|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Will Human Life Remain an Absolute Value?
| Article
# : |
11067 |
|
|
Section : |
NATURAL SCIENCE
|
| Issue
Date : |
6 / 1986 |
5,437 Words |
| Author
: |
Werner Th.O. Forssmann
Werner Th. O. Forssmann (1904-1979) was professor of surgery
and urology, University of Dusseldorf, Germany. He received
the Nobel Prize in medicine and physiology in 1956. |
Human life in every form ranks among the immutable values. So it is appropriate in this context to ask ourselves whether the willful shortening of human life, generally referred to as euthanasia or mercy killing, is in any way justifiable. In July of 1974 thirty-eight individuals, all of whom may be called members of the intellectual elite, appealed for public toleration and legal regulation of euthanasia.
Their express motives, which seem eminently plausible to a layman, are to prevent people with hopeless illness from suffering unnecessarily and to defend their "right to die with dignity." The subscribers demand that doctors avoid artificially delaying an inevitable death by medical means, calling this "passive euthanasia." The question here is whether or not they are trying to force an open door, since there can surely be no argument about this point. Dying is the last short phase of life, when just as at all other times the doctor's duty is to help and relieve his charge in every possible way. Often in the end all he can do is spare the patient suffering, rather than senselessly prolong his ebbing life for a few more hours or days with all available means. Every good doctor will confidently recognize the moment when it is time to let nature take her course and bow to the Creator, regardless of the wishes and fears of those around him.
When To Switch Off The Machine
"Switching off the machine" in the case of unconscious patients connected to a breathing apparatus with all its fittings also seems to me entirely justifiable as soon as the brain ceases to function and need not trouble the doctor's conscience. After all, in the majority of these cases nature makes the decision for him with an attack of pneumonia. Nevertheless, a decision in principle favoring so-called passive euthanasia, in other words the willful withdrawal of the means of preserving life, is wrong. Each individual case must be decided independently, so that the doctor neither renders himself legally liable for negligence nor burdens the conscience of the next of kin.
I should like to recount a relevant incident which made a great impression upon me when I was working as a senior physician in Dresden in 1937:
One night a young man of about twenty was admitted with a desperate attack of peritonitis following a perforation of the appendix. He was semiconscious, his body was distended like a drum, and he was groaning in agony. He was cold, bathed in perspiration;
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
