While the mother said that she couldn't stand the horrible side-effects of her son's cancer medicine, the opposition accused her of withholding the drugs because her son's cancer was a burden on her financially and he wanted her to die. My personal opinion is that as a mother, she should have been able to see past the side-effects of the drugs and know that she would do anything to make her son better in the long run, so there was very little possibility that she actually withheld the drugs with the intention of making him better and actually knew that this lack of treatment would eventually kill him.
I can definitely connect this article to my junior theme topic of assisted suicide (as I can with most things these days). One argument against assisted suicide is that families of the terminally ill feel burdened financially by their dying relatives, and will use legalized assisted suicide to pressure family members into taking their lives in order to lift their burden. The extreme measures that this mother took to rid herself of her son is an example of how money can corrupt people into not caring about family members anymore and instead caring about the money involved in the situation.
Still, it might be possible that this mother could not stand her son's suffering with cancer, and decided to withhold his medicine out of mercy for him because she knew it would end his misery sooner. While I still think this is wrong, especially since her son probably did not ask to die, this would be better than the alternative of killing him just because he was a financial burden.
No comments:
Post a Comment