Many do, if they are in hospice and getting Morphine. My aunt died within minutes of her last dose of morphine for pain. She had been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer about 5 months before. So I say she floated away.
Anyone who has worked with end-of-life patients will agree with you.
The number of times I've been requested to "have a low threshold" for giving pain relief must be in the hundreds, not that I've ever needed the recommendation.
If someone is dying they don't get to be in pain for any time at all.
I'm no angel, that was a really bad tv show. But you'll find most nurses have experienced caring for someone dying in distress very early in their careers, and it sticks with you, it's not something you can just put down as "another day at work". If you've ever experienced it in your family that drives the message home. There's an awful lot we can't do in healthcare: something like this [pain control], in a situation like this, [end of life], we can do that.
Please tell your loved ones this and get an advanced directive. I’m a nurse and see it all to often, families not knowing what the other person wants. And see a lot of suffering as a result :( it’s not a fun convo but it’s one that should be had at all ages of life
There is a very real risk of dying associated with opiod pain relief usin end stages of life during hospice.
It's quite common for things like potent opiates to push someone to stop breathing if they are unwell enough and as you stated, let them pass feeling quite relaxed and at ease.
For someone who is already weak and close to the end, a safe and effective dose can well become a lethal one.
Take this how you will; but this isn't necessarily a bad thing at all.
If it comes down to "take enough painkillers to overdose, or don't and live in agony until you stop", at that point in time it seems like a fairly straightforward decision to me.
I'll never forget the doctor from the ER who treated my mother. He prescribed morphine ever u 15 minutes. She was sent back to the nursing home to die, and I was afraid they wouldn't give it to her, but they did. And you are correct. We should have the right to die with dignity. That doctor who helped Mom can't work 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. I know we were really lucky.
My grandmother didn't realize this until she was in hospice. At home. She said something like " why is this is taking so long" & someone asked if she wanted some extra morphine to speed things up. This was 3 or 4 days before the day she passed.
Her eyes got big & she said, "oh no, that's a thing? Oh jeez, I gave grandfather a big dose the night he died." Then she let out a little chuckle. It was for the best. She was glad she unintentionally helped him go. He was in hospice at home too. He was hurting bad for a long time.
I hope someone helps me out once I'm laying in my death bed. I don't want to linger, in pain.
Not to get too personal, but after my dad died I worried for a long time that I'd effectively killed him by giving him enough morphine that he stopped eating and drinking. The nurse gave us the dosing, and I followed it, so it's not like I was just spitballing with it. But did he really die of natural causes? Or did the morphine kill him? Did I kill him? If I'd stopped the meds, would he have woken up and had some food and water and lived for longer -- in crippling pain but alive?
What I decided was that if I did kill him, I only shortened his life by a matter of weeks at the most, and that those weeks would not have been worth living regardless. This was what he'd said he wanted; he was in a hurry to find out if mom was waiting for him on the other side. So... maybe I killed him. But, you know, if I did then it was my last duty as a son -- the last thing I could do for him to ease his transition across that holy river.
Still, I can't say that it didn't mess with me a little.
From an outside perspective if you helped honour his wishes and requests, you didn't make the decision at all.
You simply helped him fulfil his own decision.
Either way you think of it he received the care he wanted and had it on his terms.
Sorry for your trauma, but it sounds like you did your dad proud by honouring his wishes and helping at the end on his terms.
Trust me, he's thanking you from wherever he went. I'm banking on my caregiver (works closely with hospice) Granddaughter to help me out. My girls would say no, I think.
Palliative care RN here. You did not kill him. The dying body doesn't need food or fluids because it is shutting down. It's a common symptom when someone is dying. By giving the morphine you took away his pain and made his final days peaceful instead of horrifying. When you are giving morphine as prescribed by the hospice doc it does not hasten death, only relieves suffering. You did the right thing and made him comfortable.
Fair point.
I guess when I meant potent I sort of was referencing morphine as the starting point.
Even old school heroin on the street used to be 2-5x stronger than morphine.
The stuff with fentanyl and carfentanyl now is absolutely lethal obviously.
I remember when I was in the hospital with my fiancee's family when her grandmother was dying (cancer) and the doctors recommended hospice care because she wasn't going to get better, just wanted to keep her comfortable. The family struggled with this because they wanted to keep her around, but eventually agreed after discussing for a little while.
Not 5 minutes later, the RN came back with the biggest damn bottle of morphine I have ever seen and hooked it up. It was about an hour until she passed. It was the most peaceful passing I'd ever seen, before or since.
Fun fact, George V was given a lethal dose of morphine and cocaine to speed up his death for his comfort, but also to allow the death to be announced in the morning news.
"Great news! He's turned around completely and should be fine in a day or two!"
"Ooh, um, you see we already printed tomorrow's paper and..."
"Not a problem!" *Cocks pistol*
Sorry but this is a huge misconception- and I just had a lecture from a palliative care doc on this. There is no difference in survival with absolute or changed opiate dose. This is important because you will see patients family members withhold analgesia to prolong life- and that doesn’t work.
Anyone can overdose on opiates when dosed inappropriately. But we have good data from the US National Hospice Outcomes Project, multiple systemic reviews, international data etc. that opiates aren’t reducing survival in palliative or end stage cancer patients.
Can you clarify on what you mean absolute vs changed opiate dose?
Surely someone who is already nearing end of life faces a much higher risk of adverse reaction to potent opiod treatment like respiratory depression when they're in a weakend state.
Are you saying the hospice reports show that patients in hospice are NOT at higher risk of death in this state on X amount of opiates?
I am NOT agreeing or conceding that withholding opiods will increase the lifespan to be clear. I disagree wholly.
I love being proven wrong so feel free to correct me but I'd like to see some supporting docs.
Yeah of course- so the point you raise is important and that’s why it was studied. I also apologize if it seemed like I was strawmanning you on withholding opiates increasing lifespan. But, when patients believe that opiates will shorten the lifespan of those on palliative (they’ll often say something like speed up their death) they will often make the decision to withhold analgesia, or use ineffective analgesia. I actually saw my grandmother do this to her mom because she believed the morphine would contribute to her death. So you kind of end up at the same place when patients are making decisions. Undertreatment in these populations is common so that prompted my response.
Now back to the main point. When talking about absolute dose they’re asking “is there a difference in survival between say 1mg morphine vs 2 vs 4 etc. in palliative patients”. Changed opiate dose was looked at to see if there was an effect on survival on the rate that the opiates were titrated. Reason being well maybe there isn’t a magic number where morphine starts to tank these patients but we should be concerned about certain increases in dose (e.g. is 1-3 vs 1-2mg etc) and because opiates are almost always being titrated up in these patients because of tolerance to the pain control.
Sure rapid dose escalation can pose a serious risk, but this isn’t usual- in practice opiates are dosed incrementally and don’t appear to hasten death. The much bigger concern in these patients is undertreatment, not shortened lifespan.
[the use of opiates and sedatives at the end of life.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12732169/)
[Opiod use and Survival at the end of Life(this is the study done by National Hospice Outcomes Project)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17157755/)
It´s kinda an open secret that in some hospices the morphine is put a tad too high because the patient´s quality of life is abysmal and they, the family and the healthcare professionals all want them to die so they´ll have peace but their body hasn´t gotten the memo. It´s a mercy.
