It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Killing Them Softly

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: EA006
In my experiences it was only one doctor, but there was no question that the person was terminal, and all treatments had been exhausted.




posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: EA006
In my experiences it was only one doctor, but there was no question that the person was terminal, and all treatments had been exhausted.


People going to hospice, know why they're going.
Different people require different help, if in this case it's all that could be done, then yes perhaps euthanasia is warranted.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I was treated for 3rd degree burns while in the military by a medic nurse, who would tell me disturbing tales of how she would Euthanize terminal patients in nursing homes by feeding them jello, then holding the jello in their throats until they suffocated and died. She said it was the human thing to do.

She eventualy was sent to a military mental institution for attacking an officer, but it makes me wonder how many Serial Killers work in the Nursing industry ? Because she sure was one
edit on 21-6-2015 by SPECULUM because: Edit



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: SPECULUM
Good God! She was a serial killer! I hope her license was revoked and she was sent to a forensic nuthouse!
Strangulation/suffocation -- pretty frightening way to die I would imagine. I'd rather welcome the morphine over that.

I've seen movies in the past about medical serial killer psychos. Hospitals kill enough of us accidentally through medications and mistaken procedures!



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: SPECULUM
Good God! She was a serial killer! I hope her license was revoked and she was sent to a forensic nuthouse!
Strangulation/suffocation -- pretty frightening way to die I would imagine. I'd rather welcome the morphine over that.

I've seen movies in the past about medical serial killer psychos. Hospitals kill enough of us accidentally through medications and mistaken procedures!


Someone picking who lives and who dies....

It's wrong.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: EA006


People going to hospice, know why they're going.


Ideally, that would be nice, but unfortunately not the case. They are often too sick or too medicated to know what's happening to them. They can look you in the eye and say "they are moving me to Hospice", but the eyes can be vacant, and they really don't realize, or are too sick to care.

Decisions fall to the family and the physician. It's hard to know what is the best thing to do. It's a very touch choice, but you are choosing between a prolonged death with panic, pain, and sickness, or dying in a quicker quiet unconsciousness. That's the choice.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting


Question. If the person was lucid enough, and well enough to agree to the suggestion, (which usually comes from an M.D.)
and the patient actually felt going was the best thing, would you then support it?

We live in an isolated world. Isolated from the outdoors, hunger, cold, thirst, pain. It only follows that we also isolate ourselves from death as much as possible. No wonder the medical industrial complex is so vast.

Please, please, we don't want to die, extend our life as long as possible. Call 911, vrooom, the medics arrive, whisk us off to be patched up, propped up and returned to our homes for another few years.

The system rules, whose not going to call 911, whose not going to administer life saving assistance? They're so good at it nowadays, I've watched several neighbors go through this Merry go Round of hospital, home and back again, they just got older and sicker until finally they passed. They didn't seem very happy during that phase of their life.

Who is?

Thanks be to hospice where the refusal to submit to one more resuscitation, one more round of intervention medicine is acceptable. Just let us die, okay?

I once heard a hospice nurse say,

"Everyone is meant to grow old, get sick and die… sorry about that."



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I know it wouldn't. It was a joke.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Everyone I know who has died in hospice couldn't eat or drink anymore anyway. We were given sponges to wet to keep their lips from drying out.

It was a very humane passing. I really hope they are still around when my time comes if I face a slow, painful death.

I'm also sure sending terminal patients to hospice saves money. And I totally agree that it is necessary to save those funds.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Why does none of this surprise me. I've been waiting to read about this for years. Still trying to decide if its a good or bad thing. Why is it that if the rich went down the same path I would feel much less uneasy about it.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   
My grandmother hid advanced terminal cancer from us, and by the time she was unable to hide the pain anymore, she was in piss-poor shape. The hospital gave around 2 weeks in that current state, at best. We immediately moved her to a hospice, she was far beyond saving. She went from piss-poor shape the night we called EMS to comatose in short order.

