Friday, July 18, 2003
Who Knows best?
The whole storm of controversy surrounding Ladin and Laleh is slowly dying out. But I would like to put in my 2 cents worth of musing. It seems just like human nature to condemn a groundbreaking albeit unsucessful operation simply because it failed. The critics would have remained silent if the operation was a success. We like to look good, don't we? The issue is a sticky one, and the one who has the strongest stand will be the side which is backed with evidence- the failure of the operation. It was a risky operation, but the doctors decided to respect the patient's decision and that was the outcome. Who has to take the blame now? Raffles hospital has been accused of wanting to gain glory for the op despite human lives being placed on the line. But we forget the 2 main players in this game of life and death... the twins. The doctors shouldn't have to bear the brunt of the accusations, if they are fair enough to be warrented in the first place.
It's patient autonomy vs beneficience. The other doctors the twins had seen picked the latter, the Singaporean team chose to respect the former. The twins told of the terrible state of their quality of life. My heart went out to them as I read about how they tried, as children, to run in opposite directions in a childish, but desperate attempt to seperate themselves. We're bequeathed with this transient state of existence called life. Is a life worth "living" if it is a wretched one? Isn't the decision of what to do with our life our's? We could go with the buddhist philosophy that "I" does not exist. So who decides then? Who else possesses a more intimate knowledge of your life?
My friend H points out that the foster father of the twins had advised them against the op, simply because it was possible for them to continue existing in their present state, but the twins placed their happiness above the risks they would face. They left this world while being estrangled from the man who had loved them and cared for them for most of their lives. THeir departure has generated so much grief. Was it worth it?
This case runs parallel to the issue of euthanesia. The government has allowed the operation to take place, and for the twins to take their life into their hands. Why not the same for people who wish for a humane way to end their lives because they can no longer take the misery that comes with it? You might argue that they might make an irrational decision in their desperation to leave pain behind. But it's their pain, is it not? We can advise them, offer them alternatives, counsel them etc.. but are we right in keeping them alive in so much agony? My friend H argues that it is impossible to discuss the issue of the twins in line with euthanesia because their major goal was not death, but to live. My view was that their ultimate goal was to be happy.. Death and life, they are both choices.Should doctors respect that decision in viewof the medical consequences? If we accept euthanesia and legalise it, people might view it as a responsiblity to die because they are a drain on resources. Humans have an uncanny ability to twist their liberties to fit their purposes. So the governments choose to ignore the issue of euthanesia to avoid the cascade of problems that will follow. Perhaps just putting this problem away is the best path to go.
The whole storm of controversy surrounding Ladin and Laleh is slowly dying out. But I would like to put in my 2 cents worth of musing. It seems just like human nature to condemn a groundbreaking albeit unsucessful operation simply because it failed. The critics would have remained silent if the operation was a success. We like to look good, don't we? The issue is a sticky one, and the one who has the strongest stand will be the side which is backed with evidence- the failure of the operation. It was a risky operation, but the doctors decided to respect the patient's decision and that was the outcome. Who has to take the blame now? Raffles hospital has been accused of wanting to gain glory for the op despite human lives being placed on the line. But we forget the 2 main players in this game of life and death... the twins. The doctors shouldn't have to bear the brunt of the accusations, if they are fair enough to be warrented in the first place.
It's patient autonomy vs beneficience. The other doctors the twins had seen picked the latter, the Singaporean team chose to respect the former. The twins told of the terrible state of their quality of life. My heart went out to them as I read about how they tried, as children, to run in opposite directions in a childish, but desperate attempt to seperate themselves. We're bequeathed with this transient state of existence called life. Is a life worth "living" if it is a wretched one? Isn't the decision of what to do with our life our's? We could go with the buddhist philosophy that "I" does not exist. So who decides then? Who else possesses a more intimate knowledge of your life?
My friend H points out that the foster father of the twins had advised them against the op, simply because it was possible for them to continue existing in their present state, but the twins placed their happiness above the risks they would face. They left this world while being estrangled from the man who had loved them and cared for them for most of their lives. THeir departure has generated so much grief. Was it worth it?
This case runs parallel to the issue of euthanesia. The government has allowed the operation to take place, and for the twins to take their life into their hands. Why not the same for people who wish for a humane way to end their lives because they can no longer take the misery that comes with it? You might argue that they might make an irrational decision in their desperation to leave pain behind. But it's their pain, is it not? We can advise them, offer them alternatives, counsel them etc.. but are we right in keeping them alive in so much agony? My friend H argues that it is impossible to discuss the issue of the twins in line with euthanesia because their major goal was not death, but to live. My view was that their ultimate goal was to be happy.. Death and life, they are both choices.Should doctors respect that decision in viewof the medical consequences? If we accept euthanesia and legalise it, people might view it as a responsiblity to die because they are a drain on resources. Humans have an uncanny ability to twist their liberties to fit their purposes. So the governments choose to ignore the issue of euthanesia to avoid the cascade of problems that will follow. Perhaps just putting this problem away is the best path to go.
Comments:
Post a Comment
