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?
Those with cherished religious beliefs seem to operate on the theory that if they believe something is wrong, NO ONE should have the option for doing that thing. If *I* believe that abortion is wrong, it ought to be illegal so that NO ONE can ever have one. The "Keep your laws off my body" bumper sticker essentially means that if you believe abortion is wrong, don't have one. But don't limit other peoples' choices because of YOUR religious beliefs.
Most of us in this country believe it's wrong for the Taliban to prohibit women from driving, appearing in public without being fully veiled or to leave their home without a male "escort." But a large portion of this country, while believing that it's wrong to make laws about those things, believe it's OK to limit choices on abortion, same sex marriage and other cherished religious beliefs held by THEIR group.
Crazy!
It is bizarre from a secular point of view, to conduct one's life according to ancient sacred texts, much less vote accordingly. Red Kryptonite said different sources of motivation are irrelevant, but not from a multicultural POV.
I don't think anyone agrees that equal weight be given to personal beliefs as objective fact. Airplanes don't stay up in the sky because of 'belief', and no one would get in an airplane flown by a pilot who prays instead of using the science of flight.
But in the case of human life rather than aviation, personal beliefs are given equal weight to secular ethics (ie, morality determined by ethical discussion and observation rather than 'given' by a supernatural being). Those who don't derive their morality from belief in a supernatural being may be 'forced' to, given the equal weight given to religious belief.
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 can be negated by the objective fact that we have to share the world and our lives with all these people living in their own little worlds. We can't agree, and shouldn't have to, about the subjective qualities of our individual lives. But we shouldn't have subjective values given equal weight with objective facts. Your (the generic) supernatural being's edicts are a non issue to a Hindu or a non-religious person.
I work in a hospice for a few years, and there are a bunch medications prescribed by doctors, specifically for each symptom.
here we have to use our nursing knowlegde to determinate when, how much, why we have to give medication.
It may be pain (terminal cancer) restlessness, anxiety, etc
nurse advocate for patients and family members, if neither medication nor complementary therapy ( like therapeutic touch, for example) does not work. We communicate to the doctor and palliative doctor would prescribe "sedation for terminal restlessness administration" usually administrated by Cadd Pump. Palliative sedation is an option of last resort
This medication will sedate the patient until he declines
In this case, nurses in palliative would not help to heal people but would give comfort at the end of life
Sometimes my mind takes off on tangents, so sorry in advance! Another aspect to the argument that I'm not sure has been addressed is financial considerations. Enter yet more grey areas. These are the what if's that pop into my scattered mind: What if euthanasia is legal and the suffering patients POA decided it's time for Grandma to go now because the hospital bills will bankrupt them? Who will, who should get that final say on when it's time to die if the patient can no longer choose?
Sometimes my mind takes off on tangents, so sorry in advance! Another aspect to the argument that I'm not sure has been addressed is financial considerations. Enter yet more grey areas. These are the what if's that pop into my scattered mind: What if euthanasia is legal and the suffering patients POA decided it's time for Grandma to go now because the hospital bills will bankrupt them? Who will, who should get that final say on when it's time to die if the patient can no longer choose?
This isn't an answer to your question, just the opposite perspective, we see families who live with the patient, often the patient's home but also can be the family's. When the patient dies, their SS goes with them, which can and has caused financial hardship for the family depending on that income to help keep the home. And then there are those who are reimbursed by IHSS as the patient's caregiver who will lose both the SS and IHSS income. To say that doesn't come into play when resisting transition to hospice when it's glaringly appropriate would be naive. They may be very dedicated caregivers who love grandma but losing their home can be part of the influencing factors.
And other than the spouse or parent of a child, family isn't obligated for the medical bills, though their expenses do eat into potential inheritance. I see occasionally not wanting to place grandma whose liquid and equity funds will drain to pay for it.
When it comes to which side is the worse when considering end of life situations, resisting palliative care is the greater evil.
But mostly I see dedicated family members regardless of any underlying financial motivation.
