Make Your Way 7, Schulbuch mit Audio-CD

Certainly, what was acceptable here was found unacceptable when two women actively sought euthanasia. In the first case “a patient in the final days of her life, dying of cancer and in great pain, pleads to be administered a lethal dose of drugs which the doctor agrees to write up.” We wanted to know whether, as a nurse, you would agree to administer the drugs. Fifty-five per cent said you would not, 44% said that you would. Forty-nine per cent of you did, however, think the doctor was justified in prescribing the drugs (46% thought he was not). However, according to the BMA report “the deliberate taking of human life should remain a crime.” This perhaps explains why some respondents appeared to agree active euthanasia was appropriate, but would not then administer the necessary drugs themselves. Forty-nine per cent then said there were circumstances in which they would be prepared to administer a lethal dose if instructed to do so by a doctor (as compared with 46% who said there were no such circumstances). But it is hard to imagine what circumstances these would be – if a woman dying in agony does not represent such a circumstance, and such action is anyway deemed a crime. The second woman was suffering from an incurable disease and had only a few months to live. “After much thought she has come to the conclusion that she wants the means with which to kill herself should her circumstances become unbearable. She asks you to help.” The response was unequivocal. Ninety-two per cent said they would not help her in this way, only 7% would. But this tells us very little. Is the “no” vote out of fear of breaching the code of professional conduct – or a considered rejection of the patient’s request? Would you, for example, tell the doctor of your conversation and leave it in his or her hands? Certainly 82% of you were not prepared to help the woman if she decided to take the drugs (having got hold of them), which suggests respondents were actually against active euthanasia in this instance. Over three quarters of respondents agreed there was a moral difference between allowing a patient to die and administering a lethal dose. And more than half of the respondents found that, when caring for terminally ill or very disabled patients who have additional medical complications, it was an “appropri- ate and helpful” guide to make the distinction between adopting ordinary but not extraordinary interventions. Public opinion is behind euthanasia – as many as 69% of the population feel doctors should be permit- ted – with approval from the family – to end the lives of the terminally ill. However, as the law stands in this country, the participation in active euthanasia is a crime – and if proved can carry a prison sentence. Passive euthanasia – the withdrawal or renunciation of life-prolonging measures with or without medical assistance – particularly with the consent of the patient, is not strictly an offence. Making the distinction between passive and active euthanasia can be terribly difficult and your re- sponses to our questionnaire show that the only way health professionals can approach the issue of euthanasia is case by case. The right decision will not always be made and the law may not always be upheld – but judging each case on its merits at least ensures patients are seen as individuals. Death is personal – hospital policy and the law must respect that and, where death is inevitable, help the individual to meet it with as little suffering as possible. BMA: B ritish M edical A ssociation to carry a prison sentence: zu einer Gefängnisstrafe führen to uphold the law: das Gesetz achten 94 Nur zu Prüfzwecken – Eigentum des Verlags öbv