Terminal Illness

[rhinogrey]

An interesting new field of ethical inquiry that the contemporary medical industry has opened to us:

If one is diagnosed with a terminal disease is he then justified in taking his own life to avoid the slow suffering that awaits him? Or is this a cheat on life; must we always take the good with the bad even when we have the knowledge to avoid the bad?

Is it immoral to embrace death?

Before the days of our advanced medical practices one would simply be forced to fight through the suffering of a disease, since he would not have the ability to know that the end is near, that the struggle for more life is futile. The hope that can come along with not knowing -- is it indispensable? Can hope overtake despair in the case of not knowing?




**Note: I'm not talking about Euthanasia or any such legal proceedings. I am talking about one taking his life by his own hands without doctors or family members or anyone else involved in the decision.

[salima]

there are a lot of facets to this question and it is also an ethics question to me. issues that always arise are concerning the amount of intervention society will do.

but you seem to be specifically asking whether the person who makes this choice is justified in making the decision to continue to live or to commit suicide. i think both decisions would be justified, and either one can be moral depending on the individual's circumstances. i wont go into the obvious arguments but rather mention the thoughts that have come to my mind after having participated in the lives of people with terminal illnesses.

once a person really knows his days are numbered, he may change his attitude about a lot of things. he may develop new perspectives and find courage to try new things. since he knows his death is imminent, why be afraid of taking risks? this goes even for those who are unable to leave their beds-they can take psychological risks, such as opening up to others, or even confronting others. and if it is the type of person who has always taken risks and now is confined to bed, he can experiment with the experience of it and investigate that part of life which he had been fortunate enough to be able to avoid until now.

in an altruistic sense there are various effects that go out to those around a terminally ill person. being there and part of his suffering may help give someone else the courage to face the same situation later should it happen to him or someone he loves. it may cause someone close to him to develop a sense of sympathy which he might not otherwise have had the opportunity to do, it may even affect strangers profoundly.

and as for choosing to check out early, that can be considered moral in many ways, regardless of motive i think and looking at effects alone. for instance, medical care is expensive-why waste money and time of care-givers who could be attending on those who may recover? suppose the patient knows those closest to him well enough to be sure they would suffer intensely and possibly not bear up under the strain and doesnt want to be the cause of any more suffering on their part? suppose he knows that family members are at a crucial point in their lives, maybe a daughter is pregnant, maybe someone is planning a long hoped-for vacation trip, and that some situations would be adversely compounded and some things would be put on hold or may not ever materialize because of the need to focus on this person's care?

just a few ideas...memories...

[richrf]

A couple of things:

1) I don't believe in terminal illness. No such thing. People survive from all types of illness. A friend of mine was diagnosed with brain cancer and was told that she had a few months to live. That was 20 years ago.

2) As far as I am concerned, a person can do what they want with their lives. Heck, if the government can put someone else to death, why shouldn't a person be allowed to decide if she or he had enough of life. However, I certainly hope the decision is not made based upon some prognosis of a physician.

Rich

[sarathustrah]

i would hope that the mentality of a person knowing that their body will soon expire, theyd enjoy the heads up and make peace and soak up all possible enjoyment...

however the reality is somehow some people get scared... and sometimes they get drunk and think that they'll take a machine gun to the chest to choose the last breath instead of wait for it...

it is sad... but who are we to have the right to stop someone from making that choice... and who are we to judge them for having the mentality to make that choice... i would try to convince someone in such a position to change their viewpoint... but if it happened without warning what else can i do but try to empathize with the decision...

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by rhinogrey

If one is diagnosed with a terminal disease is he then justified in taking his own life to avoid the slow suffering that awaits him? Or is this a cheat on life; must we always take the good with the bad even when we have the knowledge to avoid the bad?

I'm not sure there exists a hard, fast answer to this question. There are too many unknown variables, each case is to unique. In my mind I can imagine scenarios, all of which fit this description, in which suicide would be justified and unjustified.

Originally Posted by richrf

1) I don't believe in terminal illness. No such thing. People survive from all types of illness. A friend of mine was diagnosed with brain cancer and was told that she had a few months to live. That was 20 years ago.

There is no illness which ends lives?

Originally Posted by richrf

2) As far as I am concerned, a person can do what they want with their lives. Heck, if the government can put someone else to death, why shouldn't a person be allowed to decide if she or he had enough of life. However, I certainly hope the decision is not made based upon some prognosis of a physician.

I agree, but I think the question is an ethical question. Sure, the individual should have the right to decide, but what should the individual's decision actually be?

[xris]

I have had friends and family who where terminally ill and their courage and determination has humbled me.They never appeared to contemplate suicide and yearned for life not death.I would not have wanted them to suffer for my benefit and if they had chosen an earlier death i would not have condemned them, life appeared very precious to them and them to me.Treat the pain and if the pain is unbearable the cure may cause the death, that in my opinion is the moral thing to do.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by richrf

I don't believe in terminal illness. No such thing. People survive from all types of illness.

The illnesses are not terminal in those who survive. But we know that 95% of patients with lung cancer are dead within 5 years of diagnosis, and if someone presents with widespread metastatic disease their odds of survival beyond a year are nearly zilch. So what would you have us do? Give people false hopes? Or tell them that we should work on comfort, that they should have family around them, and that they should try and get affairs in order? I think it would be barbaric to make a patient think that the rare miraculous recovery should somehow be regarded as the rule and not the exception. It's fine for people to have hope, but they also need to know what is likely.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

There is no illness which ends lives?

People die from all kinds of causes. However, I don't think anyone can predict. A person dies when that person dies. The (prognosis) prediction may itself may be more harmful than the disease.

Rich

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by richrf

People die from all kinds of causes. However, I don't think anyone can predict.

Sometimes we can. I can name you some circumstances in which there really is no doubt, and even a short term recovery is almost certain to be followed by continual relapses and deterioration.

I don't regard "cure" as my job. I think of my job as finding ways to make people's lives better. Sometimes that means doing my damnedest to cure a bad disease. But sometimes that means knowing that any more fighting is just torture, and the remainder of someone's life will be better if I attend to comfort.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Sometimes we can. I can name you some circumstances in which there really is no doubt, and even a short term recovery is almost certain to be followed by continual relapses and deterioration.

I don't regard "cure" as my job. I think of my job as finding ways to make people's lives better. Sometimes that means doing my damnedest to cure a bad disease. But sometimes that means knowing that any more fighting is just torture, and the remainder of someone's life will be better if I attend to comfort.

Hi,

I can tell you that the physicians who predicted the death of my friend with a brain tumor had no doubt. I can also tell you that the physician who told my past client that he would be on powerful blood pressure pills for the rest of his life, had no doubt. And the two elderly people that I teach Tai Chi to were told that they would have arthritis for life. And I can also tell you without a doubt, that all of these physicians are wrong so far - and its been 20 years for the brain cancer patient, and in the other situations the problems are gone. So ...., just because a medical doctor does not know how to cure, it doesn't mean there aren't ways to do it. It has to be learned and practiced like anything else.

BTW, the Chinese doctors that I know to try to cure. Many times successful and many times not. There are so many variables to life.

Rich