Dying with dignity is a thorny issue in society at present. It attracts controversy and is sometimes reported on in the media. It is also the subject of litigation, usually criminal prosecution. It is an issue that needs to be taken seriously, for several different reasons, and so it is important to understand 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.
Euthanasia is as old as humanity itself and so the controversy around it is not new. Terminating the lives of terminally ill or wounded people is not seen as surprising or even inappropriate. Soldiers do so on the battlefield, and then there are those who give up on their useless medical treatment and commit suicide. There is no novelty about this.
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.
The legal system does not allow euthanasia, yet some patients may experience such intense pain or have such debilitating symptoms that they no longer see the use of further palliative treatment. They then try extreme measures, such as narcotics, or even commit suicide in the more usual ways. Those who are unable to end their own lives, however, may request that their doctor do so.
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.
Euthanasia is as old as humanity itself and so the controversy around it is not new. Terminating the lives of terminally ill or wounded people is not seen as surprising or even inappropriate. Soldiers do so on the battlefield, and then there are those who give up on their useless medical treatment and commit suicide. There is no novelty about this.
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.
The legal system does not allow euthanasia, yet some patients may experience such intense pain or have such debilitating symptoms that they no longer see the use of further palliative treatment. They then try extreme measures, such as narcotics, or even commit suicide in the more usual ways. Those who are unable to end their own lives, however, may request that their doctor do so.
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.
About the Author:
You can visit fenregistration.org for more helpful information about Some Of The Most Important Death With Dignity Pros And Cons.
No comments:
Post a Comment