Monday, November 10, 2008
Euthanasia
Euthanasia, or mercy killing, is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or in an irreversible coma.Labels: Euthanasia, news, Singapore
posted by QueenPig @ 1:24 AM
-
Referring to the Euthanasia topic, it is always easy for others to say what they wish the consequences and action should be and TRYING To put themselves in other people's shoe. But i guess that no one should decide what is the best method, until they experience it and truly understand before making such a decision for others.
Regarding the discussion part, i just wish to propose a systematic flow of decision.
First you might wish to decide we wan to look from the MOTIVE or CONSEQUENCE part.
MOTIVE= the reasons for the action which exclude the impact or effect of the action. e.g "I think taking lives are wrong, no matter your own or others. I will not commit suicide."
CONSEQUENCE= considering the impact and effect that your action will have. e.g "Even bed ridden, or suffering from a critical disease, your life can still be put in good use because you can share and educate others, thus i should not commit suicide."
Once you had decided, we will then need to consider another factor (OTHERS or SELF) before reaching a conclusion for Euthanasia.
If OTHERS, then it is your loved ones that get to choose the patient's life, where according to your argument, despite the reluctance to live on, OTHERS should encourage and force him to live on even he do not wish to.
OTHERS include external help such as public, technology machine, and loved ones decision, society's decision.
If SELF, then even after so much advice or encouragement, the patient can still decide his own fate.
According to SELF, if a person is in comma after accident, where there is no WILL written in prior, the only indication of decision lies with his body signals without external aid. If the body fails, it means death is decided over living. NO external help should be provided here.
Another note:
You miss out another situation, if the patient is in coma, and required a machine to keep it living, you decide to keep your loved one's life, but the cost of maintaining the person life is beyond your budget.
Will you continue to keep the person life?
Who will pay for it?
What will you do if there is no help provided or any scheme to help you?
Even worse, will you rob or kill to keep your loved one's life going?
This might be the reality in life where in the end the choice do not really lies in our hands or the patient's.
Will society/government be so kind to keep a person's life, as a burden to society and yet not pull the plug if the patient's family could not meet the cost of keep the person's life with the help of machine?
-CM -
Well, Boss, Kant will say you're wrong on all accounts. Obviously, you are utilitarian and utilitarians seldom agree with Kant. Ok, almost never.
Once again, I'll reiterate that it's a question of responsibility (or rights, whatever you choose to call it) and responsibility does not entail the rights to take away lives. Not somebody's else's, and not the self.
I don't think we should or can separate the argument into motivations and consequences. They are too closely linked to one another.
And again, whether it's self or others doesn't make a difference to me. Taking a life is murder. Taking the life of another, kin or not, is murder. Taking one's own life is also murder. And murder is wrong. (Don't even think about self-defence or manslaughter, it's a different case altogether.)
Fate is seldom in the hands of the individual. You reap what you sow. If I happen to be the one in pain, you can jolly well tell me "You deserved it" and I'll have no qualms that I do deserve it. It's a law of nature (as much as my belief in Buddhism influenced this, I sincerely and truly hold this opinion). So, if you're doing badly, serves you right. If you're dying, serves you right too. If you's successful, you deserves it.
Not being able to see the cause in this life doesn't equate to not have a cause at all. There's always a cause and effect... simply because life exists in cycles.
And to the last note: Please choose LIFE over DEATH. It's not only pessimistic and depressing to think that that patient will never wake up. He might, however small the chances.
I think one thing we have to differentiate here is the scenario where the doctors can no longer do anything to keep him alive. No machines support, no drugs, no operations can keep that person alive. Then to let him/her go is not euthanasia; it's stopping the thinking that we're God and let nature takes its course.
Life is so precious it should never even be discussed like this. I'm ashamed. -
At 8:04 PM ,
said...Thanks for the clarification but please allow me further explain some of my points.
Before I proceed, I just to say that I too stand on the same principles that “Life is precious” but discussing about life does not mean treating it as a good or a thing, rather it is treating life with respect which demands a thorough discussion and exchange of opinions, in hope of seeking the truth or gaining an acceptable conclusion.
My point of writing the previous comment is not to make a stand on whether Euthanasia is right or wrong, but rather sharing some of my questions and thoughts, hoping that one will not be myopic who rashly commit to a principle (Whether to permitting death of hopelessly sick) that one might not be able to follow when the actual situation befalls on oneself.
Such as “In a situation where the family has no longer the financial means to keep the health machine, no means to pay for the drugs to keep the coma patient alive, what will you do? Rob or kill others to save the person? Pull the plug?”
Life might seem to be full of choices at times, but it could be scary when times come to make a decision, reality leaves us without a choice. -
I think you got me wrong there. Discussing about life doesn't mean treating it as "a good or a thing", at least that wasn't what I meant.
Neither does it mean that we don't respect life.
What I meant was, to actually have to discuss and reach a conclusion on this, I'm ashamed.
As you can already sense, I am definitely more pro-life than I can make myself sound.
I'm absolutist, and I'm pro-Kant. Proud to be one too.
Therefore, my response to your questions will there be a resounding pro-life choice. Choose to live, even if I'm paralysed in bed etc etc. Only when no machines, no medicine, no operations can save me, then the choice to let go will be considered.
See, it applies for myself too. -
At 8:52 PM ,
said...did we reach a conclusion?
So you think a person need to write a will that state he/she choose to be kept alive no matter what, even when one is in a state of unconscious/bedridden/no ability to communicate or express one's will.
The patient should allow his/her loved ones to bear the burden of maintaining the his/her life with the machine hooked on and tried their best to fund it even in their worst financial state.
pls dont be mistaken what i meant, as i sincerely admire your belief and trying to an answer within myself too.
Just trying to frame your belief into reality where someone could understand what they should do when faced with this difficult decision and take a leaf from your belief. -
bah. my previous comment didn't show. and i cant remember what i typed.
but the essence is, i think this shouldn't be in the will at all. and if it must be, the opposite should be the way to go, much like organ donation.
and to prevent such a dire state from happening, save up!! :D
i think my argument can be supported by the 'slippery road' argument too~
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