If she was assisted out in any manner, it's not like she would have known about it. We made the right choice. It's, as they say, where the dying go to get on with it. No regrets, none at all. She would have been suffering far more to have been kept alive fighting an already lost battle against a wide-spread cancer.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Skid MarkWe definitely need to find a new approach to death in the west. I actually think what happened in soylent green was a lot more humane than the options we have at present. I want to be able to choose my way in my final hours. I've had a lot of thought about it as I've only got a maybe a few years at most left. I've got some ideas, but I would certainly like the idea of having Psilopybin treatment, before I die. www.nytimes.com...
www.dailymail.co.uk...'___'-says-former-government-drug-tsar-sacked-saying-acid-safer-alcohol.html

It's the use of psychedelics to help people come to terms with death. I think it's a great idea and has had great results with terminology ill patients. It helps them lose fear over their impending death. It's a wonderful idea, but with government controls over such drugs, it's considered illegal.

I can't embed content but here's an interesting video regarding studies at john Hopkins University
m.youtube.com...


edit on 22-6-2015 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2015 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

Psilocybin treatment sounds interesting. It'll be mellow.
To be slightly off topic: Your second link made me giggle a little. I was watching a thing the other day about using psychedelics to treat alcoholism and addiction.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Why do we have to treat this steaming pile like a dozen roses with a chocolate heart gift?

Call it like it is. You want to be "okay" with doing away with the terribly aged. I mean I get it, but wouldn't euthanasia be a bit nicer and real?

Yes yes, I'm so heartless for mentioning it, and yet how many people talk of hospices as being "humane" until you get the real scoop?

If you can't live with them, and they can't support their selves, say a last goodbye and put them to sleep like we do our loved pets. Would you rather starve your pet that is deathly sick, or put it to sleep? I think it's a discussion we should be having.


Is not the entire point of euthanasia to ensure that an individual with decreased quality of life is able to pass away in as little pain and discomfort as possible on their own terms? When run properly, that's exactly what Hospice does. In my personal experience, it allows both the person who is terminally ill, as well as their immediate family and loved ones, to deal with end of life scenarios with as much dignity as is humanly possible and to do so in as little pain as possible. I don't see why it should have to be an either/or proposition. If the person who has received a terminal diagnosis chooses to go out quickly on their own terms, then the option should be available to them. Likewise, hospice is nowhere near as mechanical and institutional as the excerpts from the OP would make it appear and there are a lot of bold generalizations and exaggerations. I was glad to see the OP added their own disclaimer that 'Not all Hospices are Created Equal' because its the absolute truth. Any organization run by and staffed by humans is going to be flawed occasionally as that is unfortunately, human nature.

In my personal experience though, hospice is all too often the light at the end of the tunnel. It allows people to pass away in their own homes, surrounded by family and with access to a variety of medications to alleviate pain and anxiety so that they are able to pass on with a great deal of dignity in the environment of their own choosing. Other than immortality and a well functioning physical body, I don't think there is a lot more we can ask for. To be clear, I can only attest to my own experiences with Hospice and the way they are set up but around here, if you are unable to be taken care of in your own home by your family, you aren't shuttled off to some mega-bed facility. I'm not going to name the organization, but the local Hospice where I live, their primary focus is on home based end of life palliative care. If you do not have the family or financial ability to provide yourself round the clock care, we have what are referred to as 'Hospice Homes". These are literally houses that the Hospice group has bought and paid for with donations and they then move you into this home where there is round the clock care and access to a physician. It's not your own home which can be a bummer for some people but you also have a couple of other people who live there while they are "transitioning" as well as their families coming in and out so between them and the staff you are never alone. It's not like being on a floor in a hospital where you have a ratio of 10 patients to 1 nurse, its an RN and 2 aides to 3, sometimes 4 patients. The hospice has its own 24/7 pharmacy so if something changes with your condition you can get your prescriptions changed and filled quickly to keep pace with your escalating symptoms and there is always a physician who specializes in palliative care on call.

Don't get me wrong, there are all too often nightmare scenarios as well. As ideal as the local Hospice is, when you use outside agencies for additional care you can run into severe problems. Recently a local family who wasn't able to be at the home of their terminally ill loved one had concerns regarding that person and the quality of care from the aides the family had hired from an outside agency so they asked for the RN's to do random checks. During the 1st check, the "aide" was on the front porch smoking a cigarette and had been outside for over an hour according to the patient. During the 2ns check, the RN could not gain access to the home as the patient was immobile and could not walk or move about without assistance. What that meant was that the aide who was being paid a pretty good amount of money to be there, simply was not on site and the patient was left unattended with no access to his medication and no access to a commode. These actions are not just unacceptable, they are highly illegal. As disgusting as it is though, it really is the exception. At least in this area, based on my own experience. I'm sure that there are places where actions of that nature are more the norm and less the exception but that doesn't mean you dismantle an entire system where it works because some people are scumbags trying to cash a check without putting in any work.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Why does none of this surprise me. I've been waiting to read about this for years. Still trying to decide if its a good or bad thing. Why is it that if the rich went down the same path I would feel much less uneasy about it.


