Euthanasia

[Deeje]

I also believe this for privately funded religious hospitals, and the reason why touches on something you said: as long as there are alternative options.

If a privately-funded religious hospital is, say, the only place in the area for an oncology patient to go, or if a patient might not get a say in being admitted there - for instance, if the ambulance will take patients there by defaul when it's the closest hospital - then it should be required to provide every service it can be reasonably expected to provide that the patient might need.

It would be unusual for even a religiously based hospital not to treat an oncology patient. Since religious scruples would only affect elective procedures (AFAIK) I see no problem....do you? The hospital may choose to refuse elective abortion of healthy embryos, (considering it murder) or to open an IVF clinic (having conscience issues about discarding equally healthy, but unwanted embryos). I believe that they are within their right to do so. Why would there be a need to force them to do what they find morally repugnant?

Also, medicine is a licensed profession with a code of ethics. Every doctor has sworn an oath (or affirmed a statement) that they will put the interests of their patient first, in accordance with established medical practice. A doctor who puts their religion ahead of their patient to deny them care is violating this oath.

I guess that the important part of your statement is......"in accordance with established medical practice". What is established medical practice? What was established medical practice twenty years ago, is no longer standard today. What if some doctors are not keeping up with the latest practices? What if they simply practice medicine as they always have? Not bothering to update their knowledge?

The Hippocratic oath first states "do no harm" but it has been proven that a lot of what orthodox medicine prescribes as common practice does indeed do much harm. So I don't see medical practice the same way that you might. I am more incline to seek a more natural approach, which is gaining popularity now because of the way modern medicine is way too reliant of pill popping with many adverse side-effects, and symptom fixes, rather than in curing anything in the long term.

It's the duty of the doctor, not the patient, to resolve any conflicts between their professional duty and the tenets of their religion. A doctor who can't put the needs of her patient first should find another discipline where she can... or find a career outside of medicine.

It is the duty of the doctor to keep up to date with the latest findings. It is also up to the doctor to treat the whole person, not just their illness as if it were somehow separate from their patient as an individual person. Conscience and personal choice play a role in what many people will allow to be done to their own body. e.g. a cancer patient might opt for alternative treatment rather than suffer through the brutal rounds of chemo-therapy. Doctors cannot force a treatment on their patients, so they have to find ways of accommodating their person wishes, even when they don't agree with them. The doctor's personal position should have nothing to do with it. All he can do is offer his recommendations.

If a medical student realizes that the Hippocratic Oath they're being asked to take will conflict with a religious oath they've already made, then the proper course of action is clear: don't take that second oath. Anything less is dishonest and unethical.

Any oath taken by any individual is important. An oath taken before God trumps any oath taken before man for people of faith.
Doctors have choices, and if they can operate within the parameters of their oaths, then there is no harm done. A doctor who has reservations about the efficacy of blood transfusion e.g. can in his professional opinion refuse to administer something he doubts will result in successful treatment for his patient. Other doctors may use blood routinely. A comparison between the success rate of the first doctor and the second would reveal which one was acting in the best interests of his patient, and which one was just following accepted procedure.

However, once someone has taken that oath, it's reasonable to assume that they can be held to it because they freely declared they would be able to - and would - honour it.

Indeed. Oaths should not be undertaken lightly. Honoring the Hippocratic oath however, is sometimes not as simple as it first appears.

 

[Nicholas]

Some other points concerning problems with euthanasia:

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Nancy Elliott: People who qualify for Assisted Suicide are not necessarily dying.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Looks like I missed this reply when it first came in.

It would be unusual for even a religiously based hospital not to treat an oncology patient. Since religious scruples would only affect elective procedures (AFAIK) I see no problem....do you?

I absolutely do.

With the oncology patient, what can often happen is that the patient's condition will get worse to the point that they want to take the option of assisted dying, but the religious hospital refuses to provide this service and the patient is too sick to be transported someplace else.

The hospital may choose to refuse elective abortion of healthy embryos, (considering it murder) or to open an IVF clinic (having conscience issues about discarding equally healthy, but unwanted embryos).

Google Savita Halappanavar for an example of why this approach doesn't work. She was a pregnant woman brought into emergency at an Irish hospital with a distressed pregnancy. An abortion could have saved her, but the doctors refused to remove the fetus until they were absolutely sure it wouldn't survive. By that point, Halappanavar had developed an infection that later proved fatal.

I believe that they are within their right to do so. Why would there be a need to force them to do what they find morally repugnant?

Two reasons:

- medicine is about the best interests of the patient, not about the religious beliefs of the doctor or nurse.

- medicine has a standard of care. It's unethical to deliberately not meet that standard.

