I REFER to senior writer Ms Chua Mui Hoong's article, 'Don't let euthanasia kill living wills' (Nov 7).

Full Story

It seems to me however that an approach based on either ideology,religion or on some sort of theoretical morality does not work. I can understand where these would be coming from, but it seems pretty inadequate to make sweeping applications of these principles to euthanasia.

It is very clear to me that when applied correctly, euthanasia cannot be equated with suicide (as commonly understood). Neither can it be considered murder (which implies some malintent). Euthanasia, as correctly intended, is both rational and motivated by care and concern for the patient.

The real problem in euthanasia is in its implementation. The fear in peoples' minds, and that which probably underlie most objections, is that no matter how well-intended, the process can go out of control. People fear the creeping extensions of justifications for euthanasia. I can well understand these fears. Euthanasia can easily be the wedge edge that leads to exterminations of the sick and defenseless in society. But such fears cannot be the reason for denying relief to the suffering. It is good to remember that action and inaction are two faces of the same coin. The humanity in us compels us to preserve life...as well as to palliate suffering. Sometimes these are incompatible. To preserve life we have to deny real palliation. Therein lies the dilemma with respect to the provision of a 'good death'.

More of my thoughts on this topic here:
http://gigomole.blogspot.com/search/label/lifeanddeath

I don't know y Dr George Wong couldn't have provided his father with the palliatives he needed and helped him live as long as his disease allowed, instead of wishing that his dad's fatal illness be helped to speed up the final blow. 'allo, death is inevitable for everyone, but it shouldn't mean we allow anyone who wants to fast forward the process carte blanche.
Like Dr Gigomole, I too have a discussion on this topic going on in my blog at http://singaporegirl.wordpress.com/2...-dies-to-live/

Whether or not a person is in favour of euthanasia for himself should be included in the AMD and this fact kept strictly confidential from everyone including his family members.
Only the doctor in charge of the patient at the crossroad when euthanasia becomes an option will be in the know and hence be able to protect the patient from being goaded into dying by granting or withholding approval in accordance with the patient's wishes as stated in his AMD.

Not everyone supported euthanasia and conversely not all refused euthanasia. It is only fair to leave the option open and available for those who wish for it and after all it is a personal choice to end the unbearable pain and suffering. In fact inclusion of euthanasia in a person’s advance medical directive is a helpful example to avoid any harsh and critical decision when required. Those who objected euthanasia can always shun the option as nobody force them to go against their will and at the same time opposing party should not impose their thinking on others if they want their wisdom to be respected.

Euthanasia is not about fast forwarding the dying process just because death is inevitable to everyone. It is about giving the terminally ill patients the choice of dying with dignity without turning themselves into 'palliative' addicts.

Let's not jump to conclusions. I don't think we should assume that Dr George Lam wish to have his father dead as soon as possible. Dr George Lam' s father could have expressed his wish to die during one of those painful attacks due to his illness. Dr George Lam just lamented that he felt bad as he couldn't grant his father's wish, because our current laws forbid euthanasia.

IMO, euthanasia should be a choice for the cancer patient to make. Reasons given, such as legalising euthanasia could lead to abuse of euthanasia by the patients' children, are just, IMO, excuses. Legal conditions could be set before euthanasia is allowed, such as having psychiatrists to ascertain that the cancer patients are choosing euthanasia without being pressured to do so by others.

Besides, admitting temporary insanity as a defence in a court of law could also lead to abuse of such a plead. Yet, it doesn't mean we should exclude temporary insanity as a defence, because there could be genuine cases of temporary insanity.

The argument that euthanasia is immoral is even weaker than the one on abuse of euthanasia, as morals vary from people to people, culture to culture, religion to religion. For example, the Catholics and several Christian denominations may see euthanasia as immoral. But to some other people, forbidding euthanasia could be cruel and immoral to the terminally ill patients who wish to die. Some might even say that those who support forbidding of euthanasia are 'sadistic'. They 'enjoy' seeing terminally ill patients writhe in excruciating pain till they waste away and die. How's that for being 'Christianly' immoral?

The argument that euthanasia is immoral is not only weak. It is presumptuous and itself borders on the immoral. Why should healthy humans presume to dictate the behaviour of those who are in constant pain?

Choice is the essential characteristic of any developed and civilised society. Let those who are in the predicament of constant pain and suffering decide their own future. What others can do is to try to prevent abuse and turn the right to die into the pressure to die. This seems to be the greatest challenge facing euthanasia.

i'm shocked to read about the good doctor's father. as a doctor he should know better than to argue his colleagues to "kill" his own dad faster and sparing him the pain and the agony.i'm sure he is aware of palliative care and end-of-life management of such a terminal problem. do not push your responsibility to your colleagues in hospital. you should have made a stand and taken the responsibility to look after your own dad in the comfort of your home. i'm disappointed.

"His action should not be dictated by the beliefs of other religions, or by medical ethics. It is irrelevant to him. He was not harming anyone by his wish. Why should the law not allow it?

I am a little confused by the above statement. If a doctor who doesnt believe in euthanasia and against mercy-killing, and if his/her patient is a believer of it, how can the doctor perform the act of mercy killing altogether? It will be against his beliefs and his conscience, right? So who will do it in the end if the law permits this act?

There are several ways to overcome the problem raised in #9.

1) There are many doctors in Singapore. Get one who believes in euthanasia and for mercy-killing to do it.

2) Get the patient's relative to do it in front of medical staff as observers.