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.
Terminal patients sometimes request or consider euthanasia, or mercy killing. This is because, these days, they are able to survive for far more time than they would have been able to in the past. Contemporary medical treatment makes this possible. The outcome is that they may live for a very long period, even years, in a state of palliative care.
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.
Despite this, the law in most countries does not give medical staff permission to terminate their patients. The rationale behind such laws is self-explanatory. Medical staff cannot be permitted to euthanase patients under their care because they may then terminate those who may well have survived, for whatever reason. The court cases that arise typically revolve around medical personnel who either apply for official permission to euthanase a patient or who have already performed the procedure and are being prosecuted.
A famous case involved a doctor in the UK, Harold Shipman, who murdered 285 elderly patients. Although they were unaware of the intentions of their doctor, he used poison to kill them. Providing doctors with permission to perform euthanasia may enable medical staff with such intentions to act on them. Sentenced to prison, Shipman himself committed suicide on his 58th birthday.
The most common form of modern euthanasia is lethal injection. It is similar to the technique that is used in some states to execute prisoners on death row. The doctor uses substances that are not sold to the public. These should only be used by a medical practitioner, because they can be administered in lethal doses and might also be prescribed as medication in lower doses.
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.
Medical practitioners should obviously be regulated by official legislation. At the same time, however, their terminal patients request euthanasia or commit suicide. The debate around this issue continues unabated, but people should always remember that the immense pain, debilitation and suffering of terminal patients is sometimes a reason to give them more say in the matter.
Terminal patients sometimes request or consider euthanasia, or mercy killing. This is because, these days, they are able to survive for far more time than they would have been able to in the past. Contemporary medical treatment makes this possible. The outcome is that they may live for a very long period, even years, in a state of palliative care.
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.
Despite this, the law in most countries does not give medical staff permission to terminate their patients. The rationale behind such laws is self-explanatory. Medical staff cannot be permitted to euthanase patients under their care because they may then terminate those who may well have survived, for whatever reason. The court cases that arise typically revolve around medical personnel who either apply for official permission to euthanase a patient or who have already performed the procedure and are being prosecuted.
A famous case involved a doctor in the UK, Harold Shipman, who murdered 285 elderly patients. Although they were unaware of the intentions of their doctor, he used poison to kill them. Providing doctors with permission to perform euthanasia may enable medical staff with such intentions to act on them. Sentenced to prison, Shipman himself committed suicide on his 58th birthday.
The most common form of modern euthanasia is lethal injection. It is similar to the technique that is used in some states to execute prisoners on death row. The doctor uses substances that are not sold to the public. These should only be used by a medical practitioner, because they can be administered in lethal doses and might also be prescribed as medication in lower doses.
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.
Medical practitioners should obviously be regulated by official legislation. At the same time, however, their terminal patients request euthanasia or commit suicide. The debate around this issue continues unabated, but people should always remember that the immense pain, debilitation and suffering of terminal patients is sometimes a reason to give them more say in the matter.
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