Instructor: Jorge Gómez
Topic: Euthanasia.
“Imagine the following scenario. Visualize yourself confined to a bed, unable
to lead the active lives you do now, watching the world pass you by, breathing
with the aid of a machine. No hopes of a cure, no hope of escape, only able to
count the minutes, day, months, waiting for death, now consider living like
that for 10 years. Now how would you feel if you know you would never
recover, being told that the remainder of your life would be spent on your
back, under medical supervision, a tube down your throat”.
I would now like you to consider what you would do in that situation? Would
you wish to take a dignified way out, when no hope remained? So today we
will be discussing the morality of Euthanasia, the benefits and what it really
means.
I. Speaking: Join a classmate and then read and answer the following
questions:
1. What are your thoughts on euthanasia?
2. Have you ever heard about any case of Euthanasia in our
country?
3. What is the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide?
4. Where is euthanasia and assisted suicide permitted?
5. Should euthanasia and assisted suicide be legalized?
6. What are the ethical issues surrounding euthanasia?
7. Isn’t opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide just an attempt
to impose religious beliefs on others?
II. Listening comprehension:
Watch the following video, then answer the questions below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo8Hn0DEcpw
1. Why did the woman make the decision to have euthanasia done?
2. In Belgium, is euthanasia done only for terminally ill people?
3. How many euthanasia cases has the doctor performed in 12
years?
4. Is Euthanasia for children banned in Belgium?
5. At what age is euthanasia allowed?
6. In what specific case a doctor could face homicide charges by the
Euthanasia Commission?
7. Mention some other cases, different to terminal illness, where
euthanasia was done.
III. Reading: Read the following passage and answer the questions
below:
The word euthanasia is of Greek origin and literally means “a good
death.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “the act of
killing a person painlessly for reasons of mercy.” Such killing can be
done through active means, such as administering a lethal injection, or
by passive means, such as withholding medical care or food and water.
In recent years in the United States, there have been numerous cases of
active euthanasia in the news. They usually involve the deliberate
killing of ill or incapacitated persons by relatives or friends who plead
that they can no longer bear to see their loved ones suffer. Although
such killings are a crime, the perpetrators are often dealt with leniently
by our legal system, and the media usually portrays them as
compassionate heroes who take personal risks to save another from
unbearable suffering.
The seeming acceptance of active forms of euthanasia is alarming, but
we face a bigger, more insidious threat from passive forms of
euthanasia. Every year, in hospitals and nursing homes around the
country, there are growing numbers of documented deaths caused by
caregivers withholding life-sustaining care, including food and water,
from vulnerable patients who cannot speak for themselves.
While it is illegal to kill someone directly, for example with a gun or
knife, in many cases the law has put its stamp of approval on causing
death by omitting needed care. Further, many states have “living will”
laws designed to protect those who withhold treatment, and there have
been numerous court rulings which have approved of patients being
denied care and even starved and dehydrated to death.
Because such deaths occur quietly within the confines of hospitals and
nursing homes, they can be kept hidden from the public. Most
euthanasia victims are old or very ill, so their deaths might be
attributed to a cause other than the denial of care that really killed
them. Further, it is often relatives of the patient who request that care
be withheld. In one court case, the court held that decisions to withhold
life sustaining care may be made not only by close family members but
also by a number of third parties, and that such decisions need not be
reviewed by the judicial system if there is no disagreement between
decision makers and medical staff. The court went so far as to rule that
a nursing home may not refuse to participate in the fatal withdrawal of
food and water from an incompetent patient!
“Extraordinary” or “heroic” treatment need not be used when the
chance for recovery is poor and medical intervention would serve only
to prolong the dying process. But to deny customary and reasonable
care or to deliberately starve or dehydrate someone because he or she
is very old or very ill should not be permitted. Most of the cases coming
before the courts do not involve withholding heroic measures from
imminently dying people, but rather they seek approval for denying
basic care, such as administration of food and water, to people who are
not elderly or terminally ill, but who are permanently incapacitated.
These people could be expected to live indefinitely, though in an
impaired state, if they were given food and water and minimal
treatment.
No one has the right to judge that another’s life is not worth living. The
basic right to life should not be abridged because someone decides that
someone else’s quality of life is too low. If we base the right to life on
quality of life standards, there is no logical place to draw the line.
To protect vulnerable patients, we must foster more positive attitudes
towards people with serious and incapacitating illnesses and conditions.
Despite the ravages of their diseases, they are still our fellow human
beings and deserve our care and respect. We must also enact positive
legislation that will protect vulnerable people from those who consider
their lives meaningless or too costly to maintain and who would cause
their deaths by withholding life-sustaining care such as food and water.
1. The tone of the author can best be described as
(a) pleading
(b) argumentative
(c) compassionate
(d) emphatic
2. In paragraph 3, the author finds starvation and dehydration
induced euthanasia is to be “more insidious" because
(a) euthanasia is legally considered to be a criminal act
(b) the public’s attitude toward euthanasia is becoming more
positive
(c) it often involves those who cannot protest
(d) the patient has asked to die with dignity
3. As used in paragraph 3, what is the best synonym for
insidious?
(a) mischievous
(b) treacherous
(c) seductive
(d) apparent
4. The author maintains that death by withholding care is
(a) largely confined to hospitals
(b) largely confined to the terminally ill
(c) often requested by family members
(d) approved by living wills
5. As used in paragraph 7, which is the best definition of
abridged?
(a) trimmed
(b) curtailed
(c) lengthened
(d) extended
6. Using the passage as a guide, it can be inferred that the
author would find euthanasia less objectionable in cases in
which
I. the patient’s death is imminent
II. the patient has left instructions in a living will not to provide care
III. the patient refuses to accept nourishment
(a) I only
(b) II only
(c) I and II only
(d) I, II and III
7. The main idea of paragraph 7 is that
(a) lawyers will be unable to prosecute or defend caregivers
(b) no comprehensive right or wrong definition of euthanasia will
exist
(c) using a subjective standard will make the decision to end an
individual’s life arbitrary
(d) no boundary will exist between euthanasia and care omission
8. In the final paragraph the author writes, "Despite the
ravages of their diseases, they are still our fellow human
beings and deserve our care and respect." The main purpose
of this statement is to
(a) prove a previous argument
(b) illustrate an example
(c) gainsay a later statement
(d) justify an earlier statement
III. Discussion
1. Make a parallel between the video and the reading to state
their coincidences and differences on the discourse.
2. After gathering information about this topic, do you agree that
Euthanasia should be allowed not only for terminally ill
patients but also for those who are not terminally ill? Why/why
not?
3. What do you think the pros and cons of euthanasia are?
4. Since suicide isn’t against the law, why should it be illegal to
help someone commit suicide?
5. Should relatives have also the right to choose to end their
patient´s lives?
6. Finally, give your conclusions about this topic.
