8
January 2000
Add
life to days for the dying
(Keywords:
euthanasia, hospice care, death)
Lately the media reports of ¡§doctors give support to
euthanasia¡¨ has hit the headlines. The reports quoted a recent
survey of the City University that some six in ten doctors in Hong
Kong support the issue. This appears to go against the philosophy of
medicine, for the Hippocratic Oath requires those practising
medicine to save lives not to remove them.
Whilst there is no reason to cast doubt on the sincerity of
the survey itself, the interpretation of the term and concept of
¡§euthanasia¡¨ varies greatly with how the questions are being
phrased and the depth of understanding of the respondents.
Few, for example, would object to withholding resuscitation
which is considered futile on a dying patient, with his/her and the
relatives¡¦ consent. The Hospital Authority has actually had a
clear cut ¡§do not resuscitate¡¨ guideline for such situations.
Many would thus agree that withholding or withdrawing life
sustaining treatment with prior consent is both legally acceptable
and appropriate.
Yet, euthanasia is defined as a direct intentional killing of
a person at his/her own request as part of medical treatment. To
take this step, which at best can be considered as ¡§mercy
killing¡¨, is another matter.
Advocate of euthanasia would argue that it is humane to
¡§pull the plug¡¨ when the quality of life is drastically bad and
the suffering of the patient outweighs the joy of life. Yet, who is
to draw the line that quality of life is intolerably bad or that the
suffering outweighs the life itself? Surely, every individual value
life differently. Moreover, there are always the extraordinary cases
that defy medical science and conventional expectations. Who is to
decide not to give that chance to the individual?
Essentially, it is no different to having an excuse to
committing murder. Whatever the excuse in the name of humanity may
be, the action remains that it is with an intention to kill.
Euthanasia should not, above all, be done for economic
reasons. Yet, many fear that it could easily turn out to be this
way. Life support machines could be switched off in view of need for
hospital beds; families could demand euthanasia due to high medical
bills. Costs of care for the terminally ill may be phenomenally high
but who is to say that it is not worth it. If economic reason is the
only concern, by the same logic, one should then practice euthanasia
on all the elderlies.
Death is a certainty. Yet it is also part of life. Euthanasia
is an act that does not allow room for regret. Once the act is
committed, it is a road of no return.
The protagonists of euthanasia will claim that this is
a humane act to alleviate the physical and mental pain of the
terminal patients. Yet, modern medicine with its myriads of
effective drugs are not only efficient in relieving such suffering,
but could also promote the improvement of mood for one¡¦s remaining
days. In fact, for many terminal ill, it is the worries about the
well being of their beloved they are to leave behind, or the
psychological suffering of not being wanted that make them suffer
most. These are exactly what holistic care or hospice care are
aiming to correct.
Those who oppose euthanasia are not striving inhumanely to
unnecessary prolong life with suffering. Instead they are promoting
an alternative to provide ¡§life to days¡¨, and the right of the
terminal ill to enjoy to their full and ¡§leave¡¨ with dignity.
The issue of euthanasia is both an essential and a sensitive
one that Government can no longer procrastinate in coming forth with
a decision and guidelines. A comprehensive debate is daunting.
(Hongkong
Standard)
|
