|
DIFFERENT
VIEWS & OPINIONS TO CONSIDER.
Taken from an Internet source (it
is down to the individual to look at the pros & cons on both sides of
the argument before you make up your own mind).
Please click on the
underlined links if you wish to go to a specific section:
Passive
Euthanasia, Active Euthanasia,
Physician Assisted Suicide,
Involuntary Euthanasia,
Beliefs about Suicide
& Euthanasia, Verbal
Battle over Euthanasia, Main
opposition,
Ethical aspects of Euthanasia,
Religious aspects of
Euthanasia, Public opinion on
Euthanasia
The word Euthanasia originated from the Greek
language: eu means "good" and thanatos means
"death". The meaning of the word is "the intentional
termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who
dies." That is, the term euthanasia normally implies that the act
must be initiated by the person who wishes to commit suicide. However,
some people define euthanasia to include both voluntary and involuntary
termination of life. Like so many moral/ethical/religious terms,
"euthanasia" has many meanings. The result is mass confusion.
It is important to differentiate among a
number of vaguely related terms:
Back to the
top
Passive Euthanasia: Hastening the
death of a person by withdrawing some form of support
and letting nature take its course. For example:
Removing life support equipment (e.g.
turning off a respirator) or
Stopping medical procedures, medications
etc., or
Stopping food and water and allowing the
person to dehydrate or starve to death.
Not delivering CPR (cardio-pulmonary
resuscitation) and allowing a person, whose
heart has stopped, to die.
Perhaps the most common form of passive
euthanasia is to give a patient large doses of morphine to control pain,
in spite of the likelihood of the pain-killer suppressing respiration and
causing death earlier than it would otherwise happened. These procedures
are performed on terminally ill, suffering persons so that natural death
will occur sooner. It is also done on persons in a Persistent Vegetative
State - individuals with massive brain damage who are in a coma from which
they cannot possibly regain consciousness.
Back to the
top
Active Euthanasia: This involves
causing the death of a person through a direct action, in response to a
request from that person. A well known example was the mercy killing in
1998 of a patient with ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) by Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a
Michigan physician. He injected controlled substances into the patient,
thus causing his death. Charged with 1st degree murder, the jury found him
guilty of 2nd degree murder in 1999-MAR.
Back to the
top
Physician Assisted Suicide: A
physician supplies information and/or the means of committing suicide
(e.g. a lethal dose of sleeping pills, or carbon monoxide gas) to a
person, so that they can easily terminate their own life. The term
"voluntary passive euthanasia" (VPE) is becoming commonly used.
One writer 1 suggests the use of the verb
"to kevork". This is derived from the name of Dr. Kevorkian, who
has promoted VPE and assisted at the deaths of hundreds of patients.
Originally he hooked his patients up to a machine that delivered measured
doses of medications, but only after the patient pushed a button to
initiate the sequence. More recently, he provided carbon monoxide
and a face mask so that his patient could initiate the flow of gas.
Back to the
top
Involuntary Euthanasia: This term is
used by some to describe the killing of a person in opposition to their
wishes. It is basically a form of murder.
Back to the
top
Beliefs about Suicide and Euthanasia
Traditional Christian beliefs concerning
all forms of suicide were well documented by Thomas Aquinas (circa
1225-1274 CE). He condemned all suicide (whether assisted or not) because:
it violates one's natural desire to live
it harms other people
life is the gift of God and is thus only to be taken by God
Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592 CE) was the
first major dissenter among European writers. He wrote 5 essays which
touched on the subject of suicide, arguing that suicide should be
considered a matter of personal choice, and that it is a rational option
under some circumstances. These two basic positions remain essentially
unchanged today.
Back to the
top
The Verbal Battle over Euthanasia
Many hotly debated social questions revolve
around choice: giving gays and lesbians a choice in whether to marry;
allowing women choice in access to abortion; giving people access to
assistance in dying. All are emotionally laden questions. Discussions
about euthanasia often get mired in a mountain of emotional accusations,
such as charges that the "most vulnerable" of humans are
"besieged by euthanasia practitioners" and that families must
fight "anti-life assaults on their loved ones" which
"threaten the lives of those who are medically
vulnerable". In reality, the basic question posed by
euthanasia/assisted suicide is: should a person:
who is terminally ill, and
who feels that their life is not worth living because of
intractable pain, and/or loss of dignity,
and/or loss of capability and
who repeatedly and actively asks for help in committing suicide and
who is of sound mind and not suffering from depression be given the
option to request
assistance in dying?
