Saying no to euthanasia
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Birthday Rap For 17 Year Old Guy
This year, information is spread: 94% of French people support euthanasia and ADMD - another chestnut - " calls for a debate. " We would, therefore, that 6% to refuse that man can commit suicide legally, technically, medically. Membership would be "massive", opponents almost nonexistent, almost insignificant. It's sad but it is obviously insufficient to change their beliefs. I will not repeat here my views, fully developed in my previous posts, but we must reiterate that we should not simply resign themselves to punish the alleged indignity of a Man by death, that France has reached a compromise legislation (see paragraph 12) largely ignored the French, including carers and there is no need to open this new debate, called by the ultras of euthanasia.
That my fourteen good reasons to oppose euthanasia. 1. A company does not break the ban on killing without consequences. This prohibition fundamental, common to all civilizations, all cultures, can not be development without delay, mechanically, further the limits of transgression.
2. No Man is never unworthy. Faced with certain purposes in life, you may sometimes be convinced but a principle is never easy to hold. Any action on the end of life should be based on this principle and not on this concession outrageous and would literally deleterious society accepting that some lives are unworthy to the point that only death would come and restore dignity. We admire Mother Teresa: she cared for the lepers, she did not finished.
3. It does not ensure the dignity of a man giving death. We must ensure dignity in vieet not by death. The alleged right to die with dignité1, we must oppose the right to live in dignity. There is no conceivable alternative to be alongside those who struggle every day to ensure the dignity of a dying person, rather than those who, by far, advocating the injection.
4. Euthanasia is a collective resignation. It is the ultimate option of a society that has abandoned the ambition to be a corporation, a community that takes care of its own, a society that has abandoned the ambition to ensure the dignity of his dying. For euthanasia, it tends to erase, to delete the problem, it does not address.
5. Euthanasia is the choice of a materialistic society, selfish and individualistic, not accepting the weakness and fragility. She cultivates youth, beauty, celebration, the body. Disability horrifies him: it is eliminated or removed. Death terrifies? It is hidden, it is hastened.
6. You take a risk in accepting an application for death: that it means something else. We all shudder at the idea that we can execute an innocent man and it is mobilizing against it regularly. We should also shudder at the idea: euthanize someone who did not really wanted. Suffer and see his body or his mind disintegrate: how not wish this to stop? But what do we want to see an end: the suffering and feelings of worthlessness or life? 2 All our efforts and all our collective ambition should be to the annihilation of suffering and the assurance of dignity. It sets itself ambitious goals in many areas, and we achieved that seem unrealistic, why do we go down the arm here?
7. The choice is illusory. Ask a real choice suppose there is an alternative, we know about its existence and that this alternative is effective. As written by Axel Kahn, a former chairman of CCNE3, "reintroduce the dimension of free will required to reinstate the parameters of a life not only bearable, but desirable. " Who really knows palliative care? Which has ensured that palliative care become a reality? It is also unfair to suggest that we can now anticipate our control right now so specific and unpredictable that will be our death, what we think today will not really feel that day . Should he risk life while we have wanted to die, or die while we wanted to live?
8. Death is a time to live. Marie de Hennezel, a pioneer of palliative care in France illustrates the Death fully intimate with the death of John, the death of Marcelle, that of Marie-France, and this "ciao" with one hand. If death stinks maybe even more than it tells, though it can sometimes be a cry of pain and loneliness, it is unlikely for some this passage in which the dying begins in peace. As foolish as it may seem, we must allow time to die. Death should not be hastened.
9. Euthanasia is a choice of able-bodied for the dying. Trivially: policymakers are not paying. Emmanuel Hirsch, president of the Espace Ethique AP-HP, and ARSla, recalled One evening as people with ALS are not asking for death, but speech synthesizers. However, pronounced in these polls, if not in good health, anguished by death, terrified by the forfeiture and deeply convinced of the worthlessness of men dying? "Life May Be Worth Living in a locked-in syndrome" is the title of a European study that highlights that even in this extreme situation, patients still evoke a "quality of life." Really, can we judge, in absolute terms or face a concrete situation, the dignity of a state of life?
10. The request for death extreme minority. With Emmanuel Hirsch, Catherine Kiefer rappelaitqu'en 10 years of practice, she had been a request for euthanasia. There is also the oncologist (cancer specialist) who reports to Rue89 than 25 years of practice, she has not seen any request for euthanasia that lasts. Discussions artificially maintained and renewed by some parasitic reflection. Should we shake the foundations of our social life for rare cases, and can handle much?
11. Allow active euthanasia will kill the development of palliative care. Yet the only solution of a real dignity and honor of a company. This development is long pressed for practitioners (including Didier Sicard, former president of CCNE), but it takes a strong political and social will to develop the approach of palliative care. Palliative care in hospitals require time, personnel and money. Faced with the assurance of an end faster, relieving those who stay and also the public finances, euthanasia will he really fussy?
