Euthanasia
The magazine The
Nursing Times asked it's readers with questionnaires, what they thought
about euthanasia. The people had to decide in 13 fictitious cases if euthanasia
could be applied or not.
Euthanasia means
literally 'good death', but for most people it means 'hastened' or 'assisted'
death. Most respondents supported the concept of euthanasia, but nearly nobody
wanted to help someone else to die, or to do euthanasia. There were two
examples of babies with Down's Syndrome. In the first case the baby was
rejected by his parents. The baby had an intestinal blockage. An operation was
needed. Without the operation the baby would die. The question was : "Operation
- yes or no ?" In the second case the baby was incurable ill. It was suggested
that the baby should be allowed to die, although this is very distressing for
his parents, nurses and doctors. Now the question was : "Should there be active
euthanasia ?" 80% of the respondents said yes, only 13% said no. Now there is
one more question : "Did so much respondents just say yes because the 'yes' vote
was a reasoned choice for active euthanasia or just because they wanted to make
the situation easier for the parents which didn't wanted to see their baby die
slowly and painfully ?
There is another
example : A woman, dying of cancer and in great pain, wants to be administered
a lethal dose of drugs which a doctor prescribes. There were two questions :
"If you were a nurse, would you agree to administer the drugs ?" 55% of the
respondents said 'no', 44% said 'yes'. The second question was : "Is the doctor
justified in prescribing the drugs ?" 49% said 'yes', 46% said 'no'. A BMA
report says 'the deliberate taking of human life should remain a crime',
perhaps this explains why some respondents said 'yes' to active euthanasia, but
would not administer the lethal drugs themselves. 49% said there were
circumstances in which they would administer the drugs if they would be
instructed by a doctor, 46% said there were no such circumstances. There is
just the question what circumstances these would be, if a woman who dies with
great pain doesn't represents such a circumstance and such action is deemed a
crime.
In one more example
there is a woman who is incurable ill and who wants the means with which to
kill herself if her circumstances become unbearable. The question was : "Would
you help her if she asked you for help ?" 92% said they would not help her,
only 7% would. Are there so many people who said no because they have fear, or
just because they don't want to help the woman ? There was a second question :
"Would you help the woman if she decided to take the drugs (having got hold of
them) ? 82% said 'no', which means that the respondents just were against
active euthanasia in this case.
Over three quarters of
the respondents think that there is a moral difference between allowing a
patient to die and giving him/her a lethal dose of drugs. And more than half of
the respondents think that, when caring for terminally ill people it was an
'appropriate and helpful' guide to make the distinction between adopting ordinary
but not extraordinary interventions. 69% of the population thinks that doctors
should be permitted to end the lives of incurable ill persons - with approval
from the family. But, as the law stands in this country, active euthanasia is a
crime. Passive euthanasia - that means withdrawal or renunciation of life -
prolonging measures with or without medical assistance - with the consent of
the patient, is not strictly a crime.
Making a distinction
between passive and active euthanasia is often very difficult, and the only way
health professionals can approach the issue of euthanasia is case by case. The
patient must be seen as an individual, even if sometimes the law will be
upheld. Death is a personal thing, and the best way to help patients who are incurable
ill is to let them suffer as little as possible.
