Is it ever good to be illogical?

Intraprofessional Euthanasia Debate - What Now, Mr Montgomery?

“In the discussion about a legal regulation on euthanasia, the Medical Association Westphalia-Lippe emphasizes that the participation of a doctor in suicide is not a medical task, but that the decision on medical action with ultimate responsibility lies solely with the doctor himself. “In this difficult question, which must be dealt with in mutual trust between patient and doctor, the doctor decides with his conscience. No other institution can have a say in this, "emphasizes Dr. med. Theodor Windhorst, President of the Medical Association of Westphalia-Lippe ”(cf. announcement from the ÄK Westfalen-Lippe dated 05.01.15 >>>[tt_news Autovermietung=1102&tx_ttnews [backPid] = 117 & cHash = de0ddbf6d75dbde7880a2286488924c7 <<<).

A statement which proves that there can be no talk of a general consensus within the medical associations!

The BÄK should finally give itself up to the role of the ethical disciplinarian towards its colleagues and take the initiative at the upcoming German Doctors' Day in order to be able to change § 16 Ä-MBO based on the example of some LÄK.
on Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 11:12 pm
changed on 07/18/2015 23:22:11

Mendacious, illogical, blasé

are the three buzzwords that come to mind in the whole debate about euthanasia.

Mendacious, because many doctors have never seen the inside of a state facility for the storage and care of old and demented people who, unfortunately, are not yet terminally ill. The conditions there are generally anything but "humane". Not only that there is often a noticeable disproportion between supervisors and supervised persons, but that these supervisors are only inadequately performing their tasks, for whatever reasons. Or how else is it possible that patients often have to wait for hours in their own excrement in their beds, that bad pressure ulcers lead to pain and infections through exuberant turning, or that the elderly and sick who are extradited are simply tied to a chair with a cup of tea at lunchtime and put in? be pushed into a corner, from which they can be fetched in the evening and placed at the dinner table. Is that what a dignified treatment of people in need of help and attention looks like? Not in my opinion.

Why illogical? I do not understand the connection when some doctors think that the doctor's current possibilities to initiate the dying process (of course completely unintentional) at the request of a terminally ill are sufficient. There is always talk of a practice of "loving omission" (quote from doctor Gian Domenico Barasio).
But what is "loving" if I remove a nasogastric tube or switch off a ventilator, after which the person, who is often still vegetating in full consciousness at this point in time, dies miserably of thirst, starves or slowly and painfully suffocates? What is "loving (er)" about giving him a drug that will slide him from sleep to death within a few minutes?
Likewise, there is no logic in equating the legalization of euthanasia with pressure on the elderly and the infirm to have to make use of it in order not to become a burden on society. First: The health insurance companies and also the "society" make the greatest profits on the elderly and the sick in nursing homes. Hence a fallacy. Secondly, one could then assume that Hartz IV recipients, out of sheer grief, put themselves to traps as a burden for "society" in order to get work again. Apparently, as is often proven, this pressure is far from there. Likewise, the possibility of abortion could also mean that a woman who already has 10 children or is at risk of giving birth to a disabled child would have to feel pressured to have an abortion.
Is that so? The answer is no. Because the ethical principle of the value of life and the support of the disadvantaged is, hopefully, deeply anchored in all of our heads and will hopefully stay that way. Even a law that allows severely suffering individuals to be redeemed would not change that.

Third, blasé. In our world, the individual way of life and, above all, the responsibility of the individual for his life and his deeds is paramount. How is it then that in a democracy in which a third of Germans speak out in favor of active euthanasia and 80 percent in favor of passive euthanasia, the state presumes to simply block out these voices and use the moral sensitivities of some politicians, which are clouded over by money and well-being to identify what is still a dignified life for the individual, sufferer and what is not. In my opinion, nobody has the right to "play God" and thus want to know what is still bearable or dignified for the individual or suffering person. Nobody can and must not presume that. And: Human suffering must never be standardized, or weighed up or weighed. How do I want to know whether someone who is paraplegic in bed after an accident, whether and how much joie de vivre they still feel. With which tool do I want to measure all physical and, of course, psychological pain? Anyone who soars up to want to assess that, only he goes to the level of a god-like being, who then ultimately decides whether he is allowed to live or die.
What poor arrogance.

Doctors as suicide helpers?

Doctors as suicide helpers?

The demand of the medical ethicist Jochen Taupitz that doctors should assist in suicide has caused a stir. The Vice President of the German Medical Association, Frank Ulrich Montgomery, rejects this resolutely: "We are not mechanics of dying, we should save lives."

Job offers