Is Mercy Killing Ever Appropriate?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

nbcrusader

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
22,071
Location
Southern California
Ethicists: No Way to Justify Mercy Deaths

Despite horrific medical conditions including triple-digit temperatures, no electricity and useless lifesaving equipment, ethicists and even some doctors caught in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath say there's no way to justify killing a sick or dying patient.

"You've got at best mercy and panic, but that doesn't add up to an excusable homicide," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan.

No one knows if that happened in New Orleans, but a doctor and two nurses were arrested Tuesday on suspicion of murder charges. They are accused of giving fatal doses of morphine and a sedative to four patients stranded at a New Orleans hospital after the catastrophic storm last August.

The worst-case scenario would be if the doctors "tried to save themselves and didn't want to feel guilty leaving the patients behind and killed them," he said.

The best-case scenario, he said, would be if the accused "believed all possibility of maintaining people on technology has come to an end, you're out of power and your battery power is running out and you say, 'I can't let these people suffer.'"

"Under American law, neither scenario would be excusable," Caplan said.
 
"Under American law, neither scenario would be excusable," Caplan said.

This fact alone is generally why people have never had to ask themselves that question and answer it.

Melon
 
Is the scope of this thread Mercy killing in general? or in this specific case ?
 
Arun V said:
Is the scope of this thread Mercy killing in general? or in this specific case ?

Any way you choose to go. This wasn't a legal analysis thread, but one prompted by the comments of an ethicist.
 
I think mercy killing is the right think to do , gives you some dignity.
 
I definitely support euthanasia on a logical basis - people have the right to determine the time and nature of their death if they want to, mercy killing like this treads a much murkier area - I will say that if death is a certainty and the situation is extreme then I don't feel it is morally wrong.
 
I support euthanasia on a case by case issue. If a person is terminally ill, or brain dead, or unwilling to live their life a vegetable or whatever, then they should be able to go however they want.

I am against people making desicions for their next of kin suc as 'even though he said he never wanted to be a vegetable i'm going to keep him in a bed dribbling all day with his mind gone for 20 years just so i can feel better' is abhorant.

But if this is true about New Orleans, those people commited second degree murder and should be tried under the legal system. No one should be allowed to say when someone dies (this is why im also against the death penalty!)
 
I started a thread about the NOLA situation a few days ago, no one seemed interested.

With all the facts I know so far, no way in hell would I call what those doctors did a "mercy killing". It seems like a killing for convenience purposes. If those were my relatives in that hospital, I'd rather they died because of the hurricane than because of what those doctors did, given what I know so far. Maybe other facts would make me change my mind, but facts-not what that doctor and the nurses might be saying to cover their backsides.
 
dazzlingamy said:


I am against people making desicions for their next of kin suc as 'even though he said he never wanted to be a vegetable i'm going to keep him in a bed dribbling all day with his mind gone for 20 years just so i can feel better' is abhorant.

What if it was signed in writing? I've made it very clear to my fiance that I don't want to be a vegetable and I do want to donate my organs. Someday, I'll put it in writing so that in the event it happens, my family does not have to deal with a decision like that on top of their grief.
 
First post in this forum and it's a doozie :reject:


I’ve mulled this question over in the past week and asked everyone from our Palliative Care RN, and other critical care Doctors and Nurses their feelings on the matter. The overwhelming consensus is that, while what the medical staff in New Orleans did was unethical,unlawful, and should be punished in a court of law - they could understand where such a decison could have been made. No power, no oxygen, no IV medications, no labs, no x-rays, no ventilators, or source of food for those patients who cannot survive without massive amount of support would be a dire situation. Most of the patients in that ICU I work in are on such a delicate balance medication, ventilator support, interventions made from interpreting lab date that if one of those pieces were missing from the equation they would not live very long. In the event of Katrina all of these interventions were missing. Just this week the St. Louis has damaging storms that knocked out the power in several areas of the city including some hospitals and nursing homes. My hospital and others that had power were inundated with and overflow of critical ill patients that would not had survived for every long without support. It was a hellish week that made me see just a small piece of what it must have been like in the aftermath of Katrina.

