I heard there is a debate going on in the UK to allow euthanasia for new born babies with severe mental of physical disorders.
What are your thoughts?
Sander
Re: Euthanasia for new born disabled babies?
KSa wrote:
I heard there is a debate going on in the UK to allow euthanasia for new born babies with severe mental of physical disorders.
What are your thoughts?
Sure go ahead, it's already possible here in the Netherlands.
André in Zuid-Afrika
Re: Euthanasia for new born disabled babies?
KSa wrote:
I heard there is a debate going on in the UK to allow euthanasia for new born babies with severe mental of physical disorders.
What are your thoughts?
No. That's not euthanasia, that's murder.
Sander
Re: Euthanasia for new born disabled babies?
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
No. That's not euthanasia, that's murder.
In that case, letting a limbless, blind baby live is torture.
André in Zuid-Afrika
Re: Euthanasia for new born disabled babies?
Sander wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
No. That's not euthanasia, that's murder.
In that case, letting a limbless, blind baby live is torture.
For the baby or the parents?
Sander
Re: Euthanasia for new born disabled babies?
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Sander wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
No. That's not euthanasia, that's murder.
In that case, letting a limbless, blind baby live is torture.
For the baby or the parents?
I'd say both.
André in Zuid-Afrika
And at exactly which point does one decide whether living will be torture for the baby? There are many disabled people living happy lives.
Sander
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
And at exactly which point does one decide whether living will be torture for the baby? There are many disabled people living happy lives.
Doctors, the family and (if possible) the patient him or herself will decide that.
I know of a very nice example. In Germany, some years ago, a baby was born with a very rare and deadly skin disease. Any friction, even from touching the baby, caused severe and painful blisters ... the baby, at birth, wasn't going to make it past 1. The child truly had a horrible life, after a few weeks it could no longer cry because it's throat was damaged because of the screams of pain. Because of disease and the painkillers the baby was constantly very weak and eventually died because blisters got in its trachea: it slowly suffocated in its own pus. It reached the wonderful age of 8 months.
Should this child have been euthanised at birth?
Benjamin [inactive]
The Archbishop of Canterbury appears to be in support of this. Well, he basically said that he didn't think that all new-born babies necessarily had the right to live at all costs.
André in Zuid-Afrika
Sander wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
And at exactly which point does one decide whether living will be torture for the baby? There are many disabled people living happy lives.
Doctors, the family and (if possible) the patient him or herself will decide that.
I know of a very nice example. In Germany, some years ago, a baby was born with a very rare and deadly skin disease. Any friction, even from touching the baby, caused severe and painful blisters ... the baby, at birth, wasn't going to make it past 1. The child truly had a horrible life, after a few weeks it could no longer cry because it's throat was damaged because of the screams of pain. Because of disease and the painkillers the baby was constantly very weak and eventually died because blisters got in its trachea: it slowly suffocated in its own pus. It reached the wonderful age of 8 months.
Should this child have been euthanised at birth?
OK, fair argument. But that's an extreme case. My sister's son was born with certain disabilities. Over the years most of these have been fixed (including some which were not possible when he was born). Today he's a happy young man.
Sander
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
OK, fair argument. But that's an extreme case. My sister's son was born with certain disabilities. Over the years most of these have been fixed (including some which were not possible when he was born). Today he's a happy young man.
Let it be clear that I'm talking about serious handicaps which will have a huge, negative, mark on a persons life. This is closer to mercy than eugenics.
André in Zuid-Afrika
Benjamin wrote:
The Archbishop of Canterbury appears to be in support of this. Well, he basically said that he didn't think that all new-born babies necessarily had the right to live at all costs.
Every baby has the right to live. If the Archbishop of Canterbury said he didn't think that all new-born babies necessarily had the right to live at all costs, he should start thinking about a career change.
Sander
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
The Archbishop of Canterbury appears to be in support of this. Well, he basically said that he didn't think that all new-born babies necessarily had the right to live at all costs.
Every baby has the right to live.
Like I said before, if a right to live becomes an obligation to suffer then I think it's better to skip to the right to die part
KSa
I think it's a disaster for medicine if the only solution is to kill. I understand that some disabilities are really terrible and with no prospect for improvement. But maybe it's time we acknowledged the helplessness of medicine if doctors kill their patients instead of helping them stay alive and get better? Or that medicine (as a field of knowledge and science) doesn't deserve such respect?
