This is something that I've always questioned, but my grandmother's recent illness brought it up again.
Let's use her as an example. Two weeks ago she suddenly couldn't breathe and had to go into emergency surgery to do something about it.
From what I understand, her lungs effectively failed her due to reasons that I don't know because I haven't talked to the doctors.
She's currently breathing with the aids of machines, but at this point it seems clear that she won't be able to live on her own anyone. She'll either need to stay at the hospital or move into an nursing home.
Should she have died two weeks ago when her lungs failed her? Should she continue to live through the use of machines?
Should medicine be involved in the business of keeping a person alive with every means at its disposal?
Medicine treats and prevents diseases to keep an individual alive.
Right, but i'm not sure if that means the same thing as keeping a person alive at all costs.
Oh wow. Is she expected to wake up from it?
I have no idea right now. The problem is that she's in a completely different country and my uncles are not giving us much information.
But that's why this topic suddenly became something I'm giving a lot of thought to right now. It's actually personal to me.
It would be one thing if my grandmother could recover completely from this and be back to living her normal life. But if she had to be kept in a coma and continue breathing through machines indefinitely?
To me it's one big, huge grey area. Me personally if I knew I had to be in a coma for the rest of my life or I'd have to be bed ridden. For the rest of my days or I was a 100% vegetable(no offense) I wouldn't wanna live.
Others have various stipulations as to whether they'd want to attempt to love through something but here comes the giant size grey area.
At what point do you respect the persons wishes and "pull the plug" person? What if that person could pull through? What if it was possible that person could make a 100% recovery?
If it's not the persons wishes to have the plug pulled on them at what point do you just say you can't handle it anymore? If they're in a coma medical induced or not how do you know you should pull the plug cause what if they're is a chance they wake up.
On these notes this is were I 50/50 with Dr. Kevorkian. I believe he went about it in a decent way or as decent as he could abd really have his method a very rigorous due process. I believe he even said at one time they turned down more people than they accepted.
Ultimately it should come down to the person who is on they're deathbed or is terminally I'll. It is not another human beings place to decide if another should live or die.
Imo either the person decides when it's time or nature does.
It's a matter of individuals. It depends on the costs, on the life they are living, on how much their life affects others- various things. It is by no means an issue of absolutes and must be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Right, but i'm not sure if that means the same thing as keeping a person alive at all costs.
We're talking about two separate things.
The field of medicine is about keeping a person alive.
What we're talking about is the question of when medicine should or should not be applied.
And there's no easy answer to that question. This is when things like advance directives enter in.
Fair enough.
What do you think of the following statement-
"Medicine and medical techniques should not be used just because they exist".
To y'all saying that this is a difficult topic/grey area/no easy answer/etc-
Well... Duh. That's why it's a big topic in modern ethics.
I even tried to make the topic a little easier to handle by giving my grandmother as an example.
As it stands, here are the facts that I know of-
-Her lungs failed her.
-Doctors did some sort of operation that is meant to give her back the use of her lungs. From what I've heard from an uninvolved doctor, these kinds of things typically come down to whether the person can breathe on their own or not shortly afterwards. If they can, then there may be a chance of them recovering to mostly their normal selves. If they can't, then they'll probably be on machine assisted breathing for the rest of their life.
-She has been on and off in a state of medically induced coma and required machine assisted breathing. A recent attempt to get her off said machine didn't fare very well.
-I've been told today that she needed another emergency surgery to help her breathe. I can only assume that she's back in her coma now.
Consider this a thought experiment. What should be done?
In the general case of our civilization as a whole, I'm in favor of transhumanism. Extending the mean life expectancy ever upwards (even, potentially, to agelessness) is a good thing, in my opinion. We should certainly make effort to conquer the last great foe, Death. Those efforts might take different forms, from advanced medical techniques to uploading ourselves to the Matrix, but I think it's a noble goal.
However, that doesn't answer the specific question of an individual in dire medical straights. Ideally, you would have a living will, and your friends and family would know what to do and under what conditions to do it when you cannot make decisions on your own. But figuring out that living will is hard, and it's just as hard (if not harder) for your loved ones if you don't have one. I don't have an answer to that kind of question for you and your grandmother; I don't even truly have an answer for myself.
I've thought about this a lot lately. My wifes grandmother has maybe two more months to live. Right now, she's on a couple machines. They are large but somewhat portable, and she attends family cookouts and whatnot - on her machines. If she speaks for more than a few minutes, she's gasping for breath and needs to rest.
Why do we (as humans) do it
Why does she do it
After roughly 32,000 days of life, Is every additional day that precious? Is suffering in that state worth one more cookout? Are the costs worth it? I guess that's up to the individual to decide.
Do we sometimes take each and every day for granted - get up, shower, go to work for 10 hours, sit in front of the TV after dinner....
Hmm.
Its strange. When I was in my twenties, I didn't really have a fear of death. I had no spouse or children at that time. No house or commitments of that nature either. Since that period of my life, all of that is now untrue, and I want to live as long as I possibly can. But even then, I do not want to live in that state.
