|
HOME
HUMOUR
HEALTH
ARCHIVE
E-MAIL |
EUTHANASIA: A PATIENT'S
RIGHT
In April, 2001 the Dutch parliament approved a bill to legalize
euthanasia by a vote of 104 to 40. The Dutch Senate later voted
46 to 28 in favour.The Netherlands thus became the first country
in the world to officially legalize euthanasia. Polls showed
public support of 90 per cent.
This event has intensified the global debate on the subject.
Euthanasia is widely practised--albeit illegally--by doctors
in much of the world today, including Canada and the US where
close to 80 per cent of its citizens approve of it in cases of
terminally ill people who wish to end their agony. Often this
is accomplished with an overdose of painkillers, notably morphine
(active euthanasia) or by withdrawing hi-tech life support systems
(passive euthanasia).
Modern medicine has prolonged and improved human life in ways
that would have been unimaginable only a few decades ago. In
just over a century the average life expectancy in the developed
nations has doubled. Countless millions of people who a mere
50 years ago would have been condemned to a severely disabled
existence or early death, today lead active and productive lives.
Organ transplants, mechanical respirators, renal dialysis, pharmaceutical
advances, advanced diagnostic techniques and numerous other medical
breakthroughs have increased both the quality and length of life.
The downside of all these medical miracles is that prolonging
life often means prolonging suffering. When terminally-ill people
have their lives extended by a few weeks, perhaps a few months--at
enormous cost in terms of medical care, family distress and patient
suffering--the critical questions that arise are no longer only
medical ones.
Foremost among these are ethical questions such as: at which
point is the extension of life by any means no longer justified?
And most importantly: who decides when death with dignity is
preferable to unbearable and inhumane suffering? Basic morality
dictates that we must distinguish between life and mere existence.
Once people understand and accept that what matters most is not
the length of life, but the quality of life, survival at all
costs and by all available means will no longer be seen as the
most desirable option.
The word euthanasia is derived from the Greek words eu
and thanatos which jointly mean: good death.
In the absence of any possibility of recovery it is cruel and
barbaric to subject a patient to treatment that merely prolongs
pointless suffering.
At any rate this should not be allowed without the patient's
consent. Of course, in such situations the patient may no longer
be able to express an opinion, let alone form one. It is for
this reason that more and more people have a Living Will. In
this document they express their wish not to have so-called heroic
measures performed on them if they should reach a point by age,
illness or accident where life could be sustained only with life-support
systems. While such a document is not legally enforceable, it
does give doctors and relatives valuable guidelines in deciding
what medical options should be exercised in a critical situation
where the patient can no longer be consulted. In the difficult
decision-making process to determine whether a patient should
be allowed to die a natural death or be kept artificially alive,
a Living Will is crucially important.
This process may be complicated by the fact that prognoses are
not always correct. Not a few people are alive today who were
pronounced moribund years earlier. This and other facts dictate
that strict rules must apply when euthanasia is considered. These
rules should include:
1. A patient--while of sound mind--must on more than one occasion
have explicitly requested to have his/her life terminated under
specified circumstances;
2. More than one doctor must approve the request before euthanasia
is applied;
3. There must be evidence that the suffering of the patient is
severe;
4. There is no hope of recovery.
To strengthen the euthanasia debate
with logic instead of blocking objectivity with emotions, here
are some relevant points to consider:
1. All people should have the right to decide at which
point they wish to die, after all it is THEIR life and no one
else's;
2. The debate about euthanasia is not simply a matter of life
or death, but rather a choice between needlessly prolonging suffering
through medical intervention or compassionately ending it if
a patient requests it;
3. Life itself is a terminal condition, for we all die. Hence
euthanasia simply allows a person to choose his or her own time
of death as an escape from unbearable suffering;
4. When a pet is terminally ill, most owners agree on compassionate
grounds to end its suffering through euthanasia. To deny a terminally
ill person the same option shows more compassion for an animal
than for a human being;
5. Extending or improving the quality of life of a fellow human
being is a noble thing. Prolonging excruciating suffering in
the absence of any possibility of recovery is cruel and ethically
unjustifiable.
BBC REPORT: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1270000/1270553.stm
10-YEAR COMA CASE: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010430/us/comatose_woman_10.html
DR. JOSEPH MERCOLA'S REPORT: http://www.mercola.com/2001/may/2/euthanasia.htm
HOME |