André in Zuid-Afrika
Sander wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
The Archbishop of Canterbury appears to be in support of this. Well, he basically said that he didn't think that all new-born babies necessarily had the right to live at all costs.
Every baby has the right to live.
Like I said before, if a right to live becomes an obligation to suffer then I think it's better to skip to the right to die part
But first, let's see what we can do to provide that baby with a quality life... which it has the right to...
KSa
Sander wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
The Archbishop of Canterbury appears to be in support of this. Well, he basically said that he didn't think that all new-born babies necessarily had the right to live at all costs.
Every baby has the right to live.
Like I said before, if a right to live becomes an obligation to suffer then I think it's better to skip to the right to die part
Sander: I know of many examples of people who suffer terribly due to some severe physical disabilities and they thank for every day of life and say they are really happy that they got this chance to live.
Loic
If the Archbishop of Canterbury really did made that kind of statement in public, I now know why there is a very good reason the Anglican church is in a state of crisis throughout the world.
Medical science is advancing by leaps and bounds. There is no reason to suppose that the effects of the malady which the baby is born with cannot be cured or at least, mollified in future.
Besides, who has the heart to actually kill a newborn baby? If they can do that, they would have no problem running a Nazi concentration camp in WWII.
Uriel
I would support the euthanasia of the severely handicapped at any age. People put too much faith in medicine. There are so many things that just can't be fixed, or even mitigated. I don't really see the point of going to extreme lengths to keep people alive at all costs, especially if they are going to be in severe pain, without any measurable intellect, or so physically malformed that survival will be measured in weeks, months, or a few short years. Sometimes you shouldn't fight nature.
Sander
KSa wrote:
Sander: I know of many examples of people who suffer terribly due to some severe physical disabilities and they thank for every day of life and say they are really happy that they got this chance to live.
Let's not use these kind of arguments. I know of plenty of people who suffer terribly due to some severe physical or mental disabilities and want to die.
If a perfectly healthy human can commit suicide, why can't they?
Sander
loic wrote:
Besides, who has the heart to actually kill a newborn baby? If they can do that, they would have no problem running a Nazi concentration camp in WWII.
The baby gets a lethal injection and dies in its parants arms. Euthanasia. When you use "killing" its sounds as if the doctors break its neck ...
KSa
Sander wrote:
KSa wrote:
Sander: I know of many examples of people who suffer terribly due to some severe physical disabilities and they thank for every day of life and say they are really happy that they got this chance to live.
Let's not use these kind of arguments. I know of plenty of people who suffer terribly due to some severe physical or mental disabilities and want to die.
If a perfectly healthy human can commit suicide, why can't they?
You are talking about people who can express their will in this matter.
What I point out is the unprecedented situation when those whom euthanasia concerns are excluded from the debate. This is what makes me anxious.
KSa
Sander wrote:
loic wrote:
Besides, who has the heart to actually kill a newborn baby? If they can do that, they would have no problem running a Nazi concentration camp in WWII.
The baby gets a lethal injection and dies in its parants arms. Euthanasia. When you use "killing" its sounds as if the doctors break its neck ...
Doctors should be associated as those who cure rather than help you to end up your life.
Sander
KSa wrote:
Sander wrote:
loic wrote:
Besides, who has the heart to actually kill a newborn baby? If they can do that, they would have no problem running a Nazi concentration camp in WWII.
The baby gets a lethal injection and dies in its parants arms. Euthanasia. When you use "killing" its sounds as if the doctors break its neck ...
Doctors should be associated as those who cure rather than help you to end up your life.
I disagree, a doctor should be associated as someone who tries to cure, but will help you to a dignifying end if a cure doesn't exist.
Pauline
What a sad topic
I think, the most difficult decision, if it would be allowed, is make the criteria for euthanasia or for life-prolonging treatment.
How you can make this decision before the baby has the chance develop and the medicines get some effects ?Or, the future medicines, unexpected positive recoveries etc...The main reasons that a governemt legalise euthanasia I think :
1. save money. This babies will cost much money in their lives for treatment and care.
2. attitudes of society. You must conform to ideals, and if you not, then your life is considered less worth and better dead.
