Morning journal and courier., 1885-09-04
MAKING DEATH PAINLESS.

MAKING DEATH PAINLESS.
 Have Doctors a Right to Shorten Lffi With Drugs to Prevent the Agony O | DIsselutionq-Nareot 1n Genera Grants Case.
 1 From the New York Sum- The fact that narcotics were freely usee throughout the illness of General Grant te ! secure sleep, ease and freedom from pain and were asked for by the patient and prom ! ised to him openly by his physicians, in ths event of their being needed, to procure z quiet and painless death seems to have been accepted quite as matter of course by peo pie in general. Only a very few years ago however, the idea of moderating the fear o1 assuaging the pains of death by the use ot narcotics or stimulants would have been hor- people. This rapid and very marked change of opinion, whatever it's cause may be and however moderate the degree of attention bestowed upon it by the public, has been very closely observed by physicians, and in the belief of some of them, as stated to the reporter, will bring about an increased use of sedative drugs for distressed and dying patients.
 In discussing the matter physicians are
 
 and these may be summed up in the ques- tion, "HaYe We right under certain circum- stances to cut short our lives?'' In one of the recent articles on the subject by Dr. Amick in the Cincinnati Medical Journal an abstract is given of the question formulated by a prominent member of the Birmingham Spec .ulatige club. The statement is interesting from the fact that it is accepted by many medical men as being fair exposition of the argument. The term euthanasia, or s'an easy death, is described as intended to con vey the following meaning:
 That in all cases of hopeless and painful illness it should be the recognized duty of the medical attendant, whenever so desired by the patient, to administer chloroform or other ansesthetic, so as to destroy conscious ness at once and put the sufferer to a quick and easy death, all needful precautions being adopted to prevent any possible abuse of such duty, and means being taken to estab- fish beyond the possibility of doubt that the remedy was applied at the express wish of the patient.
 In defending the act the writer says:
 Cases of this class abound on every hand, and those who have had to witness suffering of this kind, and to stand helplessly by, longing to administer to the beloved one, yet unable to bring any real respite or relief, may we'll be impatient with the easy going spirit that sees in all this misery nothing but "the appointed lot of man" and that opposes as almost impious every attempt to deal with it efectually. Why should all this suffering be endureds The patient desires to die; his life can no longer be of use to others, and has become an intolerable burden to him self. The medical attendant is at the bed side with all the resources of his knowledge and could bring immediate and permanent relief Why should his not doing so be recognized as sovereign duty?
 To the objection that this would violate the sacredness of life the writer says:
 Nature knows nothing of any such sacred ness, for there is nothing of which she is so prodigal. And man has shown little sense of the value of human life when his pas sions or 1usts or interests have been thwarted by his brother man, or seem likely to be for wardcd by his destruction. A sense of the value of his OWE individual life man has, in dee6, seldom been deficient in; and, by kind of reflex action, this sense has slowly given birth to and always underlies the sense, such as it is, of the value of other mems lives. But in Europe to-day the sacredness of mans life is thrown to the winds the mo- ment national or political passion grows hot. Indeed, it is hard to understand the meaning of the word ''sacred'' when appl ed to life, except in so far as it may signify the duty laid on each man of using his life nobly while he has it. The man who is ever ready to face death for others sake, to save others from grinding pain, has always been reck- oned a hero; and what is heroic if done for another is surely permissible if done for one's self. The man who could voluntarily give up his life to save another from months of slow torture would win everybody's good word Why should he be debarIed from taking like step when the person to be res- cued is himself? It is furthermore urged that the sacredness of life is violated by ex- isting medical practice, when in cases of ex- treme and hopeless suffering physicians ad- minister drugs which give present relief at the expense of shortening the patients life If it is objected that submission to the will of providence forbids the shortening of pain by taking life, by the same principle we should submit to the will of providence and not seek to escape any pain.
 Dr. Amiek adds:
 Some approach death with calm counte- nance and serene mind others are racked with pain and suffering. For hours,. and even days, they writhe and groan between life and death. It is in this class of cases in which it is proposed to give the hopeless suf- is suggested. A hypodermic injection of morphia in such cases would result in gene ral and lasting sleep, and the irritation that existed in the body became 1essened the mind would gradually relax it's hold upon the system, and it's departure would be so easy and quiet that spectator would scarce ly recognize it was going until it was gone
 
 cases where there is continued pain and ago ny; where there is chance for recovery and the patient wishes to be freed from his misery.
 Several New York physicians were asked by Sun reporter what they thought about the foregoing article. They generally agreed that the principles contained in it were sound and humane. But when asked how the general adoption of such ideas was likely to operate in practice they grew cautious and thoughtful. One well-known doctor said:
 'sThis matter of allowing doctor to kill 8 patient when, in his judgment, he is des- tined to have a prolonged and painful death struggle, is very serious one. The doctors judgment may be at fault, or the patient may, having an incnrable disease, simulate SO intense pain that weak doctor might consent to put him out of his misery. What would the insurance companies say to this? 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, because they had and have perfect confidence in his physicians. But suppose the practice to become general, do you suppose that serious errors of diagno- sis would not be made? I can tell you of hundreds of cases where the diagnosis of dis ease is directly contradicted by the autopsy, and where tho true nature of the complaint
 
 in extremis."
 Another physician thought that humanity required alleyiation from pain, even where life was shortened by the use of sedatives. 'sBut,'' said he, 'tthis is true only in those cases where the result will be death within limited period, and the very wisest judgment must be used in the matter. As rule nar- eotic drugs shorten life, and the fact that patient suffers pain does not in itself fur nish an excuse for using them As for di- rectly killing man to save him from suffer ing, the responsibility is, in my judgment, too great for any single medical man to as- sume."
 An old practitioner related case in which young Boston physician had given patient heavy doses of opiates for quieting and shortening" a case of painful and, as he be- lieved, incurable disease, and was surprised to find that the patient got well. He lived for seven years after he had begged to be al lowed to die from euthanasia. "And the most curious part of the matter,"' said the doctor, 'elay in the fact that the opiates cured him. In 50 clear and carefully treated a case as that of General Grant euthanasia was perfectly proper, but in more obscure cases of disease, in the hands of less eminent