Advocates of legalized assisted suicide are want to point out how each person should have a right to choose the times and places of their deaths. Not for one minute do I acknowledge the truth of this premise! Life is sacred because it has been given to us by our Creator. For the sake of argument, and only for that, let's grant this ghoulish proposition.
The staircase
How long is it before we move from Right to die to Duty to die? This is often called the Slippery slope of assisted suicide. In addition to being a slippery slope it also is a part of the stairway to euthanasia. To reach the top of the Euthanasia staircase you need a first step that acknowledges the right of each person to choose the place and time of their own deaths. Once step one(the right to die when and where you choose) is in place you can then move up the Euthanasia staircase to step two which is it is your duty to die.
In places such as Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, people have been pressured to end their own lives. Proponents of this school of thought argue that health care is in sort supply and there are people who have a greater quality of life waiting for the medical resources. Therefore, the elderly, handicapped, or mentally ill really have a duty to end their lives to make room for those who are more fit and have valuable contributions to make to society. Incidentally, the propaganda films for the Nazi T4 program heralded the death of the handicapped and mentally ill as a good thing for these members of society.
Eliminate Pain, not life
Looking back at our first premise, it is NO ONE's right to choose when and where they die. They certainly can make this choice on their own, but no one should feel it is morally right when they assist someone in ending their own life. Ending suffering and abiding by someones wishes do not suddenly make the moral wrong of murder a proper thing to do. In the Netherlands, where assisted suicide is legal and widely practiced there is very few resources allocated for pain relief. Why work to alleviate people's suffering when you can just as easily kill them? The horrid straw man of end of life suffering is far from a necessary reality. Pain can and is controlled by a number of available treatments. Shouldn't societies be advocating and supporting relief of suffering so people can live out their days with effective pain relief? Is murder or pain relief the more humane endeavor?
The question we all need to ask ourselves is when will it be our turn to be told that it is our duty to die to make way for the supermen of this this world?
4 comments:
I appreciate your point, but I think certain forms of euthanasia are a far-cry from eugenics via the murder of persons viewed as 'less desirable' by a fascist society. Do you believe animal euthanization is immoral? I personally feel that in certain situations, i.e. terminal cancer, when the suffering has exceeded the capacity of pain management, euthanasia is the only humane act considerable. I do understand, however, that many religions state that God looks down upon suicide. As I believe in a compassionate God and a non-punitive universe, I don't think any person should have to suffer while, say, their liver swells to the size of a canteloupe, where they can no longer care for themselves, or truly have 'quality of life'.
Thanks for your well thought out comments, Julie. I seriously doubt that there are conditions that are "beyond pain management." That is a straw man that is often used by advocates of euthanasia as a basis for terminating the lives of those who are ill.
I am curious about how individual pain forms the justification for ending a human life. Some food for thought, those suffering from certain forms of leprosy long for one thing: the ability to feel pain.
I am wondering what is your basis for saying that severe pain should be eliminated at all costs; including murder?
As to the Quality of life issue, my question is "whose quality of life?" Of what does quality of life consist? Is it subjective? I am interested in hearing your thoughts, thanks.
HHH
I'm glad you responded. I'd rather err on the side of euthanasia and risk the chance that people who've made an improper decision will die, immoral and wrong as that may seem. To me, it's our choice. It is interesting that you say, you seriously doubt there are conditions beyond pain management. Are you a medical doctor? I come from a medical family, and I've experienced my own quantity of pain and suffering first hand. Do you think spies in time of war shouldn't carry cyanide pills in case they're caught? Would that be wrong? Should they endure physical torture because assisted 'suicide' as you put it is against the Creator.
Having to drug one's self to the point of unconsciousness perhaps might do it, so in that sense pain management would work, but who would want to live that way? Some might. I would eventually tire of it, I assure you, and when I did, it should be my choice if I wanted to leave my body.
No government or religion should be able to dictate that decision. Quality of life is of course subjective. I seriously doubt, however, that simply because a person gets cancer, doctors will prescribe euthanasia right off the bat. That's a little extremist. Though, it'd make for an interesting short film.
The crux of my argument, the point that drives me is this: I feel more for the suffering of those ill, for example, with cancer than I do for those who would be ill-affected by the legalization of euthanasia. In my or your scenario, someone is suffering.
This dialogue grows interesting and beneficial!
>>To me, it's our choice.
What is the basis for this declared self-autonomy? Does this mean that all moral choices can be dictated by personal desires? Why would it be acceptable to murder myself, but not acceptable to murder someone else I deem not worthy of life? Both these decisions would be rooted in personal choice.
>>It is interesting that you say, you seriously doubt there are conditions beyond pain management. Are you a medical doctor? I come from a medical family, and I've experienced my own quantity of pain and suffering first hand.
I am not a medical doctor; does one have to have a medical degree to learn about medical issues? Personal relations to medical personal is a red herring and not germane to this issue. That said, I'm always interested in learning about any information you would like to share. I base my comment upon my own research and the friendship I had with both a Hospice chaplain and nurse I met in college. Hospice, from what I have read and heard from the parties above, has been effective in managing the pain for those who are terminally ill with a number of maladies.
>> Do you think spies in time of war shouldn't carry cyanide pills in case they're caught? Would that be wrong? Should they endure physical torture because assisted 'suicide' as you put it is against the Creator.
Are you saying that a spy's effort to protect his/her country and a patient's effort to escape pain are driven by the same motive?
>>Having to drug one's self to the point of unconsciousness perhaps might do it, so in that sense pain management would work, but who would want to live that way? Some might. I would eventually tire of it,
Is it always necessary to be "drugged to unconsciousness" to experience pain relief? I have read, through hospice, of patients able to remain lucid throughout the majority of terminal illnesses. There may come a time that pain management does lead to unconsciousness. For me, I much prefer that state than ending my life.
In Oregon there have been cases where the mentally ill, without suffering physically, have been assisted in ending there own lives. To me this is a crass case of heinous murder. My own son is severely mentally ill with a number of dehabilitating conditions and often he is not thinking clearly enough to make any type of rational decision about the duration of his life.
If human existence is determined solely by each person, does that mean we should pass out the pistols to those who are suicidal?
>>No government or religion should be able to dictate that decision.
So, this position would then be binding on everyone else? Yet, at the same time it is only your opinion. If each person's opinion determines their own moral law regarding end of life, how can you make, what is your opinion, binding on everyone else? You are presenting this as an oughtness for everyone and are dictating this position to everyone else. It is then no longer is a matter of subjective choice. You are in fact dictating to everyone that no one should dictate this particular decision. Why is the freedom to chose your own end of life binding on everyone, but placing restrictions on it not binding?
Post a Comment