Euthanasia is a very touchy subject, especially within the medical field. As a healthcare advocate, it is our job as professionals to better the lives of our patients. What happens when there is nothing more you can do?
I understand, being a Home Health Aide that works a lot with Hospice, that comfort care is important. But truly, when a suffering patient looks to you to ease the pain what do you do? Should you apologize and say their is nothing more I can do?
I can hardly say no more treats to my cat when he gives puppy dog eyes, much less a patient dying alone of cancer. In my opinion, for what it is worth, Euthanasia is most certainly not murder and should never be referred to as such.
If Euthanasia was legal, but very strict in regulations and rules, it would be very beneficial to many terminally ill patients. This may be the only healthcare decision a patient makes within their life, and they should be allowed to make such a decision when conditions permit. We all have choices in this world, what gives you or I the right to take such choices away from someone in such a situation.
What is your opinion? Do you agree or disagree? Do you have a story, personal or not that pertains to this topic?
Specializes in Med nurse in med-surg., float, HH, and PDN.
That's actually a Pro-Choice bumper sticker.
Huh! Didn't know that. There are spans of my life in which I was totally unconnected to what was happening outside my immediate vicinity. Not proud of that, but there ya go.
You are so right. How many people have you watched linger for days, only to go the second everyone finally leaves the room and stops watching them? Some people need privacy to die. And then there are the ones who wait for a specific family member to arrive, or for the clock to pass midnight so someone's birthday is over before they go.
I'm with you. Many of our actively dying patients are, frankly, obvious about letting us know they decided exactly when to go.
One of the books given to me when I first became a nurse was Final Gifts.
My daughter-in-law sent that to me a couple of days ago in remembrance of my father-in-law who died on Feb 9 at age 90. He had dementia. Fell, broke his hip, got pneumonia, terrible decub, wasn't eating. He was admitted to hospice on a Friday and died on that next Monday. They were married to 67 years. The story reminded her of my in-laws . .
Specializes in Mental Health, Gerontology, Palliative.
Absolutely agree. We had a very elderly resident pass away recently, family wanted Hospice care at the end and unfortunately terminal old age is not an accepted diagnosis. Fortunately her MD is the very understanding sort and came up with a qualifying diagnosis so Hospice was involved and their support was very much appreciated by the family.
Will add here before somebody accuses the doc of being unethical in making up a diagnosis. It was end stage CHF..maybe a bit of a stretch since she hadn't been previously diagnosed with CHF but at that point there is no doubt she was suffering heart failure.
Palliative funding for us covers any condition for which there is no cure. This includes cancers and leukemia obviously, also includes CORD, CHF, parkinsons to name but a few
It doesn't matter whether it's one's religion, conscience, philosophy, personal experience, or whatever else drives them to make a decision. Don't assume that if religion is the basis for one's decision-making that they are like a blind sheep. Many religious people are great critical thinkers and search their souls and choose to adhere to the tenants of their religions because it also aligns with who they are inside as an individual. Conversely someone who does not use religion to make decisions is not assumed to be immoral, even if those decisions do not align with those of the religious person.
The one bit of this that concerns me is how religious ideology influences people to vote in issues that affect ALL of us equally. Sometimes religious ideology leads to voting against a 'right to choose'. Of course if euthanasia or abortion or stem cell research is offensively wrong, a person will naturally want to vote 'no'. The thing is, it's not offensively wrong for reasons like stem cell research is ridiculous and a money pit; it's offensive because it is condemned by a supernatural entity, which is not considered serious or true by a significant population in the same voter's pool. I honestly do not want this sounding like I'm against people having the right to vote on their personal views, that's the point of having a vote :) It's just that we're voting for 'everyone' with our one little vote, you know? Or, we can't not consider, in our voting choice, the well being and dignity of everyone else this vote will affect.
Let's see if I can get this worded right . . . when we have a vote for "Right to Die/Euthanasia", we're voting for a CHOICE that a person can make. We aren't voting for euthanasia to be enforced, just for the choice. Individuals are free to access this choice or reject it based upon their views.
But is it truly a violation of religious principle to vote 'yes' for the sake of others who may want to choose this, even though you'd never do it yourself?
If there were a proposition to provide Christians and other religious the legal option to decline medical care in favor of prayer, off the hip I would vote 'no' and see nothing wrong in foisting that on religious people who would prefer prayer. Is this a bit entitled of me? From the religious person's POV, it is very entitled!
Religious folks who vote 'no' on a ballot for euthanasia see nothing morally wrong with foisting their principles on those who might prefer the choice for euthanasia. Isn't this sounding a bit entitled, too?
