|
|
|
|
|
       |
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sandra Davie
Senior Writer
The great euthanasia debate
December 13, 2008 Saturday, 06:00 AM
Sandra Davie talks about the life and death issue.
THE Advance Medical Directive Act was passed in 1996 but so far only about 10,000 Singaporeans have signed the document to indicate that they do not want to be subjected to extraordinary life-sustaining treatment when they are dying. The government is looking into how it can encourage more to consider the end-of-life issues and sign an AMD if they want the option. I suspect the muted response so far to the AMD is a reflection of the reluctance on the part of Singaporeans to contemplate their own death. When I asked my friends if I could ask their elderly, ailing parents about euthanasia, they shooed me away, saying that it was bad luck to talk about death. My own elderly relatives avoided me when they found out that I was working on a special report on euthanasia. But it is a debate that we have to have sooner rather than later. The reality is that Singapore faces a fast ageing population. By 2030, one in five will have reached the age of 60. The majority will at some point face a terminal illness and the modern medicine can confirm the diagnosis and help one manage the symptoms, but not provide the cure. I admit, euthanasia is a highly charged emotive issue. It is an issue that most certainly divides a room But after talking to several people, both from the pro and anti euthanasia camps, there is no right and wrong in this issue. We may feel that it goes against some fundamental belief on the sanctity of human life, but when faced with someone racked with with continuous severe pain and suffering, knowing that there is no cure in sight, our views may change. Most Singaporeans I polled on the issue are fence-sitters. They say they are against legalising euthanasia for now, but at the same time would like to have such an option available when they are faced with a long-drawn out painful illness. The instinctive response to disallow euthanasia is due to the fear of uncharted territory. Many are fearful of allowing euthanasia or physician assisted suicide because of the abuses it can lead to. I agree the right to die debate is a maze with many twists and turns that lead to an ethical no man's land. How does one ensure that patients opting for euthanasia are truly informed, that their outlook is hopeless and that others aren't deciding their life has lost its value? What of someone whose death isn’t imminent but wants to die anyway? If we are going to debate this issue then we must accommodate divergent, deeply held personal beliefs. Whatever the answer, it requires a full and informed debate. It is after all, a matter of life and death. Read more from Sandra Davie in this week's edition of the Straits Times Saturday Special report. Tags: health 
Your comments are welcome. The following rules apply: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Best viewed at 1152x864 resolution with IE 6.0 or
FireFox 2.0 and above Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co.
Regn No. 198402868E | Privacy Statement
| Terms & Conditions
|
|
For the benefits of those readers facing such issues like "beanbagbean" about suffering cancer and have tried the convention methods and found no remdy, then I strongly recommend them to try this DR Chris Teo from Penang Malaysia at www.cacare.com for advice and counsel. This is not to promote his service or method but to give the victim(s) another hope in recovery from cancer.
Fear not about cancer, for it is curable if we change our paradigm and use the natural approach to reverse the onset of cancerous cells in the human body. Not Chemo, not radiation can rid the root-cause, but the natural approach which many victims have tried and still living healthily with their families worldwide. Again, there is hope as long as one is still breathing.
Till death do we part, with dignity and soundness.
Hi Sandra this life and death issue is about the soul and not so much about the body. Any attemp to view and approach to use economies methods or monetary seduction or incentives will not work to your soul or the dying soul. It is not about religion or theology but about the real 'you-spirit ' in the body of dust. Perhaps we should seek our souls for the answer for ourselves.Death Not Being Able to Trouble the Lord of Life
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bible Verses ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and
struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear
[attempting to defend the Lord]; and the slave's name was
Malchus. (11) Jesus therefore said to Peter, Put the sword
into its sheath. The cup which the Father has given Me, shall
I not drink it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Words of Ministry ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Lord did not offer any resistance to His arrest. By
delivering Himself up to death, the Lord proved that He was
life. Without death, how could He have proved that He was
life? It is by His going into death and not being subdued by
it. The Lord was not frightened, troubled, controlled, or
governed by death.
When the Lord knew that the religious with the political ones
were coming to arrest Him and put Him to death, He was not
tearful. He went boldly to meet them and delivered Himself to
them. Secondly, the Lord was composed when death came to Him.
In the face of death, He took care of His disciples in an
easy manner telling His arrestors to let His disciples go. In
every scene depicted in these two chapters, the Lord was at
ease; He was neither moved nor influenced by the fear of
death. Likewise, the Lord was composed before the high priest
and before Pilate. He was so much at ease that He was not
troubled even when He was crucified. While He was on the
cross, He could even take care of His mother. Troubles were
heaped upon Him during that time of suffering, yet the record
discloses that He was always composed.
John 18 and 19 show how strong and powerful the Lord was when
He went into death. When death was threatening, He was
strong, powerful, and not subdued by its influence. He could
go into death and come out of it without being hurt by it or
held by it. What a proof that He is life!
To Emmie>
Ah, very good point. In fact, incentives like these have been brought up to ENCOURAGE take up rates.
But the opposition to the recent attempts to change AMD laws are precisely due to such schemes.
If the AMD status of an invidual is made KNOWN to the insurance companies and hospitals, we give incentive to the hospital to be less committed in saving the person's life.
Insurance companies will now find justification to overhaul insurance terms, and invoke 'AMD clauses' to refuse reimbursement to life-threatening or 'inevitability' conditions (where AMD could have been exercised but have been preempted due to 'unexpected' circumstances i.e. a coma patient woke up).
when we are alive, we think not of death.
Oh sandra davie can share some sunshine with rain and rainbow too and you may not think how to die the best way, and you are right that there is no right or wrong in this issue.
Why sign or why bother to sign your death wish when you are breathing without pain. It is the pain that a dying person canot bear and not the death per se.
We cry only after our family member died, not during the suffering the pain phase, because our life in us will continue to preserve the life breath in our loved one, unless we have been told/directed by higher authority to quit trying .
If you premeditate to arrange your divorce terms and separations benefits, then you better not get married, for Marriage is a vow to surrende your life and to share your life with another being, right? Like wise with living with pain and suffering, till death do you part from your vowed married spouse. sandra will benefit more if yo keep on thinking how to help another soul live without pain and premature death via http://theinnozablog.blogspot.com sharing the simple methods to survive to achieve goals in living a Healthy wealth Abundance Life. Live and let death alone, for it is apponted to man once to live, after that is judgment.
Why not link the signing of an AMDs to lower payment rates from medical insurance companies? Wouldn't that be one logical way to encourage more people to think about signing an AMD? It is a well-known fact that much of the health expense incurred by people takes place in the last few months of their lives. If this expense could be significantly reduced by an AMD, couldn/t / shouldn't these savings be channeled by the health insurance companies to those who sign AMD's? This would give a financial incentive for signing AMD's while still leaving it as totally optional for each individual.
It would be useful if the ST could do a survey and report on the opinons of the health insurance companies in Singapore, to see their reaction to this possibility.
1 2 >