Here is the catch: euthanasia is illegal in France.
Her only hope was to contact the president to make an exception. Should he have this power? Should one stroke of his pen decide whether or not this woman dies? Does she really have a right to die in this case? Or should the law deny her of this freedom, essentially "protecting her from herself?"
Personally, I feel as if such matters should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Looking at this case, I think that she has a valid point. Her suffering is so immense, both emotionally and physically, that I believe she should have a choice of whether or not to continue to endure such pain. When thinking about this, I recommend first coming to a conclusion based on what I have summarized and then looking at the link below to view a picture of the woman, which is quite graphic. I believe the photo definitely had an impact on my viewpoint and may have an impact upon your own.
2 comments:
I disagree with Alana that euthanasia ought to be permitted at the request of Chantal Sabire. It is true that the tremendous suffering of the woman could be stopped by ending her life. However, the crucial issue around permitting euthanasia is not whether the woman should have the right to end her life or not, but rather the question of who should have the burden of ending her life. There is no law - even in France - against suicides; one has the freedom to take one's life if he or she deems it necessary. However, when this suicide is assisted by physicians - who are supposed to use their knowledge to keep his/her patient alive - euthanasia requires much more than mere request by the individual. At first, the doctor ought to determine if the patient cannot physically survive as a result of complications in his/her body. Based on the scientifically determined information about the patient’s physical health, the doctor ought to determine whether it is highly unlikely that the patient would survive. Such determination is necessary for euthanasia to be permitted. In the case of Chantal Sabire, a doctor has not determined that the woman will eventually die as a result of her physical complications; therefore, her doctor should not be permitted to perform euthanasia.
Jesse Gelsinger died when the intensive-care specialist turned off the ECMO machine and the ventilator. This was a case of euthanasia - a death assisted by a specialist. However, the decision to perform euthanasia was the result of careful medical determination that Gelsinger's kidneys and his brain had both shut down. In this case, a doctor’s fiduciary duty to do all he can to save the patient has not been compromised; the dotor performed euthanasia as the last resort.
Looking at the picture, I did sympathize with her and understood her desire to end her own life. However, I believe that it is equally important, if not more, to preserve the integrity of the doctor’s fiduciary duties.
In addition to the point Hyeon-Ju raised about doctors bearing the burden of euthanasia, there is also the issue brought up in "Unspeakable Conversations" that euthanasia implies that one's life is devalued: we try to prevent 'normal' people from committing suicide because they are not thinking rationally, but when an ill person asks to be euthanized, to accept is to imply that their life is not worth living anymore. This brings up a slippery-slope argument: when is it allowable to let someone commit suicide, and when should they be stopped?
In this particular case, I think the case for euthanasia could be justified. This is clearly an extraordinary case, with only 200 cases in the past 20 years, according to the article. Presumably this cancer is terminal, and if her pain and suffering is as bad as she claims, I believe she has a legitimate case for euthanasia. However, one problem I had is why she could not commit suicide herself. As Hyeon-Ju said, suicide is not illegal, and presumably she still has the autonomy to carry through with it – for example by overdosing on over-the-counter medications. This is not an argument that she should commit suicide, but if she wishes to be euthanized so badly, why cannot she commit suicide first?
Post a Comment