As a family we used to talk about what we would want our relatives to do, or not to do, in case one of us would become terminally ill. When my dad suffered a major heart attack last January, we told the medical team that his biggest fear was to become a 'vegetable'. Dad was in a coma and when tests ruled out he would ever regain conciousness again, we decided to stop the machinery and let him go. It took another 8 hours for his heart to stop beating, as if he needed the time to let us go. As much as we miss this funny, loveable and caring person in our lives, we accepted his last wish. We had a fantastisch team of nurses and doctors who listened to us, and who supported us in every way they could.

you're comparing apples and oranges.

On one hand you have a doctor's professional opinion that a being cannot physically sustain itself. Alternate opinions can be requested, and scientifically challenged.

On the other hand, you have an individual's personal opinion that they cannot mentally sustain themselves. Alternate opinions are completely irrelevant, and cannot be scientifically challenged.

Dauphin said:

Actually with the DNR, it is not a matter that "a being cannot physically sustain itself", it is an issue of whether an individual wants to have their heart restarted / body restarted (in essence) in the event they were to die naturally. Do Not Recuscitate means that an individual wants to have a natural death and does not want any means used to restart life once it has ended, or to prolong their life in the event their heart were to stop.

Mercy killing is taking an individual that is already living, but may not be having quality of life, and taking that life from them. There is a large difference between DNR and mercy killing. One is saying "don't bring me back in the event I die" the other is saying "I no longer want to live so end my life".
[Edited 8/4/09 22:11pm]
[Edited 8/4/09 22:17pm]

I wanted to add the reason I say that a DNR is not used when a doctor says a being can no longer sustain life. While a doctor can write the order for a DNR, it is only because an individual has told their doctor that they do not want to be resuscitated. A doctor cannot order a DNR if a patient has not said they do not want to be resuscitated. For instance, let's say you do not tell your doctor you do not want to be resuscitated and something were to happen and your condition became terminal and you became incapacitated to state what your wishes are. In this instance, if your heart were to stop beating, your lungs to stop functioning, then all measures would be taken to keep you alive. However, let's say that you have told your doctor you do not want to be resuscitated, if in the event you were to become incapacitated and your doctor has documented your wishes to not be resuscitated, only at that time could he then write an order for a DNR. It is your wishes, not your doctor's determination that the body can no longer sustain itself that will determine whether a DNR is warranted. However, if you told your doctor this and he did not record that you wishes in your chart, legally he cannot then write a DNR (regardless of what your wishes were) because there is no documentation to support what the doctor is saying. There in essence could be a legal issue with him ordering a DNR with no supporting documentation of your wishes. He can at that time, however, go to the family and state that he knows you had told him at one time that you did not want to be resuscitated but it would in essence be up to your family to make that call.

It is generally recommended that an individual sign a Living Will if they have no other conditions that might indicate a shortened life span. The reason for this is that in a Living Will, one can specifically state that they want CPR performed but do not want to live on life support in the even they become in a vegetative state. You could also state in a Living Will that you do not want CPR or life support. A DNR does not address the issue of life support. A DNR specifically refers to resuscitation techniques that might be used in the event that your heart were to stop beating or your lungs stop breathing (heart shock, manual resuscitation, or some drugs that can be used to start the heart and lungs again). A DNR only comes into play if you are actively dying and the only way to save your life would be through resuscitative techniques. However, if you were to become vegetative since there is nothing there that is specifically resuscitative, they could in essence put you on life support to prolong your life. However, if your heart were to stop or your lungs to stop functioning, even if you were on life support, they could not then resuscitate you if you have a DNR. But they can prolong life by putting you on machinary to keep you living if your heart and lungs were still functioning even if you wanted no resuscitative techniques used, because they would not be resuscitating life, they would merely be prolonging the life that already exists (regardless of the quality of that life).[Edited 8/4/09 23:38pm]

Dauphin said:

Actually with the DNR, it is not a matter that "a being cannot physically sustain itself", it is an issue of whether an individual wants to have their heart restarted / body restarted (in essence) in the event they were to die naturally. Do Not Recuscitate means that an individual wants to have a natural death and does not want any means used to restart life once it has ended, or to prolong their life in the event their heart were to stop.

Mercy killing is taking an individual that is already living, but may not be having quality of life, and taking that life from them. There is a large difference between DNR and mercy killing. One is saying "don't bring me back in the event I die" the other is saying "I no longer want to live so end my life".
[Edited 8/4/09 22:11pm]
[Edited 8/4/09 22:17pm]

I wanted to add the reason I say that a DNR is not used when a doctor says a being can no longer sustain life. While a doctor can write the order for a DNR, it is only because an individual has told their doctor that they do not want to be resuscitated. A doctor cannot order a DNR if a patient has not said they do not want to be resuscitated. For instance, let's say you do not tell your doctor you do not want to be resuscitated and something were to happen and your condition became terminal and you became incapacitated to state what your wishes are. In this instance, if your heart were to stop beating, your lungs to stop functioning, then all measures would be taken to keep you alive. However, let's say that you have told your doctor you do not want to be resuscitated, if in the event you were to become incapacitated and your doctor has documented your wishes to not be resuscitated, only at that time could he then write an order for a DNR. It is your wishes, not your doctor's determination that the body can no longer sustain itself that will determine whether a DNR is warranted. However, if you told your doctor this and he did not record that you wishes in your chart, legally he cannot then write a DNR (regardless of what your wishes were) because there is no documentation to support what the doctor is saying. There in essence could be a legal issue with him ordering a DNR with no supporting documentation of your wishes. He can at that time, however, go to the family and state that he knows you had told him at one time that you did not want to be resuscitated but it would in essence be up to your family to make that call.

