Saturday, July 7, 2007
EUTHANAISA RESEARCH-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia
Euthanasia by means
There is passive, non-aggressive, and aggressive. Passive euthanasia is withholding common treatments (such as antibiotics, drugs, or surgery) or giving a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death (principle of double effect). Passive euthanasia is currently the most accepted form as it is currently common practice in most hospitals. Non-aggressive Euthanasia is the practice of withdrawing life support and is more controversial. Aggressive Euthanasia is using lethal substances or force to kill and is the most controversial means.
Euthanasia by consent
There is involuntary, non-voluntary, and voluntary. Involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia against someone’s will and equates to murder. This kind of euthanasia is almost always considered wrong by both sides and is rarely debated. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when the person is not competent to or unable to make a decision and it is thus left to a proxy like in the Terri Schiavo case. This is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient. Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia with the person’s direct consent, but is still controversial as can be seen by the arguments section below.
Other designations
There are also the designations of mercy killing, animal euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide which is a term for aggressive voluntary euthanasia.
Reasons given for Voluntary Euthanasia:
Choice: Proponents of VE emphasize that choice is a fundamental principle for liberal democracies and free market systems.
Quality of Life: The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease can be incomprehensible, even with pain relievers, to a person who has not gone through it. Even without considering the physical pain, it is often difficult for patients to overcome the emotional pain of losing their independence.
Economic costs and human resources: Today in many countries there is a shortage of hospital space. The energy of doctors and hospital beds could be used for people whose lives could be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die which increases the general quality of care and shortens hospital waiting lists.
Moral: Some people consider euthanasia to be just another choice a person makes, and for moral reasons against it to be undue influence by others.
Pressure: All the arguments against voluntary euthanasia can be used by society to form a terrible and continuing psychological pressure on people to continue living for years against their better judgement. One example of this pressure is the risky and painful methods that those who genuinely wish to die would otherwise need to use, such as hanging.
Sociobiology: Currently many if not most euthanasia proponents and laws tend to favor the dying or very unhealthy for access to euthanasia. However some highly controversial proponents claim that access should be even more widely available. For example, from a sociobiological viewpoint, genetic relatives may seek to keep an individual alive (Kin Selection), even against the individual's will. This would be especially so for individuals who are not actually dying anyway. More liberal voluntary euthanasia policies would empower the individual to counteract any such biased interest on the part of relatives.
Reasons given against Voluntary Euthanasia:
Professional role: Critics argue that VE could unduly compromise the professional roles of health care employees, especially doctors. They point out that every doctor must swear upon some variation of the Hippocratic Oath, which they interpret as explicitly excluding euthanasia.
Moral: Some people consider euthanasia of some or all types to be morally unacceptable. This view usually treats euthanasia to be a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a type of suicide, the morality of which is the subject of active debate.
Theological: Voluntary euthanasia often has been rejected as a violation of the sanctity of human life. Specifically, some Christians and Jews argue that human life ultimately belongs to God, so that humans ought not make the choice to end life. Accordingly, some theologians and other religious thinkers consider VE (and suicide generally) as sinful acts, i.e. unjustified killings.
Feasibility of implementation: Euthanasia can only be considered "voluntary" if a patient is mentally competent to make the decision, i.e., has a rational understanding of options and consequences. Competence can be difficult to determine or even define.
Necessity: If there is some reason to believe the cause of a patient's illness or suffering is or will soon be curable, the correct action is sometimes considered to be attempting to bring about a cure or engage in palliative care.
Wishes of Family: Family members often desire to spend as much time with their loved ones as possible before they die.
Consent under pressure: Given the economic grounds for voluntary euthanasia (VE), critics of VE are concerned that patients may experience psychological pressure to consent to voluntary euthanasia rather than be a financial burden on their families. Even where health costs are mostly covered by public monies, as in various European counties, VE critics are concerned that hospital personnel would have an economic incentive to advise or pressure people toward euthanasia consent.While VE proponents concede that personal and even socialized economic costs may add to the motivations for consent, they point out that health systems offer sufficient exceptions so as to relieve the pressure on hospital personnel.
Case Study 1-Karen Ann Quinlan
Karen Ann Quinlan (March 29, 1954 – June 11, 1985) was an important figure in the history of the right to die debate in United States. When she was 21, Quinlan fell unconscious after coming home from a party, and lapsed into a persistent vegetative state. After she was kept alive on a ventilator for several months without improvement, her parents requested the hospital to discontinue active care and allow her to die. The hospital refused, and the subsequent legal battles hit headlines and set significant precedents. Not only was the case groundbreaking legally, it was remarkable for its rare appeal to religious principles. Because she and her family were Catholics, several principles of Catholic moral theology were critical in deciding the case and thus influencing a development in American law, an influence replicated around the world. The case is credited also with the development of the modern field of bioethics. Although Quinlan was removed from active life support in 1976, she lived on in a coma for almost a decade until her death from pneumonia in 1985.
Quinlan's case continues to raise important questions in moral theology, bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship and civil rights; her case has affected the practice of medicine and law around the world. Three significant outcomes of her case were the development of formal ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices, and the development of advance health directives.
Case Study 2:Terri Schiavo
Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005), from St. Petersburg, Florida, United States was a woman who suffered brain damage and became dependent on a feeding tube. She collapsed in her home on February 25, 1990, and experienced respiratory and cardiac arrest, leading to 15 years of institutionalization and a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state (PVS). In 1998, Michael Schiavo, her husband and guardian, petitioned the Pinellas County Circuit Court to remove her feeding tube. Robert and Mary Schindler, her parents, opposed this, arguing she was conscious. The court determined that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The battle stretched on for seven years and included involvement by politicians and advocacy groups. Before the court's decision was carried out, on March 18, 2005, the Florida Legislature and United States Congress had passed laws, signed by the Governor of Florida and President of the United States, respectively, that were designed to prevent removal of Schiavo's feeding tube. These laws were overturned by the supreme courts of Florida and the United States. These events resulted in extensive national and international media coverage.
By March 2005, the legal history around the Schiavo case included fourteen appeals and numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in Federal District Court; Florida legislation struck down by the Supreme Court of Florida; a subpoena by a congressional committee to qualify Schiavo for witness protection; federal legislation (Palm Sunday Compromise); and four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
She died at a Pinellas Park hospice on March 31, 2005, at the age of 41.
the world will turn WILD.
12:32 AM
|
