Recent debates over active euthanasia, “killing” aterminally ill patient, in Holland, has risen the questionwhether euthanasia is immoral or a simple human right. Doctorsseem to have no doubt.
They made an oath. The definition of Euthanasia depends on whether it is activeor passive. Active Euthanasia i only allowed in Holland, and itmeans that the doctor takes direct measures to put a patient tosleep, whereas passive Euthanasia only involves stopping pillconsumption, or stopping treatment. In England, only passiveEuthanasia is allowed. Euthanasia touches some of the deepest feelings in humanbeings.
It is the power over life and death, and responsibilitiesno one wishes to take, have to be taken. This, of cause, leads tothe ultimatum, that it is the patients own choice. But can weallow some one to take their own lives? Doesn’t this mean thateveryone else around the patient have failed, that more couldhave been done? From the patients point of view, a lot ofarguments talk in favor of euthanasia. For one, no body wants tobe a burden.Order now
If a person has had a car accident which paralyseshim from neck and down, and is doomed to sit in a wheelchair forthe rest of his life, he knows that he will be 100% dependant onthe ones that care for him, his lived ones, forever. It can alsobe mentioned that the life quality of a terminally ill patient,gets reduced a lot. Never being able to walk again, never beingable to talk to your children again, never being able to goshopping, swimming, playing, driving etc. must be terrible foranyone. The whole situation only gets worse, if the patienthimself, can see that his condition is worsening, and only timekeeps his thoughts clear.
A third very important point, is pain. If people see a deer, which had been hit by a car, and is interrible pain, they will kill it, out of pitty. Why shouldn’t thesame be allowed with humans, if pain reaches a level, where it isunbearable? For these people, who do not have the choice ofactive euthanasia, self-starvation is the only choice. The doctors view on euthanasia, seems to be overalldifferent. First of all, they have taken their wove, always toassist patients in prolonging their lives, and Euthanasiacompletely contradicts this.
Their approach is “Where there islife, there is hope”, so even a person, who has 20 tubes stuck inthem, feeding them, breathing for them, there is still life, andwho knows? Maybe the future will bring the cure?Euthanasia does mean “Good death”, but there can still be noconclusion to a question, whether Euthanasia should be acceptedor not. Psychologists, philosophers, doctors and everybody else,will consider this question for all time. My opinion is, thatanyone who is terminally ill, should have the choice, but to allrules there are exceptions, and to something as serious as this,there shouldn’t be.