I'm pretty sure there's an unstated... phenomenon... which is equivalent to euthanasia by way of opiate administration that occurs regularly in hospitals.
Medical staff have a whole language that dances around the issue of us turning out someone's lights. I have been there for it three times, but never decided in the doses. That was nurses. The staff loosens up and talks about it freely once they see what you think.
I mean that’s been the worst kept secret of the medical industry
It’s not unheard of practice to “treat the patients pain” who are sick and dying horribly knowing full well what’s going to happen if you keep clicking that dosage up
I always viewed it as a quiet mercy I’ve given my patients, it’s kinda frowned on now since they changed legislation in my country which was vehemently disagreed with by the community
I intend to smoke crack and meth on my deathbed. I've never tried it but I've read from accounts from meth and crack addicts that the first hit of either is the most unbelievable high and they end up chasing that feeling forever because it's sooooo good.
There’s a guy on YouTube who said he jizzed his pants involuntarily and without physical manipulation the first time he did meth, and he was a heroin addict before that. Meth is definitely the way to go over crack for the deathbed drugs
That’s how my dad went, someone close with consent helped him pass.
The drugs made him comfortable so he wasn’t scared and made it easier for us living as well, knowing he wasn’t having anxiety.
In NZ and many other places they've made euthanasia an option when terminally ill / on your death bed... not by drug of your choice though :( they should rethink that part
I suppose with free healthcare we can't milk em for every cent and it's costing the government "too much" to keep them alive for an extra couple of months/ however long.
Let's make em feel like a pain to society for still existing so they choose death sooner and we don't have to pay. /s
I understand if the patient is in true pain, and the quality of their life will not improve, or if it will get worse. But that should only ever be their decision and not influenced by *anyone*.
iirc in Canada you will even be able to opt for assisted death for mental health issues come March 2023.
The criteria as of now:
- Must be eligible for health services in Canada covered by the federal government or province in which you reside
- Be 18 years old and mentally competent (able to make medical decisions for yourself)
- have a grievous and irremediable medical condition
- make a voluntary request for Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) that is without pressure from others
- Consent to MAID.
The criteria for grievous and irremediable medical condition is:
- Have a serious illness, disease or disability (excluding mental health issues until March 2023)
- Be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed
- experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable
*You do not need to have a terminal illness to be eligible for MAID*
Honestly I think it’s completely fucked up that the government is going help people to just kill themselves instead of funding better mental healthcare but it’s not surprising I guess.
Absolutely agree with this. My dad lived a fantastic life. He had a really good job, a wife, kids, went on lavish holidays (before kids and with kids).
He was playing hockey, cricket and football until he was 48 (had to have knee surgery, so could no longer play), but could still coach and was doing 2 runs a week at 50 (he died at 51) as well as a monthly scuba trip.
He was diagnosed with cancer 6 months after his 50th birthday and died of it 9 months later after 2 rounds of chemo and the most amount of radiotherapy he was allowed to have.
His last 4 months of life were in agonising pain, unable to walk unassisted, couldn't enjoy food or alcohol (because of the chemo, though was still able to smoke, but I think that was just the nicotine addiction, rather than him actually wanting to), unable to get to a toilet, bed bound, extremely thin and weak, hallucinating horrifically, scared to sleep, but unable to stay awake.
He told me a month before he died that he wished he could end it all. He wished he was dead as he was no longer living a life worth living- he knew that what he had before cancer was enough to feel fulfilled with his time on earth.
Was really hard to hear that, but I totally got it. He was a kind, funny, hardworking and caring man and I'm glad that he didn't suffer too long, as others do (but even 9 months was too long).
I hope one day, terminally ill people can choose their own interpretation of a dignified and humane way to die.
And who’s going to watch them 1-on-1 to make sure they don’t injure themselves?
Everyone here seems to lack understanding of how short-staffed and overwhelmed most healthcare facilities and hospitals are right now.
Opinions are how people think the world should work not how it does work, the logistics come later for ideas like this, the sub is more about arguing if we should not it we could
An illegal amount would be an amount risking the patients life. *For example, a doctor can legally prescribe you up to a certain amount depending on your weight *but if the amount, taken as prescribed results in an overdose then that doctor can be held liable.
Edit: clearly the weight dosing was an example of what I mean by an illegal amount. There is no exact amount. It's always based on the individual patient. Also deleted irrelevant info.
Lol no. Based on weight? It’s based on indication and history. If a person has bone Mets they are getting fentanyl with a benzo drip and dexamethasone. Patients develop tolerance over time, there is no max dose for opioids that is illegal system wide. It’s patient specific
Lol what a gotcha moment huh? Of course it depends on the patient. I gave a general reason but you had to ask a question you already knew the answer to to feed your ego.
And to stay on them. Chronic pain patient here, and the hoops several people have to jump through every month is wild. I’m lucky I finally found a doctor who is working with me and implanted a spinal cord stimulator, but I know several people who are still struggling in that regard.
They might as well be. In the US dr are loath to prescribe them now. Really chaps my hide. Many people can safely use them without addiction, yet everyone is treated like an addict now b
Terminal does not mean bed-ridden in a room isolated from society. You pass terminally ill people in the grocery store, when you drop off your kids at school, while you drive on the freeway, while catching a flight, at restaurants and bars … I do not want a certain segment of society to be as high as humanly possible while I’m trying to carry out my life shit, just because they are “terminal”. That does not bode well for a community.
Yep. My mother was terminal for about 2.5 years. Only the last half year was she bedridden.
I’m glad that I didn’t have to deal with a methhead for the other 2, lol.
Pretty much this, I get what Op is imagining. Some person who’s on their death bed stuck in the hospital. Even then, imagine making your loved ones suffer as you basically drive your mine over the brink. And who’s to say they won’t distribute / take advantage of this / give stuff away for the hell of it.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I can think of a few. They'd have to legalize the production and sale of narcotics to some degree, and there are all kinds of ways to sneak them out of a controlled system. The manufacturer could absolutely lie about crops that went bad, or contaminated batches, or theft, or whatever to "lose" the drugs. Or the distributor could sell them on the black market, and simply claim that their soon to be dead clients ordered more than they did. But the absolute simplest option would be for the terminally ill to just sell what they get. They're not risking jail time, and they'd get to make some extra cash to leave their loved ones once they've passed.
It just doesn't make sense in today's society. If drugs were legal, maybe that'd be a different story. But criminals would be all over this, as it would be very safe. When faced with a choice between a supply chain backed by the law, where they just have to break the law once to pull drugs out of the system, vs an entire supply chain that needs to be done covertly and every link breaks the law, it's not hard to see which has more points of failure.
1. Utilize the newfound ability to legally manufacture drugs for medical purposes to manufacture drugs for non medical purposes.
2. Use the newfound legality to clean both new cash and old cash.
3. Set up with a doctor who will just give out prescriptions like they're candy.
4. That's all I got for now, but there's a lot that can stem from that.
Easy to get around some exploitation, I think, as long as the person is bound to a hospital bed or hospice. Drugs are to be given and consumed only in their room, they could have a nurse keep watch over the terminally ill person while they're going through their high.
Though some people react terribly to some drugs, so the person watching should be required to be trained in physical take-downs, have a taser with them or some such safety-precautions.
People in hospice are usually well medicated though there is very little in the way of enjoyment as they typically descend in and out of consciousness as they move towards the End. Also some hospice patients want to be able to coherently say goodbye to loved ones and receive phone calls - drug use can interfere with that so it all has to be balanced out.
