Latest update November 26th, 2024 1:00 AM
Nov 18, 2010 Letters
Dear Editor,
Euthanasia remains one of the most contested medical procedures that continue to spark vigorous debate among people who share differing views about the ethics or lack thereof behind the application of its various forms.
Euthanasia is generally defined as the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. (The key word here is “intentional”. If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia).
There are various forms of Euthanasia such as Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed; Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent and Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary.
Euthanasia by action can be defined as intentionally causing a person’s death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection. Euthanasia by omission occurs by intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water.
Many in support of Euthanasia argue that it should be a natural extension of patient’s rights allowing him or her to decide the value of life and death for them. They would further argue that maintaining life support systems against the patient’s wish is considered unethical by law as well as medical philosophy.
If the patient has the right to discontinue treatment, why would he not have the right to shorten his lifetime to escape the intolerable anguish? Isn’t the pain of waiting for death frightening and traumatic?
But what happens when the patient is in no position to decide whether he lives or dies?
It is indeed a tragedy for Guyana that Mr. Winston Murray is now at the centre of a euthanasia case because he is brain dead. However, the decision on whether or not he continues to live on life support must be taken exclusively by his very immediate family.
Mr. Murray was a man of great integrity. He would want the principled and right medical decision to be taken regarding his further wellbeing. This most difficult decision, I will repeat, rests solely with the very immediate family of Mr. Murray.
Mr. Winston Murray can no longer serve this nation he so loved with his high moral principles, political astuteness and vision. However, had he won leadership of the PNCR and even became its presidential candidate, Murray would have utilized a very strong cadre of comrades from within the party and civil society to ensure he achieved his desired goals of bringing Guyana out of the quagmire of corruption, racial marginalisation, economic stagnation and incompetent governance in which it currently wallows.
Those persons in whom Mr. Murray would have placed his confidence and shared his dreams for the betterment of this beautiful country need to rise up and ensure they carry the torch of political enlightenment he brightly lit before his unfortunate accident.
Richard Francois
Nov 26, 2024
SportsMax – Guyanese hard-hitting left hander Sherfane Rutherford will get the opportunity to shine on T20 franchise cricket’s biggest stage once again after being picked up by the...…Peeping Tom Kaieteur News- Burnham’s decision to divert the Indian Immigration Fund towards constructing the National... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – There is an alarming surge in gun-related violence, particularly among younger... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]