I wanted to start an open forum for the simple reason that for a great many reasons one cannot really express their opinions “completely” on the discussion boards. This blog was started with the aim of discussing issues without the encumbrance of censorship. The problem with opinions on the db’s is that they have to be toned down and that sorta takes away the punch from ‘em. So if and only if you have something productive or constructive to add, do so, otherwise go climb a tree. This obviously is not gonna stop people from splattering their shit all over the place but then there is a certain indivisible hope that they will stick to the basic format. Regardless of whether a topic has been dissected enough or not one can start another topic but a few pointers here and there for newbies would be helpful.

After giving this considerable thought (about a month), I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m gonna post all the replies I get in the form of who-said-what…. So that would mean that your replies have to encompass everything you feel about the topic at hand… And then I’ll copy and post them on the main page of my blog… that way people don’t have to go to the comments section everytime there is an addition. Hopefully the idea that’s been playing hell with me will take shape eventually. I would have made a separate id but then there are many disadvantages to it. I hope this isn’t as confusing as I have made it seem.

Let the growth begin…

In today’s fascism tainted society we see that morals and ethics are issues that can be bent and manipulated. This seems to have cemented its roots in the tiny fabric of society that is perpetually open to its absolute refinement. Ethical issues are best avoided because they bring to light a very touchy aspect of our very existence, God. Or rather the presence or absence of a God.

Euthanasia and Cloning are two of the highly controversial medical and ethical subjects plaguing today's society. For the time being I’m going to restrict myself to discussing Euthanasia. About 400 B.C. - The Hippocratic Oath (By the "Father of Medicine' Greek physician Hippocrates) "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel"

According to the Bantam Medical dictionary, Euthanasia is defined as the act of taking life to relieve suffering. This is further classified into two types, Voluntary and Compulsory euthanasia. In Voluntary Euthanasia the sufferer asks for measures to be taken to end his life. This may be accomplished by active steps, usually the administration of a drug, or by Passive Euthanasia - the deliberate withholding of treatment. In Compulsory Euthanasia society or a person acting on authority gives instructions to terminate the life of a person, such as an infant, who cannot express his wishes.

In no country is either Voluntary or Compulsory Euthanasia legal, although many organizations exist to promote the cause of Voluntary Euthanasia. And now that the technicalities are out of the way, we come down to the subject of whether it is ethical or not. To get the basics straight, taking a life is a crime, under any pretext. To shelter it under the canopy of euthanasia is nothing but the bending of rules to correspond with the wishes of all involved. Is it ethical for a person or a group of individuals to take a life under the pretext of shielding the sufferer from more pain? Some think of it as assisted suicide. As is the case most patients when they reach a certain level of dependency, usually patients suffering from a terminal disease, they are incapable of making decisions on their own. To give them counsel that may end with them requesting for euthanasia is immoral. There are many reasons to rule out euthanasia as an alternative to a difficult case.

For one, euthanasia denies the patient the full benefit of medical help. Due to the inadequacy of proper health care and facilities euthanasia seems to be ticket out of a sticky situation. It gives doctors too much power and the excuse to back out of cases that are hard to treat. It violates the medical ethics as laid out by Hippocrates. It also changes the outlook of the general public towards the whole concept of health care and questions the expertise and knowledge of the physician. Further more promoting voluntary euthanasia is nothing but a step towards advocating involuntary euthanasia. If that is something, which is accomplished by the supporters of euthanasia, the sanctity of life, not to mention the medical practice, will invariably become obsolete.

Some organizations have taken the step towards legalizing euthanasia but this seen by the opposition as a step by the euthanasia advocates eradicating life of "poor quality". Just because a doctor can't hack it or there is no immediate cure for it doesn't mean that the patient should be put to death.

{{This is what "ALOQUE" had to say}}:

i am a doctor..not very experienced but a doctor none the less. and am glad to see that you've transformed yourself to 'Dr.' jekyll from the earlier entry!!

i totally agree with your views on this. i am an agnostic. i don't believe that i am playing 'god' or anything but i am a total believer in the power and beauty of life. and how somethings should always be beyond our control. i have seen many people on their death beds and at no point of time has it felt even remotely my duty to end suffering by ending life. my aim as a doctor is to end suffering, but when beyond my medical capability to do so, to forget i am a doctor and give him my empathy and understanding. my views on cloning are a natural extension of this line of thought.

feel free to use my reply in your blog. also keep them coming.

a point well made doesn't need to be in a coarse voice.

[Posted by aloque on Sunday May 16, 2004 at 10:00 am]

Current Mood: Thoughtful
Current Music: Wonder Why