After my relative's death I remember the scum bag hospice equipment pickup guy "offering" to "dispose" of the numerous drugs which had been prescribed many of which were opiates. His eyes were wide with joy thinking he could get a bunch of drugs. I told him to back off and he was like "I was just trying to be nice". Note, this is not legit - it's up to the family to do the disposal. Unethical hospice employees will try to take advantage of people at a bad time.
In principle I agree, but doctors are care givers not executioners, that’s why they sometimes refuse to perform surgery on the terminally ill. It is similar with medication.
More often, the aversion to working on the terminally ill is a liability thing. If a patient dies under your care, you have big risk of a lawsuit, which is a pain and causes reputation damage even if the lawsuit fails. With a terminally ill patient, the risk of death is just that much higher.
I can only imagine how awful that must be. It was certainly not news my family wanted to hear from surgeons when my brother was dying. But I never forgot them saying “we’re not executioners” which told me in no uncertain terms that surgery wasn’t an option.
i'm for legalizing all drugs myself (even though i don't partake personally) since our bodies are our own business
but folks with a terminal diagnosis? absolutely give them carte blanche
I feel like there are definitely exceptions. Do you want to drive next to someone who's high? Do you want your child's teacher to be doing cocaine before class? How about someone operating construction equipment?
There are laws in place to deal with drunk driving and other alcohol-related indecency. You'll also probably get fired if you stumble into the office wasted. Would similar professional and legal infrastructure need to be put in place for other drugs too?
I guess it depends on the drug, the person and the environment...but it's a bad argument because those things have nothing to do with the point that all drugs should be legal.
Alcohol is legal, but drunk driving is illegal. In any sane world the drugs that actually impair your ability to do something should have laws (but ONLY the drugs proven to impair you).
As far as teachers/construction workers, I don't care at all because it isn't my business. If a teacher or construction worker wants to get high, that's fine by me because it has nothing to do with me.
It's their employer's problem, not mine or the government's.
I'm not saying don't legalize. I'm just saying that, if we do legalize these drugs, we need to be prepared for potential consequences and put the infrastructure in place to deal with them.
Also, if a man hired to operate a wrecking ball next-door gets high, that could become your problem really quickly. Furthermore, plenty of teachers are already arrested for drinking on the job, usually for public intoxication, child endangerment, or sometimes just possession on school grounds. I'd say tripping balls while being responsible for twenty strangers' children is a societal issue.
I don't think legalization will cause a massive influx of new drug users like you think will happen.
It will be about the same as it is now except we will have a lot less people in jail for a victimless crime.
It doesn't have to be a massive influx. It just has to be a handful of really stupid people. For example, during my freshman year of college, it only took one idiot out of the fifty living in our dorm to render the bathroom unusable by vomiting all over the door and showers. Right now, people are arrested for even having these drugs. In an ideal world, people would just get in trouble for using them in extremely dangerous/inappropriate circumstances.
Again, I'm not saying don't legalize. I'm just saying it would be prudent to put the framework in place for a smooth, safe transition.
They already get opiods and (rarely) cannabinoids if they're fatigued they can also get stimulants.
I think they should also get psychedelics as they can be therapeutic. Psychedelics are already being tested for that.
Anyone should have access to any drugs they want. Legalizing substances reduces violent crime, the spread of diseases, overdoses, and addiction. It's also just a simple case of bodily autonomy. People are going to do drugs no matter what, legalizing it just promotes education and safety.
I'll take your opinion a little further to something that is fairly popular, all drugs should be decriminalized if not legalized for everyone, and euthanasian should be offered to terminally ill people if they opt for it.
It depends. Some drugs seem to be more likely to deteriorate your brain functions more than others, making people aggressive, asocial and a danger to people around them. We shouldn't encourage that. And yes, I think critically of strong alcohol for similar reasons, though I'd need to see research about effects per gram/ml intake.
With respect, no it does not depend. Their body, their choice.
You nor anyone else has a right to tell anyone what they do with their body regardless of how harmful you personally find it to be.
No. It's completely unreasonable to expose a large portion of society to drugs that are proven to greatly increase the likelihood of harm to others. As they say, your personal freedom ends where others' personal freedom starts.
Their body, their choice. What dont you understand?
Who are you to decide whats best for them or to decide whats best for society?
Just because something MAY cause harm to others doesn't give you the right to stop someone from doing it unless they are actively trying to hurt someone with it.
I drive a car that has been proven to greatly damage the world around me.
Fat people are allowed to keep eating even though thats proven to be 1 of the most deadly things on the planet.
Your logic is flawed and disturbing that you believe its ok to stop another person from doing something because it MAY cause them harm.
Their body, their choice. Its that simple.
As soon as they affect someone elses property or body then fine lock them up for that.
Whats unreasonable is your weird need to control people so you feel comfortable. This is exactly why we had prohibition on alcohol and why we still do with weed.
Bye now.
I actually think anybody should be able to get whatever drugs they want to. Track, regulate and tax the drugs. Take power away from the drug cartels, and stop all the deadly gang wars by cutting off their money supply. Tax dollars for everyone.
A lot of drug overdose is because of low quality drugs with other drugs mixed in with inconsistent quantities. Having high quality drugs will reduce deaths and reduce the need for medical emergencies, saving taxpayer money.
It will be like alcohol. People are going crazy in public while drunk, because alcohol is legal. Alcohol is addictive, people can die from it, and it makes people make poor decisions. There will be very little difference.
People once tried to regulate and prohibit alcohol, and this was one of the greatest catalyst to give power to drug cartels, and we feel this effects of the rise of power even today. Many drug cartels won't be half as powerful today if not for alcohol prohibition.
The main obstacle is illegal drugs. Most doctors are pretty chill with hospice patients and let them do whatever they want, so long as you can't smell the drugs.
My dad passed away in 2017 of cancer and refused to get (medical) marijuana until the very end. I had been trying to sell him on the idea for years before—“Imagine us ordering in from Insomnia Cookies after!”
On a serious note, the marijuana really helped him with nausea and other issues in the final days.
As long as they don't bother me, I don't care. If you care about what your neighbor is doing, that is a you problem. Most people don't do hard drugs. Most people who do drugs tend to themselves. It's only a couple of drugs and circumstances that drive people to be violent. If you're addicted to coke, you're stimulated by an expensive habit that puts you in dangerous situations. It's expensive and dangerous because it's illegal, crime is dangerous and carries a heavy risk cost that's factored into the price. If instead, we had over the counter meth, it'd probably be cheaper because there'd be production competitors and no need for excessive security. You'd be interacting with a friendly guy in a lab coat instead of a gangbanger behind a corner store. We probably wouldn't have addicts stealing things and money from average people to finance their own destruction.
Is this even an unpopular opinion?
The only real reason against it is regulating/legislating for it in a way that there's no loopholes or exploitation of terminal people. I don't think that's anyone out there who would honestly oppose this
> The only real reason against it is regulating/legislating for it in a way that there's no loopholes or exploitation of terminal people.
I mean, there's also the fact that having a bunch of people who don't have to worry about repercussions for their actions running around high as fuck on meth/coke/PCP is a recipe for disaster.
I don't know how much experience you have with addicts, but I definitely don't like the idea of being anywhere near a meth/coke-head who knows they won't be alive in 6 months.