Euthanasia is not:
Whether a particular person should request
aid in dying. That should always remain a personal
decision. The question is whether people in general should be given the choice to request euthanasia.
Whether a person should be allowed to
commit suicide. In most jurisdictions, suicide is
a legal act, and has been so for decades.
Whether an otherwise healthy person who is going through a period of
depression should
be given help in committing suicide. They would not be given such
assistance under
any proposed legislation. Instead, their depression would be treated.
Whether a person's family should be allowed
to initiate euthanasia; a request for aid in
dying would have to come from the terminally ill person.
Whether death squads should periodically
visit hospitals and nursing homes in order to
kill people who are no longer contributing to society. This is a red
herring created to
scare people.
Whether everyone should select physician
assisted suicide. Even if it were generally available,
only a small percentage of people would request it.
Ultimately, euthanasia is a question of
choice: empowering people to have control over their own bodies. As of
1999-MAR, unless a person lives in Columbia, Japan, the Netherlands or the
state of Oregon, the only lawful option is to remain alive, sometimes in
intractable pain, until their body finally collapses.
Back to the
top
The main opposition comes from some:
conservative religious groups. They are
often the same organizations which oppose access
to abortion.
medical associations whose members are
dedicated to saving and extending life, and feel
uncomfortable helping people end their lives.
groups concerned with disabilities, who
fear that euthanasia is the first step towards a society
that will kill disabled people against their will.
Groups that promote access to assisted
suicide seem publicize cases where people have a terminal illness, are in
intractable pain, and want to end their life. Although such cases do
exist, they are in small minority. Most dying patients who are in serious
pain have adequate access to pain-controlling medication. Most of persons
who would ask for assistance in dying may well be individuals:
whose quality of life has shrunk to zero,
who find the indignities of being cared for, as if they were an infant,
difficult to bear or who simply want to die with dignity before they become very sick. This
group would include
many who are suffering from ALS, Huntington's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis,
AIDS, Alzheimer's etc.
Unfortunately, groups on all sides have
resorted to scare tactics. They do not tackle the issue directly, but
create false scenarios to alarm the public. These methods may work on the
short term, but will only serve to eventually alienate the public:
Some groups in the pro-choice faction have
described horrendous cases of terminally ill
individuals, suffering terribly, in intractable pain, even though such
cases are not the
norm.
Some groups in the pro-life faction have
been implying that "physician initiated murder"
is the topic being debated, not physician assisted suicide. They have been
raising the specter that the
Oregon law would permit roving gangs of bureaucrats to visit
nursing homes and decide which residents deserve to live and which to die;
then they will
kill all of the residents who are not worthy of life.
Even Focus on the Family, a Fundamentalist
Christian group who has a reasonably good
record of accuracy on social questions, appears to have misrepresented the
question under debate. In an
end-of-the-year review for 1997, their founder and president,
Dr. Dobson, wrote: "By a sizable margin of 60-40 percent, Oregnonians
have authorized their doctors to administer lethal doses of poison to
willing patients...For
the moment, if you are elderly and ill, Oregon is the last place you should want to be." Dr.
Dobson seems to have implied that elderly, ill residents of Oregon are at risk of being
murdered.
Dr. Abraham Halpern, an ex-president of the
American Association of Psychiatry and the Law, and Dr. Alfred Freedman,
ex-president of the American Psychiatric Association, wrote an article in
the New York Times 15, stating that "Oregon�s Death with Dignity
Act...should be repealed. It greases the slippery slope and will surely
result in undignified and unmerciful killings." The implication is
that if we allow some terminally ill patients to die that eventually laws
will be created to allow the state to kill anyone that it deems to be
worthless. Dr. Dobson agreed, stating: "We will eventually be killing
those who aren�t sick, those who don�t ask to die, those who are young
and depressed, those who someone considers to have a poor quality of life,
and those who feel it is their obligation to 'get out of the way.'"
Of course, the future course of legislation cannot be predicted. But the
present law that was approved by the voters of Oregon is very specific and
narrow in application, and will never be used unless a patient
specifically requests assistance in dying.
Back to the
top
Ethical aspects of Euthanasia
Some terminally ill patients are in
intractable pain and/or experience an intolerably poor quality of life.
They would prefer to end their life rather than continue until their body
finally gives up. Does the state have a right to deny them their wish?
