The WMA provides ethical guidance to physicians through its Declarations, Resolutions, and Statements.
The WMA is in official relations with the World Health Organization (WHO). Other health professional associations, governmental and non-governmental agencies and regional medical associations are supporting the work of WMA.
↓ The following is quotations of the WMA webpage. ↓
1. The World Medical Association reaffirms its strong belief that euthanasia is in conflict with basic ethical principles of medical practice, and
2. The World Medical Association strongly encourages all National Medical Associations and physicians to refrain from participating in euthanasia, even if national law allows it or decriminalizes it under certain conditions.
〔My overall impression〕
I found that WMA is absolutely opposed to euthanasia whether it is patient’s will or not. Moreover, although some countries approve euthanasia in law, they are against euthanasia. The point of view of WMA is based on ethics, so I think they are sensitive to life problem. As I said before, I haven't decided yet which sides I stand. However, I come to think that positive euthanasia isn't illegal act. In my opinion, WMA thinks that the only thing physicians have to do is doing their best to save patients life. Of course, this is not wrong, but I think physicians have to respect patients' will even if they wish to stop medical treatment.
I confuse little by little, so I'll put my thoughts together next time.
Citation site:
"Policy." THE WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. 30 May 2007
http://www.wma.net/e/
3 件のコメント:
As I wasn't aware of the World Medical Association (WMA) and their stance on euthanasia, I was glad to learn about them from your blog entry.
Just a few minutes ago (i.e., from the time I began writing this comment) a famous American doctor who not only advocated physician-assisted suicide, but also helped more than 100 of his "patients" die, was released from prison after most of his prison sentence was completed. He's now 79 years old and he hasn't changed his views on doctor-assisted suicide.
You can learn about Dr. Kevorkian from PBS's website. I'd like to know what you think of his activities and whether or not his actions were justified. The Web site has actual sound files of people he helped to commit suicide and transcripts of interviews with them.
I hadn't known about this doctor until I checked this website.
I think the activities of Dr. Kevorkian shouldn't be justified because his way of physician-assisted suicide is the same as active euthanasia.
I can't decide whether passive euthanasia is forgivable or not, but I'm against active euthanasia. What is more, I think his way is no better than murder. It was unbelievable for me that he devised the machine to die, Thanatron. I think it is very hard and painful to live with serious disease. However, his activities like this encourage suicide, and more patients may come to think life as a light thing.
In 1991, he was canceled a license to practice medicine in Michigan, so he shouldn’t have done medical acts even if patients asked him to help.
Anyway, I’m opposed to Dr. Kevorkian’s activities.
I agree with Chiaki that Dr. Kevorkian's brand of active euthanasia is wrong, especially when committed by a physician, since physicians are supposed to save lives, so what he's doing conflicts with his basic role as a physician. Today I ran across an article about an Australian version of Dr. Kevorkian who is expressing his opinion that a prisoner in a Tasmanian jail who has tried to commit suicide many times should be given the right to die.
By the way, in further looking into the WMA I've concluded that it is a professional organization and not an NGO. Although its activiities may be exemplary, it shouldn't be seen as an example of an NGO. I admit that it's very difficult to find an NGO that's solely concerned with euthanasia. Most of those who deal with euthanasia, deal with it as one of a number of "right to life" issues.
コメントを投稿