Dying with dignity is a thorny issue in society at present. It attracts controversy and is sometimes reported on in the media. It is also the subject of litigation, usually criminal prosecution. It is an issue that needs to be taken seriously, for several different reasons, and so it is important to understand the death with dignity pros and cons.
Terminal patients sometimes request or consider euthanasia, or mercy killing. This is because, these days, they are able to survive for far more time than they would have been able to in the past. Contemporary medical treatment makes this possible. The outcome is that they may live for a very long period, even years, in a state of palliative care.
The concept of euthanasia is self-explanatory and has been practised since time immemorial. Mercy killing, or the deliberate infliction of death on hopelessly sick or injured patients is easy to understand. It is also practised by soldiers after a battle. Medical patients, too, sometimes abandon their ineffective treatment regimen and resort to suicide. None of this is recent in its presence in society.
Yet the legal systems of many countries do not permit this activity on the part of doctors. The implications are obvious. Doctors should not be allowed to terminate their patients, since this may lead to the murder of those who otherwise had a chance of recovery. This is why doctors are sometimes prosecuted for what was supposed to be a mercy killing or apply for permission to end the life of a specific patient.
One notable recent case concerned Dr Harold Shipman, in the UK. He secretly killed 285 aged patients, without their (or anyone else's) knowledge or even consent. His method was poisoning. Legalizing euthanasia may then encourage medical practitioners with such designs to murder their patients. Shipman was sentenced to jail, where he ended his own life on his 58th birthday.
In the rare cases of euthanasia that do occur, lethal injection is a common method. It may be familiar to the reader since it is also used to execute prisoners given the death penalty. What people should understand about this method is that the chemicals used should only be administered by a medical practitioner. They are not sold to the public and some of them are actually medicines if used in lower dosages.
Some patients suffer extreme pain on an everyday basis or they are so incapacitated that they lose enthusiasm for future palliative care. They sometimes resort to less conventional methods, such as self-medicating with illegal street drugs, or they commit suicide through the more common ways. But if they are not able to commit suicide, they ask their treating practitioner to end their lives.
As the debate around euthanasia continues to rage in the media and other public platforms, terminally ill patients continue to commit suicide or apply for permission to be euthanazed. Legislation needs to regulate medical practise, but the inordinate suffering of terminal patients is also a significant factor in society and in how they are treated, one that is possibly more important than the legislation itself in some cases.
Terminal patients sometimes request or consider euthanasia, or mercy killing. This is because, these days, they are able to survive for far more time than they would have been able to in the past. Contemporary medical treatment makes this possible. The outcome is that they may live for a very long period, even years, in a state of palliative care.
The concept of euthanasia is self-explanatory and has been practised since time immemorial. Mercy killing, or the deliberate infliction of death on hopelessly sick or injured patients is easy to understand. It is also practised by soldiers after a battle. Medical patients, too, sometimes abandon their ineffective treatment regimen and resort to suicide. None of this is recent in its presence in society.
Yet the legal systems of many countries do not permit this activity on the part of doctors. The implications are obvious. Doctors should not be allowed to terminate their patients, since this may lead to the murder of those who otherwise had a chance of recovery. This is why doctors are sometimes prosecuted for what was supposed to be a mercy killing or apply for permission to end the life of a specific patient.
One notable recent case concerned Dr Harold Shipman, in the UK. He secretly killed 285 aged patients, without their (or anyone else's) knowledge or even consent. His method was poisoning. Legalizing euthanasia may then encourage medical practitioners with such designs to murder their patients. Shipman was sentenced to jail, where he ended his own life on his 58th birthday.
In the rare cases of euthanasia that do occur, lethal injection is a common method. It may be familiar to the reader since it is also used to execute prisoners given the death penalty. What people should understand about this method is that the chemicals used should only be administered by a medical practitioner. They are not sold to the public and some of them are actually medicines if used in lower dosages.
Some patients suffer extreme pain on an everyday basis or they are so incapacitated that they lose enthusiasm for future palliative care. They sometimes resort to less conventional methods, such as self-medicating with illegal street drugs, or they commit suicide through the more common ways. But if they are not able to commit suicide, they ask their treating practitioner to end their lives.
As the debate around euthanasia continues to rage in the media and other public platforms, terminally ill patients continue to commit suicide or apply for permission to be euthanazed. Legislation needs to regulate medical practise, but the inordinate suffering of terminal patients is also a significant factor in society and in how they are treated, one that is possibly more important than the legislation itself in some cases.
About the Author:
You can visit fenregistration.org for more helpful information about Some Of The Most Important Death With Dignity Pros And Cons.
No comments:
Post a Comment