Should Nurses help Doctors in Physician assisted suicide (euthanasia)

[Caleb12]

I believe that nurses have a legal responsibility and a moral obligation to keep patients alive not to help them commit suicide.

What do you think about euthanasia and are you for it or against it.

[AmyRN303, BSN, RN]

Let me guess.....this is a homework assignment, right?

[TexRN, BSN, RN]

I think that if we can euthanize people that cannot choose for themselves legally, why shouldn't nurses be allowed to assist in something that for once is fully informed consent? Their body, their choice. If they can afford it I don't see the issue.

[Caleb12]

I believe that we have a responsibility to keep individuals alive no matter what the costs. Thats what we do, help keep others alive not help them kill themselves.

[nursel56]

I don't think euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are the same thing.

[Rose_Queen, BSN, MSN, RN]

I believe that we have a responsibility to keep individuals alive no matter what the costs. Thats what we do, help keep others alive not help them kill themselves.

No matter what the costs? Might I suggest you print this quote out and come back and look at it after a few years practicing as a fully licensed nurse? As you grow more familiar with those costs of keeping people alive no matter what (and I am in no way whatsoever referring to monetary costs), you will probably grow and change your stance on that.

As for whether I would help a physician in providing assisted suicide, the answer is most likely yes. I have seen unbelievable patient suffering that does indeed make those costs of keeping someone alive far too much. As long as the patient is fully competent, over the age of 18 (or whatever the age of majority is for their location), and has provided informed consent, then that is their choice in obtaining health care.

[Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN]

We are happy to help what semester are you? What class is this for?

[Episteme]

It was years ago, and maybe things have changed... but Canon Law (i.e., the Pope and his homey's) did NOT call it immoral if physicians, nurses, family and other involved parties allowed the mortal illness to be the proximal cause of death. I have taken that to mean that there is no reason to give "futile care."

From this, you get the notion of "comfort care". Our first responsibility is to find out if the patient, while healthy, ever expressed their wishes about whether or not they wanted to be kept alive artificially. If for example, a patient's driver's license says he is an organ donor... the answer is clear. They would not have wanted to be kept alive for no purpose when all hope is gone. If there is no known expression from the patient on the subject, the decision is given to the next of kin.

Mrs. P. has breast cancer with mets to the brain. She's had rounds and rounds of chemo. Because her platelets were so low and she was so weak, she fell down, hit her head and bled into her brain. Her large midline shift due to the expanding bleed will cause her to herniate her brain stem within hours. The neurosurgeons are called. Do we take her to the OR and drain the blood? Then send her to ICU for a very rocky and uncertain "recovery"? The oncologist suggests that there is little more available to Mrs. P. to fight her cancer. That train has left the station.

You make the call.

[Here.I.Stand, BSN, RN]

Actually we don't keep people alive no matter what the cost--we place pts on comfort care all the time. Regular meds, IV fluids, tubefeeds, ventilator, medical treatments etc. are discontinued; and the provider orders a bunch of meds for comfort. Our docs typically use morphine to alleviate pain and air hunger, ativan for anxiety, and scopalomine patch & atropine eyedrops sublingually to dry up those secretions that the dying pt can't manage. One of two things happens: the pt dies, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, he's transferred to a nursing home or hospice.

This decision is made if the pt's condition is in line w/ what he DOESN'T want per his advance directive, or if one isn't available following discussions between the physician, family, and pt (if able to communicate.)

This is not assisted suicide, however. This is keeping a dying pt comfortable as he succumbs to his DISEASE or INJURIES.

Now if a pt decides he wants to commit suicide and his physician agrees to help him, that's up to the physician to carry out. I will not actively euthanize someone. I DO have moral objections to it, but regardless it's illegal in my state and I'm not risking legal repercussions for a pt's wishes. I enjoy my freedom too much. If the physician agrees to it, she can draw up that insulin or KCl and inject it herself. There's really nothing she needs a 2nd person to assist with.

[LadyFree28, BSN, LPN, RN]

Let me guess.....this is a homework assignment, right?

I was thinking, the OP could've done a quick search of the threads, or even better yet...Google.

[KelRN215, BSN, RN]

I believe that we have a responsibility to keep individuals alive no matter what the costs. Thats what we do, help keep others alive not help them kill themselves.

This is quite possibly the most untrue statement I've ever read. We do NOT keep individuals alive no matter the cost. We use palliative care and hospice to facilitate good deaths all the time. If we determine that someone has no meaningful chance of recovery or that further interventions are futile, we often don't pursue them. A young person with a TBI might survive a long time with a trach, a vent, a G-tube for example but that doesn't mean that we automatically do that. Death with Dignity was on the ballot in my state in 2012, I voted FOR it.

[Episteme]

I have always gotten the heeby-jeebies, skin-crawling, nauseous feeling whenever politics enters this realm. Nothing good can happen from it. However, political leanings aside, I think we view futile care in much the same way.

Politicians... keep them away from anything of significance. There's nothing they couldn't muck up.