10/12 Of Sleeping
- Thread starter alyster
- Start date
Etat
Well-known member
One of many ethical dilemmas I hope none of us have to face! The concept of mercy killing, justifiable enough in antiquity, becoming much less so (though not wholly so IMO) with the advances of modern medicine. I guess the reason we have the Judiciary is to judiciously apply the law with respect to its intent and spirit. Little comfort to those who’ve been ensnared carrying out morally justifiable actions unfortunately. I’d rather see the medical profession take a step back from the ethical discussion surrounding euthanasia, constraining their input to what medicine can offer these people in extremis in the first instance.
Last edited by a moderator:
alyster
Well-known member
I think modern medicine is a two sided sword here. It can also maintain people alive in conditions that wouldn't have been possible hundred or more years ago. Long term coma or extream disability with worsening conditions.
Etat
Well-known member
I agree! This is a catch 22 with medicine in general. Palliative care though is a very poorly understood and underutilised medical service unfortunately.
I’ve no moral opposition to euthanasia as a mercy in the right circumstances, but I have no faith in A) public debate on the issue (a prerequisite for such a proposition in a democratic society), & B) political and medical capacity to realise an ethical process. Furthermore, there are many side issues that obstruct progress here, and ought be dealt with first. One of these you’ve mentioned, and another is the commandeering of, or deferment to, ethical reasoning by the medical profession and those others who’ve had these terrible situations thrust upon them. Ethics and morality are not jurisdictional concepts in public debate, but are treated as such. I think the absence of social progression is better than social regression, which outcome is a very real risk with any law so morally fraught, subject to public debate (read mutilation) and technocratic tendencies.
Etat
Well-known member
Determining the validity of consent is one of the great challenges in this issue. At a basic level there are a few accepted components of a valid consent consistent with good medico-legal practice that should be met: 1) Voluntarily given (without coercion), 2) Informed - appropriately of benefits and risks, 3) Relevant - to the intervention in question (curiously important and glossed over by many health practitioners), 4) Capacity - people must have the capacity to understand the implications of their decision (this aspect is pretty involved as you might imagine). As a general rule, if the risk goes up, so does the scrupulousness with which these components should be established. This of course does not answer the primary question.