Human Life Is Sacred : Different Views About Abortion And Euthanasia Essay, Research Paper

`Abortion and euthanasia are the most controversial topics

faced by the world today, people hold different views about them some are in

favour whilst some are against it. In this coursework I will try to explain the

different views about the abortion and euthanasia and will end all this by

stating my own opinion on what I feel about abortion and euthanasia.First let us look at abortion:?Abortion? Abortion can be defined as:?Premature expulsion of the foetus from the womb either

done by operation or by medication?The meaning of abortion is quiet clear from its definition.

As far as different views are concerned mostly all sects of Christianity are

against the concept of abortion, there are humanitarian groups which are in

favour of it, they have their own views which are totally different then the

religious views, if we look at what different groups think we will find out

that there is equal acceptance and opposition on the concept of abortion. The

different views are given below:Opposition: Catholic Truth Society greatly oppose abortion, they give

their reason as:?We have been created by the almighty God in his own

image and likeness. No pregnancy is unplanned because no baby can be conceived

unless almighty God intends that conception and has willed that particular

unique and completely individual new person into existence. What has actually

happened in our society is that clever arguments has convinced those with no

anchor of belief in God to cling to, that merciless slaughter of unborn babies

is morally unjustifiable, and even essential for the happiness of the

individual and good of the society?The Catholic trust says

that the conception of baby is due to will of God and a human being has no

right to kill that baby, it is ethically unacceptable and morally wrong. Life

Campaign activist believe that:?Since human life begin at conception i.e.

fertilisation, and since all human life should be equally protected by the law

from conception to natural death, whether or not human being concerned is

wanted or handicapped it follows that destruction of unborn life is always

wrong.? According to Life

Campaign after conception foetus is a living thing and its right to live should

not be taken away.Favour: The groups in favour of

abortion are mostly humanitarian groups the have their own point of view,

according to National Abortion Campaign:?The decision to terminate pregnancy is so important

that it can only be made by the person most involved- the women. Women must

always have a choice and never have the decision forced upon them. Free

abortion facilities should on the NHS for every woman who needs them. We

believe that the right of women to control their own fertility is a fundamental

human right. Women will not be able to take a full and equal part in the

society when we can all decide for ourselves whether and when to have

children.?National Abortion

Campaign states the basic right of women to control its own fertility, they say

that women have a full right to chose when the want to have children. Humanist

Dipper supports abortion by suggesting that:?Humanist regards abortion

better than bringing unwanted into the world. It is a mistake to say that

Humanist are in favour of abortion; no one can be in favour of abortion, which,

except in unforeseen circumstances, is result of failed contraception. We think

there will probably always be a certain number unplanned pregnancies and that

the mother concerned should have the complete choice of either complete

abortion, or keeping the baby.?Opinion: If a man’s family is starving and

there is an unattended lorry filled with food outside his house should he steal

from the lorry to feed his family, but in doing this break a commandment. Or

should he leave the food so his family dies, but he does not break the

commandment. One type of thinking would say that the commandments say

"thou shalt not steal" so you should not steal. Another type of

thinking would ask the question "which would bring about the greater good,

him stealing the food or not?", and once they had looked at the individual

circumstances they would probably come to the conclusion that the greatest good

would come about him stealing the food.If this way of thinking is then

applied to the title, then having one strict law would be like having the

commandment and should under no circumstances be broken. Having each request

for abortion be judged on its own merits would be the one where someone asks

the question "what would bring around the greatest good, this woman having

abortion or not?"So if each request for abortion

is going to be judged on its own merits then someone has to make the decision.

Who? Has a special court got to be set up in order to decide whether or not

people can have abortions? This would not work because by the time the court

had made a decision the mother would probably be in labour.Is it up to her G.P. to decide?

This practice already has enough pressures of it’s own is it really fair to add

another one to it. Also would the decision made by the G.P. be one on sound

medical reasons or would it be made on personal views of the G.P. in question.

How could the doctor prove that the decision they made had a sound reason. The

best judge can be the woman herself who is undergoing through this problem of

unplanned pregnancy. If she thinks its religiously wrong then its between her

and God but she should have a choice to make a valid decision at the spur of

time. ?Euthanasia? The term ?Euthanasia?

comes from the Greek word for ?easy death?. It is the one of the

most public policy issues being debated about today. Formally called ?mercy killing?, euthanasia is the act of purposely making or helping

someone die, instead of allowing nature to take it?s course. Basically

euthanasia means killing in the name of compassion. Euthanasia, can be ?voluntary?,

?passive?, ?active?,? or ?positive?,

Voluntary involves

a request by the dying patient or their legal representative. Passive involves,

doing nothing to prevent death – allowing someone to die. Positive involves

taking deliberate action to cause a death.Active involves

giving a lethal dose of toxicant to cause death.Euthanasia, at the moment is illegal throughout the world

apart from in the State of Oregon in USA, where there is a law specifically

allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs for the purpose of euthanasia. In

the Netherlands it is practised widely, although, in fact, it remains illegal.Opposition: Majority

of religions disapprove Euthanasia, Christianity disapproves it according to

the belief human being have a special place in God?s heart, eyes and in his

creation:?For you created my inmost being; you (God) knit me

together in my mother?s womb?(psalm 139)So the

alternative to euthanasia in Christianity is ?Hospice movement?. The kind of care hospice give to

the patients is very distinctive for they offer tender loving care. The three

aims of hospices are:·

To

relieve pain. ·

To

enable patients and families to face up to death. ·

To

care for emotional needs of the relatives.A

hospice offers care to the patients and their families at the most difficult

stages in their lives. Opinion: I believe that everyone has the

right to choose how he or she live and die. Not everybody will have an easy

death. Some terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best of care and

the strongest of drugs. Other distressing symptoms, which come with diseases,

such as sickness, no mobility, incontinence, breathlessness and fever cannot

always be relieved. Pain is not always the issue – quality of life is too. People should not be left

lingering in pain. They should not have to suffer when death is inevitable.

People do have the right to commit suicide, although it is a tragic and

individual act. However euthanasia is not suicide. It is not a

private act, you have the support of family and friends. Euthanasia is about

letting a person assist anothers death to save them from long painful deaths. Many people argue, however, that

a person who is terminally ill may make a miraculous recovery – it has happened

in the past. Most terminally ill people whose pain and sufferings are relieved

by excellent care, given by hospices, hospitals and GPs do not require making

decisions about euthanasia. It is only needed for those whose pain is not

relived with any form of care or whose bodily disintegration is beyond bearing.

Medical advances in recent years have made it possible to keep terminally ill

people alive for beyond a length of time, without any hope of recovery or

improvement. For this reason the ?living ill? has come into use in the USA as

part of the right-to-die principle. Most states now legally allow the making of

such wills that instruct, GPs etc., to suspend treatment or refuse life-support

measures in hopeless cases. A pro-longed life is intolerable

for people with a condition, which leaves the brain alert but eventually shuts

down all bodily functions and skills of communicating. How can people be

expected to live like this? For people like this and also people in PVS,

(persistent vegetative state) I believe that their legal representatives or

close family should have the choice and the trust to let them live a prolonged

life or to end their life and let them die with dignity. If people could make

the decision themselves then I believe that the option of euthanasia should be

open to them. On the other hand, people believe

that no one has the right to play God. Christians believe that ?We are made in the image

of God and therefore human life is God?s gift to us and is

uniquely precious – we are not the owners of life, but it?s minders?,

We belong to God because he made

us. Many religions follow this belief; so do not believe in suicide and

assisted dying. The opposition to euthanasia does

not mean that people insist on medical treatment at all costs. Good medical

practise is the alternative to euthanasia. Sometimes a distinction is made

between active euthanasia (e.g. Giving a lethal injection) and positive

euthanasia (withdrawing treatment). However it is misleading to describe

withholding or discontinuing treatment as ?euthanasia? unless it is done with

the intention of killing the patient. Sometimes a treatment may be properly

withdrawn even with the patient?s consent, for example, when it is ineffective,

merely prolonging the dying process in a terminally ill patient. A lot of people believe that if

voluntary euthanasia were legalised, society would soon allow involuntary

euthanasia. This is based on the idea that if we change the law to allow a

person to help someone die, we would not be able to control it. If there was to

be a law like this, there would have to be strict rules, which involved the

patient having knowledge of the whole process, making sure they are not forced

into it and also that they are mentally able to make the decision. So, should we allow people the

choice of when they die? The debate about euthanasia props up all the time,

even when it is not publicised, it is still happening secretly all the time. As

an issue euthanasia refuses to die. Everyone has their own opinion on it, with

many people wanting to see a change in the law. When finally that person dies,

their relatives? good memories may be overrun by the memories of that persons

last few days of agony and misery, when all they could do was watch them suffer

and loose dignity. Legally, euthanasia is against

the law. Simply put is it murder. The law is established by the religious and

moral arguments, remembering that one of the Ten Commandments is ?Thou shalt not kill?.This issue needs a lot of

thought. Many people agree with voluntary euthanasia, many disagree but there

is also a large amount of people undecided on the matter. The time will come

when the Government and medical services will have to open their eyes to

euthanasia, and there will be a lot of debate on the subject. Until then the

euthanasia debate will continue to linger, like a terminal disease.