On September 17th 2016 the headlines read, “Terminally ill child becomes first euthanized minor in Belgium,” although no further details were released the minor was 17years old, critically ill with a terminal prognosis. The case was Belgium’s’ first application of it policy of granting euthanasia to people of all ages, including minors with parental consent. Euthanasia is a heavily debated topic today, it sparks the controversy of whether a terminal patient who requests to be terminated to end any pain they are suffering should have that request granted. Palliative care and Hospice have paved the way in developing a system that can facilitate patients with a terminal diagnosis that just want to be made comfortable at the end of their life.
…show more content…
When treatment is removed, it is said, the disease is what brings about death, but in physician assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia, the physician brings about death. This is a mistaken concept; while the doctor 's actions are different, the effect is the same, making the distinction irrelevant. The following analogy may clarify this point, “a man is in a tunnel facing an oncoming train. The only escape is through a locked door on the side of the tunnel. On the other side of the door is an enemy of the trapped man, who, knowing that his rival is trapped, refuses to open the door. Therefore, the train kills the man. However, would we not consider the man who refused to open the door for his enemy a murderer? Although the train is the physical cause of death, the man behind the door has still killed another man (or allowed him to die). The fault, therefore, does not lie in action vs. inaction, but in intent. It can be acceptable to kill a person who is suffering and wishes to die, but it is unacceptable to bring about the demise of one who wishes to live.” (The Right to die, Dan Dorgan). This is something Callahan does not address at all,
When treatment is removed, it is said, the disease is what brings about death, but in physician assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia, the physician brings about death. This is a mistaken concept; while the doctor 's actions are different, the effect is the same, making the distinction irrelevant. The following analogy may clarify this point, “a man is in a tunnel facing an oncoming train. The only escape is through a locked door on the side of the tunnel. On the other side of the door is an enemy of the trapped man, who, knowing that his rival is trapped, refuses to open the door. Therefore, the train kills the man. However, would we not consider the man who refused to open the door for his enemy a murderer? Although the train is the physical cause of death, the man behind the door has still killed another man (or allowed him to die). The fault, therefore, does not lie in action vs. inaction, but in intent. It can be acceptable to kill a person who is suffering and wishes to die, but it is unacceptable to bring about the demise of one who wishes to live.” (The Right to die, Dan Dorgan). This is something Callahan does not address at all,