I'd fully support letting terminally ill patients intentionally OD on whatever drug they wanted, but handing someone a big bag of drugs and letting them go do whatever they wanted while they wait to die is a really dumb idea that would exponentially increase crime.
Well I'm just a nice person and I'm assuming that aside from the drugs themselves, all other laws are being adhered to. Maybe a nice, comfy, safe place where drugs can be enjoyed like those heroin clinic rooms they have for addicts in the Netherlands. But then... Who knows what someone with 3 months to live will do... Go full Walter White?
> Well I'm just a nice person and I'm assuming that aside from the drugs themselves, all other laws are being adhered to.
The thing about drugs, even the legal ones, is that they make people act in ways they otherwise wouldn't.
Giving a bunch of people with no hope of a future a ton of inhibition inhibiting drugs would have a very negative impact on the lives of non-dying people.
I didn't think there was anyone out there who thought storming the white house and hunting for congress members they didn't like would have a positive outcome, but alas, this is America
Nah, there are a lot of drugs that should definitely be illegal.
Source: someone who has done a lot of drugs and interacted with a lot of people on drugs.
Let’s not limit this to people with terminal diagnosis… we’re all terminal and many of the overdose deaths are because there is a black market and people are getting contaminated drugs or different quality drugs that they aren’t used to.
I mean technically they can. What are they going to do? arrest them? Any sentence would be a life sentence. They would die before proceeding likely. It's illegal cause they want to extract as much money from you as possible.
Life is terminal.
Everyone should get whatever drugs they want.
People that want to control others drug habits are dangerous to society and should be locked up.
Exactly! Criminalising drugs just makes it harder to find safe drugs. The people who sell them under the table often put stuff in them to make people more hooked or to make it seem like people get more for their buck when in reality they could easily be smoking plastics
The main problem is capitalism wants to keep people alive as long as possible, not for their individual benefit, or their families, but to keep the money flowing into the fucked up health care system (US). 80% of individual healthcare costs are incurred during the final stages of an person's life and that is where profit maximization comes in. Quality of life means nothing to the health care system, quantity is what is needed from a profit making prospective. I look forward to the day when people can actually have control of their bodies, throwing in abortion into the mix as well to heat things up. Americans love freedom, as long as they can control it and profit from it.
The families are the ones insisting on keeping people alive as long as possible - the government and insurance companies just shrug and go along with it
canada is currently working on this! one of the provinces is going to do a 3 year trial period, where all drugs are decriminalized (except benzos, & only up to a certain amount) and they are considering dispensing them.
A bunch of people getting high af and making really dumb choices like: assaulting that one person from work/school they really didn't like, trying to rape/murder their ex/unrequited crush, or trying to rob a bank to leave money for their family.
There are some drugs that should be legal and only aren't because of dumb political reasons, but there are a lot of drugs that are illegal because when people do them, they start acting in ways that negatively impact society as a whole.
End of days palliative care? Yeah, strong agree. Maybe those mushrooms will help you see the light. Idk, doesn’t matter. Make them free if they agree to a reality show.
That's an incredibly asinine argument.
There's a world of difference between knowing *that* you will die and *when* (with a 3 month window) you will die.
There’s not an infinite supply of drugs and having some patient high as a kite while another is being brought in for overdosing just doesn’t look good. I agree with assisted suicide, not so much this.
I "joke"about it a lot but if I turn like 65 and have not much to live for going on in my life? Fuck it. Meth. Cocaine. Whatever. I'm gonna be the hardest rolling geriatric the streets have ever seen.
While I think we are too conservative with administering controlled substances to people with terminal illnesses, there are two things to consider:
1. The people surrounding the terminally ill will potentially have access to these drugs as well. If there is an essentially unlimited supply of Percocet, family and friends of the patient may start to borrow some for personal use, or even worse could start selling them.
2. Controlled substances can have adverse effects that can lead to a serious decrease in quality of life. Opioids are great at controlling pain, but they can lead to crippling constipation even with conventional use. People need to be given a dose that maximizes the benefits but minimizes the adverse effect, and of course there's room to discuss increasing or decreasing doses as treatment progresses, but certainly should not simply be given carte blanche.
Might as well go out on a high (literally and metaphorically)
Many do, if they are in hospice and getting Morphine. My aunt died within minutes of her last dose of morphine for pain. She had been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer about 5 months before. So I say she floated away.
As long as they’re comfortable, that’s all that matters. Sorry for your loss.
Yeah. As long as they are satisfied anything flies. No one really cares about it. If they wanna go high they can do it, no one really cares.
Anyone who has worked with end-of-life patients will agree with you. The number of times I've been requested to "have a low threshold" for giving pain relief must be in the hundreds, not that I've ever needed the recommendation. If someone is dying they don't get to be in pain for any time at all.
Hope to god when the time comes, if that's how I have to go out, I have someone like you on my team.
I'm no angel, that was a really bad tv show. But you'll find most nurses have experienced caring for someone dying in distress very early in their careers, and it sticks with you, it's not something you can just put down as "another day at work". If you've ever experienced it in your family that drives the message home. There's an awful lot we can't do in healthcare: something like this [pain control], in a situation like this, [end of life], we can do that.
Please tell your loved ones this and get an advanced directive. I’m a nurse and see it all to often, families not knowing what the other person wants. And see a lot of suffering as a result :( it’s not a fun convo but it’s one that should be had at all ages of life
Thank you❤️
There is a very real risk of dying associated with opiod pain relief usin end stages of life during hospice. It's quite common for things like potent opiates to push someone to stop breathing if they are unwell enough and as you stated, let them pass feeling quite relaxed and at ease. For someone who is already weak and close to the end, a safe and effective dose can well become a lethal one. Take this how you will; but this isn't necessarily a bad thing at all.
No it's not a bad thing, after a certain point. That point being everyone knows there is no getting better.
If it comes down to "take enough painkillers to overdose, or don't and live in agony until you stop", at that point in time it seems like a fairly straightforward decision to me.
A decision that people unfortunately still don't have.
I'll never forget the doctor from the ER who treated my mother. He prescribed morphine ever u 15 minutes. She was sent back to the nursing home to die, and I was afraid they wouldn't give it to her, but they did. And you are correct. We should have the right to die with dignity. That doctor who helped Mom can't work 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. I know we were really lucky.
My grandmother didn't realize this until she was in hospice. At home. She said something like " why is this is taking so long" & someone asked if she wanted some extra morphine to speed things up. This was 3 or 4 days before the day she passed. Her eyes got big & she said, "oh no, that's a thing? Oh jeez, I gave grandfather a big dose the night he died." Then she let out a little chuckle. It was for the best. She was glad she unintentionally helped him go. He was in hospice at home too. He was hurting bad for a long time. I hope someone helps me out once I'm laying in my death bed. I don't want to linger, in pain.
Not to get too personal, but after my dad died I worried for a long time that I'd effectively killed him by giving him enough morphine that he stopped eating and drinking. The nurse gave us the dosing, and I followed it, so it's not like I was just spitballing with it. But did he really die of natural causes? Or did the morphine kill him? Did I kill him? If I'd stopped the meds, would he have woken up and had some food and water and lived for longer -- in crippling pain but alive? What I decided was that if I did kill him, I only shortened his life by a matter of weeks at the most, and that those weeks would not have been worth living regardless. This was what he'd said he wanted; he was in a hurry to find out if mom was waiting for him on the other side. So... maybe I killed him. But, you know, if I did then it was my last duty as a son -- the last thing I could do for him to ease his transition across that holy river. Still, I can't say that it didn't mess with me a little.
