An Overview on Euthanasia; Are We The Master Of Our Own Destiny?
Euthanasia and its challenges to determine the right to live or die is an inquiry that people have been muddling about for years. The issue of euthanasia seems to go far beyond the question of life and death. It rather tries to determine the type of death: an agonized death or peaceful death.
Living in a world full of freedom our future is believed to be in our control. We have the right to stay inquisitive in search for answers in our democratic society. Yet, this liberty of control of mind and body is restricted. Do we really have the right to die? Yes, we have the right for natural death but in the case of death faced through terminal illness or complete mental disability, our right to die is limited. In the latter, the decisions are laid to the discretion of doctors treating a patient having a terminal illness (incurable illness: about to die). A joint agreement between a doctor and patient can be formed to initiate euthanasia, which is illegal in many countries. However, if the patient is mentally handicapped, the issue of who should have the supreme right to choose between death and life arises? The topic euthanasia starts right here, with the right to die and to breach life towards death.
The medical dilemma of euthanasia is found in its definition. It is defined as a deliberate act to ease the death of a patient who is experiencing a painful disease or a fatal one. According, to Professor Joseph Fletcher of Pastoral Theology and Social Ethics, Cambridge Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge Massachusetts, medical practitioners are faced with a contradiction in the Hippocratic Oath that they operate under. The Oath pledges that doctors should first relieve suffering, and secondly, protect and prolong life of people. Anytime, when a doctor has a patient undergoing a terminal illness, he is faced with these two mutually paradoxical objectives. In other words, if life is prolonged the promise of relieving pain is ‘usually’ forgone and if pain is relieved through death the promise of protecting and prolonging life is broken.
Believers and non-believers in God stammer to find answers to resolve this cruel dilemma. The tendency of religions and even the American Law seem to condemn the right to end a life on freewill and good faith of behalf of a patient to do so. The opportunity to start a life has always been our right but ending it has been a life-time question for years. Today, even agreeing to die once you are mentally capable to take the decision isn’t enough. For instance, a doctor or any other person who performs euthanasia is liable to a charge of murder irrespective of the condition of the patient. In other words if the patient is consented, then the patient is also liable to a charge of suicide. Human life is considered so sacred that regardless of the situation, taking a life is inherently wrong.
From Where Did The Idea of Wrong Emerge?
The idea that euthanasia is wrong comes from modern times. It is not directly an ancient religious or philosophical saying. For instance, our most known philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle and Pythagoras did all confirm that murdering and suicide should be condemned. However, merciful death was a common exception for all of them. They believed that if someone is in an incurable state of suffering they might need some help to set a stop to their agonizing death. Moreover, neither the Bible nor the Koran does explicitly condemn suicide. In the 10 commandments, which are common across Holy Scripture for Jews, Muslims and Christians the argument against the right to die is slightly, mentioned. The Sixth Commandment defies the right to die, stating “Thou Shalt Not Kill” which in simple English means “should not murder”. This is a strong theological argument against euthanasia, but does it really condemn merciful death? This is a question faced by various religions. It is commonly interpreted by saying that human life is too sacred, to be taken by anyone expect by God.
In 2002, the Netherland became the first country to legalize doctor –assisted suicide. Around 20% of the death toll in the country is from euthanasia and it is believed that out of this 12% is involuntary. The consent or acknowledgement of doctor-assisted suicide gave rise to illegal dilemma of falsified proof of death willingness. Imagine the ramifications of legalizing euthanasia. People would live in fear, instead of having doctors willing to treat patient, there would be doctors ready to kill them instead. Another, example where euthanasia brought horror was in the Nazi German experiences where the atrocity was the Holocaust. People were eliminated simply because they were considered unworthy of life. The catastrophe of merciful killing ended with around 200,000 people being brutally murdered.
The amoral consequence of the euthanasia epidemic is sweeping into the ears of politicians and governmental actions. However, advocating legally assisted-suicide might be a boundary that should not be trespassed. This is due to human beings’ inherent dignity. According to United Nation Universal Declaration of Human Rights, dignity is the first and foremost right of any individual. If a person is killed, he or she is then objectified and the sanctity of life violated. It is precisely this dehumanizing aspect of euthanasia that makes it so controversial. Our very societies are built on value systems venerating heroism, courage, sacrifice and martyrs. People as Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, and Aung San Suu Kyi are idolized because they have endured pain just as Christ himself when he was crucified. Therefore, euthanasia is widely rejected as accepting pain is at times an essential feature denoting strength in a person. Decriminalizing euthanasia would be synonymous to subverting our value system into weakness and cowardice.
Nowadays, there are even countries reckoned for death tourism. In Switzerland, there are approximately 400 assisted suicide cases per annum and of which around 130 of them are from abroad. Assisted suicide has been allowed in the country since the 1940s, by people who do not have a vested interest in the death. Until now in Europe only Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherland allows euthanasia. In United States it is only the state of Oregon, which supports it. Moreover, death tourism is stirring a negative image on Switzerland and the government is enforcing laws to minimize the effect. They are trying to avoid assisted-suicide to become a profit-driven business. Already many have enrolled to right-to-die organizations like the Swiss group Dignitas. Many of the legal suicide conducted lack sufficient documentation to assure that euthanasia is the sole recourse. It is also practically wrong that people who are in a terminal illness have to travel across thousands of miles away from their homecountry for the sake of a peaceful death. Holiday euthanasia is the last vacation a person ever does but the government in Switzerland is trying to set a stop by establishing restrictions on the duration of how many months one has to stay in the country to be eligible.
Death tourism is one aspect promoting euthanasia, individuals and organizations are making it public. There are individuals who are currently coined as Dr. Death, be it in America, Australia or any other parts of the world. In Australia, we have Dr. Philip Nitschke, who is the founder of a pro-euthanasia group namely Exit International. He was also the first doctor to administer a legal and voluntary lethal injection. Exit international has developed several approaches for death. For instance, the exit bag and CoGen is one. The CoGen device generates carbon monoxide to fill the exit bag, which is placed in a manner that you will inhale the gas. Another, advance apparatus is the Exit euthanasia device that uses conventional barbecue gas bottles that contain nitrogen, adhesive tape, plastic suicide bags and some plastic tubing. Nitschke considered this method as being “flawless”. When pure nitrogen is inhaled by an individual, he or she will immediately, (12 seconds) lose consciousness and depart in a few minutes.
In America, we have Jack Kevorkian who was coined as “Dr. Death” due to his assistant to people who committed suicide. It was in 1990, that Kevorkian was involved in his first physician-assisted suicide of a patient suffering from Alzheimer’s disease in the state of Oregon. He was charged for murder but the case was dismissed to ambiguity in the Michigan law. Now, he has assisted many hundred suicides. He was condemned by the Michigan law in March 26, 1999 of second-degree murder and released on parole in June 1, 2006. In most of the cases, homemade devices or intravenous chemicals were injected to conduct the assisted suicide. Moreover, he is known for saying that “dying is not a crime”. Yet, he agrees that administrating death can become abusive or be wrongly used. For instance, someone might be administrating death but might later regret it (Alzheimer cases).
Permitting suicidal death through euthanasia would hinder the immense efforts put forward through life extension. It would even render medical triumphs such as heart transplant futile. Today, medical science technology might not be able to alleviate all types of diseases or old age related illnesses. Yet, soon healthy living might potentially be offered to the most deprived and desperate case of Alzheimer’s disease, cancer and other pathology might be curable. Killing yourself before cures arrive would be rueful.
http://www.immortalhumans.com/an-overview-on-euthanasia-are-we-the-master-of-our-own-destiny/
