@Shamain @Akheilos @levina @Nihonjin1051 @Peter C @WAJsal @Jungibaaz @Indus Falcon
I want to first keep religion out of this. For those who take the moral high ground and argue that we are intervening or going against nature I would say we do that anyway everyday. I would have been dead three years ago was it not for the wonderful NHS medical procedure carried out in a emergency that saved my life. Everything about the procedure was not natural. My compatriots in Pakistan would most likely have died.
This issue about human intervention also applies to contraception. I have been to NHS SBU ( Special Baby Unit ) and seen the battery of incubators keeping premature babies alive until they reach maturity who would have been dead otherwise. The
contrary to the same
intervention, that is contraception is shunned by many a Mullah as somehow going against nature. To me the
incubator and
contraception are the two sides of the same coin. Intervention in one qualifies intervention in the other.
This brings me to Euthanasia. We need to first define it in it's most precise form. Living in UK I will use British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical ethics definition as "
a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".
The problem with this definition is it pivots on the word "
intractable". What exactly constitutes "intractable" is open to interpretation. Your "intractable" might not be my "intractable" as the word suggest something beyond control or
impossible to deal with. That latter bold word itself is subjective in it's application as what is impossible to me might not be to you.
I think a reasonable person can fairly adduce when the grounds for euthanasia might exist. I think we all would agree stupid things like day gone bad, lost job, husband/wife ran off, failed exam or gone bankrupt are not grounds for even entertaining euthanasia.
So let us move further to the part of human life where euthanasia might creap into the thought process. These are my thoughts :-
(i) In extreme situations where death is inevitable ( I know death is default setting for humans but in this case I mean where we can fairly estimate it's probability in time factor ) and en route to that the person is going through incredible suffering. In addition the pain and or medication used to alleviate the suffering is so potent as to turn the person into a vegatative state. In other words to free then from the pain they are effectively put to sleep by using potent painkillers.
(ii) Where a person already is in vegatative condition as a consequence of trauma/injury/damage or infection and the only reason the person is alive is because essential functions are being serviced by man made external life support systems. That is the person would have died already was it not for the fact that man made life support systems are artificially sustaining life. Furthermore the person has suffered such damage that ( brain, heart , spinal chord ) that their chance of recovery is nominal as expressed by body of medical opinion - please note "body" which excludes one doctor and introduces multiple inputs from outside the immediate medical team )
Provinding (i) and (ii) are applicable I would feel euthanasia or the grounds for application to leave for euthanasia in the
courts is qualified where of course all the appropriate evidence and expert opinon could be sought and as adjudged by high court bench taking into account (i) and (ii) followed by a legal ruling detailing reasons and whereins with whereofs.
Do please understand this would entail a long rigorous process and time that would recieve considerable input from many quarters and only be used in extenuating circumtances within the strictest meaning of (i) and (ii) and would not be used every weekend. Exceptional would mean exceptional.
On a side note I would argue that a form of euthanasia even if I take liberties with the definition is already taking place. I give example. In UK NHS by default already is playing "god". Although UK spends about £115 billion a year on NHS which is about £2,000 per man, woman and child. That is about
$185 billion compared to Pak defence budget of about
$8 billion. That is NHS budget is
23 times more than entire Pak defence budget.
About the National Health Service (NHS) in England - NHS Choices
Key statistics on the NHS - NHS Confederation
However even with this massive budget the NHS could do with more. Some demands have no limit. Medical demand is almost infinite. Thus in the real world despite the massive spend, caps have to be put somewhere even if these are very high. Last year my 83 year old dad was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. My dad has had diabetes for at least 30 years and for the last two decades has needed insulin injection.
As a secondary effect of long term diabetes his kidneys had began to fail about 5 years ago. Each year the function had been dipping and in fact he was being prepared for future dialysis treatment. In this regard he had even visted the local NHS Dialysis unit as a intro for elective day treatment.
When the result for Prostate cancer came positive the GP gave some medication and not much was done after that. As things got worse we insisted to see the consultant at the local Oncoloy Dept of the hospital. When my dad saw the consultant suddenly things speeded up and he was referred to the area specialist oncology centre where he recieved advanced in what was cutting edge of medicine radiation treatment. He went 6 times over six weeks and I know each treatment was extremely costly.
While we would be sitting there I noticed my dad was one of the oldest there. The average age was about 60. The fact was because of the extreme cost the treatment was in effect being rationed and was weighted toward more younger patients. The reason initially they had been slow was some doctor somewhere in the system looked at my dads files, saw diabetes, kidney failure aged over 83 on ton of medication and given the finite resources ( albeit huge ) decided this patient was on his last legs and instead focussed on other younger patients in the que.
The reality was although my dad has all those things his mind is razor sharp ( he was a lawyer ) and cannot stop talking from morning to evening ( on both accounts rather opposite of me ) and is full of life. When that British consultant oncolgist met him my dad started telling him tales from 1940s on, on and on and his legal exploits that guy was surprised ( pleasantly ) and figured this guy had lot of life left in him. Letter arrive for radiation appointment within the week.
The point I am making is doctors everyday make such choices which may not quite fit within the strict definition of euthanasia but they are certainly bordering on that definition since by choosing to prioritize they in fact are playing god.
Trust me if this is what is happening in the mighty
NHS with
$185 billion budget it must be happening in every health care system in the world. Finally the real litmus test is would I want the option of euthanasia to be extended to me if my accident had gone wrong and I was left in terminal vegetative state? Yes sir, I would beg for one last hug from my loved ones and then be given chance to leave this world
after .....
One smoke. I have not smoked now for 10 years but if any of you are smokers it never goes out of your system. So
one pull and
one puff, smile ......