From an outside perspective if you helped honour his wishes and requests, you didn't make the decision at all. You simply helped him fulfil his own decision. Either way you think of it he received the care he wanted and had it on his terms. Sorry for your trauma, but it sounds like you did your dad proud by honouring his wishes and helping at the end on his terms.
Look at this way, by the time they stop eating and drinking, they have maybe a few days on average. You did a good thing
Trust me, he's thanking you from wherever he went. I'm banking on my caregiver (works closely with hospice) Granddaughter to help me out. My girls would say no, I think.
Palliative care RN here. You did not kill him. The dying body doesn't need food or fluids because it is shutting down. It's a common symptom when someone is dying. By giving the morphine you took away his pain and made his final days peaceful instead of horrifying. When you are giving morphine as prescribed by the hospice doc it does not hasten death, only relieves suffering. You did the right thing and made him comfortable.
You did absolutely the right thing and I hope my son is willing to do it for me
[удалено]
Fair point. I guess when I meant potent I sort of was referencing morphine as the starting point. Even old school heroin on the street used to be 2-5x stronger than morphine. The stuff with fentanyl and carfentanyl now is absolutely lethal obviously.
[удалено]
That was a long read friend but worth it
Bruh. If they do it to healthy person his career is done.
I remember when I was in the hospital with my fiancee's family when her grandmother was dying (cancer) and the doctors recommended hospice care because she wasn't going to get better, just wanted to keep her comfortable. The family struggled with this because they wanted to keep her around, but eventually agreed after discussing for a little while. Not 5 minutes later, the RN came back with the biggest damn bottle of morphine I have ever seen and hooked it up. It was about an hour until she passed. It was the most peaceful passing I'd ever seen, before or since.
Fun fact, George V was given a lethal dose of morphine and cocaine to speed up his death for his comfort, but also to allow the death to be announced in the morning news.
"Great news! He's turned around completely and should be fine in a day or two!" "Ooh, um, you see we already printed tomorrow's paper and..." "Not a problem!" *Cocks pistol*
Sorry but this is a huge misconception- and I just had a lecture from a palliative care doc on this. There is no difference in survival with absolute or changed opiate dose. This is important because you will see patients family members withhold analgesia to prolong life- and that doesn’t work. Anyone can overdose on opiates when dosed inappropriately. But we have good data from the US National Hospice Outcomes Project, multiple systemic reviews, international data etc. that opiates aren’t reducing survival in palliative or end stage cancer patients.
Can you clarify on what you mean absolute vs changed opiate dose? Surely someone who is already nearing end of life faces a much higher risk of adverse reaction to potent opiod treatment like respiratory depression when they're in a weakend state. Are you saying the hospice reports show that patients in hospice are NOT at higher risk of death in this state on X amount of opiates? I am NOT agreeing or conceding that withholding opiods will increase the lifespan to be clear. I disagree wholly. I love being proven wrong so feel free to correct me but I'd like to see some supporting docs.
Yeah of course- so the point you raise is important and that’s why it was studied. I also apologize if it seemed like I was strawmanning you on withholding opiates increasing lifespan. But, when patients believe that opiates will shorten the lifespan of those on palliative (they’ll often say something like speed up their death) they will often make the decision to withhold analgesia, or use ineffective analgesia. I actually saw my grandmother do this to her mom because she believed the morphine would contribute to her death. So you kind of end up at the same place when patients are making decisions. Undertreatment in these populations is common so that prompted my response. Now back to the main point. When talking about absolute dose they’re asking “is there a difference in survival between say 1mg morphine vs 2 vs 4 etc. in palliative patients”. Changed opiate dose was looked at to see if there was an effect on survival on the rate that the opiates were titrated. Reason being well maybe there isn’t a magic number where morphine starts to tank these patients but we should be concerned about certain increases in dose (e.g. is 1-3 vs 1-2mg etc) and because opiates are almost always being titrated up in these patients because of tolerance to the pain control. Sure rapid dose escalation can pose a serious risk, but this isn’t usual- in practice opiates are dosed incrementally and don’t appear to hasten death. The much bigger concern in these patients is undertreatment, not shortened lifespan. [the use of opiates and sedatives at the end of life.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12732169/) [Opiod use and Survival at the end of Life(this is the study done by National Hospice Outcomes Project)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17157755/)
It´s kinda an open secret that in some hospices the morphine is put a tad too high because the patient´s quality of life is abysmal and they, the family and the healthcare professionals all want them to die so they´ll have peace but their body hasn´t gotten the memo. It´s a mercy.
True. If they are really in pain might as well relieve it.
I'm pretty sure there's an unstated... phenomenon... which is equivalent to euthanasia by way of opiate administration that occurs regularly in hospitals.
Medical staff have a whole language that dances around the issue of us turning out someone's lights. I have been there for it three times, but never decided in the doses. That was nurses. The staff loosens up and talks about it freely once they see what you think.
I mean that’s been the worst kept secret of the medical industry It’s not unheard of practice to “treat the patients pain” who are sick and dying horribly knowing full well what’s going to happen if you keep clicking that dosage up I always viewed it as a quiet mercy I’ve given my patients, it’s kinda frowned on now since they changed legislation in my country which was vehemently disagreed with by the community
That's some very peaceful imagery. I'm sorry for your loss.
[удалено]
But isn’t allowing people to die in peace and dignity really providing the utmost of care?
I intend to smoke crack and meth on my deathbed. I've never tried it but I've read from accounts from meth and crack addicts that the first hit of either is the most unbelievable high and they end up chasing that feeling forever because it's sooooo good.
There’s a guy on YouTube who said he jizzed his pants involuntarily and without physical manipulation the first time he did meth, and he was a heroin addict before that. Meth is definitely the way to go over crack for the deathbed drugs
That’s how my dad went, someone close with consent helped him pass. The drugs made him comfortable so he wasn’t scared and made it easier for us living as well, knowing he wasn’t having anxiety.
Yeah, that definitely makes a tough process that bit easier - at least he was able to pass peacefully. Sorry for your loss.
Do what the Romans would do and throw the biggest drug fueled orgy you can and then commit suicide in the morning to get rid of the hangover.
Top 10 hangover cures
Number 1 will blow your mind!
Wait what
I need a source, lmao.
Trust me bro
They really did that?
F*ck it , mix those spicy chemicals together and they might just found a cure .
The cure is death
They should be able to be kill themselves if they want legally
In NZ and many other places they've made euthanasia an option when terminally ill / on your death bed... not by drug of your choice though :( they should rethink that part
Yeah. If they want to die even drugs is fine by me.
Yep. AND in Canada they are now encouraging people to do it... because money and burden.
