-- Posted by lucynthesky at 3:11 pm on Sep. 9, 2008         I am taking a class in high school for the people that are interested in working in the medical field. At the moment we are covering the legal and ethical side of the health care system when a topic came up on a worksheet... A terminal cancer patient tells you that she has a stash of sleeping pills in her room and is planning to commit suicide. What do you do? In this situation I would have informed someone, but then the discussion came up about assisted suicide. If someone is in constant pain and is also terminal, I cannot see the real wrong in it. Being in the bible belt south however, not many people agreed with me. I am Christian, but I don't see how helping someone pass that is in agony and can't get better is a bad thing. What do you all think? -- Posted by senorita smirnoff at 3:16 pm on Sep. 9, 2008 as a dr i would only not do n e thing where it is not possible for people to know that i knew, basically because thats the end of ur ability to practice if its found out. If noone knew, i would wish them well. -- Posted by Bobman21 at 9:50 pm on Sep. 15, 2008 Quote: from senorita smirnoff at 6:16 pm on Sep. 9, 2008 as a dr i would only not do n e thing where it is not possible for people to know that i knew, basically because thats the end of ur ability to practice if its found out.   If noone knew, i would wish them well. ...good thing your grammar is impeccable otherwise we may all have missed out on your invaluable insight... I think it's fine.  Though each case needs to be judged individually; to what degree is the individual competent to make the decision to die?  In many cases agony can be alleviated with drugs but people in such a state have a one-track mind... If a person is completely competent, then sure, they should be able to make that decision for themselves.  But then where do you draw the line between suicide and euthanasia?  Don't say 'terminal illness.' -- Posted by Elm at 11:07 am on Sep. 16, 2008 The individual is the owner of their life therefore whatever they decide to do with it is their right.  Your job, anyone else's job to the contrary is immoral and a violation of their rights.  We don't ask ourselves is an individual competent to live their lives - they are free to live their lives in any way (or in this case not at all) they see fit so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.  Your morals pro or con, medical ethics pro or con, and the law pro or con; are immaterial to their decision about their property. -- Posted by tell me again at 2:21 pm on Sep. 16, 2008 I am all for assisted suicide. I don't even see much debate in it. I can see social and legal issues from permitting it, but that's about it. I think it's as much up to the doctor as it is the patient though, so I think the doctor has the right to decide whether they are comfortable with assisting someone's suicide, without having any burdens about whether it's objectively moral or immoral. -- Posted by DADDYS LITTLE GIRL at 7:04 pm on Oct. 1, 2008 If the cancer was terminal and there was nothing that could be done for the pain then i wouldn't say anything. That person has the choice to suffer or just get the inevidible over with thats there right and not my place to try and stop them. Suicide just to end your life problems is dumb but if it was a medical condition that was terminal and garunteed no chance of survival i'd look at it differently -- Posted by Charolastra at 11:36 am on Oct. 2, 2008 it goes against the hippocratic oath, however i feel on a human level that it should very well be allowed. if i lost the will to live because i was terminally ill i would appreciate assisted suicide being an option. if not, then i'd, you know, try to get the job done myself anyway. -- Posted by Lulamae at 5:14 pm on Oct. 8, 2008 It should most definitely be allowed, because killing somebody isn't worse than torturing a person. I myself know that forcing somebody to continue living when they themselves do not wish to, be it due to emotional or physical pain, is pure torture. -- Posted by jamesish at 6:26 pm on Oct. 8, 2008 Its not my duty to assist them in death. Its my duty to keep them alive. I go to school. I pay money. I do other things to help that patient. I'm sorry but if I assist this person by not telling, I went to school for nothing. I tend to want to let nature take its course. And personally I would just feel guilty if she dies. In my own opinion, I'm helping her more by keeping her alive than letting her commit suicide. And yes, I know about the pain factor. Which makes the decision even more difficult. But I didn't/don't/will not go to school to do the exact opposite of what I'm trained to do. -- Posted by Vordhosbn at 2:32 am on Oct. 9, 2008 i agree with bobman for the most part. i believe that if somebody is of clear mind (whatever that means), they should be able to