Human Euthanasia
80
Human Euthanasia in the News
- A case against euthanasiaMmegi8 hours ago
Of late, especially in the Americas, patients suffering from incurable diseases or irreversible comas have been advocating for "the right to be assisted to die in a painless way".
- Jacob M. Appel: The Rom Houben Tragedy and the Case for Active EuthanasiaThe Huffington Post3 days ago
Opponents of the right to die appeared to savor a public relations victory with the reported "rebirth" of car-crash victim Rom Houben, a forty-six...
- Church: Life, not leftPittsburgh Tribune-Review1 second ago
Cliff Kincaid's position in "A socialist blueprint" (Nov. 22 and TribLIVE.com) is that since many Catholic bishops have spoken out in favor of health care reform legislation, they are the lead agents in a left-wing conspiracy to create a socialist United States.
In an attempt to research human euthanasia, I scoured the Internet looking for facts. I wanted one piece of scientific data that could possibly prove that human euthanasia has a place in the medical profession. Unfortunately, everything I found was an opinion – sometimes masked as a fact.
There are two opposing views regarding human euthanasia:
· It’s unfortunate, but the humane choice and humans have a right to choose.
· It’s wrong.
I don’t know that a clear choice regarding legislation can be made, because there is an inability to take our opinions out of it.
So, I do not have scientific evidence, but I can tell you that human euthanasia feels wrong to me. I can logically see both sides of the argument. Terminally ill patients should not have to suffer, but why not hold out hope for a cure? I am scared of what comes after human euthanasia, I am apprehensive about putting a price on human life (health care cost containment), and I am concerned for how doctors will cope with such contradictory responsibilities. These aspects of the argument prevent me from accepting human euthanasia as a “medical treatment.”
Though the “slippery slope” is often brushed aside as a weak argument because it does not actually happen, I am unable to alleviate my concern for what the next step would be. According to the International Task Force, there are currently opportunities for NOT terminally ill patients to get help with their suicides, with the only criteria being an “unbearable illness.” (International Task Force: FAQ, 2004). Couldn’t Tourette’s syndrome be considered unbearable? Dementia? Paralysis? As well as stage four cancer? Who draws the line between unfortunate and unbearable?
I also do not like the prospect that a parent could potentially choose human euthanasia for their sick child. (This is a likely scenario if human euthanasia becomes legal, because parents almost always make medical decisions for their children and legal human euthanasia would be considered “medical treatment.”) The slippery slope theory is a point of disquiet for me when I consider the idea of legalizing human euthanasia.
Some opine that the next step with human euthanasia is “health care cost containment.” With health care issues in the forefront of the Administration’s mind, I wonder if cost containment goes hand-in-hand? Will my grandmother be “put down” because she cannot be a productive member of society?
In addition to my fears of what is down the road from human euthanasia, I worry about the added stress to the medical profession. It is a contradiction that a doctor would swear an oath to help, save, and protect life but at the same time have the option to take life. (Pregnant Pause, 2000). Do teachers have the right to abuse our children? Would a CEO ever work to decrease profits? What if, instead of protecting us, police officers went on citizen killing sprees? It seems impossible to me that a doctor could both heal and intentionally kill on the same day.
I do not have any personal experience with this issue to draw upon. I do not have statistics or medical research to back up my opinion. I just know that whenever I think of a doctor helping a patient die, my stomach churns.
Definitions
Euthanasia: Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.
Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed.
Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent.
Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary.
Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called "physician assisted suicide."
Euthanasia By Action: Intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection.
Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
What a hard subject to fathom. Should we allow those we love to wither and linger? My father has expressed clearly after my mother's death that he does not wish to live off machines. He has said that when it's his time to flip the switch and let him go, his time being defined in his own words as when he can no longer breath on his own or respond to us.
Dohn,
Thank you for visiting my hub.
That is a sad story you share. It is odd that she died when her money ran out...But maybe that was God's way of keeping the family from fighting over money. LOL
Thank you for leaving a comment. I hope to gain some insight on the subject also.
Blessings,
Leslie
Scott,
I think the most important lesson we can learn from this issue is to have something IN WRITING regarding what you want. Without a legal paper clearly defining your wishes, either your family or the government is going to make the choice for you.
Thank you again for always reading my work. I appreciate your input!
Blessings,
Leslie
Broussardleslie
I applaud you for composing such a well thought out hub on a very difficult subject. Your points against are powerfully salient and thought provoking. You very strongly put forth the opportunities for abuse, even if any law were to allow such personal choice. The slippery slope concept is a very real apparition hiding in the weeds of Government sponsored healthcare, political social justice and corporate bottom line.
