Euthanasia, or mercy killing, is one of the most contested issues in contemporary times. It evokes strong opinions and is given attention in the media. There are the occasional court cases, typically criminal prosecutions medical practitioners. This issue should be dealt with in a serious fashion and the death with dignity pros and cons should be understood.
Modern medicine has made the treatment of terminally ill patients possible to such a degree that they sometimes spend months or even years in prolonged care. Previously, these patients would not have survived their conditions for that span of time. Yet they remain alive until, eventually, their death is imminent and no treatment can delay it. At such times, they may consider euthanasia, or mercy killing/death.
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.
The law prohibits the mercy killing of terminally ill patients. These patients sometimes lose so much lifestyle function or have to endure such substantial pain that they are not interested any more in continuing the symptomatic treatment that has no effect on the underlying condition. It is not uncommon for them to resort to self-medication on improvised regimens, such as illegal drugs, or even to end their lives in a conventional way. But where they cannot commit suicide, they sometimes ask their doctor to perform euthanasia.
As the debate around euthanasia continues to rage in the media and other public platforms, terminally ill patients continue to commit suicide or apply for permission to be euthanazed. Legislation needs to regulate medical practise, but the inordinate suffering of terminal patients is also a significant factor in society and in how they are treated, one that is possibly more important than the legislation itself in some cases.
Modern medicine has made the treatment of terminally ill patients possible to such a degree that they sometimes spend months or even years in prolonged care. Previously, these patients would not have survived their conditions for that span of time. Yet they remain alive until, eventually, their death is imminent and no treatment can delay it. At such times, they may consider euthanasia, or mercy killing/death.
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.
The law prohibits the mercy killing of terminally ill patients. These patients sometimes lose so much lifestyle function or have to endure such substantial pain that they are not interested any more in continuing the symptomatic treatment that has no effect on the underlying condition. It is not uncommon for them to resort to self-medication on improvised regimens, such as illegal drugs, or even to end their lives in a conventional way. But where they cannot commit suicide, they sometimes ask their doctor to perform euthanasia.
As the debate around euthanasia continues to rage in the media and other public platforms, terminally ill patients continue to commit suicide or apply for permission to be euthanazed. Legislation needs to regulate medical practise, but the inordinate suffering of terminal patients is also a significant factor in society and in how they are treated, one that is possibly more important than the legislation itself in some cases.
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