As we all know, the heart is the organ which supplies the body's tissues with blood. For a long time, the definition of death as the arrest of heart action and irreversible breakdown of respiration was considered a fact that did not require legal definition. With the advances in medical technology in the 20th century, however, the use of drugs and machines such as respirators enabled doctors to restore vital functions within minutes after they had stopped and, sometimes, to maintain them indefinitely. As a result, many medical authorities came to define death as the cessation of cerebral function (brain waves) as well as of respiratory and circulatory function.
Many hospitals today have adopted a definition of death that equates it with irreversible coma. According to this definition, a physician may assume that a person's brain is dead if it reads a flat electroencepholograph reading. The hospital then would consider that it could withdraw supportive medical measures on the assumption that nothing more could be done for the patient and the extraordinary measures are no longer required for the support of heart function and breathing. Such decisions, however, can raise importants questions of medical ethics.
Legal as well as ethical consideration may also be involved in such matters. By the late 1980s, in the USA most states had legally declared brain death to be an essential part of the definition of death. The need for this move had become evident with the growth of organ transplant operations, because organs must be removed as quickly as possible from a dead person before they begin to deteriorate.. Difficult legal questions were also created by those situations in which modern technology made possible the maintenance of life in otherwise irreversibly comatose or terminally ill patients.
As a result, various groups and individuals have for a number of years been pressing for the "legal right to die", declaring that extraordinary life-sustaining treatments only prolong suffering. They have sought to establish this right, in particular by means of so-called "living wills" that confer authority for withdrawal of such treatments upon family members, friends or legal figures. Many countries have recognised the legality of "living wills", but the question of euthanasia that they involve - that is the induction of gentle death by passive means - continues to be the centre of numerous ethical and legal controversies.
As far as I am concerned, I strongly believe that euthanasia is a crime which equals premeditated murder. Suffering is part of our lives and very often the advances in medicine successfully put an end to it. Hope dies last.
*** Many thanks to my friend Andreas for providing the medical info on euthanasia.
Euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, the U.S. states of Oregon and Washington, the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (Spain), and Thailand. I don't think euthanasia is a crime. On the cotrary it is a good action and a relief for a terminally ill patient. I don't deny the advances in medicine but no miracles happen either when a member of your family is terminally ill. That was the case with my father. We asked the doctor to practise euthanasia because we wanted him to stop suffering and have a dignified death.
Posted by: Alexia M | April 27, 2009 at 12:45 AM
Legalising ‘voluntary euthanasia’ on the basis of excruciating ‘hard cases’ would result in its being routinely practiced on a large scale. Bad cases do not make good law. One leading medical ethicist said more than twenty years ago "We shall begin by doing it because the patient is in intolerable pain but we shall end up doing it because it is Friday afternoon and we want to get away for the weekend". "Aging Advisory Services" would offer a 1-stop shop where you could pop in your inconvenient relatives and, for a suitable fee, euthanase them in your lunch-hour!
Posted by: Jeff | April 27, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Palliative care is physical, emotional and spiritual care for a dying person when cure is not possible. It includes compassion and support for family and friends. Competent palliative care may well be enough to prevent a person feeling any need to contemplate euthanasia.
"You matter because you are you. You matter to the last moment of your life and we will do all we can to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die." - Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern hospice movement.
To my mind,the key to successful palliative care is to treat the patient as a person, not as a set of symptoms, or medical problems.The World Health Organisation states that palliative care affirms life and regards dying as a normal process. it neither hastens nor postpones death - it provides relief from pain!
Posted by: Andy | April 27, 2009 at 01:11 AM
You are very welcome Anastasia. It was my pleasure to help out in your research. I will not discuss the moral, religious or ethical aspects of euthanasia. I will only say one thing: medical research on what were a few years ago incurable diseases has made tremendous advances and many of these diseases can be cured. Many cancers can be cured completely if an early diagnosis is made. Organ transplant has given new life to people who were clinically dead. A doctor's duty is to prolong human life by ant means and as far as this is possible. When the patient breathes even through a respirator it means that there is hope. In addition medical science today can alleviate pain and suffering to a great degree. The most dignified death is the one which occurs naturally after having been exhausted all humanly possible treatments to save that person's life. Yes, in Switzerland euthanasia is legal but whenever I was asked to practice it, I refused. Can you imagine how the family of a euthanised person would feel when they discover , after the funeral, that their loved one could have been saved because of yet another breakthrough in medical research?
Posted by: Andreas | April 27, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Of course I meant "any" means not...ant means!!! Sorry for the typo.
Posted by: Andreas | April 27, 2009 at 10:18 PM
I believe that human life is precious even when we are suffering and I think that no one has the right to decide about somebody else's moment to die. As long as the heart beats, there is life. But even in the most extreme cases there must be hope and encouragement. Euthanasia isn't the solution to human suffering.
Posted by: stefanie-cy.blogspot.com | April 28, 2009 at 03:12 PM
Death is a foregone decision. Every person deserves a choice to live or die. The natural fear people have of suffering and dying and when cure is no longer likely, there are only two alternatives: euthanasia or unbearable pain. People who wish to retain their dignity and choices at the end of life should have the option of a peaceful and gentle death. Euthanasia is one of the most important public policy issues being debated today. Is this a solution or a crime? The outcome of the debate will affect family relationships, interaction between doctors and patients, and concepts of basic morality. Some doctors support euthanasia because they feel that there will always be patients who feel their suffering is senseless, who have made peace with their dying and want to get it over with. Patients still wish to end their lives in spite of the very best pain care and emotional support. If they are in a Permanent Vegetative State of mind (PVS), we should prevent the force-feeding of a patient who has no prospect of recovery and who may not wish to live artificially.
Euthanasia, also known as “mercy-killing,†means intentionally making someone die, rather than allowing that person to die naturally. Do we have the right to take a human’s life? Certain religious people do not oppose euthanasia because they believe that only God has the authority to take a human’s life. Direct killing of another person is wrong and at the same time, it would also be cruel and inhumane. Every person has a second chance to regain faith. On the other hand, doctors should have sufficient time to discuss end-of-life issues with the dying. We must increase our efforts to provide care to those who are dying, so that assisted suicide does not become the only choice they have. A terminally ill person is incoherent to decide in a short time of what they want to do.
Posted by: Emma | April 28, 2009 at 10:38 PM
God gave us life and only He can take it back - whenever He decides. And then you never know the will of God. Miracles do happen like in the case of my father who was in a coma for about a year after a terrible car crash. My siblings wanted us to pay a doctor and euthanase him after he had spent 6 months in a coma. But I refused. I kept visiting him every day and spent time talking to him, encouraging him. I could feel he could hear me. One day, on my regular visit, a doctor came to me and said: "Your father has recovered". Even the doctors were unable to scientifically explain this recovery. I agree with Andy and I believe in palliative care.
Posted by: Lucy | April 29, 2009 at 08:36 PM