There has been a lot of comment posted confusing DNR order to euthanasia. The two subjects are kind of similar because they both deal with plans to end one’s life. For these reasons I will clarify the difference between the two in this post. A DNR (do not resuscitate) is a legal order for health care professionals not to revive a person if the patient’s heart stops beating or they stop breathing. It basically tells the members of the health care team not to perform CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation). Euthanasia; however, is the voluntary ending of one’s life. There are two common forms of euthanasia. The first is active euthanasia. This is when some type of drug is injected to provoke death. Some examples of these drugs include: morphine, barbiturates, and curare. Active euthanasia is my main focus for the next couple of weeks in this blog. The second type of euthanasia is passive. This involves the termination of life sustaining treatment that a patient was receiving. Examples of this are taking a person off life support and ending the providence of food usually through a feeding tube. I can accept this type of euthanasia due to the fact that there is nothing done by the doctor to bring about death and the patient just dies due to their illness. Passive euthanasia and DNR are the two subjects that people sometimes group together. I hope that this helps with the distinction between Euthanasia and a do not resuscitate order.
http://www.mlpd.mb.ca/reports/dnr/2.1.html
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/etexts/deathanddying_text/Rachels_Active_Passive.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you for the clarification! I was confused, and it helped.
ReplyDeleteIf a patient gives informed consent for the doctor to inject him/her with morphine, then is that moral? Will there be any ethical concerns with that?
This reminds me of a House episode back in season 3 when House told the patient he was going to inject him with morphine but injected with a sedative in order to prolong the time he had to find a diagnosis. That, of course, is wrong...but just a little side note :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo if someone has a terminal disease that is painful and its inevitable that he is going to end his final days laid on a bed, or if someone goes into a coma and most likely he will never wake up from it. Isn't more humane to end his suffering; and let terminal patients rest in peace, without having to suffer throughout their sickness?
ReplyDeleteSure if there is a chance of survival is better to not perform euthanasia, but in some cases there is nothing that doctors can do to save the patient's life, is better to just put the patient out of his misery.
I know that passive euthanasia might sound like a better idea overall because the person isn't being injected with any drugs. On the other hand, I definitely don't like the idea of starving to death by being taken off my feeding tube. I think I'd just rather get it over with quickly, you know? Do you think it is ethically wrong if it is what the patient asks for prior to the illness? I feel like if they decided beforehand then they would be less likely to change their opinion due to their skewed emotions.
ReplyDeleteDrugs for a safer world,
ReplyDeleteIs the more than likely chance that a person will wake up enough to just kill a person. When will we draw the line and still believe that a person can recover from something such as a coma?