Personally, I think it’s wrong for a government of a country to decide an individual’s fate. I understand why her father would want her to be let go. She has been in a coma for 17 years already. Don’t you think that’s long enough already? Plus, I think Italy should have advanced directives, that way it will make things easier for the people around her, and the patient itself. The longer you keep a person in a vegetative state, the harder it will be on the family. If I were in this situation, I would not want to be kept alive by artificial means. It costs too much time and money. I think people need to respect the father’s decision, rather than making it for him.
17 years is a long time the man has mourned and let his daughter go they should let him rest her body as well. Its not a false solution as the pope claims but rather a release of the burden on both her and her family. I seriously doubt that she would wish to be trapped in a coma for 17 years. It should also be noted that the church could be defing god's will so to speak because she is only being kept alive by medical intervention and nothing else. It one thing to heal a person or make them recover from near fatal wounds its another to keep a body alive through tech when it is obvious that the mind is dead and not recovering or even expected to recover. So in short its not murder but rather letting something happen that should have happened 17 years ago that man's agrogance kept in check.
It is too bad that Italy does not allow advance directives. Advance directives whether a written living will or proxy help give some guidelines of the expressed preferences of medical interventions accordingly to the person’s values and virtues. I believe that by having an advance directive gives each individual a sense of autonomy and by having a detailed living will and a proxy it will carry out the person’s wishes as it should be. There is a risk that the bias of other people will be projected and violate the patient’s autonomy. This would also include doctors, nurses, and society in general because they all have their own biased opinions. So to prevent others who do not know the person or their detailed wishes and respect them by carrying them out will make them according to they feel is ethical or not. However, doctors and nurses do have the right to collaborate and discuss the appropriate medical interventions according to the person’s medical status. At times the line is drawn when they know that they have done all they can and even when other options are simply futile. However they do inform the family and explain to them what the options are throughout the process of caring for their loved one. When there are no other options, yes the family is faced of whether to use artificial means or not and they do not often think of the long term effects and consequences. That is one reason why it is good to have a form of advance directives. In this case, the only form was a verbal expression of the daughters that the father made reference to. Since Italy does not allow such a request by an individual, the father was acting like a proxy and voicing the daughters wishes. It might have been seven years later when he started to do so, but he had to go to the courts and put it into their hands. So, the courts did make the right decision that reflected respect to Eluana’s autonomy and according to her condition, but it was too bad that they had to make this decision so many years later. In reference to the advanced directives being ethical, well yes and no. The main reason would reflect the language and the fact that no one can foresee what every particular medical issue will bring. The reason why I say this is because some people want everything under the sun to keep them alive. Indirectly we all want that in one way or another. But, to me it would be according the medical situation. No one with or without a written living will and/or proxy can anticipate all possible circumstances. There are times after the physician has exhausted all possibilities in caring for and individual that he/she will draw the line, but according to the advance directive the person wanted everything. Now are they to honor the wishes and put them on a ventilator in order to just keep them alive or just let them go because the only thing that is going to keep them mainly alive is the ventilator. Now look on the other side of the coin, what if the person will recover and have substantial quality of life or full quality, but needs a ventilator or oxygen or intravenous fluids or whatever is stated in the living will not to have, is that ethical to follow that. However, that’s why I feel having a detailed living will and a proxy that knows, cares and respects my wishes enough to carry them out according to the medical situation will ensure that was done in great faith and faith is what is put into that proxy along to begin with.
I do think its wrong for the government to interfere, but there is always a need for regulations. Eluana Englaro did pass away a few days ago. She was in a coma for 17 years, and she was not going to recover. I would not want to be held in such a prison. Its not so much about money, but a certain disregard of the body that prevails in the church or in anyone against death with dignity. My mother made her wishes know to all who could and would listen that she did NOT want to be hooked up to machines to keep her alive, but considering that her illness had to do with her lungs I don't know what could have been done had it come to that. If you are terminal, you should have a choice on how your life ends.
I think that it’s wrong that the government is getting involved with the decision of the family’s patient. The family has decision to remove or to not remove the tubes. They should have disconnected the machines 17 years ago when the patient went to vegetative state. There just hurting the family more by keeping their daughter attached to all those machines helpless not being able to do anything.
