|
Euthanasia has become one of the most controversial topics of the last decade,
and it promises to become the next “abortion” in the twenty-first century.
Although many people argue that euthanasia is mercy killing, in reality,
euthanasia is the ruthless assassination of living human beings before their
natural time of death. Some people feel that the procedure is ethical and in
many cases is perfectly right. Those who believe what the Bible teaches, and
even the unreligious who believe in the sanctity of life, however, know the hard
and fast truth about this so-called “ethical” practice that has so many
different applications. The sixth commandment, found in Exodus 20:13, gives the
ideal answer to almost every question raised about euthanasia: “Thou shalt not
kill.” People who may not know very much about euthanasia, or those that really
have no opinion, argue that the performance is “mercy killing.” They often say
that patients have the right to choose if they die or not, and that the choice
to live or die is up to the individual. Some may even go to lengths and say that
euthanasia should be legalized to end lives that do not need to go on living! No
matter the argument, euthanasia is wrong and cannot be termed anything other
than murder.
The term
euthanasia is derived from the Greek roots eu, meaning “good”, or “easy”,
and thanatos, meaning “death”. One definition of euthanasia is the
intentional termination of one life by another for the supposed benefit of that
person (Robinson). There are several types of euthanasia, all of which are
practiced today. Voluntary euthanasia is the physician terminating a human life
at that patient’s request. Non-voluntary euthanasia is the ending of a life
without permission by or request from the patient. Involuntary euthanasia is the
termination of life when the patient had specifically expressed wishes not to be
euthanized. In both of the latter cases, the practice of euthanasia is clearly
murder, even to the individuals who would approve of voluntary euthanasia. Is it
not rather hypocritical to say that the murder of a human being is right in some
instances, but wrong in others? Those who say that euthanasia is a “good death”
are absolutely wrong. Euthanasia is an imposed death.
There are also
several different classifications of euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is the
removing of some sort of support that is keeping the person alive indefinitely.
For example, removing a feeding or hydration tube to allow the patient to starve
or dehydrate until dead is passive euthanasia, letting nature take its course.
Active euthanasia is the intentional killing of a human by lethal injection,
medication overdose, or some other such means. Physician‑assisted suicide
involves the doctor giving the patient some sort of information or equipment
that enables that person to terminate his own life. (Robinson)
A plethora of
arguments is available to dispute why euthanasia is merciful and should be
legalized everywhere. For individuals who believe what the Bible says about the
value of human life, there is more to euthanasia than just ending a suffering
life. The first recorded words of Jesus Christ, “'Thou shalt not kill any living
thing,' for life is given to all by God, and that which God has given, let not
man taketh it away,” give a plain, clear message (“Thou Shalt…”). Distinctly,
the Bible says in a number of places that we are not to murder. If physicians
were willing to follow God’s commands, there would be no movement to legalize
euthanasia. The practice of such a horrendous act would be considered heinous
and vulgar. Those who say that euthanasia is mercy killing are downright
erroneous.
All things
considered, is it really merciful to end someone’s life, even to end suffering?
Romans 8:17-18 says that “Since we are His children, we will share his treasures
– for everything God gives to his Son, Christ, is ours too. But if we are to
share His glory, we must also share his suffering. Yet what we suffer now is
nothing compared to the glory He will give us later.” These verses tell us that
the suffering we endure will bring us closer to Christ, and we will share in His
treasures if we do so. (Holy Bible) In no means should a human life be
intentionally terminated in order to end suffering, no matter how much that
person wants to end his or her life.
Pro-euthanasia
persons often articulate on the “fact” that euthanasia is a way to die with
dignity. The alternate side to this argument is that all lives, no matter how
far gone, have immeasurable value because everyone is created in the image and
likeness of God. To convince people that they should be euthanized so they can
“die with dignity” is, in effect, convincing them that their lives are no longer
to be considered valuable and worth living. Euthanasia is being used to end the
lives of those who are convinced that life has no further meaning, including the
terminally ill, the mentally handicapped, and those with life-threatening
diseases or disabilities. (“Assisted Suicide…”) In these cases is it all right
to kill someone? Putting euthanasia so bluntly may shock some, but if you think
about it, that’s all the word boils down to: death. Murder is another word that
could be used, and killing is putting it plainly.
Dying with
dignity is another issue that pro-euthanasia people argue. Many others, however,
see that term in a different light. Does dying with dignity really mean allowing
someone to kill you? If put in the position to terminate a life, would
intentionally killing someone seem dignified to you? To me, “dying with dignity”
means being surrounded by family and friends until God claims your life. Dignity
is knowing that you are not taking your life into your own hands and knowingly
allowing someone to end your life, no matter the cost to those around you. Those
who describe euthanasia as “dying with dignity” are merely sugarcoating the fact
that murder has become tolerable in today’s society.
The ethics of
euthanasia are debatable. Many different questions arise as to whether
euthanasia is right in some cases and not in others. For instance, is it ever
right for someone to end the life of another who is having to endure exorbitant
suffering? For those who say euthanasia is alright in some cases, where does the
line get drawn? Is there really any difference, moral or otherwise, between
killing someone and just letting him or her die?
