The Hippocratic Oath states " To please no-one will i prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia and doctor's have to swear on a form of this. However which is worse, to cause someone's death but save them from pain and suffering or to withhold a drug that may end their suffering but result in their death? After all we put animals out of their misery. Thankfully though i don't have to make this decision but if i did i am pretty sure which one i would choose. If a loved one was suffering daily and i had doctor's opinion that this suffering would not end and there was no cure, then if they asked me to help them i would and i hope if i am suffering and chose to die then someone would help me.
But it is a contentious issue because you have to be sure of so many things, such as whether the person is of sound mind etc. Some arguments in favour of voluntary euthanasia is choice; we all have a basic right to free choice and if that means choosing to end our life prematurely in order to end pain and suffering and die with dignity, then surely we should have that right. Arguments against are that it is a form of murder or assisted suicide and for some religions that is seen as a sin or immoral.
In some countries such as Switzerland, Belgium and the netherlands voluntary euthanasis (i.e with consent) is lawful, and family members can assist, so long as they have nothing to gain from the person's death.
Personally i think it should be an individual's choice and they should be allowed to get assistance from a medical person as this would ease the burden and sense of guilt on family members who choose to help their loved ones as an act of mercy, and then find themselves facing a lawsuit.
If i had a loved one who wanted to die because they were in immense pain or had an incurable disease, i had sought medical opinion to the fact, and they asked me to help, i would. I would take the risk because i have watched relatives die in pain and it is not nice. I think it would be inhumane to leave them to suffer.
Check out the links and decide for yourself
http://www.euthanasia.com/holland99.html
http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06110601.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Claire,
I studied the topics of euthanasia and assisted suicide in a legal studies module I did in Semester 1 - thought I'd share my research and thoughts with you.
The ethical issues of euthanasia and assisted death are subject to much debate. Statistics suggest that the vast majority of the general public in the United Kingdom (86%) think that euthanasia should be legalised. In the UK, although there is no specific legislation in relation to euthanasia, a health care professional who deliberately ends the life of a patient is likely to be charged with either murder, manslaughter or attempted murder. In addition, the Suicide Act 1961 deems that “aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the suicide of another is a criminal offence”.
Two notable legal cases that highlight the dilemmas faced by the medical and legal professions involve Mrs Diane Pretty and Ms B, both of whom wished their lives to be ended at a time of their choice.
Diane Pretty, who gradually lost all her functions due to motor neurone disease, but remained mentally competent, went to court in 2001 to challenge section 2.1 of the Suicide Act 1961 . She requested the courts to allow her husband to be allowed to assist her to die at a time of her choosing, ie, active euthanasia, without the threat of him being prosecuted. After failing in the domestic courts, she took her case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that her human rights were being denied her, but again she was unsuccessful.
Ms B, on the other hand, was irreversibly paralysed from the neck down and was being kept alive on a ventilator. Prior to her illness Ms B had made a living will stating that if she suffered from a life threatening condition, she required treatment to be withdrawn, ie, passive euthanasia. Despite attempts from the medical team caring for her to prevent it, Ms B was eventually given sedation and her ventilator removed; she died four weeks later.
The distinction in law between these two cases is that Ms B was exercising a negative right not to be treated against her will, whereas Diane Pretty was claiming a positive right to be helped to die. There are those who argue that if voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide is legalised, there is a danger that ‘involuntary’ euthanasia will occur, ie, the ‘slippery slope’ argument. On the other hand, as The Guardian argued in 2004, “the current law allows doctors to accelerate death by withholding a drug, but illogically rules administering a drug to achieve the same end is illegal”.
I believe these two cases illustrate the anomalies that exist within the law. You can find out more on these two cases on these links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/22/newsid_2543000/2543739.stm
http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/think
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=79370509&sid=1&Fmt=28&cli entld=53702&RQT=309& VName=PQD
I agree with you Claire and I think what we have at the moment is bad law. I do have some sympathy with the 'slippery slope' argument but in my view the law should be changed to allow assisted suicide by medical practitioners.
Best wishes,
Joanne
Post a Comment