mikegarrison

Yes, this has become a heated political question in recent days. But it's also a question of ethics, morals and philosophy. That's the sense I want to discuss here.

I recently had a very stimulating conversation about this subject. Both of us had known people who had killed themselves after being diagnosed with cancer.

My friend felt that the correct moral response should be that we have an obligation to not inflict harm on other people. Killing yourself inflicts harm on the people left behind. Thus, it is a moral failure of the person who does it. (This oversimplifies the argument, but it's good enough for a starting point.)

I felt that we have an obligation not to harm other people, but that we must balance this with what it is possible for us to do. I felt like the people who had chosen death under these circumstances had reached the limit of what it was possible for them to do, and therefore the argument that they should have held on for the sake of those in their lives was no longer operative. So it would be immoral to prevent them from taking their own life just because it would harm others. (This also oversimplifies things, but....)

My friend thought the proper course of action for someone who wanted to die rather than face treatment would be to medicate very heavily for pain, reject treatment, and try to give everyone involved enough time to adjust to things. But I wondered why that would be OK, but taking just a little bit more pain medication and slipping away would not be OK. I also wonder if any amount of time would be "long enough" for that adjustment to the idea that death is coming for someone in our lives.

I guess my own personal philosophy is that we are each responsible for our own decisions. I don't want to hurt other people, but in the end I must make my choices based on what is right for me. They must make their choices based on what is right for them. And just as I don't want them making my choices for me, I have no right to expect to make their choices for them. I think my friend feels the same way, but placed more relative value on the interconnections between people, while I placed more relative value on the independence of people.

So, anybody else want to join the discussion?

valentine

^^ this paragraph sums up the way I feel. I also feel that it should be reasonable for me to be in charge of what medical treatment I choose or refuse. I think the choice to live or die should be able to be made by the individual based on his/her needs/desires, etc. No one should be forced to continue to exist under circumstances that he/she finds intolerable.

Morris

I'll add responses after I finish Dr. Kevorkian's new book. It's called 'I'm okay- You're DOA'.

MsPerky

Those other people aren't living the life of the sick person and are in no position to judge or prevent whatever decision s/he makes with regard to checking out. Plus, from what I've learned about pain management (or lack thereof), there is no way I'd stick around if I weren't getting relief or did not see any reason to keep going.

Legal Bill

Under your friend's logic, you could never get divorced or break up with your girl friend as it would cause her pain.

Logic aside, I don't see how lingering in pain is any easier for the loved ones. Why is that not painful for them?

Reality aside, I agree that we should all have the ultimate choice, provided it can be demonstrated that we are of sound mind when we make the decision. I'm not sure you even have to be sick or terminally ill.

mikegarrison

I have perhaps not presented my friend's argument sufficiently well. I did find elements of it to be compelling. If this were an easy question, it would have been definitely answered long ago.

But yes, I ultimately think that my point of view leads to the answer that you are not restricted in the circumstances in which you decide to end your life. I see no argument that says you must be in pain or terminally ill. However, most people are not wired up that way. Most people want to live.

Some of the murky areas revolve around mental illness. Depression, for instance, can lead one to suicide. Is that something that should be prevented, because the person is sick? Or is it just that we have defined "wanting to kill yourself" as being sick?

My father went through a tough battle with depression. I would have been devastated if he had killed himself. I think I would have done anything in my power to have prevented that, ignoring his rights to the contrary. As much as I love my mother, my father is the anchor of my life. So am I just selfish? Maybe I am. But I think he is greatly enjoying his life now, so maybe I would have been right for his sake as well as mine.

cordycord

Okay, no politics. But how about religion?

This is not a philosophy or religious dogma--just an observation. It seemed like it took a long time for Pope John Paul to die. He couldn't walk, he could barely talk. Whenever the news put him on TV, it took 25 seconds to get two garbled words out. It was awkward, yet I think his struggle for life showed that life, even a small sliver of what a "normal" life would be, has value.

It appears that JP valued life, even a painful one. That, and the birth of my two sons, helped mold my opinion of the value of life.

BTW, I'm not a church-goer.

mikegarrison

Religion definitely is part of the question. I think it may have had a big role in the difference in opinion between my friend and me.

If one believes that there is some purpose to the universe, that tends to lead to the conclusion that we don't have the absolute right to take ourselves out of the picture. If one believes that the only purpose in the universe is that which we ourselves create, then that tends to lead to the opposite conclusion.

RC - Ryder

^^^ Val said it better and more succinct than I could have. Mike, you hit it when you said religion is probably the difference between you and your friend's outlook.
My concern is that there are so many people who are despondent, depressed, bipolar, or just lonely who are not able to make proper decisions in this matter. Surely, we don't need official people whose job is to help these people in their decisionmaking.
I'll give an example that kind of summerizes my concerns. A woman named Bettye Stoll died in Sandusky, Ohio at age 93 last Thursday. Check it yourself. What it didn't say in the obituary is how she died or that she was of clear mind, weight 68 pounds, and a body that betrayed her. This woman was my long ago ex's aunt. I really liked and admired this iron woman, who once lent me money when I needed it. Anyhow after 14 years in a nursing home - 11 of it on Medicaid as you might guess, she had the misfortune to catch pneumonia on Monday. Taken to the hospital, she was released on meds. Taken back to the hospital on Tues and put on oxygen. She signs a DNR. She gets some treatments and she resurges. More treatments on Wed but is having difficulty with oxygen saturation. Docs say she needs to be intubated to be able to sedate and treat her properly. Her two kids refuse. She gets treament on Thurs and resurges, asking her son to take her to McDonalds for a cheeseburger mid afternoon. 5PM docs say she needs to be intubated or could die soon. Kids say no to intubation. Docs suggest a morphine sedative and transfer to local inpatient hospice. That would be my sister's hospice. They sedated her because she would have cursed and tried to beat the sh*t out of the ambulance people. Once there she is settled in and gets more morphine. She dies at 1:30 AM, is cremated, and has a memorial service on Saturday. Was it her time to die - absolutely not. Did she die naturally - absolutely not. She was EUTHANISED, or put down in Vet speak. Was it her decision - absolutely not. That's what's wrong with "one show fits all."
My sister's average daily Hospice census is circa 250 very much dying people. I hear it all the time. She's an expert on cowardice and courage in death; on the merits and consequences of non-feeding and withholding fluids; she knows all about the consequences of "medicate heavily" everyday legalized euthanasia; all about noble and pathetic family members; how to deal with the young children of dying mothers and fathers who refuse drugs and want every last second and breath available to them; she knows all about "that's what he/she wanted."
Yes, I think people should be able to make their own decisions. But, it doesn't always turn out that way. Yes, I think the Pope was stupid to desire maximum pain and suffereing in order to be worthy. Yes, I think it was selfish of my MIL to want to die in her own bed and her own house; she should have thought about the impact on her daughter to minister to her every wish to the last breath. Hell, my wife administered that last dose of morphine herself.
Mike, I wish things were as simple per se' as you see them. I zeroed out a lot of pets over the years, and none of them saw it coming and I never felt good about it.

Lainey

John, I always enjoy your posts.

What do you think the aunt really wanted.

I know both my Dad and Rick's Dad were given morphine to keep them comfortable as they passed. My Dad from lung disease, Rick's Dad from a brain bleed.

In both cases I think it was a wise decision, yet I'm sure the morphine helped nature along.