commit suicide, and should have painless methods available to them. if they are physically unable to do it themselves, i don't see anything wrong with a doctor supplying them with the means to end their own life. i also don't see any problem with, say, a family member or spouse assisting in euthanasia, but obviously with precautions like psych assessments and counselling to ensure it has been properly thought through. -- Posted by sadnessness at 11:22 am on Oct. 9, 2008 Well, as an actual ethical issue, i would think that assisted suicide can be a viable option. As a doctor, however, im sure there are guidelines that it would breach if you were to say nothing, such as always trying to save the patient etc. -- Posted by gro at 3:27 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 Quote: from sadnessness at 11:22 am on Oct. 9, 2008 Well, as an actual ethical issue, i would think that assisted suicide can be a viable option. As a doctor, however, im sure there are guidelines that it would breach if you were to say nothing, such as always trying to save the patient etc. There are many places where doctors can legally assist in suicides. -- Posted by noraa at 6:44 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 Quote: from gro at 3:27 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 Quote: from sadnessness at 11:22 am on Oct. 9, 2008 Well, as an actual ethical issue, i would think that assisted suicide can be a viable option. As a doctor, however, im sure there are guidelines that it would breach if you were to say nothing, such as always trying to save the patient etc. There are many places where doctors can legally assist in suicides. It's currently a large debate in America. Remember that women who was basically brain-dead, and they were arguing whether or not to pull the plug a few years back? I forget her name. But anyway, doctors can get in trouble for it. I personally don't believe in euthanasia, I think it basically constitutes suicide. The law strictly prohibits assisted suicide. It doesn't specify cause of suicide. People generally kill themselves out of pain, specifically emotional pain, however that is not to say that that physical pain should be classified any differently. Although I can understand that the patient is in a lot of pain, however things can change. Cures can be found. Suicide should not be allowed when it is based on a belief that they definitely, under all circumstances, will die. Another argument that can be made is that people who commit suicide do it because they are in a lot of emotional pain, and will die anyway, so why not cut the suffering and do it sooner? This is the same state of mind a terminal patient is in. Their life has been reduced to pain, so why not cut the pain and die sooner? How can we possibly allow suicide based on pain in one way, but not in another? -- Posted by gro at 8:19 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 How can we possibly allow suicide based on pain in one way, but not in another?   because there's a difference between a thirteen year old girl who just got dumped and an endstage cancer patient ? -- Posted by MotoMojo at 12:53 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 I look at it this way: in a situation where a person has basically 2 options -- 1) excruciatingly painful undignified death OR 2) quiet painless death -- is it ethical to force them to choose one or the other at all? I think not. It should be the decision of the individual AND his/her family. -- Posted by mountain hare at 12:46 am on Oct. 25, 2008 Quote: from charolastra at 11:36 am on Oct. 2, 2008 it goes against the hippocratic oath, Why are people always bringing up the Hippocratic Oath when this discussion comes up? It's an outdated code that hails back to the days of Ancient Greece, when medical practitioners didn't have access to the life prolonging medications we have today. More importantly, taking the Hippocratic Oath is not a pre-requisite for becoming a doctor, and in Australia many (perhaps even a majority) of doctors do not take the oath. Some swear to a modified version. Which makes sense, given that under the original oath you were not allowed to perform abortions. -- Posted by lisma at 12:47 pm on Oct. 25, 2008 If the person is suffering serious pain I think it is somewhat acceptable if someone were to assist their suicide. But it depends on the conditions. If this person is going to die a painful death and they would rather die a painless one, then I think it is justified to assist them with a small aspect of the suicide. If they asked you to shoot them (for example) you would feel guilty and it would be an inhumane way of helping someone relieve their pain. But if they were to ask you to be a trivial aid, such as getting her pills for her, I think it is more acceptable. I would rather relieves one's pain then watch them die a painful and horrible death.