Active And Passive Euthanasia example essay topic

Euthanasia is one of society's most widely and hotly debated moral issues. It has pained and exhausted the courts for entirely too long, questioning the ethics and morality of the issue. It is a never-ending loop that by no means considers our right, or the victim's right, to freedom. It has pierced the pocket books of American taxpayers extensively and should be put to rest with only this statement.

Let them die! I believe that euthanasia is only debated and kept on the political agenda to keep the courts busy, thereby ensuring the security of political pocket books. The vast majority of the population is in favor of euthanasia. However, their elected candidates don't represent their views (Humphry).

Thus eliminating their power of democracy and right to freedom. In this essay I will argue that euthanasia is not a concern of religious ethics but rather an entitlement of freedom. Euthanasia is typically broken into two categories: 1. Active euthanasia: The act of... administering a lethal drug, or using other means that cause a persons death" (MacKinnon, 126).

2. Passive euthanasia: "Stopping (or not starting) some treatment, which allows a person to die, the persons condition causes his or her death, (MacKinnon, 126). Active euthanasia is typically the more highly debated of the two acts of euthanasia and is better known because of the actions of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who has aided in many successful suicides. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, is rarely debated and usually never enters the mind's eye because it is typically looked at as letting someone die naturally. In passive euthanasia one simply refuses treatment with the knowledge that death is imminent.

This offers little debate for several reasons, primarily because it is seen as a natural way of dying. The exception, however, is that some religions refuse to accept treatment with the knowledge that without the treatment they will die. For example in the faith of the Jehovah's Witness, a child, who has been in a vicious car accident and is in need of blood, will die rather that accept treatment. This kind of passive euthanasia would come under much scrutiny, but be accepted because it is tied to religious convictions. In either case, active or passive, the victim will die. There is essentially no difference between them.

From herein both active and passive euthanasia will not be separated but rather both will be referred to simply as euthanasia. It will be the primary interest of this paper to focus on and address the concerns of active euthanasia, as it is the more controversial of the two despite that fact that both result in death. It is fair to note that the exceptional circumstance of a comatose patient will not be addressed in this paper, as this falls into a category all its own and requires an entirely different approach to the debate. Those who oppose the practice of euthanasia argue that helping the terminally ill bring about their own deaths, or allowing them to determine the how and when, is not only inhumane, but is also an act of "playing God". This may be true, assuming that one believes in God. However, a tactical logician may pose this counter argument.

If it is the case that God is "I AM THAT I AM " (King James Version, Exodus 3: 14), it then follows that God is everything. If God is everything, than he would not only be disease but also death. If it is the purpose of disease to bring about death and God is disease and death, then the actions or the will of God would be reflected by the resulting death that comes about through disease. If it is the case then that God is a disease, terminal or not, then would God not be carrying out his will by killing an infected person And if the infected person chose to not allow the disease to take its course, then would that person not be playing God, or interfering with the will of God Finally, if the person chose to partake in the action of euthanasia, could this action not be considered an act of aiding or following the wishes of God's will One last point to ponder is this: If God is everything, then, is God not also the compassionate urge to euthanize Proponents of freedom view euthanasia in a very different way". [They] believe that everyone has the right to choose how they live and die" (TVES). Euthanasia allows the person, who is simply living to die, to maintain dignity by orchestrating their own end.

Thus letting him / her die in peace, rather than suffering to the end. It eliminates their own, as well as the next of Kin's, perception of the dying to be a burden, physically and financially, and / or a disgrace. "Each person has value and is worthy of respect, has basic rights and freedoms and the power to control his or her destiny. [The proponents] campaign to legalize [sic] assisted dying within certain strictly defined circumstances is fundamentally about choice" (TVES). Detractors of euthanasia may contest that dying is not disgraceful.

Little do they know. Dying of a terminal illness is a burden, physically and financially, as well as a disgrace. Victims in the advanced stages of terminal illness will have limited muscle control and experience excruciating and unrelenting pain. "Not everyone dies well.

At least 5% of terminal pain cannot be fully controlled, even with the best care. Other distressing symptoms such as sickness, incontinence or breathlessness cannot always be relieved" (TVES). Mitch Albom, in his book Tuesdays with Morrie, discusses the terminal illness of his former professor Morrie Stein. Morrie was stricken with Lou Gehrig's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and was terminally ill because of it. Morrie would inevitably die a painful, expensive and disgraceful death. Albom describes his visits and the cumbersome chore of having to move Morrie, physically, during the later stages of his disease.

In the book he also discusses the inevitable disgrace of having to hold a bottle while Morrie urinated and also how Morrie dreaded the day when somebody other than himself would have to "wipe [his] ass" (Albom). Could any of these detractors of euthanasia imagine doing this Could you imagine doing this Let me describe what I imagine it would be like. Let's say that my friend Harry was terminal in the same way that Morrie was. One month prior to his death I visit Harry. It has been 6 years since we last saw each other; however, we kept in close contact via email and telephone. I show up at Harry's house to be greeted by his thinning wife.

Her hair is graying; she looks distraught, tired and weak. She shows me into the room where Harry is pretty much confined. My first impression of Harry is this. He is sitting slumped in a chair drooling.

A distinct odor has permeated the room. Harry's wife says under her breath, "Damn!" She goes to where Harry is slouching and lifts the blanket that is covering him. Underneath the blanket Harry was wearing an adult diaper and a T-shirt. His diaper was soiled; apparently Harry was not receiving enough fiber to keep his stool hardened. It was loose and wet, oozing and spilling out of the sides of the diaper onto the chair.

His wife began cleaning. It seemed as if this were a wearisome task for her, one that she does quite often. I could only stand and watch as Harry's wife cleaned up his mess and wipe his ass. What a disgrace! Not only was Harry disgraced; his wife and I both shared in his shame. He has been striped of his freedom.

The freedom to control his muscles and his stool, and his freedom to choose death. "In October 1997, out of nearly 3,000 people who took part in a Sun newspaper telephone poll, an amazing 97 percent said terminally ill people should have the right to die with dignity" (TVES). National opinion polls show average support of 70 percent in the USA, 74 percent in Canada and 80 percent in Britain" (Humphry). The clear-cut majority of these democratic populations are in favor of legalizing euthanasia. So why in Canada and most of the United States does euthanasia remain unlawful If we live in presumably the freest of free nations in the world, then why can one not exercise his / her freedom by taking his / her own life Especially if he / she is in an overwhelming amount of pain. The only logical explanation is that the government needs something to squabble about in the court systems to ensure their next paycheck.

If it has been established that the person is going to assuredly die, and that the death will be humiliating, painful, and drawn out, not to mention time consuming and expensive, then in the most free of all of the free nations he / she should be allowed to die. Let them die! This is not an ethical concern of God; it is a question of freedom.

Bibliography

Albom, Mitch. Tuesdays with Morrie. New York: Doubleday, 1997.
Humphry, Derek. Final Exit. 28 May 2001.
Euthanasia Research Guidance Organization. 01 Nov. 2001.
web King James Version. The Bible Library: Ellis Enterprises, Inc. 1990.
MacKinnon, Barbara. Euthanasia, Ethics Theory and Contemporary Issues, second edition. Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1998.
TVES. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society. 02 Nov. 2001.