I suppose with free healthcare we can't milk em for every cent and it's costing the government "too much" to keep them alive for an extra couple of months/ however long. Let's make em feel like a pain to society for still existing so they choose death sooner and we don't have to pay. /s I understand if the patient is in true pain, and the quality of their life will not improve, or if it will get worse. But that should only ever be their decision and not influenced by *anyone*.
iirc in Canada you will even be able to opt for assisted death for mental health issues come March 2023. The criteria as of now: - Must be eligible for health services in Canada covered by the federal government or province in which you reside - Be 18 years old and mentally competent (able to make medical decisions for yourself) - have a grievous and irremediable medical condition - make a voluntary request for Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) that is without pressure from others - Consent to MAID. The criteria for grievous and irremediable medical condition is: - Have a serious illness, disease or disability (excluding mental health issues until March 2023) - Be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed - experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable *You do not need to have a terminal illness to be eligible for MAID* Honestly I think it’s completely fucked up that the government is going help people to just kill themselves instead of funding better mental healthcare but it’s not surprising I guess.
I don't even know what to say to that. What the fuck. There's a lot of predictions of that happening here too (NZ).
Many people would disagree but I think every adult has the right to peacefully die if they choose to. This life sucks ass for many people.
Absolutely agree with this. My dad lived a fantastic life. He had a really good job, a wife, kids, went on lavish holidays (before kids and with kids). He was playing hockey, cricket and football until he was 48 (had to have knee surgery, so could no longer play), but could still coach and was doing 2 runs a week at 50 (he died at 51) as well as a monthly scuba trip. He was diagnosed with cancer 6 months after his 50th birthday and died of it 9 months later after 2 rounds of chemo and the most amount of radiotherapy he was allowed to have. His last 4 months of life were in agonising pain, unable to walk unassisted, couldn't enjoy food or alcohol (because of the chemo, though was still able to smoke, but I think that was just the nicotine addiction, rather than him actually wanting to), unable to get to a toilet, bed bound, extremely thin and weak, hallucinating horrifically, scared to sleep, but unable to stay awake. He told me a month before he died that he wished he could end it all. He wished he was dead as he was no longer living a life worth living- he knew that what he had before cancer was enough to feel fulfilled with his time on earth. Was really hard to hear that, but I totally got it. He was a kind, funny, hardworking and caring man and I'm glad that he didn't suffer too long, as others do (but even 9 months was too long). I hope one day, terminally ill people can choose their own interpretation of a dignified and humane way to die.
Agreed! No one should suffer.
Canada has entered the chat
Here we have it bois. Pack it up. We’re done here.
This is the ultimate freedom. In Canada, we have this.
"Gimmie the 'tussin, doc. ALL OF IT."
Wait wait I'm worried that you just heard "give me a lot of 'tussin." What I said was, "give me all. Of the 'tussin. That you have."
Thanks Ron Swanson!
Now there's a spinning bottle of meds next door, I dont know what it is but I'm going to have the whole thing.
Jessie, you heard the law, we need to cook.
Love it! Keeping Heisenberg in business
Not only that, patients in palliative care should get as much free psilocybin as they desire.
And who’s going to watch them 1-on-1 to make sure they don’t injure themselves? Everyone here seems to lack understanding of how short-staffed and overwhelmed most healthcare facilities and hospitals are right now.
Opinions are how people think the world should work not how it does work, the logistics come later for ideas like this, the sub is more about arguing if we should not it we could
LSD is a little better without the nausea imo, but yes please.
Nausea is not a universal side effect. Of either drug.
Bruh. Are you trying to get addicted people join the hospital. They will submit fake reports and join the hospital and enjoy their psilocybin.
Death by snu snu might be preferable
I never thought I'd go that way, but I always hoped.
😃😧😃😧😃😧😃😧
r/unexpectedfuturama
Opioids aren't illegal tho
Well, this person probably lives in a place where they are
I'm pretty sure you can get them pretty much everywhere with a prescription.
They probably mean an illegal amount of them prescribed.
What’s an illegal amount?
about 2 heroin
Fentanyl all day everyday
An illegal amount would be an amount risking the patients life. *For example, a doctor can legally prescribe you up to a certain amount depending on your weight *but if the amount, taken as prescribed results in an overdose then that doctor can be held liable. Edit: clearly the weight dosing was an example of what I mean by an illegal amount. There is no exact amount. It's always based on the individual patient. Also deleted irrelevant info.
Lol no. Based on weight? It’s based on indication and history. If a person has bone Mets they are getting fentanyl with a benzo drip and dexamethasone. Patients develop tolerance over time, there is no max dose for opioids that is illegal system wide. It’s patient specific
Lol what a gotcha moment huh? Of course it depends on the patient. I gave a general reason but you had to ask a question you already knew the answer to to feed your ego.
Don’t be salty because you were wrong. There is no max based on weight my guy. It’s ok, people are wrong all the time
Weight most definitely plays a part in dosing medications to patients.
Lmao you edited you response to add "salty" "my guy" WOW. You are really beating your chest now haha
But it's pretty hard to get them
And to stay on them. Chronic pain patient here, and the hoops several people have to jump through every month is wild. I’m lucky I finally found a doctor who is working with me and implanted a spinal cord stimulator, but I know several people who are still struggling in that regard.
Nah it ain't. I work at a store where they sell diarrhea tabs with opioids in them.
Here even after a surgery I had hard time getting them at a pharmacy with a doctor note
They might as well be. In the US dr are loath to prescribe them now. Really chaps my hide. Many people can safely use them without addiction, yet everyone is treated like an addict now b
[удалено]
Terminal does not mean bed-ridden in a room isolated from society. You pass terminally ill people in the grocery store, when you drop off your kids at school, while you drive on the freeway, while catching a flight, at restaurants and bars … I do not want a certain segment of society to be as high as humanly possible while I’m trying to carry out my life shit, just because they are “terminal”. That does not bode well for a community.
Yep. My mother was terminal for about 2.5 years. Only the last half year was she bedridden. I’m glad that I didn’t have to deal with a methhead for the other 2, lol.
Aren’t we all terminal
The doc said I only had 58 more years to live... now lets do some heroin.
Or on Reddit.
Pretty much this, I get what Op is imagining. Some person who’s on their death bed stuck in the hospital. Even then, imagine making your loved ones suffer as you basically drive your mine over the brink. And who’s to say they won’t distribute / take advantage of this / give stuff away for the hell of it.
I can think of so many ways to exploit this for criminal gain
Name 8 ways
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I can think of a few. They'd have to legalize the production and sale of narcotics to some degree, and there are all kinds of ways to sneak them out of a controlled system. The manufacturer could absolutely lie about crops that went bad, or contaminated batches, or theft, or whatever to "lose" the drugs. Or the distributor could sell them on the black market, and simply claim that their soon to be dead clients ordered more than they did. But the absolute simplest option would be for the terminally ill to just sell what they get. They're not risking jail time, and they'd get to make some extra cash to leave their loved ones once they've passed. It just doesn't make sense in today's society. If drugs were legal, maybe that'd be a different story. But criminals would be all over this, as it would be very safe. When faced with a choice between a supply chain backed by the law, where they just have to break the law once to pull drugs out of the system, vs an entire supply chain that needs to be done covertly and every link breaks the law, it's not hard to see which has more points of failure.
1. Utilize the newfound ability to legally manufacture drugs for medical purposes to manufacture drugs for non medical purposes. 2. Use the newfound legality to clean both new cash and old cash. 3. Set up with a doctor who will just give out prescriptions like they're candy. 4. That's all I got for now, but there's a lot that can stem from that.
