The World & I Online Magazine, ONline Archive and Educational Resource  
World & I School | World & I Homeschool | World & I College | World & I Library
Username:   Password:      Subscribe Now   Register   About Us | Contact Us | FAQs      
The World & I Archive Peoples of the World Book Reviews Worldwide Folktales Fathers of Faith
Search  
Sort by: Results Listed:
Date Range:    Advanced Search

The World & I Magazine
 
Current Issue
The Arts
Life
Natural Science
Culture
Book World
Modern Thought
  Resources
American Waves
Book Reviews
Fathers of Faith
Footsteps of Lincoln
Millennial Moments
Peoples of the World
Profiles in Character
Traveling the Globe
Writers and Writing

The Finality of Death: The Underlying Issue


Article # : 18059 

Section : NATURAL SCIENCE
Issue Date : 5 / 1990  3,018 Words
Author : William A. Reinsmith
William A. Reinsmith is professor of humanities at the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science.

       In the spring of 1986, after two years of deliberation, the American Medical Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs ruled that it is not unethical for doctors to discontinue all life-support for patients who are in an irreversible coma, "even if death is not imminent." The ruling proved controversial, because the council included food and water in the list of treatments that could be withheld. Around the time of the council's ruling, Time described the tragedy of Nancy Jobes, who had been living an irreversible coma for six years, since her oxygen had been cut off inadvertently during an operation intended to remove her dead fetus. Until the 1986 ruling, Jobes' husband and parents had been unsuccessful in their attempts to have her feeding tube removed. Time pointed out that about 10,000 other Americans share Nancy Jobes' predicament, living in a hopeless twilight known to doctors as a "permanent vegetative state."
       
        The Karen Quinlan case showed us the horror of someone lying in a vegetative state for months against the wishes of her loved ones. Society imposes legal constraints because it wishes at all costs to preserve some form of life, or to avoid taking responsibility for termination of an individual existence. Cases like these are now legion, although, in the last few years, major court decisions in the United States have allowed more latitude to patients, physicians, and families.
       
        Numerous critics within and without the medical establishment have asked whether, in our technological age, the age-old ethic of preserving life has metamorphosed into a need to control life, to let no scent of death intrude - especially in our decision making. However, the deeper issue, which sets rigid limits to the debate, is not ... (1999 of 17514 Characters)
Read Full Article

Copyright © 2004 The World & I Online. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy