: I didn't suggest there was 'no difference',
: John.
Then, Faz, I don't know what you meant by: "determining where 'intent' moves from the relief of suffering to the taking of life, is, so often, not easy", unless this, too was the advancment of the "agonising" argument, viz. if one "agonises" - a favourite word for politicians advocating abortion - long enough before committing a sin, that makes it no longer sinful.
: And it's hard to imagine a worse time to
: have a conversation about ethics when your
: loved one is suffering and dying, and there
: are others in the family who can't
: understand why anyone would want to 'prolong
: the suffering'.
True, and that is a good reason, where possible, to obtain the sick person's wishes before the situation becomes desperate, but the failure of others in the family to understand ethics and morals is no reason to abandon them. In regard to the question of prolonging the suffering, that is what modern palliative care is all about - searching for the minimum level of pain relief that works, even though, eventually, a mortal dose is reached. The intent is still the relief of suffering, not the death of the patient.
: For some, the reality of a dying loved-one
: is the most difficult ethical dilemma they
: will have to face.
Again, true, and a very good reason to develop a well-informed conscience well in advance.
: For example, one person will experience
: treatment as 'burdensome and futile' and
: another will cling on to any hope.
And those patients who would regard treatment as "burdensome and futile" are free to instruct their rellies that they wish a "Do not resuscitate" order to be applied, but in the absence of such instruction by the patient, rellies are not free to issue such an order on the patient's behalf.
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »