With great caution, the Quebec College of Physicians is prepared to cross the line on the controversial debate over euthanasia and propose that it be included “as part of the appropriate care in certain particular circumstances.”
After examining the issue for three years, the College’s task force on ethics concluded that Quebec society has evolved to the point where it could tolerate euthanasia in specific circumstances. The task force’s recommendation will likely be part of a “reflection” document the College will release next fall, hoping that a public debate on the issue will pressure the federal government to eventually amend the criminal code.
“We are being very cautious in our approach,” said the College’s secretary, Yves Robert. “Avoiding the debate contributes to the general hypocrisy around this issue. To say that it doesn’t happen because it is illegal is completely stupid. … We have to stop hiding our head in the sand,” Dr. Robert said.
Anyone out there think Americans will stop hiding their heads in the sand?
It is common knowledge that physicians often have no choice but to constantly increase medication such as morphine to alleviate the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients.
Sometimes, the pain is so unbearable that the amount of painkillers or analgesics used to control it can be fatal. And this, according to the Quebec College of Physicians, can be viewed as a form of euthanasia.
“The question here is to decide whether a drop in dosage or an increase in dosage constitutes a criminal act,” Dr. Robert said. “We may go as far as to recommend that in certain cases, where the pain is unbearable, the amount of analgesic required could correspond to a form of euthanasia.”
The College wants to avoid a divisive confrontation between those who are for or against euthanasia, saying such a debate would solve nothing. Instead, the debate should be about the doctor’s role in accompanying a terminally ill patient toward the inevitability of death, offering as much dignity and medical assistance as possible. “There’s not a politician or a lawyer that can tell me what that entails,” Dr. Robert said.
Self-conscious people make decisions like this all the time. The only crime is that they are often forced to reflect upon the moment without being able to consult a doctor.
Hooray. .. I might move to Canada after all.
I do not want to lay around hurting and in sever pain to satisfy some f**king stupid bastards damnable superstitious beliefs. .. Don’t waste your money on my damn health care when I can no longer wipe my own ass. .. Let me be put out of my misery with as much compassion as my vet gave my old dog. .. This is the most despicable part of all religions and their need to control others. .. I’m 74 years old and hopefully will be shown some consideration when my time comes in the not to distant future.
If I’m checking out I want all the pain killer I need and if I die faster I don’t care.
Of course #1 has a point. You can save a lot of money by helping the dying to check out sooner.
#12 A son
Agree.
One thing more to say, the family or patient must decide.
“Anyone out there think Americans will stop hiding their heads in the sand?”
Nope. 🙂
People have very short memories. When the now largely-ignored Hippocratic Oath was first developed, it was NOT to ensure excellent service for the patients. It was to make sure the ENRAGED FAMILY of the patient didn’t take revenge on the physician for terrible medical practices. When these Canadian Quacks begin providing euthanasia as as “appropriate care”, they are going to find that the patient’s family will provide the doctor his “appropiate fee; that is, TWO BULLETS IN THE BACK OF HIS OR HER HEAD. These aging 60’s are determined to produce a dystopia straight from their drug-soaked dreams.
Anyone who has been to a nursing home and see then “people” that are kept alive just to milk insurance money would realize euthanasia is often the best alternative. I don’t want to be a 95 year old body, that spends 99% of my day asleep, is fed via liquid and has no recollection of my family or my life.
Another interesting link somewhat related to this, on rationing health care. Actually, it’s about rationing health care in a more obvious fashion. It makes the point that we ration health care already, just in a less obvious fashion.
NYT requires a free login though.
http://nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?em
#38, Phydeau, everything that is subject to scarcity gets rationed, through one mechanism or another.
#2
Ya got is sooooo backwards.
The longer you live, the more money those mean nasty Republicans can take from you.
It’s the Democrats who are killing you at both ends of the life line.
Get over it!! I hope someone pulls the plug on me when its time.
#25:
“Also, you must have grown up in a foster home and could not care less if your (or any one’s) parents suffered through a long terminal illness. You must really hate yourself to wish the suffering and loss of dignity on others.”
blah blah blah
No. Most of my family want their plug pulled, myself included, but a couple do not. Their wish, even though I don’t understand it, is to live on machines, hoping for a cure.
I’m worried about a situation where euthanasia is forced.
#40
All kidding aside, it’s not a R/D issue so much as a -Get the government out of my life so I can live and die as I see fit issue-
A doctor trying to avoid medical malpractice or a government bureaucrat budgeting for hospital procedures is not motivated by the patients best interests – which defeats the purpose of “care”.
