Quote:
Quote by: Humble Servant  Motzart grandma does not have to suffer. Its called a living will and do not resuscitate orders. Most of the time grandma is in that position because either she failed to plan for her eventual demise or she is so afraid of dying that she is willing to endure "heroic" lifesaving measures for just one more second of life at any cost be it physical or financial.
And I never said I was against the idea of assisted suicide but I do question Kevorkian's methods and motives. He could have obeyed the law of the land and upheld the oath he took as a doctor to do no harm and worked through the legal system to change the way things are. Yes it would have taken time. But something that dramatically changes the worldview of an entire country should take time. |
And what of the terminally ill? You can plan all you want, but if cancer consumes you you probably weren't fully anticipating it. Many diseases, such as cancer, don't always kill a person rapidly, but instead force them to endure months, or even years, of torture and agony until their inevitable death. Furthermore, how does encouraging or, more specifically, forcing an individual to continue living who is suffering immense amount of pain fall under "do no harm"? I see this as a pretty twisted view on the word "harm". Are you trying to claim that havoc being wreaked on your nervous system doesn't fall under "harm", yet respecting an individual's autonomy and allowing them to skip their suffering is does? That seems pretty off to to me.