Euthanasia: Ok for animals but not people?

[TraumaRN]

DrPizza is my inspiration for this thread. He mentioned in another thread recently about how if he saw a dog that was hit by a car with a broken spine and spilled guts he would end it's suffering quickly because otherwise the guilt on his conscience would be too much.

I think most if not all people would agree with DrPizza on that one. I myself agree 100% that I would do the same thing.

But why don't we have a similar standard for humans?

We have hospice care which while a great idea is limited in its ability. They make you comfortable and happy as possible but then you just....wait to die. Oftentimes in vast amount of pain or disability or both. Yes they give you lots of morphine or other pain control/sedation meds, but again is that really necessary in all cases?

I am confronted by this issue often as an ER/Trauma nurse, example usually is someone has a massive heart attack/stroke/accident. Medically we can't do anything to allow them a normal recovery the condition will be terminal. Depending on the insult to the body they might be comatose such as Terri Schiavo, or they could have a few days to months to live. Most families choose to keep family on life support for various reasons ranging from inability to cope/let go, religion faith/belief, sometimes both things and a myriad of other reasons. But some say it's OK to stop now I want my family member to be at peace.

Then there is the terminal cancer side which ties back to the hospice thing. Shouldn't people have the ability to say, "OK I'm done I want to be at peace and suffer no more..." Shouldn't they be able to legally and safely die at the moment of their choosing?

Or is the issue that we as humans are so scared of death and we do everything in our power to avoid it, even at the detriment and suffering of others?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This issue has bothered me for a long time as well.

I think there are two main reasons why we treat animals better than humans in this regard.

The first is religion. I think that this underlies most of the opposition to human euthanasia -- the taking of life, even one's onwn, has been defined as a "sin" in many religions.

(I've always found it ironic that the greatest opposition to euthanasia comes from the same people who think there's a "better place" we go to after we die.)

The second is more practical -- concern over abuse and/or corruption of the process. There are cases where euthanasia obviously makes sense to most people, and cases where it does not to most people. But there's a lot of gray area in between. People also worry about giving too much power to people who could use it unwisely.

Personally, I find the first concern a subjective anachronism, and the second a valid one that could be handled with appropriate oversight. I believe it is done in some other countries.

There's a famous line from Dune which is essentially that someone who can destroy something controls it. If you can't decide to end your own life, you don't control your own life.

 

[DrPizza]

At least with hospice care and other care, some attempt is made to alleviate suffering through the administration of drugs such as morphine.

I'll complicate this discussion by adding in, let's also consider those patients for whom it's hopeless, but relatives - older children, etc., are hoping far far far against the odds that some miracle happens that saves grandpa from those tumors that are affecting 7 different organs and the lymph nodes. It's horrible to see the suffering that relatives put their loved ones through in the hopes that some miracle will happen.

 

[zardthebuilder]

the example you gave in the first example -- dog with broken spine and spilled guts -- is very different than the examples you gave with humans. let's compare apples with apples. if a human had a broken spine and spilled guts, the paramedics will try to stabilize and the ER will try to save. are you saying that the paramedic should shoot the injured person and make no attempt to save?

 

[TheVrolok]

the example you gave in the first example -- dog with broken spine and spilled guts -- is very different than the examples you gave with humans. let's compare apples with apples. if a human had a broken spine and spilled guts, the paramedics will try to stabilize and the ER will try to save. are you saying that the paramedic should shoot the injured person and make no attempt to save?

He's not saying that at all, his reference is just speaking to the idea of compassion...


I'm in agreement with what CK said above, we as a society need to start moving beyond many anachronistic ideas we have about life/death. I would agree that euthanasia/doctor assisted suicide should be a possibility for "qualified" patients. However, and perhaps I'm guilty of some of the aforementioned anachronism, I don't believe it should be available carte blanche.

 

[zardthebuilder]

He's not saying that at all, his reference is just speaking to the idea of compassion...

so, you are saying that the first paragraph is irrelevant to the rest of the argument. what's the point of TraumaRN's third paragraph? "But why don't we have a similar standard for humans?" what standard? i think you or he needs to provide better examples of when we treat animals better than human.

 

[TraumaRN]

He's not saying that at all, his reference is just speaking to the idea of compassion...


I'm in agreement with what CK said above, we as a society need to start moving beyond many anachronistic ideas we have about life/death. I would agree that euthanasia/doctor assisted suicide should be a possibility for "qualified" patients. However, and perhaps I'm guilty of some of the aforementioned anachronism, I don't believe it should be available carte blanche.

Exactly. If a human being had similar injuries, they probably would not survive. The paramedics would most likely just make that person comfortable as possible while transporting to the hospital with the expectation of non-survival.

To address your concern about carte blanche permission, let me throw in a little more medical knowledge into the ring. First off as a general rule we tend to know what insults to the body are not survivable, those would be the cases where this applies. For example, gunshot to the head that misses the brainstem but utterly devastates everything else. Technically that person could live on a ventilator and be fed through a gastric tube, but they'd be a human vegetable and as far as I'm concerned that is a tragedy, and they'd have no meaningful quality of life whatsoever. They'd have no hope of survival without artificial means and will most likely die from sepsis, pneumonia etc...which is further insult IMO. That is one such case where this could be used, among countless others.

The other more common one is the terminal diagnosis, you have X number of months to live before you die etc etc. In those cases the person should have the ability to say when my quality of life reaches a certain minimum point I want the means to end my life at the time I want and avoid any needless suffering or pain.

 

[TraumaRN]

so, you are saying that the first paragraph is irrelevant to the rest of the argument. what's the point of TraumaRN's third paragraph? "But why don't we have a similar standard for humans?" what standard? i think you or he needs to provide better examples of when we treat animals better than human.

If an animal has terminal cancer and is suffering, most people put the animal down quite quickly to "end its suffering."

When a human has terminal cancer we give them doses of opiate based pain meds and maybe some benzodiazepines for the anxiety and we keep doing that until they die. Often times these medications aren't nearly enough to keep the person comfortable and pain-free until they actually die. Time to actually die can range from hours to days or even weeks in some cases. To me that is suffering that is needless. In that manner we treat animals better than humans.

 

[DrPizza]

If an animal has terminal cancer and is suffering, most people put the animal down quite quickly to "end its suffering."

When a human has terminal cancer we give them doses of opiate based pain meds and maybe some benzodiazepines for the anxiety and we keep doing that until they die. Often times these medications aren't nearly enough to keep the person comfortable and pain-free until they actually die. Time to actually die can range from hours to days or even weeks in some cases. To me that is suffering that is needless. In that manner we treat animals better than humans.

Worse yet is when the family insists that person be put on a ventilator or other methods be used to prolong the life of the suffering person, so that "our cousin in California can be at his side when he passes." Or, simply because they're hoping for that miracle.

 

[GreenMeters]

so, you are saying that the first paragraph is irrelevant to the rest of the argument. what's the point of TraumaRN's third paragraph? "But why don't we have a similar standard for humans?" what standard? i think you or he needs to provide better examples of when we treat animals better than human.

Strictly addressing your question re: an apples-to-apples comparison to the scenario in the opening paragraph, EMTs should try to save the life of the human with the broken spine, whereas euthanasia for the dog with similar injuries is likely the humane choice. Even sickly and with near-total paralysis, there are still "human things" you can do--look at what Stephen Hawking has contributed in the face of his impairments. The list of "dog things" for a sickly, paralyzed animal is rather limited--it won't be retreating into purely intellectual pursuits communicated via subtle eye muscle twitches.

 

[TheVrolok]

Worse yet is when the family insists that person be put on a ventilator or other methods be used to prolong the life of the suffering person, so that "our cousin in California can be at his side when he passes." Or, simply because they're hoping for that miracle.

I see this frequently. Medicine is often treating the family rather than treating the patient, and often is with end of life care. That said, is it better or worse to allow a patient to survive (if not suffering) longer (with more costs) in order for a loved one to arrive and say goodbye? Is giving that loved one closure worth it?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think perhaps the absolute worst example of this is something that was in the news recently. A man had something horrific called "locked-in syndrome", which means you are alert and conscious but cannot do anything but blink your eyes because everything else is paralyzed.