Whoever has the greatest voter turn out gets to foist their world view on those who do not share it. That's democracy for ya :)
The problem I have with this is religious views really ARE beliefs, while the choice of euthanasia isn't a matter of belief for non religious folks. What I choose is not based upon cherished beliefs or traditions, it's more like I choose based on the circumstances and options available. It seems 'wrong' for me to be denied a legal choice because of religious beliefs that have no place anywhere in my life. Does that make sense?
I hope I've avoided sounding aggressive or challenging. It's more like I think we need to discuss these kinds of things, those of us with opposing world views. No one needs to 'win' in a discussion :) Just have their points mutually respected.
Even if "Keep Your Laws Off of My Body!" is used by the pro-choice movement, don't people with cherished religious beliefs want certain laws kept off of THEIR bodies?
Gooselady, we all vote our own viewpoint, regardless of where it comes from. You vote for certain things because you think they should happen, and against others because you think they shouldn't happen. That your motivations come from a different place than mine means precisely nothing.
If it was legal, the patient had been lucid while previously making the decision, and it was within my scope of practice, I'd be all
for euthanasia. I don't hesitate to put my livestock and pets out of their misery when their times come, why would I hesitate to do so for
my fellow human being that is suffering?
Legal euthanasia requires compassion, forethought, and a certain humility, acknowledging that medicine has its limits.
I agree. I'm not sure why people are often more comfortable with PAS than euthanasia, other than keeping blood off their hands. Personally, I would much rather go via IV than pills. Pills also present the potential problem of throwing them up, or not quite working all the way and are harder to adjust, and terminal patients may not be able to swallow them or put the pills in their mouth. So PAS offers a lot more choice, but doesn't cover everyone.
OR has much more liberal laws than most but you still must be terminal, you must wait 10 days after receiving an RX to pick it up, and I believe you must have under 6 months to live? Fuzzy on the last part. Many patients fill their RX but then don't actually use it; they simply want to know that it's there.
OTOH in Holland you can get euthanasia for just about any reason. I am a bit less comfortable with that- it can be mental illness, you can be a minor.
But there are good points on either side. I am enjoying posts from hospice nurses in particular since it's a field that I'm interested in.
Gooselady, we all vote our own viewpoint, regardless of where it comes from. You vote for certain things because you think they should happen, and against others because you think they shouldn't happen. That your motivations come from a different place than mine means precisely nothing.
Not sure I agree with this. I don't like the idea of everybody having guns, but I like the idea of banning them and removing personal freedom even less. I personally would not be able to go through with having an abortion, but I do not want to take away the right for other women to do so. I think the hullabaloo over GMOs is poppycock, but I don't think it would be a bad thing for labels to be on products so that consumers can make their own decisions. Anti-vaxxers make me extremely angry but I don't think they should be federally compelled to vaccinate.
So some of us do vote for personal choice regardless of our own viewpoints.
Gooselady, we all vote our own viewpoint, regardless of where it comes from. You vote for certain things because you think they should happen, and against others because you think they shouldn't happen. That your motivations come from a different place than mine means precisely nothing.
I was thinking the same thing. We all come from different viewpoints and no one is completely unbiased.
Just using the idea of "choice" doesn't negate bias.
If actively giving someone medication in the IV kills them and some people consider that "murder", how can anyone ask those people to simply look at it as "choice" even though they personally wouldn't do that IV push?
I wouldn't stand by and watch someone club a seal to death just because there is a law on the books saying it is a free choice to do so and I am not forced to do it as well.
I think saying as long as I don't have to participate in giving a patient a medication that will assist them in purposely dying, I shouldn't voice my opposition is unfair.
Voicing that opposition by voting is fundamental to the way our country works. As previously stated, we all come from our own little world of thoughts, feelings, biases. How can any of us negate that?
This thread is good for trying to tease out why we all think the way we do. I appreciate that.
This isn't about clubbing seals who weren't able to complete an advance directive.
This is more like, I think homosexuality is a sin so therefore what happens between two consenting adults is my business and I will vote down their personal rights based on my personal religious beliefs.
This is people stating they think euthanasia or PAS is wrong based on their personal beliefs that ending a life is wrong regardless of how much suffering and zero chance of any type of improvement. It doesn't matter that someone's, who is completely unrelated to them, limbs are black and they're agonal and that they had completed an advanced directive stating their wishes to end their suffering. It's keep them comfortable if you can but ending their life painlessly a few hours early is just wrong. Period. And it's their moral imperative to block personal rights.
But there is no convincing otherwise, self righteousness runs deep.
No Stars In My Eyes
5,653 Posts
Huh! Didn't know that. There are spans of my life in which I was totally unconnected to what was happening outside my immediate vicinity.
Not proud of that, but there ya go.