For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
#1539829
Paultheparaglider wrote:
Miscellaneous wrote:
If you choose to accept it as evidence that a man came back from the dead then that is entirely your choice. :thumleft:


I believe that Monocock came back from the dead as Marjorie. I have no empirical proof thanks to the actions of some omnipotent beings, but he did then once again resurrect as The Farmer, and his writings are still available to all in the Flyer Testament.

Added to which, we all know cats have nine lives. :wink:


Miscellaneous wrote:Na, that's a different thing all together, Paul. Reincarnation is definitely believable. :wink:


I may have to eat my words, Paul. I do believe I have witnessed a resurrection on another thread. :D

Hello Farmer. :clap:
User avatar
By nallen
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1539876
riverrock wrote:In the Netherlands:
Complications such as muscle spasms, extreme gasping and vomiting occurred in 7% of assisted suicide cases. [NEJM, 2/24/00, p. 551, 555]
In 18% of attempted assisted suicides, other problems occurred and doctors decided to administer euthanasia. [NEJM, 2/24/00, p. 551, 554]
Patients did not become unconscious, awoke, or lingered far longer than expected in 14% of assisted suicides. [NEJM. 2/24/00, p. 555]
Problems may be underreported since “it seems likely that the physicians whose patients experienced the worst complications would be most reluctant to answer questions about untoward events.” [NEJM, 2/24/00, p.583]


There are a number of examples of people waking up after attempting to die, after drinking the prescribed drugs, and doctors having to step in to complete the task.


Firstly, rather than cut and pasting excerpts from a incompletely cited paper (no one who knows anything in medicine cites journals like that), it might be worth looking at the source:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200002243420805#t=article

I personally think someone has garbled the data from the source paper, and in one case confused numbers and percentages. Also, p. 583 is not in this paper (which spans 551-556) and the words in quotes don't appear in that paper. But hey, it 's on the internet and has been repeated umpteen times, so it must be right.

And anyway, so what? It's a clinical procedure, and these are fallible. The alternative to a fallible procedure is not abandonment of that procedure, but iterative improvement, weighing cost v. benefits, etc.; or in the concluding words to that paper: "Decisions about physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are difficult and emotional for all persons involved. Unexpected events can be traumatic. Professional training, empirical research, and an open debate on the practical aspects of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia may contribute to the prevention of complications and other clinical problems." You'll note that the authors don't say: let's give this up, it doesn't work.

And who says god isn't guiding the hand of the merciful physician?
MercianMarcus, MikeB liked this
#1539883
riverrock wrote:Trying to stay on topic, around the world, the implementation of assisted suicide has been pretty poor. The last UK law change attempt was to try and replicate the "Oregon" model.
Its been in place for a while. See here for some details: http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/si ... ten-years/
There are many issues with it just from that neutral website: no stats, no regulator, clearly a number of "advocates" bending the few rules that are there. A shocking zero psychological reports. Anecdotal evidence suggests the law is constantly being broken, but the police aren't interested. Interestingly - the UK parliamentarians who went to Oregon didn't speak to any naysayers about what happens there.


That link is an interesting read, riverrock. I think it is important to consider carefully the risks and the downsides, and they are rightly emphasised, but it is equally important to see the upsides. Unfortunately, as the data from Oregon is not comprehensive as there is no duty to report, the picture isn't really balanced. Having said that, I think this is acknowledged on that site, and there is a lot of thought provoking reading therein.

Interestingly, and a bit to my surprise, the matter of cost as a factor did get discussed. I'm inclined to feel that this should not be engineered in to play any part in the decision making process, but perhaps that notion is unrealistic. I was also interested to read about the old couple who wanted to die together from fear of loneliness if one were to go before the other. This is certainly a concern for me personally. I find the notion of life without my wife almost unthinkable.

Although our debate here has centred on the influence of the Church and religion towards this debate, I doubt it is a major reason why this topic isn't getting the attention it probably deserves. I see it as a bit of a political poisoned chalice, and suspect that there is little upside from that perspective in championing this cause.

It strikes me that there is a very good chance that there will be no such provision for assisted suicide in my lifetime, and a bit of careful thought, and maybe even more careful planning is needed. The irony is that the knowledge such help is not available if needed could well result in non assisted suicides happening earlier than would otherwise be the case.

Anyway, I commend the link to anyone. It might be a bit biased towards the downsides, but that is probably no bad thing. If we do, as a society, go down this route, there may well be no turning back, and, like most complex matters, there will inevitably be some unforseen consequences so the more forethought put into this matter the better.
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1539909
nallen wrote:I personally think someone has garbled the data from the source paper, and in one case confused numbers and percentages. Also, p. 583 is not in this paper (which spans 551-556) and the words in quotes don't appear in that paper. But hey, it 's on the internet and has been repeated umpteen times, so it must be right.

Numbers look OK to me? Perhaps a rounding error somewhere so could be 1 point out?
Below are images of the tables within the article. Note the first has percentages in brackets. The Second doesn't have percentages (but includes the total of each type at the top)
Image
Image

The 18% that became euthanasia (started as assisted suicide) is (I think) described in the article:
"In 5 cases, the physician or a relative helped the patient take an oral drug; in 19 other cases, the physician administered a second or third drug parenterally because of complications or a perceived lack of effect of the first drug."


The last quote - as you point out, is from a different article and appears to be correctly referenced:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 2243420811
User avatar
By nallen
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1539913
The last quote is from an editorial, so an opinion piece; it's utterly misleading to lump it with the other citations such that at first glance it appears a single source. (Of course, if they had cited it as per standard practice, this would have been obvious.)

I'm not going to belabour the numbers, as I really don't think this is the point, but I still see errors in the cut/paste extract.
#1539927
river

There are lots of medical procedures that have problems and complications. Do you analyse the stats for all procedures and base your decision on whether or not you think they should be allowed on those stats? Of course you don't. So why is euthanasia a special case?

Mark
User avatar
By nallen
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1539932
riverrock wrote:Standard Practice in citations? I'm not going to get into that argument! There are hundreds of styles out there...


Yes, and they all include the volume number. (For the record, I work in academic publishing!)

NEJM, 2/24/00 is really not a useful way of citing a journal article, nor is it a form I have ever seen in 33 years in the business; NEJM 2000; 342:551-556 or any permutation of those elements would be fine.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1539934
I should probably ask my wife - as she used to have a job teaching students how to reference.
Certainly a date in USA format is confusing at best.
Perhaps you could contact that non-profit that I had quoted those from and offer them some words of wisdom / paid consultancy :)
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9