Some people believe that it is not wise to circumvent the dying process. The late psychiatrist and famous author, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, shared that her experience in working with thousands of dying patients and their families convinced her that euthanasia was wrong even for patients with terminal illness. She believed that euthanasia (which she called suicide) cheats people out of the opportunity to complete their unfinished business. The unfinished business she referred to is the contemplation of the ultimate meaning of one's life. She felt the “end of life” period is a time for resolving old disputes, mending relationships, and coming to a final recognition and appreciation of all the good things that have been a part of one's life. That may be easier said than done if a person is on life support and barely have a brain wave!
Personally, I believe we need to do our resolving and keeping our relationships up to date on a daily basis. We never know when our last day is.
Dr. Kubler-Ross believed that, despite their compassionate motives, those healthy bystanders who encourage or even assist in euthanasia are stealing the last precious moments of these patients' lives. I understand her theory, but I believe that every person’s unfinished business must eventually come to an end. If one is unable to live without life support, and feels his business is complete, it would be cruel to force them or their family to suffer needlessly.
Side note here: we induce labor to bring a child into the world against its will. That soul doesn't get to choose its own birthday. Shouldn't a soul get to decide when it enters or leaves the earth plane?
What do you think about euthanasia in a situation where there is little hope for recovery? If that person has a living will stating that he or she does not want to be kept alive on machines, would you have reservations about enacting their wishes and letting them go?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information, you might enjoy reading the complete book More Than Meets the Eye True Stories about Death, Dying, and Afterlife available on Amazon.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
One reason this is so controversial is because as far as we've come with science we don't truly KNOW that a person with even minimal brain activity can't make some progress in coming to a peaceful end/finishing life's unfinished business at their own definition/pace (which is the definition/pace that should matter for that person).
Extending the thoughts of this amazing researcher---when even the idea/plan of assisted suicide arises-the natural ending processes and acceptance of death ends. The focus is taken off coming to a natural end and instead placed on the outside forces who support an unnatural end.
It's also very very important to understand what's truly life support and what is politically called life support for the argument for assisted suicide. Many many people live full lives with feeding tubes. That is NOT life support.
Thanks for your comment, Kara.
But, a natural end would not involve artificial life support. Unplugging someone with little brain wave is no different than allowing someone to die in hospice or at home with no medical intervention. Like folks used to before we had modern medicine.
I have had patients beg me to end their lives, it was hard to hear. A person is given human rights from the moment they are born and throughout life. We campaign for them, we fight tooth and nail. So when death is inevitable and pain is unending, why do we take away the human right to die with dignity?
Post a Comment