Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...cs/7721231.stm
I saw this this morning, and it raises a lot of tough questions. Should people have the right to chose when they die in these circustances? At what age should they be deemed mature enough to make this sort od decision?
Amyone got any thoughts?
People should absolutely be able to choose to die in these kind of circumstances.
We're both blessed and cursed with being the only species aware of death, to die with dignity and not in pain is the best we can really hope for.
Regarding age, well, I reckon 21 should be the lower limit, and, no matter the age, a doctor (maybe 2 or 3?) should have to sign to say that this is the correct decision in their opinion.
We're blessed (lol) in this country in that we don't have such a massively powerful religious wing, and so it will be a less muddled argument for us, not so for some other countries.
There's a difference between refusing treatment and requesting active lethality. Refusing treatment is always your right (apart from a few edge cases involving involuntary admittance to hospital for criminally insane and such), although the flip side is that the doctor has every right to roll his eyes and laugh behind your back if you refuse antibiotics for your infected finger and it ends up becoming gangrenous. I'd think that in a case like this, it should have the parents' agreement too; but if the parents and the child agree that the treatment is not something they wish to pursue, then there is no reason to go through with it. If I had to put an age cutoff on someone being alllowed to decide against their parents' will in these matters, I'd put it at either 18 or 21, whereever it is that you're allowed to sign contracts and whatnot. It's basically the same thing; you're making a decision that's going to affect you for a long time, so it's no different (apart from in degree) from signing a multi-year telephony contract, or getting yourself a passport, etc.
This isn't really a religious argument at all. There's the ethical question of a doctor not doing all s/he can for a patient, but if a patient refuses treatment, it's on his/her own head. Of course, it's completely different if the doctor said "There's no replacement hearts available" when there are, simply because he doesn't want to deal with the matter. But in this, the family was fully informed of the facts, so it's fine.
IMHO there should be an age-limit, but I'm not sure about having to have doctors sign off on it. If you read the article her doctors tried to set the dreaded child-protection services on her and her parents over her decision. They have a real conflict of intrest I think, or maybe that's just the way I see it.
I c an also see some merit in the argument that you can pull the plug and them tomorrow or next week or three mon ths from now a miracle-cure COULD be invented. I think that makes it harder because in a lot of cases it's false hope forcing people to suffer.
I think people should have the right to commit suicide without being forced into a loony bin. (Just like how they had it in that show called "Futurama").
But I think there should also be an age limit, and perhaps have at least two doctors to sign off letting it be known they were completely informed on the issues and such.
With the exception penicillin I don't believe a "miracle cure" has ever been found overnight. Generally people see these cures coming years, decades ahead of time. There might be advances that come in small increments from sheer luck. There is no miracle cure though.
I'm all for allowing people to die however they want to. I say let suicide be legal. If a person is in pain and they only wish to die in a way that isn't visually or emotionally disturbing, I say let em.
Why is it we, as a society, can kill the people we don't like in a "humane" way but we can't kill the people we do like in the same way?
I've often wondered why the people who are so against abortion on the "right to life" argument are usually the same ones calling for criminals to get the death penalty. But that argument would just derail the thread.Quote:
Originally posted by Gromgor
Why is it we, as a society, can kill the people we don't like in a "humane" way but we can't kill the people we do like in the same way?
I'm left wondering how many people had to sign off on the treatments for prior illnesses that were contributory factors in her heart problems. I really don't think doctors having to give her decision the go-ahead before she's allowed to let herself die is a sensible step. Given her age - and the force of habit to keep people alive that comes from their job - they're going to be very tempted to twist the facts because of their own personal views. Polititions do it all the time and they run the country, why don't we suspect those who're supposed to protect us from death in this way too?
Refusing treatment is an inalienable right in most western civilizations. Hell, you can register for a medic alert bracelet which simply says 'do not resuscitate.'
I actually have a friend who, after months of his immune system going completely haywire (Not AIDS, before anyone asks) eventually refused further drugs and operations (Which were doing nothing but causing more complications), basically saying, 'It's in God's hands now.'
Sadly, he died, but the point is that nobody denied him the right to refuse treatment. This concept of 'winning' the right to refuse treatment rubs me up the wrong-un. What, now I've got to go to court before I can tell people what they can and can't stick in me?
I do believe everyone also has the right to refuse treatment. I do believe everyone has the right to suicide.
Although this entire argument and people's opinions are VERY black and white. Either you have all rights to refuse all types of treatment, or none at all.
There is a huge grey area. What happens when mental illness comes into play? Mental illness is not quantifiable. I'm not saying I have all the answers but in a black and white world the discussion is easy. Trouble is... we don't live in a black and white world.
To add more matter for discussion check out this article about refusing treatment in Canada
Basically (from what I understand) a Jehovah's Witness (whom believe against blood transfusions) needed to survive. The patient was a minor and Child and Family Services deemed the parents unfit to parent who also refused treatment for their daughter. Then Child and Family Services legally forced treatment on the girl.Quote:
When she and her parents refused a transfusion, a Court of Queen's Bench justice granted Child and Family Services an order allowing doctors to give blood transfusions or blood products "as they deem medically necessary" without the consent of the teen or her parents.
It's seriously messed up, but to me that sounds like either torture or rape - Forcing someone to have things done to / put in to their body against their consent. Even worse when the court sanctions it.Quote:
Originally posted by Pae
Then Child and Family Services legally forced treatment on the girl.
I see what you mean about mental health becoming a questionable issue, but aren't their guidelines in most developed countries about their closest living relative having authority over them? The kind of thing applied when elderly people suddenly change their will to leave everything to the cat or whatever.