#38 – Phydeau,
That is a great article. I was just reading it and was about to post it here and on cagematch. Since you’ve beaten me to it by a bit, why not post it over there as well? Just pick a board and start a new topic.
http://cagematch.dvorak.org/index.php
Yes, Phydeau great link. I love the logic the author fully presents near the end of the piece. Makes the posturing and lies of our Political Overlords even more unbearable.
VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE.
I’m amazed (especially from the right) how everyone is arguing health care plans. Ethics, morality, choice, personal freedom? No comments on that?
Steve S and Don Quixote seem like the only exceptions. Many of us have experienced cases where morphine just isn’t strong enough anymore and they only have days or maybe a couple of weeks of a horrible life left. Go argue your health care position with your parent or spouse when that time comes and see how it goes.
Wow, really, we’ve given up on curing people and increasing real quality of life. What a dis-utopia we live in.
If we get that here, I suppose you would have to pay cash in advance.
If America were really serious about keeping people from taking their own lives. Then it would totally ban tobacco products. Limit the sales of alcohol. And be a hell of a lot more diligent about food and drug safety. But apparently, it’s only “illegal” for people to kill themselves. Not illegal for big profitable industries to kill people, with their products. And certainly not illegal for hospitals to “accidently” kill patients by the hundreds, every year, via numerous preventable errors. Which wouldn’t happen, if they spent some of their profits to prevent. But choose to kick off yourself, and the legal beagles arrive.
If someone wants to leave this world, and has a pretty legitimate medical reason for why they would (like unbeatable pain). Why the hell should the government and legal system care so much to prevent them? It’s not like millions of people are suddenly going to sign up for euthanasia. The great majority of people what to keep living, just as long as they can. I don’t see allowing assisted suicide as a slippery-slope kind of problem. I’d be more concerned about people who want to bare children in their 60s, 70s, and 80s. Or even having more than five at a time, at any age. For the sake of the childrens’ health. But they’re not stopping Octo-moms from cranking up their uteruses for the new world’s record. They’re just concerned that patients, with a terminal illness, and lots of suffering, may choose not to support the health care industry to their last dying breath. Are hospitals and doctors that disparate for insurance dollars, in the US, that they’d rather keep patients on life support for as long as possible. I think length of care is being rewarded, far more than quality of life.
Long overdue.
Just watch out for the cross huggers.
Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singe, who supports killing babies, on health-care reform. An excerpt:
Why We Must Ration Health Care
You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?
If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasn’t going to be good. But suppose it’s not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man — and everyone else like him — with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someone’s life? If there is any point at which you say, “No, an extra six months isn’t worth that much,” then you think that health care should be rationed.
#51, Lyin’ Mike,
Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singe, who supports killing babies, on health-care reform.
I’ve read a bit about Dr. Singe and have yet to come across anything where he advocates or supports “killing babies”. Maybe you could enlighten us to some documentation to support your slander.
#52, To self,
Eff word! I followed Lyin’ Mike’s spelling. It is Professor Singer. My mistake.
#51 MikeN, so what’s your point? Do you agree or disagree with what Pete Singer says? Do you believe in rationing healthcare, as described in the article?
Doctors killing people creeps the hell out of me.
It’s antithetical to their profession. It’s like those psychologists who aided in torturing people in Guantanamo. Or it’s like librarians who actively censor books.
Should chiropractors be breaking people’s backs? Should epidemiologists be spreading anthrax? Should priests be morally corrupting people? (OK, that happens but it’s wrong.)
There are some things doctors should not do — and killing is at the top of the list.
#49 – Glenn E.,
You’ve got some excellent points there. We should also try to remember that the number one cause of death is birth. Birth literally causes 100% of all deaths in the U.S. and abroad.
An old comedian whose routine I’ve only heard second-hand said something like:
Euthanasia is alive and well in America. I saw it once. They applied something to her lips to “help her sleep.” Soon after her breathing slowed and stopped. You can bet that happens alot.
Mr Confusion, yes your inability to read and comprehend doesn’t surprise me.
Try reading Peter Singer’s writings, specifically the chapter subheading
JUSTIFYING INFANTICIDE AND NON-VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA
MikeN,
I believe a link was requested. I do not see one in your post. When you want to make a point, it helps to make it easy for the reader to get to exactly what you are talking about without having to wade through thousands of search results. From my own blog, I can tell you that most people won’t even click the link if you post it.
No one is going to do your searches for you.
#59, Lyin’ Mike,
So in other words, you can’t present anything that states Singer is in favor of killing babies. I understand you must have read all his books and articles and know all of his speeches by heart. So please, point out the book and the page so I too will know if he is a baby killer.