12. We have reached a "French way", largely ignored by the French, who still called for the establishment of a situation that already exists. Since the recent law LEONNET, 22 April 2005, one of the first articles of the Code of Public Health, Article L.1110-5, provides that medical procedures "shall not be prosecuted by an unreasonable obstinacy "and that" when they appear useless, disproportionate or having other effect than the mere continuation of artificial life, they may be suspended or not to be undertaken. " The same article provides that "in this case, the doctor saves the dignity of the dying and ensures the quality of his life in providing the care referred to in Article L. 1110-1110 "- that is to say palliative care - or that" health professionals implement all the means at their disposal to ensure everyone a decent life until death. " Even more explicitly, in Article L. 1111-10 Code of Public Health states that "when a person, in advanced or terminal phase of severe and incurable, whatever the cause, decides to limit or stop all treatment, the doctor respects the will after being informed of the consequences of his choice. " In this case, Section 1111-10 provides that "the doctor safeguard the dignity of the dying and ensures the quality of its end of life by providing the care referred to in Article L.1110-10," which "aims to relieve pain, ease the mental suffering, safeguard the dignity of the sick person and his entourage to support. " Under such treatment, as described in the guide "right of the sick and dying" 4, the doctor may administer a sedative, making the patient unconscious. The French do not know the law, partly for lack of political will. The French assert favor of a law on euthanasia, but exists! Do they know only those provisions? 56% of respondents say that euthanasia should be possible "in certain cases." When she innocently say should be reserved for "unbearable diseases [as opposed to cool diseases?] And incurable," do they know the article L.111-10, applicable to serious and incurable diseases? Of the various sites, commentators criticize the aggressive treatment. Do they know that this persecution is unanimously condemned, and clearly excluded by Article L.1110-5 of the Code of Public Health? Thus, the French, uninformed or misinformed, ignore what is in the law and are calling for what already exists.
13. We can not escape, France, the excesses of euthanasia. We can not escape this alleged compassion, a little too eager. We will not escape either to deviations from these countries that we said "ahead": the Netherlands, Belgium, but also Switzerland. Netherlands and Belgium, it is coming to the euthanasia of dementia, children, depression. In France, the drift of the ADMD is there before our eyes, and its purpose lies behind circumlocutions irenic. The right to die with dignity Twenty years ago it was a demand for palliative care. It has become a claim for death. ADMD and campaigning today for assisted suicide. Today, the law allows the patient who wants to die to stop his treatment and be administered sedation. Have we not reached a point of balance, or even a break?
14. The end of life is exploited by a manipulative, extremist organization. The end of life is over-simplified, reduced to the general public to a question of injection, neglecting the mystery and the unknown. The emblematic cases (cases and especially Tranois Humbert, Sébire or Salvat) are dramatically truncated because they are ultimately cons-demonstrative (cf. including analysed'Axel Kahn). Well understood, they illustrate the cruel excesses and deviations of euthanasia. The fact of being forced to use dishonest methods - despite polls so favorable - should sharpen the critical faculties of public opinion. In addition, while the law already enshrines the right to discontinue treatment and be administered sedation, the ADMD only stop when active euthanasia and assisted suicide (not in a condition) will be legalized. This is the meaning of the draft law proposed by him, to be discussed November 16, 2010 in favor of "actively assisted death". Passive euthanasia already exists, but the ADMD is that the physician directly administers the death. To achieve its purposes, the French ADMD ment, arguing tirelessly - as does Jean-Luc Romero still these days - it would still pass a law on euthanasia and open debate House, held on numerous occasions and has resulted OF a law whose assessment in 2008 led to the establishment of a parliamentary report.
Posted blog Koztoujours.fr
About this survey is the testimony of Professor Régis Aubry
President of the Observatory on End of Life, and head of the palliative care unit at University Hospital of Besançon The doctor responds Régis Aubry:
"Like any survey, it has an interest - limited - and a risk: he can speak of the end of life, including euthanasia, which is an absolute necessity but it can not avoid a simplistic view of things. We ask people questions in binary terms on a highly complex subject. It is then allowed to wonder based on what their responses, their knowledge of issues, instead of their subjectivity, their fears. It is a vision of well-bearing. What answers would they have been interviewing key stakeholders? As president of the Observatory of the end of life, I see once again that the Leonetti law on end of life is still very little known by the French. It is our mission to make it better known by publishing regularly the state of research in this area. "
In this moment of confusion I invite you to go see the movie" Eyes Open "by Frederik Chaudier giving another perspective on end of life Sr. Eliane
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment