“Should society enable chronically-ill citizens to end their lives when medicine offers no salvation?”

An eighty-five year old grandmother on a respirator, a newborn child with AIDS, and a father crippled and confined to a wheelchair were all put to death by respectable doctors and with the “go ahead” from their family members. Is this permissible?

Euthanasia, or doctor-assisted suicide, has become one of the most controversial issues of our time and one that raises many questions such as: how should decisions be made about the chronically-ill citizen, and by whom? Where lies the discretion between law and judgement? Should those who want to die, or who are in some form of persistent discomfort be allowed to die voluntarily? And who should decide: the patient, the physician, the law, or the families?

Three principal reasons influence the opposition of Euthanasia. The first one being that the decision to end a life does not belong to the ‘healthy’ human to end another person’s life regardless of their specific state; whether they are chronically-ill or not. Secondly, legalizing Euthanasia would only cause chaos within our society; and lower the respect amongst human life by lowering the barriers of law to killing. And lastly, that there are no conditions of life being meaningless and it should not be ended for any unjustifiable reason.

As a democratic country, we are given choices as free individuals, and therefore cause people to think that they have the right to decide whether or not to terminate a human life. The widely held opinion of society is against Euthanasia primarily because society feels that it is God’s task to determine when one of his creation’s time has come to an end, and we as human beings are in no position to behave as God and end someone’s life for them. Joseph Fletcher, author of The “Rights” To Live and To Die, states that ““artificial” interference with nature is exactly what medicine is –a human intervention in what some religious believers would call God’s establishment and what others would call God’s providence” (49). When humans take it upon themselves to shorten their lives or to have others do it for them by withdrawing from the life-sustaining plan, they play God. They complicate the divine function, and interfere with the divine plan. Furthermore, Fletcher says that “by special creation and special providence living and dying are in God’s hands and that life is God’s to give and only God’s to take”(49).

Perhaps the most disturbing topic of Euthanasia is posed by the developing ideas of its legalization. By saying that it is an innocent act to kill someone who is suffering, it is allowing for further killing. Thus, it becomes difficult to meet all of the elements of the crime committed, and conviction thereafter becomes nearly impossible.

If rules permitting active killing were introduced into a society, it is not unbelievable to suppose that the society, over time would move towards involuntary euthanasia. Tom L. Beauchamp, Ph.D., makes his statement quite clear, saying that “the more threads we remove, the weaker the fabric becomes” (263). Yet another example of permitting active killing that would terminate our societal values is that of the German Euthanasia in the Nazi period. Daniel Maguire, S.T.D. explains:

It began at a moderate level, then grew, killing over 275,000 people,

and was supposedly only to involve only the severely and hopelessly

sick, but eventually expanded to Jews, then thousands of socially

unproductive, defective, and racially “tainted” persons were liquidated (284).

The conclusion drawn from this is that if we allow for exceptions, we could possibly fall into the same trap as the Nazis. For this very reason, steps to end the lives of consenting persons should not be a pressure to anyone or a worry to the chronically ill.

Lastly, the remaining concern lies in the condition of the chronically ill citizen, meaning that there is an ever-growing concern over the importance of human life. Many people resort to Euthanasia because they feel that loved ones are no longer happy in their condition, due to excruciating pain, and believe that it would be more beneficial for the suffering individual, to end their life while still somewhat content.

It is a known fact that all people die, but in most cases, it is not in their hands to decide their fate. Most human beings, if relatively happy, would want to live to the end of their lifetime. However, one must be concerned when an elderly citizen does not wish to live anymore and would rather be dead. This could suggest that many elderly, and other chronically ill citizens for that matter, feel abandoned and depressed, and therefore would benefit from getting attention rather than giving it. Dr. Cecily Saunders, author of Euthanasia, gives advice on how to treat chronically ill citizens: “stress personal attention, support, and provision of adequate pain relief and palliative care” (117) Moreover the fact remains; if a chronically ill individual is undergoing any discomfort or despair, improving the problem will only fix itself if the person is happy and has a desire to live.

In conclusion, the prohibition of killing considers a human’s moral principles, values, and attitudes in a time of hardship. Because the current practice of prohibiting killing has had little negative outcome, it should be altered only slightly with maximum caution. Lines are hard to draw when dealing with a topic such as Euthanasia, but one must demand that professional societies and licensing authorities establish norms and standards for diagnostic and therapeutic practice that encompass both the patient and family members. In doing so, life will be tolerable and decisions more manageable.

The importance of protecting legalization of Euthanasia is logical: once a group of human beings is considered unworthy of living, what is to stop our society from extending this cruelty to other groups such as the blind, the deaf, the cripple, the retarded, or the senile? The answer is simple – life should be meaningful enough to live –and it is if everyone has someone to go through it with.

Bibliography

Works Cited

Dworkin, R. G. Frey, and Sissela Bok. Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.

England: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Kohl, Marvin, ed. Beneficent Euthanasia. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1975.

Ladd, John, ed. Ethical Issues Relating to Life and Death. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1979.

Weir F. Robert, ed. Ethical Issues in Death and Dying. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia

University Press, 1986.

Word Count: 1012