Another unfortunate aftereffect of this story being all over that news right now is that the strides that have been made in palliative care have taken a backslide. In the unit I work in we will do everything possible to keep a person alive but in some cases, no matter how hard we try, our effects are futile. In medicine we can keep a body alive for a very long time but after awhile it becomes quantity verses quality of life. I understand this sounds crass and uncaring from a non-medical point of view but when you are the bedside nurse of a patient that you know is never going to get any better and all they know is suffering and confusion it takes a toll. My whole reason working in critical care is I love to help heal patients - weekends, nights, holidays, storms - I’ll work them all for that one save. It is the ones you know that will never leave the hospital that hurt you the most. I took care of one man last year for 6 months supporting his organ systems until finally God intervened and ended his suffering.

I was taking care of a patient whose family that decided that they wanted to withdraw support after 3 months of intensive care treatment. We routinely administer Ativan and morphine to these patients after they have been extubated (the ventilator has been removed) to make the patient more comfortable in the dying process. This time the family stopped me before I could give the Morphine when the patient was in visible distress saying that I was “killing her.” I explained that the infection in her body was what was ultimately killing her - all I was doing was making her comfortable. The family, however, was amendment that this poor woman was not going to be “killed” by morphine no matter what any of the critical care team said . That fact that I know she died suffering just infuriates me to no end. I also hate the term "pulling the plug" but that is for another case.

I think that medical staff in New Orleans needs to be reprimanded but I cannot even imagine walking in their shoes and what kind of horrors they dealt with. Would I have done the same thing? That would big NO but I would have most certainly given those patients medications to help ease their pain in the absence of not being able to do anything else. My main issue is that there needs to be more information in the news media on end of life care and the myths that surround it. It is NOT mercy killing. However, because of the amount of media coverage this case is getting, the general public’s misconception of the concept has deepened .
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


What if it was signed in writing? I've made it very clear to my fiance that I don't want to be a vegetable and I do want to donate my organs. Someday, I'll put it in writing so that in the event it happens, my family does not have to deal with a decision like that on top of their grief.

That would not be considered euthanasia in the first place. Refusing medical treatment or setting a boundary with respect to how much treatment you want, or removing life support is not considered euthanasia or mercy killing.

I do support euthanasia, but it would have to be very tightly controlled and regulated within the legal system and so on.
 
At first when I heard about this, I immediately thought that these medical professionals should be punished as much as the law would allow, but after some thought I'm not so sure they should even lose their license. Physicians take an oath "to do no harm" and this was clearly violated, but there were extreme circumstances. I highly doubt that they came to this decision quickly or without much thought. They had no idea when help was coming or if it was coming at all. At a certain point, these people had to start worrying about themselves - it's simply human nature. Medical professionals are humans too even though some people will only allow for perfection. If anything, the situation further exemplifies the breakdown of an effective emergency response to Katrina. Put yourself in the physician's shoes, would you leave them to suffer a painful death or choose the option they took. Either way, you as the medical professional would have to live with the consequences - which all suck.
 
Since you asked, I'm giving my personal opinion.

There is no such thing as a mercy killing - no one but G-d has the right to end a person's life.

In my opinion Euthanasia is murder.
 
AchtungBono said:


There is no such thing as a mercy killing - no one but G-d has the right to end a person's life.


a lot of people share this opinion.

One question, I always have is:

What if someone passed on because their heart stopped
and then people intervene and try and stop the natural death (G-d ending a person's life).

Is the CPR, electric shocking to restart the heart going against G-d?
 
My thinking on this is...if the person has a terminal illness and is of sound mind...I don't know if i have a problem with it

Sometimes I think we have to live with the idea that people may make a decision we dont agree with. But it is their decision to make. I feel like a person should have the right to choose death in the case of terminal disease.


If G-d ( as deep puts it) doesn't approve. Well then the consequences will affect that individual. I some times feel like we infringe too much on personal choice.
 
If someone is brain-dead there is no reason for heroics to be staged to keep them going. I consider them basically dead, I don't want to keep a vegetable alive. I supported them pulling the plug on Terri Schiavo even though most of my co-religionists (I am Roman Catholic) did not. If someone is in a ton of pain, they should be treated with pain medicines, I don't think there is a "right to die".
 
Arun V said:
My thinking on this is...if the person has a terminal illness and is of sound mind.

If a person has a terminal illness, then are they truly capable of having a sound mind as it would undoubtedly effect there rationale?
 
So the factors that go into somebody making their decision now bias them and invalidate their choice?

An individual should have ultimate right over their bodies including the right to choose when to die with dignity.
 
randhail said:


If a person has a terminal illness, then are they truly capable of having a sound mind as it would undoubtedly effect there rationale?

unless the illness affects the brain then there is no reason to think a person with a terminal illness is not of sound mind.

