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 .
Answer by Highlander of the Woods
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.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
FAQ: The High Cost of Hepatitis C Drugs
April 14, 2014 — Last week, the World Health Organization strongly endorsed two new oral drugs that fight hepatitis C, a liver-damaging virus. The WHO recommended that all 150 million people infected worldwide be assessed for these drug treatments.
Read more on WebMD
Medicare Data Reveals Billion a Year for Costly Eye Drug
Many of those ophthalmologists attribute the extraordinary fees to the high cost of Lucentis. The Globe reports that Lucentis is more than six times more costly than an alternative treatment using the cancer drug Avastin, which has not been approved by …
Read more on BU Today
Exclusive: Biogen prices hemophilia drug on par with older therapies
"We think we have priced (Alprolix) to create parity with existing therapies on an annual cost of therapy basis," Tony Kingsley, Biogen's head of global commercial operations, told Reuters in a telephone interview. Drug pricing in the U.S. market has …
Read more on Reuters UK