It is generally recommended that an individual sign a Living Will if they have no other conditions that might indicate a shortened life span. The reason for this is that in a Living Will, one can specifically state that they want CPR performed but do not want to live on life support in the even they become in a vegetative state. You could also state in a Living Will that you do not want CPR or life support. A DNR does not address the issue of life support. A DNR specifically refers to resuscitation techniques that might be used in the event that your heart were to stop beating or your lungs stop breathing (heart shock, manual resuscitation, or some drugs that can be used to start the heart and lungs again). A DNR only comes into play if you are actively dying and the only way to save your life would be through resuscitative techniques. However, if you were to become vegetative since there is nothing there that is specifically resuscitative, they could in essence put you on life support to prolong your life. However, if your heart were to stop or your lungs to stop functioning, even if you were on life support, they could not then resuscitate you if you have a DNR. But they can prolong life by putting you on machinary to keep you living if your heart and lungs were still functioning even if you wanted no resuscitative techniques used, because they would not be resuscitating life, they would merely be prolonging the life that already exists (regardless of the quality of that life).
[Edited 8/4/09 23:38pm]

benni said:

That's what I'm saying, but not as verbosely. In a DNR, a person is relying on a doctor's professional opinion that they cannot be sustained. In a mercy killing, you're just counting on your own opinion about yourself. Both acts require an external party to actually commit the final decision, and both acts result in death. That's where the similarities end.

Mirabelle said:

This needs to be an individual choice PERIOD without people injecting their moralities on other people.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Aren't you injecting your moralities on others by inforcing statutory rape?
If the child and the adult consented, who are we to tell them it's wrong?

As for "mercy killing", the notion of "counting on one's own opinion of themselves", as you put it, makes it sound like it should be treated with less consideration because opinions are often more relative and not considered rooted in fact. My grandmother chose the assistance of hospice because she could no longer bear the pain. My grandmother refused hospice until that last week and at that point she had stopped eating for 10 days and her breast tumor, which had burst 5 weeks earlier, was taking over her entire existence. I do not blame her for turning to hospice and thank god that they were there when she needed them.

Thank you Benni for clarifying the issue. The experience with my cousin and my granmda lead me to the belief that hospice and end of life decisions need to be an individual/family decision on how to handle in each case. Anyone who tries to force their beleifs so that someone is forced to live in agonizing suffering can fuck off.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

I can see where it comes off like I feel Euthanasia is a bad thing. I actually think the opposite. Amazing what the word "just" can do when put in the wrong part of a sentence.

If a person of sound mind is willing to peacefully end their existence, even after being tended to physically, mentally, and spiritually... then how can I tell them no?

Mirabelle said:

This needs to be an individual choice PERIOD without people injecting their moralities on other people.

seekingtruth said:

Hospice is LEGAL and nobody forced my grandmother to accept the help from hospice. SHE was the one who denied it and she was the one who accepted it.

End of life decisions, if it were up to Religious assholes in this country, would be determined one way. THEIR way. You process your illnesses and end of life decisions the way you want and get the fuck out of my way. Anyone who tried to force my grandmother, by virtue of their own morality, not to have morphine in those last days would have met my morality in the form of my fist.
[Edited 8/5/09 13:14pm]

you're comparing apples and oranges.

On one hand you have a doctor's professional opinion that a being cannot physically sustain itself. Alternate opinions can be requested, and scientifically challenged.

On the other hand, you have an individual's personal opinion that they cannot mentally sustain themselves. Alternate opinions are completely irrelevant, and cannot be scientifically challenged.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

In a coma or vegetative state, a person cannot make that choice for themselves.
People also don't put their wishes in writing.

That's what I'm saying, but not as verbosely. In a DNR, a person is relying on a doctor's professional opinion that they cannot be sustained. In a mercy killing, you're just counting on your own opinion about yourself. Both acts require an external party to actually commit the final decision, and both acts result in death. That's where the similarities end.

benni said:

so like Supa said- the patient would be "forced to live" in that state- until their heart stopped again and resuscitation was required.....

SUPRMAN said:

Not always in writing - though my parents (in their 80s) have done so. And in a family discussion prompted by the Terri Schivo incident, we all agreed none of us would want to be kept alive by machinery and feeding tubes in a brain dead state. If a person expresses their wishes not to be resuscitated to doctors and family - their wishes should be honored.

As for "mercy killing", the notion of "counting on one's own opinion of themselves", as you put it, makes it sound like it should be treated with less consideration because opinions are often more relative and not considered rooted in fact. My grandmother chose the assistance of hospice because she could no longer bear the pain. My grandmother refused hospice until that last week and at that point she had stopped eating for 10 days and her breast tumor, which had burst 5 weeks earlier, was taking over her entire existence. I do not blame her for turning to hospice and thank god that they were there when she needed them.

Thank you Benni for clarifying the issue. The experience with my cousin and my granmda lead me to the belief that hospice and end of life decisions need to be an individual/family decision on how to handle in each case. Anyone who tries to force their beleifs so that someone is forced to live in agonizing suffering can fuck off.

SUPRMAN said:

Not always in writing - though my parents (in their 80s) have done so. And in a family discussion prompted by the Terri Schivo incident, we all agreed none of us would want to be kept alive by machinery and feeding tubes in a brain dead state. If a person expresses their wishes not to be resuscitated to doctors and family - their wishes should be honored.

DiminutiveRocker said:

But does the doctor know that? That's why the person's wishes should be in writing. Not what they said sitting around . . . Do we know they didn't change their mind since that conversation?
If none of you want to be kept alive, it should be in writing. You may say you don't want to be brought back or kept alive in a vegetative state but when the rubber hits the road, someone who loves you may not honor your wishes and accept losing you.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

In a coma or vegetative state, a person cannot make that choice for themselves.
People also don't put their wishes in writing.