I agree more on the fact that life is sacred. But those who ask for euthanasia (as Welby case) because it does not recognize as a sacred life, what would be discussed here is the quality of life of these people. It is not asking for euthanasia because you can not heal or because there is no hope, wonder why you are not treated like you should, because -Just-a condition in which it is not life as it should be. Indeed, as George Simenon said "I do not want to heal the sick, they want to heal." It becomes very difficult to decide to table a bill with this kind of situations, situations that are intimate, personal, individual. It is said that a law is applicable to all cases. Each one, each "patient" has a different situation, I can not apply a general law for very different situations. For example, Eluana Welby and me are two completely different situations. Welby was a conscious human being, was not a "vegetable", could speak, he knew what he was asking and he did now that he was in that particular situation, not 10 years or 20 years before chatting with a friend "ah you know if this happen to me I want to die" ... requested euthanasia after years of fight in that condition, after a sharp debate, in cases like this I am in favor. Deciding for others is selfish. Deciding not to pull the plug Welby was selfish because he was there and asked for something very specific, and had its own dignity. Similarly, in my opinion is selfish to pull the plug Eluana. Who has the certainty that even though she said many years before "I want to die in that condition" in time when it happened, he would not have had second thoughts? Unlike Welby, Eluana could not express his thoughts. In my opinion these are experiences that hard, so strong, you can not even speculate what you think after, you can not because your mind when you were given this property may change completely after, change, change your body, change the thought. It upsets me that in 1998 there CODE OF ETHICS OF DOCTOR is written in Article 34: "The doctor, if the patient is unable to express their will in case of serious life-threatening, can not fail to take into account the previously expressed by the same "
Eluana And if he did not want to die? He could not communicate , but does not mean that maybe did not have the desire to live. Welby announced. It makes me sad to think of the gesture made towards Eluana, is dead. Welby has less value because they do not communicate? was selfish "switch off" because she never informed her in that situation would "die" clearly did Welby. Eluana was in a coma. They pulled the plug, but if so she did not agree could not tell. It would have been better to let live ... then surely that was more important. How can you trust a thought that long ago by a Eluana that was not the same as when the plug was removed? What do we know if at the time of the tragedy she has had second thoughts? The man thought in his place. This makes me sad. The patient, even the inert me-always-have for its own dignity. Whether you deserve to die, or not speak because he can not - and in that case it is the duty of doctors to ensure an always-LIFE. Welby and Eluana were two people. They were for me the same plane. Yet only one was really listening. The disease should not be seen as a burden, if the patient is taken over, provided that it is guaranteed a dignified life. Perhaps those who ask for euthanasia because it does not sufficiently informed about the disease, because it is not taken over and serviced properly, because he is guaranteed a decent life if ... began to pave this road, perhaps requests for euthanasia would be a lot less. Maybe. Instead of starting by law, we should start with meeting the needs of the patient.
This is my mind, questionable.
Myriam.
0 comments:
Post a Comment