The majority
of people will say that euthanasia is a matter of choice. They believe that the
choice truly is up to the individual, and that we should be able to make the
decision whether or not to keep or end our lives. In their opinion, it is cruel
and even immoral to keep a person living while in pain or while suffering
immensely. Religious opponents of mercy killing believe that euthanasia is
taking power away from God, life that only God can choose when to end. Even
though popular consensus seems to indicate that euthanasia should be permitted,
it is yet illegal in most countries and the United States (except for Oregon),
and punishable by many years in prison. Sadly, however, this does not stop many
physicians from performing such an egregious act. (“Does an…”)
As noted
earlier in this essay, euthanasia goes completely against the grain of God’s
word and will. Anti‑euthanasia adherents do not argue that we cannot physically
commit the act, but that it is wrong for us to do so, or support others in the
act. Because we believe that our lives are not our own to take, we cannot thus
remove life from our bodies or even allow someone else to do it for us. In the
opinion of many Christians, this would be denying God’s role in our lives and
allowing that we know better than He does when our lives should start and end.
Euthanasia also could very easily ruin what we view as the sanctity of human
life. Human beings are very valuable, regardless of age, gender, social
accomplishments, race, religion, and living status. Our life as humans is
precious and sacred because it is a gift from God. Because of the value and
sacredness of our lives, euthanasia is wrong in every case. We should respect
ourselves enough not to end our lives just to put an end to our suffering; to do
so would be to discredit God and say that He is not sufficient for us.
(“Arguments Against…”)
Suffering also
has value in our lives. Ending someone’s life as soon as he or she is suffering
leaves no room for growth. Nearly everyone can relate to the quote “What doesn’t
kill you only makes you stronger.” If your pain and suffering is not terminal,
it will strengthen you and help you in future incidences. Religious ethics say
that suffering helps us grow closer to Christ and share in the agony He went
through for us. We do believe, however, that we should try to alleviate
suffering, although not to the point of premature death. Those who have no
religious viewpoint can argue that suffering has value because it shows others
how to behave when things get bad, and also that suffering calls upon the soul
to stretch as far as it can to enable the sufferer to reach the peak of
affliction before healing or death. (“Arguments Against…”) Joni Erickson Tada, a
quadriplegic familiar to many, was quoted as saying, “Suffering gets us ready
for heaven.” She couldn’t have hit the target more precisely.
Some people
think that it is better to be dead than in pain or disabled. Derek Humphreys,
the president of the Hemlock Society (the leading group promoting euthanasia),
was quoted as saying that the disabled, sick, and dying have a duty to get out
of the way. Basically, it is their job to die; since they are a burden on
society, they should be eliminated. Their lives are not worth living. However,
the disabled community has a completely different outlook on the subject. They
believe in equal rights and opportunities and many feel that their own lives are
worth living, even when others presume to know better what is more appropriate
for them. Others should not determine the quality of a disabled person’s life,
especially without first providing essential proper support. The acceptance of
euthanasia would be saying that some lives are worth less than others.
(“Arguments Against…”)
There are
recorded cases in which euthanasia terminated a life that could have gone on
living for a significant amount of time. This suggests that euthanasia may not
be in the best interest of the patient, in many instances. Tragically,
euthanasia has in more than one instance been requested as the result of an
incorrect prognosis by a physician, where the patient in actuality was not
terminally ill, but was the victim of an erroneous diagnosis. In such cases,
euthanasia is clearly wrong! If the procedure were to be carried out, the doctor
would then be an accomplice to murder. If euthanasia had not come up in the
first place, the patient would not have had his life prematurely terminated. A
lot of times the patient is under pressure and agrees to euthanasia because he
thinks his life is a burden on others, not because of a true desire to die.
(“Arguments Against…”)
If euthanasia
gains acceptance in our society, it will further weaken our respect for life.
The decision of one person exercising his or her “right to die” would affect
family, friends, and the society at large. Allowing people to use death as a
solution to problems sends the message to the world that our God-given life is
not special, not worth living, and that the ban on killing the innocent can be
over-ruled to conform to human standards. “If we accept that it's OK to end some
lives, we may regard human life as less valuable and special (“Accepting
Euthanasia…”).” Euthanasia then becomes the solution to more and more of life’s
problems, resulting in the killing of more and more lives. If euthanasia gains
ground, safety is not much of an issue because people could just be killed for
convenience for any arbitrary level of injury – who decides where the line is
drawn? We do not need to be concerned about the disabled or less‑than‑fortunate,
the poor, or the sick because we can simply end their lives when they become too
much of a burden. If we do not regard others’ lives as valuable, what makes us
regard our own lives as valuable? If we argue that euthanasia is only necessary
for the very sick and disabled, that these arguments are not valid, we are
discriminating against the ill and handicapped. We are essentially saying that
their lives are not worth as much as the able-bodied person’s, and that the
dying are not as valuable as those not dying. Such discrimination is clearly
wrong and goes against God’s standards for human interaction and actions.
