Incurable chronic disease + euthanasia

[PainRack]

Here's an ethical question.

If a person is stricken with some form of painful, incurable disease such as the cancer Mutiple Myleoma, would you support euthanasia in this case? Current ethical guidelines for euthanasia in the countries that allow it suggest that the disease must be
1. Incurable.
2. Causing the person undue suffering that could not be alleviated.
3. Is getting worse, beyond the person ability to cope.

But what about certain types of cancer such as Myleoma, or chrondosacroma which are "chronic"? They don't really get worse if the treatment works.

Sure, you die of it eventually, and your lifespan is definitely shorter than the norm, but with current technology, such cancers are survivable with repeat treatments. Of course, some of these cancers aren't exactly nice...... You're talking about huge ugly bumps on your spine, pain in your bones, lots of people require the use of chest tubes as pleural effusion build up or the need to use a stoma bag as treatments take over.

There's also the issue of medicalisation, in you have to repeatedly return to the hospital every few months or so. Not to mention the drugs and of course, the tests..... Poking a needle into your spine every now and then for Myleoma sucks. Chemotherapy isn't enjoyable either.

In the treatments for these chronic cancers, quality of life is affected. The indignity involved is certainly as great as those suffering from dementia or senility, another gray area with regards to euthanasia.

So, what would be your ethical stance? To support the ending of life, so that the last few years aren't spent as a medical specimen and avoid being a burden on your family or to prolong it so that you can use the remainding time fruitfully?

[General Zod]

So, what would be your ethical stance? To support the ending of life, so that the last few years aren't spent as a medical specimen and avoid being a burden on your family or to prolong it so that you can use the remainding time fruitfully?

So long as the person in question is able to give clear consent for such a thing and has no mental issues preventing him from making a sound decision, I'm not seeing any kind of real ethical dilemma here. This sounds to me more of a "would you be comfortable with it" type of question rather than a genuine ethical problem.

[Solauren]

I look at Euthanasia in light of incurable, crippling diseases as a viable option in my humble opinion.

The most basic concept of medicine is 'do no harm', and I think not offering a way out of incurable, untreatable, inescapable pain is doing harm.

[Broomstick]

Very few diseases are untreatable.

Quite a few are chronic.

Medical procedures aren't nice. Neither is chronic pain. I happen to share my home with a man who has had a chronic, crippling condition for 50 years and it leaves him in pain every day to one degree or another. Although he does get depressed sometimes, he still wants to live. He'd like to live better, but most days are pretty good despite the on-going medical issues.

So, really, it has to be a personal decision. We all have different levels of tolerance, and it's not uncommon for someone to find that they actually have more tolerance for enduring chronic or crippling conditions than they thought.

On the other hand, I have no problem with an informed person of sound mind refusing treatment. In many of these cases active euthanasia is not necessary - most (although not all) cancer patients can have their pain managed and simply stop fighting the disease.

Active euthanasia is more of a sticky issue - morally, it has to be the choice of the person involved rather than pressure from family to not be a bother, an expense, or a burden.

The big issues in the US are:

1) Access to care
2) Proper pain management
3) Good hospice care

If you have all of the above there are very, very few instances where active euthanasia becomes a serious issue.

[Knife]

If pain management was unable to keep the patient having some sort of quality of life, I'd say they'd qualify for euthanasia. In fact, any time a disease eats away all of a persons quality of life with a poor prognosis, I'd say they qualify.

[Broomstick]

As long as people understand that proper pain management isn't just about drugging a person - it can also involve physical therapy, adaptive aids of various sorts, and mental techniques to cope with pain as well.

[Knife]

As long as people understand that proper pain management isn't just about drugging a person - it can also involve physical therapy, adaptive aids of various sorts, and mental techniques to cope with pain as well.

Uhm, yeah.

[Jaepheth]

I think insurance companies would start offering incentives for a person to choose euthanasia too. From a numbers standpoint, it'll be a lot cheaper for them to pay a one time cost than to pay for on-going care. So they may offer people more money to die now. Which may also make a sick person's family pressure them into choosing death.

That'll put a lot of extra strain on border-line cases.

[Death from the Sea]

from the insurance side, they would probably not pay off on any life insurance policy in this kind of death as it would be like suicide, which insurance companies do not pay off on.

[Kanastrous]

Suicide isn't always black-and-white where insurance is concerned.

Some policies will cover suicides, if the suicide is committed a specified period of time after the policy is established.

[PainRack]

So long as the person in question is able to give clear consent for such a thing and has no mental issues preventing him from making a sound decision, I'm not seeing any kind of real ethical dilemma here. This sounds to me more of a "would you be comfortable with it" type of question rather than a genuine ethical problem.

Ah.... You're right about that. It was supposed to be about sanctity of life, but it does really sounds like "are you comfortable with it" type question.

If pain management was unable to keep the patient having some sort of quality of life, I'd say they'd qualify for euthanasia. In fact, any time a disease eats away all of a persons quality of life with a poor prognosis, I'd say they qualify.

Knife, the problem is.... we're not talking about diseases where pain can't be managed. Its present, but its not going to cripple your life. Its more of an indignity then anything, something that reminds you that you're ill.

[Knife]

Knife, the problem is.... we're not talking about diseases where pain can't be managed. Its present, but its not going to cripple your life. Its more of an indignity then anything, something that reminds you that you're ill.

Which is why the words 'quality of life' repeatedly appeared in my post. Pain isn't the only factor in quality of life, but it's a pretty big one. LOC and mental health would be two major factors I would think, and then you can go down the list of shit like ADL's and such.

[Gil Hamilton]

I would say it's up to the indivdual. If they are of sound mind and wish to die rather than suffer their illness, that's their choice. Any person should be able to face death on their own terms. If they don't want to die, then euthanasia can't be supported.

[loomer]

Cancer should definitely, assuming it's aggressive and moderately advanced, be on the list of diseases approved for euthanasia.

I say this because it made my Grandmother's last years hell, and she wished to be the first woman euthanized in Australia. The government wouldn't allow it.