Should People be able to decide how they will depart from this world.?
Should humans be allowed to play the role of god? That is one of the main questions people face when they are asked to find an alternative for certain types of treatment for the terminally ill. Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide can be considered one of the most prevalent problems when dealing with the ethics of patient treatment. There is a constant debate whether people should have the right to end their own lives when prolonging it will only cause them more pain. Not only for the patient but also for their loved ones, who wait around to watch their cherished ones slowly and excruciatingly die from a uncontrollable or incurable disease. A significant size of society is in favor of Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide mostly because they feel that as a democratic country individuals have the right to determine whether they want to live or die. Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide can be viewed as murder by many, hence the stronger opinion amongst society that is against euthanasia. Religion and morality tends to guide, or influence, for that matter the publics opinion towards euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Largely because society feels that it is God's duty to determine his creations life span, and as human beings they are in no position to behave as God and end anyone’s life. Throughout history people have fought for the freedom of choice, like abortion, the right for women to vote, and the right for gays and lesbians to marry, just to name a few examples. Euthanasia should be considered a pro-choice decision, as long as physicians have guidelines that they must follow. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide may not be right for everyone, based on their religious beliefs, cultural background, or their upbringing. That does not necessarily mean, that euthanasia is suitable for everyone. Since the beginning of the nineteenth century there has been a global debate whether it is right to allow humans take it upon themselves to shorten their lives or to have others to do it for them. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is a merciful way to and end of long-term suffering. This research paper will prove just that, by responding to the following questions:
1. How does religion see Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide?
2. Is Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide a compassionate act?
3. How is Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide acting like God?
4. Why does the Government see Euthanasia and Assisted suicide as unethical acts of murder?
Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be considered as an alternative to treatment for the terminally ill, because it is the right thing to do.
Euthanasia is a distinctive procedure of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal disease, illness or an incurable condition by means of the postponement of a peculiar medical treatment or lethal injection (Encarta). The term Euthanasia originated from the Greek language: Eu meaning "good" and Thanatos meaning "death". Also called 'mercy killing'. Euthanasia is the act of purposely making or helping someone die, instead of allowing nature to take its course. Basically euthanasia means killing in the name of compassion. The difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide is that euthanasia is the act being done to kill and assisted suicide is having someone perform the act to begin with. Euthanasia: in which a patient voluntarily brings about his or her own death with the assistance of a person, naturally a physician. In this incident, the act is considered suicide: intentional self-inflicted death. Active euthanasia also know as physician assisted suicide: involves painlessly putting individuals to death by administering some type of lethal dose of medication. Active euthanasia is done at the patient's request. Physician assisted suicide could be seen as a practice related to euthanasia because it involves a physician providing medications or other means to a patient with the understanding that the patient will use them to commit suicide. Actively hastening death consists of both active euthanasia and assisted suicide. Active euthanasia is the direct ending of a human life, by a lethal injection, for example, whereas assisted suicide is defined as giving another the means by which that person ends his or her own life, such as providing a prescription for a lethal dose of medication which the person then ingests (Meisel, 2004, Pg. Page 2392 ). The history of this phenomenon dates back for centuries, but it wasn’t until 1906 when the first bill to legalize euthanasia in America was introduced in the Ohio legislature. For several years, legislatures have been turning down bills aimed at the legalization of euthanasia in the United States. In 1937, the Nebraska legislature voted down a bill legalizing voluntary active euthanasia in the U.S. Only two years later, the New York legislature rejected a bill that was also aimed at the legalization of euthanasia in the United States. Events began to overtake logic in the 1990s in the United States (Meisel, 2004). Efforts to legalize physician-assisted suicide through voter initiatives took place in five states; all but one failed to win passage. In 1991 the Washington State Initiative Bill legalizing voluntary euthanasia was narrowly defeated. Oregon voters approved a ballot initiative in 1994, which did not go into effect until 1997 because of efforts to overturn it in the courts and through a second voter initiative. Although opponents have many objections to this type of practice, and it is prohibited in every state except for Oregon and the Netherlands. These are the only two places in the world where laws specifically permit euthanasia or assisted suicide.
