| Euthanasia-Mercy Or Murder Essay, Research Paper
Euthanasia:
Is it “mercy killing” or just plain killing?
“In keeping with the root definition of ‘euthanasia’- literally [meaning] ‘good
death’- [supporters] of euthanasia insist they are talking about helping terminally ill
patients in insufferable pain die a dignified death- at the patient’s request. But this
bears no resemblance to the true picture of the actual practice of euthanasia in the
United States” (Lyons np). Passive euthanasia is death by nonintervention, meaning
a health care worker can discontinue providing life-sustaining treatment to the
patient, thus allowing him to die more quickly. “In all actuality, [passive]
euthanasia often involves withholding food and water from a patient whose death is
caused by starvation or dehydration rather than the patient’s underlying disease”
(Lyons np). In active euthanasia, a physician or family member takes the life of a
patient by means of lethal injection, before he or she dies of a terminal illness or
injury. Currently, passive euthanasia is prohibited in most states, but not all.
Whereas, active euthanasia is illegal in every state. Although many people believe
that euthanasia is a way for people to die with dignity, it is the deliberate taking of a
human life and should be banned because it is a clear form of murder.
Of course, supporters of euthanasia do not agree that this is an act of murder,
but rather they see it as an act of mercy. They believe that when an individual’s
quality of life is severely diminished by debilitating diseases or terminal illnesses, he
or she should have the right to decide between life or death by euthanasia. They
strongly feel that their love ones should be allowed to die peacefully, surrounded by
family and friends. They believe that to assist a loved one with ‘mercy killing’ is an
unselfish act of compassion, and to grant their last wish allows them to die with
dignity. The most active group of supporters are members of the Hemlock Society.
These supporters are Christians and churchgoers and believe that the God they
worship is a God of understanding and love. They also believe that “as long as [the
act of ‘mercy killing’] was justifiable and met the conditions of not hurting other
people then they feel that God would accept them into heaven” (Humphry 19).
Sure, in the eyes of euthanasia supporters, even those who claim to be
Christians, ‘mercy killing’ is a noble and compassionate act, but what is the 5th
commandment? You shall not kill. Those four words alone seem to eliminate all
possible suggestions in favor of euthanasia. Derek Humphry, founder of the
Hemlock Society, “… helped his wife, who was suffering from incurable bone
cancer, to take her life by supplying her with a cup of coffee laced with a lethal
mixture of secobarbital and codeine” (Worsnop 156). “Our society, basing its
views primarily on the fundamental values of Judaism and Christianity, has always
forbidden the taking of innocent life and has considered that act one of the most
serious, if not the most serious, breaches of morality possible” (Bleich 41).
Judeo-Christians believe that a person has no inherent right to commit suicide and
that the life of man can be reclaimed only by God Himself. They feel that suffering
is a part of God’s life plan and that human’s should accept it and learn from it. After
all, if there were no suffering, how would humans know the value of peace and
happiness? They also believe in the importance and value of human life, that it is
precious gift and should be taken care of. David Bleich expresses the views of
those opposed to euthanasia by stating that, “Human life is a divine mystery and
man [has been] commanded to create, to nurture, to sustain, and to preserve the life
that has been [given] to him” (40).
However, not all religious believers feel that euthanasia is unethical and
immoral. For example, Rabbi Joseph Edelheit states, “I would support active
euthanasia and even some selected cases of physician-assisted suicides with the
awareness and participation of the dying person and his or her family and closest
friends. I make this statement fully aware that life is a unique divine gift” (45).
Rabbi Edelheit believes that God has granted us this final act of free will. He
believes that we must humanely support euthanasia requested by patients and
surrogates, especially those lying in vegetative states or those who cannot die for
various legal reasons. He asks, “How can we justify this indignity to them and their
families?” (47). He strongly feels that those suffering deserve to die with dignity.
