LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
|
Hi
I think it depends on the circumstances of each case as to whether treatment should be given or withheld in these life and death situations. A cancer patient who is going to die anyway, having reached the end of the line, should not be put through the discomforts of treatment but rather enabled to die in their own way, with dignity. Young people should not be automatically determined unfit to decide their fate simply because they are under the age of adulthood where they live - they are each different, with varying levels of competence just as adults are, and some are wiser than many adults. On the other hand, if someone is so ill that they cannot understand let alone make the choice, or if there is a good chance of recovery to a good life, then we have to err on the side of caution.
The problem with our society is that the emphasis is on prolonging life, rather than a good life. I am serious about this - I am about to drive 200 miles on the motorway, if I should be involved in an accident on the way and left tetraplegic, I would really rather be dead - and yet, the medical people will do all they can to preserve my "life", and I of course would be helpless to stop them doing that and helpless to end it myself. Anyone that helped me to fulfil my wishes would be put in gaol as a murderer, rather than being seen as the merciful agent of my will.
As medicine advances, we are going to run into more and more of these problems because we will be more and more able to keep life going beyond any reasonable enjoyment. We have to get this sorted out soon. The medical people have to be involved since they are the experts on prognosis, but they should not be permitted to make value judgements. The legal people have to be involved since they are the experts on law, but they should not be permitted to make value judgements either. The family, and other possible benefactors from the potentially deceased's estate should not be permitted to judge either. We have to get living wills established in law, and ensure that the medical people can follow them by amending the duty of care they have. After that, if we dont choose to make a living will, then the medical people will have to err on the side of caution and keep us alive.
It comes down in the end as to whether we have any right to determine our fate. I get very annoyed at certain religious types who insist that assisted suicide is wrong - they seem to be saying that the incredible pain of someone dying of say cancer, is somehow the will of (their) God and/or is somehow spiritually valuable. Since their God is love and mercy, the former is somewhat paradoxical. As to the latter, if severe and ongoing pain is so spiritually valuable then perhaps I could do these religious types a favour by causing them severe and ongoing pain to bring them closer to their God! In the end, we live in the UK in a multi-religious society - I am not of the same religion as these people, so why on earth should their views be applied to me via their unelected participation in Parliament?
On the other hand, the freedom to decide our own fate, which to my mind is inalienable, also has to be controlled of course. We cannot have a situation where suicide by otherwise fit and healthy people is enabled - otherwise we would be dropping like flies! I speak as someone who has seriously contemplated suicide before anyone rushes in, by the way. Suicide in that sense occurs where the mental pain exceeds the coping resources, and the only perceived way to stop the pain is through death. It is a failure of society that people are brought to such situations, so there is another problem on the list that needs to be solved. Suicide doesnt stop the pain of society in general, it just stops life, and in my experience most people contemplating suicide dont want to die, they just want the pain to stop.
Then there is the abortion debate. We have to have legalised abortion, because just as with prostitution, it will happen regardless, and we have therefore to ensure proper care of the women involved rather than often dangerous backstreet abortion clinics. However, abortion asserts that a foetus has no rights and can be killed - and that is a problem, if we are to say that we should have an inalienable right to decide our own fates, because surely once a foetus becomes concious it is a person who also has that same right? We must bear in mind that premature babies are being born right now and surviving, within the permitted time period of gestation for abortion to be performed. Whose right to self determination comes first in such late abortions - the child's or the mother's? My opinion, and thats all it is people, is that abortion has to be legal, but should not be permitted unless there is a very strong likelihood that the quality of life of the child will be extremely poor due to inherited illness etc, the pregnancy is the result of rape or the life of the mother will be endangered because of the pregnancy. "Lifestyle" reasons in an age of very effective contraception are simply not good enough reasons for terminating a life - if my son becomes a pain in the neck, it would be accounted as murder if I terminated him because he interfered with my lifestyle, so I dont see how his age (under 6 months or older) or location (womb or my living room) really affects that.
Overall, we are affected in modern society by clinging to a system of belief that is outdated, whilst every day advancing our understanding and capabilities. We have to resolve these issues, and we cannot look to a system of belief which is fossilized in the world of two millennia ago to do this.
E
|
Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights - 
Profile
RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread