to trust people who think I--and they--would be better off if I was dead. People who want me to live and live well are the truly compassionate people, of course.
Which raises the question: Did you read the attached article from Scientific American? That article explains that yes, better care is in fact available for those who are suffering. It's the older, nonprofit version of hospice care. So why not push for such care rather than this crazy idea of killing people to end their misery?
That's a bizarre question because I can't deny you anything. But if you are suicidal, then I urge you to contact:
988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline
Hours: Available 24 hours. Languages: English, Spanish. Learn more
988
We all understand that you do not, and will likely never, choose death to avoid unrelenting suffering.
What is mysterious is why you refuse to believe us when we say that we would.
We’re not talking about making the decision for someone else. We’re talking about wanting it for ourselves. And you express that you don’t believe we should be allowed to access it.
What is mysterious is why you refuse to believe us when we say that we would.
We’re not talking about making the decision for someone else. We’re talking about wanting it for ourselves. And you express that you don’t believe we should be allowed to access it.
Which is something Canada has fixed--they don't require an illness to be terminal.
What I would like to see is checks of a different sort: Doctors in the relevant specialties (whatever ails the patient, not a fixed number) need to confirm there is nothing that can be done to reduce the suffering. The question isn't the degree of suffering (I believe only the patient can measure that and that it's a balance between good and bad--someone stripped of anything good has much less reason to put up with the bad), but whether anything can be done. And in that doing I would like to see safety standards relaxed--do what you need to relieve the suffering even if you risk killing the patient in the process.
It's not a matter of whether there is a cure (there almost certainly is not), but rather what can be done at a palliative level.
southernhybrid
Contributor
I had read that article days before you posted it. I am a subscriber to Scientific American. I just have a very different perspective than you do. Nobody is going to force you to choose euthanasia. it's not even legal in your state. What I don't understand is why you can't accept that choosing to end one's life is often a choice to choose to end unrelenting suffering. And, if a person doesn't have the legal option, they will often find a way to end their own lives through other means, which are not as pleasant as taking a cocktail of drugs that will ease them out gently.
Of course it would be lovely if we all had competent, compassionate care which relieved all of our suffering as the days of our lives come to an end, but I'm not sure if that will ever be possible. In the meantime, people should have choices when it comes to what they want as the end comes near.
I'm not suicidal. I actually would prefer good hospice care at the end of life, but if hospice can't keep me comfortable, then I want the choice to be eased out of life comfortably. I've seen too any people suffer as they die. There should be other options. Sadly, hospice organizations are also being bought up by corporations. I knew of one locally that provided excellent care to my former patients,
I don't disagree and I haven't read all of the details of the newest version of Canada's law regarding euthanasia, but I do know it's received a lot of criticism for going to far in the other direction. I agree that suffering can only be defined by the person who suffers. My father suffered from extreme pain for the final 20 years of his life, but he would never have chosen euthanasia. In fact, after being diagnosed with cancer two weeks prior to his death, he wanted aggressive care, but my mom didn't permit that. She knew that it wouldn't do much at all to help him. The cancer was tumor had a huge blood clot in it, and he died suddenly, probably due to the DVT and not from the cancer itself. While my mother grieved, it was still a blessing for her that he died so quickly, as caring for him had become a tremendous burden. He was 87 years old when he died, so he had a longer life than most men of his era.
Anyway, euthanasia is and always should be a choice, never forced on anyone. I've never heard of anyone being forced to choose it, assuming they have the choice. I read the book "Final Exit" many years ago. If you remember it, it gave explicit information as how to end one's life peacefully with drugs. I guess that's an option for those who don't have a legal way of getting help to relieve their suffering.
You are attacking a strawman. Nobody has suggested that you, or anyone else should be encouraged or made to feel like they need to end their life. Nobody! You are attacking a strawman because you have no argument against people having the legal right to end their own life if they so choose. That is all you do here - attack people and blow smoke in the wind.
