Euthanasia Essay, Research Paper

When a person commits an act of euthanasia, he/she brings about the death

of another person because he/she believes that the latter?s present existence

is so bad that he/she would be better off dead.

The word euthanasia originated from the Greek language: eu means

?good? and thanatos means ?death?. The meaning of euthanasia is ?the

intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person

who dies? (Religious Tolerance). However, euthanasia has many different

meanings, which tends to create confusion. It is important to differentiate

between the various terms used in discussing euthanasia.

Passive Euthanasia refers to removing some form of life

support which allows nature to take its course. Forms of life

support include: removing life support machines, stopping

medical procedures and medications, stopping food and water,

or not delivering cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Active Euthanasia refers to causing the death of a person

through a direct action, in response to a request from the

person.

Physician Assisted Suicide refers to a physician supplying

information and/or the means of committing suicide to a person,

so that he/she can easily end his/her own life. This may also be

referred to as voluntary passive euthanasia.

Involuntary Euthanasia refers to the killing of a person in

opposition to their wishes. It is basically a form of murder

(Religious Tolerance, 2-3).

Euthanasia has been accepted both legally and morally during the

times of ancient societies. For example, the Romans and the Greeks both

believed that ?dying decently and rationally mattered immensely? (Hamel,

20). The Greeks and Romans were sympathetic to active voluntary euthanasia

provided that the acts were done for the right reasons, such as, to end the

suffering of a terminal illness. As a result ?of this moral acceptance of active

voluntary euthanasia under certain circumstances, Greek and Roman

physicians typically did not feel that they had to prolong human life? (Hamel,

19).

The Greeks and Romans believed that it was important to die a ?good

death?, which refers to a clear and calm psychological state of mind (Hamel,

16). Therefore, ?it was the physicians role to support the patient in the dying

process and to help ensure for him or her a good death? (Hamel, 20).

According to ancient societies, euthanasia was an approved custom.

But, ?with the rise of organized religion, euthanasia became morally

and ethically abhorrent? (Microsoft). The religions of Christians and Jews

both hold human life sacred and consider any form of euthanasia as an act of

murder. ?According to Jewish law, a dying man is regarded as a living

person in all respects. Active euthanasia is considered murder? (Kohl, 6). To

Christians, ?only God had the right to give and take life, active euthanasia

was viewed as an illicit exercise of divine prerogative? (Hamel, 20).

According to traditional Christian beliefs documented by Thomas

Aquinas, all forms of suicide and/or euthanasia were condemned for the

following reasons: ?1) it violates one?s natural desire to live, 2) it harms other

people, 3) life is the gift of God and is thus only to be taken by God?

(Religious Tolerance, 3). But despite strong religious beliefs, euthanasia

tends to ?occur in all societies, including those in which it is held immoral?

(Microsoft).

The issue of euthanasia has been a hotly debated topic of various

religious and political groups. The main question posed by each group is

whether or not a person should be given the option to request assistance in

dying. Advocates of voluntary euthanasia contend that if a person is:

1) suffering from a terminal illness, 2)unlikely to benefit from the

discovery of a cure for that illness, 3) suffering intolerable pain

as a result of the illness 4) has an enduring and rational wish to

die, and 5) unable to commit suicide without assistance, then

there should be legal and medical provision to enable him/her

to be allowed or assisted to die (Overberg).

Ultimately, euthanasia is a question of choice, empowering people to have

control over their own bodies. But, the choice is only to be given to an elite

group of terminally ill, dying patients.

Another growing debate is the legalization of active voluntary

euthanasia and assisted suicide. Organizations supporting the legalization of

voluntary euthanasia were established in Britain in 1935 and the Unites States

in 1938. They have gained some support, but so far neither nation has

achieved its goal. In the last few decades, Western laws against passive and

voluntary euthanasia have slowly been eased, although serious moral and

legal questions still remain (Overberg, 117 – 119).

Legislators are manly concerned with what is called the ?slippery

slope? issue. ?Slippery slope? is a term used to describe what may happen to

society as a result of allowing something to happen. When applied to

euthanasia, it means that if legislators legally allow physicians to end the

lives of terminally ill, dying patients at their own requests, it most likely will

not stop there (Hamel, 35). People who become diagnosed with terminal

diseases will also want to end their own life, even though they have much

more of a life to live. Basically, legislators are afraid that if the practice of

euthanasia was made legal, it may result in an epidemic of mass suicide.

The medical profession has generally been caught in the middle of

controversies over euthanasia. Government and religious groups as well as

members of the medical field all agree that doctors are not necessarily

required to use extraordinary means to prolong the life of the terminal ill and

dying. However, this is ultimately left up to the family of the patient. So, as a

result of lack of money and/or outrageous medical procedures needed, the

patients would be allowed to die.

Modern technological advances, such as respirators and kidney

machines have made it possible to sustain a patient?s life for long periods of

time even when they are permanently unconscious and/or suffering form

severe brain damage. Proponents of euthanasia agree that prolonging life in

this manner may cause great suffering to the patient and his/her family. a

result, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in

1985 completed the Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. This act entitles

patients the choice to refuse life support (Baird, 167-171). It is a subtle form of

euthanasia.

The pro euthanasia, or ?right to die?, movement has received

considerable encouragement by the passage of laws in 47 states that allow

legally competent individuals to make living wills. These living wills

empower and instruct doctors to withhold life support systems if he/she

becomes terminally ill. This is another form of subtle, but legal euthanasia. It

is just not referred to be its? formal term (Baird, 142-145).

In 1994 voters in the state of Oregon passed an initiative allowing

physicians, at the request of a competent, terminally ill patient, to prescribe

medication for the purpose of ending the patient?s life. Opponents of such

euthanasia challenged the law in court and lobbied the Oregon legislature to

repeal it. Instead, the legislature placed the law on the ballot again and in

1997 voters reapproved the measure (Physician Assisted Suicide, 1,9).

In the 1997 case of Washington v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court of

the United States ruled that the state of Washington?s law prohibiting assisted

suicide was unconstitutional. The Court?s ruling essentially allows each state

to determine whether or not to prohibit or permit assisted suicide (Physician

Assisted Suicide,5).

A woman by the name of Sue Rodrigues was a terminally ill resident of

British Columbia. She suffered from the disease referred to as ALS. She was

helped by a physician to commit suicide in violation of Canadian law. Her

plea to the physician was, ?Whose life is it, anyway?? (Religious

Tolerance,1).

Physicians should not be prohibited by law from lending their

professional assistance to those competent, terminally ill persons for whom

no cure is possible and who wish for an easy death. It is a crime in itself to

allow a person to endure such intolerable pain for extended periods of time. I

believe that if it were legal, many physicians would extend their assistance to

those ill patients that deserved to die in peace.

Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Christian Moral Perspectives.

Washington, DC: Morehouse Publishing, 1997.

Baird, Robert, and Stuart Rosenbaum. Euthanasia: The Moral Issues.

Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1989.

Hamel, Ron. Choosing Death. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International,

1991.

Kohl, Marvin. Beneficent Euthanasia. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus

Books, 1975.

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 1999.

Overberg, Kenneth. Mercy or Murder? Euthanasia, Morality, and

Public Opinion.

Kansas City, Missouri: Sheed and Ward, 1993.

Physician Assisted Suicide.

.

Religious Tolerance: Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Home

Page.

.