Kevorkian out of prison after 8 years

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 1 2007, 11:55 PM) [snapback]453782[/snapback]</div>

Hey now...don't forget women died with the back alley abortions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Jun 2 2007, 05:49 AM) [snapback]453847[/snapback]</div>

My scenario would only play out if "assisted suicide" was raised to the level of a basic human right, as abortion has been. That classification prohibits most restrictions, and leads to the kinds of excesses we see with abortion (IMHO).

Oregon has had an assisted suicide law on the books for several years now, and it seems to be working without over-application of it. But it doesn't make assisted suicide a basic human right; it grants doctors the power to prescribe lethal doses of drugs in very narrowly defined cases.

In short, my view is that it is appropriate for legislatures to allow the practice, but not appropriate for the courts to declare it a basic right.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 2 2007, 09:09 AM) [snapback]453918[/snapback]</div>

Only the people at the polarized edges of the debate held the extreme positions. Just like today, most people held a view that was in the middle of your "two choices". I distinctly remember the pro-abortion battle cry of it being between a 'woman and her doctor'. The argument was very often framed within the context of the woman's physical and emotional support coming from a safe and legal procedure. The unexpected result was that abortion clinics did spring up with less concern for the woman's welfare than they should have. Abortions themselves have become much safer for women, and probably safer for many than going to term with the baby. But that result was expected. That was the rationale for the liberalization of abortion laws happening in certain states; legislatures could and did provide easy access to abortion but with safeguards not now in place.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 2 2007, 09:09 AM) [snapback]453918[/snapback]</div>

It could be for some people, but that's not my argument. I think the people's elected representatives can legalize it, as they did in Oregon, and then fine tune it as they see what the consequences of the legalization are.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 2 2007, 09:09 AM) [snapback]453918[/snapback]</div>

There is a powerful inducement against taking your own life, as your second quoted paragraph shows. It proves my point, that easy and non-painful access to suicide administered by others, who will continue to kill you even if you struggle in your last moments, make it far more likely that those "crying out for help" will go through with a procedure they could never do themselves. They signed the paper, after all.

The problem with all the debate about assisted suicide is that those who probably would desire it the most would be incapable of asking for it, and would fail any "psychological test" we want to establish. Those in unending intractable pain are in no position to make rational decisions. At that point, you would have to rely on some kind of advanced directive, or assign the choice to someone else, allowing the next of kin to sign to permit euthanasia. We allow the next of kin to withhold treatment now, so that's not too far a step to take.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 2 2007, 09:09 AM) [snapback]453918[/snapback]</div>

If suicide is a basic human right, who are you to tell me I can't exercise it any time I want, and for any reason. If its a right, you have no right to stop me. I am not a dog, I am a human. And I will exercise my rights any time I want, with the only restriction being that I don't violate your rights.

If its a law that allows assisted suicide in certain conditions, then you are right: you can set restrictions. But that will require the thoughtful actions of legislatures rather than pronouncements from judges. Get my drift?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 2 2007, 09:09 AM) [snapback]453918[/snapback]</div>

Can you provide any references to show that? I think you're really over-reaching here. The reason that more doctors don't "snow them out" is that there are guidelines in place to protect the doctors from prosecution under federal drug laws for prescribing drugs in amounts that might lead to addiction. Religion has nothing to do with this issue.

The main problem with the idea that legalizing "assisted suicide" will solve the problem of terminally ill patients in intractable pain is that patients in that state are not capable of making that decision. The only solution for the most potent reason for wanting assisted suicide is to reform the antiquated drug laws so that the doctor is protected from prosecution if he keeps administering morphine until the pain stops ... even if the patient dies.

 

There is not such amount, at least in regards to narcotics. Not a lower bound, and not an upper bound. So whatever argument you are trying to make is illogical.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post.

I can say from considerable experience that the vast majority of instances that a family decided to prolong suffering in someone with a miserable quality of life is from religious conviction. I remember a few cases related to money, and a single case related to a desire for vengeance against the patient.


This is all about a religion's desire for absolute control over life and death, abetted by families unable to take responsibility, or separate out their guilt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jun 3 2007, 03:12 PM) [snapback]454591[/snapback]</div>

Its obvious you didn't bother reading. Doctors are concerned about being charged by the DEA with over-prescribing schedule II narcotics. Many won't do it at all.

Daniel stated that the laws against assisted suicide were religiously based because religious people feel pain is noble and pleasure is sin, and I asked for proof of that assertion. Stating what individual families do in extreme circumstances is not only not on point, but so far off point that I can only conclude you are only interested in obfuscation and not clarity.

Is it your position that doctors are not concerned about prescribing schedule II narcotics in doses too large, and that the DEA cannot pull a doctor's license if they feel he is "over-prescribing"? Is it your position that doctors do not face an inquiry if a review board feels that the medication they gave "hastened death?"

 

I'll say it again, s l o w l y:

There is no practical upper bound for dosing narcotics in separating out pain control from euthanasia. Pain itself counteracts the sedative/depressive response, and tolerance (receptor down regulation) in chronic use can increase dosing five fold easily for the same response.

It's not my 'position'; it is fact. Why don't you get out of armchair mode, and go visit a hospice sometime ? Or a pain clinic ? Or speak with someone who works on a cancer ward ? Or visit a methadone clinic.

Then your positions may be slightly less ignorant.

 

narcotics have no hard and fast numbers- tolerance to these things is wildly variable on an individual basis. biological response and genetic variation ensure that there is no way to reasonably regulate the specific dose range that is used in practice.

also, addiction is a process. tolerance is a first step, and in most cases drug holidays are used to start to return the surface receptor level to normal to decrease the dose needed for pain relief and therefore the toxic side effects of the drug. addiction involves far more than biochemical tolerance.

DH is in the process of entering into a pain clinic. they sent 20 pages of literature, about 75% of that was their very strict narcotic drug policy. one slip and you're out of the clinic for good. they don't want to risk their DEA licenses but they also have a practical and strict policy to ensure that no abuse of the system is going on while providing for their patients' needs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 2 2007, 12:09 PM) [snapback]453918[/snapback]</div>

Avoidance of pain is sinful, and pleasure is sinful? Do you even know any Christians?

God created sex, chocolate, laughter, wine, love, morphine, smiles, sex, chocolate and did I mention sex and chocolate? This is not a God who is opposed to pleasure, but one who knows how to make it very, very good.

Jesus spent his ministry healing the sick and ending pain (physical and of the soul). He brings peace and wholeness.

He and his disciples laughed and enjoyed themselves so much that people thought they were drunk. His first miracle was turning water into wine.

Ignorance is what harms society and hurts people.

Someone wanted the point of view of a conservative and Christian, so I'll offer mine on assisted suicide. I euthanize my animals to spare them pain when they cannot be cured and begin to suffer. I own them and can make that choice. I love them and have nothing to gain from their deaths. (Though we could talk about people who euthanize pets out of convenience, such as someone I know who put her old cat to sleep because she was getting a new carpet.... This is not a woman you would want to make decisions about whether or not to euthanize people. But I digress.)

Only God owns people, and it is up to him when their lives are over. However, I think medical care often keeps people alive when their time is past. I have helped make decisions on when to stop medical treatment for dying relatives, and then made sure (as much as is humanly possible) that they were medicated beyond pain while their clocks ran out.

At one point, I remember wishing I could do for my relative what I had done for my cat (euthanasia). But I also understand why I should never be allowed to make that decision: I stood to gain financially from my relative's death. That was a lose-lose for me, and possibly for my relative, whom we all knew wanted to live as long as possible and fought until the very end. I held her hand and was with her, singing poorly to her, when she finally let go.

It's not only about "Thou shalt not kill." It's also about preventing the survivor from carrying the weight of that decision forever. Don't keep people alive when life is worse than death. Don't withold any painkilling option. And after that, don't try to do God's job.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Jun 1 2007, 03:59 PM) [snapback]453461[/snapback]</div>

+1

Although I feel that the assisting should be done by a practicing physician, with a psychiatric screening to make sure the patient[?], is of sound mind. I only feel the assisted part should be for terminally ill patients though. I have no care if they are in pain or not. They are going to die soon anyways, let it be at a time of their choosing.

If you are just depressed, you should have the right to kill yourself. But you don't get assistance. If you want help, it will be psychiatric help to get through your depression. Just don't be messy about it, or do it in public.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 4 2007, 07:50 AM) [snapback]454925[/snapback]</div>

Exactly. And its that DEA policy that I'm arguing should be amended so that the care givers are not thinking more about regulations and less about the patient. In the case of people in intractable pain, the doctor at the bedside is a better judge of things than a bureaucrat in Washington.

There are plenty of guidelines available to care givers, such as doubling the dosage every 24 hours until the pain is managed (a common one for hospice workers).

My opinions are not made in a vacuum; my wife was a social worker for geriatric patients for 25 years, and my personal physician was called before a board of inquiry because his administration of a pain killer may have hastened the death of a pancreatic cancer patient by a few hours.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jun 4 2007, 06:37 AM) [snapback]454898[/snapback]</div>

Listen, I know it is hard for you to play nicely, but can we try? I know it probably makes some people feel good to call others ignorant and treat them like they are simple minded, and now that you've gotten your jollies from that, can we discuss the issue like adults?

