The Milan exchange. (Milan, Gibson County, Tenn.) 1874-1978, 1885-10-10

the Pauent Wishes 10 DS ifoen ii0"i NO "''
cry"
Several New York physicians were
as ked by Sst~ reporter what they
thought about the foregoing article.
They generally agreed that the princi
pies contained in it were sound and hui
name. But when asked how the gen.
eral adoption of such ideas was likely
to operate in practice, they grew cau-
tious and thoughtful. One well-knOwn
doctor said:
This matter of allowing doctor TO
kill q patient when, IN his judgment, he
is destined to have prolonged and
painful death struggle, is very serious
one. The doctors judgment may be at
fault, or the patient may, having an in
durable disease, simulate so intense
pain, that weak doctor might consent
to put him out of misery. What would
the insurance companies say to thisP If
General Grant asked for an easy death
from opiates, and thus necessarily
hastened one, the public paid no regard
to the fact that it was so arranged, be-
cause they had and have perfect conf
dence in his physicians. But suppose
the practice to become general, do you
suppose that serious errors of diagnosis
would not be made? l can tell you of
hundreds of cases where the diagnosis
of diseases is directly cOntradicted by
the autopsy, and where the true nature
of the complaint was not suspected
even when the patient was in eTtremis. "
Another physician thought that hui
manity required alienation from pain,
even where life was shortened by the
use of sedatives. But" said he, "this
is true only in those cases where the re-
suit will be death within limited period,
and the very wisest judgment must be
used in the matter. AS a rule narcotic
drugs shorten life, and the fact that a
patient suffers pain does not in itself
furnish an excuse for using them. As
for directly killing man to save him
from suffering, the responsibility is, in
my judgment, too great for any single
medical man to assume"
An old practitioner related case in
which q young Boston physician had
given a patient heavy doses of opiates
for quieting and shortening case of
painful and, as he believed, incurable
disease, and was surprised to find that
the patient got well. Heliyed for seven
years after he had begged to be allowed
to die from euthauasia. And the most
curious part of the matter," said the
doctor, clay in the fact that the opiates
cured him. In 80 carefully treated case
as that of General Grant euthanasia was
perfectly proper, bat in more obscure
cases of disease, in the hands of less emf
nent physicians, there wOald be ele-
ments of danger"
A physician Of large general expe-
Tience said that sixty per cent. of the pa
tents who die while under the treatment
of able modern physicians are at the time
of death under the direct influence OF
narcotic orIalcoholic stimulation. Many
persons" said he, "whO would not give
their direct consent to the killing of a
sick friend, and it is killing, cannot find
it in their hearts to permit him to die in
agony; they know that the doctor is
giving the needed narcotics, and they
ignore the fact. To my mind the doctor
would neglect his duty did he fail tC
give the sedatives called for in the case
if doctors can not cure man they should
make death easy as soon as they are
convinced that the case is hopeless.
Two of the doctors thought that the
practice of effective stimulation" ~
they called the Fastening of death BY
narcotics, had grown SO rapidly tina
there was danger that it might be useC
without due consideration They
thought the advice of at least two con
sulting physicians of recognized ability
should be had before any course of mar
cotics designed to end in death should
be entered upon. They held that the
practice was already carried to its full
limit, and thought that the unquestiOn
ing attitude of the public concerning tn
open stimulation of General Grant, how
ever proper 1t may have been, would
encourage doctors of incautious or in
consequential habits to go too far in tn
matter.
One of our oldest physicians though
= that one of the chief difficulties IN th'
r practical use of euthansia was to decid
where and how to limit it. 'In the ar
= ticle you have shown me-" said he, Z"
requisite for the practice of an@sthesi
I consists in the consent of the patient
5 But suppose the patient to be an insan
! person, who is about to experience lonl
|. and agonizing death. He is incapabl
= of assent or dissent. Would you, TO
that reason, deprive him of the benefit
a of eutbanasia? And how long would
3 be before your euthanasic principl
: would be extended to the hopeless pal
alytics who are, as your writer says, C
r no use to others and burden to then
E selves? Would you kill them, also
+ And where does the law come in?
you shorten a mans life you kill hin
' Has a doctor the right to kill a man an
n more than you have? have often feI
a it within my line of duty to give MAJ
e cotlcs in hopeless cases, while KNOWN
e that they must necessarily and consiC
} erably shorten the life of my patient
n have often asked myself how far woul
9 be legally responsible for doingso shoul
n 7 confess the act, have often though