1. How does religion see Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide?
It would be difficult for someone to truly choose a side, with the idea of religion, and morality opposing. People who oppose the legalization of euthanasia use the argument that their religion or upbringing does not allow someone to choose when to end their life. In earlier times an individual’s life belonged to the church or the state (Flynn, 2003, pg. 8). Consequently, decisions relating to important events such as marriage, birth, death were dedicated by religious, government, or parental authorization. In modern times, however, people have the autonomy and freedom of choice in important personal matters, including the time of death. Those who are pro-euthanasia believe religious traditions and values can offer guidance to people facing difficult decisions about whether to discontinue medical treatment or request physician assisted suicide. Major religions usually oppose suicide but exceptions are made. For example, some Western religions hold that purpose of life is the development of a “religious self”; if the dignity of the individual cannot be preserved, the preservation of life is not seen as an absolute good. Similarly, in the Eastern religions of Hinduism and Buddhism, a patient can shorten his or her own life if the act is performed out compassion for others, such as the family member caring for the dying patient
(Campbell, 2000, pg. 41). Because both Hinduism and Buddhism see the goal of life as liberation of the individual from materialism. Euthanasia or “mercy killing” could be viewed as acceptable if the dying individual was in physical pain and striving for liberation.
Through the value of stewardship, we are considered “agents of God”, called to carry out the work of divine intent on earth (Campbell, Pg.42). This task entails decision-making responsibilities for which we are accountable: our actions further or violate divine intent. In addition, as emphasized in Islamic teaching, we are the trustees of our bodies. We are therefore entrusted with the capacities to make appropriate decisions when confronting a treatment choice at the end of ones own life or of a loved ones. The most vigorous opposition has come from the Roman Catholic tradition, with Pope John Paul II describing euthanasia as an example of the “culture of death” in western societies (pg. 44).For a variety of reasons, suicide is sinful according to the three traditions. They believe it harms the community and violates the sovereignty of god. Which means his authority (Encarta).
As a result Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide might be seen a moral accomplice evil (pg.43). However, some faith communities in Protestant Christianity and in Reformed Judaism have argued otherwise. When faced with terminally illness, one may well be disposed to ending life, and ones family should support their decisions to do so. Because in the end the individual, as a free decision-maker, provides the basis for a political and philosophical claim to self-determination and opens the possibility for choosing the timing of ones death. So physicians should be permitted to hasten death. In general, much religious oppositions is based on concern for patients who may be in vulnerable positions because of their illness or their lack of economic resources. There is fear that patients who cannot afford expensive treatment and will have no other choice but to accept euthanasia. To prevent this from happening laws should be set forth to protect patients rights and make it safer for those who are ill to fully trust their physicians.
2. Is Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide a compassionate act?
Using Religion once more to fully understand euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, one must fully understand the following perspectives on suicide. As a general rule, both Hinduism and Buddhism oppose suicide, because it is an act of destroying ones life.
However a distinctions is made when the act of self-destructive is done in a compassionate manner. When individuals seek death for spiritual motives, of which there are basically two kinds. “The frost revolves around compassion, because having concern for the welfare of others as one is dying can be seen as a sign of spiritual enlightenment “(Pg.45). So a person can undergo something like euthanasia or physician assisted suicide to avoid imposing a heavy burden on family or friends. The spiritual goal of liberation can also be seen as an ethical reason for seeking or hastening death. “When physical suffering impedes self-control and lucidity, it is permissible to shorten life. This pattern of reasoning-the primacy of spiritual goals of liberation or compassion relative to the preservation of life-also applies to euthanasia through physician injection or administration of a lethal drug. Buddhist scholars have found support for this type of active euthanasia because in the end they see it as a door to liberation. So euthanasia and physician assisted suicide can be seen as a compassionate act or “mercy killing” for a person striving to the highest purpose of human destiny, liberation. For these reasons bringing about death in a compassionate manner are moral and religious. Euthanizing sick and dying pets is considered compassionate. The same compassion should be shown to sick and dying human beings. However many people accept euthanasia for pets, they find euthanasia doe for humans morally objectionable. “All creatures should be allowed to die without undue suffering,” (Dalbey, 2002, Pg.30) that is why physician assisted suicide should be legal because everyone should be able to die with some type of dignity.