Who would want to live like that? But he wasn't allowed to have his life ended. He even had to go through the humiliation of begging a UK court to allow it -- just to be turned down.

Mercifully, he died on his own a few days later.

If someone acted like that to a dog, we'd throw them in jail.

 

[skyking]

It comes part and parcel with modern first world medicine. Somewhere along the line, "do no harm" morphed into "spare no effort or expense", when those extreme methods do indeed do harm in terms of quality of life.
I think it is indeed harm when death with dignity is denied.

 

[DrPizza]

I think perhaps the absolute worst example of this is something that was in the news recently. A man had something horrific called "locked-in syndrome", which means you are alert and conscious but cannot do anything but blink your eyes because everything else is paralyzed.

Who would want to live like that? But he wasn't allowed to have his life ended. He even had to go through the humiliation of begging a UK court to allow it -- just to be turned down.

Mercifully, he died on his own a few days later.

If someone acted like that to a dog, we'd throw them in jail.

Stephen Hawking.

Some people, well, they probably would rather they weren't paralyzed or mostly paralyzed, but otherwise, they do quite well in life.

 

[Brovane]

A couple of years ago I watched a great documentary called "How to Die in Oregon" and they portrayed several people and their decisions to end their life through Physician assisted suicide. Basically a physician can prescript a lethal dose of medication that someone can take to kill themselves in Oregon. Several criteria have to be meet but basically it is someone that is terminally ill and they have to be able to actively take the medication themselves.

One of the key people they portrayed in the show was Cody Curtis who courageously opened up the final months of her life to the cameras. She had terminal liver cancer. She lived longer than the doctors thought but when the pain became unbearable for her living day to day she was able to make the decision to end her life on her terms. She was able to have her children and husband by her side and die comfortably in her house. Even her doctor came who had treated her cancer and was there when she died. She was even joking with the doctor that you probably have few patients that make a appointment with you to end their lives.

As far as I can see I think that Oregon has taken a fairly good tact so far. It doesn't cover everything because if you are completely paralyzed you couldn't take the medication. However several people spoke in the show how it helped knowing that they had the medication and they where in control even if most people didn't even use the meds and died naturally. Just having the medication made the last few months more peaceful for them.

It also talked some with the other side, the religious people. The issue is that the catholic and christian religion considers suicide a sin. Only God can end your life and you cannot have a hand in ending your life prematurely. So kind of the same line as gay marriage they fight against it strongly. Even though the fact that no one is forcing them to use the physician assisted suicide option seems to be lost on them. However they seem very much bent on pushing their religion onto other people.

 

[nanette1985]

I've volunteered for many years in hospice - and no, they don't try to make someone's end of life days comfortable and painless. Maybe other places do, but not the ones I know best. They're extremely controlled by medical professionals Since I'm pretty ill myself at the moment, I won't do the hospice thing.

I agree with OP, why can't people opt for euthanasia if the end is in sight. Pardon my cynicism, but maybe when the drug companies figure out how to put someone out of their misery, and can charge a fortune for it, maybe it'll become an option.

 

[umbrella39]

Worse yet is when the family insists that person be put on a ventilator or other methods be used to prolong the life of the suffering person, so that "our cousin in California can be at his side when he passes." Or, simply because they're hoping for that miracle.

Welcome to my world. Waiting for uncle Al who hasn't seen Mom in 20 years... In these situations I am the guy who keeps them alive and ultimately comes into the room with 10-20 distraught family members crying/screaming as I pull the ETT and OG and remove them from the vent. Feel like Dr. Jack many days.

We have an ethics committee that deals with the hard cases where family where grannie has had a massive CVA who is now still full code on the vent for 30-60+ days collecting checks at the house that family is cashing, no PEG, no trach, just utter misery but in the end most just opt to keep grannie going as long as possible then we ship them out to an ECF. I am Catholic and have my own beliefs but have to remember that at the end of the day it isn't up to me. I am just the messenger.