Sometimes my mind takes off on tangents, so sorry in advance! Another aspect to the argument that I'm not sure has been addressed is financial considerations. Enter yet more grey areas. These are the what if's that pop into my scattered mind: What if euthanasia is legal and the suffering patients POA decided it's time for Grandma to go now because the hospital bills will bankrupt them? Who will, who should get that final say on when it's time to die if the patient can no longer choose?
I have serious doubts that there would ever come a day that anyone but the patient could choose, at least in the form of some sort of advanced directive.
Thanks Libby1987! My mind can continue to circle around this. You are of course right, the loss of income caused by a persons death can also be a consideration for continuing to keep somebody going as long as possible. I have seen mostly good, and even great families. I have unfortunately also seen some lousy families that drained everything a resident had worked their whole lives for. Sadly a few times this ended up in police intervention. I think of a married couple we had, after the couple found out that their Granddaughter had taken them for pretty much every cent they had he passed away within a month, I'm pretty sure of a broken heart. He was one of the first that we used the term palliative care for. His wife was never the same. She was very bitter and difficult to deal with and who can blame her.
I don't think I'll ever be okay with the idea of physician assisted (or nurse assisted) suicide. I suppose there's an element of hypocrisy in being both pro-choice and anti-assisted-suicide, but there it is.
For a doctor/nurse to participate in an assisted suicide or in euthanasia seems like a fundamental breach of both nursing and of medicine. Hospice care, palliative care, terminal sedation, titrated morphine are all treating the symptoms of the dying process. Giving a KCl injection because someone with a bad prognosis wants to die is something else entirely.
Forgive me if someone posted this already, but here's a cut-and-paste of the ANA's stance:
Statement of ANA Position: The American Nurses Association (ANA) prohibits nurses' participationin assisted suicide and euthanasia because these acts are in direct violation of Code of Ethics for Nurseswith Interpretive Statements (ANA, 2001; herein referred to as The Code), the ethical traditions and goalsof the profession, and its covenant with society. Nurses have an obligation to provide humane,comprehensive, and compassionate care that respects the rights of patients but upholds the standardsof the profession in the presence of chronic, debilitating illness and at end-of-life.
I have serious doubts that there would ever come a day that anyone but the patient could choose, at least in the form of some sort of advanced directive.
Plenty of people had serious doubts that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to challenges of anti-polygamy laws....and yet here we are. Slopes are slippery and things slide down them.
Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
Plenty of people had serious doubts that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to challenges of anti-polygamy laws....and yet here we are. Slopes are slippery and things slide down them.
Apples to oranges. And the only part of the law that I can see being struck down is that of cohabitation- it does not specifically state that polygamy is no longer illegal.
Should euthanasia/assisted suicide become legal, I am sure that there will be a multitude of regulations created, just like there are regulations for so many other aspects of health care. Attitudes and society evolves; the only thing that is constant is change.
Apples to oranges. And the only part of the law that I can see being struck down is that of cohabitation- it does not specifically state that polygamy is no longer illegal.
People always say that. And I would add "yet" at the end of the quote. Incrementalism is a time-tested strategy, used over and over again. I'm amazed people can't recognize it with as many times as it's been used, and on so many different issues.
Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
People always say that. And I would add "yet" at the end of the quote. Incrementalism is a time-tested strategy, used over and over again. I'm amazed people can't recognize it with as many times as it's been used, and on so many different issues.
That's your view on it, but this thread is about euthanasia- let's not continue to derail the topic, please.
Gooselady, BSN, RN
601 Posts
It is bizarre from a secular point of view, to conduct one's life according to ancient sacred texts, much less vote accordingly. Red Kryptonite said different sources of motivation are irrelevant, but not from a multicultural POV.
I don't think anyone agrees that equal weight be given to personal beliefs as objective fact. Airplanes don't stay up in the sky because of 'belief', and no one would get in an airplane flown by a pilot who prays instead of using the science of flight.
But in the case of human life rather than aviation, personal beliefs are given equal weight to secular ethics (ie, morality determined by ethical discussion and observation rather than 'given' by a supernatural being). Those who don't derive their morality from belief in a supernatural being may be 'forced' to, given the equal weight given to religious belief.