> I define euthanasia as the active termination of the live of a patient by > medical personnel on the explicit request of the patient. If it is not > active, it might be derilection of duty or whatever, but not euthanasia. If > it is not on the request of the patient, it is not euthanasia but murder. > Well, not necessarily active, if you go by Schiavo. But that is in another country. However that final sentence above is the point I am trying to make, so I do not understand how you can believe this as the same time as what you say below? If it's murder, the physician does not have a right to do it.
> > > However, I don't think this argument should apply when a patient > > specifically says that he wishes to be kept alive by any means > > necessary. In other words, the patients opinion as to his own best > > interests should trump his physician's, even if he turns out to be > > wrong. > > It is the classic confrontation where exercising the personal freedom of the > patient requires violating the personal freedom of the doctor. And as always, > I feel that the burden of proof should lie with the party that wants to trump > the personal freedom of the other party. And from what I have read about it, > I don't see that the patient has explored all the options of exercising his > personal freedom *without* violating the personal freedom of the doctor. > > Jochem > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:158775 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
