Deep in thought
Saturday, September 27th, 2008The events of the week have left me doing some serious thinking on my own. Of right and wrong and the in betweens.
The first event was when a man in the ward went into cardiac arrest. He was resuscitated successfully. But after the event the decision to resuscitate came into question. Because he has metastatic lung cancer. To make matters more complicated, he hasn’t got a histological diagnosis just yet -so technically the diagnosis remained unconfirmed. (but then again what else can cause masses in the lung, the nodes and bones?)
Is it right to get a ‘do not resuscitate order’ now??what if the family said no, and the patient remains undecided? (like in this case).
From the medics’ point of view, DNAR is most appropriate. But when I asked the patient, this is what he said,”I’ve been well before i came into hospital, you know, playing golf and all. I want to see my granddaughter performing, she took this dancing class..and there is a family wedding next year, you know.”
He was recuperating well now. walking in the ward freely and entertaining his visitors. What if they did not resuscitate him before? Does this mean we deny him a few more months of quality life? of being with his loved ones?
But what if the resuscitation was unsuccessful? and he end up comatose, but breathing? Are we tempering with nature and preventing what should have been?
We had this lecture about ‘letting go’ a while ago. about knowing when to stop to interfere and let nature runs its course. But this is the first time i am faced with situation when we are ready to let go, but the patient is adamant to hold on.
The second event was when this highly regarded (by friend and foe alike) blogger cum political journalist in mudcity was detained without trial. Because he was alleged to be a national threat.
I could see teh point of the act. when it comes to people that pose clear and imminent threat to the security of the community or the wider nation. For example someone who is about to take off on a plane and hit the twin tower. Or some one who propagates racial hatred and people are getting ready to march in the street and kill everyone that come across them as having a darker or fairer skin shade. Then the use of this act is not only appropriate, but the one and only alternative to take.
But of course real cases are not this clear-cut. And when inconsistencies exist about the crime someone commited, would it then, be fair to impose detention without trial? If half of the nation belief that someone is innocent, then who have the right to jail him without hearing his side of the story?
And because of this act, we will never know about the people who are detained under it. Never knowing whether they did commit the crime as alleged. And whether we did make the nation a better place by jailing these individuals. The saddest thing is, we may have a hand in letting innocent men rot in jail by supporting this act. We never know.
Personally, I belief strongly that everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. As strongly as I belief that first, we must do no harm. And for these two principles alone, this act neither has my support nor acknowledgement. I am happy to know why other people think otherwise..