o act for the good of their patients" (Rogers 1999 388). What this implies, in many cases of terminally ill patients, is that the doctor becomes "paternal"- that is, he has to make decisions for the patient (sometimes with or without family's knowledge or approval).
Death with dignity crosses ethical lines, from time to time. We have seen many cases- and not merely Dr. Kevorkian's - where terminally ill, suffering patients ask for a way out, to give them a last opportunity not to die in pain and agony. In some cases, doctors have over-medicated, perhaps given too-strong a sedative which induces a coma and eventual death without the patient feeling anything. But, when a dying patient slips in and out of consciousness, what choice do doctors have for some sort of "informed consent" to stop nutrition, water, or other life-giving stimulants. "Should they wake her up, or should they make treatment decisions on her behalf?" (Elger & Chevrolet 2000 18). The principle of autonomy clearly dictates that the patient should be awakened to make his or her own decisions. But, as the authors state, waking up a sedated patient in order to inform him and request a decision causes significant physiological and psychological suffering (18). One also has to invoke the idea of patient competency. And, if the patient is incompetent, can or should the doctor ask for decisions from the immediate family? What the end result might well be considered by these family members is killing by withdrawing life-supporting activities, such as nutrition, or water, or sedatives.
From the medical profession's point of view, the ethical and moral dilemmas they often face are moving away from the traditional concept of always saving a life, if at all possible. "The prohibition of killing, it is said, does not entail that the physician must always preserve a life. While physicians must not intentionally cut short a patient's life, or engage in acts of euthanasi...