SmarterThanHick
Senior Member
- Sep 14, 2009
- 2,084
- 241
- 48
So you're making the ethical claim that only a patient ought to be able to initiate their own cessation of suffering through suicide after being cleared by a doctor. That sure is convenient when discussing an ethical case regarding a child. But instead of putting off the topic, let's explore it further. After all, you ARE making claims that these things aren't ethical, so it's high time you made the case WHY.You're really over complicating things. Medical ethics, as established and generally practiced, preclude active euthanasia. Your mentioning of Oregon assisted suicide laws is even flawed because in those cases the medical involvement pretty much ends at a doctor providing a prescription. It is the patient who does the deed.
The baby clearly can't make the decision to end its own suffering, but you are well aware who makes all medical decisions for newborns anyway.
Controversial sure, and yet completely integrated into the medical community's ethical considerations. Washington has it's own version, and Virginia just proposed a similar policy. REGARDLESS of physician assisted suicide, you are still completely ignoring the double effect, which IS an established and non-controversial method of secondarily bringing about death through the administration of pain relieving medications, that is NOT controversial in the medical community. Every major medical organization, including but not limited to the American Medical Association, sees the double effect as ethically sound. This leads me back to the question: why do you see it as unethical when so many doctors would disagree?Furthermore, such practices remain highly controversial and are far from being accepted within the health care community's system of ethics.
Yes, you've mentioned this before, and as I mentioned before, laws should be written for the common practices and not the special cases, but hold exceptions for such special cases. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, as it underlies every aspect of this justice system, right down to all the countless exceptions and exemptions allowed in your taxes. In other words: physician assisted suicide, abortion, and the double effect are all seen as ethical to varying degrees, and all come as exceptions to the general rules of murder and medical malpractice. Claiming application of these principles to this case is unethical and should not dictate law exceptions is contrary to what is already established.All that being said, whether you or I agree or disagree that medical ethics has room for active euthanasia is not really important. You are demanding that the law of Nebraska must make active euthanasia an option; that the law is wrong to preclude such a measure. That, however, is faulty. With only a singular and still controversial exception, no state has any such allowance in their laws. Is is not necessary that Nebraska law have such a provision, because it is a long way from being something generally accepted by the health care profession. Would be acceptable for the law to have such a provision? Maybe, maybe not. That's really a separate issue. But it is not necessary based on the general standards of practice that are currently accepted. So any argument that the law is somehow wrong because of this specific case comes down to seeking a special accordance. The law should not be written for such a special case. It should be written to recognize the general standards of practice that are accepted as ethical by the industry.
Sounds like we're getting somewhere now. I look forward to your response regarding the double effect and its application in this instance.