8
Tuesday, November 8, 1988 / University Daily Kansan
10% Student Discount on Kansan Classifieds*
*Valid with K.U.I.D.
Prof studies Soviet medicine
While doctors in the United States struggle to answer ethical questions raised by euthanasia, doctors in the Soviet Union don't hesitate to sustain life on support machines.
By Grace Hobson Kansan staff writer
Because of differences in technology and in doctors' roles, the United States and the Soviet Union approach the topic of prolonging life using life support systems from differing perspectives, said Richard De George, University distinguished professor of philosophy. He is also a professor of Soviet and East European studies.
Kansan staff writer
Soviet and russia, the Moscow Union, it is the doctors' responsibility to keep people alive as long as possible." De George said. "They keep people on life support until they are dead."
In the United States, doctors don't take as much responsibility for patients' lives. De George said.
responsibility.
De George recently returned from an exchange with the United States and the Soviet Union on the ethics of terminating life support for the terminally ill. De George led the group of six U.S. philosophy professors, which met with Soviet doctors and philosophers.
The conference marked the first time Soviet philosophers and doctors have convened to discuss
De George said that in the Soviet Union, doctors take full responsibility for patients, acting as the patients' parents. This paternalism, he said, allows Soviet doctors to make life-affecting decisions for patients.
medical ethics, De George said. The meetings were the second official philosophical exchange since 1985 between the American Council of Learned Societies and the Soviet Academy of Sciences.
Until 25 years ago, the rest of the world practiced paternalism also. Since then, the United States and other countries have given the responsibility of treatment to the patients, De George said.
In the United States, patients have the right to write a living will, or a statement of care in case they are suddenly made incapacitated, for example, by a car accident, De George said. To make a living will, people should submit to their doctors a written statement.
If U.S. patients are competent, they are given the right to determine their own medical care, or lack of, by the Doctrine of Informed Consent.
Poorer technology in the Soviet Union also distinguishes the two countries' views of euthanasia, De George said. Because medical technology is more advanced in the United States, U.S.
patients live much longer on the life support systems.
systems.
As the Soviets advance in technology, they will have to consider all effects of euthanasia, especially its economic impact. De George said.
early its economy. "At the present time, the drain on the economy is not large." De George said. "If they continue to hold their present views and get more expensive life support systems, they must ask that question. In the U.S., it is a question."
Another medical issue brought up by U.S.
philosophers was abortion.
Aorton is not discussed in the Soviet Union; it is simply accepted," De George said. "It is their primary means of birth control."
De George said that abortion was so widespread because of the Soviet Union's lack of acceptable birth control. It is just one aspect of the shortage of consumer goods there, he said.
De George said that he was selected to lead the group because he was on the board of the American Philosophy Association, which chose the participants, and because he is a specialist in both Soviet studies and philosophy.
Lockout key policy will be changed
"I am the only American philosopher who has written on Soviet biomedical ethics," he said.
By Jeremy Kohn
Kansan staff writer
Residence hall students can expect a more lenient lockout key policy next semester, a housing official said yesterday.
Fred McElhennie, associate director of housing,
said that the student housing department had decided about two weeks ago to allow five free room openings for each student next semester. Students will be fined $5 each time after the first five.
The current policy is two free room openings for each student and then a $5 fine for each additional
room opening.
McEllenie said the housing department would decide at the end of next semester whether the new policy will continue based on the number of lockout key requests.
"It depends on how the arrangements work out," McElhenie said.
Last year, each hall had its own lockout policy and each policy included fines or some form of discipline for abusing lockout privileges
policy AURH had proposed in September that each student be allowed five free room opening
According to the AURH proposal, five additional lockouts after the first five would have cost students $2 each. If lockouts continued another five times, students would have been added to the additional lockouts and would have cost $10, or an assistant residence hall director could have disciplined the students.
Representatives from the Association of University Residence Halls had asked housing officials in September and October to change the current
have discharged from Larry Burgess, AURH housing and contracts officer, and other residence hall students said next semester's policy would be a welcome change.
estemester's policy would be a well-fitted "The former rules were too stiff," Burgess said.
FASHION GAL