3. How is Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide acting like God?
Every human life is created by god and only god decides when to end it. That is what many believe, that is why they are against euthanasia. They believe that if one assist a terminally ill patient by performing the act of euthanasia they are acting like God because they took in to their own hand to decide when the patient would die. Going back to sovereignty, it is said that it “denotes the lives and bodies of persons that are created by and they ultimately return to God” (Campbell, 2000, Pg. 38). Pope John II also thinks that if god made that person to suffer in pain, he will suffer in pain. If god chooses for someone to live, they will live when he said the following, “Religious people who are against the subject of euthanasia believe that life is given by God, and only God should decide when to end It.” (Kasmar, 1997, Pg. 27)He also thinks that if god made that person to suffer in pain, he will suffer in pain. If god chooses for someone to live, they will live. Some people think that dying is just one of the tests that God sets for human beings, and that the way we react to it shows the sort of person we are, and how deep our faith and trust in God is. If God alone has the power to create, sustain, and take life. Is it fair for others to try sustain death by using life extending medicines or technologies? What is the difference? In the case of Don "Dax" Cowart, he verbally consented to his own death, but the physicians and his family denied him "the right to die". It was considered ethically wrong in their eyes. In their opinion they saw it as saving a young man's life. They saved his life, but his quality of life will never be the same. As the year went by he endured excruciating treatments, which did not fully heal him. Don not only lost his sight, but all mobility in his hands. His healing process took more than a year; in fact it took six prolonged and agonizing years. Not to mend the physical scars, but the mental ones that followed his ordeal. (Pg.77) Many people argue that voluntary euthanasia is "playing god". Then we should also consider that every time a doctor brings a patient back to life, he is "playing god" in a medical way. Those technologies including organ transplants, respirators, antibiotics like penicillin, and feeding tubes that enable life to be prolonged. Courtney S. Campbell believes using these technologies is a moral choice, because it involves a decision about a fundamental human good the preservation of life, yet in some situations to prevent death comes at a price of compromising another fundamental human value and the quality of life. (Campbell, Pg.42) What she is trying to say is that there is no difference between extending one’s life and euthanasia because in the end it is what is best for the person.
4. Why does the Government see Euthanasia and Assisted suicide as unethical acts of murder?
Government sees euthanasia and physician assisted suicide as unethical because they fear that physicians will euthanize patient who are not terminally ill with out a care. The state of Oregon enacted the “Death with Dignity Act” in 1997, which made it the first state to legalize physician assisted suicide. However the U.S Department of Justice has challenged the law on the grounds that prescribing drugs to be used in an assisted suicide which is not a legitimate medical purpose for the drugs used. Critics of the Oregon law point out that, “the Netherlands where legalized physician assisted suicide has led to euthanizing disabled or mentally ill patients who are not terminally ill.(Rudden, 2000, Pg.22) These practices worry the U.S government, fearing that these act will eventually occur in the United States if laws like Oregon‘s are enacted. What many do not take in to consideration is that Oregon’s law is carefully crafted to prevent abuse. If the government want to prevent something like the Dr. Jack Kevorkian situation who is also know as "Dr. Death" since at least 1956, when he conducted a study photographing patients' eyes as they died. He
helped chronically ill and terminally ill patients commit suicide, if they want to prevent from something like that to happen they should legalize euthanasia and physical assisted suicide so that nuts like “Dr. Death” wont commit such horrendous acts. If the government allows for euthanasia to happen they could create laws and fundamentals where it is safe for terminally ill patients to end their lives if they choose to.
In conclusion Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide should be legal because it is not up to the government or religion, or even the morals ones grew up with, In the end none of that matters since it is not their own body. People should be allowed to do what they please, if they do not want to continue a life of unbearable pain they should be allowed to choose euthanasia. It is easy for those who have not gone through the excruciating pain to believe euthanasia and physician assisted suicide to be wrong, that is why law should be created no only for the well being for one person but for everyone. If euthanasia is wrong for some, it could be heaven for others. Everyone should be able to decide how we will depart this world. This is not a right or wrong decision; it should be considered a pro-choice decision. However, if and when euthanasia is legalized, the government will have to implement very strict laws, so physicians do not abuse euthanasia. Euthanasia and Physician Assisted suicide is a humane solution for someone who is destined to live the rest of their life in pain and discomfort. It is more humane to allow someone to die surrounded by friends and family in a dignified manner, rather than being kept alive by a machine and surround by tubes. Therefore euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is right.
