***MORE PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS***

[Arkana]

Yeah, I know...I probably pissed people off with the first question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4105041

but here's another one anyway, this time on a completely different subject: active and passive euthanasia (which is, incidentally, the topic I'll be talking about tomorrow).

EDITED QUESTION: Are doctors who actively euthanize patients more morally culpable than doctors who passively euthanize patients?

[Shell Beau]

1. That is a good question.

Let me ponder it for a second.

[kick-ass-bob]

2. No pissed off person here.

:shrug:

As for euthanasia, I don't see a difference between the two, morally. The only difference is that one group want to hide and serve their patients the way they see fit, while the others don't care to hide what they are doing.

[democracyindanger]

3. "culpable"

As written, the question assumes that doctors who participate in euthanasia--whether active or passive--are guilty of something.

Dunno if that was your intention, but I don't think properly applied euthanasia is something to be guilty of.

[Arkana]

4. I guess my intent was to ask if they are at all, or if one is no worse

than the other, or if they should both be avoided at all costs.

[Shell Beau]

5. Okay, I've pondered.

I don't really see the difference. I mean one wants to be more discreet about it which I understand. The other is more bold in their choice. :shrug:

[northzax]

6. depends on the situation, now doesn't it?

[Nikia]

7. I guess it depends on what you would consider passive

For example, is the doctor that allows a terminal patient to stop eating and does not inset tubes committing euthanasia? I think that there is nothing wrong with what that doctor does provided that the patient really is somewhat close to death and not just depressed about his/her condition.
I think that there sometimes is something wrong though with directly killing a patient with an injection or something similiar. In the first case, the patient has time to change his/her mind and someone else isn't directly doing the killing. The sort of thing I am thinking about is a patient who might be pressured to die because of insurance not paying for treatment or a family guilt trip. The patient might really have mixed feelings about his/her death and would be dead without a chance to reconsider.

[wildhorses]

8. are there any medical people in the lounge?

I have worked with many geriatrics and long term care/high accuity patients. I would interested in hearing from some of my colleagues in this matter....

[RhodaGrits]

9. conversation with a client today as I euthanized her cat....

I'm a veterinarian and for very legitimate reasons, we decided that the cat was going to continue to suffer (he'd failed mulitiple treatment modalities) and that it was best for him that we euthanize him humanely.

The owner is dying of ovarian cancer and as I sedated her friend and then administered the euthanasia solution, she and her husband and I talked about death and dying, euthanasia and what it meant to her and others with terminal conditions. She asked for my own personal opinions and then as she kissed her cat goodbye one last time and said she'd see him soon, she turned and with tears in her eyes said "I would really like to be your friend - please call me sometime, it would mean a lot." I left the room hugging her cat and smothering my sobbing.

Euthanasia is not something that is anyone's business but the dying patient and his/her physician. There can be few things more personal and private than your own death.

I often console people with "he had a far kinder and easier death than we will see" and after doing the death vigil with friends dying of cancer... dying of starvation in prolonged agony... I would not treat a dog like that.

The problem I have is I don't trust people. I don't trust government and I don't trust that the delivery of a "good death" will not be abused or tangled in a bureaucratic nightmare.

[Guaranteed]

11. That is really, really sad. nt

[wildhorses]

12. thank you for your comments

[Guaranteed]

10. I took bioethics, too. :)

I'd have to say that in, say, Terri Schiavo's case, if the doctors had just given her an overdose of morphine that they actually would have been LESS morally culpable.

Taking away nourishment, while passive, is still a quite distinct decision, and, if the patient has any kind of consciousness, is an excruciating way to die.

[anarch]

13. just for the sake of perspective,

Let's look at it in the case of veterinarians instead of human doctors. Which is most morally acceptable, in the case of a suffering dog: putting the dog down (active euthanasia) or just letting the dog starve to death (passive)?

If you want to talk about morality and medicine, how about the question of uninsured Americans avoiding preventive health care on account of prohibitive costs....


edit: btw, I posted this before I read the post above from an actual vet....