HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
May 20, 2003 Euthanasia is the intentional killing, by act or omission, of a dependant human being for his or her own alleged benefit. The key word here is intentional. There is no euthanasia unless the death is intentionally caused by what was done or withheld from the patient. This has often been confused with assisted suicide which is when someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. One way to distinguish between the two is to look at the final act-the act without which death would not occur. Using this distinction, if a third party performs the last act that intentionally causes a patients death, then euthanasia has occurred. However, if the person who dies performs the last act, assisted suicide had taken place. Therefore, legalizing the deliberate killing of humans (other than in legitimate self-defense/war or possibly for the most heinous of crimes) fundamentally undermines the basis of morality and law. No system of safeguards could ever be foolproof, so in practice legalizing 'voluntary euthanasia' would result in legalizing involuntary euthanasia. Besides even if someone sincerely wants to be euthanasialized, this may well be due to depression or to a misapprehension of his or her true prognosis. Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of innocent human beings-a violation of the right to life and is contrary to medical ethics, putting doctors in the role of killers. It is well recognized that there are legal, ethical, and moral problems concerning euthanasia. Is euthanasia-the supposedly merciful killing of the terminally ill- an act of kindness prompted by a sense of mercy and respect for an individuals wishes? Or is it an act of murder and a violation of the Hippocratic oath? In which the Hippocratic oath still states: "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, or give advice which may cause his death." In 1989, a group of physicians published a report in the New England Journal of Medicine in which they concluded that it would be morally unacceptable for doctors to end the lives of patients. Euthanasia would fundamentally undermine the basis of trust between doctors and patients that is at the heart of effective medicine. Far from being the 'ultimate expression of patient autonomy' legalized euthanasia becomes the ultimate act of medical paternalism. Others in favor of Euthanasia argue that since it is their lives, they should be the one's who decide whether or not they live or die. I agree with them; however, asking someone else to end their lives, and them not doing it themselves is two different things. It's their right to die, not the doctor's role to end their lives for them. Just as current public policy does not grant a "right" to be killed to a person who is suicidal because of a lost business, neither should it permit people to be killed because they are in despair over their physical or emotional condition. With legalized euthanasia, condemned killers would have more rights to have their lives protected than would vulnerable people who could be pressured and exploited in to what amounts to capital punishment for the "crime" of being sick, old, disabled, or dependant. Euthanasia is not about giving right to the person who dies but, instead, they are about changing public policy so that doctors or others can directly and intentionally end or participate in ending another person's life. Euthanasia is not about the right to die; its about the right to kill. Most people still balk at the idea that it is permissible to kill terminally ill patients without their consent, even if they look "ready to die." But wait a few years and this, too, may change, especially as euthanasia becomes more common and legal, in jurisdictions beyond Oregon. Euthanasia is not an individual act. Rather, it involves one person facilitating the death of another. This is a matter of public concern since it can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people among us. Legalized euthanasia would produce huge social pressures on very vulnerable people to "volunteer", causing much stress and suffering. In the U.S., legalizing "voluntary euthanasia" means legalizing non-voluntary euthanasia." State courts have ruled time and again that if competent people have a right, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment requires that incompetent people be given the same "right." As a society, we need to affirm the unconditional value of life. Legalizing euthanasia in such cases would make the tragic act of suicide routine and acceptable, and encourage individuals to resort to it more often. It is essential to insist that life is inviolable. Physicians have a fundamental obligation to use every means at their disposal to preserve life. Permitting euthanasia would undermine public trust in the medical profession. For example in Michigan, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, publicly acknowledged assisting 130 people commit suicide. However, in 1999 he was charged with second-degree murder and sentenced 10 to 25 years in prison for administering a fatal injection to a terminally ill man. Dr. Kevorkians case is simply supporting the risk of abuse. This will only be the beginning of society's downfall and the cause of the crime rates increasing. If euthanasia is legalized there is a huge risk of abuse; people will twist words and manipulate the legal system and they will get away with murder, just as the doctors who perform these mercy killing acts, will. Studies show that some psychiatric symptoms, such as anxiety, and depression, commonly resolve with adequate pain relief. Pain is one of the compelling factors that lead patients to request euthanasia. Uncontrolled symptoms, psychological distress and existential suffering appear to be equally profound elements in patient suffering. Lack of physician and patient knowledge, as well as a strong dissonance in beliefs and behaviors, impact on the broad, aggressive application of pain treatment, symptom control and palliative care to the dying. Palliative specialists report that such requests for euthanasia are often used by patients to assess their worth and value to others. A positive response merely confirms their worst fears and such a decision, once acted upon, is irreversible. Yes, there are cases where society must protect people from themselves- whether from addiction to harmful drugs or form compulsive gambling or from a mental ailment, (such as depression), that leads them to self- destructive behavior. These people deserve help and compassion. A request for euthanasia is typically a cry for help. It is, in reality, a call for counseling, assistance, and positive alternatives as solutions for very real problems. Terminally ill patients who desire death are depressed and depression is treatable. In one study, of the 24% of terminally ill patients who desired death, all had clinical depression. Even without is being explicitly stated, legalizing euthanasia would mean that the state was offering it as an alternative to people who were seeking benefits for sickness or unemployment or to pensioners, to refugees and people with disabilities. If it were legalized, why not then insist that such people have 'euthanasia counseling' before they receive care or benefits? Whereas the advocates of euthanasia are mostly members of the chattering classes who seem to be having difficulty in coming to terms with their own morality, the victims would predominantly be the most disadvantaged members of society: the old, poor, disabled, infirm and unemployed. As well, it would undermine the relationship between elderly or dependant relatives and their families, with overwhelming pressures being applied on people to 'take the honorable course' and 'not be a burden'. You don't solve problems by getting rid of the people to whom the problems have occurred. The more difficult, but humane, solution to human suffering, is to address the problems. Life is a gift we should not seek to control. An individuals right to life is a basic right; one that cannot be either taken away nor given away. Life is invaluable and should be inviolable. Society and physicians must strengthen their commitment to preserving life. Any retreat from this principle devalues life. Proponents of euthanasia often use euphemisms like "deliverance," "death with dignity," "aid-in- dying" and "gentle landing." If a proposed change in public policy has to be promoted with euphemisms, this may be due to the fact that the use of accurate language would make its chilling reality all too obvious. In conclusion, I believe that euthanasia is morally wrong and should not be allowed in society as a constant. ------------ Email Jessica Leigh Lavallee: solidice13@hotmail.com Comment on this column in the forum. ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