I think that if it's allowed (would be allowed) then it quickly would be like Hitler times : perfection or death. I agree, that some disabilities, syndromes, diseases are so horrific, that suffer them can seem like more worse that die. Adults, they can speak for themself, but babies can't.
So, I'm against legal euthanasia : i think there can be exceptions in certain circumstances, for exemple intolerable untreatable pain or someone who wnat to die and want this during a long time and all treatments didn't help.
But this must remain isolated cases, not part of a system what murder those who aren't 'perfect'.
Sander
Pauline wrote:
1. save money. This babies will cost much money in their lives for treatment and care.
2. attitudes of society. You must conform to ideals, and if you not, then your life is considered less worth and better dead.
...
Pauline
Sander wrote:
Pauline wrote:
1. save money. This babies will cost much money in their lives for treatment and care.
2. attitudes of society. You must conform to ideals, and if you not, then your life is considered less worth and better dead.
...
What you mean : ... ?
If , you want insult me, you're wrong. I wasn't ill when I was a baby, but I was older. Also, I look normal, so it's not so obvious so not like the babies to who you refer. But, I not judge people how they look like, or their illness /disablilty and never I would say someone better would be dead. If the person think this of themself, also I wouldn't argue with them. I know 2 people who committed suicide.
Sander
Pauline wrote:
Sander wrote:
Pauline wrote:
1. save money. This babies will cost much money in their lives for treatment and care.
2. attitudes of society. You must conform to ideals, and if you not, then your life is considered less worth and better dead.
...
What you mean : ... ?
Do you honestly think governments allow euthanasia because of the financial costs and the creation of a healthier society/race?!
Pauline
Sander wrote:
Do you honestly think governments allow euthanasia because of the financial costs and the creation of a healthier society/race?!
Yes, sadly. This is beacsue economics is very, very important for get votes and power. Also, the medical care is extremely expensive and all the countries must economise in this area.
The second reason I've wrote, was more referring the attitude of 'society' so not the government exclusivly.
It's very quick and simple save this way ; the victims are the most vulnerable people of society, who can't defend themself at all. Justification is easily to be found - prevent suffering. But who has this right to judge what is too much suffering or not, who is too ill or not, who has too severe disability or not ? It seem like it's compassion, but there's more motives that this I think. But, in certain circumstances I agree with euthanasia, but I fear if it will get legalised, it will get more and more practised and the law will not have power to accuse murder, when this is in fact the case.
Sander
Pauline wrote:
Sander wrote:
Do you honestly think governments allow euthanasia because of the financial costs and the creation of a healthier society/race?!
Yes.
This is the 21th century, not Nazi-Germany.
Uriel
Euthanasia doesn't become a option of convenience when legalized. Oregon has shown us that.
I'm talking about babies born with untreatable and extreme defects -- anencephalism, smooth-brain syndrome, severe systemic defects. We're not talking about "less than perfect". We're talking about really awful congenital conditions that there's no medical intervention for and no decent prognosis for.
Pauline
Uriel wrote:
Euthanasia doesn't become a option of convenience when legalized. Oregon has shown us that.
I'm talking about babies born with untreatable and extreme defects -- anencephalism, smooth-brain syndrome, severe systemic defects. We're not talking about "less than perfect". We're talking about really awful congenital conditions that there's no medical intervention for and no decent prognosis for.
Maybe it doesn't become convenient, but after some time it probably will be too often used. There is very much abuse and mistreatment of vulnerable people -this you can't deny. For exemple, murder of mentally ill people in the US because the execution continued despite doctors have said the person was 'insane' (legal term) and the people didn't had sufficient finance for get antipsychotics so they had to suffer terrible and unnecessary. So, it's cheaper kill them : this does happen.
Smooth-brain syndrome, I didn't heard before this syndrome, so i looked up and it's Lissencephaly I think ? Yes, it seems truly terrible, and prevent suffering in such cases, I agree it's kinder to make / do/ commit euthanasia.
Of course it's ideally not for kill 'less than perfect' people, but there are people who get abortion for reasosn like cleft palate, one arm, and other ridiculous little justified things. So, then they would make euthanasia as well for this.
Sander wrote:
This is the 21th century, not Nazi-Germany.
yes, I know, but the difference is that in Nazi-germany, evil was accepted by the government, so therefore it was visible. Now, it's officially not accepted, but it's there - it didn't disappeard, but became hidden, insidious.
