With great caution, the Quebec College of Physicians is prepared to cross the line on the controversial debate over euthanasia and propose that it be included “as part of the appropriate care in certain particular circumstances.”
After examining the issue for three years, the College’s task force on ethics concluded that Quebec society has evolved to the point where it could tolerate euthanasia in specific circumstances. The task force’s recommendation will likely be part of a “reflection” document the College will release next fall, hoping that a public debate on the issue will pressure the federal government to eventually amend the criminal code.
“We are being very cautious in our approach,” said the College’s secretary, Yves Robert. “Avoiding the debate contributes to the general hypocrisy around this issue. To say that it doesn’t happen because it is illegal is completely stupid. … We have to stop hiding our head in the sand,” Dr. Robert said.
Anyone out there think Americans will stop hiding their heads in the sand?
It is common knowledge that physicians often have no choice but to constantly increase medication such as morphine to alleviate the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients.
Sometimes, the pain is so unbearable that the amount of painkillers or analgesics used to control it can be fatal. And this, according to the Quebec College of Physicians, can be viewed as a form of euthanasia.
“The question here is to decide whether a drop in dosage or an increase in dosage constitutes a criminal act,” Dr. Robert said. “We may go as far as to recommend that in certain cases, where the pain is unbearable, the amount of analgesic required could correspond to a form of euthanasia.”
The College wants to avoid a divisive confrontation between those who are for or against euthanasia, saying such a debate would solve nothing. Instead, the debate should be about the doctor’s role in accompanying a terminally ill patient toward the inevitability of death, offering as much dignity and medical assistance as possible. “There’s not a politician or a lawyer that can tell me what that entails,” Dr. Robert said.
Self-conscious people make decisions like this all the time. The only crime is that they are often forced to reflect upon the moment without being able to consult a doctor.
#59, Lyin’ Mike,
So in other words, you can’t present anything that states Singer is in favor of killing babies. I understand you must have read all his books and articles and know all of his speeches by heart. So please, point out the book and the page so I too will know if he is a baby killer.
MikeN,
I read Peter Singer’s views on euthanasia for babies who have no hope of a life without suffering and for whom the parents would rather put the child out of his/her misery.
Exactly how do you see such an action as worse than putting any other terminally ill patient out of their misery?
I think your statement made it sound as if Peter Singer supports arbitrary infanticide when in fact he is merely discussing a highly controversial issue of how to deal with the wishes of parents in extremely difficult situations.
What would you do when a parent says that their child is in obvious pain and is obviously suffering in such a way that the parent believes that they themselves would not want to experience such suffering?
Would you force people of any age to suffer needlessly? If so, I call you the monster, not Peter Singer.
Oh, and for those of us who wish to read the viewpoint in full, here is an actual link to a segment of Peter Singer’s 1993 book. I hope that most of us will be smart enough, unlike MikeN, to recognize that the man is not advocating killing healthy infants.
http://tinyurl.com/kr4b38
Next time you want to claim someone to be a monster Mike, search for your own damn URL.
For my part, I will state that you either have never seen anyone in a seriously bad state of suffering, or, you are a monster who would torture one’s own friends and family by needlessly prolonging their suffering.
>I believe a link was requested. I do not see one in your post. When you want to make a point, it helps to make it easy for the reader to get to exactly what you are talking about without having to wade through thousands of search results.
That’s ordinarily true, but Fusion’s past history of demanding links has shown an inability to comprehend things, and to continue to deny what is in the links, so I didn’t bother.
MikeN,
So, what you are saying is that because you chose links that failed to make your point to someone who is not already of like mind with you, you refuse to actually attempt to make points from now going forward?
Might I suggest you just quit blogging then?
Generally, you will not convince people who are not already open to your opinions no matter what you do. The fun is in trying and in spreading better information. Maybe at least you will sew doubt in the minds of those who disagree with you. Maybe not.
The best you can do is continue to try.
Barring that, there is no point to your continuing to pollute this blog with your lame ideas.
Gee, I’m being condescending …
Perhaps it’s because on this thread you attempted to make Peter Singer seem as if he’s barbecuing babies in his backyard when in fact he is attempting to reduce human suffering while you are trying to increase it.
Maybe you already knew this. Maybe this is why you refused to post a link that you find damning to your own point when people read it in its entirety. Maybe you just don’t have the attention span to read more than the header to the section in the book. Maybe you never even read that but just read some other asshole’s ill-informed opinion on some other blog.
All I really know is that you apparently attempted and failed to make a point in the past so have now resorted to just posting total bullshit in hopes that someone will actually believe you know what you’re talking about. Perhaps someone will, but not someone well-read and intelligent … like Mr. Fusion.
Lyin’ Mike,
Further to the well crafted post by Scott,
You bluffed and were called on it. I was ready to accept there was something by Singer I was unfamiliar with. Which is why I gave you the opportunity to clarify something that contradicted my impression of Singer.
It is because you have tried this same tactic so many times in the past I give you the moniker I do. I keep hoping that you might learn that you should know what you are posting but you never seem to get the hint.
The greatest gift men like Singer give the world isn’t some argument on abortion or rationing health care. It is the ability to pose questions that make us think. And how to think is the greatest gift my favorite teachers gave me. Your mileage may differ.
Mr Fusion,
The greatest gift men like Singer give the world isn’t some argument on abortion or rationing health care. It is the ability to pose questions that make us think.
Those of us who can think that is.
MikeN, feel like giving it a try? I don’t recommend it, honestly. Thinking about the world can be pretty depressing. You may want to avoid it.
Ignorance is bliss.
“”A closely taste of various characteristic snack”"