|
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.
|
