I have been a nurse for three years and spent the first year and a half on a med-surg/oncology unit. All life is precious and valuable.
When there is an anminal suffering, in agonizing pain, nothing can be done, and the medications does not allow for comfort, why are pet owners given the opposition and made to feel bad if they allow there animal to suffer. Why are we allowed to end the suffering of our beloved animal but not a beloved family member.
Why are the humans that want to end their suffering not allowed and the doctors that want to help persecuted for helping. YES I KNOW IT IS A MORTAL SIN IN GOD'S EYES, so no I do not need or require a bible lesson.
But I am just curious what others think on this issue from a medical stand point. Am I totally wrong for feeling as I do. The first thing a vet says to a pet owner is "Is it right to allow him/her to suffer"
QUESTION: Why is it humane to euthanize a very sick animal but not allow the same choice for an A&Ox3 individual with a living will?
You have to suffer to sing the blues....A blues singer said this many years ago, but I find parallels with that in Christianity. A lot of Christians believe that life is supposed to be suffered through...like the more suffering you endure the more brownie points you get in heaven. The Jesus I know would disagree.
I don't know any Christians who believe you get more "brownie points" for suffering here on earth. We believe we can't work our way into heaven and are simply saved by the grace of God. Not by works.
I think people can commit suicide if they wish however I don't believe that nurses and doctors should assist in that.
Since we now have Hospice, there is a very kind and compassionate way for people to die. Hospice nurses are so awesome.
Pain control is available now.
Comfort care is available now.
I think others have said it well, animals and human beings are different and we were made in the image of God and have souls. I don't believe animals do have souls.
Granted, these are just my beliefs but so is every single post on here - our beliefs.
As to the stories about people being on vents, that just points out the importance of advanced directives and DNR.
I do not believe in medical intervention like that. Not putting someone on a vent is NOT assisted suicide. Not doing CPR on a person is not the same as assisted suicide.
Suicide is of course a terrible thing to have to resort to . . .. I would hope that these folks could be under the care of a gentle hospice nurse instead.
all animals were put into subjection and it is our obligation to put an animal down if it is injuried or sick beyond repair and not let it suffer a prolonged death provided it is within our powers to do so. the fact the animal is wild doesn't negate man's stewardship over them.
I have had to kill ground hogs that were severely injuried, did I enjoy it? no but it was within my power to do something for them and if they can't be cured. humans are another matter we have not been authorized to kill other humans even if they are suffering terribly, but it's the individuals responibility to decide for themselves what to do, if your sick and you won't get better I can't imagine that a person would feel like they did something wrong just because they refused certain treatments meant to prolong that death.
as long as they decided for themselves and someone else didn't decide for them except in the case of a person who didn't tell others ahead of time and put it in writting it falls on the family to decide what they know or think their family member would want if that person is in a unreversible coma or something.
but we must be careful not to make end of life decisions lightly, doctors are not always right about prognosises, they sometimes make mistakes about whether a person will recover or not. so it stands that we are very careful about the descion to end of life, waiting to exhaust all options.
especially when there is a way to control pain and suffering long enough to be sure.
I recommend the book 'The Sisterhood' by Michael Palmer. It is a fictional story about a group of nurses that started euthanizing terminal patients. I really empathized with the nurses at first, but then the story shows how a few corrupt nurses gradually morphed into a secondary group that killed people in exchange for payment. It really is a 'slippery slope' when we try to decide the criteria for euthanasia, and this novel graphically shows how corruption and greed can destroy good intensions.
After nursing for years and years, I've seen too many patients without advance directives, no living wills. Or if the Pt has one but the family strongly disagrees with it, the doctor may overide it.
I have no terminal illness, no DX of a fatal illness. But I do have directives in place, and my family members know exactly how I feel about life support in the event I am rendered ..........
Anyway, I seen so much needless suffering. For both the patient and their families.
And no, it's not recent thinking to allow people to die with dignity. If one looks back through history, you would find the opposite. I think it's rather recent that we have had the ability to sustain one's life by artifical means.
And I think it's a really western style of thought that fails to recognize death as a part of life.
Let's point out that there is a world of difference between advanced directives and euthanasia.
One is stopping the use of aggressive measures to prevent the inevitable.
Had an elderly patient on my unit a few weeks ago who just wouldn't quit breathing. Her body was dying. Her flesh smelled rotten. We wrapped her in linens because her skin was weeping and where ever you touced her, the skin slid right off. Her heart was beating, but her body was dying. Her eyes remained closed. Her face never reflected pain. Was she suffering? No way to know. Was it a dignified death? NIMO. The family insisted that she receive IV hydration and nurishment almost until the end of her life. My heart hurt to see her like this, and my values did not allow for such a prolonged death. HOWEVER her family's values did allow for it. And THAT is why it is ok to euthanize animals but not humans.
A lot here to think about. In the end, I think I'm against human euthanasia. Actually, I'm not entirely comfortable with animal euthanasia, but I guess sometimes it has to be done. The key difference, I suppose, has to do with the idea that an animal can't really understand why he's suffering.
A more succinct answer, albeit a simplistic one, might be, "Why is it okay to eat animals, but not humans?"
because animals were put into subjection to humans not other humans.
we don't have the right to decide who lives or dies that is purly the right of the creator. as for humans, animals were put into our care and stewardship or rulership if you will but other humans were not put into subjection to other humans. any subjection that humans have over others is relative.
but the individual has to decide for themselves what they will do.
that is why humans commit no wrong when they kill an animal for food or to protect themselves as long as it is done with the least amount of suffering.
