Are Doctors Who Favour “Non Selection Treatment” or Passive Euthanasia Acting Selfishly?
Question by MrSandman: Are doctors who favour “non selection treatment” or passive euthanasia acting selfishly?
This question is for supporters of euthansia!
Some doctors feel quite strongly in their resolve that passive euthansia is more humane than active euthansia.
Why? If the decision has already been taken that death is in the best interest of the patient, is it not more humane to the patient to ensure that death is quick and their suffering is kept to absolute minimum?
In the case of babies with severe spina bifida, passive euthanasia, as I understand it, involves stopping all forms of treatment such as drugs which can drag the process of dying for weeks on end thereby prolonging the agony of both the child and the parents.
By doing this do you think that doctors are trying to morally protect themselves in way that remains consistent with their duties as a medical professional and their allegiance to the hypocratic oath by indirectly having a hand in the death of another human being?
The laws in different countries vary greatly on the subject of euthansia but I’m not interested in the legal aspect.
Best answer:
Answer by Chefed#1
I support active euthanasia .
Passive euthanasia doesn`t ease the pain of dying or hasten it ,
The passive approach is actually cruel .
If I am in pain and terminal I want Sodium Pentathol and then the euthanasia ,
Its like general anesthesia only permanent .
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Grant Hackett enters rehab: Australian swimmer seeks treatment for drug abuse …
… from the discipline to enter a rehabilitation programme for drug addiction of late. The athlete is currently being flown to the US with his brother Craig by his side, where he will seek treatment for his dependency on prescription sleeping drug …
Read more on The Independent
Back2Basics Drug and Alcohol Rehab Hosts Discussion Panel at Northern …
Flagstaff, AZ (PRWEB) February 28, 2014. Three former Back2Basics drug and alcohol rehabilitation residents, James B., Brad J. and Joe V., spoke at NAU to current students and staff about addiction, 12-step-focused recovery and life beyond residency.
Read more on PR Web (press release)
Fighting cancer with light-activated drug delivery by nanoparticle
A new type of treatment called "light-activated drug delivery" is showing promise as a way to give doctors control over precisely where and when drugs are delivered inside the patient's body. Now, researchers have developed a light-activated way to …
Read more on Medical News Today
Related Drug Treatment Information…
Your concern is worthy and well-deserved. Doctors act out of a moral obligation to “do no harm” for both personal and practical reasons. Let us treat the practical reasons now:
Firstly, in certain clear-cut cases such as the one you mentioned, clearly it is humane to end the baby’s life actively. However, what about other end-of-life decisions involving ailing family members, relatives, employees on company health insurance? In these instances, because of obvious conflicts of interest (the insurance company may not want the ailing person alive because of the money drain or a family member might not want a person alive because of a desire to lay hands on monies granted in a will etc), permtting active euthanasia is dangerous. When ever, some one takes some one else’s life, you can’t really be sure that the person being “killed” has given their informed consent to do so. We may be putting them out of their misery, willingly or without their express consent. We essentially embark on a “slippery slope,” in which we may lose control over how and when we wish to end our lives. In a country such as the netherlands, with government sponsored universal health care, such concerns are mitigated, because of no financial pressures from the private sector regarding expenses incurred from prolonging life. Here, in the US, it is unsuitable, given the aggressive, cost-cutting, penny-pinching tactics of insurance companies.
From a utilitarian perspective, the welfare of the many should be placed before the welfare of the individual. You can see why this makes sense, now.
In summation, doctors may refuse active euthanasia on both practical (outlined above) and moral grounds.
Please consider what I have said carefully. I’m not trying to disagree with you. I’m merely explaining why active euthanasia on a country-wide scale is not such a good idea. I respect your viewpoint, however.