In countries where assisted suicide is legalised- does anyone actually know what the effect of refusing treatment has on a person's right to die?
So, let's say, as a scenario: I get diagnosed with some sort of awful illness. I refuse treatment but I request pain killers. How likely is it a doctor would support an application for VAD in that case? Would I have to hold on until my condition was dire- if it wasn't initially? Would they even support it then?
I get the impression that approval for VAD quite often relies on the approval of more than one doctor. I vaguely remember it needing to be three. Three doctors need to agree that, no more can be done for the patient- I'm assuming and- their illness is sufficiently bad to ensure an awful quality of life. So, does that mean they have to have tried every drug/ medication going to be considered?
The problem I have with that is it's bribery effectively. If you don't try these things- we won't support you in your right to die. But- how do we know those drugs or treatments are even safe?!! There are a number of people here who claim their lives are so much worse for long-term SSRI usage. Why should people agree to be guinea pigs and test out their new theories and drugs to try and get at that golden carrot of a peaceful death?
There's the commercial side to it too of course. I'm sure that big pharma companies are a part of driving the economy. In that context- if what they're pushing isn't fully tested or, even safe(!) we shouldn't be expected to just accept it! We shouldn't have other rights stripped from us if we don't comply.
Maybe I'm wrong. I very well could be. I genuinely don't know enough about VAD. I suppose, I'm just cynical in believing it won't be this reassuring solution for a lot of people. I get the impression it will be incredibly conditional and its process will infringe other human rights to choose. We'll likely never get the power to decide for ourselves. I suspect the medical profession/ industry will always hold on to that. An industry that makes money by keeping us alive and on a bunch of chemicals.
Even with the Sarco pod say- yes- it doesn't require medical personel to operate yet- are they truly going to allow someone in there who hasn't been diagnosed with something horrible and likely incurable by a doctor? I kind of doubt it. They're putting themselves at enormous risk doing that. Surely, the law will make it so that certain (likely terrible) criteria have to be met and agreed upon by doctors.
Obviously, something's better than nothing with regards to VAD. Maybe we'll eventually all get the opportunity to look forward to its assistance- once our own situations have become adequately dire of course.
I think probably the biggest hurdle is the issue of ideation ironically! If you've ever visited Pegasos or Dignitas websites, you'll get the impression that their ideal patient/ client is one who wants to live but can't have a reasonable life because of incurable conditions. They don't want people who are suicidal. (I'm assuming because they connect ideation with mental illness and mental incapacity.)
So- I suppose that reflects back to: 'Why did you refuse treatment? You don't want to die do you? We're not helping you if it's your actual wish to die! We'll only do it if you see it as your last resort.'
That's the impression I get. Anyone else? Any thoughts? Any knowledge on this? I actually don't know much about it to be fair. I may have done the whole system a gross injustice. This is more an impression/ fear I get relating to it.
So, let's say, as a scenario: I get diagnosed with some sort of awful illness. I refuse treatment but I request pain killers. How likely is it a doctor would support an application for VAD in that case? Would I have to hold on until my condition was dire- if it wasn't initially? Would they even support it then?
I get the impression that approval for VAD quite often relies on the approval of more than one doctor. I vaguely remember it needing to be three. Three doctors need to agree that, no more can be done for the patient- I'm assuming and- their illness is sufficiently bad to ensure an awful quality of life. So, does that mean they have to have tried every drug/ medication going to be considered?
The problem I have with that is it's bribery effectively. If you don't try these things- we won't support you in your right to die. But- how do we know those drugs or treatments are even safe?!! There are a number of people here who claim their lives are so much worse for long-term SSRI usage. Why should people agree to be guinea pigs and test out their new theories and drugs to try and get at that golden carrot of a peaceful death?
There's the commercial side to it too of course. I'm sure that big pharma companies are a part of driving the economy. In that context- if what they're pushing isn't fully tested or, even safe(!) we shouldn't be expected to just accept it! We shouldn't have other rights stripped from us if we don't comply.
Maybe I'm wrong. I very well could be. I genuinely don't know enough about VAD. I suppose, I'm just cynical in believing it won't be this reassuring solution for a lot of people. I get the impression it will be incredibly conditional and its process will infringe other human rights to choose. We'll likely never get the power to decide for ourselves. I suspect the medical profession/ industry will always hold on to that. An industry that makes money by keeping us alive and on a bunch of chemicals.
Even with the Sarco pod say- yes- it doesn't require medical personel to operate yet- are they truly going to allow someone in there who hasn't been diagnosed with something horrible and likely incurable by a doctor? I kind of doubt it. They're putting themselves at enormous risk doing that. Surely, the law will make it so that certain (likely terrible) criteria have to be met and agreed upon by doctors.
Obviously, something's better than nothing with regards to VAD. Maybe we'll eventually all get the opportunity to look forward to its assistance- once our own situations have become adequately dire of course.
I think probably the biggest hurdle is the issue of ideation ironically! If you've ever visited Pegasos or Dignitas websites, you'll get the impression that their ideal patient/ client is one who wants to live but can't have a reasonable life because of incurable conditions. They don't want people who are suicidal. (I'm assuming because they connect ideation with mental illness and mental incapacity.)
So- I suppose that reflects back to: 'Why did you refuse treatment? You don't want to die do you? We're not helping you if it's your actual wish to die! We'll only do it if you see it as your last resort.'
That's the impression I get. Anyone else? Any thoughts? Any knowledge on this? I actually don't know much about it to be fair. I may have done the whole system a gross injustice. This is more an impression/ fear I get relating to it.
