|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
Electronic Letters to:
|
|
Electronic letters published:
|
|
|||
|
Allen B Shaw, retired physician Nil
Send letter to journal:
ab.nr.shaw{at}talk21.com Allen B Shaw
|
Dear Editor, Garrard and Wilkinson provide a clear discussion of the problems associated with the term passive euthanasia, and there are two answers to them [1]. The first is to find a word for refraining from prolonging life, which cannot be confused with actively causing death. Euthanasia means a good death, so a word such as "dysbiosis" (or a better Greek term for bad life) should be used, when treatment is withdrawn or withheld to avoid prolonging life inappropriately. It must also be recognised that death itself can be a therapeutic goal. Like other such goals, it must never be harmful. It should be beneficial, as when life has an unavoidably negative quality. It may sometimes have a neutral effect on the patient, as in the persistent vegetative state. It may be wanted, unwanted or relevant to incompetent patients. Usually there would be a need for a sustained desire on the part of the patient. Doctors can achieve the goal by active treatment (euthanasia) or by withholding or withdrawing treatment. Both the goal and the method of achieving it must be ethically correct. When treatment consumes major resources, it may be right for the patient but wrong for others. In most States active euthanasia is illegal, but permitting death is not. It may be legal but not right to prolong life with a negative quality. It may be right but not legal to kill a patient, who has good reason to want to die. The doctor must then decide whether the lesser evil is to break the law or fail the patient. This is simply a précis of an approach the discussion of end of life problems. References 1. Garrard E, Wilkinson S. JME 2005:31;64-8. |
|||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | REGISTER |