EUTHENASIA
THE ISSUES OF EUTHENASIA AND PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE [PAS] ARE INCREASINGLY SUBJECTS OF PUBLIC DEBATE AND CONCERN. [1]
The essence of the matter is appeal to the medical profession to show mercy in the form of killing.
There are those who strongly press for the legalisation of voluntary active euthenasia and assisted suicide. [1]
In some countries the medical profession are already treating patients in ways designed to hasten death; Alleged News. [1], [2] and [3]
The basic line of arguments supporting euthenasia and physician-assisted suicide can be encapsulated in the following way; it would be merciful to permit some terminally ill individuals to escape what is judged to be undesirable suffering and indignity.
In terminating the lives of such persons, we are not harming but are extending mercy.
Thus, voluntary active euthanasia according to those who support this view is considered as a compassionate and beneficent act, offering the release from pain and suffering desired by many terminally ill people.
This is also understood as 'mercy killing'. [4]
In terminating the lives of such persons, we are not harming but are extending mercy.
Thus, voluntary active euthanasia according to those who support this view is considered as a compassionate and beneficent act, offering the release from pain and suffering desired by many terminally ill people.
This is also understood as 'mercy killing'. [4]
Mercy and Individual Autonomy
This appeal to mercy is allied to powerful appeal to individual autonomy. Autonomy is the central point in the moral defence of euthanasia.
The current interpretation of autonomy is that of ethical liberalism, which attributes a supreme value to the individual's freedom and rights.
When euthenasia defenders appeal to autonomy, they mean that each individual has a right to control her or his body and life, including the end thereof; and so should be given the freedom to exercise this right. The autonomy principle states that the individual has a right to self-determination.
Each person part of Society
The appeal is therefore heard of the so called 'right to die'. The right to die is a principle based on the belief that a human being is entitled to commit suicide or to undergo voluntary euthenasia.
It is often suggested that the decision to end one's life is a matter of personal choice, and that such a decision does not harm anybody. However, this does not take into account the fact that each person is a part of society, and that what happens to one can deeply affect others.
A clear example of this is the ongoing distress experienced by Tom Mortier.
His mother, Godelieva de Troyer, died from lethal injection in Belgium after she asked to be put to death for 'untreatable depression', Alleged News.
It is often suggested that the decision to end one's life is a matter of personal choice, and that such a decision does not harm anybody. However, this does not take into account the fact that each person is a part of society, and that what happens to one can deeply affect others.
A clear example of this is the ongoing distress experienced by Tom Mortier.
His mother, Godelieva de Troyer, died from lethal injection in Belgium after she asked to be put to death for 'untreatable depression', Alleged News.
Her son Tom didn't find out until the next day when the morgue called him to come and pick up her body. He was 'completely shocked and traumatized.' [5]
Mortier took his case to the European Court of Human Rights. [6]
Mortier took his case to the European Court of Human Rights. [6]
From healers to enders of life
The euthenasia appeal is often heard of the so called 'right to die.'
It is often suggested that the decision to end one's life is a matter of personal choice, and that such a decision does not harm anybody.
A major contention is that we will have a better life, and a better death, to the extent that we have control.
It is often suggested that the decision to end one's life is a matter of personal choice, and that such a decision does not harm anybody.
A major contention is that we will have a better life, and a better death, to the extent that we have control.
The defendants of this ideal seek through euthenasia to assure us of that last definitive step in gaining full self-determination so that we can die how and when we choose. [7]
In this view, physicians are expected to change their primary focus [in the case of euthenasia and physician-assisted suicide] from extending assistance within the clear parameters of respecting and sustaining all life without exception, to a new focus.
The new focus is to assist in the suicide of - or directly cause the death of - a patient.
The new focus is to assist in the suicide of - or directly cause the death of - a patient.
The medical professional is called on to change from advancing the culture of life, to the culture of death.
We are all destined to die
Each of us is destined to die in the normal course of events some time in the future; that is the norm of our human condition. However, how each person dies becomes a matter for moral guidelines.
God Himself warns us that there are consequences to directly killing another human being.
When Cain murdered Abel, God confronted him with the evil he had wrought upon his brother.
"Then the LORD said to Cain, 'Where is Abel your brother?' And he said, 'I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?' HE said, 'What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand . . .' " [Genesis 4: 9-11]
When Cain murdered Abel, God confronted him with the evil he had wrought upon his brother.
"Then the LORD said to Cain, 'Where is Abel your brother?' And he said, 'I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?' HE said, 'What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand . . .' " [Genesis 4: 9-11]
GOD Himself gave the command, 'You shall not kill'. [Exodus 20;13]
The unvarnished truth is that in the issue of euthenasia we are called on to make a clear choice; to obey the Word of GOD or to take on the role which only GOD can hold; that of LORD over life and death.
The reality is that by euthenasia one of our human brothers or sisters - instead of receiving the assistance he or she so clearly needs in their hour of trial, and the panacea of expert and professional treatment designed to ease their suffering and lighten their burden - is instead relieved of their life.
His or her spiritual road through life, though yet incomplete, has been curtailed by the action of another.
This is a grave sin in the moral order against another.
Euthenasia now, accountability before GOD later
Jesus Christ, Son of GOD, came to the world stage and vigorously opposed the concept of euthenasia.
He informed us that whatsoever we do to the least of His brethren, is considered as done directly to Him. [Matthew 25;40].
He informed us that whatsoever we do to the least of His brethren, is considered as done directly to Him. [Matthew 25;40].
This is a clear warning. Our personal judgement will occur after our death; and we will be accountable for our actions throughout our lives.
According to Christ, no human is to be considered unwanted or unworthy of life and nurturing.
Otherwise, if unrepented, it may go harshly at the perpetuator's judgement. [Matthew 25;31-46]
Otherwise, if unrepented, it may go harshly at the perpetuator's judgement. [Matthew 25;31-46]
The medical professional and the theologian
The medical professional and the grounded theologian realize that their call is to be God's ambassador; the bulwark against illness, physical, mental and moral.
They are called upon to be the protector of the weak, the speaker of the truth, the prophet of the future, the healer of the suffering, the consoler of the dying - and NEVER the enabler of murder of the most defenceless of all.
They are called upon to be the protector of the weak, the speaker of the truth, the prophet of the future, the healer of the suffering, the consoler of the dying - and NEVER the enabler of murder of the most defenceless of all.
[1] Hung Manh Tran, Peter, C.Ss.R. Advancing the Culture of Death; Euthenasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. 2006. Pauline Publications; Mumbai. Page 29
[2] Death Statistics from the Netherlands [July 2012], [Statline - Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics]. Three percent of deaths in the Netherlands are the result of euthenasia or assisted suicide. Of those, 7% were done without the explicit request of the patient; Alleged News
[3] Statistics Netherlands; Deaths by Medical End-of-Life Decision; Age, Cause of Death; Alleged News
[4] Hung Manh Tran, Peter, C.Ss.R. Advancing the Culture of Death; Euthenasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. 2006. Pauline Publications; Mumbai. Pages 31 to 32
[5] Man who had no idea his Mom was euthanized until the Morgue called challenges Euthenasia Law, Alleged News
[6] Mortier v. Belgium, Alleged News
[7] Hung Manh Tran, Peter, C.Ss.R. Advancing the Culture of Death; Euthenasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. 2006. Pauline Publications; Mumbai. Page 32
With thanks to P Hung Manh Tran, C.Ss.R, patientsrightscouncil.org, statline.cbs.nl, lifenews.com, adfmedia.org
No comments:
Post a Comment