But does euthanasia ensure death with dignity? In all actuality, “ ‘Death with
dignity’ has become a catch phrase, but there’s nothing dignified about the methods
[euthanasia activists] advocate. For example, one euthanasia organization
distributes pamphlets on how to cause suffocation with a plastic bag. Most of Jack
Kevorkian’s ‘subjects,’ as he calls them, have been gassed to death with carbon
monoxide and some have had their bodies dumped in vehicles left in parking lots”
(Euthanasia 1). Also, the most common method of ‘mercy killing’ is withholding of
food and fluids. This process of mercy killing can take up to forty days before the
patient dies of starvation or dehydration. When food and fluids are withheld, the
body’s organs fail, causing severe abdominal cramps, nausea and vomiting, along
with depression, confusion, and delusions. This must be one of the most agonizing
ways to die and could hardly be considered a ‘dignified’ means of death. Matthew
Roberts strongly expresses his feeling towards euthanasia by stating, “…‘Death with
dignity’ is the biggest scheme ever created, the greatest ploy ever concocted, to
purposely divert attention from the real problems facing the world” (1).
Those requesting euthanasia for themselves feel that their illness is
responsible for many problems in their world. They truly believe that to end their
life, through euthanasia, would be the best solution to the many problems they and
their families are faced with. Due to their physical illness, they see themselves as a
burden to their family and loved ones, both physically and emotionally. Financial
considerations also add to this concern about being a burden. The expense of
medical treatments, equipment, and life-sustaining machines are often times found to
be too overwhelming and costly. They see euthanasia as a cheaper alternative to
health care and less ‘burdensome’ on their family members. This belief is also held
by Mr. Richard D. Lamm, an euthanasia supporter , who states, “We must look
rationally at the phenomenal amount of resources we spend on the last few weeks of
people’s lives, only to prolong suffering” (132).
However, you cannot put a price on the life of a human being. Life is a gift to
be treasured and taken care of by whatever means necessary. “One of the most
common reasons used to justify active euthanasia or assisted suicide is to relieve the
patient from pain. Yet, improvements in pain control are widely recognized by
virtually all segments of the medical profession as rendering this argument virtually
obsolete” (Lyons np). Modern medicine should be used to provide the most
up-to-date means of pain control and not used to kill. The will to live and to survive
is the strongest of all life’s natural instincts. If given a choice between life and
death, the majority of people choose to live. “A scientific study of people with
terminal illness was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that
fewer than one in four expressed a wish to die, and all of those who did had
clinically diagnosable depression” (Brown 210). Often times, terminal illnesses are
not treatable, but the depression is, and it is the depression that causes the patient to
consider euthanasia. With the help of counseling, psychological assistance, and
medical care, patients with terminal illnesses often can find positive alternatives to
euthanasia. According to Dr. Kubler -Ross, the dying process has five (5) stages;
denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Many valuable lessons are
learned during each of these stages. To end life early, by means of euthanasia, robs
a person of these lessons, such as, understanding the meaning of one’s life,
resolving old disputes, mending relationships and fully appreciating all the good
things that have been a part of one’s life. Opponents of euthanasia believe that
every human being deserves to experience this complete passage during the last
precious moments of their life.
Although many people are opposed to the banning of euthanasia, both passive
and active, it should be prohibited in all fifty states because it is clearly immoral and
unjust. The name ‘euthanasia’, often reffered to as ‘mercy killing’ is a misleading
concept. For the translation suggests, euthanasia is a compassionate and noble act
which allows people to ‘die with dignity’ and to end his or her suffering.
Realistically however, should starvation, dehydration, and suffocation be considered
‘compassionate’? Even the hippocrates, as far back as 460 B.C., expressed the same
opinion when they created the Hippocratic Oath which states, “I will follow that
method treatment which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the
benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievious. I
will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel…”
(Hippocratic 1). “… the Hippocratic tradition has stood for the ‘sanctity’ of human
life. We can alleviate the unbearable in life better than ever before. We can do that
and not eliminate life itself, … medicine cannot be both our healer and our killer”
(Koop np ). This statement seems to summarize the beliefs of those opposed to
euthanasia, ‘mercy killing’ is just plain killing.
|