"-=jd=-" wrote in
:

Euthanasia via the administration of excess amounts of pain medications
has been going on for some time. When the patient's family is given
control over the medication, it is out of the Doctor's hands how the
medication is administered. A terminal patient will not likely elicit an
autopsy, since the pending death of the patient is known to the attending
Doctor.

The authorities, seeing a deceased terminal patient, without any obvious
external wounds, are not likely to pry further. (i.e. no knives, gun
shots, ropes, etc.)

My concern lies with recent proclamations about limiting health care
costs, pursuant to Medicare. One startling statement said that it will be
up to the doctors to determine when the end of life occurs. To most
people this would mean a terminal patient being mercifully euthanized by
a doctor, but I fear that the application will become widespread,
euthanizing patients that are handicapped and of no use to society, as
their long term continued care will be more of a burden to the Medicare
system (and other health care programs) then the last stages of a
terminal patient.

Then too will arise the situation where people diagnosed with a terminal
disorder, having the options of life sustaining therapies, so that they
may have an additional 6 months or more of life, will be told that these
therapies are too much of a burden to society, and that they "must" be
shuffled of this mortal coil prematurely. My next door neighbor has had
cancer for years now, cancers in the brain, organs, and so forth. Known
as CUPS (Cancer of Unknown Primary Source), he has so far been successful
in fighting this terrible disease, being there as his children grow, and
he undergoes home Chemotherapy. One cannot make rash judgments
concerning when "end of life" has been reached.

Terry Schiavo's case is a blemish on the soul of the American people. We
are now performing abortions on adults, something that I fear is going to
become increasingly common. As another said in this post, it would be
illegal to starve an animal to death.

The U.S. Supreme (sic) Court, refusing to hear Terry's case, has heard
and ruled on many bizarre cases over the years. One of the cases involved
an admitted murdered, also a intravenous drug user over the years. Since
he was to be executed by lethal injection and his many years of
intravenous drug use had marred his veins, he may suffer as the I.V. was
being inserted for his execution, and, if they missed the vein and
administered the lethal injection anyway, he "may" suffer chest pain. The
Supreme Court agreed with him and ordered a re-evaluation of his
sentence.

Go Figure.

Dr. Artaud

Understand, when it comes to an innocent (as in the Schaivo case), I
would always choose life over death until there was no other option
remaining. But in those cases where they are bound and determined to
kill them -- for Heaven's sake, don't starve them to death for weeks;
administer a lethal dose of something and get it over with as quickly
as possible!


-=jd=-