Posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2004, at 15:03:52
In reply to Any ethicists out there?, posted by Dinah on December 12, 2004, at 14:02:32
Wow Dinah, that is a hard decision to make.
I am not sure that ethics will help you with that decision.
Some theorists consider that there is a difference between 'active' and 'passive' euthenasia (though the distinction may ultimately be untenable I think that it does have merit and at least an initial appeal). The difference is that 'active' euthenasia involves some action that leads to the death, such as administering a lethal injection. 'Passive' euthenasia, on the other hand is refraining from treating, such as giving a do not resucitate order.
In New Zealand active euthenasia is illegal, whereas passive euthenasia is legal. There are borderline cases, however. My grandfather got leukimia and he was in a lot of pain and he wasn't going to live for very long. The hospital kept increasing the morphene dose to kill the pain, but they were also able to tell us to get the family together within two days because they could also calculate that that dosage would kill him. In that case I have no doubt that that was the kindest thing to do in that situation.
I do agree that it is likely that a hospice is more concerned with alleviating suffering and dying with dignity whereas a hospital is more geared towards the prolongation of life. It is interesting that in the case of animals most people unhesitatingly decide to alleviate suffering whereas in the case of human beings we worry...
I am sorry Dinah. I don't really think that there is anything I can say. Except that whatever you decide remember that you did it with the best of intentions and you did indeed agonise over this one. Don't regret your decision, whatever you decide to do.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:428310
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20041209/msgs/428362.html