Suicide is a legal act that is theoretically available to all. But a
person who is terminally ill or who is in a hospital setting or is
disabled may not be able to exercise this option - either because of
mental or physical limitations. In effect, they are being discriminated
against because of their disability. Should they be given the same access
to the suicide option as able-bodied people have?
Many faith groups within Christian, Muslim,
Jewish and other religions believe that God gives life and therefore only
God should take it away. Suicide would then be "considered as a
rejection of God's sovereignty and loving plan". They feel that we
are all stewards of our own lives, but that suicide should never be an
option. This is an important belief for a member of one of these religious
groups. They would probably never choose suicide (including physician
assisted suicide) for themselves. But, for each deeply religious person in
North America, there are many nominally religious or secular people.
Substantial numbers of adults who have liberal religious beliefs treat
euthanasia as a morally desirable option in some cases. There are also
many secularists, atheists, agnostics etc. who actively disagree with
religiously based arguments. And many of these folks would like to retain
suicide as an option in case they develop a terminal illness and life
becomes unbearable. Do devout believers have the right to take their own
personal beliefs and extend them to the entire population. Should the
personal beliefs of some religious folks decide public policy for all
adults? Many faith groups believe that human suffering can have a positive
value for the terminally ill person and for caregivers. For them,
suffering can be "a divinely appointed opportunity for learning or
purification". A Roman Catholic document mentions that "some
Christians prefer to moderate their use of painkillers, in order to accept
voluntarily at least a part of their sufferings and thus associate
themselves in a conscious way with the sufferings of Christ
crucified". These may be meaningful suggestions to some Christian
believers. However, can such arguments justify denying euthanasia to
persons who do not share those beliefs?
Many people argue that pain experienced by
terminally ill people can be controlled to tolerable levels through proper
management. They conclude that there is no need for physician assisted
suicide. However, tens of millions of individuals in North America do not
have access to adequate pain management. Tens of millions are without
health care coverage. Many doctors withhold adequate levels of pain
killers because they are concerned that their patient may become addicted
to the drugs. Anticipated cutbacks to health funding will make this
situation worse.
By making assisted suicide and/or
euthanasia available, some people will be pressured into accepting
assistance in dying by their families. This pressure may sometimes occur
in very subtle forms. This is an important argument in favor of strict
controls that would confirm that a patient is not being influenced by
others. Some feel that the potential for interference is so serious that
all assisted suicide should be banned.
Some people wish to die because they are
suffering from clinical depression. This is another argument in favor of
strict controls to confirm that a patient requesting aid in dying is
"of sound mind". In an age when total medical funding is
restricted and being continually reduced, is it ethical to engage in
extremely expensive treatment of terminally ill people in order to extend
their lives by a few weeks against their will? The money used in this way
is not available for pre-natal care, infant care, etc. where it would save
lives, and significantly improve the long-term quality of life for others.
Some people argue that patients would be
frightened that their physicians might kill them without permission. This
is not a valid concern, since a patient would first have to request
assistance in dying. If they did not ask for suicide assistance, their
doctor would continue to preserve and extend their patients' lives.
Back to the
top
Religious aspects of euthanasia
There are two main arguments offered by
Christians, and those of other faiths, that advise against
an individual seeking suicide, for whatever reason:
Life is a gift from God, and that
"each individual [is] its steward." Thus, only God can start a life, and only God
should be allowed to end one.
An individual who commits suicide is
committing sin.
God does not send us any experience that we
cannot handle. God supports people in suffering.
To actively seek an end to one's life would represent a lack of trust in
God's promise.
Of course, there is a significant and
growing percentage of Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, secularists,
non-Christians and liberal Christians in North America who do not accept
these theologically based arguments. They might argue:
Each person has autonomy over their own
life. Persons whose quality of life is nonexistent
should have the right to decide to commit suicide, and to seek assistance if necessary.
Sometimes a terminal illness is so painful
that it causes life to be an unbearable burden;
death can represent a relief of intolerable pain.
An active political question is whether
individuals should be allowed to choose suicide, or whether they should be
forced to follow the theological beliefs of the dominant religion. This
point is similar to that raised in discussions on choice in abortion and
compulsory prayer in public schools. A number of religious organizations
have issued statements on suicide and physician assisted suicide.
Conservative faith groups tend to be most vocal in their opposition
suicide. Liberal denominations tend to be more in favor of choice:
Christian Reformed Church in North America:
In 1971 they adopted a resolution which stated: "that synod, mindful
of the sixth commandment, condemn the wanton or arbitrary destruction of
any human being at any state of its development from the point of
conception to the point of death."