The medical professional is there voluntarily; the patient has no choice but to be there. The medical professional's religious beliefs can be easily accommodated by them getting a different job. The patient shouldn't be made to suffer for the doctor's beliefs.

Also, there's the issue of funding. A taxpaying citizen should expect that a taxpayer-funded hospital will provide the standard services that they would reaspnably expect.

I guess that the important part of your statement is......"in accordance with established medical practice". What is established medical practice? What was established medical practice twenty years ago, is no longer standard today. What if some doctors are not keeping up with the latest practices? What if they simply practice medicine as they always have? Not bothering to update their knowledge?

In most places, it's an ethical breach for a doctor not to keep their skills and knowledge up-to-date. Doctors have lost their licenses over this.

The Hippocratic oath first states "do no harm" but it has been proven that a lot of what orthodox medicine prescribes as common practice does indeed do much harm. So I don't see medical practice the same way that you might. I am more incline to seek a more natural approach, which is gaining popularity now because of the way modern medicine is way too reliant of pill popping with many adverse side-effects, and symptom fixes, rather than in curing anything in the long term.

I'm glad you're not a doctor, then.

It is the duty of the doctor to keep up to date with the latest findings. It is also up to the doctor to treat the whole person, not just their illness as if it were somehow separate from their patient as an individual person. Conscience and personal choice play a role in what many people will allow to be done to their own body. e.g. a cancer patient might opt for alternative treatment rather than suffer through the brutal rounds of chemo-therapy. Doctors cannot force a treatment on their patients, so they have to find ways of accommodating their person wishes, even when they don't agree with them. The doctor's personal position should have nothing to do with it. All he can do is offer his recommendations.

Right: the only religious beliefs that should matter when deciding what care the patient receives are those of the patient themselves.

Any oath taken by any individual is important. An oath taken before God trumps any oath taken before man for people of faith.
Doctors have choices, and if they can operate within the parameters of their oaths, then there is no harm done. A doctor who has reservations about the efficacy of blood transfusion e.g. can in his professional opinion refuse to administer something he doubts will result in successful treatment for his patient. Other doctors may use blood routinely. A comparison between the success rate of the first doctor and the second would reveal which one was acting in the best interests of his patient, and which one was just following accepted procedure.



Indeed. Oaths should not be undertaken lightly. Honoring the Hippocratic oath however, is sometimes not as simple as it first appears.

If a doctor has taken two oaths, one to their patient and profession and one to their god, it's up to the doctor to figure out how to honour both. It may very well be that the only way to honour both is to leave medical practice... and if that's the case, so be it.

When you can honour both oaths by simply finding another line of work, you never have an excuse for saying that your religious oath "trumps" your professional oath. What's really driving the conflict in this case is your desire for a particular career, not your religious obligations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some other points concerning problems with euthanasia:

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Nancy Elliott: People who qualify for Assisted Suicide are not necessarily dying.

What exactly do you see as a problem there?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm fine with it for terminal illnesses but I do question some laws like in Belgium, where you can essentially request to die for having severe depression and be approved. That rubs me the wrong way. I think the state has a duty to help those who can possibly be helped. That law strikes me as nihilistic.

 

[Nicholas]

What exactly do you see as a problem there?

"I would like to point out a few of the people who will be hurt. Three groups that are the target for Assisted Suicide are the sick, the elderly and the disabled. While there are many other problems with this kind of law, I want to focus in on them."

The author gives examples following this paragraph. It is too easy for these three groups to be emotionally (if not worse) abused into a convenient death.

You see it as a problem free process?

 

[Thief]

Humans have no qualms about euthanizing a pet or an animal that is terminally ill or suffering. We say it's because they cannot communicate their will to us. Because of this, humans feel they have the right and the moral obligation make the decision to terminate a pet's or animal's life.

However, when a human is terminally ill or suffering, it is socially considered immoral to end his/her life, regardless of his/her suffering. Sure, a human can communicate better than an animal whether or not s/he wants to live or die, but that point appears to be moot, because whether the person wishes to die or s/he cannot communicate these wishes, we have laws against assisted suicide and/or euthanasia (unless there are laws that I am unaware of in different parts of the world - check local listings).

What are your thoughts on euthanasia/physician assisted suicide?

Do other humans have the moral license to tell another what s/he is allowed to do with regard to his/her suffering?

Does a human have the right to tell another that s/he is not allowed to die until whatever is killing her/him takes her/him naturally?

What are the spiritual/religious implications of such a decision?

If it comes my way.....
I'm going to sneek off with a tank of nitrous oxide and a rubber mask

I will giggle all the way to heaven
without racking up a huge medical bill that no one is going to pay