DNRs are suicide?

In case you don't know what a DNR is its a sort of contract that a person can have made for themselves incase they are seriously injured to the point where they must be supported by machines to live. DNR stands for "do not resusicate". Anyways the point of this topic is whether or not you think a person having themselves a DNR is any different than a person commiting suicide? I'm sure this is a touchy topic for some but I'd like to get your guy's opinions.

DNR is not the same. supposedly DNR's are signed by sane people, suicidal people hardly qualify as sane :/

do not resesitate

First of all, spell the main focus of the topic correctly.

But no, I don't consider it suicide. It's a passive act instead of an active one. In many cases, DNR is the right (and merciful) thing to do.

I also consider "assisted suicide" a misnomer. it signifies mental instability IMO..

assisted euthanasia perhaps would be better. i dunno but any word that has suicide attached cannot be a good thing. :sad:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting satchmo</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>do not resesitate </DIV></DIV>

First of all, spell the main focus of the topic correctly.

But no, I don't consider it suicide. It's a passive act instead of an active one. In many cases, DNR is the right (and merciful) thing to do.

</DIV></DIV>
Ok fixed, sorry.

A person has as much right to a dignified death as a life. If you take
that away from them for to pander to the religious right in (as the
government attempted to do in the case of
Mrs
Schiavo) then there is a serious chance of prolonging human
misery. I know that this particular case was not black and white, and
there have been claims that the husband wanted to hasten her death (and
even claiming that he strangled her when she collapsed).

I believe in all cases where a person is in left a state like Mrs
Schiavo with no signs of improvement should be taken off all life
support after one year (or whatever the maximum length of time the law
can charge someone of murder following death from an assault).

There is noone in my family that would want to be kept on a life
support machine if they were reduced to that level (myself included)
and I would let no government on earth stop them from dying with
dignity.

If you consider the advances of medical science, in a few years
existing as a brain in a jam jar like in b-movies might be possible,
and there is no way I would have that happen to me, or anyone else I
care for. I'm surprised they aren't lobbying to have people exhumed
from their graves and resusicated.

I'm surprised they aren't lobbying to have people exhumed
from their graves and resusicated.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/cryonics.htm

They won't even allow them to have a grave.

There is a fine line since people can make miraculous recoveries, but even from a religious point of view, if they'd be dead without the life support then they should be allowed to die; as Mephs said, you have the right to die if you're given the right to live.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Leperous</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>There is a fine line since people can make miraculous recoveries, but even from a religious point of view, if they'd be dead without the life support then they should be allowed to die; as Mephs said, you have the right to die if you're given the right to live.</DIV></DIV>

i agree 100% but have issues on "how" the death happens.

in Florida right now, they are planning on starving a patient to death in a form of assisted death.

this stinks. we have so many painless ways to let someone die, to actually starve them into it is abhorrent in a way i cannot even mention it without getting worked up :/

i have standing instructions with my wife/family. i am not to just waste away and die. if its positive "pull the plug"
/me goes and calms down.. this Florida thing always makes me wanna throttle that husband.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Leperous</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>There is a fine line since people can make miraculous recoveries, but even from a religious point of view, if they'd be dead without the life support then they should be allowed to die; as Mephs said, you have the right to die if you're given the right to live.</DIV></DIV>

i agree 100% but have issues on "how" the death happens.

in Florida right now, they are planning on starving a patient to death in a form of assisted death.

this stinks. we have so many painless ways to let someone die, to actually starve them into it is abhorrent in a way i cannot even mention it without getting worked up :/

i have standing instructions with my wife/family. i am not to just waste away and die. if its positive "pull the plug"
/me goes and calms down.. this Florida thing always makes me wanna throttle that husband.

</DIV></DIV>
Orph I can see you didn't get the whole story. The woman has been braindead for a few years know, she's only been alive because a machine. To see a person who is braindead is a very sad thing to witness. Also out the of years that she has been braindead shes made no improvements at all. I agree with the husband in letting her die. Removing the feeding tube is just the way they do it. If this was many years early when our medical technology wasn't as advanced she would be dead right now.

