on bioethics and "mercy"
I'd like to begin by saying a quick bit about Million Dollar Baby. I have not seen this movie, nor may I ever, but I'd still like to point out the fallacy of the situation it addresses and relate it to the bill signed in to law today by our president. I wish people would quit comparing this idea of "mercy killing" to reality... in the movie (stop reading if you don't want to know how it ends) the woman has a severe spinal cord injury and (yada yada yada) doesn't deem her life worth living any longer. Since she is not incapacitated and still able to speak and reason about her decision to live, the doctors and hospital are legally obligated to do as she desires... even if that means turning off a ventilator and thus ending her life as dictated by her signature and checkmarks on a living will. However, in the movie, her coach must "help" her die by giving her a lethal dose of adrenaline coupled with disconnecting a ventilator. Come on folks-- this is Hollywood! Even if you've never worked in the medical profession and are completely daft you should understand that this would not happen.
Now, let us move on to the recent debate of Terri Schiavo. Many people defending this woman's right to live say Terri's fate is between her and God, and the decision to remove her feeding tube does not belong to her husband. But to those who feel this way, I'd like to ask if the insertion of a feeding tube to begin with was interfering with a decision that should have been left to the woman and God. I apologize for the awkwardness of this question, but what I'm getting at is the blurring between the distinction of saving and taking a life. In either case, aren't we "playing God" in some way? Obviously, I'm not trying to say here that medicine shouldn't strive to save people under all immediate circumstances-- this is the integral philosophy of medicine but it does bring up a good point. Just as the religious beliefs of some prohibit certain types of medical treatments like blood transfusions or chemotherapy in writing, people should take the idea of a living will more seriously, that way our fate won't have to be decided by congress, but by what we decide for ourselves. It's a personal decision-- those who want to be kept alive, even if in a "persistent vegetative state" will be kept alive, with no questions asked, and those who feel they'd rather die if in the same state can have their wishes considered with the same respect.
The NIH says a persistent vegetative state is: "a term commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as 'brain-death' that can follow a coma. People in [this] state cannot think, speak or respond to commands and are not aware of their surroundings. They may have noncognitive functions and breathing and circulation may remain relatively intact. They might move spontaneously and even grimace, cry or laugh. Some might regain some awareness after being in a persistent vegetative state but others might remain in the state for decades."
The principles of bioethics tell us that when a person is unable to speak for themselves, it is the person closest to them that should be left to make decisions on their behalf. As I'd like to believe, our country respects the sanctity of marriage above all others in this regard, therefore this person would be her husband. Is this to say the wishes of her parents and siblings should not be honored? Hardly, and I would dare to argue that in many analogous situations, the spouse's feelings correspond with the feelings of the parents, thus, these decisions do not become so volatile and tragic to either party. Without coming out and saying whether this decision is right or wrong, ultimately it seems awkward for it to be in court. Where then does it belong in this crazy circumstance? Well, let us all be prepared for next time and put it on paper. It'll save our survivors and advocates lot of grief and media attention too. It is sad that we must go to such lengths, but people are given so many options nowadays that it may not be long before we forget what it's like to die in peace of natural causes. oh, and you might want to watch out for that slippery slope too.
k
Now, let us move on to the recent debate of Terri Schiavo. Many people defending this woman's right to live say Terri's fate is between her and God, and the decision to remove her feeding tube does not belong to her husband. But to those who feel this way, I'd like to ask if the insertion of a feeding tube to begin with was interfering with a decision that should have been left to the woman and God. I apologize for the awkwardness of this question, but what I'm getting at is the blurring between the distinction of saving and taking a life. In either case, aren't we "playing God" in some way? Obviously, I'm not trying to say here that medicine shouldn't strive to save people under all immediate circumstances-- this is the integral philosophy of medicine but it does bring up a good point. Just as the religious beliefs of some prohibit certain types of medical treatments like blood transfusions or chemotherapy in writing, people should take the idea of a living will more seriously, that way our fate won't have to be decided by congress, but by what we decide for ourselves. It's a personal decision-- those who want to be kept alive, even if in a "persistent vegetative state" will be kept alive, with no questions asked, and those who feel they'd rather die if in the same state can have their wishes considered with the same respect.
The NIH says a persistent vegetative state is: "a term commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as 'brain-death' that can follow a coma. People in [this] state cannot think, speak or respond to commands and are not aware of their surroundings. They may have noncognitive functions and breathing and circulation may remain relatively intact. They might move spontaneously and even grimace, cry or laugh. Some might regain some awareness after being in a persistent vegetative state but others might remain in the state for decades."
The principles of bioethics tell us that when a person is unable to speak for themselves, it is the person closest to them that should be left to make decisions on their behalf. As I'd like to believe, our country respects the sanctity of marriage above all others in this regard, therefore this person would be her husband. Is this to say the wishes of her parents and siblings should not be honored? Hardly, and I would dare to argue that in many analogous situations, the spouse's feelings correspond with the feelings of the parents, thus, these decisions do not become so volatile and tragic to either party. Without coming out and saying whether this decision is right or wrong, ultimately it seems awkward for it to be in court. Where then does it belong in this crazy circumstance? Well, let us all be prepared for next time and put it on paper. It'll save our survivors and advocates lot of grief and media attention too. It is sad that we must go to such lengths, but people are given so many options nowadays that it may not be long before we forget what it's like to die in peace of natural causes. oh, and you might want to watch out for that slippery slope too.
k
posted by Kim at 10:14 PM
1 Comments:
This is the most sensible thing I've read on this subject, thank God.
Post a Comment
<< Home