In middle school a classmate of ours was diagnosed with an incredibly rare and violent form of leukemia. In literally 2 weeks, he went from being a healthy, albeit short and shrimpy 11 year old, to being emaciated and too weak to even talk. The third and last week, the doctors induced him into a coma so he could die painlessly. Being awake was too excruciating for him, and for his mother to watch. For a week, he lied there, dead but his heart still beating, until finally the cancer squashed him out of existence. His mother had to look at a living corpse, day in, day out, for a week.
Had euthanasia been illegal, he'd have been given a shot, and spent his final moments in his mother's arms, saying goodbye, reminiscing about happier times, or perhaps listening to his favorite song, or watching a favorite film. Who knows.
But instead he was knocked out and left to die.
It was the best they could do, the kindest fate for him, but it was still cruel. Fuck those who are against euthanasia. I pray they never have to see a dying child.
Actually, I'm told that shots are not the way to go.
Supposedly, the best thing is nitrogen asphyxiation. Your body actually can't measure how much oxygen you have, only the CO2 buildup in your blood. That's what triggers your breathing reflex. So if you replace the oxygen in the air with nitrogen (which is cheap and legal), you can just keep breathing until you start to lose consciousness, at which point either you'll flip out and change your mind or just relax and fall asleep.
You're correct, but it only works with inert gases. Helium, pure oxygen I believe has the same effect, nitrogen as you said.
I believe it's that the molecules still bind with our blood just like a normal mix of air molecules would, but they don't provide you with what you need to actually sustain yourself. I think with things like Carbon Monoxide these molecules even take priority over Oxygen. So it won't be like suffocating where there's a distinct lack of air or feelings like that, you'll just have lower brain functioning like you're in a haze until you eventually pass out and die.
Take it with a grain of salt, I'm not a biochemist or anything like that so I might be wrong on a specific point here or there, but the jist is accurate.
That's stupid. Being a doctor should not require you to operate by a given set of ethics, because in reality, none of them actually do. They're all individuals, and I doubt that all of them find the horrors of botched lethal injections preferable to gentler asphyxiation.
So you think that doctors having to swear not to harm people is "nonsense"?
Personally I'd rather doctors not be allowed to make decisions like that based on personal opinion. They have a job to do that requires them to be neutral, so following that code of ethics is absolutely essential.
That oath doesn't actually do anything. It's air. The doctors choose not to hurt people.
People do what they want regardless of law, oath, or edict. I could write an essay on this, but my main point is that there is no such thing as the Hippocratic Oath out there. There are only the thousands of Hippocratic Oaths that exist in the heads of the doctors who uttered certain words, and they're all different oaths, and they're all just words.
Define harm. Is giving someone antibiotics when they don't need them considered harm? Found a grey area already. Doctors are divided over it. How about something which is asked for? Is it harmful to fill a request for, say, assisted suicide? Doctors make that call in their own heads. The oath only stops doctors from progressing ethically.
Define "do." Is it against the oath to LET harm be done? You can't answer. Thousands of doctors around the world are the ones who can answer, and they all answer differently. Expecting them to give you the same copy/paste answer so that you feel safe is insane. They're people, not products.
As a nurse, a lot of elderly people and overly concerned family will continue to insist that "everything be done" for a patient with a terminal diagnosis. Hospice is a wonderful thing that is about improving quality of life in a patient's final days, weeks, months and at times years. The problem is that many patients shun hospice services early on in a terminal diagnosis and only go on the service in their final days or hours. Studies show that early adopters of hospice live longer and with a better quality of life than those that continue to pursue curative treatment. I certainly understand your sentiment in the matter, what happened to your classmate was horrible.
That's why I have a living will that instructs my husband and family that I don't wish to be kept alive on life support, if there's no hope. He's aware of all of my wishes (and so are the next of kin after him, should we both be in a car accident or something).
Living wills are easy to fill out and could spare so much pain for loved ones.
Thank you for your condolences. He didn't deserve to die like that. As for hospice care, I've no doubt it's a great thing when necessary, but are you suggesting that it's an alternative to euthanasia, or merely that it's an option that could make many deaths far easier if people were to face the truth about a terminal illness?
That is is an option that could help ease the transition if people are willing to face the truth. My aunts mother was diagnosed with an I operable cancer on her spine. She went on hospice immediately, and ended up surviving for almost 5 years. During that time they had the full support of the hospice nurses and aides who can to help her multiple times a week. Her quality of life was very good, and most days you couldn't tell that she had a terminal condition. She was also an RN. There is an interesting article called "How Doctors Die" that could apply to a lot of health care workers in general. It basically states that when faced with a terminal illness, they are educated enough about the disease process to know when to stop fighting and accept comfort measures.
77
u/UniversalFarrago Jul 13 '15
In middle school a classmate of ours was diagnosed with an incredibly rare and violent form of leukemia. In literally 2 weeks, he went from being a healthy, albeit short and shrimpy 11 year old, to being emaciated and too weak to even talk. The third and last week, the doctors induced him into a coma so he could die painlessly. Being awake was too excruciating for him, and for his mother to watch. For a week, he lied there, dead but his heart still beating, until finally the cancer squashed him out of existence. His mother had to look at a living corpse, day in, day out, for a week.
Had euthanasia been illegal, he'd have been given a shot, and spent his final moments in his mother's arms, saying goodbye, reminiscing about happier times, or perhaps listening to his favorite song, or watching a favorite film. Who knows.
But instead he was knocked out and left to die.
It was the best they could do, the kindest fate for him, but it was still cruel. Fuck those who are against euthanasia. I pray they never have to see a dying child.