I'd rather die than live for the rest of my days tied to an oxygen
tube. However I think a DNR isn't such a good idea. Who knows?
You make such a contract thinking the same way I do, and get hit by a
car and end-up in a morgue. Maybe you wouldn't have needed to rely on
machines to live after resuscitation after all, and you wasted your
life.

Some people do make recoveries. My mom's a nurse and she's has worked at many differnt location in a our city. I remember she had one patient at her hospital that was hit by a beer truck while skateboarding (the irony is he was skipping school to go buy some beer). He was basically braindead but a few months after that he started to recover very slowly. After about 2 years he was up to the point of having a 7th grade education. He won't be fully recrovered ever but atleast he's not hanging onto life through a feeding tube. He had to literally relearn everything over again. Now as for Terry she has made no recovery at all over the years that she has been braindead.

Good thing he didn't have a DNR. :smile: You see? That's what I was talking about : you never know.

spartan, i read/heard the whole story. the point is, if the machine is genuinely sustaining her life, she would die almost upon the moment the switch is turned off. this is not the case however, the woman survived days last time she was not allowed to eat.

do not misunderstand, she NEEDS to be allowed to die, but the methodology is all wrong when starvation is the killing mechanism.

perhaps it was you whom didn't hear the whole story, or perhaps you just misunderstood that they were starving here into dying.
IMO, the husband wants a new woman, and cannot as long as this one is hanging around. i could be wrong about the motives, but i am damned sure that euthanizing by deprivation of nutrition is NOT the answer.

I think this all boils down to people or groups of people thinking they are some how entitled to make choices for others.

I wouldn't want a DNR, but I would want my loved ones to be able to let
me go if I had no chance to recover. I dont think some polition
or religious fanatic (I beleve anyone who forces their views on others
like this is a fanatic) telling the people who know me best what is
best for me.

Granted I dont know much about this topic, but I dont think any one has
the right to tell me whats best for me. Unless they have been
educated to do so.

Lets take this out of context for a second. I eat beef, I love
beef its great! Other people dont eat beef, they hate beef.
Would it be right of them to tell me that I shouldn't eat beef, then go
and try and pass a law against eating beef.

thats how I veiw it anyways

Can't be arsed to read everyone elses response, so here goes-

Suidcide is something you choose when your alive.

DNR "suicide" is done because you arn't alive, or at least your not capable of living, so if any god believing people are here- I don't think you'll go to hell for commiting suicide...

DrGlass, replace the word "eat beef" with "murder" in the above, and tell me you think it's silly that people pass a law stopping you from wanton death sprees. People have different 'priorities' for these sorts of things.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>spartan, i read/heard the whole story. the point is, if the machine is genuinely sustaining her life, she would die almost upon the moment the switch is turned off. this is not the case however, the woman survived days last time she was not allowed to eat.

do not misunderstand, she NEEDS to be allowed to die, but the methodology is all wrong when starvation is the killing mechanism.

perhaps it was you whom didn't hear the whole story, or perhaps you just misunderstood that they were starving here into dying.
IMO, the husband wants a new woman, and cannot as long as this one is hanging around. i could be wrong about the motives, but i am damned sure that euthanizing by deprivation of nutrition is NOT the answer.

</DIV></DIV>
I heard the whole story and I know that it has taken several days for her to die. But the fact is we don't even know if she can feel or understand the pain of starvation. Also I think getting mad at the husband is a bit harsh. What would you do if you were in his position?

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Leperous</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>DrGlass, replace the word "eat beef" with "murder" in the above, and tell me you think it's silly that people pass a law stopping you from wanton death sprees. People have different 'priorities' for these sorts of things.</DIV></DIV>
Replace "people pass a law" with "beef cattle pass a law" and tell me that's not silly. In other words, bad analogy. I daresay DrGlass is opposed to murder, too.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Spartan 34</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
I heard the whole story and I know that it has taken several days for her to die. But the fact is we don't even know if she can feel or understand the pain of starvation. Also I think getting mad at the husband is a bit harsh. What would you do if you were in his position?