Yes, I read the article, and have pointed out in a previous post that it does not say what you had claimed it said in an earlier post. Nobody disagrees that better hospice care for the terminally ill, end of life patients is a good thing. Better care would be better, for the patients and for their families. The question is, how do we get there? Perhaps you should focus on potential solutions, taking positive actions to make this a reality instead of constantly berating people and attacking them and repeating your simple-minded slogan like a mantra.
Dying is a serious business, and reasonable adults can have a discussion on the subject without one party abusing them constantly and labeling people as belonging to a death cult simply because they have a different opinion than you do. I know a lot about the business of dying because I have worked in a field of medical practice that usually includes a high proportion of patients who are at the end of life or close to getting there. What is your objective? What do you hope to achieve here through your interactions with forum members. What actions do you plan to take to achieve a better system to take care of end of life patients? How will such a system be funded? What experience do you have in hospital and hospice administration? Do you know how much a non-profit hospice spends on a bed every day and how that compares to a for-profit hospice or hospital?
If you want to have a serious conversation and gain some knowledge, ask, and people like @southernhybrid and myself, who have experience in this subject and we will try to answer. But lay out your agenda, what you want to talk about first. And for fuck's sake, stop attacking people and whining incessantly. Because all that does is make you look like an immature asshole venting his spleen from his mommy's basement.
I should have mentioned in the thread against capital punishment that people have built all kinds of means to "ease out gently" those who are to be put to death. That includes the guillotine, the electric chair, the gas chamber, and lethal injection. So far there's been little luck doing so. Death is a horror, and it's utter foolishness to see it any other way.
Exactly. Suicide/euthanasia is never a good choice--but sometimes there is no good choice and you have to choose between bad options. It's clear that many people will choose the easier death--just look at what happens when people are trapped in high places by fire. When rescue is clearly impossible and the fire is closing in quite a few jump.
southernhybrid
Contributor
Yes, the way that the death penalty, which is not the same as voluntary euthanasia is often cruel, but I disagree with you that death is always a horror. The most peaceful death I ever witnessed was a woman who had Alzheimers and could no longer swallow, which is what happens when when your brain reaches the point where even simple things like swallowing are no longer possible. Luckily, her brother found her Advanced Directive, which clearly stated that she didn't want a G-tube or any type of artificial feeding or hydration. What a lot of people don't understand is that dying while dehydrated is usually a very peaceful way to go. There is no fluid buildup in the lungs to cause shortness of breath and what is often referred to as "the death rattle" is absent. Instead, the person gradually eases out over a course of several days or maybe a week. My former patient had good hospice care, her lips were kept moistened for comfort, and because she was a retired music professor, they brought in musicians to sing to her. She had a faint smile the last time I saw her and she died without any struggle or discomfort according to the staff in the facility, where I worked until retiring. If you're nearing death, my advice is to refuse fluids and allow nature to take its course or make sure your wishes are clearly stated in your Advanced Directives.
In the early years of my nursing career, it was very common to see people with end stage dementia have G-tubes placed, which often caused them to linger on for years, totally unaware of their surroundings, unable to communicate etc. I'm relieved that's rarely done any longer, as imo, it's cruel and a burden on family members who care for these folks at home. Some of these family members were outstanding care providers, but did it really help them to see their spouse or parent living in such a state, when a natural death would have been a better option? I assume it's also difficult for nursing home staff as well. I had a job inspecting nursing homes for quality of care and the most horrible cases I saw were those who were kept alive via artificial means. They often developed decubitus ulcers, aka bed sores, sometimes deep and infected. They suffered with no way to relieve that suffering. I wouldn't call that living.
My late mother in law on the other hand, insisted on being taken off of dialysis after having a severe stroke which left her totally disabled. She felt she had been forced by my brother in law and her doctor to be on dialysis, which she hated for the four years she was on it. While she was comfortable during most of that last week of life, my idiot ex sister in law, kept pushing fluids on her, so according to my brother in law who was with her during the last night of her life, she became very short of breath and restless as her lungs filled with fluid. He felt bad giving her morphine and atropine to decrease her respirations in an attempt to keep her comfortable. Point being, that death can be fairly comfortable if aggressive care is not forced on a person, or it can be rather uncomfortable if fluids are forced on a dying person, and medications like morphine and atropine are withheld. My patient who was very dehydrated didn't even need those medications.
We're all going to die, so why in the world would you consider a natural part of life to be a horror? Sometimes it is, depending on many things, but euthanasia can remove the suffering. Comparing medical euthanasia to the way that the death penalty is often carried out is ignorant. Btw, I don't support the death penalty, but I do support one's right to choose the time of their death if any semblance of a life worth living has come to an end.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,243
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
No you just indicated the people must suffer because of your paranoia.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,243
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Wait, why are you getting to make the choice for yourself and everyone else?
You are aware of living wills, right? Your (and other people's) wishes can be put forth in one. It is binding. Your rights are protected. Now that we have already solved this problem you keep worrying about, can we get back to people who can't be treated to alleviate their suffering?
Because you can only stop suffering so much without knocking a person out. You keep talking but you don't seem to know what you are talking about. My Dad was fortunate to land himself in a palliative care wing at the local hospital. He had the absolute best care he could have ever really hoped for. But they were always chasing the pain. They didn't want to dope him up to unconsciousness, but really, that is what was needed. It was awful having to let him sleep, rather than spend waking moments with him. It was what he wanted, what he needed. His last few days were awful. Watching a person's body shutdown is arduous and painful. But some people don't want to allow to push them pass quickly and with less needless suffering.
Each of these cases vary from person to person. My Dad's experience was unique, as it is to every other human being. They should be able to have a say, if you are.
Are you for real? Are you incapable of understanding their context?
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,074
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I don't like Brussels Sprouts.
Forcing me to eat Brussels Sprouts would be cruel; Tricking me into eating them would be evil. I don't expect that I shall ever, under any circumumstances, want to eat Brussels Sprouts, and nobody should be permitted to make me do so.
Therefore nobody should be allowed to have Brussels Sprouts, because offering them to people is immoral, and there are always alternatives. If somebody asks for Brussels Sprouts, then we should ignore their request, and offer them some nice Peas or Carrots instead.
Those people promoting the idea that we should let people choose Brussels Sprouts should instead be working to ensure that the widest possible range of alternative vegetables are on the menu.
If anyone is thinking of ordering Brussels Sprouts with their dinner, I urge them to seek help.
Forcing me to eat Brussels Sprouts would be cruel; Tricking me into eating them would be evil. I don't expect that I shall ever, under any circumumstances, want to eat Brussels Sprouts, and nobody should be permitted to make me do so.
Therefore nobody should be allowed to have Brussels Sprouts, because offering them to people is immoral, and there are always alternatives. If somebody asks for Brussels Sprouts, then we should ignore their request, and offer them some nice Peas or Carrots instead.
Those people promoting the idea that we should let people choose Brussels Sprouts should instead be working to ensure that the widest possible range of alternative vegetables are on the menu.
If anyone is thinking of ordering Brussels Sprouts with their dinner, I urge them to seek help.
pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 2,331
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
People who accede to others’ demands that they be allowed to eat Brussels sprouts belong to a shocking Brussels sprouts cult.
Did you read the article in Scientific American that nonprofit farms might be able to grow better tasting Brussel Sprouts? Therefore, anyone who doesn't eat Brussel Sprouts is a poopeyhead and a member of the Sprouted Poopeyhead Cult.
The article is poorly researched and poorly written, a lightweight puff piece/filler, and the author provides no support to his claim that the nonprofit sprouts could in fact be produced on a commercial scale, but we won't let those little details get in the way.
Last edited:
The context is deliberately ignored so US can take an underhanded dig at the poster and disrupt the discussion. No reasonable person would read the post US was responding to and believe that the poster was suicidal. An insult provokes an angry response and takes our attention away from the fact that US doesn't have an argument to support his position.