Winter Will Be Here Soon -- Study hard as finals approach...

  __________________ ____________________  



Recent debates over active euthanasia, "killing" a
terminally ill patient, in Holland, has risen the question
whether euthanasia is immoral or a simple human right.
Doctors seem to have no doubt. They made an oath.
The definition of Euthanasia depends on whether it is
active or passive. Active Euthanasia i only allowed in
Holland, and it means that the doctor takes direct measures
to put a patient to sleep, whereas passive Euthanasia only
involves stopping pill consumption, or stopping treatment.
In England, only passive Euthanasia is allowed.
Euthanasia touches some of the deepest feelings in human
beings. It is the power over life and death, and
responsibilities no one wishes to take, have to be taken.
This, of cause, leads to the ultimatum, that it is the
patients own choice. But can we allow some one to take
their own lives? Doesn't this mean that everyone else
around the patient have failed, that more could have been
done? From the patients point of view, a lot of arguments
talk in favor of euthanasia. For one, no body wants to be a
burden. If a person has had a car accident which paralyses
him from neck and down, and is doomed to sit in a
wheelchair for the rest of his life, he knows that he will
be 100% dependant on the ones that care for him, his lived
ones, forever. It can also be mentioned that the life
quality of a terminally ill patient, gets reduced a lot.
Never being able to walk again, never being able to talk to
your children again, never being able to go shopping,
swimming, playing, driving etc. must be terrible for
anyone. The whole situation only gets worse, if the patient
himself, can see that his condition is worsening, and only
time keeps his thoughts clear. A third very important
point, is pain. If people see a deer, which had been hit by
a car, and is in terrible pain, they will kill it, out of
pitty. Why shouldn't the same be allowed with humans, if
pain reaches a level, where it is unbearable? For these
people, who do not have the choice of active euthanasia,
self-starvation is the only choice.
The doctors view on euthanasia, seems to be overall
different. First of all, they have taken their wove, always
to assist patients in prolonging their lives, and
Euthanasia completely contradicts this. Their approach is
"Where there is life, there is hope", so even a person, who
has 20 tubes stuck in them, feeding them, breathing for
them, there is still life, and who knows? Maybe the future
will bring the cure?
Euthanasia does mean "Good death", but there can still be
no conclusion to a question, whether Euthanasia should be
accepted or not. Psychologists, philosophers, doctors and
everybody else, will consider this question for all time.
My opinion is, that anyone who is terminally ill, should
have the choice, but to all rules there are exceptions, and
to something as serious as this, there shouldn't be.


Quotes: Search by Author