Posts
5 comments:
Personally, I think it’s wrong for a government of a country to decide an individual’s fate. I understand why her father would want her to be let go. She has been in a coma for 17 years already. Don’t you think that’s long enough already? Plus, I think Italy should have advanced directives, that way it will make things easier for the people around her, and the patient itself. The longer you keep a person in a vegetative state, the harder it will be on the family. If I were in this situation, I would not want to be kept alive by artificial means. It costs too much time and money. I think people need to respect the father’s decision, rather than making it for him.
17 years is a long time the man has mourned and let his daughter go they should let him rest her body as well. Its not a false solution as the pope claims but rather a release of the burden on both her and her family. I seriously doubt that she would wish to be trapped in a coma for 17 years. It should also be noted that the church could be defing god's will so to speak because she is only being kept alive by medical intervention and nothing else. It one thing to heal a person or make them recover from near fatal wounds its another to keep a body alive through tech when it is obvious that the mind is dead and not recovering or even expected to recover. So in short its not murder but rather letting something happen that should have happened 17 years ago that man's agrogance kept in check.
It is too bad that Italy does not allow advance directives. Advance directives whether a written living will or proxy help give some guidelines of the expressed preferences of medical interventions accordingly to the person’s values and virtues. I believe that by having an advance directive gives each individual a sense of autonomy and by having a detailed living will and a proxy it will carry out the person’s wishes as it should be. There is a risk that the bias of other people will be projected and violate the patient’s autonomy. This would also include doctors, nurses, and society in general because they all have their own biased opinions. So to prevent others who do not know the person or their detailed wishes and respect them by carrying them out will make them according to they feel is ethical or not. However, doctors and nurses do have the right to collaborate and discuss the appropriate medical interventions according to the person’s medical status. At times the line is drawn when they know that they have done all they can and even when other options are simply futile. However they do inform the family and explain to them what the options are throughout the process of caring for their loved one. When there are no other options, yes the family is faced of whether to use artificial means or not and they do not often think of the long term effects and consequences. That is one reason why it is good to have a form of advance directives. In this case, the only form was a verbal expression of the daughters that the father made reference to. Since Italy does not allow such a request by an individual, the father was acting like a proxy and voicing the daughters wishes. It might have been seven years later when he started to do so, but he had to go to the courts and put it into their hands. So, the courts did make the right decision that reflected respect to Eluana’s autonomy and according to her condition, but it was too bad that they had to make this decision so many years later. In reference to the advanced directives being ethical, well yes and no. The main reason would reflect the language and the fact that no one can foresee what every particular medical issue will bring. The reason why I say this is because some people want everything under the sun to keep them alive. Indirectly we all want that in one way or another. But, to me it would be according the medical situation. No one with or without a written living will and/or proxy can anticipate all possible circumstances. There are times after the physician has exhausted all possibilities in caring for and individual that he/she will draw the line, but according to the advance directive the person wanted everything. Now are they to honor the wishes and put them on a ventilator in order to just keep them alive or just let them go because the only thing that is going to keep them mainly alive is the ventilator. Now look on the other side of the coin, what if the person will recover and have substantial quality of life or full quality, but needs a ventilator or oxygen or intravenous fluids or whatever is stated in the living will not to have, is that ethical to follow that. However, that’s why I feel having a detailed living will and a proxy that knows, cares and respects my wishes enough to carry them out according to the medical situation will ensure that was done in great faith and faith is what is put into that proxy along to begin with.
I do think its wrong for the government to interfere, but there is always a need for regulations. Eluana Englaro did pass away a few days ago. She was in a coma for 17 years, and she was not going to recover. I would not want to be held in such a prison. Its not so much about money, but a certain disregard of the body that prevails in the church or in anyone against death with dignity. My mother made her wishes know to all who could and would listen that she did NOT want to be hooked up to machines to keep her alive, but considering that her illness had to do with her lungs I don't know what could have been done had it come to that.
If you are terminal, you should have a choice on how your life ends.
I think that it’s wrong that the government is getting involved with the decision of the family’s patient. The family has decision to remove or to not remove the tubes. They should have disconnected the machines 17 years ago when the patient went to vegetative state. There just hurting the family more by keeping their daughter attached to all those machines helpless not being able to do anything.
Post a Comment