</DIV></DIV>

why do you persist in overlooking the method of ending the life?

there are perfectly acceptable methods of ending one during euthanasia. starvation is not an acceptable practice. who care if she can feel, its inhumane. its also not something i would do to a "supposed" loved one.

if the law clearly allows them to assist, then it should cover methods that are humane. s**t bud, most of us wouldn't starve a dog, let alone a wife.

they already proved last time that starving her will take an inordinately long amount of time. its not like she is burning a s**t load of calories asleep.
stop overlooking "how" they plan on killing this woman. why is irrelevant since we both agree that she needs to die.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Spartan 34</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
I heard the whole story and I know that it has taken several days for her to die. But the fact is we don't even know if she can feel or understand the pain of starvation. Also I think getting mad at the husband is a bit harsh. What would you do if you were in his position?

</DIV></DIV>

why do you persist in overlooking the method of ending the life?

there are perfectly acceptable methods of ending one during euthanasia. starvation is not an acceptable practice. who care if she can feel, its inhumane. its also not something i would do to a "supposed" loved one.

if the law clearly allows them to assist, then it should cover methods that are humane. s**t bud, most of us wouldn't starve a dog, let alone a wife.

they already proved last time that starving her will take an inordinately long amount of time. its not like she is burning a s**t load of calories asleep.
stop overlooking "how" they plan on killing this woman. why is irrelevant since we both agree that she needs to die.

</DIV></DIV>
The reason I kept carrying on with it was because I thought you were getting angry at the husband. I didn't bother with the starving thing. I do agree with you that starving is inhumane. I don't know what other things they could do. So with your wisdom please fill me in on these other methods.

lets assume for the moment that assisting is allowed.
lets assume that it is the wish of the patient.
lets assume that putting a lethal dose of a sleeping agent into their IV is possible.
lets assume that any drug can be used if it causes death in a relatively small time frame.
lets assume that no drugs are allowed, a large air bubble will do it.

s**t bud, there are a whole lot of ways that are more humane.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting DrFrag</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Leperous</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>DrGlass, replace the word "eat beef" with "murder" in the above, and tell me you think it's silly that people pass a law stopping you from wanton death sprees. People have different 'priorities' for these sorts of things.</DIV></DIV>
Replace "people pass a law" with "beef cattle pass a law" and tell me that's not silly. In other words, bad analogy. I daresay DrGlass is opposed to murder, too.

</DIV></DIV>
Since I will say that beef cattle passing a law is silly, then, er, what's your point?!

DrGlass's "analogy" was flawed not because it was silly, but because it failed to understand that there are different viewpoints and weightings involved. Your proposition is flawed because it is physically impossible for cows to pass a law, which I'm sure you realise, but it doesn't highlight the original problem!

reads thread while munching on a beef burger

uhh, what's cows gotta do with DNR's anywho's???

i must confess a tiny smidgen of confusion while trying to follow the analogy. :/

BTW, we are currently having our first BBQ of the year.. anyone else grilling some animal flesh today as well?

Ok! ok!

My point is that only the learned and loved ones should have any right
to fight over the life of a person. As noble as it seems if you
did not know that person, how can you posibly know what they would have
wanted?

I wont sign a DNR, but I sure as hell dont want some one trying to save me under the will of their god. I also dont want the government passing a bill that would make it near impossible to lay me to rest.

First off I just have to say that in this whole thread not one person
spelled "resuscitate" correctly. Or pronounced "ree - suss - ih -
tayt", not "resusicate".

And I don't see how DNR's could be considered suicide, since it only
stops them from bringing you back to life not killing you or not trying
to save you.

And on assisted suicide I can hardly think of any pleasant ways to
die. And most of them involve bineg asleep during the
process. Most poisons that kill are pretty nasty for the short
time you are still alive. Starvation is just sick.