Euthanasia How do you stand on this?

1. 60

   Dave Mathewsposted 11 years ago

   Euthanasia deciding when one's quality of life is no longer living, but merely existing, existing in a vegetative state being kept alive totally by machines.
   
   Do we and more importantly should we, decide, or permit a family member decide that enough is to much and be able to peacefully slip away.
   
   I brought this senario to my Pastor over the weekend to see how He and the Church would view and respond to this topic.
   
   Hypothetically, I am in an accident, a life threatening, accident and critically injured. I am being wheeled into the ER-Department at the Hospital and I manage to tell the attending doctor or doctors, that I am DNR( Do Not Recussitate ) and, I am an organ donor, and then I take a heart attack and go into cardiac arrest, and lose consciousness.  What is the doctor's responsibility regarding treatment.
   
   My Pastor related to me that in such a case, the doctor would have every right to not treat me, in order to attempt to revive me.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If I was a Doctor and you were in the hypothetical situation described I would do my best to save your life. Of course I would lose my job but then that's probably why I'm not a Doctor!

      replyreport
      1. 81

         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You wouldn't lose your job.  Acute/emergency care is not a situation where DNRs are activated.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Cool!! So doctors save lives unless a DNR is activated. I like it. Not sure that my response would be different even if a DNR was activated. Gladly I won't have to be in a jam like that.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               The DNR comes up when you are permanently unconscious (vegetative) or in the final stages of a fatal disease process.  It is to allow death to be dignified and natural.

               replyreport
            2. 71

               Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Hey Penny, nice to see you in the forums.
               
               My mother has a DNR in place for any events of the future. It was put in place to cover all bases of her wishes.
               
               If a Doctor doesn't obey a DNR(active), then s/he will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the laws covering DNRs. My mothers DNR is active. She has a wrist band stating so.
               
               As for family members deciding the outcome of a vegetable on life support? Well, as long as they are completely informed as to the situation by several doctors(not just one), should be able to be allowed to make a decision.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Dave Mathewsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Cagsil: Never thought you and I would ever find something to agree on. What a shock but a nice one.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Eventually it had to happen.

                     replyreport
               2. 60

                  pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Nice to see you too Cags!
                  
                  Yep I would be broke, possibly jailed.
                  
                  I do understand what you say when they are in place. My mum left it to her many children (12) to decide. In our culture the majority rules and more so if you are older. The older ones decided a dignified death versus ongoing suffering was better.

                  replyreport
      2. 60

         Dave Mathewsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Not only might you lose your job, therre could be an expensive law suit too.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Thankfully this is hypothetical. I would be jobless and penniless and possibly homeless.
            
            But hypothetically thinking my conscience would be clear and spirit not troubled even if I'm sitting in a jail somewhere.

            replyreport
2. 81

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   If you have made a DNR request the doctor will not make heroic effort to save you that are unlikely to significantly extend your life (in a hospice situation) or cause you to return to consciousness (e.g. out of a vegetative state).
   
   They will of course still save you if actual recovery is still possible. If your pastor suggested that DNR would cause a doctor to withhold curative treatment he or she is just completely wrong.
   
   I would suggest researching DNR and making sure your family know your wishes *before* you end up in a palliative care situation.

   replyreport
3. 71

   aguasilverposted 11 years ago

   I always hold that God gave me an allocated time, and my prayer has long been that I live exactly the time that God has decreed, not one second more, not one second less.
   
   That effectively removes the enemies ability to short change me or keep me around longer than my allotted time.
   
   I guess that makes me DNR, but I would never carry a card to announce that, organ harvest is a thriving activity, especially on still breathing corpses!
   
   Dying from an accident, is whole lot different from Euthanasia, which implies that someone effectively kills you at your behest.
   
   Let God alone decide when you die.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Dave Mathewsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      aguasilver: I used the Hypothetical to illustrate how certain situations can virtually "Untie" the hands of the doctor with regards to Euthanasia. Under the circumstances as I laid it out, the doctor has no legal obligation to try and revive the person, and cannot be held accountable, unless he tries to save the patient.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The hypothetical is completely invalid and would not have that effect.  DNRs are highly specific and highly regulated and do not apply to an 'accident' ER setting. The must be written and witnessed in a non-emergency setting and apply to a palliative situation where life saving efforts would be invasive and ultimately futile.
         
         If you are implying doctors want to let healthy people die of their injuries Iam baffled.  Do you seriously think doctors want to kill people and sell their kidneys on eBay or something? If anything non-hospice doctors want to save people no matter what. They tend to be highly motivated to "win" and save the patient.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Dave Mathewsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Canada's laws vary from province to province.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               None of them would allow a doctor to withhold curative life-saving care outside of a palliative care scenario. Every Canadian province specifies that DNR is for terminal cases only, as does every US State.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Dave Mathewsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You missed what I said. "Life Threatening and Critical Condition, infers possible imminent death.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     No, I didn't. 
                     
                     That is not a situation that activates a DNR.  That is why I have mainly used the term "palliative" in this discussion, but as that didn't seem to be getting through I used the clearer but somewhat less accurate "terminal".
                     
                     All palliative situations are terminal but not all terminal situations are palliative. It means not just 'death might occur' but 'a treatment situation where a cure is no longer possible and death or irrecoverable unconsciousness will inevitably occur in the short to medium term'.
                     
                     In your scenario a cure is still possible so the doctor would not even check to see if there is a DNR and would be legally prevented from acting upon one.
                     
                     So, as I said, you example is completely incorrect at the outset--it suggests that either you or the pastor are trying to scare people with DNR myths in order to pursue a strict anti-euthanasia agenda.  Pursue it to the point were a person ready to die a natural death at the end of all possible treatment is being electrically shocked and pummeled not allowed to go in peace and relative comfort.

                     replyreport
4. 81

   LeanManposted 11 years ago

   My father inlaw was dying from cancer, the secondary was lung cancer and it was this that was killing him. He could barely breath, was in great pain, unable to move, could not control his bodily functions and the doctor had already said that he would not last the week out.
   He asked me to overdose him on his morphine as he was too weak to do it himself, I happily helped him as he was just prolonging his agony and the agony of everyone around him if he did not.
   In this case there was nothing that anyone could have done to save him and nothing that would have given him quality of life.
   
   The scenario where you have been in an accident then have a heart attack is different, you can be saved and should be saved simple as that. Maybe if you were already identified as being in a vegetative state with no possibility of recovery then a DNR following a heart attack would be justified.

   replyreport
5. 77

   jacharlessposted 11 years ago

   I hear there are plenty of Youths In Asia...

   replyreport
   1. 60

      pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Made me laugh when I finally got it!!

      replyreport