I think she said the rich were the first ones to do it, before it was approved by Medicare or Medicaid.

I would go. I don't want to suffer. I hate and fear intense pain. In some those near-death-experiences people who have "come back" say they realize suffering and pain was supposed to be part of their human experience. Maybe so, but I can't figure out how. Our psyche's suffer enough while we are here.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
Good post, thanks. I did read about some places, usually the "home services" where they didn't do what they were supposed to do, so the patient's life would be prolonged because the agency needed the money. Those places were sued, but it would be hard to sue them - I mean, a family is going to sue an agency because they didn't reach the primary goal quickly enough? That would be hard to do, from an emotional standpoint.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I know it wouldn't. It was a joke.


Lol! Skid, sometimes I amaze myself with how dense I can be!



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I've been reading this morning, and want to point out a few things I've learned. Please remember I have a love/hate relationship with Hospice care, and that not all Hospices are created equal. (Or maybe it's not love/hate with hospice care. Maybe it's the dying part that accounts for the hate, something I will need to figure out). My mind says yes, yes, and my emotions say "no, no". It's like dancing with the devil.)

~ If you read something directly on one of the Hospice web pages they are saying "we give pain management medications about every four hours, or as needed".

Nope. I've been by the bedsides of three people, and it's every 40 minutes. I timed it. Once I even said "but he just had some, and he's unconscious", and the nurse said "but he's restless in his sleep". HE WASN'T ASLEEP. He was unconscious.

~ Doctor's are often afraid to prescribe pain medications because they don't want to be tagged by the AMA or whoever, as a physician who overly prescribes narcotics.

~ The injections are usually a cocktail of morphine and Ativan. It suppresses breathing, and keeps the patient from panicking.

~ I read many message boards from families, and I know this is not true in all cases, but with my three experiences, they were in a chemically induced coma or at least "unconscious" anywhere from 1 to 6 hours after admission. But honestly I can't say it was a bad thing. At the time I wanted them to "not know" what was happening to them. Was that wrong? Your guess is as good as mine.

~ Sometimes there have been complaints from families that the agency did NOT keep the patient out of pain. These people also typically filed lawsuits.

~Ethical considerations remain a topic of debate.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


, I've watched several neighbors go through this Merry go Round of hospital, home and back again, they just got older and sicker until finally they passed. They didn't seem very happy during that phase of their life.


Yes, exactly. I had a relative who was in a nursing home. He was very elderly, and was getting pneumonia way too often. They would send him to the hospital where he was pumped full of antibiotics and sent back to the NH. A month or so later, he would have it again. Back to the hospital, rinse and repeat.

Finally the physician approached his children, and asked "do you really want to do this". He suggested they withhold the antibiotics, but give him fluids and palliative care. If he fought off the infection on his own, good. If not, he would die a natural death. So they did withhold the antibiotic and he shortly passed away on oxygen and fluids. That wasn't with Hospice though. It was managed in the hospital.

I thought the decision was for the best. He'd been a great sportsperson his whole life, and he couldn't even go outside, much less go fishing. He'd stopped talking. He was absolutely miserable, so they let nature take it's course. It was time, and to force him to continue to live under those restrictive circumstances (his body) was not fair.

edit on 6/22/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
Excellent post and thank you so much for your insights. I agree with everything you said. Hopefully your philosophy will become the accepted, common one.

*******************************

This is not a popular thread; people don't want to talk about it because it's not fun, or they don't want to think about it.
I made the thread because I think it's important, and I think it will become more important as the Boomers age out. I was hoping for discussion, but can't really continue posting on a thread alone. I do have some other thoughts I want to share, and some posts I still want to respond to, and I will do that.


*************************




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join