Once you're at the end... the kids have grown, the husband already passed, and your living in this state - would not one accept death? Close the book, to say. Or take off the cloak, and walk with death as equals. My father has a very accepting view of death, and talked about its inevitability frequently. I think that's why I carry the same mentality.
As an observation, my father devoutly believes in god. He truly believes there's something better waiting for him, and that he'll be reunited with loved ones. I guess an atheist like myself only has the blackness to look forward to; one day suddenly no longer existing as a conscious thinking person.
I remember walking into one of those elderly homes, there was a woman who cried "Help me, help me" and yet was conversant and "with it." However, the issue I had was quite simple.
Why wasn't she reading a book?
Why wasn't she learning how to use a computer?
Television, card games, and ect.
Instead sitting in the middle of a hallway looking at the wall. It was quite deleterious that she was reduced to the status of a child, but I feel that the quantum problem that we have in society is simple. Our of life stage planning sucks. Our system is basically broke for people over 18 years old trying to transition into the work force and for people going into retirement. Those two areas are probably one of the slickest and most dangerous periods of any person's life when it comes life planning. The society isn't constructed to really deal well with the situation.
Individualism versus colletivism.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
What we're talking about is the question of when medicine should or should not be applied.
I agree, that this is both a very hard question to answer, and also that this question seems to be where this thread will, more or less, get to.
To me it's about quality of life.
I've worked in hospitals for the last 15 years, so I have a little experience first hand at the question in mind. To me, this is a difficult path to walk for medical professionals, in that you're expected to do the best you possibly can for the individual, no matter your own thoughts, however there are plenty of occasions when it's nonsensical not to question what you're being asked to do.
For instance, we have patients literally every day where there is no chance for a full or even partial recovery, where any diagnostics work is a moot point, as they're too old &/or too sick for surgery or other alternatives to treat whatever might be found, yet we still do it. And in most instances these patients just wish to be left alone IME
Are many or even most of these examinations being performed, simply to cover the referring doctor from litigious pursuit from the patients family or other entities? Yes to the majority. Non-medical people are often surprised when I state this, but it's very true.
Is the patient ever going to benefit from all these additional examinations? Maybe, maybe not.
Are we committing these poor, sick individuals who will most probably never recover from their ailments, to a mild form of torture, through all this ass-covering to appease their families and the hospitals' legal team? Most definitely.
The ethical debate regarding the legal requirements of modern medicine, is just as large a grey area as the statement I've quoted above.
I have no problem with the medical system keeping people alive for as long as is considered reasonable - but it's got to be about quality of life, and the probability of a recovery where the patient may achieve quality of life (which means different things to different people).
If I end up in a position where I've been robbed of my ability to enjoy life, I'd rather be dead - I've seen how de-humanising permanent hospital/hospice stay can be. No thanks
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let's use her as an example. Two weeks ago she suddenly couldn't breathe and had to go into emergency surgery to do something about it.
From what I understand, her lungs effectively failed her due to reasons that I don't know because I haven't talked to the doctors.
She's currently breathing with the aids of machines, but at this point it seems clear that she won't be able to live on her own anyone. She'll either need to stay at the hospital or move into an nursing home.
Should she have died two weeks ago when her lungs failed her? Should she continue to live through the use of machines?
Should medicine be involved in the business of keeping a person alive with every means at its disposal?
Of course, it is the person's prerogative to accept medicine or reject it.
Why don't you ask her?
I don't think so.
Medicine is meant to treat and prevent diseases. It is not the attempt to keep an individual alive.
Why don't you ask her?[/quote]
Can't. From what I understand she's in a medically induced coma.
Oh wow. Is she expected to wake up from it?
Right, but i'm not sure if that means the same thing as keeping a person alive at all costs.
I have no idea right now. The problem is that she's in a completely different country and my uncles are not giving us much information.
But that's why this topic suddenly became something I'm giving a lot of thought to right now. It's actually personal to me.
It would be one thing if my grandmother could recover completely from this and be back to living her normal life. But if she had to be kept in a coma and continue breathing through machines indefinitely?
The field of medicine is about keeping a person alive.
What we're talking about is the question of when medicine should or should not be applied.
And there's no easy answer to that question. This is when things like advance directives enter in.
Others have various stipulations as to whether they'd want to attempt to love through something but here comes the giant size grey area.
At what point do you respect the persons wishes and "pull the plug" person? What if that person could pull through? What if it was possible that person could make a 100% recovery?
If it's not the persons wishes to have the plug pulled on them at what point do you just say you can't handle it anymore? If they're in a coma medical induced or not how do you know you should pull the plug cause what if they're is a chance they wake up.
On these notes this is were I 50/50 with Dr. Kevorkian. I believe he went about it in a decent way or as decent as he could abd really have his method a very rigorous due process. I believe he even said at one time they turned down more people than they accepted.