 

[Brovane]

I've volunteered for many years in hospice - and no, they don't try to make someone's end of life days comfortable and painless. Maybe other places do, but not the ones I know best. They're extremely controlled by medical professionals Since I'm pretty ill myself at the moment, I won't do the hospice thing.

I agree with OP, why can't people opt for euthanasia if the end is in sight. Pardon my cynicism, but maybe when the drug companies figure out how to put someone out of their misery, and can charge a fortune for it, maybe it'll become an option.

My Grandmother was on Hospice for a couple of months before she passed away. Since she was already in a residential living facility they came to the house where she was staying and worked with the care givers at the house to make my Grandmother as comfortable as possible. She didn't want to go into a hospital etc. She just wanted to be comfortable before she passed away. She was able to pass away in her room at the house and Hospice took care of everything.

 

[Soundmanred]

I think if someone is in their right mind, they should have a choice of what to do with their own life.
It's what I would like to be able to decide when the time comes.

 

[Mxylplyx]

As long as well qualified doctors and/or psychologists were able to distinguish suicide from euthanasia, I have no problem with it. Prolonging the suffering of a terminally ill patient who wishes to die by keeping them alive until they pass naturally is never in the benefit of the patient themselves, but rather the family and others who refuse to let go for one reason or another. Not to mention the enormous costs of needlessly prolonging the life of someone who does not wish to live, which are starting to become too great to ignore.

 

[TheVrolok]

I've volunteered for many years in hospice - and no, they don't try to make someone's end of life days comfortable and painless. Maybe other places do, but not the ones I know best. They're extremely controlled by medical professionals Since I'm pretty ill myself at the moment, I won't do the hospice thing.

I agree with OP, why can't people opt for euthanasia if the end is in sight. Pardon my cynicism, but maybe when the drug companies figure out how to put someone out of their misery, and can charge a fortune for it, maybe it'll become an option.

I'm sorry you had a negative experience with hospice. In my experience hospice care has been absolutely fantastic, both inpatient hospice in the acute facilities/hospice floors (ala Vitas) I've spent time in, and visiting home hospice. I suppose like anything in life YMMV, but I think largely hospice services are excellent. Now, SNFs... we don't need to go there in this thread.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Pardon my cynicism, but maybe when the drug companies figure out how to put someone out of their misery, and can charge a fortune for it, maybe it'll become an option.

Ha, I think you might be onto something. No doubt they'd find a way to develop a twenty thousand dollar "treatment", and lobby to make that the only legal means of euthanasia.

 

[waggy]

I've volunteered for many years in hospice - and no, they don't try to make someone's end of life days comfortable and painless. Maybe other places do, but not the ones I know best. They're extremely controlled by medical professionals Since I'm pretty ill myself at the moment, I won't do the hospice thing.

I agree with OP, why can't people opt for euthanasia if the end is in sight. Pardon my cynicism, but maybe when the drug companies figure out how to put someone out of their misery, and can charge a fortune for it, maybe it'll become an option.

a few years ago my Aunt died of cancer. She spent some time in a Hospice. I was very close to her (well all my aunts. we grew up with them near and acted as parents at times). The hospice did great. she was pain free (though drugged up) and lived the last few days in peace.


I never understood why we don't allow someone in that situation the ability to end it on there terms. Why make them suffer in pain and a drug haze?

 

[CPA]

While I agree that we should be able to decide our fate without government intervention, I do so under the guise of free will, not equality to animals.

 

[JTsyo]

I've volunteered for many years in hospice - and no, they don't try to make someone's end of life days comfortable and painless. Maybe other places do, but not the ones I know best. They're extremely controlled by medical professionals Since I'm pretty ill myself at the moment, I won't do the hospice thing.

I agree with OP, why can't people opt for euthanasia if the end is in sight. Pardon my cynicism, but maybe when the drug companies figure out how to put someone out of their misery, and can charge a fortune for it, maybe it'll become an option.

There's already cyanide and lethal injections that are used for death on demand.

So far I notice there's no on here that's been against assisted suicide. Maybe as time passes, social norms will allow it to be a reality. I know personally, I rather die than spend years bed-ridden or otherwise disabled.