Loic
As long as there is life, there is hope. A doctor who chooses to terminate the life of a child is merely doing his job, odious it may be. The parent who made that decision would have to answer to his conscience for the rest of his life.
I am trying to put myself into the shoes of someone here who just has a severely handicapped child. Choosing to prematurely end his life is incongruous with my values. Children bring joy to our lives and they are more importantly gifts from God. It is wrong, disrespectful and heart-wrenching to even consider ending the life of your own flesh and blood.
You argue that to do so is akin to mercy killing. It is no different from putting animals to sleep. But who are we to commoditise the intrinsic value of life? We do not own the child and we hence do not have the moral authority to make such a decision on his behalf. Even if I disagree with euthanasia, this procedure at least takes into account the decision of the person whose life is about to be snuffed out.
But since there are no parents on this forum to the best of my knowledge, all our views here are really speculative. We might behave otherwise if such an unfortunate event were to happen to us. I hope not.
Sander
Pauline wrote:
Sander wrote:
This is the 21th century, not Nazi-Germany.
yes, I know, but the difference is that in Nazi-germany, evil was accepted by the government, so therefore it was visible. Now, it's officially not accepted, but it's there - it didn't disappeard, but became hidden, insidious.
This is just ridiculous, how can something that isn't accepted by the majority exist in a democratic country?!
Pauline
Sander wrote:
Pauline wrote:
Sander wrote:
This is the 21th century, not Nazi-Germany.
yes, I know, but the difference is that in Nazi-germany, evil was accepted by the government, so therefore it was visible. Now, it's officially not accepted, but it's there - it didn't disappeard, but became hidden, insidious.
This is just ridiculous, how can something that isn't accepted by the majority exist in a democratic country?!
It can exist, and it exist. I would prefer if you were right, but unfortunatly, it's not the case in this question.
Many things isn't accepted by the majority : racism is the most evident, also sexism, bullying, crime etc... then there are the lesser evident such as mafia manipulation, torture, corruption and other things what are occuring 'hidden' but, still occuring.
Maybe you're a person who don't take part in those things. I don't neither, but it's everywhere, unfortunatly. Just they try to maintain secrecy, but sometimes you can notice it and there exist sufficient evidence.
Sander
Pauline wrote:
Sander wrote:
Pauline wrote:
Sander wrote:
This is the 21th century, not Nazi-Germany.
yes, I know, but the difference is that in Nazi-germany, evil was accepted by the government, so therefore it was visible. Now, it's officially not accepted, but it's there - it didn't disappeard, but became hidden, insidious.
This is just ridiculous, how can something that isn't accepted by the majority exist in a democratic country?!
It can exist, and it exist. I would prefer if you were right, but unfortunatly, it's not the case in this question.
Nonsense, why would euthanasia be allowed in the Netherlands if the majority of Dutch people opposed it? Just riduculous.
Pauline
It absolutely isn't nonsense or ridiculous.
The dutch people voted about euthanaisa ?
Anyway, if yes, probably they were manipulated by the governmetn and TV for vote for it. They do not look at every case, for asking if this is the correct action (or not) because the poeple doesn't know what is occuring inside the hospitals. Like I've wrote, it's hidden.
Sander
Pauline wrote:
It absolutely isn't nonsense or ridiculous.
The dutch people voted about euthanaisa ?
Anyway, if yes, probably they were manipulated by the governmetn and TV for vote for it. They do not look at every case, for asking if this is the correct action (or not) because the poeple doesn't know what is occuring inside the hospitals. Like I've wrote, it's hidden.
preposterous.
Pauline
Sander wrote:
Pauline wrote:
It absolutely isn't nonsense or ridiculous.
The dutch people voted about euthanaisa ?
Anyway, if yes, probably they were manipulated by the governmetn and TV for vote for it. They do not look at every case, for asking if this is the correct action (or not) because the poeple doesn't know what is occuring inside the hospitals. Like I've wrote, it's hidden.
preposterous.
Yes, it is. But, it's not only in The Netherlands like this ; all the governments manipluate - they want power and are controling the people for get complete knowlegde and even more power.
Legal euthanaisa is a dangerous direction to take and I oppose it. In certain circumstances I agree with euthanasia and in this cases the law can adjust, but very rare situations this would be. It occur anyway in all countries. I know for a fact, that it does occur and this is discret and when all agree it's the better thing, then it remain secret.
Sander, for who you think euthanasia is right - also people who can't say about their own life ? For me, there exist the very important difference : if you can express your own wish, or not. Really, this make the entire debate to be double: is euthanaisa acceptable for
1. people capable of express their wish
2. people incapable
But, I know this was about babies, so they all will be incapable of this.
Sander
Pauline wrote:
Sander wrote:
Pauline wrote:
It absolutely isn't nonsense or ridiculous.
The dutch people voted about euthanaisa ?
Anyway, if yes, probably they were manipulated by the governmetn and TV for vote for it. They do not look at every case, for asking if this is the correct action (or not) because the poeple doesn't know what is occuring inside the hospitals. Like I've wrote, it's hidden.
preposterous.
Yes, it is. But, it's not only in The Netherlands like this ; all the governments manipluate - they want power and are controling the people for get complete knowlegde and even more power.
I meant your ideas are preposterous. If you honestly think what you just wrote down you must be a member of those conspiracy idiots.
Pauline
Sander wrote:
I meant your ideas are preposterous. If you honestly think what you just wrote down you must be a member of those conspiracy idiots.
I'm absolutely not an idiot.
Sorry, I can't exactly understand what you mean : 'must be a member of those conspiracy idiots' .
I have to go to my dance class. I will answer you later, if you explain me what it means your sentence. Bye.
André in Zuid-Afrika
Sander and Pauline, calm down.
Uriel
Maybe it doesn't become convenient, but after some time it probably will be too often used. There is very much abuse and mistreatment of vulnerable people -this you can't deny. For exemple, murder of mentally ill people in the US because the execution continued despite doctors have said the person was 'insane' (legal term) and the people didn't had sufficient finance for get antipsychotics so they had to suffer terrible and unnecessary. So, it's cheaper kill them : this does happen.
They were executed because they had committed capital crimes, and did not prove at their trials that they were actually insane at the time of the crime. You can be found not guilty by reason of insanity, and the cost of anti-psychotics is not a factor here -- people with psychoses generally qualify as disabled and are entitled to government-subsidized medications.
Quote:
Smooth-brain syndrome, I didn't heard before this syndrome, so i looked up and it's Lissencephaly I think ? Yes, it seems truly terrible, and prevent suffering in such cases, I agree it's kinder to make / do/ commit euthanasia.
Yes, smooth-brain syndrome is the same as lissencephaly (which literally means "smooth brain"). The fetal brain fails to develop from the beginning of the second trimester onward, resulting in a smooth surface without sulci -- or the ability to think, basic reflexes like sucking, etc -- those who even survive often have to have feeding tubes surgically implanted. Anencephalism is being born without a brain at all -- often just a brainstem.
There is no "hope" for these children, alive or no -- the brain will not continue to develop after birth (or grow in the first place).
Quote:
But, in certain circumstances I agree with euthanasia, but I fear if it will get legalised, it will get more and more practised and the law will not have power to accuse murder, when this is in fact the case.
Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands and in the US state of Oregon. It is well-regulated, and has not been shown to be abused just because it is legal, despite similar concerns in the US. It remains very much a last resort when all other avenues have failed.
I personally am not much swayed by hypothetical arguments like the slippery-slope one -- I prefer hard facts and proof.
As for the kaw not being able to call it murder -- well, murder is a legal term in the first place; it is the law that defines what killings constitute murder and which don't.
Pauline
Uriel wrote:
They were executed because they had committed capital crimes, and did not prove at their trials that they were actually insane at the time of the crime. You can be found not guilty by reason of insanity, and the cost of anti-psychotics is not a factor here -- people with psychoses generally qualify as disabled and are entitled to government-subsidized medications.
I am against capital punishment also, but it's another discussion.
You can't prove nothing if you have such problems and only recently you got antipsychotics. Also, you can't present you in a way, that the jury (not educated in medicine, law etc) would want to see for believe innocence. therefore, a fair trial can't occur, but predetermined and death. It's the system and the way for get rid of 'undesriables'.
