Posted on 05/23/2010 10:11:46 AM PDT by wagglebee
Revisionist history has been released to an impressionable public in the HBO Movie “You Don’t Know Jack.” Contrary to Al Pacino’s portrayal of Jack Kevorkian that makes him the compassionate defender of patients’ rights, physician-assisted suicide enters a world of potential mixed motives and moral chaos.
By any standard, assisted suicide (or active euthanasia) is quite different from simply allowing nature to take its unimpeded course. It is popularly called “mercy killing.” Both morally and practically, this is easily distinguishable from simply permitting the death of a hopelessly ill woman or man (i.e., passive euthanasia). It should be opposed by ethically sensitive people.
Physician-assisted suicide is in direct conflict with our tradition of upholding the sanctity of human life. Whether preserved in the Ten Commandments or the Hippocratic Oath, that tradition says we are to affirm, nurture and give aid to people in pain.
For active euthanasia and assisted suicide will communicate the message that persons who are terminally ill have a duty to get out of the way of the living.
For example, suppose a cancer patient for whom treatment has been ineffective tells his or her family, “I know I’m a terrible burden to you, and I wonder if I shouldn’t just end my own life!”
I can imagine two responses.
“What do you mean!” says one family. “You are central to our lives. We love you, and you could never be a burden to us!” That answer communicates a relationship that inspires a will to live for the patient.
“Perhaps we should think about that,” replies another family member. “You might suffer toward the end, and we’re not really rich enough to hire nurses so you can be cared for while we stay at our jobs.” With such openness to the idea of dying, what feelings are likely to go through the mind of that patient?
Studies show that treatment for depression moves the vast majority of sufferers to think of active euthanasia as unacceptable for themselves. The alternative to making suicide easier and more acceptable is effective palliative care — which includes treatment for depression as well as degenerative disease or injury — and loving concern from family and friends.
In the Netherlands, where active euthanasia by medical personnel has been practiced for some time now, the issue quickly ceased to be assistance to persons requesting it and initiated debates over euthanizing some who had not.
“I don’t care about the law,” Kevorkian once said. “I have never cared about anything but the welfare of the patient in front of me.” What a strange claim from a pathologist who has no experience in the clinical treatment of patients! But most of us do care about the law. We care about law grounded in serious ethical reflection that affirms human worth in ways that affirm people rather than eliminate them when they need us most. Our call is not to become gentle executioners. Instead, it is to provide effective and morally responsible care to the suffering.
Rubel Shelly is president of Rochester College and professor of philosophy and religion at the college.
Dr. Death believes death is the only option for his "patients".
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Ping
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the Regime, and the rest of this Congress apparently believe in assisting death for as many as they can legally get by with via their Death Panels. Read the bill, now that it has been crammed down America’s throat, per Pelosi’s statement. Genocide of the Elderly facilitated and brought to you by this Congress??? Sinister, power-hungry Ghouls, would you say hell yes?? The fewer Social security recipients the better for this Regime??? You answer the question for yourselves.
Well, if I was in that position, I would do things myself, but having another to help does seem wrong...
This is a moral and terminal issue. Not sure where it belongs, but it really should not be up to outside help.
I used to think that I was pro-Life, but I’m beginning to favor assisted suicide for politicians.
Heh...well, at least you have the right priorities!
in the bed next to him is a 39 year old woman who suffered a case of sepsis which ultimately resulted in acute renal failure such that she requires dialysis 3 times/ week. She has contracted pneumonia while in the hospital and is in acute respiratory failure. She too needs a ventilator machine or she will die. She works at a local drug store and her treatment is paid for by her private health insurance.
there's only one ventilator. Both patients need it immediately. which patient gets it?
in the bed next to him is a 39 year old woman who suffered a case of sepsis which ultimately resulted in acute renal failure such that she requires dialysis 3 times/ week. She has contracted pneumonia while in the hospital and is in acute respiratory failure. She too needs a ventilator machine or she will die. She works at a local drug store and her treatment is paid for by her private health insurance.
there's only one ventilator. Both patients need it immediately. which patient gets it?
Can you actually cite an instance in which a hospital has run out of ventilators or are you just agreeing with Zero's death panel agenda?
I need more info to answer your question. Which patient are you?
Just get Che to shoot them.
It goes to 0bama’s dog.
Great question!
While the hospital may not run out of ventilators, they may have run out of ICU beds. The nurses on the regular floor where they are at are not trained to care for a vented patient.
If they are in the ER, and they are both vieing for the same ICU bed, keep in mind the ER is not the optimal place for such a high acuity patient.
This happens more often than not, trust me I know. If people knew how our hospitals were daily walking a tightrope of keeping people alive they would be outraged.
Is one of them a democrat?
I don’t dispute anything you’ve said, but death panels are not the solution.
Who said I supported death panels? But what do you should be the alternative? We already have ethics committees to help clarify issues of treatment, prognosis, placement, etc, that involve everyone from social workers, chaplains, nursing, and medical. In the end, it is still the family’s decision, although there is no obligation to provide futile treatment.
The elephant in the room is cost. If you insist on keeping a family member alive with expensive technology, despite the fact there will be a poor outcome, who should pay for it? That is the $64,000,000,000 question no one wants to touch.
In CA our hospitals are preparing for drastic cuts in reimbursement for the coming fiscal year. There are cuts across the boards going on. It will affect everyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.