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
Tuesday 3 April 2007
Monday 2 April 2007
Animal Cruelty- double standards
I was thinking what to write about seen as we have no lectures and i thought i would look at animal cruelty. It is a subject that has always disgusted me because it entails intense cruelty, to often, defenceless creatures...and for someone's sick pleasure. But there is a semantic element isn't there, when we think that things like dog hunting and badger baiting are acts of sick cruelty that have long been banned, yet fox hunting is labelled as a sport for the aristocracy that lived on in esteem until only recently. If you check out some of the links below you will see that it has been rationalised in all manner of ways, from continuing tradition to a form of pest control! I agree with the argument that the countryside may become over run with pests if there weren't some form of control, but nothing can justify chasing a scared witless animal for miles before watching it being ripped apart...then to smear the animals blood on people's faces as some kind of ritual or initiation is barbaric and sick.
Dog hunting and badger baiting were termed the working class's form of hunting and were outlawed years ago...although it still goes on in secret, and it really is barbaric if you have the stomach to read some of the links. It is interesting that often what is deemed a crime, or what earns the more disdain, is that of the working classes, whilst the upper classes get to call the shots and wield the power in what ever way suits them.
http://www.badger.org.uk/action/badger-cruelty-facts.html
http://www.badger.org.uk/action/badger-cruelty-facts.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)