🚀 go-pugleaf

mado@iinet.net.au (Madeleine Croft) wrote:


Madeleine,

I think you may be confused about what I consider to be euthanasia.

>Are you afraid that this is what will happen to you ? Would you rather
>be the object of untold fuss in the closing stages of your days? Do
>you dive in the pool or do you gently, slowly wonder into it?

Actually I always go slowly, I have helped people who have dived in
without testing the waters who had been rendered quadraplegics by
their folly. They lived to regret their decision. Euthanasia does not
allow the luxury of regret, its final and irreversable.

>You confuse cause and effect. The cause of death is an irreversible
>mechanism. Such mecananism manifests as a decompensation of bodily
>adaptive  functions. 

Correct, they are natural and normal. Why hasten them ?
Much better to control discomfort and allow the dying person to do so
in a natural and dignified manner. Of course simply killing them is
cheaper and less messy, thats why we may end up with euthanasia laws.

>In euthanasia  the medical profession sets about to draw a conclusion
>that the above mechanism will take effect with 100% of certainty. What
>they decide to do is to harmonise a myriad of social forces so that
>death will eventuate with the minimum of side effects.

In other words they kill the patient.

>>Of course the cheaper option is to snuff em' if they complain too
>>much. Thats why the ACT might end up with a euthanasia law.

>Costs are not just financial.

Indeed they are not. If that were so I would rewrite the Deliverance
software for Mr Carne and Dr Nitschke tonight, and turn my HTML
expertise to promotion instead of condemnation. There is a moral and
social cost that goes well beyond the financial however, thats why I
am against euthanasia.

>Take the following illustration.
> 
>There ounce were two men.Mr A and Mr B
>Mr A was trapped inside a carriage, his chest crushed by the metal. 
>It was understood that death would eventuate with 100% of certainty.
>The army had arrived. A helicopter had brought his family along. TV
>cameras were reporting the news. Every thing was done to keep
> Mr A  alive. And he lived one week. He suffered untold agony.
>Each minute of the day, sooth sayers urged him on, encouraged him, fed
>him concoctions and anticommotion medications. Still he died. Was the
>cost justified. Was it justified to flup up so much drama? Would not
>death have been more human if had been timely?

Why did patient A not recieve adequate pain relief ?
As a nurse you are well aware that you can incrementally ramp up a
morphine dose until either analgesia or sleep result. Only if you step
increase the dosage does breathing suppression threaten life.

>Mr B  was also trapped inside a carriage along the tracks  somewhere
>else. The rescue team had arrived. His family had been called. A
>question had been asked. WHAT CAN BE DONE  TO SAVE HIM?  An answer had
>been given:NOTHING can be done except delay the time of death, and
>relieve the pain. While our man was still well he was asked WHAT DO
>YOU CHOSE? Pain relief without life sustenance,? or pain relief and
>life sustenance?  Our man choses Pain relief. He died at the end of
>the day. 

Patient B recieved proper and adequate care.
Although he died without pain, he was not killed by his carers.
I see nothing wrong with the way Patient B was treated.

If patient B had, instead of being given drugs to relieve pain, been
given a lethal dose of drug with the intent of killing him, I would be
dead against it.

The RTI Act, and all proposed Australian euthanasia legislation goes
way beyond relieving pain, and allows a doctor to deliberately kill a
patient. I believe this is wrong.

>I ounce witnessed such an accident. I was prevented from injecting
>Morphia, which I had with me at the time, because it was against the
>law.

Thats really too bad for the injured person.
I would have administered pain relief anyway and stuff the law.
When I worked in the  the Northern Territory I was surprised to find
we were allowed to keep morphine in our first aid kits. An excellent
idea in a place where an accident victim can be days from a hospital.

>David did someone KILL HIM?

No, they relieved his pain and permitted him to die in comfort.
They did nothing to hasten death, in fact they may even have prolonged
his life by relieving pain. If death is inevitable I consider Patient
B had the ideal outcome.

If they had deliberately  killed him I would have been appalled.

David Moss,
personal opinion only.
try http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics for Australian Politics