Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato
On the issue of euthanasia, this isn't the same thing. Euthanasia is intentionally ending a patient's life by means of utilizing toxic substances, whereas the refusal of a heart transplant is a complete different issue and should not be mixed. If it is the archbishop's idea of forcing the heart transplant, then the teen has no choice. He or she should have not followed the religion knowing that its religious belief is absolute (dictatorship).
|
The arch-bishop may be illegitimately trying to expand the
definition of euthanasia and also illegitimately trying to
redefine "voluntary withdrawal of treatment" suicide or existing suicide. To be blunt, the arch-bishop is an idiot if that was his purpose. A few hundred years ago, absolutely sincere Catholic Christians would wander the battlefield slitting the throats of comrades who would have died horrible infected gangrene deaths, so he can't even fall back on tradition with that one.
Voluntary withdrawal of treatment or refusing high-risk treatment is basically letting the natural course of the disease take effect. Heart surgery/replacement is *high risk*. Secondary complications from diabetes can be horrible (e.g. internal organ gangrene and necrosis) and some patients choose to stop treating their diabetes because death from a diabetic coma is preferable to screaming uncontrollable painful death from rotting inside.
However..., there doesn't seem to be any direct connection between the Singaporean arch-bishop's comments and the English teenage heart patient.
These were two totally separate and unrelated news stories. The teenager's big issue was that she is 13 (her religion isn't even mentioned but its probably Church of England) - not normally an age where they get to decide their fate legally. She convinced her parents to opt out of the high-risk surgery and I'm just glad to see medical policy supports her.