Posted by Gary [GLamotta] on March 27, 1999 at 22:27:03 {boLUiPtahczpQ4RTRPJ6MW2MRXA6xmpsc}:
In Reply to: Dr. Jack's conviction posted by Cygnus on March 26, 1999 at 16:18:07:
This is an interesting topic, Cy. I'm glad you brought it up.
What I see in Kevorkian's case is purely legalistic. That's because scores and scores of elderly and invalid persons beforehand take on the status of "DNR" (Do Not Resuscitate) in case they get critically ill. That simply means the doctors will do no heroic measures to try to prolong their lives if they go into respiratory or cardiac arrest.
The irony is that the patients AND the family are in agreement with this and technically, to me, they have essentially decided to let their loved one die. What is ironic to me is that this is very common. What is the critical difference between a "DNR" order versus a decision for euthenasia beyond the obvious that the physical body is maintaining that person alive?
My issue is that I see little difference in the families or patients who regularly request "DNR" from those who might wish to end adverse suffering where natural death is not imminent. To me there is little difference. They don't want their loved ones to suffer until the inevitable, and doctors allow patient's to die all the time who have "DNR" status. Isn't "DNR" sort of euthenasia?
Clearly, the main issues are the technical laws involved and not morality or conscience. Perhaps they should change the laws.
Interesting topic.
Gary