DIY

  I was reading an article concerning "aided" suicide. In this particular article they weren't talking about euthanasia and stressed the difference between the two. To me it is all just a bit of rationalization. It was pointed out that aided suicide requires the individual to take the lethal cocktail of drugs as prescribed by a physician. The reason that is different is because the physician doesn't actually put the drugs in your mouth or inject them. The thinking being, in that way they are not responsible for your death. Interestingly enough it was stressed in that article if you are considering suicide without the assistance of a medical professional, you should call the suicide prevention hotline! There is help out there! 

 Some are calling this death with dignity. That's a fine title for a book or movie but a bit of a misnomer for killing yourself. I don't see much dignity in killing yourself. I, like many others always thought doctors had to take the Hippocratic oath and that it said among other things, to do no harm. Turns out that isn't true. Not all doctors take that oath, some take a different one and some none at all. There is one translation from the Hippocratic oath that comes close saying. "I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous." I suppose a doctor could say to himself or herself, killing this patient will benefit them. And yes, writing that prescription makes the physician responsible for that death. If a gun manufacturer is responsible for what a criminal does with a gun, shouldn't a doctor be responsible for what happens with his prescription? 

 Now I understand this is only supposed to happen when the patient has a terminal illness. How soon after finding that out is acceptable? What's the waiting period on that? The sooner the better right? Sure would be a significant cost savings to the patient and/or the family. And let's not even consider the inconvenience of having to care for a terminally ill person. Yeah, they are going to die anyway, so what's the point. Might as well get it over with. This is what that article was talking about. As I said, not euthanasia which requires active participation on the part of the doctor. But I find that a bit of a stretch, a very fine line indeed. The duty of the physician is to preserve life, not take it. That's my opinion anyway. It's one of the qualities I look for in a doctor.  

 That Hippocratic oath by one translation does say the physician will refrain from any action which is deleterious. Deleterious means, doing harm. I'd say ending their life is doing harm unless the doctor feels they have the authority to decide on that issue. Yes, call me strange or whatever but I don't want a doctor thinking killing me is going to be helpful. Personally, I wouldn't even ask a doctor to do that, to put a person in that position. It's something that is easy enough to do on your own, especially in today's world. Easy enough to get a handful of pills to swallow that I know will kill me for certain. I certainly don't need a medical degree to figure it out. 

 What troubles me is where all that is going. If I can be hauled into court, ostracized, vilified and practically lose my livelihood because I refuse to make a cake for you can't the same thing happen to a doctor if he refuses? Why not? I've got cancer, it is going to kill me, maybe not right away but I don't want to wait, give me that prescription. If you don't, I'll sue you for malpractice or accuse you of being prejudicial. You have to give me that prescription! I asked you for it. 

 So, how long can you live with a terminal illness? Here's what the professionals have to say. There is no life expectancy, although terminally ill patients may only survive for a few days or weeks after they have been diagnosed. In contrast, others can live months or potentially years. The survival rate of a terminally ill person is a rough estimate given by the physician based on previous data and the progression of the disease. Still, it only partially reflects the exact span of longevity. You know what, getting old is terminal. You will die from that. 

 The professionals say there is no life expectancy after being diagnosed with a terminal illness. Could be days, weeks, months, maybe years. Same as when you are born, you might live days, weeks, months or even years. Of course, if you were aborted that wouldn't happen. Who gets to choose that? Is that strictly a women's choice? If so, the doctors have to provide that service, don't they? Or do doctors just get to decide when you can die; after you are born? After all, the question is theirs to answer right now. That's if the law allows that choice to be made at all. If I say I want to kill myself the majority of the time I will be instructed to call the suicide prevention hotline, or in extreme situations placed in a mental health care facility! The reason for that, it isn't right to want to kill yourself. That's not the dignified choice at all, unless maybe you are a Japanese samurai that has suffered dishonor. Even then it's a do-it-yourself situation.