"What he said before he died"
January 28, 2013 08:00 PM | LEE ANN COX View full article at Salon.com
Mobile reminders for end-of-life conversations
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE90302O20130104?irpc=932
Two Tibetan monks have died in separate self-immolation protests in Tibetan regions of western China since Sunday, according to reports on Monday by two Tibet advocacy groups. http://nyti.ms/Xbftvm
http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/34325/title/Bad-Blood/
20Feb13
Vermont: Senate Advances Bill for Cases in Which Patients Choose to End Lives
The State Senate gave final approval on Thursday to a measure that would exempt doctors from criminal or civil liability when treating terminally ill patients who choose to end their lives. Any person present during the self-administration of a lethal dose of legally prescribed medication would also be exempted. The legislation, known as a “death with dignity” measure, was an amendment replacing a longer bill, modeled on Oregon’s end-of-life law, that supporters said included more safeguards for patients. The bill now goes to the House, which supporters hope will put forth a bill more like the original legislation. Passage would make Vermont the first state to approve an end-of-life measure by legislative act alone. Both Oregon and Washington have end-of-life laws that were approved by voters.18Feb13 NYTimes: Country Star Mindy McCready Dies
Mindy McCready, who hit the top of the country charts before personal problems sidetracked her career, died Sunday in Arkansas in an apparent suicide. She was 37.
http://nyti.ms/UwKATp
14Feb13
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/us/to-lower-suicide-rates-new-focus-turns-to-guns.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130214&_r=0
http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2011/11/30/how-doctors-die/ideas/nexus/
In response to the article, I thought it was very interesting and I never really thought much about what doctors do to prepare themselves for death. However, after reading this article I can understand why they would not want to put themselves through all the pain and misery of treatment and surgeries. They know the statistics of all the treatments and the odds of success. They understand better than others that when the time comes that they want to spend it with the people they love and in as good of quality as possible. If I got sick and it would take many treatments and operations to try to cure me of this sickness, it would depend on my age whether or not to go ahead with the process. If I was still young and should have more years ahead of me to come then I might agree to the treatment procedures because I may not just be living for myself, but also my children. I would want to fight the battle for my children so that they would not grow up without a mom in their life. But if I was older and had lived a good life, I would be ready to die and I would probably not get the treatment and spend as much time with my family as possible in my final days.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like there is a growing backlash against this modern age of death in a hospital surrounded by tubes, machines, and strangers and a stronger desire to return to the premodern death in the home surrounded by loved ones. I think it is palpable that the doctors, better than anyone else, know what is entailed by opting for "everything" (all the treatment) that could potentially keep them alive, and so the fact they do not want epitomizes how undesirable this kind of treatment has become.
ReplyDeleteThe example that the author used of his cousin I felt captured what many people today are recognizing: "Torch was no doctor, but he knew he wanted a life of quality, not just quantity."
I used to think that, if it ever came down to it, I would opt for "everything", all the life support, feeding tubes, and treatments available. Even if I were in an irreversible PVS, I would still want to be kept alive. My views are changing though. Watching that FRONTLINE video on "Facing Death" and reading articles like these, I think my opinion on the end of my life is evolving. I really don't know what I would do now: I guess I now fall in the boat of wanting all of the "reasonable treatment". Perhaps by the end of the semester, I will simply want to die at home with dignity and avoid such costly and painful treatment altogether.
There is A LOT talk about the ex-LAPD police officer, named Chris Dorner, who has killed three other members of law enforcement and injured two more. He seemingly became deranged, after he was fired for filing a complaint against his training officer for excessive cruelty that was rendered as fabricated. He escaped capture and is currently on the run. There is as of today a one million dollar reward to the individual who provides information leading to his arrest. There is also come speculation about how long he will be able to survive in the wilderness (his car was found burned).
ReplyDeleteMore information about this bizarre story can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/10/us/lapd-attacks/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I think this is a great article because it sheds light on the subject of death in the hospital from the doctors perspective. I had never given much thought to what I would do if I was diagnosed with cancer or a life-threatening illness, but before this semester my idea of cancer was chemotherapy. That when you have cancer (generally) you lose your hair, feel tired and sick, have to stay in the hospital or in bed a majority of the time... but that's not cancer, that's the chemo. This is because I had never actually given it much thought, or tried to put myself in the situation of being diagnosed with a life-threatening illness.
ReplyDeleteThis article highlights the choice. The choice between recieving treatment and not recieving treatment and I think that this choice is not considered by most people. The doctors make the choice clear to the patients, but usually people do not consider it and choose between treatments instead. I believe it's just a general public perception that some type of treatment should be chosen.
Being young and feeling unfulfilled with my life, I think I would still choose treatment, but like Michael said probably a 'reasonable treatment' or one that is less aggressive. I choose this because I would loathe going through treatment that kept me from living a moderately normal life. I don't think there is a point in prolonging life if you can't enjoy it. It's that quantity vs. quality thing.
To comment about Mindy McCready...
ReplyDeleteI am a HUGE country music fan and to be honest, I have never heard of Mindy McCready until now when her death has been all over the news. I have heard a few of her songs, but never knew it was her who sang them. After reading the article, I learned she has had struggles within the past 10 years or so. What drove Mindy to do all of this? the drugs and alcohol is what she decided to turn to in order to resolve her problems? After reading about all of her charges, I feel like she should still be in jail in order to protect herself and others; but she is a celebrity so is that why she was able to get out of jail? I also learned had previously attempted to commit suicide, so why was she not under special care since that incident even though she became drug free? Sometimes I do not understand why suicide is the answer especially if you have young children that need you.
The New York Times article that discusses the relationship between suicide and gun ownership was interesting, but I don't know if I totally agree with all that it presents. The author successfully correlated gun ownership and suicide prevalence for different states with statistics, but correlation does not imply causation. The comment about how prevention of Israeli fighters from taking their guns home on weekend leave diminshed their suicide rate is more compelling, but I think I would need to see more about this and related studies to accept that the presence of guns can cause an increased rate of suicide.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, while I do not necessarily think prevalence of gun ownership makes suicide more likely for certain states (quite honestly, I do not really know what to think at all about the whole gun control debate), I feel that the author's conclusion was very reasonable. Introducing gun control advocates into this matter will only be counterproductive, as some owners will inevitably feel that their second amendment rights are being infringed on. Encouraging people to securely lock up their guns, however, I think is a fair compromise that will make guns accessible to fewer people who should not have them and thus perhaps will mitigate the suicide rate in states like Alaska and Wyoming.
RE: 2 Tibetan Monks Carry Out Fatal Protests
ReplyDeleteI do not agree at all with this practice. Killing oneself for the sake of protest draws attention, but I think for the wrong reason. Instead of looking at the roots of and reasons behind the protest, people are more shocked at the lengths to which people would go to make a point. Instead of lighting themselves on fire and cutting their lives short, those monks could have devoted their time toward more activism and to different avenues that would more effectively advance their cause. Yes, self-immolation draws the public and makes people aware of a given protest, but I feel like it does not advance the cause (note for example how the article makes no point about WHY the monks killed themselves and instead only reports that they did).
RE: Vermont: Senate Advances Bill for Cases in Which Patients Choose to End Lives
ReplyDeleteHaving read chapter nine and ten, I think that I understand more of the complexities of the issues surrounding physician-assisted suicide. On religious grounds, Hume effectively provides an argument that explains how suicide is not contrary to divine providence. Likewise, on social grounds, the utilitarians like Bentham and Mill explain why PAS should be permissible as well.
Hume explains that a man's existence is a result only of the actions of his ancestors that resulted in his birth and therefore completely leaves God out of the matter. Because his life is his own and not God's, a man is free to dispose of his life as he sees (he is not analogous to a guard deserting his post). If one should argue that God has complete control over existence and guided the actions of his ancestors resulting his birth (in other words, "nothing happens in the universe without its consent" (166)), then neither does the man's decision to kill him or herself. Therefore, the impermissibility of suicide cannot be based on religious arguments, as Aquinas, Augustine, and--to a lesser degree--Kant tried to do.
What about social grounds? Can suicide be seen as bad for society or for the individual? The utilitarians address this matter. Their primary concern was happiness, such that the good choice is one that causes the greatest net increase in happiness for the individual or for the society. Central to this argument is the so-called "utility principle", which explains that liberty is a critical component of happiness. Therefore, individuals should have the ability to decide when they want to die--the government has no place to perpetuate the suffering of people, who are ready to pass. This argument successfully counters those presented by Kant, who tried to present the impermissibility of suicide, and thus PAS, on the grounds of reason.
In short, then, I welcome the decision of the Vermont State Senate to develop a kind of Death with Dignity Act like Oregon's, and hopefully the bill will pass the House.