Quote:
Yes, smooth-brain syndrome is the same as lissencephaly (which literally means "smooth brain"). The fetal brain fails to develop from the beginning of the second trimester onward, resulting in a smooth surface without sulci -- or the ability to think, basic reflexes like sucking, etc -- those who even survive often have to have feeding tubes surgically implanted. Anencephalism is being born without a brain at all -- often just a brainstem.
There is no "hope" for these children, alive or no -- the brain will not continue to develop after birth (or grow in the first place).
I think, that in most countries babies who have such problems are not made to obligatory suffer - probably only if the parents wish their baby to live, then the doctors don't make euthanasia.
Quote:
Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands and in the US state of Oregon. It is well-regulated, and has not been shown to be abused just because it is legal, despite similar concerns in the US. It remains very much a last resort when all other avenues have failed.
I personally am not much swayed by hypothetical arguments like the slippery-slope one -- I prefer hard facts and proof.
Of course, hard facts and proof are preferable to hypothetical arguments, what are completely subjective. But,where you can discover the amount of truth of the facts ? Certainly not from the government or the hospitals because they conceal deliberatly this things. They report how and what they wish, and this will for sure be manipulated for present a favourable impression.
Also, before something 'exist' or in action, you can't have hard proof, you have only speculation, hypotheses. The countries here are useing the slippery slope argument to maintain the interdiction of soft drugs, that it would lead to more people use hard drugs. The Netherlands is the one who has a differnet law for this, and they pretend to not have drug problems, but in truth they have.
Quote:
As for the kaw not being able to call it murder -- well, murder is a legal term in the first place; it is the law that defines what killings constitute murder and which don't.
I haven't trust at all in the american justice. Biased judges, racist jury, intolerant of certain things, predetermned verdicts, and if this sometimes does not get succes then they will have some more plans. Guantanamo has many people who didn't never had a trial, but the american government didn't wnated them in society / alive. You know that murder can be for the law several differetn levels for exemple involuntary homocide etc...This can be absolutely manipulated and depend of who is the lawyer and judge (& in the US the jury).
Uriel
My, you're very suspicious of everyone's motivations, aren't you?
No, I'm afraid that contrary to common European perceptions, you actually have to work pretty jard to get yourself a death sentence in the US. Guidelines for determining what constitutes a capital crime are very strict and most murders do NOT meet that definition. And even when they do, the prosecutors may opt to not seek the death penalty, or the judge and/or jury may not choose to sentence it.
Quote:
I think, that in most countries babies who have such problems are not made to obligatory suffer - probably only if the parents wish their baby to live, then the doctors don't make euthanasia.
Actually, there is no provision at all for euthanasia in those cases in most countries -- the medical establishment largely does try to do whatever it can for them. Often the only "way out" is for the parents to refuse treatment, and hope that the baby then dies a natural death -- and often this ends up in court.
The right to die has been a long fight in the US, but these days it has become more and more accepted by American doctors, who no longer bat an eye at a "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) order or advance directives limiting how far treatment can go, or power-of-attorney rights being grated to other individuals to make life or death decisions for an incapacitated patient. It's usually a part of the admission process now to determine what the patient (or their legal guardian) wishes in the event of a terminal situation. Hospice care is also becoming more and more possible, as people learn to accept the inevitable and not fight it tooth and nail to the bitter end, as was once the accepted medical philosophy.
We used to do chemotherapy on animals with cancer at my old vet clinic, and I once asked why the animals didn't suffer as many horrendous side effects as humans do.* She said it was because the philosophy was different -- it was to prolong their lives, but not to save them at any cost. So the treatments were not as intensive or harsh. She said that this approach was similar to what was being used in Europe for human cancer patients (depending on prognosis, of course).
*Well, one side-effect really IS species-specific: the animals rarely went bald. Humans go bald because our hair grows continuously; the cells that produce it are always dividing. Chemo drugs target dividing cells, and our scalps are a casualty, along with the tumor. Most dogs, on the other hand, grow their fur to a certain length and then stop. Only a small portion of their hair follicles are actually growing hair at any given time, so only they get killed by the drug -- and you never even notice it. Only a few breeds like poodles and some terriers grow hair continuously like humans -- they sometimes do go bald during chemo!
Pauline
Uriel wrote:
My, you're very suspicious of everyone's motivations, aren't you?