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: A
1992 statement on end-of-life matters from the ELCA Church Council
supports passive euthanasia: "Health care professionals are not
required to use all available medical treatment in all circumstances.
Medical treatment may be limited in some instances, and death allowed to
occur." They oppose active euthanasia: "...deliberately
destroying life created in the image of God is contrary to our Christian
conscience." However, they do acknowledge that physicians
"struggle to choose the lesser evil" in some situations. e.g.
when pain is so severe "that life is indistinguishable from
torture." Surprisingly, even though physician-assisted suicide is a
hotly debated topic, they do not comment on it.
Islam: The Qur'an states: "Take not
life which Allah made sacred otherwise than in the course of justice"
An essay on the web page of the Islamic Center of Southern California
states that "Since we did not create ourselves, we do not own our
bodies...Attempting to kill oneself is a crime in Islam as well as a grave
sin. The Qur'an says: 'Do not kill (or destroy) yourselves, for verily
Allah has been to you most Merciful.' (Quran 4:29)...The concept of a life
not worthy of living does not exist in Islam." 23
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod: In 1979,
their Commission on Theology and Church Relations issued a report on
euthanasia. It condemned euthanasia because it involves suicide and/or
murder and is thus contrary to God's law. Suffering "provides the
opportunity for Christian witness and service."
Mennonites: The Mennonite denomination is a
decentralized faith group in which individual conferences make their own
statements on social issues. The Conference of Mennonites in Canada issued
a statement in 1995. They believe that pain, isolation and fear are the
main factors that drive dying persons to consider suicide. They feel that the state should not
facilitate suicide, but rather control physical and emotional pain and
support the dying within a caring community setting.
Orthodox Christianity: The Greek Orthodox
Archdiocese of America, commenting on the case before the U.S. Supreme
Court in 1996 commented: "The Orthodox Church opposes murder, whether
it be suicide, euthanasia or whatever, and regardless if it is cloaked in
terms like 'death with dignity.' A person contemplating ending
it all because of despondency instead should turn to God for strength and
support. The Book of Job serves as a prime example of how someone
overcomes extreme suffering by staying focused on God."
Orthodox Judaism: The Union of Orthodox
Jewish Congregations of America filed a brief in 1997-NOV to the Supreme
Court. They supported laws which banned physician assisted suicide. Nathan
Diament, director of their Institute for Public Affairs stated: "This
is an issue of critical constitutional and moral significance which Jewish
tradition clearly speaks to. We
believe that the recognition of a constitutionally recognized right to die
for the terminally ill is a clear statement against the recognition and
sanctity of human life..."
Roman Catholic Church: The Catechism of the
[Roman] Catholic Church states: "2280: Everyone is responsible for
his life before God who has given it to him. It is God Who remains the
sovereign Master of life.
We are obliged to accept life gratefully
and preserve it for His honor and the salvation of our souls. We are
stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours
to dispose of."
Salvation Army: "The Salvation Army
believes that people do not have the right to death by their own
decision...Only God is sovereign over life and death...the grace of God
can sustain through any ordeal or adversity."
Unitarian Universalist: The Unitarian-Universalist
Association, a liberal religious group, issued a statement in 1988 in
support of euthanasia and choice in assisted suicide, but only if there
are proper precautions in place to avoid abuse.
Mainline and Liberal Christian
denominations: Pro-choice statements have been made by the United Church
of Christ, and the Methodist Church on the US West coast. The
"Episcopalian (Anglican) Unitarian, Methodist, Presbyterian and
Quaker movements are amongst the most liberal, allowing at least
individual decision making
in cases of active euthanasia."
Back to the
top
Public Opinion on Euthanasia
Many polls have been taken. However, the
results vary according to the precise question asked. Recent results show
support for euthanasia choice at:
57% in favor, 35% opposed in the US
(CNN/USA Today poll of 1997-JUN) 7 An earlier
Gallup Poll taken in 1966-MAY showed 75%
support.
76% in Canada (Gallup Canada Poll, 1995; a
rise from 45% in 1968)
80% in Britain
81% in Australia
92% in the Netherlands
Ballot measures have been voted upon in
three states of the United States. They showed support at:
46% in Washington (1991)
46% in California (1992)
51% in Oregon (1994); 60% in (1997)
|
