At work (hospital), many nurses hate the fact that families will agree on dangerous procedures just to keep a love one alive. They will do this even though the outcome will still be the same, and the procedure even if successful will harm a patient in the long run.
A common example is performing a heart cath on an elderly patient, or attempting through all medical means possible to save a leg, when it would be best just to amputate it. I have seen cases where the person is only kept alive by machines.
So my question is, should we always take advantage of science, or should we just let life and death go on as it is? Where do you draw the line?
2007-11-18 15:36:50 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Wow. That is a hard one.
When I was 25, I went in for a surgery and was given a 'will to live' contract. I hardly payed any attention to it and signed off that I didn't want life support after a month. At the time, I thought there was no way I'd want to live if I wasn't 'normal looking' after a WHOLE month. My surgery went fine but the ICU stay went very wrong and for a while, I could barely communicate and was on a stomach tube for three months (or so). After a month and a half, I was able to clearly let people know what I wanted from moment to moment. I wasn't completely back-to-normal but enough to let my wishes be known. Luckily, there was no question from anyone to let me keep trying to recover at the month deadline but it made me sick when I heard about that Terry Shiavo case. How on earth is a person going to know what they'll decide until the situation actually happens to them?
I believe science can do amazing things but common sense should also have some say.
I knew a girl who died when she was eleven from a tumor that had been found and documented two years before. B/c of it's location, the drs couldn't perform the surgery w/o killing her but they knew the tumor would kill her if it stayed in. So, since the law/courts wouldn't let the drs do the surgery or euthanize her, they sent her home with her mother, where she went from being a normal looking 9 yr old to an overweight, disabled girl in a wheelchair before she died. The mother divorced the father, then they re-married and now the mother is a little screwy. I say a little b/c my own mother makes sure I'm not around her very much. I don't really know what her state of mind is.
It's so hard to say.Sometimes, a person needs that extra time in case something changes-either they recover more or a new scientific discovery is made. BUT, if the person gets worse and then dies, whoever is left behind has to deal with the repurcussions.
I think some cases would be fine for legal euthanasia but others seem to require a crystal ball to know what to do.
2007-11-18 16:20:20 · answer #1 · answered by strpenta 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the person. I told my parents that I would rather be killed humanely than be a vegetable, especially if they have no hope of my recovery. I personally would rather try for a while to save an arm or leg, but if it doesn't work, I can live with an amputation. If life means prolonged pain, I'd rather not, but if there's a way to keep life and pain-free living, I'm all for it.
2007-11-18 15:44:53 · answer #2 · answered by Jesika 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"So my question is, should we always take advantage of science, or should we just let life and death go on as it is? Where do you draw the line?"
I have a third alternative: Always take advantage of science. Improve our understanding so that a higher quality of life can be sustained for a longer period of time.
Let the patient draw the line: It's their choice whether to persist in living, or to die.
2007-11-18 15:45:28 · answer #3 · answered by Dalarus 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some people want to hang on, no matter what. Some people don't want to be put through what they consider torture. I think it should be up to the individual. My brother went through cancer treatments that I find unacceptable (he died three years later). A friend had a leg amputated because of osteomyelitis. Those are things I would not do (although, I did support them in their decisions), but they had a right to do what they wanted with their bodies. My only problem is with people who think they have a right to make such decisions for others.
.
2007-11-18 15:46:03 · answer #4 · answered by YY4Me 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Science and technology has certainly helped each one of us in many different ways-such as helped in developing the many under developing countries into developed countries, helped in improved transportation system, also made it possible to visit and discover many places on earth as well as in space that was thought impossible before the development of the science and technology, but these are only advantages we also have the disadvantages such as the ozone layer depletion due to excessive use of chemicals, soil erosion due to deforestation, etc. Well I would certainly like to conclude by saying that science and technology is very important but it should also keep in mind the environment
2016-04-04 21:48:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I chose to not Live on Machines If no Brain Function
2007-11-18 15:40:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
SCience with the ability to let go, is a good combination.
2007-11-18 15:39:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
most of us wouldnt want to be human vegetables...why bother?
i knew a friend who had cancer in 90 and she left the hosp and went home to die...with her kids...she had guts
2007-11-18 15:40:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