Opinions on Euthanasia
The topic of euthanasia always elicits strong reactions among physicians, patients and individuals. Many have very strong views both for and against.
The term "euthanasia" comes from the Greek words "eu," meaning good, and "thanasia," meaning death. Hence "euthanasia" means a good death. Euthanasia has been practiced sporadically for thousands of years in multiple cultures. The definition of euthanasia is "the intentional cause of a person's death motivated by the desire to promote this person's best interest, using the gentlest means available." From these 2 perspectives, euthanasia is clearly different from murder, which only serves the murderer and is often cruel and harsh. "Gentle means" usually entail lack of pain along with respect, dignity, peace, and comfort. The process usually requires the active participation of a physician who will facilitate the death.
Did you know that humans are the only species that consistently takes care of their sick, the very young or very old, or those simply incapable of caring for themselves.
The question remains as to why this is. Why have humans “evolved” to a more complex form of human interaction, with the ideals of caring, altruism, and compassion being seen in Humans but not in other species consistently?. Or were we created differently from the beginning. (Sorry, that is another topic)
Many people suggest that the rising cost of healthcare is caused by caring for the gravely ill or those with incurable diseases. It is true that a large percentage of the healthcare dollars are spent in the last few days of a person’s life. But this should not be justification for euthanasia.
End of life expenses and dying patients in the ICU have only recently begun to receive considerable attention when talking about euthanasia. The definition of a good death is subject to interpretation and many physicians will disagree. But most would agree that a good death is more than a lack of pain and agony—it includes dignity and a peaceful environment in the presence of family and friends and possibly a conscious state, which would allow communication. In addition, a good death should not stress or emotionally scar those around the patient.
The issue of terminal sedation differs from euthanasia or assisted suicide in that terminal sedation uses high-dose sedatives and analgesics to alleviate pain and discomfort but not necessarily to hasten death although physicians acknowledge the potential. Death may occur, but it is not the primary intention. The difference between the 2 approaches is probably reflected in the attitudes of the physicians. In one German study, 90% of physicians were opposed to euthanasia but 94% considered terminal sedation to be acceptable.
Another European study called the ETHICUS study, examined end-of-life practices in European ICUs. It showed that although limiting life-sustaining therapy was common in Europe, active facilitation of death was rare. However, of particular concern was that a gray zone separated therapies aiming at pain relief and those that hastened death. In order to alleviate pain in some patients, it requires doses that also suppress respirations and sometimes heart and kidney functions, in effect, hastening death.
Balancing rising costs, and the increased ability to keep people alive with technology and drugs will continue to cause many debates amongst individuals. How a country manages and legislates these actions will speak to the countries priorities and their morality.
As a physician, I believe in being proactive with discussions on end-of-life events along with patient and family wishes. I believe that patients should be the primary decision-maker for what happens to them.
The difficulty caring for patients is when sudden unexpected events occur (as they always do) and patients and families rush themselves to emergency rooms or other facilities where many sometimes unnecessary procedures are done. At this point, we have to carefully consider all options and make the best informed decision.
Withholding care and procedures is not euthanasia if it is done in an informed manner. Allowing “nature to run its course” is an “ok” option in my opinion. If we fail to offer available care to patients because of our personal beliefs, family wishes, or purely financial reasons, without considering the patient’s choice, then that in my opinion is wrong.
I believe that patients should consider cost, burdens placed on families, personal beliefs, quality and quantity of life with the various medical options and at that point make decisions on their care.
I do not believe that intentionally taking life with euthanasia is morally accectable. There are many other options available and the easiest would be to just not seek medical care and treatments. The biggest challenge is to get people to understand that just because we can offer treatments doesn’t mean they have to accept it.
The best physician only extends life. Sooner or later, we all die!!
The term "euthanasia" comes from the Greek words "eu," meaning good, and "thanasia," meaning death. Hence "euthanasia" means a good death. Euthanasia has been practiced sporadically for thousands of years in multiple cultures. The definition of euthanasia is "the intentional cause of a person's death motivated by the desire to promote this person's best interest, using the gentlest means available." From these 2 perspectives, euthanasia is clearly different from murder, which only serves the murderer and is often cruel and harsh. "Gentle means" usually entail lack of pain along with respect, dignity, peace, and comfort. The process usually requires the active participation of a physician who will facilitate the death.
Did you know that humans are the only species that consistently takes care of their sick, the very young or very old, or those simply incapable of caring for themselves.
The question remains as to why this is. Why have humans “evolved” to a more complex form of human interaction, with the ideals of caring, altruism, and compassion being seen in Humans but not in other species consistently?. Or were we created differently from the beginning. (Sorry, that is another topic)
Many people suggest that the rising cost of healthcare is caused by caring for the gravely ill or those with incurable diseases. It is true that a large percentage of the healthcare dollars are spent in the last few days of a person’s life. But this should not be justification for euthanasia.
End of life expenses and dying patients in the ICU have only recently begun to receive considerable attention when talking about euthanasia. The definition of a good death is subject to interpretation and many physicians will disagree. But most would agree that a good death is more than a lack of pain and agony—it includes dignity and a peaceful environment in the presence of family and friends and possibly a conscious state, which would allow communication. In addition, a good death should not stress or emotionally scar those around the patient.
