The world medical community considers both euthanasia and assisted suicide to be in conflict with basic ethical principles of medical practice. The World Medical Association, with members representing medical associations (including the American Medical Association) from eighty-two countries, has adopted strong resolutions condemning both practices and urging all national medical associations and physicians to refrain from participating in them even if national law allows or decriminalizes the practices.
Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient, even at the patient’s own request or at the request of close relatives, is unethical. This does not prevent the physician from respecting the desire of a patient to allow the natural process of death to follow its course in the terminal phase of sickness.
Physician-assisted suicide, like euthanasia is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. However the right to decline medical treatment is a basic right of the patient and the physician should respect such a wish of a patient.
There are basically four arguments against euthanasia and or physician assisted suicide.
They include 1) Euthanasia would not only be for people who are terminally ill 2) Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment 3) Euthanasia will become non-voluntary and 4) Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life.
1) There are many definitions for the word “terminal”. Some laws define “terminal” condition as one from with death will occur in a “relatively short time.” Others state that “terminal” means that death is expected within six months or less.
Even where a specific life expectancy is referred to, medical experts acknowledge that it it virtually impossible to predict the life expectance of a particular patient. For this reason, euthanasia activists have dropped references to terminal illness, replacing them with such phrases as “hopelessly ill,” desperately ill,” “incurably ill,” hopeless condition,” and “meaningless life.”
2) Euthanasia and physician –assisted suicide could become a means of health care cost containment. “….physician-assisted suicide, if it became widespread, could become a profit-enhancing tool for big HMOs.” “…drugs used in assisted suicide cost only about $40, but that it could take $40,000 to treat a patient properly so that they don’t want the “choice” of assisted suicide…” …Wesley J. Smith, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
Perhaps one of the most important developments in recent years is the increasing emphasis paced on health care providers to contain costs. In such a climate, euthanasia certainly could become a means of cost containment.
This could be quite a slippery slope. The pressure to contain costs by the insurance companies and big business could try to force the medical profession to participate in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Hasn’t health care gone too far already with unethical decisions regarding “cost containment”? I think so.
3) Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide would only be voluntary, they say. Emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for depressed or dependent people. If the choice of euthanasia is considered as good as a decision to receive care, many people will feel guilty for not choosing death. Financial considerations, added to the concern about “being a burden” could be used as powerful forces that would lead a person to “choose” euthanasia or assisted suicide. Who will make the evaluation that a person is in their right mind to make such a decision. What if they are just depressed? And, if they are in severe pain, why not change their pain medication? These are all questions physicians need to be asking themselves.
4) Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. People who support euthanasia often say that it is already considered permissible to take human life under some circumstances such as self defense – but they miss the point that when one kills for self defense they are saving innocent life – either their own or someone else’s. With euthanasia no one’s life is being saved – life is only taken.
I once had a patient that was diagnosed with lung cancer. She was given about six months to live by her physician is she had no treatment and about one year to two years with treatment. She opted for treatment. Soon after the chemo began she became very ill from the side effects of the chemo. She said she just wanted to go ahead and die. She said she was suffering more than she ever thought was possible and she felt like she was a huge burden to her family. She begged to have someone help her end her life. That was four years ago. Today she is an active person in our community and loving life because she says “I live life every day to the fullest”! If her physician had helped her end her life, the patient and her family would have missed out on these last four years and whose to say how many more years she will be alive! There are miracles and they happen everyday.
History has taught us the dangers of euthanasia and that is why there are only two countries in the world today where it is legal. That is why almost all societies – even non-religious ones – for thousands of years have made euthanasia a crime. It is interesting that euthanasia advocates today think they know better than the billions of people throughout history who have outlawed euthanasia – what makes the 50 year old euthanasia supporters in 2006 so wise that they think they can discard the accumulated wisdom of almost all societies of all time and open the door to the killing of innocent people? Have things changed? If they have, they are changes that should logically reduce the call for euthanasia – pain control medicines and procedure are far better than they have ever been any time in history.
No comments:
Post a Comment