Ultimately it should come down to the person who is on they're deathbed or is terminally I'll. It is not another human beings place to decide if another should live or die.
Imo either the person decides when it's time or nature does.
I really agree though that it's just a big gray area. The line is going to be drawn in different places for different people.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Fair enough.
What do you think of the following statement-
"Medicine and medical techniques should not be used just because they exist".
To y'all saying that this is a difficult topic/grey area/no easy answer/etc-
Well... Duh. That's why it's a big topic in modern ethics.
I even tried to make the topic a little easier to handle by giving my grandmother as an example.
As it stands, here are the facts that I know of-
-Her lungs failed her.
-Doctors did some sort of operation that is meant to give her back the use of her lungs. From what I've heard from an uninvolved doctor, these kinds of things typically come down to whether the person can breathe on their own or not shortly afterwards. If they can, then there may be a chance of them recovering to mostly their normal selves. If they can't, then they'll probably be on machine assisted breathing for the rest of their life.
-She has been on and off in a state of medically induced coma and required machine assisted breathing. A recent attempt to get her off said machine didn't fare very well.
-I've been told today that she needed another emergency surgery to help her breathe. I can only assume that she's back in her coma now.
Consider this a thought experiment. What should be done?
Didn't Nature try to decide that it's time the moment my grandmother's lungs failed?
Hell no, dude. I'm sorry for your grandmother, and for the situation you and your family are in, but there is no way I'm touching that one.
However, that doesn't answer the specific question of an individual in dire medical straights. Ideally, you would have a living will, and your friends and family would know what to do and under what conditions to do it when you cannot make decisions on your own. But figuring out that living will is hard, and it's just as hard (if not harder) for your loved ones if you don't have one. I don't have an answer to that kind of question for you and your grandmother; I don't even truly have an answer for myself.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Why do we (as humans) do it
Why does she do it
After roughly 32,000 days of life, Is every additional day that precious? Is suffering in that state worth one more cookout? Are the costs worth it? I guess that's up to the individual to decide.
Do we sometimes take each and every day for granted - get up, shower, go to work for 10 hours, sit in front of the TV after dinner....
Hmm.
Its strange. When I was in my twenties, I didn't really have a fear of death. I had no spouse or children at that time. No house or commitments of that nature either. Since that period of my life, all of that is now untrue, and I want to live as long as I possibly can. But even then, I do not want to live in that state.
Once you're at the end... the kids have grown, the husband already passed, and your living in this state - would not one accept death? Close the book, to say. Or take off the cloak, and walk with death as equals. My father has a very accepting view of death, and talked about its inevitability frequently. I think that's why I carry the same mentality.
As an observation, my father devoutly believes in god. He truly believes there's something better waiting for him, and that he'll be reunited with loved ones. I guess an atheist like myself only has the blackness to look forward to; one day suddenly no longer existing as a conscious thinking person.
My Buying Thread
Why wasn't she reading a book?
Why wasn't she learning how to use a computer?
Television, card games, and ect.
Instead sitting in the middle of a hallway looking at the wall. It was quite deleterious that she was reduced to the status of a child, but I feel that the quantum problem that we have in society is simple. Our of life stage planning sucks. Our system is basically broke for people over 18 years old trying to transition into the work force and for people going into retirement. Those two areas are probably one of the slickest and most dangerous periods of any person's life when it comes life planning. The society isn't constructed to really deal well with the situation.
Individualism versus colletivism.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
I agree, that this is both a very hard question to answer, and also that this question seems to be where this thread will, more or less, get to.
To me it's about quality of life.
I've worked in hospitals for the last 15 years, so I have a little experience first hand at the question in mind. To me, this is a difficult path to walk for medical professionals, in that you're expected to do the best you possibly can for the individual, no matter your own thoughts, however there are plenty of occasions when it's nonsensical not to question what you're being asked to do.
For instance, we have patients literally every day where there is no chance for a full or even partial recovery, where any diagnostics work is a moot point, as they're too old &/or too sick for surgery or other alternatives to treat whatever might be found, yet we still do it. And in most instances these patients just wish to be left alone IME
Are many or even most of these examinations being performed, simply to cover the referring doctor from litigious pursuit from the patients family or other entities? Yes to the majority. Non-medical people are often surprised when I state this, but it's very true.
Is the patient ever going to benefit from all these additional examinations? Maybe, maybe not.
Are we committing these poor, sick individuals who will most probably never recover from their ailments, to a mild form of torture, through all this ass-covering to appease their families and the hospitals' legal team? Most definitely.
The ethical debate regarding the legal requirements of modern medicine, is just as large a grey area as the statement I've quoted above.
I have no problem with the medical system keeping people alive for as long as is considered reasonable - but it's got to be about quality of life, and the probability of a recovery where the patient may achieve quality of life (which means different things to different people).
If I end up in a position where I've been robbed of my ability to enjoy life, I'd rather be dead - I've seen how de-humanising permanent hospital/hospice stay can be. No thanks