A Rebuttal against Euthanasia

By:  Shannon Collier

       Americans have not always had unusual views on life.  Over the past few years these views have shifted drastically.  It began with the Supreme Court decision, Roe vs. Wade, in the 1970’s, where the federal government accepted abortion.  Now, more then ever, the respect for life has shifted again.  The act of euthanasia is spreading worldwide. Euthanasia is becoming more of a first resort basis instead of a last resort basis for terminally ill patients.  The question that is being asked, is if there is a difference between active and passive euthanasia?  This question is being asked throughout the world and in courts worldwide.  Because active and passive euthanasia contradict each other, there is no means to justify the “killing” of a human being. When you stop treatment and watch the patient die it is the same as killing that person physically, there is no other way of getting around it.  According to the laws, a crime is being committed either way. 

          The “mercy killing” movement has two distinct forms:  one being passive/ involuntary euthanasia, and the other being active/voluntary euthanasia.  Both of these forms of euthanasia are a way to kill someone with a terminal illness.  Passive/involuntary euthanasia is a form of euthanasia that is done by stopping the treatment of the patient and letting them die.  For example, the stopping of life support on a comatose victim.  The form of active/voluntary euthanasia is when the doctor or any other person assists the patient physically in their death.  This is when a doctor would prescribe a deadly dose of medicine, or even give the patient a deadly dose of medicine themselves.

 It is really a shock to know that the laws were once a way to insure the rights of people to life, and now it seems that they are shifting to a way of getting rid of the less healthy.

People today, use terms such as “mercy killings” and “death with dignity” to soften the true meaning behind what euthanasia really means.  No matter how many people try to soften the true meaning of this act it will always be murder.  They can try and get around it if they want to but in the end it will always be the same no matter how the act was performed.

 

       In 1997, when the Supreme Court considered whether physician assisted suicide was a constitutional right, Justice David Souter noted the slippery slope that followed.

“A physician who would provide a drug for a patient to administer might well go the further step of administering the drug himself, so the barrier between assisted suicide and euthanasia could become porous as well as the line between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia.”  Evidence of this has been shown in other nations, such as Australia.  According to the Medical Journal of Australia, 30% of all deaths are “intentionally accelerated by a doctor,” by holding back treatments.   Only 4% of cases were requests from patients.  This means that the other patients that were killed did not give consent to do so.  Many times, under the influence of pain, a patient does not know what he/she wants to do. 

         According to the Hippocratic Oath, taken by doctors, requires doctors to not give any deadly medicine to patients and requires for them to do no harm to their patients.  Voluntary euthanasia is a violation of this code.  This is an act that should be punishable by law, and it is.  Dr. Kevorkian, who in the early 90’s helped kill 130 people, was sent to prison for murder, for his involvement of killing his patients. In the Supreme Court decision, Vacco, Attorney General of New York vs. Quill, it was stated that due to the assisted suicide ban of New York no doctor or anyone for that matter could help to assist a suicide. The doctors were allowed to stop treatment for that patient though.  This is a moral code for doctors that is violated everyday.  Even though it is not the distribution of any deadly medicine, it is a moral violation due to the fact that the doctor is withholding treatment.  What is the purpose of a doctor but to help save a patient’s life, not to end it?  According to The American Medical Association, physician assistance in dying is “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer

            “ Human life is cheapened. We can see this in many of the major issues being debated in our society today: abortion, infanticide, euthanasia…” exclaims Francis Schaeffer, a renowned Christian Philosopher and theologian.  This is exactly what is going on in our society.  There is a great disrespect for human life.  In Terry Galway’s, “Culture of Death,” he states that, “euthanasia is only a way of getting rid of people who want to be gotten rid of.”   He also states that, “ …on matters of life and death, it is a slippery slope indeed.”   This idea goes back to the idea of Justice David Souter.

             Some shocking percentages on euthanasia are as follows:  According to the March 1999 Gallup Poll, 61% of all Americans believe physician assisted suicide should be legal.  51% of Americans said they would not consider assisted suicide for themselves, but 40% said that they would. 

            Keith Fournier and William Watkins wrote a book, In Defense of Life, that dissects ethicist, Joseph Fletcher’s “15 indicators of personhood.”  Fletcher’s ideas show what indicates a person to be able to live or not.  He states that a person has to have an IQ of greater than 40, self-awareness, self control, a sense of time, capability of relating to and concern for others, communication, and control of existence.  Fournier and Watkins believe that, “ When judged by these criteria, the preborn, newborn, and seriously developmentally disabled would be disqualified as human persons.   This is a very serious and scary issue.  Another ethicist, Peter Singer agrees that criteria of a person should be defined by what we can do and not who we are.  Singer has even advocated parents of disabled children to put them to death by a painless way.  Do these issues sound familiar?  I sure think so.  This type of thinking accompanied the rise of Hitler and Nazism. 

       It is sad to think that views on the quality of life are dropping severely.  People need to realize what they are saying.  It isn’t enough that we as humans control all living matter around us, yet we have to take that step a little farther and control who lives and dies.  We cannot play God.  It is not our job.    Every human being has the right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”