The issue of terminal sedation differs from euthanasia or assisted suicide in that terminal sedation uses high-dose sedatives and analgesics to alleviate pain and discomfort but not necessarily to hasten death although physicians acknowledge the potential. Death may occur, but it is not the primary intention. The difference between the 2 approaches is probably reflected in the attitudes of the physicians. In one German study, 90% of physicians were opposed to euthanasia but 94% considered terminal sedation to be acceptable.
Another European study called the ETHICUS study, examined end-of-life practices in European ICUs. It showed that although limiting life-sustaining therapy was common in Europe, active facilitation of death was rare. However, of particular concern was that a gray zone separated therapies aiming at pain relief and those that hastened death. In order to alleviate pain in some patients, it requires doses that also suppress respirations and sometimes heart and kidney functions, in effect, hastening death.
Balancing rising costs, and the increased ability to keep people alive with technology and drugs will continue to cause many debates amongst individuals. How a country manages and legislates these actions will speak to the countries priorities and their morality.
As a physician, I believe in being proactive with discussions on end-of-life events along with patient and family wishes. I believe that patients should be the primary decision-maker for what happens to them.
The difficulty caring for patients is when sudden unexpected events occur (as they always do) and patients and families rush themselves to emergency rooms or other facilities where many sometimes unnecessary procedures are done. At this point, we have to carefully consider all options and make the best informed decision.
Withholding care and procedures is not euthanasia if it is done in an informed manner. Allowing “nature to run its course” is an “ok” option in my opinion. If we fail to offer available care to patients because of our personal beliefs, family wishes, or purely financial reasons, without considering the patient’s choice, then that in my opinion is wrong.
I believe that patients should consider cost, burdens placed on families, personal beliefs, quality and quantity of life with the various medical options and at that point make decisions on their care.
I do not believe that intentionally taking life with euthanasia is morally accectable. There are many other options available and the easiest would be to just not seek medical care and treatments. The biggest challenge is to get people to understand that just because we can offer treatments doesn’t mean they have to accept it.
The best physician only extends life. Sooner or later, we all die!!
posted by Anonymous at 5:56 AM
5 Comments:
I really appreciate the work that you have put into this topic.
Maybe not a fair question but how would you vote if a "Oregon" law was proposed for Indiana? How someone would vote is a personal matter and if you choose not to answer I understand. Bashful does not seem to be your middle name though.
I would vote against it for moral reasons. There are too many legitimate ways to help someone through a terminal illness without actively killing them.
I fear that allowing this would provide justification and once it is acceptable, our human nature would proceed to the next step of euthanizing invalids, mentally challenged etc.
Through history, we have continually challenged acceptable moral standards. As more is allowed, more is wanted.
We can see this in drug uses, sexual practices, pornography, and other areas of our lives. These do not make us a better nation.
Without listing everything that you have written in past few days, it seems that the practice of this law has not been abused. There are conditions and/or cirumstances where the medical system cannot manage the symptoms and allow for a peaceful death. Generally, I thought all your posting was a postive for euthanasia. Somewhat surprised me.
I "knew" that you would be against this on moral grounds. No one is asking you to use this option nor should you be compelled to assist because of your training.
Part of my "morality" is that the only thing that I can actually call my own is my life. Reasoning such as, if we allow this then that may happen, does not carry much weight. May be a small part of a postion but there needs to be much more IMO. We allow people to drive(with certain rules) and we allow people to consume alcohol(with certain)rules. We don't get rid of these privileges because someone may drink, drive and then harm someone.
I do not disagree with your statements. But there have only been a few hundred cases at most in the USA of assisted suicide. But when you look at other countries, you will see that what started as just the terminally ill has progressed. In some European countries, they have euthanized deformed infants and the mentally retarded.
We do have control of our lives.
We can choose to accept or not accept available treatments.
We can choose to stop eating and allow nature to take its course.
When an active choice like this is made, I know that I, as a physician, can assist the patient in remaining comfortable without actively killing him.
Nature will take care of this naturally if we do not interfere.
Most people think that lack of nutrition or fluids is a horrible way to die. But when you actually look at the dying process in a terminally ill patient, you find that providing IV fluids and/or nutrition actually makes the dying process more painful and prolonged.
When IV fluids and nutrition is artificially given, the patient begins to leak fluids outside of normal places. It builds up in the lungs etc. and causes more breathing problems, hypoxia, anxiety, and pain.
God, (or nature) has designed the human body to be very efficient. Both in the living process and the dying process.
We are the ones that choose to interfere with this process.
I find interesting that you like to use the word "choose" a lot. We can choose to accept a treatment plan. We can choose not to accept a treatment. We can choose to eat, we can choose not to and you support this. Yet, if I want to choose the time and circumstances of my death, within certain limits, you would deny me that choice.
It is my life. It should be my right to choose. You should not be forced to choose it. You should not be forced to assist.
My feelings on the "next step" defense are known. I do not find using the examples of deformed infants and the metally impaired relevant to this argument. These people are not capable of CHOOSING.
I am all for allowing you your choice but you deny mine.
Post a Comment
<< Home