|
I found a discussion on Amazon.com regarding whether or not medical assisted death (euthaniasia) should continue to be outlawed, or made legal. See that discussion here: http://bit.ly/nvjS4
I had something to add to that discussion, and I post it here on my website for those who are interested.
Thanks for your thoughtful input.
I assume you are referring to "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect," when you say that euthanasia goes against the H. Oath.
I question the idea that "euthanasia breaks the Hippocratic Oath" is a valid argument to outlaw it. There are many things the medical system and Doctors do these days that technically violate the Hippocratic Oath. Iatrogenic disease (death by medicine) is one of the leading causes of death in the USA. What's more, how many doctors do you know who will actively prescribe intelligent dietary changes as a means of treatment, without resorting to drugs and surgery as the primary approach to a disease, in accordance with the Oath stating "I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment". As far as I know (from doctors who have told me so) the medical training many doctors receive does not come close to equiping them with intelligent dietary measures for the treatment of disease, in some medical schools less than 2 hours is devoted to the topic, and even then the lecturers often skip over it because they don't consider it worthy of the classes attention. This approach to health is left to the naturopaths and Ayurvedic doctors... which many in the medical establishment consider to be misguided at best, and "quackery" or "should be made illegal" at worst.
The Oath also states, " I will keep them [the sick] from harm and injustice". Where is the justice is removing a person's right to be responsible for their own life and death? Is it more or less harmful to a person and their indwelling spirit (yes, the dictionary definition of health is "soundness or wholeness of body, mind, and spirit") to unnaturally keep them alive? And what about if they are being unnaturally kept alive against their own free will? Is that just?
America loves to espouse that it is "the land of the free" yet people here are not even free to be responsible for their own life and death. What are we collectively so afraid of? It is my observation that the fear of death only arises in the mind of those who are equally afraid of Life.
The Oath also states, "Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy," yet abortions are legal in many parts of the world, and many States in the US. Of course, that is not without some contraversy, but legal none-the-less.
How many doctors are following the directive that states "In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art" which is also part of the H. Oath? These days medicine is not even considered to be an "art" and it is typically anything but "holy". Spirituality and Art have for the most part been striped out completely by Newtonian and Euclidian science as the only valid approach to reality, life, and nature. The once "art" of Medicine is now, for the most part, a mechanical, soulless, and (he)artless means of "disease management" dominated primarily by the commercial interests of large drug companies, insurance corporations, and what have you. Where does this fit into the H. Oath?
You say (as does J. Wisdom in another post) "How do you know that man didn't want to live?". Yet how is that a relevant question? Is it not about that person him/herself deciding whether or not they wish to live or whether they feel too sick and unable to enjoy life?
The bottom line for me is this. Man alone should be responsible for his/her life and death. If a person decides to take his own life (be they terminally ill, or otherwise) that is their free will to do so.
Later in the discussion I shared the following thoughts...
(@Brent R. Kelly)
You make some interesting points.
I do, however, question your perspective. I don't wish to invalidate it, because it is, of course, your right to approach life and reality through whichever perspective you prefer.
Why is a "good death" (thanks for the definition) not a human right?
In today's society we consider it our right to prolong our life, and to extend our life beyond the point of natural death through the use of all kinds of modern medical technology and drugs, etc. Deborah Tornillo states that "God is in control - not man", and yet who is in control when we stick people onto machines to keep them alive? God, or man?
(Brent) You say that we have Hospice for the terminally ill. That is indeed correct, and there are many other options, yet I fail to see how the fact that we have services in place for those who wish to die (relatively) slowly from a terminal illness precludes alternatives (such as euthanasia) for those who do not wish to be in a Hospice.
"The reality is that it is not" - how exactly is this not a "good thing"? I am interested to hear your view on this, although I not sure which "reality" you are basing this on. Your own, or that of a person who is numbed from head to toe on a few hundred mgs of morphine a day, is hooked up to renal dialysis machine due to failed kidneys, and a ventilator due to collapsed lungs, are unable to enjoy even the smallest and simplest pleasures of life, and may continue to be in this state for many months, even years, against their own will? Scenarios like this are playing our every day.
Is it not an assumption to think that euthanasia specifically means "a doctor deciding that someone is not WORTH the medical effort"? Personally I think the more likely case is that of a person deciding they themselves are ready to pass on. To me, it is a secondary issue -- although a very important one, that I think would require strict protocols to be in place to avoid the kinds of potential negligence and marginalisation you propose.
"No, no, no Euthanasia is not a human right, any more than suicide or homicide is". I appreciate your point, yet I fail to see the parallel you draw between suicide and homicide. Please explain. I understand a society having laws the preclude homicide (the taking of another person's life against their wishes), because in that scenario I am impinging upon another human being's right to live. I am doing harm to another. In the case of suicide, medically assisted suicide, and euthanasia (where the person consents to it themselves), no one is violating another person's rights. I also happen to think that it is meaningless and irrational to make suicide illegal. To me this can only be a hangover from past religious ethics. Think about it for a moment. If I wish to take my own life, I do not direct harm to another. I don't violate the rights of another. What's more, if I do end my own life, how can such a law (against suicide) be effectively implemented? What are we going to do? Punish a dead body? I consider this to be a very strange way of thinking.
I should perhaps point out that I neither agree or disagree with a person taking their own life, with or without the aid of a doctor. It's ultimately of no consequence to me if someone takes their own life, of no real consequence to society, and thus not my responsibility to judge their actions, and thus none of my business. All I am saying is that a person's right to live a happy life, or as he so pleases (given he does not violate the same rights of others), is also that person's right to die in whatever way he so chooses (given that he does not violate the rights of others).
Before I close, I would invite us to consider the many yogis and mystics who have been conscious enough within their life that they "know" when it is time to die, prepare themselves accordingly, take care of all their personal and life affairs, and then consciously die. Many have simply sat in meditation and pass away. Has this person committed a crime? Should the police smash their way into this person's chosen place of death, and arrest them before they leave their body? Has this person not lived and died in a way that is more impeccable and life-giving than the person who dies most other ways, such as getting drunk and falling off of a boat at sea, or getting so ill and decrepit that the only way to keep them alive is with expensive medical procedures, care, and equipment? Not that I in any way condemn a person of the latter example, yet the question begs asking.
|