(“Arguments Against…”)
With proper
care from the right doctors, euthanasia is unnecessary. Hospices today are
geared toward making patients who are in severe pain comfortable. With proper
palliative care, the patient may very well have no inclination towards
euthanasia whatsoever. In order to treat a patient correctly, that individual
needs to be treated as a person, not as an object, as so many physicians tend to
do. Unfortunately, palliative care and even living in a hospice can be very
expensive and will eventually take its toll on the workers. For this reason
euthanasia looks good to many because of the inexpensive, easy alternative of a
quick lethal injection. (“Arguments Against…”)
The “slippery
slope” argument says that euthanasia would be very difficult to regulate (Rebman
8). Preventing the abuse of the method would be immeasurably complicated and
hard to enforce. If euthanasia were to be legalized, things could quickly go
awry and hundreds - more likely even thousands - would lose their lives without
reason just to remove them from society and the gene pool. The legalization of
such a practice would lead to worse care for the elderly, sick, terminally ill,
and disabled. If such people could just as easily be killed as cared for, why
not opt for the easy, less expensive way out and just euthanize the person? The
more difficult but humane solution to physical and emotional problem is working
problems out, not euthanasia; you don’t solve problems by getting rid of the
people to whom they happen (“Key Points…”).
“Supporters
attempt to justify euthanasia on the grounds that it is done with good
intentions. However, there is a fallacy in this argument; to kill oneself or
someone else is wrong, regardless of the motivation or circumstances. Rather
than being motivated by good intentions, attempts to defend euthanasia are
founded on corrupt values. Society must strive to understand why euthanasia is
wrong and why it cannot be justified by good intentions.” (Budziszewski) In many
cases of euthanasia, no extraordinary measure is taken to prolong lives. We are
obligated to give others all the life they are entitled to, but we are not to
prolong their death. Death should never be hastened, especially for the sake of
inconvenience. If death is the only option left, i.e., there is no hope left for
life, then no one is morally obligated to keep that person even if the ability
to do so exists. (Decker)
Pro-euthanasia individuals and physicians argue that to keep a terminally ill or
suffering person alive is unethical and immoral. On the other hand, I say that
to end a life prematurely is unethical and immoral! Constitutional Law states
that no one has the right to die, and there is always the option of pain
medication! As mentioned before, hospices are available for such a case. Those
in favor of euthanasia will usually cite an extreme case to try to prove their
point that euthanasia is right, when in fact those cases very rarely crop up. If
someone is terminally ill, in extreme pain, or unable to stand pain any longer,
the only option is to increase their pain medication. Studies have shown that
morphine can be increased indefinitely, in small amount at a time, so that the
person will not die no matter how much of the drug is in their system. In
Proverbs, the Bible tells us to keep people comfortable. If this means
increasing pain medication in order to keep them relaxed until their time of
death, so be it. We always have the means of treating the person’s pain without
killing them. (Decker)
Life support
is another issue altogether. Those arguing the ethical side of euthanasia often
try to pin those against the issue on this particular subject. They say that if
what we are arguing is true, then those on life support should be kept on life
support indefinitely because there might still be a spark of life in them. Even
if the machine is the only thing keeping the person going, we should keep them
alive. However, this is not necessarily true. Many would agree that allowing an
individual who is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery to
expire naturally is not a form of euthanasia. But what if that person was still
alive, able to think, feel, hear, and respond emotionally but couldn’t
physically move? Physicians in such an instance would be murdering an innocent
person! On the other side of the argument, is that if there is no further brain
or body activity, the body is dead and the machine is merely artificially
keeping the system running. The person has passed away and the machine is no
longer needed. At such a point the life support can be taken away and no
euthanasia would have taken place. When all activity in the body ceases, it is
then that the Lord takes His people home. We are no longer needed to sustain
life and shouldn’t try to prolong things anymore. (Decker) A popular argument
amongst pro-euthanasia persons is that if God gives us the means to prolong life
with life support, how then do we know that we are not called to end lives by
euthanasia? My answer remains: to prolong life is to give life, but to commit
the act of euthanasia is murder.
Finally, there
is the fact that mankind has the innate nature to go on living. In most cases
when people have attempted suicide, they were glad someone or something stopped
the act and most have not tried again to kill themselves. God has given us an
inborn desire for life that is not to be ignored. Christians know that to kill
is to murder, and to murder is to sin. Euthanasia could end the suffering of one
but may very well begin the emotional pain of many others. The yearning for
continuous life is so strong that many people feel euthanasia violates the order
of life.
Having researched
both sides of the argument on euthanasia, I have come to the conclusion that the
practice is immoral, unjust, merciless, corrupt, and against the teaching of the
Bible. Even if a request for euthanasia has been made, no one is under moral
obligation to aid that person in his or her death. In every case euthanasia is
the wrong option. Euthanasia should not even be an option in our society. Life
is the greatest gift ever given and we should not willingly give up that gift.
Saying that some lives are more valuable than others by euthanizing the sick,
elderly, and disabled is to demean the sanctity of life. I can only hope that,
after reading this essay, you, too, have come to the conclusion that euthanasia
is wholly wrong and unethical in every case, no matter what disputes today’s
society may offer. |
