Thai Doctors Call For End To Euthanasia Law

[webfact]

Doctors call for end to euthanasia law

By THE NATION

Three government doctors yesterday asked the Supreme Administrative Court to cancel the Public Health Ministry's euthanasia decree, saying the practice violated medical ethics, was unconstitutional and imposed a heavy administrative and financial burden.

In their petition lodged against an active prime minister and a public health minister, the doctors said the decree breached five sets of regulations regarding medical practice, including a 1982 law governing the medical practice.

"The law requires all doctors to give treatment, and not to deprive one's life," said Dr Thapanawong Tang-uraiwan, an ophthalmologist at Phra Nang Klao Hospital in Nonthaburi.

The law contravened general ethical principles and would put an administrative and financial strain on the ministry, the only agency permitted to conduct euthanasia under the recently-approved decree.

"The directive has been issued without the mandatory public hearing and prior agreement from public health officials who are required to perform the procedure. There are no criteria in place under this directive to decide who should be treated further or terminated, even at one's own volition," he said.

The decree was unconstitutional and would not protect doctors or medical personnel who may make mistakes while performing euthanasia.

"Article 80 states that doctors and medical personnel are immune only when they follow medical practice in case of accidents. And considering that the 1982 law does not endorse euthanasia, all personnel who practise euthanasia are not under immunity," he said.

The two co-petitioners were Dr Cherdchoo Ariyasri, who is retired, and Dr Oraphan Methadilokul, a resident at Rajavithi Hospital.

Cherdchoo said euthanasia could be conducted through normal procedures, not necessarily under the decree's directions, which meant medical personnel could not decide on a terminally-ill patient's fate but must acquiesce to the will of the patient's relatives.

Witnesses to a written approval for euthanasia should not be just "anybody present", as stated in the decree, she added.

-- The Nation 2011-08-09

[endure]

So they're not actually interested in the wishes of the patient - they're just worried that they might get the blame? Is that right? It's the same the world over. The minute you try and give people rights over their own lives both the Medical and Religious professions pop up out of the woodwork and claim control over your future. The only and constant answer is the middle finger. Up yours Doctor!

Edited August 8, 2011 by endure

[robblok]

So they're not actually interested in the wishes of the patient - they're just worried that they might get the blame? Is that right? It's the same the world over. The minute you try and give people rights over their own lives both the Medical and Religious professions pop up out of the woodwork and claim control over your future. The only and constant answer is the middle finger. Up yours Doctor!

As i read it they dont mind the practice as long as the patient asked for it or made this clear when able too. Now anyone can decide, also doctors. I can see the problem. I am really for euthanasia but the patient should decide not the doctor.

[soundman]

As i read it they dont mind the practice as long as the patient asked for it or made this clear when able too. Now anyone can decide, also doctors. I can see the problem. I am really for euthanasia but the patient should decide not the doctor.

I think a major problem is when the patient can't decide. ie. brain dead. Who should decide then?

[keith101]

After watching both my parents die within 6 months of each other in 2009 without being assisted to pass and both taking up to 5 days of seeing them stop breathing for up to a minuts + before taking another breath it would have been much easier on them if the docters had agreed to assist.Numerous requests from all the family fell on deaf ears.Both parents asked to be assisted in their passing.I firmly agree to euthanasia and have told my thai wife when the time comes i want to go quick and as she was with me when my mother died and saw her she has agreed.

[OzMick]

I'm for it as long as they don't make it compulsory.

I also have witnessed euthanasia being performed in Australia, but on an informal basis. My father was dying of inoperable cancer, and we were informed that the morphine shots he required were of a size likely to terminate his life. The family gathered, said their goodbyes before the shot, then stood around waiting for the inevitable. Half an hour later, he got another shot which looked to be about twice the size. Nobody present was inclined to take offense.

IMHO PTP will probably throw it out, as will be a worry to their many brain-dead supporters.

[OzMick]

"The law requires ........... not to deprive one's life," said Dr Thapanawong Tang-uraiwan, an ophthalmologist

Remind me not to consult an opthalmologist if I require euthanasia

[ratcatcher]

"The law requires ........... not to deprive one's life," said Dr Thapanawong Tang-uraiwan, an ophthalmologist

Remind me not to consult an opthalmologist if I require euthanasia

Quite so. Nor a dentist.

However, many doctors take the ancient Hippocratic Oath and this line is among the conditions of the oath.

"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."

However that was the basis of modern medicine and times have changed.

Some politicians, on the other hand, take the Hypocritic Oath.

[swifty5x5]

What a load of B.S. The first thought shouldbe for the patient.

[LJW]

As i read it they dont mind the practice as long as the patient asked for it or made this clear when able too. Now anyone can decide, also doctors. I can see the problem. I am really for euthanasia but the patient should decide not the doctor.

I think a major problem is when the patient can't decide. ie. brain dead. Who should decide then?

I think the least brain dead person should decide..

[billd766]

Bon Jovi had a song title that is very apt for this situation.

It's MY life.

[robblok]

As i read it they dont mind the practice as long as the patient asked for it or made this clear when able too. Now anyone can decide, also doctors. I can see the problem. I am really for euthanasia but the patient should decide not the doctor.

I think a major problem is when the patient can't decide. ie. brain dead. Who should decide then?

I would say family (if the guy did not arrange a living will and made sure everyone knew this was the cause of action he wanted).

I can understand them not wanting to be the ones to decide (though i think they would know best).

[Firelily]

I sort of understand how they can force someone to stay "alive" against their will in countries with free health care - but in Thailand, if a family cannot foot the bill, or refuses to, will they continue the "treatment", keep someone on life support for example, or what?

[rgs2001uk]

I sort of understand how they can force someone to stay "alive" against their will in countries with free health care - but in Thailand, if a family cannot foot the bill, or refuses to, will they continue the "treatment", keep someone on life support for example, or what?

Been there, done that.

Its amazing how quickly the hospital administrators change their attitude when the cash cow runs out of money.

The person I refer to was on life support, it was nothing more than a money generating exercise, care, dignity and respect for the patients my ass.