Euthanasia is a controversial topic in the media at this time. It is subject to extreme argument, which is then presented by the media. Sometimes, individual cases go to court, where a medical practitioner is typically charged with something. This issue requires proper attention, and for more than one reason. Part of understanding it is knowing the death with dignity pros and cons.
Part of the issue's source is that modern medical techniques allow for the protracted survival of terminally ill patients. Some patients survive for years with a condition that would have been lethal in a much shorter time in past eras. Even so, after those years they eventually deteriorate into a near-death state and no further treatment is available. This is when they sometimes request mercy killing, or euthanasia.
Soldiers have been known to euthanase the terminally wounded after a battle. Ending the suffering of the terminally diseased or injured is not a new approach in the human response to these situations, and has been practised through the ages. Some patients even unilaterally terminate their treatment and allow themselves to die or they commit suicide. None of this is surprising or new in human experience.
Yet the legal systems of many countries do not permit this activity on the part of doctors. The implications are obvious. Doctors should not be allowed to terminate their patients, since this may lead to the murder of those who otherwise had a chance of recovery. This is why doctors are sometimes prosecuted for what was supposed to be a mercy killing or apply for permission to end the life of a specific patient.
One notable recent case concerned Dr Harold Shipman, in the UK. He secretly killed 285 aged patients, without their (or anyone else's) knowledge or even consent. His method was poisoning. Legalizing euthanasia may then encourage medical practitioners with such designs to murder their patients. Shipman was sentenced to jail, where he ended his own life on his 58th birthday.
In the rare cases of euthanasia that do occur, lethal injection is a common method. It may be familiar to the reader since it is also used to execute prisoners given the death penalty. What people should understand about this method is that the chemicals used should only be administered by a medical practitioner. They are not sold to the public and some of them are actually medicines if used in lower dosages.
Some patients suffer extreme pain on an everyday basis or they are so incapacitated that they lose enthusiasm for future palliative care. They sometimes resort to less conventional methods, such as self-medicating with illegal street drugs, or they commit suicide through the more common ways. But if they are not able to commit suicide, they ask their treating practitioner to end their lives.
The unresolved debate about mercy killing occupies space in the media and other public discussion forums. At the same time, the patients themselves are committing suicide or organize their own private euthanasia. It is important to place official measures of control on the medical profession, but the terrible symptoms of terminal patients perhaps necessitate exceptions.
Part of the issue's source is that modern medical techniques allow for the protracted survival of terminally ill patients. Some patients survive for years with a condition that would have been lethal in a much shorter time in past eras. Even so, after those years they eventually deteriorate into a near-death state and no further treatment is available. This is when they sometimes request mercy killing, or euthanasia.
Soldiers have been known to euthanase the terminally wounded after a battle. Ending the suffering of the terminally diseased or injured is not a new approach in the human response to these situations, and has been practised through the ages. Some patients even unilaterally terminate their treatment and allow themselves to die or they commit suicide. None of this is surprising or new in human experience.
Yet the legal systems of many countries do not permit this activity on the part of doctors. The implications are obvious. Doctors should not be allowed to terminate their patients, since this may lead to the murder of those who otherwise had a chance of recovery. This is why doctors are sometimes prosecuted for what was supposed to be a mercy killing or apply for permission to end the life of a specific patient.
One notable recent case concerned Dr Harold Shipman, in the UK. He secretly killed 285 aged patients, without their (or anyone else's) knowledge or even consent. His method was poisoning. Legalizing euthanasia may then encourage medical practitioners with such designs to murder their patients. Shipman was sentenced to jail, where he ended his own life on his 58th birthday.
In the rare cases of euthanasia that do occur, lethal injection is a common method. It may be familiar to the reader since it is also used to execute prisoners given the death penalty. What people should understand about this method is that the chemicals used should only be administered by a medical practitioner. They are not sold to the public and some of them are actually medicines if used in lower dosages.
Some patients suffer extreme pain on an everyday basis or they are so incapacitated that they lose enthusiasm for future palliative care. They sometimes resort to less conventional methods, such as self-medicating with illegal street drugs, or they commit suicide through the more common ways. But if they are not able to commit suicide, they ask their treating practitioner to end their lives.
The unresolved debate about mercy killing occupies space in the media and other public discussion forums. At the same time, the patients themselves are committing suicide or organize their own private euthanasia. It is important to place official measures of control on the medical profession, but the terrible symptoms of terminal patients perhaps necessitate exceptions.
No comments:
Post a Comment