A matter of choice
"He may be gone but his music will always remain in our minds and hearts".
"He liked to party and to fool around. And that kind of life has a high cost"
"I tried to get ready for this but it's still very sad. His work will always remain for us to enjoy"
Gustavo Cerati was an Argentinian musician whose success can be attributed to the SODA STEREO band. He was one of the most important icons of Argentinian rock. Also, he toured all around the world representing Argentina and its music with high honours. However, in 2010 a stroking CVA left him unconscious and he remained alive because of life support. Today, September 5th he died after four years of being in the hospital. His death caused great sorrow to all his fans world-wide and to his family that was always hopeful that he was going to wake up.
His CVA was also a matter of great debate. Many people considered that performing euthanasia on him was the right thing to do whilst others alleged that the singer's family should not disconnect him but wait for him to recover and wake up.
"What would I do if my son, daughter, mum or husband is alive only because of life support? Would I disconnect him?"
"Would I want them to disconnect me if I were in Cerati's position?" Do we really try to put ourselves in the position of the musician's family?
Euthanasia is the action of end someone else's life so as to stop them from suffering. In some countries, euthanasia is legal while in others such as Argentina is not.
However, euthanasia is not about a matter of what is right or wrong, whether is legal or punishable--, it's a matter of choice. Doctors should inform their patients about the possible pros and cons and let them decide what is the best thing to do for their relative or loved one. If doctors fail in taking care of patients, if the political system fails in respecting citizens' rights and their freedom to decide what to do with their own lives, then in what aspects do we have the right or the possibility to decide on?
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarI agree with your opinion that the family needs to be the one making the decisions. They are the ones that know him and his wishes. They are supposed to be able to make the decisions based on what the person has previously stated. And theirs is the suffering for the loss of that life, which must be extremely painful.
ResponderEliminarI would not call euthanasia to the action previous to Cerati’s death, though. I would refer to it as “muerte digna” (dignified death does not seem to be the appropriate translation) because he needed a machine to be alive due to the fact that his body was unable to do it on its own. In addition he was not conscious at all. I believe nowadays there is a law that prevents people in a comma to be more than a certain time connected to machines. This derives from the limited amount of equipment and the great number of people who need medical attention. Euthanasia would be the decisionto die, taken by a person who believes his/her life to be not something they can endure. This would be the case of a quadriplegic person that decides to end his/her life. I feel these two are quite different situations, although both are painful for the family.
Hi !! This is the third time I write this, I hope this time I can post it haha.
ResponderEliminarThis issue is indeed quite delicate. The thing is that we're talking about someone's life, nothing more sacred than that. I believe life is a marvellous gift, and that we shouldn't have the right to choose between putting an end to someone's life or keeping him alive, even if the person is connected to a ventilator. Everything is uncertain, we cannot be a hundred percent sure if the person will live or if he will die. I've heard some cases of people who have woken up after 15 years!!!! And yes, it may have been 1 out of 10 cases or even more, but what if his family would have disconnected him?!!! Personally, I wouldn't do it. I don't know, this is how I see it. Having said that, in the end I think you're right, after all whether we agree or not, it's a matter of choice.
Quite a polemic issue you chose, Mai!
ResponderEliminarOnce I heard a teacher saying that people who depend on a machine should be disconnected because they are "wasting" energy and money, apart from the fact that THAT kind of living is not life. Then, a student answered that if we're guided by that philosofy, we should also kill elderly people because they "bother" and poor people since their living conditions cannot be considered a good life.
From my viewpoint, if the person didn't explicitely stated his desire to be disconnected after some time, we're in troubled waters. I don't believe we're enabled to decide over somebody else's life. Besides, there have been hundreds of cases where the person wakes up after years.
However, we have to put ourselves in the relatives' shoes. All in all, the ethical facet of "euthanasia" could be long argued and it'll always be polemic.