Wink Wink

In the debate with Lkee Rosenberg, he is correct that I once misused the term "wink wink" to describe the way current law deals with the administration of life ending drugs to the terminal patient.

The poor chice of words reflects two views of physicians.

I think the docs now do a very good job prescribing drugs that will relieve pain and suffering . In a terminal patient, this often involves a trade off that involves a complex, personal moral judgement.

Lee's view, correct me if I am wrong, is that this practice needs to be regulated by a law because terminal patients who have decided to die can not get help from the doctors explicitly for the purpose of suicide rather than relief of suicide.

So, that is where my choice of words was unfortunate. "Wink wink" implies a casual attitude toward this decision. I know all to well that is not the case.

I believe physicians now handle terminal care decisions in a highly responsible way that would be harmed by the intervention of our legal system including the structures set up in I-1000. As I see it the price of I-1000 is to high in terms of undermining a basic tenet of medical ethics and INCREASING the risk of legal intervention where it is not now needed.

I would agree with you that the price of I-100 was worthwhile if I knew that the current law was being abused by physicians or making it hard for the patients covered by the law to get the relief they desire. For example:

1. has any physician been charged with murder or malpractice for providing this sort of relief as opposed to intentionally killing a patient?

2. Are there any cases in our state of terminally ill patients who want to die but are blocked from doing so?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Maybe it would help our interaction if I tried to argue your side? Here it is.

I CAN imagine the possibility that some people in the last six month of life, faced with a deteriorating life style, might want to go to their doctor and say "Please help me end life now."

I suspect that most of my colleagues would first respond by sympathy and addressing the likely issue of depression. (I think the idea that most psychologists are more able than docs to determine depression is a crock). This itself is a hard decision today since we have effective drugs to treat depression. The physician and the patient would likely to have to decide whether to change the patients' mood with drugs. How do you feel about this? Faced with a bad death, depressed over the prospect, should that depression be reviewed before allowing suicide?

Lets suppose that the patient, a near buddha, has no depression but a coldly objective determination not to go through the pain and suffering of death. Does it seem reasonable that a doctor should be able to help with the death?

To be honest I am not sure I know the answer to that one.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My response to this thread is that I am skeptical that this situation arises often enough to require legislation. If I am right, then the merit of I-100 needs to be counterbalanced by the damage done to the Hippocratic oath and by the vulnerability, under I-1000, of the poorest patients.