EUTHANASIA

In a perfect world people would experience their allotted time in the most agreeable way and then die peacefully. This is seldom the case. Many people die a painful death and suffer agony without dignity.

   Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition by the withdrawal of life-prolonging medical treatment or by the deliberate injection of lethal drugs. Euthanasia can be found in ancient Greek and Roman societies. Voluntary euthanasia was approved of in these ancient social systems. It was often allowed in these civilizations to help others die and many is the Roman who had his veins opened by a caring friend or loving relative. Hippocrates recognised the obligations of those who practice medicine some 2,400 years ago. His oath to protect and preserve human life is still sworn by newly qualified doctors. For over two millennia physicians have declared:

       "I will give no deadly drug if asked for it, or make a suggestion to this effect."

      As time passed, religion increased, and life was viewed to be sacred. Euthanasia in any form was seen as wrong. Is it not kind, merciful and humane therefore Christian to assist somebody depart this world by helping to induce the painless death of a person? Apparently not, for although polls have consistently demonstrated that about
80% of British people are in favour of the legalising of euthanasia, the leadership of all Church denominations in this country have persistently opposed any attempts in parliament to introduce legislation permitting such compassionate practices for terminally ill patients in unbearable pain.

     It is however instructional to point out that with pain medications available to doctors today, 99% of pain is treatable. According to The Journal of the American Medical Association in 1992, by 1990, researchers found that 63 percent of Americans approved of euthanasia as a medical option. A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 1995 indicated that
75 percent support the idea of suicide for the terminally ill. [1] (DFL 2007)

Patients are allowed to choose passive euthanasia but can not choose active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is when nothing is done to prevent death. Active euthanasia is when one deliberately causes death.

     One of the main forms of euthanasia is the process of withholding foods and fluids. Many see this as cruelty due to its effects on the patient. It causes nausea, vomiting, heart problems, depression, dry skin, and shortness in breath. As one can see there are many aspects and issues that make euthanasia controversial. (Encarta 98).

     As philosophers we are aware that pain [euphemistically referred to by Philosophy of Mind proponents as ‘qualia’] is notoriously unverifiable and unobjective to the observer. It is intractable to measure but extremely subjective and real to the sufferer. What is endurable for one person can really be intolerable for another.

        So why the opposition to euthanasia? Why the opposition of the church?

     In fact the dividing line between those in favour of mercy killing and assisted suicide and those who oppose the act of killing even for compassionate reasons, is not a clear and distinct one. Some people are for assisted suicide, and would not want to withhold the right for somebody in extremis to take their own life in such situations, but are against direct but involuntary euthanasia and indirect and involuntary euthanasia. There are fanatics to be found in both camps.

     Let us look at some ethical considerations and the pros and cons of the argument.

For many religious people life is sacred and the answer to the question is crystal clear. Though many of them are aware of the mismatch between their views and that of public opinion, they feel that the requirements of their faith forbid them to countenance any deliberate taking of life in such circumstances.

    The Archbishop of Canterbury recently backed the Church of England’s profound opposition to assisted suicide, despite watching his mother’s slow, painful death, and he was joined by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, and the Anglican Bishop of Oxford, the Rt. Rev Richard Harries, in voicing their opposition.

     In an interview with the Mail on Sunday, Dr. Williams described sitting with his mother, Nancy, in the final months of dementia. He said, however, that he was still opposed to assisted dying “chiefly on the grounds of my religious commitments – the conviction that life is a gift from God that we cannot treat as a possession of our own to keep or throw away as we choose.” It would be churlish to doubt the sincerity of Dr. Williams’ beliefs. [3] Christian Today. com. 2005)

SOME DIFFICULTIES WITH EUTHENASIA

Let us examine some of the worries that many have on these questions. However well intentioned, there are many people who feel that any law would include too many grey areas and be open to abuse and diminish the importance and value of human life. They claim that it will become non-voluntary and eventually be accepted as being acceptable for people who are "terminally ill, but develop into a means of health care cost containment.

     They say that more emphasis should be placed in alleviatory care and that more money needs to be provided by government funds for research into palliative treatments. One often hears about people who consider themselves a burden and feel it is their duty to die. What if their beneficiaries take advantage of this situation and subtly pressurise them to leave this world quietly and painlessly? [and conveniently.]

     Would the decision making in such circumstances of euthansia transform doctors into angels of death and render unto them an almost God-like role? The majority of the medical practitioners associations are against the introduction of enabling legislation.

     The medical profession does not enjoy as much of the public confidence as it used to do. There have been rumours of the withdrawal of resuscitation measures and the withholding of nutriments and life-support measures, not to mention the unspeakable behaviour of murderers like Dr. Shipman.

     Speaking personally, if I ever develop a disease like Altzheimers or Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, involving unceasing impairment of the brain, and I was clearly not responding to any treatment, I would choose euthanasia. It would be over quickly and would be far better than being forced to live through the whole long-drawn-out process of decline, as the complex of my memories, abilities, my attributes both behavioural, temperamental, emotional and mental-– that characterize me as a unique individual, were slowly destroyed.

REFERENCES:

[1] www. doctorsforlifeinternational. com/issues/euthenasia. cfm

[2] FLETCHER J. ‘The Courts & Euthanasia.’ Law Med. Health-Care 1987;15(4): pp. 223-30.

[3]http://www.christiantoday.com/news/society/church.leaders.unite.in.opposition.
to.assisted.dying.bill/530.htm