There are three pretty serious issues, in fact extremely
serious issues, life or death issues which are in the headlines at the moment.
Quite frankly they’re confusing me! Outwardly they appear to deal with the
right to life and the protection of life and perhaps the role we and indeed the
state get to play in decisions relating to life and it’s preservation.
On one hand there is a discussion regarding legislation to
enable doctors carry out abortions where there is a risk to the life of the
mother. In essence the decision makers are being asked to decide whether the
mother or the unborn is prioritised. A huge component of this debate centres
around the right to life and the belief that everyone has this right to life
and that a greater value should not be placed on any life, then of course there’s
the controversy regarding when life begins? It’s a difficult one to call, but
one message which appears to be emerging is that life is precious and every
effort should be made to preserve it.
Then we have the high court challenge being mounted by a
women suffering from multiple sclerosis, (MS), who wishes to be given permission to have assistance
to end her life should her disease progress to an advanced stage which renders
her completely dependent on others. Once again a very sad situation. This lady
wishes to have her voice heard while she still can and is faced with a dreadful
prognosis. She may be fearful of being alive, but having no quality of life, of
being rendered utterly powerless. She may have reached a state of acceptance of
her condition and perhaps has given up on the prospect of a miracle cure. One
is tempted to think that miracles do happen and to believe that “ where there’s life there’s hope” but is it
fair to condemn an individual who doesn’t wish to be completely dependent to
that degree of powerlessness in order to preserve our ideals?
Finally there is the controversy surrounding the new treatment
for the Celtic version of Cystic Fibrosis (CF), Kalydeco. This treatment has been shown to
drastically improve the lung function, weight and life expectancy of
individuals with this life limiting condition. This will improve their quality
of life and will buy valuable time during which the prospect of the discovery
of a complete cure could be realised or an organ transplant could take place.
It could also have a profound impact on the individuals quality of life. Yet
the HSE seem to be undecided as to whether the life of the people with CF for
whom this treatment may be suitable is worth the annual €230,000 that the drug
would cost.
Therein lies my confusion on one hand we are debating issues
around the preservation of life despite the consequences on the other hand
there is a debate about the cost of the provision of a life preserving
treatment for those who desperately wish to live.
No comments:
Post a Comment