According to my essay " Is euthanasia a proper part of a doctor's role as healer", I gave the definition of healer as a person who stops a difficult situation, physical pain, and emotional suffering. My idea is that doctor plays an appropriate role as a healer in euthanasia because he helps terminally ill patients to avoid their severe pain even though he knows the result in that these patients will die.
There are some cases in euthanasia that patient is not the one who have a terminal illness.
The first one is the case of Daniel James . He used to be a rugby player; however he had an accident in the rugby game that cause paralysis from his chest down. Thus, he asked doctor to help him die. (from Paralyzed player killed himself)
The second case is Sir Edward Downes and his wife. He ask the doctor to kill him and his wife. Although Sir Edward is not suffer from terminal illness, his wife has a secondary cancer in her liver and pancreas. They need to die together after stay together for 45 years. (From The independent)
Do you think the doctor who assisted suicide in these two cases can be called a healer because he help to relieve emotional suffering of the patients from my definition?
References
Paralyzed player killed himself (2008, December 10). BBC News. Retrieved November 25 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/7774802.stm
There are some cases in euthanasia that patient is not the one who have a terminal illness.
The first one is the case of Daniel James . He used to be a rugby player; however he had an accident in the rugby game that cause paralysis from his chest down. Thus, he asked doctor to help him die. (from Paralyzed player killed himself)
The second case is Sir Edward Downes and his wife. He ask the doctor to kill him and his wife. Although Sir Edward is not suffer from terminal illness, his wife has a secondary cancer in her liver and pancreas. They need to die together after stay together for 45 years. (From The independent)
Do you think the doctor who assisted suicide in these two cases can be called a healer because he help to relieve emotional suffering of the patients from my definition?
References
Paralyzed player killed himself (2008, December 10). BBC News. Retrieved November 25 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/7774802.stm
Brown, J.(2009, July 15). The independent world. Retrieved November 25 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/after-54-years-together-they-decided-to-die-together-1746472.html
Ing,
ReplyDeleteI like your very clear presentation of the two real-life examples of euthanasia and your question about how they might relate to the issues addressed in your essay.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think your definition would better to be more specific because I can create questions below.
ReplyDeleteAre the elements which healer stops,such as a difficult situation,physical pain,and emotional suffering, required altogethr or one of each? In other words, whether we can call a person who stops only difficult situaion healer.
If all elements are necessary, on the second example, the husband can not apply for euthanasia because he doesn't have physical pain.
If at least one of elements is necessary, both two examples can apply for eathanasia by a doctor's role as healer. But most people who have a difficult situation,such as bunkrupt,broken heart, depression could also be assisted euthanasia by docter.
Anyways, your idea also helps my idea of essay. Thanks!
I don't think we can call the doctors are "healers" in your example situations because Daniel and Sir Edward still have much medical abbilities to continue to be living. In my definition, doctor can be a healer to assist euthanasia only when their patients have terminal ills; there are no medical possibility to recover and patients cannot do nothing but endure pains. I agree your idea which stated bedore the examples, but your definition is too general and broad to support your idea. Wouln't it be better to specify a condition: a healer in euthanasia?
ReplyDeleteI am now confused as hell.
ReplyDeleteI've just read the articles Ing posted and I'm shocked.
Oh my 'Buddha'! Doctors can kill almost healthy people in Switzerland! And it is legalized! What's wrong with the world?
These cases absolutely are murders. They are not dying, the paralyzed player and Sir Edward, these are not mercy killings. They just can't bear their emotional pains. Can not bear your paralyzed body or can not bear losing your wife is not an excuse to die.
I strongly disagree with the definition that the Swiss Clinics and Switzerland's law gives for the word "healer".
How can a doctor as a healer allowed to kill his patient? Doctors are supposed to help patients to continue being alive, unless they've tried every way to save them but they are hundred percent sure there is no other way and dying is the most preferable solution left.