I know there are no strict upper limits of "x amount" per body weight, because the drugs have to be given in increasing doses to make the patient pain free (not "high", as Daniel indicated; people in intractable pain don't get high from the drugs, they get closer to normal).

But there are artificial guidelines that are causing suffering every day, with patients in intractable pain having to go until some marker ... like another 20 minutes because it hasn't been 4 hours yet. Doctors are very reluctant to increase dosage of narcotics, and the numerous articles about pain management keep stressing that they can increase dosage. Pain management pros and hospice does a better job with this, but not everyone is in hospice care, and often the patient suffers for days as they carefully increase the dosage ... a common method my wife saw IN HOSPICE was to double the dosage every 24 hours. Meanwhile, the patient is suffering, and is not legally able to provide any kind of directive concerning their care at that point. God help them if they haven't signed an advanced directive or assigned a power of attorney for healthcare, because without those releases, the caregivers have to be very careful.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Jun 4 2007, 06:33 PM) [snapback]455371[/snapback]</div>

"Pleasure is bad" was one of the first heresies dealt with in the Christian church and is codified in our Scriptures, but radical secularists usually don't study theology. There are exceptions, but they generally tend to point to behaviors or political positions of the faithful rather than really knowing what they are criticizing.

 

"But there are artificial guidelines that are causing suffering every day, with patients in intractable pain having to go until some marker ... like another 20 minutes because it hasn't been 4 hours yet. Doctors are very reluctant to increase dosage of narcotics, and the numerous articles about pain management keep stressing that they can increase dosage. Pain management pros and hospice does a better job with this, but not everyone is in hospice care, and often the patient suffers for days as they carefully increase the dosage ... a common method my wife saw IN HOSPICE was to double the dosage every 24 hours. Meanwhile, the patient is suffering, and is not legally able to provide any kind of directive concerning their care at that point. God help them if they haven't signed an advanced directive or assigned a power of attorney for healthcare, because without those releases, the caregivers have to be very careful."

More gross ignorance. Ask your social work wife aka expert on pain control what the half lives of the prescribed narcotics are, and it's significance.

Clearly some doctors know how to prescribe narcotics with more expertise than others. Your jump from there to babbling about regulatory attempts to prevent euthanasia is nonsense to any informed practicing physician.

Galaxee is likewise apparently unaware that a large fraction of the CYA paperwork that her husband received stems from the other side of the problem: Narcotic abuse, and the MUCH more common occurrence of regulatory investigation into suspected physician collusion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 4 2007, 10:05 PM) [snapback]455498[/snapback]</div>

I was merely describing my own experience after my prostate operation. I was in agonizing pain when I came out of anesthesia. They gave me several doses of morphine, at intervals of a few minutes, until I was free of pain. Each dose reduced the pain, and when the pain was gone, they stopped. I was not watching the clock, but it might have been ten or twenty minutes from the first dose to the last, and I probably got 3 or 4 doses. Once the pain was gone they took me to my room, and for some period of time I felt warm, both physically (although the room was chilly, as became evident later, when the drug wore off) and emotionally. It was very nice.

When the morphine wore off they gave me Percocet, which had no discernable effect other than to make me drowsy, so that it was easier to sleep.

This was my second prostate operation, and was in Spokane. My first was in Fargo, where they gave me only Tylenol with codine after the operation, and I suffered quite a lot. Apparently different hospitals or doctors have different ideas about pain control.

 

i guess by "abuse of the system" i meant narcotics abuse. they had a whole sub-chapter on blood tests they'll do and pill counts to make sure you're taking the right amount of drug, not taking too much, and not selling them for extra cash to someone who doesn't have a prescription. when i was younger and on a different path in life it was NOT hard to find a couple vicodin for say $30 under the table.

if you meant something different, well i can't claim to know much about the ins and outs of medical practice. i'm a pharmacologist after all. DEA licenses in this field are vastly different.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jun 1 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]453350[/snapback]</div>

I wonder if hes going to continue with his old plans of offering the Assisted Home Suicide Kit
Wold he try and do an infomercial or market them on the internet?


I really dont see a problem with what he did, he offered his services to those who where terminally ill and where struggling with pain and suffering from their illness's, by offering them a way out...

I wasnt like he was taking people off the street that had mental problems or where suicidal and helped them with their task... :mellow:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jun 1 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]453350[/snapback]</div>