Such a “choice’ can only be a personal one, and should be one made only by the individual affected, without the pressures that could be applied via the transgressions as outlined above.
Euthanasia is occurring today in a very quiet, unlegislated fashion through Hospice intervention. Albeit, many consider the “assisted process” to late too preserve dignity and personal choice. Again I offer a rousing well done.
Thank you, ready to escape, for visiting my hub.
I appreciate your ability to express what I was unable - it is a personal choice and can only be made by the individual.
Hopefully, I will get to writing that Will, so there will be no intervention for me!
Thank you for your well thought-out comment.
Blessings,
Leslie
Well written. I personally believe it is wrong. I don't think it should be up to us when we die, I think that should be left up to our Creator. And like you said, we are heading down a slippery slope if it becomes legalized.
Cari Jean,
I know that people often want to brush aside the slippery slope, because "it never actually happens," but I'm just not interested in taking the chance. Both of my parents are disabled, and could be labeled as "unproductive members of society." However, they are still my parents and I love them dearly. I would hate to think what could potentially happen if euthanasia were to become legal. Or what about all the kids who have been diagnosed with autism? It's just a scary thought to think of what harm humans could do if given the right. I agree, let's leave it all up to the Creator. He is so much smarter than I :)
Thank you for reading my hub.
Leslie
Today, Euthanasia is only legal in the netherlands. They have a fool proof process that prevents malpractice. For instance, the terminal patient must be coherent, in unbearable pain with no prospect of improvement, they must seek consultation with another doctor to confirm their conditions, they cannot make the decision when under the influence of others, psychological illness, or drugs,and the death must be carried out in a "fashionable" manner. (They also set an age limit). These guidelines make it impossible to perform the procedure on an unwilling being. There are also a number of criminal offenses the doctor will face if they do not obey the law.
We have to option of passive Euthanasia, or withdrawing medical treatment with the deliberate intenetion of causing the patients death. Why shouldn't they also have to option of killing themselves in a pain free way?
Put your personal morals aside and let them decide what is right for them. We have to freedom of doing as we please as long as it does not inflict harm on others, this should include active euthanasia.
Did I mention, it costs $129,000 to keep a terminal patient alive for a year(this includes food, emotional support, meds., dialysis etc)? Insurance only pays for about $50,000 dollars leaving the patient to come up with the rest. Euthanasia only costs 34 to 45 dollars. Resorting to Euthanasia would not only end their suffering but it would improve government funded programs such as medicaid by eradicating expensive, terminal patients.
I could go on, and on, and on...
Hannah
Thank you for adding your opinion, Hannah.
I wasn't quite sure what "passive euthanasia" is, so I looked around a little bit. It appears to be the patient's choice to withhold medical treatment (i.e. chemotherapy). Thank you for adding that piece to the discussion.
You said, "Euthanasia only costs 34 to 45 dollars." One of my problems with this entire issue is putting a dollar sign on human life. When we start trying to balance the cost of keeping people alive, we lose the ability to value their lives.
Thank you again for visiting my hub. I hope that someday, somehow someone will find an fair compromise on this issue.
Blessings,
Leslie
I myself have no wish for heroic efforts to be made in case of having to live by life support systems. After watching the elderly strive so hard just to continue to live a decent life when most of their vitality is gone, I would like to take my rest when the time comes. No help will be necessary when the body decides to shut down.
Sources
Rita L. Marker and Kathi Hamlon. Frequently Asked Questions. International Task Force. May 16, 2006 <http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/faq.htm>.
AMA: Anti-Euthanasia, Pro-Pain Control. Pregnant Pause. May 16, 2006. http://www.pregnantpause.org/euth/amagomez.htm
http://www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/index.html
For those who are curious, here is an opposing point of view:
http://www.dangerouscreation.com/2008/09/euthanasia-and-abortion-profound-hypocri/
dohn121 says:
2 months ago
I've heard of a story where an elderly widow wanted very much to leave her life savings to her children and grandchildren, yet had gotten sick to where she was on life support. Long story short, all of the money she planned on leaving to her children and grandchildren went to paying for her medical expenses for the next six-months and so exhausted all the money she had. She coincidentally died when her money ran out and so had nothing to leave to the surviving members of her family who had nothing. Makes you wonder, huh?
Thank you Leslie, for sharing this. I hope many of us can learn more about this fascinating and controversial issue.