Euthanasia
Voluntary euthanasia is, by definition, when the person who is killed has requested to be killed. On the other hand, non-voluntary euthanasia is when the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent. Euthanasia, by action, is intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection. Euthanasia by omission is intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water. (more definitions concerning euthanasia)
The debate concerning Terri Schindler-Schiavo has been in the headlines for days. Today, March 24, 2005, marks Terri's 6th day without food or water. The debate is controversial because some say that Terri is in a coma and hooked to life support machines and others say that she is alert and interactive. This is a difficult situation for Terri's family because it could be considered non-voluntary euthanasia if Terri's food and water supply is not re-connected because, so far, there has been no request made by Terri to unhook her food/water supply.
According to a Zogby poll, only one-in-three Americans, if they contracted a painful terminal disease, would prefer assisted suicide to letting nature take its course. 30.4% of those individuals surveyed would rather have a doctor end their suffering instead of waiting for nature to end the suffering. Even more impressive is the 63.5% that would prefer to live through the suffering and not give consent to be killed. I believe that Terri is alive and not dependent upon a life support machine to live. If this proves true, then the detaching of her food and water supply can be considered non-voluntary euthanasia.
posted by Anonymous at
11:54 AM
2 Comments:
Tough topic because of the emotions it clearly raises.
It's easy for two people to look at the same data and reach opposite conclusions based on the beliefs that they bring to the table. For example, why most people wouldn't choose assisted suicide, other polling data shows that 60% of Americans feel that feel that people should be allowed to choose assisted suicide if they so desire.
I also recommend double checking information from websites that you link to. For example, I can't find any refernce on the Zogby website to the poll referenced on the nrlc website.
www.pollingreport.com collects the major polls. Be careful of "framing effects" (remember this term?). The wording of a question can elicit different responses to essentially the same idea. This might be especially true with this issue.
By
John Topoleski, at 12:23 PM
The situation with the Schivo case is obviously tragic and sad, however, the decision that the courts have come to thus far on March 28 has been the unbiased conclusion. Whatever side of the debate on is on, the courts had to make a decision based on the law and not emotion. My feeling is that if the court could make a decision based on their emotions, they probably would have left the feeding tube in because starving and dehydrating to death is despicable. However, if courts acted on emotions in all cases, the law system would clearly crumble and eventually our society would be in a state of chaos.
I must agree with Kristi that I neither would want to be in a vegetative state for fifteen years. However the conclusion to take out her tube probably is not the most humane choice that could have been made. Probably another form of euthanasia would have been more pleasant to the family and public. Nevertheless this is the course that her husband wanted to take and despite the fact that some do believe that Terri can be interactive there is not enough evidence to prove so, therefore the court has granted the right to terminate her feeding tube.
By
bruckone, at 1:04 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home