according to two of my relatives who practice medicine in pakistan, something quite close to euthanasia is practiced in Pakistan, quietly, without controversy. For certain treatments costly/painful procedures are available that would technically prolong the patient's life but would either just result in prolonging his/her misery or some scenario similar to that. in those cases doctors advice their patients to avoid life-saving treatment. perhaps someone who is actually a doctor could explain all that better than i just did.
thats practiced everywhere and its not controversial. if a person is too old and frail and has an advanced cancer, doctors will recomend not giving chemotherapy, as it will proplong his suffering. Rather British have gone one step further than rest of the world where doctor can withhold treatment if he feels "its not in best interest" of patient. So your physician may decide on his own if he would administer CPR if you had a cardiac arrest. If he feels your quality of life may be too poor after esusctation he can decide not to do it.
If a loved one undergoing excruciating pain where they didn't have a good quality of life asked me to assist them in their passing...I really don't know what I'd do. I don't think I would be able to ignore someone I loved go through that sort of pain on a daily basis while pleading for me to end their suffering.
It's such a difficult situation to be in and like niksik said I hope I'm never put in that position.
^ Aww my official GS translator! You could have just said it in English in the first place though
Besides, there’s no harm in considering worst case scenarios. That being said we can never truly know what we’d do in certain situations unless, God forbid, we actually go through them.
Seeing the replies , it seems that not only me rather other ppl are also not clear abt it.
From islamic point of view it is wrong till now . On the other hand there is ijtihad by which this issue must be cleared out.
Consider a scenario ,
In the hospiatal there is only one life saving machine and two patients one is medically almost dead while other has chance of life saving ??
What to do ??
Depends upon how "almost dead" that person is. That's an extreme situation. I would think that hospitals can do transfers to where a patient's needs can be accommodated.
thats practiced everywhere and its not controversial. if a person is too old and frail and has an advanced cancer, doctors will recomend not giving chemotherapy, as it will proplong his suffering. Rather British have gone one step further than rest of the world where doctor can withhold treatment if he feels "its not in best interest" of patient. So your physician may decide on his own if he would administer CPR if you had a cardiac arrest. If he feels your quality of life may be too poor after esusctation he can decide not to do it.
philosophically how is that different from euthanasia? Lets stick with the former case rather than the physician deciding 'its not in the best interest' although one of my cousins was telling me something similar to that also happens if they decide that the patient or their family cant understand the treatment options.
but sticking with the example that you say is universal, what is the distinction between this and euthanasia?
In euthanasia you facilitate death by some intervention, like giving some poison or medication, or escalating dose of a medicine to the point that it will cause death.
Not giving a treatment which could prolong life is not euthanasia, similarly withdrawing treatment is also not euthanasia and happens all the time (though not very commenly). Such as a very ill person on ventilator who is expected to die in a few days, and doctors with consultation of family, switch off the ventilator. This is withdrawl of treatment and not euthanasia.
hmm… i suppose I am stumbling through to the definition of what this article calls ‘passive euthanasia’
Reason I raise this question is with reference to the Terry Schiavo case, where conservatives objected to withdrawing life support, and it became a debate about euthanasia.
Actually its much more common in poorer countries where "cost" is a major issue. In Pakistan is its common for people to stop life support if likelihood of recovery is poor.
in that case the debate on the moral difference between active and passive euthanasia, as highlighted in that article, becomes relevant. i have to say, in some circumstances active euthanasia seems preferable to passive euthanasia. i am not sure though that either is Islamically justifiable, or that there is a religious distinction between the two.
a case where a moral issue has been settled by pragmatic reasons.
The debate ignores the most galring and important reality of healthcare system. The resources are limited. If you put everyone on a ventilator in an ICU, it will be filled in no time with very old frail people or those with advanced incurable cancers. And you will have young breadwinner who requires just a 2-3 days of ICU care to survive dying in emergency department.
fundamentally though are you allowed to make the decision that someone with advanced incurable cancer's life is less valuable than that of a young breadwinner's? from a religious perspective i mean. (i agree with you completely otherwise)
fundamentally though are you allowed to make the decision that someone with advanced incurable cancer's life is less valuable than that of a young breadwinner's? from a religious perspective i mean. (i agree with you completely otherwise)
Thats a decision that society has compelled doctors to make day in and day out, though most do not like to be in this position. However, is spending a few more days with tubes sticking into throat, bladder, needles sticks till there isnt a vein left, bedsores etc really a "life"?
I am talking here in a suicide context 
)
