Right, so I was thinking about medicines such as the brompton cocktail; administered by doctors to terminally ill patients who would undergo a lot of pain prior to their inevitable demise, in which case the medicine given was a last-ditch effort, more to numb the pain before the death of the patient as opposed to the slow death they would face. Brompton cocktail(which I am using as an example) contains heroin, cocaine, morphine, and ethyl alcohol, which do relieve pain, but are very bad for the patient. I presume this is a highly controversial subject and would like to know where the community of ArmorGames stands. On one hand, there is a slight chance of the patient making a recovery. Here are some comprehensive graphs on cancer by the U.S. government(some fatal medications, as they will henceforth be called, are applicable for cancer), for you to see statistics on the illness. According to this Q/A article 55/100 cancer patients(I'm using cancer as my main example here, folks) survive five years or more, but then die, so that's more than half, add to that the presumed few that die before the five years, and the basic idea is that cancer is mostly fatal. As I just said, just over half of cancer patients live for five years or more(the article was rather vague on that) then die. Five years of suffering from the side affects of cancer(which, depending upon the type of cancer, includes persistent coughing of blood, diarrhea, anemia, lumps, indigestion, among other things. This information can be checked here). So, now having this information, could it be more humane to simply kill them using fatal medications? We're assuming, of course, that the patient and his/her family has given the doctor their permission to do so(without this permission, it would be considered murder). And that very fine line between humane killing and murder is what many critics fall back on. It's like murder, and we all know that murder is wrong. And yet, you are likely saving them from a long and drawn out death by sickness. However, as I said, there is always the possibility that they do make a miraculous recovery, and that is also a topic of debate. What if they would have made a recovery? How can the doctor know for certain if someone is terminal, and thereby justify the use of these fatal medications? So...yeah. I'm not really taking a side on this, I just want to see peoples' opinions on it. Thank you for your time.
Assuming the patient who is, in fact, diagnosed as terminal, requests the fatal medication, then it could be easily debated that it isn't the doctor killing them, but the patient themselves. If you put yourself in the terminally ill patients shoes. You are in horrible pain, you know your going to die, and your environment (the hospital) isn't comfortable. Would you rather die (or at least put into a comatose state until such time as that you die a natural death), or suffer until the bitter end?
The bitter end never comes easy, or quick. Your body fights the disease until your body ceases to exist as an animate organism, which leads to long, drawn out deaths. Your body doesn't realize you're in pain, only your brain does. This is why you cannot control your immune system.
I'm all for it. After all, these people would probably kill themselves anyways.
After all, these people would probably kill themselves anyways.
I have a qualm with only this part of your statement; we are, after all, presumably talking about terminally ill patients who are likely so weak they are unable to even take their own life, for if their health has deteriorated to the point that it is a near positive fact that they will die wherefore they would want to kill themselves, they would likely be so weakened by the illness that they would be incapable of doing so.
I have a qualm with only this part of your statement; we are, after all, presumably talking about terminally ill patients who are likely so weak they are unable to even take their own life, for if their health has deteriorated to the point that it is a near positive fact that they will die wherefore they would want to kill themselves, they would likely be so weakened by the illness that they would be incapable of doing so.
Most terminal patients are likely to have a decent enough amount of strength as to grab some bedside implement and end their misery. Generally, if they aren't strong enough to even do that, they're probably in far late stage terminal illness. When they reach that point, their life probably depends on outside sources to stay alive; ventilators, dialysis, etc. They can request that they not recieve such treatment until they're dead, and can even (assuming they're capable of conscious thought) stop eating, thus killing themselves in a manner that is quite a bit faster. Their over driven immune systems would speed up the starvation process to where instead of 2 weeks or so, it takes only 5-7 days. That equals a pretty quick death. Their brain would also shut down from the lack of food, so they wouldn't feel pain for a good amount.
Or I'm wrong, which I more than likely am. If not, the available methods of shortening your life are quite abundant.
What does the Department of Natural Resources have to do with this?
I think he means a Do Not Resuscitate order. But letting someone die is far different from aiding in their death. So still, DNRs aren't really applicable here.
Anything can be abused. In other words, it would be a disaster waiting to happen.
I don't think we should look at slippery slope arguments like this. I don't think they're very convincing, but besides that, we need to look at assisted suicide in and of itself. The only consequence we need to look at is the death of the patient. That's where the moral concern lies.
Most terminal patients are likely to have a decent enough amount of strength as to grab some bedside implement and end their misery.
True, but I think the point of fatal medications is that death is certain. Regular people don't have access to things that will for sure kill them. And drinking some sort of poison or taking a pill is far easier than using a gun or hanging yourself. It's also much less messy...
True, but I think the point of fatal medications is that death is certain. Regular people don't have access to things that will for sure kill them. And drinking some sort of poison or taking a pill is far easier than using a gun or hanging yourself. It's also much less messy...
Generally hanging is less messy, as it doesn't involve vomit, but if their alone it would probably rot . . . .
While they don't have any surefire way of killing themselves, if they depend on a external support system, they could literally force the doctor into turning it off, unless they are in a state of mind that could adversely affect the decision. But generally they'll be normal enough.
It might effect a doctor adversely if they actually did kill someone who is still alive and talking, though. I wonder how well they would hold up.
While they don't have any surefire way of killing themselves, if they depend on a external support system, they could literally force the doctor into turning it off, unless they are in a state of mind that could adversely affect the decision. But generally they'll be normal enough.
Usually when you're dying because you just swallowed a month's supply of a prescription drug, having the prescription canceled is not your decision.
Usually when you're dying because you just swallowed a month's supply of a prescription drug, having the prescription canceled is not your decision.
I think you misunderstood his point. I think he meant that the patient could have the doctor turn off a machine keeping him alive, as opposed to death by medication.
swine flu shot kills too. did anyone hear about the cheerleader for a pro football team who has something wrong now. they say she cant walk with out almost falling.
swine flu shot kills too. did anyone hear about the cheerleader for a pro football team who has something wrong now. they say she cant walk with out almost falling.
*rolls eyes* Fox makes it look like medicines aren't tested at all before they go out onto the market. COME ON PEOPLE.
After I took my Vioxx this morning I snorted some Prozac and took my ampicillin to fight off my infection. What is bad bad about that?
