Wednesday, June 22, 2005

'Good Death'?

As I was doing my revision for Individual Development and Health, I've came across this topic under the Aging chapter. Mainly speaks about old people and what they eventually would have to face - Death. I feel really intrigue by the way that death is presented in this chapter that I thought I might want to share with people who are reading this.

Disclaimer: This is another solemn and serious post, if you are looking for fun and humorous post, check back another time. However, if you don't mind a learning something new, you are definitely most welcome to read on.

So don't claim that I'm a boring blogger (which I probably am), you're warned...

As a result of my busy schedule (I have a paper on Thursday, 23rd of June), I will only be discussing my views on Euthanasia post, reasoning being: it kept me awake when I thought I was going to once a again give in to my alluring bed.

In case no one knows what Euthanasia means, its medically defined as assisted suicide that is provide through medical means by injecting a lethal dose by the doctor with the explicit intention to terminate life that is perceived as unbearable, usually, although not necessarily, in relations to terminal illness at the consent of the patient (*phew… breathe in, breathe out…*). In laymen's it means the patient who is terminally ill has decided to give up the struggle to stay alive, so he/she has authorised the doctor to end him misery eternally as a last resort - meaning death.

The word Euthanasia literally means 'good death' or 'dying well', but it is considered a controversial issue not only among the health arena, it has remained as a much heated debate over the legitimacy of Euthanasia in moral sense. In other words, there is no universal consensus over the issue as of now.

We've all seen on TV or some might have personally experienced how people (friends, families...) are tormented by the drugs (medications) that a terminally ill person take not for the better of their health, but merely to prolong and postpone death (in case you need an explanation of terminally ill, it means an illness that one will not recover from and will eventually die from it). It is a painful process that the patient as well as his/her family members, friends and close ones have to go through, to see the person getting weaker and bed ridden for the rest of his/her remaining days. Imagine the hefty sum of money that the family has to incur for the patient for to have a bed in the hospital and the medications does not come cheaply. Of course, at this point in time, money is probably the last thing on everyone's mind, but the point I want to make is, it's draining every one out.

On one hand, I would have said, "Yes... go ahead, I'm supportive of Euthanasia." simply because, it’s too much pain to go through. I would deem it as a right that the individual have over themselves, the control over their life and death as a final wish of the patient. Undoubtedly, Death being the side effect of pain relief may be too much for one to ingest as many wouldn't be able to accept such an arrangement. Taking a step back to look at the situation in a rational stance, if it’s the only way for sufferings to end or at least die a peaceful death, it would be justifiable for Euthanasia to be legalised.

However, to look at the implications of Euthanasia critically, under what conditions do the doctor suggest Euthanasia as a last resort to the patient? When the patient is first diagnose as having contracted a terminal disease, where the individual is still sane and capable to make such a decision for themselves in a clear state of mind (taking into account the trauma that the person could possibly be going through at the same time). Or should the doctor suggest Euthanasia after they have tried all means and ways to sustain the patient to the point where no further improvements can be administer? Considering the seriousness of the person's state, is he/she still able to make decision for themselves? Are they still fully aware of the implications of the 'last resort'?

In addition to that, should we consider the wished of the other parties (family members) who are involved? Is it selfish to end it all just by signing the authorisation letter? Should the patient spare a thought for those who are alive, who want to keep the person with them for as long as they can? Is it an autonomous decision?

Basing my thoughts on the atrocities of the society nowadays, we cannot be sure that Euthanasia will not be susceptible to abuse. People can do immoral things for insurance reimbursement; surely we can relate to the potential exploitations of Euthanasia. How can we ensure that the measure remain safe and free from loopholes such that it is applied only under extreme conditions and for a good cause?

I guess it’s a question of the extent of one's rights? What are the terms and conditions that are packaged within human right? By exercising one's human rights, does it meant for one to take their own life? If so, why is suicide a crime? The person who has committed suicide might have been going through painful situation similar to those who are terminally ill. Does giving one the right to make decision regarding his/her own death, minimise the motivation for them to struggle and strive? We have heard enough about the miracle stories from people who are resilient in the face of diversities, so does giving people the 'easy way out' remove the elements of miracle?

It’s not a decision that is easy to put my finger on, and there are always more than two sides to the story for such a profound topic as Death.

Well, that's about it. I know it's a boring post and too deep and heavy, perhaps I've taken life too seriously thus the mind boggling post.

Some of you may not make sense of what I'm trying to say, but heck. Like what all bloggers say... It’s MY post; I write what ever I want...

eee der di.... eee der d... di... and that's all folks!!

Posted by Piglet at 12:12 AM

0 comments