No, it's ok now. Before when I was ill, it's true, I was too suspicious. I was very scared because I thought, for exemple they made a plot for kill me, and for prepare it the internet want to take away my thoughts and ability to talk so it wouldn't be possible tell someone (it's why I don't write in french on the internet ;then it's safe from this threat, what I know is impossible, but it's better be careful). Now, I know what is a 'real' or not threat.
Quote:
Guidelines for determining what constitutes a capital crime are very strict and most murders do NOT meet that definition.
I am against capital punishment, and disagree with you because it is absolutely certain, that the system make mistakes - deliberate or not, this would remain subjective and evidently we would not agree.
Quote:
The right to die has been a long fight in the US, but these days it has become more and more accepted by American doctors, who no longer bat an eye at a "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) order or advance directives limiting how far treatment can go, or power-of-attorney rights being grated to other individuals to make life or death decisions for an incapacitated patient. It's usually a part of the admission process now to determine what the patient (or their legal guardian) wishes in the event of a terminal situation. Hospice care is also becoming more and more possible, as people learn to accept the inevitable and not fight it tooth and nail to the bitter end, as was once the accepted medical philosophy.
You know much more about it, because you work in medicine (you are a nurse, doctor or you've another medical job ?) I know only from my experience, but in the future I want to be a doctor. I know, that a patient can say here also, that they prefer wouldn't get more treatment. I think that a Hospice is a very good thing.
It's a big difference for doctors in the US that in Europe : law suits. Here, it is very seldom, but I think in the US, the doctors are working with the constant fear to be prosecuted for any mistake, action etc.. waht the patient / family not like.
Quote:
the treatments were not as intensive or harsh. She said that this approach was similar to what was being used in Europe for human cancer patients (depending on prognosis, of course).
So, this was placebo, or just insufficient chemotherapy ? It's a good, kind thing -much btter taht tell the patient : « for sure you will die after one month, so we don't give you treatment » then at least the perosn will have hope and this will be a big influence on the mood of the final days, weeks of the life.
Interesting, what you've wrote about the animals' fur !!
Uriel
The placebo effect doesn't work in animals, because they have no idea what you're giving them or how medicine works, so you can't play mind games with them like you can with humans. No, we were really giving them real chemo drugs like vincristine and vinblastine, checking their bloodwork, disposing of the needles and catheters in special containers, etc.
The idea behind that particular therapy regimen is not that it's insufficient, but that it's realistic. Cancers vary tremendously from one type to another. Some require only excision to be curative, and you never worry about them again so long as nothing grows back. Some require excision and chemo or radiation, becuase they are more likely to have metastasized or because you can't be sure you got all of the malignent cells. Some are so highly invasive and fast-spreading that once you've diagnosed them, it's already too late. And some are systemic or chronic conditions, like lymphoma or leukemia, where they are throughout the body and there is no possibility of removing the cancer surgically -- they are managed more like a chronic disease.
So depending on what type of cancer you have, your treatment may be aggressive (if that's what it takes to wipe it out and save you), or less aggressive, especially if your doctor knows your cancer will never be cured and he or she is really only buying you time -- why make your last months or years completely miserable if you're only going to die anyway? Better to do what they can to reasonably extend your life, yet keep you as healthy and comfortable as possible during the time you have left. Remember that chemo is almost as hard on you as it is on your cancer; there's no real benefit to destroying your cancer if it also sends you into liver or kidney failure, which is just as fatal.
Medical malpractice is a large concern in the US, and doctors have to carry good malpractice insurance. Hospitals also won't hire doctors outright anymore, because they don't want to have to assume liability for such lawsuits -- they just issue "their" doctors contracts extending them "privileges" at that facility; the doctors essentially remain independent contractors, not employees.
Pauline
Uriel wrote:
The placebo effect doesn't work in animals, because they have no idea what you're giving them or how medicine works, so you can't play mind games with them like you can with humans.
I didn't thought, that the animals would receive the placebo for convince them (mind games) but, I was referring the human cancer patients you told in Europe are receiving this. I was *very* surprised when I read this, because I didn't never heard, that this happens ; I thought, chemo is given at the dosis necessary for cure, not, that it can be (is) given reduced. Also, the owners of the animals, it's possible they can feel more happy when the animal receive some treatment, even in a situation without chance of survival ?
