LC ► Wei
Hong
May 20
at 2:23am
What do
u think?
 |
BBC News
|
The
Aruna Shanbaug case resulted in a 2011 Supreme Court of India decision allowing
"passive euthanasia" to be considered in certain cases if doctors
file a case in court.
"Passive
euthanasia" is a misnomer that should be expunged from the dialectic
lexicon. While acts of omission do not automatically merit ethical distinction
from acts of commission, true euthanasia ("active euthanasia")
remains fundamentally distinct from withdrawal of futile medical treatment
("passive euthanasia") due to underlying intent. The former represents
the patient's desire to reduce life quantity. The latter represents the
doctor's responsibility to not increase suffering (primum non nocere).
Independent
to the question of treatment withdrawal, doctors also have a responsibility to
not enact medically inappropriate treatment (for example, doctors cannot grant
a patient's demand for their heartburn to be treated by heart transplantation).
While oral food and drink constitute basic care that cannot be withheld, adult
nasogastric feeding is an invasive medical treatment, which in Aruna Shanbaug's
case resulted in increased suffering for no meaningful benefit. It is further
concerning that she was subjected to tracheal intubation shortly prior to her
death.
Ultimately,
the Aruna Shanbaug story most prominently highlights the need for development
not of legislation but rather of medical training.