Poor Swiss doctors, killing human is a very very severe karma, if you want to die that much, kill yourself please.
Moreover, according to Thai's law, if you prepare for or hand poison to another, knowing exactly what he's going to do, you'll be accused as intentionally committing a murder.
Sorry, I've got carried away.
To answer Ing's question I think the doctors in these cases can not call themselves healers. Indeed, murderers would suit them much better.
If I were you, Ing, I'll reconsider my definition of healer. Relieving emotional suffering is not an excuse to kill people; if you define the word that way where the line is. How can one declare one's emotional suffering suffers enough to be allowed to die?
Literally, euthanasia means "good death". From your definition the word healer mean a person who stops a difficult situation, physical pain, and emotional suffering, so I think the doctor who assisted suicide in these two cases cannot be called a healer because he don't help people to relieve emotional suffering.
ReplyDeleteI used to talk to the doctor about euthanasia(just when I worked at the hospital...don't misunderstand me that I need this way), he told that the way to kill people by using injection, in some cases before they die, they might have painfulness or any suffering. Thus, in these two cases, actually, they didn't have any terminal illness, so they must suffer with pain or unnatural effects of drug before they died.
Moreover, I think docters is not the God. They should not involve the way people die. If they do, they should be called a murder.
I agree with Maiko that there are other ways to help these people. For example, in your case, they should join rehabilation program rather than euthanaisa program. Though at first they might find that life become difficult but later they should be able to accustom themselves to this new situation.
ReplyDeleteAs you define a healer as "a person who stops a difficult situation, physical pain, and emotional suffering", should we consider a person who terminates the sufferer's life as a healer? Do they really have no way to stop their pain other than terminating their life? In the above examples, I believe that a psychologist should have been introduced to these cases to take the role of a healer rather than a doctor who can practice euthanasia.
I agree with Liu that in this case of two example that Ing give should been helped by psychologist. As you say that the docter is a healer because he help to relieve emotional suffering ; I thinks the doctor can not consider to be a healer because if they can why his patients still want to die, why they do not have better emotion or why they can't cope with their problem.
ReplyDeleteHaving shared some responses to the two difficult examples of euthanasia that Ing has presented here, what sort of definition of healer seems appropriate?
ReplyDeleteClearly, some people want a definition of healer that will say that the doctors' actions in these cases were not those of a healer. But Ing won't be happy if that definition rules out all cases of euthanasia. And a good definition should probably not disqualify doctors to fail to save a patient's life: do pancreas cancer specialists fail to be healers simply because there is no effective cure and almost all of their patients quickly die of the disease?
So, would anyone like to suggest a new, improved definition of the word healer? (Or of the verb heal, if you prefer.)
The etymology of the word heal gave me some ideas, which I think are consistent with Ing's idea.
ReplyDeleteThe Oxford English Dictionary's etymology notes on this very old English word (c. 825) are as follows:
[A Com. Teut. vb.: OE. hlan = OFris. hêla, OS. hêlian (MDu. hêlen, heilen, Du. heelen, LG. helen), OHG. heilan (Ger. heilen), ON. heil (Sw. hela, Da. hele), Goth. hailjan, deriv. of hail-s, OTeut. *hailo-z, OS. hál, HALE, WHOLE.] (Retrieved November 27, 2009 from http://dictionary.oed.com )
The abbreviations are to the source languages, such OE = Old English, ON = Old Norse, OS = Old Saxon, etc. These are all old Germanic languages from which English arose.
The important point I thought is that the English word heal is related to both the words hale and whole. It was this last especially that seemed to me similar to Ing's insistence that healing, and health, involved more than being physically well or simply taking account of physical conditions. Ing's idea there sounds right to me.
But do we like that sort of definition? It might allow that mental or emotional pain were also things that required healing, and that the relief thereof might be healing, even if it entailed acceding to a patient's request to die for reasons that were not purely related to physical illness.