I would like to rant.
The vast majority of Canadians who prepare powers of attorney for personal care (i.e. living wills) have directions that go something like this:
The following are my instructions to my attorney, and my wishes, with respect to the giving or refusing of consent to specified kinds of treatment under specified circumstances: I do not wish to have my life unduly prolonged by any course of treatment or any other medical procedure which offers no reasonable expectation of my recovery from life threatening physical or mental incapacity, except as may be necessary for the relief of suffering.
Basically, all this means is that most people would not want to kept alive on a life support system in a persistent vegetative state if there is no hope of getting better. However, the problem that arises is that not unduly prolonging life is a far cry from ending it mercifully and swiftly. Consider these two scenarios:
Scenario #1 - Your beloved family pet, a poodle named Lazarus, is run over by a car and just manages to survive. You rush him to the vet who tells you that Lazarus has been severely brain damaged, has sustained multiple fractures and internal injuries, has no chance of recovery and will inevitably die within the next few weeks.
Scenario #2 - Your 75 year old mother has incurable cancer and has just sustained a stroke. She has lapsed into a coma from which the doctors assure you she will never regain consciousness. She can't eat or use the bathroom herself. Your mother has appointed you as her power of attorney for personal care and repeatedly directed you during her lifetime that she would not want her life to continue under these kinds of circumstances. The doctors assure you that your mother has no chance of recovery and will die sometime within the next few weeks or months.
The vast majority of Canadians who prepare powers of attorney for personal care (i.e. living wills) have directions that go something like this:
The following are my instructions to my attorney, and my wishes, with respect to the giving or refusing of consent to specified kinds of treatment under specified circumstances: I do not wish to have my life unduly prolonged by any course of treatment or any other medical procedure which offers no reasonable expectation of my recovery from life threatening physical or mental incapacity, except as may be necessary for the relief of suffering.
Basically, all this means is that most people would not want to kept alive on a life support system in a persistent vegetative state if there is no hope of getting better. However, the problem that arises is that not unduly prolonging life is a far cry from ending it mercifully and swiftly. Consider these two scenarios:
Scenario #1 - Your beloved family pet, a poodle named Lazarus, is run over by a car and just manages to survive. You rush him to the vet who tells you that Lazarus has been severely brain damaged, has sustained multiple fractures and internal injuries, has no chance of recovery and will inevitably die within the next few weeks.
Scenario #2 - Your 75 year old mother has incurable cancer and has just sustained a stroke. She has lapsed into a coma from which the doctors assure you she will never regain consciousness. She can't eat or use the bathroom herself. Your mother has appointed you as her power of attorney for personal care and repeatedly directed you during her lifetime that she would not want her life to continue under these kinds of circumstances. The doctors assure you that your mother has no chance of recovery and will die sometime within the next few weeks or months.
What is the difference between these two scenarios? Well, there is a huge difference. 99% of those owning Lazarus would ask for their beloved pet to be euthanized without hesitation. On the other hand, if you live in the U.S. or Canada, 99% of doctors will refuse to anything more than remove the intravenous tube and provide pain relief because to do anything more proactive than that is illegal.
If we leave religious hocus pocus to the side for a moment, why should someone is enduring terrible suffering as a result of an incurable disease not have the right to die if they possess the mental capacity to make that choice? Similarly, even if someone who is dying no longer possesses the ability to give or refuse medical care, why shouldn't their designated decision maker(s) be permitted to hasten the end of their life? I just don't get it and this is the story of the woman pictured above which set me off on my rant: http://www.bad-news-day.com/chantal-sebires-euthanasia-plea-rejected
If we leave religious hocus pocus to the side for a moment, why should someone is enduring terrible suffering as a result of an incurable disease not have the right to die if they possess the mental capacity to make that choice? Similarly, even if someone who is dying no longer possesses the ability to give or refuse medical care, why shouldn't their designated decision maker(s) be permitted to hasten the end of their life? I just don't get it and this is the story of the woman pictured above which set me off on my rant: http://www.bad-news-day.com/chantal-sebires-euthanasia-plea-rejected
Why, obviously, humans have a view of the world as a hierarchy in which we are the top dogs. We regard ourselves as the sole custodians of Earth and all such inhabitants. It is no doubt due to religious legislation that we cannot openly choose to end our lives, or have them ended for us, and because of this refusal to accept ourselves as part of the world, rather than its rulers, we have hindered our progress in several areas.
ReplyDeleteThat's my theory, anyway.
The case of Ms. Sebire obviously raises some differences from the primary issue raised in this post: why isn`t euthanasia of dying patients permitted in exactly the same way as it is permitted with your dying pets. It is assinine in the extreme to be allowed to put your dog down and yet be forced to use dehydration to allow a loved one to exit the world because you can remove an IV but not give a fatal dose of barbituates. If anyone can provide a non-religious explanation for this, I would love to hear it.
ReplyDeleteFirst, if my dog's name was Lazarus, I would put it down regardless of any illness or injury.
ReplyDeleteMore to the point, the non-religious explanation that you are looking for is rooted in the fact that our society has evolved (or devolved) to the point where there is very little respect for one's ability to manage his or her own life. We can't manage our own money, so we get forced savings. We can't decide when we want to die, so we have to rely on the mercy of others who may be charged for breaking the law. It is that simple.