Should a 90 year old whose body is is filled with cancer that has spread to the lungs and bone be forced to endure surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy if they don't want to? Many in this situation choose to go home with hospice to spend their last days with family and friends. It is ultimately a choice individuals reach within themselves
 
verte76 said:
If someone is brain-dead there is no reason for heroics to be staged to keep them going. I consider them basically dead, I don't want to keep a vegetable alive. I supported them pulling the plug on Terri Schiavo even though most of my co-religionists (I am Roman Catholic) did not. If someone is in a ton of pain, they should be treated with pain medicines, I don't think there is a "right to die".

They did not pull the plug on Terri Schiavo - they starved her to death for two weeks. She was alive, her eyes were following movement above her head, her heart was beating, she was breathing on her own....and they killed her.

There is no mercy in her murder......

Again, this is my personal opinion.
 
She was long dead, it was a body lying in that bed devoid of any concious individual and with only the barest of functions.

The fact that they could only remove treatment is a pity, it would have been more humane to just expedite the process than draw it out like that, there was no pain on anybody but the family.
 
nurse chrissi said:


unless the illness affects the brain then there is no reason to think a person with a terminal illness is not of sound mind.

Should a 90 year old whose body is is filled with cancer that has spread to the lungs and bone be forced to endure surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy if they don't want to? Many in this situation choose to go home with hospice to spend their last days with family and friends. It is ultimately a choice individuals reach within themselves

I disagree with you. Sure, the brain can be functioning fine if they person has pancreatic cancer, but some toll would be taken on the person's psyche, possibly clouding their judgement - that's what I meant when I made the initial comment. patient has every right to have treatment withheld - I just want to be sure that this is what the patient truly wants.
 
Yes, I believe the patient can contol their medical fate - provided that they can demonstrate a clear thought process to come to their decision. However, while I believe that indivuduals have control over mind and body, I do not believe they should have physicians actively provide the means or expect them to provide the means for their death - i.e. admininstiring a lethal dose of soduim penthanol. In my opinion withholding treatment, including remving feedtubes, are not active means and have no problems with.
 
Last edited:
AchtungBono said:


They did not pull the plug on Terri Schiavo - they starved her to death for two weeks. She was alive, her eyes were following movement above her head, her heart was beating, she was breathing on her own....and they killed her.

There is no mercy in her murder......

Again, this is my personal opinion.



she was a vegetable as the autopsy reports clearly demonstrated and vindicated every single person who believed Michael Schiavo and thoroughly embarassed the Schindler's and the Snake Oil Salesmen who put them on TV in the first place. they removed life support as many terminally ill patients choose to do.

it was not murder
 
A_Wanderer said:
I definitely support euthanasia on a logical basis - people have the right to determine the time and nature of their death if they want to, mercy killing like this treads a much murkier area - I will say that if death is a certainty and the situation is extreme then I don't feel it is morally wrong.



i generally agree with this, however we need to take into account the doctors asked to perform euthanasia. i know many doctors that would support the right of a person to end his or her own life, especially if one is suffering from ALS or some other horrible, dengenerative disease, but they would never euthanize a patient because it is a violation of the Hyppocratic Oath. it's one thing to create conditions for one to die comfortably, it is another thing to take your own life, but it is something else entirely to ask a physician (or for a law to require a physician) to take someone else's life even if it is the most compassionate thing to do in the given situation.
 
A_Wanderer said:
An individual should have ultimate right over their bodies including the right to choose when to die with dignity.

I generally agree with this, but the parameters around those legally allowed to assist someone's death should be very clear.

The Katrina cases differ in that it seems the decisions were made unilaterally by the doctors...while conditions may have been extreme and understandable, technically that's still murder.
 
AchtungBono said:


They did not pull the plug on Terri Schiavo - they starved her to death for two weeks. She was alive, her eyes were following movement above her head, her heart was beating, she was breathing on her own....and they killed her.

There is no mercy in her murder......

Again, this is my personal opinion.

She was a corpse. The autopsy report proved this.
 
Uhhh, if she were a corpse, there wouldn't be an issue.


deep said:
What if someone passed on because their heart stopped
and then people intervene and try and stop the natural death (G-d ending a person's life).

Is the CPR, electric shocking to restart the heart going against G-d?

Scripture is fairly clear that actions to preserve life are appropriate (even on the Sabbath).

Setting safeguards for the consistent, appropriate application of euthanasia is a far more difficult task than the application of the death penalty.
 
Back
Top Bottom