Dutch Doctor Loses Euthanasia Appeal This short article makes my point precisely. So what point is that (the curious reader is asking)?
I am, have been, and will be against active euthanasia. I have read all the arguments in favor, and still believe that physicians should not engage in euthanasia. Here is my argument.
We have an obligation, as physicians, to relieve suffering. That moral obligation must have boundaries. I clearly distinguish between active and passive euthanasia here. Passive euthanasia occurs when we allow nature and disease to take their course. I am not against discontinuing a respirator, or even feedings in a patient who all agree has no probability of recovery. I am not against giving enough narcotic to relieve pain, even if that dose could possibly be fatal. At the same time, I cannot purposely take a single life. To do so starts me down a slippery slope. What criteria do I use to justify euthanasia? How do I decide?
In my mind, and the judges, this physician slid down that slope.
The doctor, who appealed the verdict to test the limits of the law, had helped a man to take his life. The man suffered from incontinence, dizziness and immobility and said he was tired of life; but the court said his condition did not justify a mercy killing, which is legal only if the patient faces intolerable suffering.
Related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Comments are closed.