Italian Poet Dies With Help From a Doctor
Commentary of a news of the New York Times
(By Ian Fisher- Published: December 22, 2006)
------------------------
We know the definition of Euthanasia : "the intentional termination of life by another, at the explicit request of the person who seeks death as a last resort ". Like so many other terms in our language euthanasia has many meanings. Some people define euthanasia to include both voluntary and involuntary termination of life.The result is a confusion among our society with two points of view.
On one hand we can consider the euthanasia as a patient voluntarily brings about his or her own death with the assistance of a person. This is the case of Mr. Welby. He decided to stop his suffering because his final will be the same. It's his life and he can decide about it. The person who helps him to obtain his decision to die isn't a criminal; it's his last hope to avoid a major agony. Dr. Mario Riccio, who removed Piergiorgio Welby’s respirator, isn't a criminal.
On the other hand, this term is considered to be murder, for the fact the patient is unable to give a written or verbal consent. This is the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church which opposes euthanasia and for this reason Mr. Welby’s case opens the doors of a debate in Parliament about if Italians, one day, will allow to specify what medical treatment they would accept.
In my opinion, in the United States have the correct and logical system because they assure you that your election will be done and, it's clear, the suffering doesn't form a part of it. United States "allows doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medicine when terminally ill patients request it". It's the best election, why do we have to suffer without any sense?
posted by Pumuky's & CO. at
10:38 AM
3 Comments:
I agree with you in that everyone has the right to decide if he wants to life and I think that if you're suffering worthlessly as you don't have chances to get better. But when you commit this type of suicide, you must think of all its consequencies for your family that it can have, as your relatives can get very sad about your decisions. Of course you have the final decision.
By
Eddie_IM, at 2:53 PM
Delicate and interesting topic. I quite agree with your last sentence. It is the patient who should decide what to do with his or her suffering.
See my comments!
You say:
-and he can decided about it
-The person who helps him to obtain his decision to die he isn't a criminal
-he's his last hope (Do you mean has? or is? in this last case it should be: It's his last hope..)
-for this reason the Mr. Welby’s case
I'd say:
-and he can decide about it
-The person who helps him to obtain his decision to die isn't a criminal
-for this reason Mr. Welby’s case
By
Anonymous, at 11:04 AM
I go further than Virginia.
Of course I think everyone would have the right to decide if he wants to live, but in case that person couldn´t decide, I think the family could decide about his/her future. From my point of view, an irreversible coma state is not life. Just one example. When the doctor told my father and me that my mum had cancer, we had the option of chemotherapy treatment. We asked the doctor about chemotherapy option but he told us there was no solution for her cancer because it was on a very advanced state. He explained us that with chemotherapy, my mum could live one or two months more but with a very low quality of life. The other option was forget about chemotherapy giving her a good quality of life on her last days. We chose this second option.
My question for the class is: “What would you do on a situation like mine? Don´t you think my example is similar to a family who has someone on an irreversible coma state?
By
Ladybird, at 11:29 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home