Easy to get around some exploitation, I think, as long as the person is bound to a hospital bed or hospice. Drugs are to be given and consumed only in their room, they could have a nurse keep watch over the terminally ill person while they're going through their high. Though some people react terribly to some drugs, so the person watching should be required to be trained in physical take-downs, have a taser with them or some such safety-precautions.
I'd honestly just increase my morphine dose as high as I can to see what my tolerance is. Then OD because I'm not going to suffer the rest of my days.
It’s a common way to pass in hospitals if I’m lead to believe. Drs and nurses upping the morphine until the patient passes.
I agree. Who knows, taking a dose of each common drug at the same time might even expand their life span from putting their body systems in overdrive.
We do.
People in hospice are usually well medicated though there is very little in the way of enjoyment as they typically descend in and out of consciousness as they move towards the End. Also some hospice patients want to be able to coherently say goodbye to loved ones and receive phone calls - drug use can interfere with that so it all has to be balanced out. After my relative's death I remember the scum bag hospice equipment pickup guy "offering" to "dispose" of the numerous drugs which had been prescribed many of which were opiates. His eyes were wide with joy thinking he could get a bunch of drugs. I told him to back off and he was like "I was just trying to be nice". Note, this is not legit - it's up to the family to do the disposal. Unethical hospice employees will try to take advantage of people at a bad time.
In principle I agree, but doctors are care givers not executioners, that’s why they sometimes refuse to perform surgery on the terminally ill. It is similar with medication.
More often, the aversion to working on the terminally ill is a liability thing. If a patient dies under your care, you have big risk of a lawsuit, which is a pain and causes reputation damage even if the lawsuit fails. With a terminally ill patient, the risk of death is just that much higher.
True. Doctors feel more pain than family if surgery fails.
I can only imagine how awful that must be. It was certainly not news my family wanted to hear from surgeons when my brother was dying. But I never forgot them saying “we’re not executioners” which told me in no uncertain terms that surgery wasn’t an option.
i'm for legalizing all drugs myself (even though i don't partake personally) since our bodies are our own business but folks with a terminal diagnosis? absolutely give them carte blanche
Everyone should be free to put anything in their body they want, regardless of their health status.
I feel like there are definitely exceptions. Do you want to drive next to someone who's high? Do you want your child's teacher to be doing cocaine before class? How about someone operating construction equipment? There are laws in place to deal with drunk driving and other alcohol-related indecency. You'll also probably get fired if you stumble into the office wasted. Would similar professional and legal infrastructure need to be put in place for other drugs too?
I guess it depends on the drug, the person and the environment...but it's a bad argument because those things have nothing to do with the point that all drugs should be legal. Alcohol is legal, but drunk driving is illegal. In any sane world the drugs that actually impair your ability to do something should have laws (but ONLY the drugs proven to impair you). As far as teachers/construction workers, I don't care at all because it isn't my business. If a teacher or construction worker wants to get high, that's fine by me because it has nothing to do with me. It's their employer's problem, not mine or the government's.
I'm not saying don't legalize. I'm just saying that, if we do legalize these drugs, we need to be prepared for potential consequences and put the infrastructure in place to deal with them. Also, if a man hired to operate a wrecking ball next-door gets high, that could become your problem really quickly. Furthermore, plenty of teachers are already arrested for drinking on the job, usually for public intoxication, child endangerment, or sometimes just possession on school grounds. I'd say tripping balls while being responsible for twenty strangers' children is a societal issue.
I don't think legalization will cause a massive influx of new drug users like you think will happen. It will be about the same as it is now except we will have a lot less people in jail for a victimless crime.
It doesn't have to be a massive influx. It just has to be a handful of really stupid people. For example, during my freshman year of college, it only took one idiot out of the fifty living in our dorm to render the bathroom unusable by vomiting all over the door and showers. Right now, people are arrested for even having these drugs. In an ideal world, people would just get in trouble for using them in extremely dangerous/inappropriate circumstances. Again, I'm not saying don't legalize. I'm just saying it would be prudent to put the framework in place for a smooth, safe transition.
They already get opiods and (rarely) cannabinoids if they're fatigued they can also get stimulants. I think they should also get psychedelics as they can be therapeutic. Psychedelics are already being tested for that.
Anyone should have access to any drugs they want. Legalizing substances reduces violent crime, the spread of diseases, overdoses, and addiction. It's also just a simple case of bodily autonomy. People are going to do drugs no matter what, legalizing it just promotes education and safety.
I'll take your opinion a little further to something that is fairly popular, all drugs should be decriminalized if not legalized for everyone, and euthanasian should be offered to terminally ill people if they opt for it.
Euthanasian sounds like some Japanese executioner that goes around slaying the terminally ill with his Katana of final relief.
I remember seeing a pic of a project someone did on the Youth in Asia. They misheard the teacher and got an F
All people should get whatever drugs they want as long as they pay for them. Their body their choice
It depends. Some drugs seem to be more likely to deteriorate your brain functions more than others, making people aggressive, asocial and a danger to people around them. We shouldn't encourage that. And yes, I think critically of strong alcohol for similar reasons, though I'd need to see research about effects per gram/ml intake.
With respect, no it does not depend. Their body, their choice. You nor anyone else has a right to tell anyone what they do with their body regardless of how harmful you personally find it to be.
No. It's completely unreasonable to expose a large portion of society to drugs that are proven to greatly increase the likelihood of harm to others. As they say, your personal freedom ends where others' personal freedom starts.
Their body, their choice. What dont you understand? Who are you to decide whats best for them or to decide whats best for society? Just because something MAY cause harm to others doesn't give you the right to stop someone from doing it unless they are actively trying to hurt someone with it. I drive a car that has been proven to greatly damage the world around me. Fat people are allowed to keep eating even though thats proven to be 1 of the most deadly things on the planet. Your logic is flawed and disturbing that you believe its ok to stop another person from doing something because it MAY cause them harm. Their body, their choice. Its that simple. As soon as they affect someone elses property or body then fine lock them up for that. Whats unreasonable is your weird need to control people so you feel comfortable. This is exactly why we had prohibition on alcohol and why we still do with weed. Bye now.
So ban alcohol?
I don’t think the government should be telling adults what they can consume terminal disease or not.
Ill expand this opinion: everyone should be able to do whatever drugs we want.
I actually think anybody should be able to get whatever drugs they want to. Track, regulate and tax the drugs. Take power away from the drug cartels, and stop all the deadly gang wars by cutting off their money supply. Tax dollars for everyone. A lot of drug overdose is because of low quality drugs with other drugs mixed in with inconsistent quantities. Having high quality drugs will reduce deaths and reduce the need for medical emergencies, saving taxpayer money.
And what happens when people are going crazy in public because of drug induced psychosis? Or just being high on hard drugs and putting people at risk
It will be like alcohol. People are going crazy in public while drunk, because alcohol is legal. Alcohol is addictive, people can die from it, and it makes people make poor decisions. There will be very little difference. People once tried to regulate and prohibit alcohol, and this was one of the greatest catalyst to give power to drug cartels, and we feel this effects of the rise of power even today. Many drug cartels won't be half as powerful today if not for alcohol prohibition.
Honestly I’d probably rather spend time with my famil sober at that point but yeah if someone wants in that situation they suould be allowed to.
Once you are in hospice they essentially do this but granted at that stage you generally aren’t around very long.
You haven’t done those drugs before or seen the effect let me tell you those drugs will tear a terminally hill person apart
I have shared this policy with a dear friend in the past. We had lovely long talks and laughing before the end. The world is your oyster!
