UK Question: Why is autonomy of the person not a fundamental human right?

Question

Euthanasia ...
Why does the Hippocratic Oath override the individual's wishes?
What right do they have to impose their beliefs onto others?
And why does society not offer an alternative as it does in some countries?

Read beyond the heading ... I AM TALKING OF EUTHANASIA!

I really can't see how someone wanting to end their life because there is no quality of life for them adds up to anarchy???
My father-in-law died of Alzenheimer's by the way. He was incontinent and had to be spoonfed by the end.

Stever R: Frank Lund refused to obey the law ... he's looking at life confinement. Personally i have more respect for him granting his wife her last wishes than i have for the law.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6639595.stm

Male Man: Tony Bland had that choice taken away. He had to suffer the withdrawal of medical treatment (it took him 9 days to die i read somewhere). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2600923.stm.
So the physicians will not kill but i wonder what they get from being responsible for the unwanted suffering. Satisfaction? Unless the average individual actually enjoys suffering these actions go against the grain of the Hippocratic oath. "To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients" For the good of me is to grant me the autonomy to die or live.
You missed the point really. The Hippocratic Oath is just that, an oath. A 'rite of passage into the world of medicine' as it were. The law has nothing to do with it. But cheers for the food for thought. ;-)

Answer 1

If you are in pain and its pretty much constant and there is no joy in living
then you should be allowed to go
we allow animals to die when they are suffering
for some strange reason we don't humans unless they 've commited horrendous crimes

Its a weird scenario
I'm sure things will change
But doctors do take an oath to preserve life that's why people like H Shipman caused such a disturbance

Answer 2

There must be a balance between individual freedom and societal responsibility.

As physicians, we have the right not to participate in any procedure or treatment that goes against our personal ethical values, so many doctors would not participate in euthanasia, if it were legal, on that basis.

Our government has decided that killing another person is murder, even if that person is terminally ill. As physicians, and citizens, we are obligated to obey the law.

Terminally ill people have the option of hospice care, which allows them to pass peacefully and comfortably, with the aid of medications that may shorten their lives. It is not euthanasia, but is a compassionate way to ease the end of someone's life.

I also believe that euthanasia probably happens more often than you know, because if it were publicised, it would be murder. Otherwise, it is an expected end to a bad illness.

Answer 3

There's many reasons

The sanctity of life - that it is intrinsically invaluable

Death is a permanent choice and cannot be undone when done in error

The HO aims to preserve life

People who are terminally ill may have impaired judgement and cannot give informed consent to euthanasia or may feel it they are a burden to families/friends (not a good reason to end a life)

It is difficult to ascertain whether a person is acting in fully knowledge of the conseqences of their actions when they decide on euthanasia

It is very difficult to police - for the medical team, carers or people out to benefit from a death and many others - eg litigation

Also, there is the question of care - are we not fulfilling our duty of care by giving people the option of ending their life if their suffering is so great?

These are not my opinions, just outlining possible reasons to your question.

Answer 4

Sorry about your father in law, such deaths are always distressing. May I ask a very hard question?

Did you want to end what you saw as your father in law's suffering because you felt the need to do something?

Your father in law could have made a living will to indicate how he wanted treatment to progress in the event of a debilitating illness depriving him of his senility.
He didn't, so with respect how do you know he would have wanted to end it?
We make these judgements based on our perception of the person and their attitude when we knew them in a healthy state, we make assumptions and then we add our own emotions and see suffering because we are aware.
It is hard to know what others are aware of when these conditions evolve and it is harder to watch. It is natural to want to 'do' something. Not necessarily the 'right' thing to do.

Doctor Harold Shipman practised euthanasia we assume he was a callous murderer, because in one case he altered a will for personal gain over 200 deaths later. In his world at the beginning he might have been practising compassion?

We wouldn't think so but did he commit suicide because he was 'misunderstood' or because he had come to his 'senses' and realised the enormity of his wicked acts?

I think the authorities have a duty to err on the side of caution in order to protect those who do not want to have someone else decide it is time for them to die.

Answer 5

Its a tricky one, one that's been discussed and laboured over for many many years. While others travel abroad to carry out their wishes.

In theory Euthanasia is a kinder and in a lot of cases, much more human approach to death than the maze of wires and loss of quality of life. But to ensure that the decision really is independent freedom of personal choice rather than another's want in a private setting is a very much harder thing to control or Police.

I believe this is the stumbling block, this and the simple fact that we live in a Politically correct world, where the rights of a human are seen only as the Right to Live. The Right to Die when and how you want, is a simple reverse of the Right to Live lobby, which in the current political climate will always prevail.

Answer 6

i don't see that there needs to be an absolute law for this.
each case is different, and so would be judged differently.
i do think that doctors need the hippocratic oath, and to uphold it.
extreme cases only would warrant euthansia (or what people call a mercy killing) then, and it ought to be and will remain a difficult decision to make rather than an easy one.

unfortunately, we've had a doctor here who abused his power and killed elderly women. i think that is going to hinder our society even talking about this issue.

Answer 7

autonomy of the individual would result in anarchy and chaos. What if one were to use their autonomy to murder, rape, loot.

Society could not function with out an underlying set of rules in which the well being of the masses must outweigh the free choice of the individual. It's a shame that autonomy needs to curbed, but human greed make it imperative that we do so

Answer 8

I gave you a Star for a great question. Whenever Ethics or morality are injected into any topic they crowd out the original concept.....Its a tough question to answer and one that will not in our lifetime probably have a solid legal answer. In my opinion a person has not only the right to live....but also the right to end their life.

Answer 9

If killing somebody is within your hands and within your power, the system could be abused by the society for monetary or personal reasons.

Answer 10

A persons' autonomy in a democratic and civilized society is the result of the persons fulfillment of his / her duties and responsibilities.
It is therefore a pre-requirement to comply with laws, regulations and social values in order to be entitle to rights.

In my opinion, autonomy with out duties and responsibilities means and / or is synonymous with anarchy.