4 ms·
>>Most folk would choose everything medically possible to be performed to keep them going for another 24 hours And by "most" you mean people who would have a _
by smtddr 13y ago
>>Most folk would choose everything medically possible to be performed to keep them going for another 24 hours
And by "most" you mean people who would have a _quality_ 24 hours. Because the person of subject in this article certainly wouldn't have made that choice. He couldn't; his mind was gone.
- ygmelnikova 13y agoAnd there's the rub.. you can't be certain.
- PavlovsCat 13y agoBut why disallow physician assisted suicide in cases where one is certain (as in, the patient is of sound mind, but in constant pain, and makes that decision), because of cases where you can't be 100.0000000% certain? Have you ever seen someone suffer horribly for no reason and without hope? I swore myself that if I ever have a terminal illness with a bad prognosis, I would rather kill myself before it's too late, instead of risking ending up in a situation where I can't; where I beg medical staff to kill me and they have to say "sorry, but I'm just doing my job". Yes, dementia is tricky, and so is suicide in general. It's a deeper issue than just being for or against it. How would we weigh the risk of people dying needlessly ("easier access to suicide and getting rid of the uncared for elderly"), versus the risk of people existing (I wouldn't call it living) in extreme pain, without hope, needlessly? I don't know, but I do agree that something has to change. Medicine is supposed to make life better, usually it does; but sometimes it makes it hell, and the ones suffering in that hell should have a say in wether they want out or not.