Euthanasia
In one of Shakespeare's plays the
question "To be or not to be?" is asked. What the question means is
"Suicide and death, or life?" Today the same question is being asked
by a political lobby, and the word they use for voluntary death, as opposed to
voluntary continuation of life, is euthanasia.
As I see it, the whole subject of
euthanasia can be broken into three main sections. First, there is the philosophical view which deals with
the origin of life, Second, there is the situation
existing at the time of illness, and third there is the method of death.
Very briefly I would like to work
backwards through these three points of view.
The method of death.
I am no expert on the subject, but I
do understand, from personal experience with dying patients, that there are
many medications available today which can make the final hours painless and
reasonable. I have seen people in the last stages of terminal cancer, pain free
and still aware enough of the world around them to smile and converse, and I
know from anecdotal evidence that about 91% of dying patients can die free of
pain, while 98% can have the pain controlled.
Dr. Malcolm Watson, now retired and
previously a specialist physician for 36 years believes the discipline of
palliative care that relieves symptoms with intelligent and compassionate
consideration "gives many people a kind of care in dying they did not
believe was possible."
The method of death need not be by direct intervention
(deliberate lethal termination), or passive intervention (switching the
machines off, stopping medication). The alternative method is to allow the
patient to have their pain relieved and give them loving, caring attention,
making their last moments of the highest quality.
This still allows a patient the free
will to choose "to be or not to be" but, with the palliative option
in operation, they might decide that living a little longer is more worthwhile
than dying prematurely. This might not have been the case many years ago, when
medication was not so flexible, but the option of dying without pain is a
reality today.
The second part of the debate centres
on the situation of the
patient. Every case is different, so there is no way a single article of law
can cover every possible situation. It would be quite unacceptable if a patient
was assessed as 'hopeless' and automatically given euthanasia. This is one of
the fears held by the anti-euthanasia lobby. Such an option removes the
patient's free will - something which goes against human integrity. Such an
option may also override the wishes of the patient's family and friends. Again,
this is unacceptable.
A further possibility is the extension
of euthanasia to anyone whom the State or some Authority deemed useless - old
people, deformed babies, retarded people?
But the first part of the debate is
perhaps the most important. It centers on the philosophical. It has to do with the origin of human life,
and is really the basis of the whole euthanasia issue. There are only two main views of the origin human
life, each starting from diametrically opposed points.
One view holds that humans are the
product of chance and random processes, merely evolved organisms, part of a
chain of life, and therefore of no greater or lesser value than the atoms and
molecules from which all things are made. If this is so, then life is
irrelevant, and death is meaningless. Euthanasia therefore is a logical
procedure, because it simply terminates a meaningless organism a little sooner
than expected.
The alternative view is the
Christian, or Biblical one. This holds that God created the whole universe for
Man, and that on this Earth God created humans in His own likeness.
Unfortunately Man sinned and brought pain, sickness and death on himself.
However, God loves all people, and desires to bless them inwardly and
outwardly, despite their fallen state.
Euthanasia is therefore not the best
direction for a dying Christian to take, although it is still an option, since
God has given Christians (and all people) the freedom to choose what they will.
Christians have a responsibility to God, right up to the point of death, and
they are accountable to Him for their bodies - however sick or disabled they
are. Much good can be done by Christians, even on their death-beds. The
agnostic view (above) holds no such value, considering only the
"rights" of the patient. There is no accountability to God for the
agnostic, only a self-centered decision, based on their own personal view of
life.
The euthanasia question may never be
fully worked out, since every person who comes to it brings with them their own
beliefs about life and death. All I have tried to do here is present the
Christian point of view.