AMA Says ‘No’ to Physician-Assisted Suicide

[Admiral Ackbar]

Perhaps if contributors to this thread were simply to ignore the one poster trying to make it all about politics...?

My own opinion is that if an individual has a terminal illness or is suffering a great amount of pain, and is of sound mind, they should be legally able to end his or her own life. And while physicians or other health care professionals should not be forced to participate or assist, neither they nor family members or friends of the afflicted should be subject to legal punishments for doing so.

Ignore the comments if you wish. But that is your loss as you wont be discussing the topic in its full context. The way you want things to be and the way they will be are very different.

You go down this route and there is NO WAY the government doesn't start to control the process. That is my sole point and you cant have full view of this topic without that foresight

[Trumpster]

Ignore the comments if you wish. But that is your loss as you wont be discussing the topic in its full context. The way you want things to be and the way they will be are very different.



You go down this route and there is NO WAY the government doesn't start to control the process. That is my sole point and you cant have full view of this topic without that foresight

I just need some clarification. In what way do you anticipate the government will control the process? What do you think they would do?

Another question: Isn't the government controlling the process already by not allowing people the freedom to choose how they will die?

[Sergeant Gleed]

About a year ago, the Washington Post reported on the debate at the American Medical Association regarding physician assisted suicide, and asked whether its longstanding opposition might change. The answer is now in, and the answer is a resounding NO. We are not simply reaffirming opposition to an unethical practice. The AMA has reasserted the fundamental role of the physician as healer, and a commitment to principles of the ancient oath to Do No Harm.

Really? They're going to stand by their ancient oath, are they?

So the AMA is now opposed to abortion?

Or is the AMA a cafeteria oath-breaker?

[Sergeant Gleed]

The insurance companies ARE the death panels. They make decisions everyday for millions of americans that will end their lives or bring them closer to ending their lives because the insurance companies refuse to pay for preventive healthcare.

But medicaid does pay for the elderly to be hooked up to tubes and kept alive. I'm asking for what purpose? Where is the quality of life for the person laying comatose in a bed with tubes and life support. They aren't living, they are existing because the family member can't let them go.

It sounds harsh but those resources could be going to someone who has a lot of their life ahead of them.

I don't want the government involved in making decisions for me and I don't want religion involved in influencing my rights.

I also see the dark side in which the decision could be made from a position of greed.

It's a complex issue because it's an individual situation for each person.

It is not a complex issue.

Government should not be taxing people to pay for the medical treatment of others.

No if, ands or buts.

Doctors swear an oath to do no harm. Murder is harm, even if euthanasia is euphemized as "assisted suicide".

Some people run out of money and die because they can't afford treatment. Welcome to the history of civilization.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Perhaps if contributors to this thread were simply to ignore the one poster trying to make it all about politics...?

My own opinion is that if an individual has a terminal illness or is suffering a great amount of pain, and is of sound mind, they should be legally able to end his or her own life. And while physicians or other health care professionals should not be forced to participate or assist, neither they nor family members or friends of the afflicted should be subject to legal punishments for doing so.

$#@! boy, this is about politics.

Laws have to be written to permit doctors to murder.

The crafting of law in a democracy is a political process.

And in order for it to not be murder, the practice of euthanasia would have to be strictly controlled or it wouldn't be long before Chelsea was bumping off her dear old drunken mother for control of the Clinton Foundation.

[Sergeant Gleed]

I just need some clarification. In what way do you anticipate the government will control the process? What do you think they would do?

Can't just have granny showing up to the Kill Center for removal.

There's going to have to be examinations and interviews, a review of medical history. Forms to fill out, a determination if the victim's condition is treatable and there's going to have to be quality of life issue reviews.

And all of that would have to be tightly regulated.

A friend's mother had a debilitating stroke...ten years ago. Her daughter has been dealing with it ever since.

Some people would have trundled the old lady off to the Kill Center the next month.

Another question: Isn't the government controlling the process already by not allowing people the freedom to choose how they will die?

No.

The government is banning the process.

Which means there is no process to control.

[Collateral Damage]

AMA Says ‘No’ to Physician-Assisted Suicide
I am conflicted over this issue. I watched my mother decline and die in hospice. So I see positives to it. But I also see the potential for abuse. Money was not an issue in my case. But in others it is. How many people would speed dear mother on faster than is perhaps warranted only to save the estate for- themselves?
Read the rest at the link.

What a shame. The AMA seems to have lost grip with the humanitarian side of medicine.

Of course there is possibility to abuse the possibility of assisted 'suicide', which personally I see as a misnomer. The is the ability to abuse any program, but the involvement of the person at the focus reduces the probability.

I've watched three loved ones go trough the stages of dying. It took astound tolls on everyone involved... them, us, and the extension to those around us and them. One chose to fight to the end, one left the choices up to us, and the third actively sought release.

These were not my choices to make. I supported each person's choice, regardless of the pain and grief... it was their choice. The AMA not supporting it, made it harder on the person involved, the families on the people involved, and the extension from that. Assisting transition is making the inevitable, happen a bit sooner, it also provides that last little bit of control over choices in one's life...

[FindersKeepers]

The insurance companies ARE the death panels. They make decisions everyday for millions of americans that will end their lives or bring them closer to ending their lives because the insurance companies refuse to pay for preventive healthcare.

The insurers, yes, but also the subsidized health care system. Obamacare has a monitoring clause that reduces funding to hospitals if "re-admissions" die on their watch, so we've got hospitals pushing DNA orders. My daughter's fiance's mother has a massive stroke two weeks ago and was airlifted to KC. At first it looked very bad and a hospital team sat down with her children and tried to get them to sign a DNR if she coded. They didn't and she awoke and is looking much better than they predicted. The side they claimed would be "dead," is coming back. Granted, she did not code, but the pressure is on the medical staff.

But medicaid does pay for the elderly to be hooked up to tubes and kept alive. I'm asking for what purpose? Where is the quality of life for the person laying comatose in a bed with tubes and life support. They aren't living, they are existing because the family member can't let them go.

This is true and I agree, but I would never take that option away from the family. It's not mine to take.

It sounds harsh but those resources could be going to someone who has a lot of their life ahead of them.

On the other hand, a few extra months for Stephen Hawking might be a much better investment for society than 50 additional years for a gang-banger.

[Standing Wolf]

I just need some clarification. In what way do you anticipate the government will control the process? What do you think they would do?

Another question: Isn't the government controlling the process already by not allowing people the freedom to choose how they will die?

Good point. The State IS "controlling the process" by making what should be a very personal moral decision, if one doesn't choose the approved government answer, a criminal offense.

[Cotton1]

End of life. When younger I assumed that the passage of time would provide more answers to questions than simply more questions. Questions of " did my life matter" , " what could I have done to make a difference", " why was I a life" etc. Then the " how will I die" . "when will I die", " with dignity will I die "? A lot of the anxiety goes away if you think "maybe some merciful dr will take me out painlessly" etc. Its not as though say you are 80 years old you could jump from a barn and impale yourself. Without physician assisted suicide and thoughts of that nature its simply more anxiety regarding a matter that to many of us is already high anxiety. Watching my father die was horrible. It made me understand things I probably didn't need to understand.