What you've wrote about cancer, some of this I knew, but it's interesting. Are you oncologue nurse or doctor ? It's here the same ; I knew a girl who had a malignant brain tumour. Two times it was operated, but then she said she didn't wanted make another operation, and despite this would be the only possibility for survive, the doctors listned her, and she didn't had this opertaion and she died. I havn't an idea what was the view /advice of her neurologist. I didn't knew very well this girl, but it was evident that she received chemotherapy because her hair was fallen out, and this wasn't the preparation for the operation. So, you consider this is euthanasia, or not ? certainly, it would be considered a different approach that it would be before (some years ago, when everyone was obligated live as long as possible) but, so 'action' as euthanaisa it isn't I think.
Quote:
the doctors essentially remain independent contractors, not employees.
I think, that here some (I don't knw the pourcentages) doctors who're working in the hospital also remain independent contractors. They have a company and this is their practice ; it can be in the hospital or another place also. You can know this, because on the papers (prescriptions, bills, etc) there is printed this infos.
Uriel
Quote:
I was referring the human cancer patients you told in Europe are receiving this. I was *very* surprised when I read this, because I didn't never heard, that this happens ; I thought, chemo is given at the dosis necessary for cure, not, that it can be (is) given reduced.
Well, I think it has to do with what kind of cancer it is. No one is withholding needed medications from people. But if the doctor knows a patient has a type of cancer that is incurable, he/she will devise a chemo regimen that treats it at a level that will be comfortable for the patient, rather than throwing very harsh treatments at them (especially when they won't work anyway). That way the patient's life is prolonged more than it would be without any treatment, but not miserable.
If the cancer is curable with aggressive treatment, the doctor will pursue the higher doses and combinations necessary.
Quote:
Also, the owners of the animals, it's possible they can feel more happy when the animal receive some treatment, even in a situation without chance of survival ?
Yes. Most of the animals we did this on had no real alternatives other than chemo, or we would not have done it -- and it is very expensive, too -- most owners won't do it! But these particular animals had lymphoma (a systemic cancer, inoperable), grade 4 mast cell tumors (extremely metastatic and always fatal), and malignant melanoma. In the last 2 cases, we did a combination of surgery and chemo. The animals lived probably a good year or so more with the treatment, which in a species that only lives 12 years or so, is pretty long. In the first two, they did fine during most of the treatment, but we did end up euthanizing them when they started to become sicker and sicker and nothing was working anymore -- we didn't make them drag it out. The other was still alive when I quit that job.
Of course, the vast majority of animals with cancer just received surgery -- no chemo. I even had a small mass taken off of one of my dogs that turned out to be cancerous -- but it was a very slow-growing type of cancer that was unlikely to ever spread, so as long as it never grows back, I can consider him cured.
No, I'm not a nurse -- I was a vet tech (assistant) for 4 years in a general small animal practice. Now I'm a secretary at a human hospital. I just pay attention and ask questions.
Quote:
It's here the same ; I knew a girl who had a malignant brain tumour. Two times it was operated, but then she said she didn't wanted make another operation, and despite this would be the only possibility for survive, the doctors listned her, and she didn't had this opertaion and she died. So, you consider this is euthanasia, or not ? certainly, it would be considered a different approach that it would be before (some years ago, when everyone was obligated live as long as possible) but, so 'action' as euthanaisa it isn't I think.
No, not really. In the US this is called "the right to die". And it was hotly contested in the courts for many years on the grounds that refusing treatment constituted suicide on the part of the patient and euthanasia on the part of the doctor. But "Death with Dignity" became such a big movement that a lot of legislation was changed in order to allow people the choice to decide how far they wanted their doctors to go or how much they were willing to put up with.
KSa
Uriel, if you are not a vet but just a vet assistant I admire your vast knowledge in this area! I thought you were a vet surgeon!
Pauline
KSa wrote:
Uriel, if you are not a vet but just a vet assistant I admire your vast knowledge in this area! I thought you were a vet surgeon!
I agree ; she knows very much and it was an interetsing discussion.
Uriel
Well, I've always taken a big interest in the sciences, especially biology. My mother is a biologist, but my degree is in art. Which I unfortunately did not find especially mentally stimulating or intellectually fulfilling, so I took lots of science classes along the way...
