Taking 'sedation' to an extreme

"Terminal sedation" is a process in which a person with a severe illness or injury who is terminal -- or perhaps in a supposed "vegetative state" -- is sedated until unconscious and then starved to death. Rita Marker of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide believes the practice is fairly common.

"Those who favor assisted suicide, for example, have defined it as ... both sedating the person and removing food and fluids," says Marker. "And then they say, well, you see, they're going to die anyway within 5 to 21 days."
 
As Marker explains, the process is completely legal. "First of all, a person can be sedated if they are in a great deal of pain. Secondly, under all state laws, food and fluids provided by tube -- which they would have to be if the person is sedated -- would be considered medical treatment [that] can be removed from the person who is sedated. So legally speaking, it is something that can be done."
 

Story continues below...

Should 'terminal sedation' be a legal alternative to assisted suicide?

Vote in our poll 

Marker is especially concerned over a West Coast attempt to use terminal sedation to circumvent the ban on doctor assisted-suicide. "[T]here is a bill pending in California which actually would tell doctors that they're supposed to let patients know if they have been diagnosed with having a condition that will cause their death within a year," she says. "If the patient wants to know [their] options, [doctors] are supposed to inform them of all kinds of options, including ... terminal sedation."
 
The task force recommends individuals visit their website for free legal documents in which they can stipulate that terminal sedation be ruled out. An individual also needs to have a second party named to make decisions for them if they are unable, but it must be a person who fully agrees with their position.

why don't they just shorten the task force's name?

International Task Force on murder

"And then they say, well, you see, they're going to die anyway within 5 to 21 days."

well, you see, people are going to die anyway at their 70s or 80s, so why not assist them to suicide right now?

I guess I am looking at it differently than you folks. I was thinking about the terminal stages of cancer and  other diseases and the serious pain. I have, unfortunately, been involved. My mom was Alzheimer's and also had serious foot infections. As a diabetic, the surgery would kill her.  I lived hundreds of miles away. My sisters worked with the health professionals. To my knowledge, she died from a gangrene infection, but I have always believed that the morphine killed her. She was unconscious, unable to communicate and in pain.

My aunt, (actually a very close family friend).developed brain cancer. I drove nback to my home town to see her in the hospital. The strongest ,most capable woman, I have ever known was reduced to a whimpering child by the effects of the cancer and the pain drugs.

Should my cancer return and be worse than it has been, I would like to know that I could die with dignity. My choice would definitely be to end the pain and the progress of the disease. I have a DNR and a living will. My last surgery was in a clinic, not a hospital. I was informed that my DNR would not be honored by the clinicl. How do you think I felt knowing that I would be a (take offense, if you will) a cabbage or a potato??? How do you think I felt knowing that I was to be deprived of a dignified death ? Well, I signed it because the hospital the clinic is affilated with, does honor DNRs and living wills.

I understand your position. I used to feel like that. After what I have been through, I no longer feel that way. I hope you understand mine.

P.S. Before I reached my current conclusion, I researched death by starvation while in a terminal status and under sedation. I will not try to persuade you. I will only ask that, someday, you read about it too!.

I don't deny some cases may be mercy

But more often this is abused by the society since those seniors are consuming resources, so "it is better to let them die off to free more resources out", same for those who "don't deserve to live"

I think we have come too far in our ability to keep people alive.  The state they're in is not life anymore; it is intense pain and suffering beyond comprehension.  Allowing someone to die in this manner is kind and loving.

I don't believe this situation is used to free resources. 

you may not believe this way, but many liberals do

the theory of "let old and weak people die off so that there can be more resources for the younger and strong ones"