DONE BY : FIONA;HUIJUN;MARTIN;BHUVAN

TASK 1

‘Thou shall not kill’. Why not?

Kill:
Euthanasia should be allowed as everyone should have the right to decide their own fate – whether to live or die. In the case where euthanasia is often seeked as a solution to problems, an individual may choose to undergo it as he or she finds it the most effective solution to rid themselves of their own physical pain and suffering and to reduce the emotional and financial burden on their family members and loved ones. This is also termed as voluntary euthanasia. For those who are not in the correct state of mind to makes these decisions themselves, this right can be entrusted to a loved one who can be trusted to make the decision to benefit the majority of the masses – patient and family members, also known as involuntary euthanasia. Often, individuals who consider undergoing euthanasia have reached a point in their illness where the negative impact on their friends and family exceeds that of themselves. Thus, after considering the welfare of the masses, euthanasia becomes the best way to eradicate all problems and alleviate the pain and suffering of one’s self and loved ones. Hence, thou shall kill.

Not kill:
On the other hand, it is unjustified to say that for those who are not in the correct state of mind to make the decision to undergo euthanasia themselves may have their “trusted” love one to decide for them. What is considered “trusted” enough? As mentioned earlier, he is not in the correct state of mind to decide for himself, so there is even less right for his loved one to decide for him. If this right should be entrusted to a loved one, then who exactly is entitled to this right? All these remain doubts. Indeed, it is hard to judge if the patient is undergoing such intense pain that he wants to end his life when he is unable to express himself, but it is even more difficult to ascertain if he has the willpower to fight till the end. Once a life is ended, it cannot be brought back. The patient may want to end his life as a decision made during a period of excruciating pain, but how can one be sure if the pain will not be relived? He may lack the will to live for that moment, but it may be short-lived. It is virtually impossible to judge exactly whether one will remain in that state forever, so for that small glimpse of hope to survive, we must not encourage one to end his life easily. Thus, thou shall not kill.


TASK 2

Question 1

Singapore does not support any kind of euthanasia.

As quoted from Singapore Medical Association’s Response to Straits times articles:
“The Singapore Medical Association does not believe that there has been any change in attitudes towards euthanasia within the medical community here. We do not support euthanasia.
On the contrary, more and more doctors within Singapore are learning about, and practising, better palliative care. We believe that when nothing more can be done to fight terminal disease, much can still be done in offering comfort to, and relieving the pain and suffering of, our patients.”
Dr Lee Pheng Soon President, Singapore Medical Association

Question 2.
· Advanced Medical directive
Question 3

We feel that Sabire should have been allowed to practice euthanasia legally as it would have given her the dignified death she desired in its true right rather than what happened after that. Unable to use morphine due to side effects, Sebire was in constant pain. Hence we feel that she should have been allowed to legally receive life-terminating drugs as she would have felt like her pleas were being listened to, at the very least.

Question 4.

Advanced medical directive will permit an incapacitated patient’s wishes to Oven due regard and restore respect of the patient’s autonomy which other competent and legally capable patients have and exercise. Hence together with good hospice care, it will in fact reduce the pressure for euthanasia. Just that the doctors would not be sole decision makers in the decision process.


TASK 3: [In progress!]