RR
OK, I love a good hot debate.
Questions:
(1)So is killing a human who’s trying to kill us also wrong? You can bet your bottom dollar that when it’s me or them, I’ll at least GO DOWN trying to make sure it’s THEM every time.
(2)Are we not meant to take care of each other, not just animals?
(3)What if it were YOU in the end stages of something particularly nasty? You wouldn’t want to, at the very least, be doped up to the BRINK of euthanasia (the lovely wide open morphine, which I hope to GOD someone has the wherewithal to shoot me up with someday)? Just curious.
(4) And if it were, via an advance directive, the individual's wish TO be euthanized (let's assume it's legal), doesn't that tell you where they stand?
I still don't get that it's "okay" to put my ferrets down when they no longer enjoy life, but we let people suffer? I don't get it. I know about social mores but with all the awful things I see on the six o'clock news that people get by with, I struggle with this.
Well I don't agree with that at all. I don't believe anything is a "mortal sin".
I don't belive humans should have to suffer anymore than animals should and it is an individuals right to end their life, no one should have to suffer needlessly.
I agree. If God is forgiving, how is anything a mortal sin? I have a bit of trouble with that.
(Even though I believe there are folks who just aren't listened to, and go straight below. Child molesters, cold-blooded murderers....I think they're probably forgiven but even God has His limits....)
(I am an RN, but was also a certified Vet Tech for 6 years)
1) Generally, when a pet is that ill/injured, people do what they think is best, and they want to end the pet's suffering in a genuinely loving way.
2) There really isn't any way for a peron to "know" what a pet would "want' so they make the best choice that they can
3) If a person has a living will or is aware enough to make that decision-it's their life, and they have to come to terms with whatever beliefs/faith that they may have; I have no right to tell them what to do or not do-I really really believe that.
4) but at the same time, I have seen people at work and with family, who have zero quality of life, who want desparately to live, and I have seen people who were "DNR", who for whatever reason-family, paperwork, etc-have been resuscitated and are glad-
5) And using the analogy of euthansia for animals brings me to the main point that causes me to think twice about euthanasia for people is this: Once euthanasia is considered acceptable for people to choose for themselves, how long before it becomes a choice that families make for a pt; we have all seen families make choices opposite to what a patient wants-how long would it take before it becomes " well, we think that mom is suffering, and we know that she wouldn't want to a burden to us (or our finances, or our time) so we think that helping her go would be best"-I realise that this greatly simplifies it, but it seems to be the natural progression of this type of thing-they do currently allow euthanasia for extremely sick babies in the Netherlands. Or even worse, "LTC pt susie's insurance has run out, and we are losing $10,000 a day on her care; it would make the best sense to end her suffering" ---A hospital recently withdrew life support from a 27/28 year old woman because she had no way to pay her bills(Slate E-zine). Kevorkian filmed some of his assisted suicides to prove that he didn't actually do it-but he also had one that showed a person changing his mind at the last minute, but kevorkian not allwoing him to back out. People currently can choose to terminate a pregnancy that will produce a child with Downs, or some other birth defect that they deem unacceptable-how long would it be to allow that after the fact "susie is severely Downs, and has no real quality of life, plus her physical defects cause her suffering, /we can't afford the intensive care that she needs, / the rest of our kids feel neglected...." It just seems to open a whole Pandoras Box of ethical questions that we may not be able to answer or handle. Movements grow from movements, once euthanasia is allowed for certain cases, I sincerely believe that it will progress to other cases-and where would it stop?
And while I guess it is likely bad taste; I also think of a propaganda film make by Hitler that, through a love story, made the argument that anyone who is defective in anyway wouldn't want to live, and so euthanasia would be best
But I am not against it; I wouldn't insist that someone suffer needlessly;I sincerely, completely beleive that each person has the unequivocable right to decide this type of thing-I have also seen patients really wanting suffering to end. I worked with a pharmacist with strong pro-views, and learned from him. I would never tell someone that they are wrong for wanting to end their own suffering. I can't imagine being faced with a terminal illness and long-term horrific pain. I honestly am undecided, because it is a very permanent choice. These are just the things i think about with this topic
You bring up MANY MANY MANY good points - and I agree with you. It's not cut and dried; there's no black and white here.
But I still think the option should exist. How to "control" it - I have NO idea.
I personally/professionally don't want to become a Executioner, and i would think physicians wouldn't want this on their conscience either. I do believe humans as like animals deserve the ending of pain and suffering with Dignity, it doesn't matter whether you deem humans any better than animals, ultimately it is the human element that decides.
Had an elderly patient on my unit a few weeks ago who just wouldn't quit breathing. Her body was dying. Her flesh smelled rotten. We wrapped her in linens because her skin was weeping and where ever you touced her, the skin slid right off. Her heart was beating, but her body was dying. Her eyes remained closed. Her face never reflected pain. Was she suffering? No way to know. Was it a dignified death? NIMO. The family insisted that she receive IV hydration and nurishment almost until the end of her life. My heart hurt to see her like this, and my values did not allow for such a prolonged death. HOWEVER her family's values did allow for it. And THAT is why it is ok to euthanize animals but not humans.
.thumb.gif.09f7460d3e1ff8d6732564d77b5465cb.gif){kind=avatar}
carolinapooh, BSN, RN
3,577 Posts
oops - double post, somehow....