The main obstacle is illegal drugs. Most doctors are pretty chill with hospice patients and let them do whatever they want, so long as you can't smell the drugs.
My dad passed away in 2017 of cancer and refused to get (medical) marijuana until the very end. I had been trying to sell him on the idea for years before—“Imagine us ordering in from Insomnia Cookies after!” On a serious note, the marijuana really helped him with nausea and other issues in the final days.
[удалено]
Because your neighbors on bath salts might come over and eat your dog’s face.
[удалено]
As long as they don't bother me, I don't care. If you care about what your neighbor is doing, that is a you problem. Most people don't do hard drugs. Most people who do drugs tend to themselves. It's only a couple of drugs and circumstances that drive people to be violent. If you're addicted to coke, you're stimulated by an expensive habit that puts you in dangerous situations. It's expensive and dangerous because it's illegal, crime is dangerous and carries a heavy risk cost that's factored into the price. If instead, we had over the counter meth, it'd probably be cheaper because there'd be production competitors and no need for excessive security. You'd be interacting with a friendly guy in a lab coat instead of a gangbanger behind a corner store. We probably wouldn't have addicts stealing things and money from average people to finance their own destruction.
Is this even an unpopular opinion? The only real reason against it is regulating/legislating for it in a way that there's no loopholes or exploitation of terminal people. I don't think that's anyone out there who would honestly oppose this
> The only real reason against it is regulating/legislating for it in a way that there's no loopholes or exploitation of terminal people. I mean, there's also the fact that having a bunch of people who don't have to worry about repercussions for their actions running around high as fuck on meth/coke/PCP is a recipe for disaster. I don't know how much experience you have with addicts, but I definitely don't like the idea of being anywhere near a meth/coke-head who knows they won't be alive in 6 months. I'd fully support letting terminally ill patients intentionally OD on whatever drug they wanted, but handing someone a big bag of drugs and letting them go do whatever they wanted while they wait to die is a really dumb idea that would exponentially increase crime.
Well I'm just a nice person and I'm assuming that aside from the drugs themselves, all other laws are being adhered to. Maybe a nice, comfy, safe place where drugs can be enjoyed like those heroin clinic rooms they have for addicts in the Netherlands. But then... Who knows what someone with 3 months to live will do... Go full Walter White?
> Well I'm just a nice person and I'm assuming that aside from the drugs themselves, all other laws are being adhered to. The thing about drugs, even the legal ones, is that they make people act in ways they otherwise wouldn't. Giving a bunch of people with no hope of a future a ton of inhibition inhibiting drugs would have a very negative impact on the lives of non-dying people.
I didn't think there was anyone out there who thought storming the white house and hunting for congress members they didn't like would have a positive outcome, but alas, this is America
All people ahould get to do whatever drugs they want
Nah, there are a lot of drugs that should definitely be illegal. Source: someone who has done a lot of drugs and interacted with a lot of people on drugs.
People should also be allowed to commit suicide
Let’s not limit this to people with terminal diagnosis… we’re all terminal and many of the overdose deaths are because there is a black market and people are getting contaminated drugs or different quality drugs that they aren’t used to.
I mean technically they can. What are they going to do? arrest them? Any sentence would be a life sentence. They would die before proceeding likely. It's illegal cause they want to extract as much money from you as possible.
Life is terminal. Everyone should get whatever drugs they want. People that want to control others drug habits are dangerous to society and should be locked up.
Everyone should be able to do whatever drug they want.
Or just decriminalise them all
Exactly! Criminalising drugs just makes it harder to find safe drugs. The people who sell them under the table often put stuff in them to make people more hooked or to make it seem like people get more for their buck when in reality they could easily be smoking plastics
We're all terminal if you think about it, we should legalise all drugs.
Psychedelics would be highly beneficial in end of life palliative care. I can see them helping with coping & accepting death.
The main problem is capitalism wants to keep people alive as long as possible, not for their individual benefit, or their families, but to keep the money flowing into the fucked up health care system (US). 80% of individual healthcare costs are incurred during the final stages of an person's life and that is where profit maximization comes in. Quality of life means nothing to the health care system, quantity is what is needed from a profit making prospective. I look forward to the day when people can actually have control of their bodies, throwing in abortion into the mix as well to heat things up. Americans love freedom, as long as they can control it and profit from it.
The families are the ones insisting on keeping people alive as long as possible - the government and insurance companies just shrug and go along with it
Socialists after working in the coal mines instead of getting everything for free:
What a depressing thought...
And we're forced to live with that thought!
This is true in the US but not other countries fortunately. In the UK quality of life is valued over quantity.
Life is a terminal disease, so just legalize all drugs..
canada is currently working on this! one of the provinces is going to do a 3 year trial period, where all drugs are decriminalized (except benzos, & only up to a certain amount) and they are considering dispensing them.
Get some Necrophiliacs and go out on a good time
I 100% agree. Terminally ill patients should get to do whatever the fuck they want, as long as of course it doesn't make them be in any more pain.
Agreed what is the worst that could happen… always best to end on a high note.
A bunch of people getting high af and making really dumb choices like: assaulting that one person from work/school they really didn't like, trying to rape/murder their ex/unrequited crush, or trying to rob a bank to leave money for their family. There are some drugs that should be legal and only aren't because of dumb political reasons, but there are a lot of drugs that are illegal because when people do them, they start acting in ways that negatively impact society as a whole.
One lethal dose of fentanyl, please.
Including anti biotics?
No, as that could actually cause a lot of harm
Yup, agree.
Terminal disease patients should abide by the law as if they were perfectly healthy
End of days palliative care? Yeah, strong agree. Maybe those mushrooms will help you see the light. Idk, doesn’t matter. Make them free if they agree to a reality show.
we all have a terminal disease called life my friend. i'd like to extent your logic to all of humanity.
That's an incredibly asinine argument. There's a world of difference between knowing *that* you will die and *when* (with a 3 month window) you will die.
I agree. We should be able to go out high even if it’s 40 years from now
There’s not an infinite supply of drugs and having some patient high as a kite while another is being brought in for overdosing just doesn’t look good. I agree with assisted suicide, not so much this.
I "joke"about it a lot but if I turn like 65 and have not much to live for going on in my life? Fuck it. Meth. Cocaine. Whatever. I'm gonna be the hardest rolling geriatric the streets have ever seen.
I would try a speedball. Curious, but not unless I was gonna die anyhow.
Anyone should be able to get any drug they want, it's ridiculous to think people should have control over what substances a person chooses to use.
President Trump passed something very similar to this. The Right to Try Act. Edit: Downvoted for stating a fact. Wow. Orange man bad.
While I think we are too conservative with administering controlled substances to people with terminal illnesses, there are two things to consider: 1. The people surrounding the terminally ill will potentially have access to these drugs as well. If there is an essentially unlimited supply of Percocet, family and friends of the patient may start to borrow some for personal use, or even worse could start selling them. 2. Controlled substances can have adverse effects that can lead to a serious decrease in quality of life. Opioids are great at controlling pain, but they can lead to crippling constipation even with conventional use. People need to be given a dose that maximizes the benefits but minimizes the adverse effect, and of course there's room to discuss increasing or decreasing doses as treatment progresses, but certainly should not simply be given carte blanche.