|
|
I want to offer an alternative opinion to that given by Thomas Szasz' that suicide ought to be a basic human right. I believe many people who support the legal right to suicide are caring individuals who promote it as a means of removing suffering and supporting the individual's right to self-determination.
|
|
Most of the Szaz letter referred to physician assisted suicide which involves a physician intentionally prescribing medications for the patient to kill themselves. It differs from euthanasia that involves a medical practitioner injecting the drug that kills the patient. Withholding artificial life-sustaining means from terminally ill patients or hastening death through treatments aimed at controlling pain is not necessarily euthanasia or assisted suicide. If the purpose of these acts is to comfort the patient or allow natural death to occur, then they are not morally wrong since their purpose is not to end life.
|
|
Arguments for and against physician assisted suicide and euthanasia.
1) Argument for: It shows mercy in avoiding suffering. Argument against: This argument assumes there is no value in suffering and that humans can decide when a person's life is meaningful. I've seen multiple tremendous lessons taught and learned through suffering. Some virtues--such as courage and perseverance--can only be developed and expressed through difficult times. The ultimate value may be the potential to draw the person closer to their Creator. Christ himself chose not to avoid His intense suffering. |
|
Suffering can serve as a source of inspiration for millions. A well-known quadriplegic (Joni Eareckson) said: "We are now accepting a dangerous premise: that life lived in pain or in a wheelchair is not worth living, that you are better dead than disabled...Instead of making it easier for people to die, let's make it easier for them to live."
|
|
Furthermore, current medical science can alleviate most kinds of physical pain. Aggressive care can improve the quality and quantity of remaining life. So even assuming a quality of life premise, one can justify caring over killing. We have the capacity for compassionate, cost-effective, quality, terminal care.
|
|
Finally, research from the Netherlands shows that 95% of all requests for euthanasia are due to mental illness, not physical suffering. The majority of those that get psychiatric help later feel grateful to be alive. Legalized physician-assisted suicide makes it more difficult to protect from suicidal impulses those that are depressed, mentally ill, or those who are suffering from untreated pain.
|
|
2) Argument for: It ensures individual freedom of choice.
This view gives supreme value to personal autonomy. If there is no authority higher than the individual, we have the right to kill ourselves. |
|
Argument against: This justification assumes that the highest good is what the person wishes. But is this true? Certainly, not everything a person believes to be in his own best interest actually is nor is it necessarily morally right. A person in the midst of extreme pain is usually not the best judge of whether or not he should be given death-producing drugs. Even if a person opts for suicide during a clear-minded period, consent doesn't turn a moral wrong into a moral right.
|
|
If the supreme value, instead of personal freedom, is the right to life given by God, a person doesn't have the moral authority to take his own life. The question, therefore, over the morality of suicide seems based on the origin of life. Our country was founded on the view that life comes from God, as the Declaration of Independence asserts. Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to life. Our laws have reflected that belief throughout our nation's history by consistently prohibiting suicide. The Supreme Court in a unanimous 1997 opinion rejected the claim that assisted suicide is a constitutionally protected right. Autonomy does not include the right to do evil to others or to ourselves.
|
|
Furthermore, how can intentionally induced death be called an act of freedom when it destroys all freedom? The very notion of autonomy presumes a will to live, but suicide ends freedom. Dead people don't have freedom.
|
|
Additional reasons / arguments against:
|
|
1) It violates the Hippocratic Oath.
For nearly 2500 years the Oath has functioned as a kind of "moral law" of medicine. It's underlying message is, "First, do no harm." It has helped build respect and trust in the medical profession. This trust will be severely eroded if euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are legalized, especially in the area of terminal care. Knowing the state has legalized their death by lethal injection, how can patients be sure of doctor's intentions? Intentions would become particularly questionable if the patient is a financial burden to the state. Death is an easier and cheaper option. |
|
The American Medical Association presently opposes physician-assisted suicide.
|
|
2) The choice may not be fully informed, and it may be coerced or forced.
|
|
If suicide becomes a legal option, some terminally ill patients will feel pressured to consent. Choices during a weakened condition may not be voluntary. At a time when family and community should be minimizing suffering by giving care and compassion, the patient's anguish may be compounded by guilt and thoughts of removing themselves for the sake of loved ones.
|
|
12/3/97, the Hemlock Society advocated the idea that euthanasia should be performed on those terminal patients (including children) who are considered incompetent or disabled. The criteria for death is if the patient's "agent" believes that life is "too burdensome to continue." It is worrisome that humans be left to decide the definition of "incompetent" and what kind of life is "too burdensome".
|
|
3) Argument for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide assumes that death ends suffering. There is Biblical support that suicide can dislodge a person from relationship with God for all eternity. I can think of no worse suffering than that.
|
|
4) Legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide devalues life.
|
|
The mere existence of a law helps restrain immoral behavior. That which becomes legal becomes moral in the eyes of many. Laws help advance and protect what a society values. Legalization of euthanasia would further devalue life and thereby add to the growing decay of moral values. It would undermine our sense of responsibility and love for others that often involves sacrifice. This culture progressively values freedom and convenience above all else. Humans tend to be inconvenient at both ends of their lives and when ill. People are valuable because of their humanity, not because they are healthy and convenient.
|
|
The arguments for euthansia overlook a truth thought to be self-evident in our nation's founding document: We don't owe our lives to ourselves. Our rights are not given to us by any government or individual. Life is a special mysterious gift from our Creator that is beyond our control. We're dealing with a human life that we did not create and that we have no right to take, even if it be our own life.
|
|
Despite this nation's God-oriented beginning, we have, for all practical purposes, removed God from government and from the classroom. By our example we have taught our children that God is not necessary, and by abortion and considering euthanasia we have taught our children that we do not value human life. It is our collective behavior, not our words in classrooms and lecture halls that teaches young people the value of human life. As Guy Doud, the 1986 National Teacher of the Year, said, "I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day; I'd rather you walk with me than merely point the way. The eye's a more ready pupil than ever was the ear; Fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear."
|
|
Our culture is damaged to the extent that we devalue human life, its Creator, and our vocation to bravely serve God and others as God's Moral Law instructs. Unless God is placed at our center, we will continue to teeter on the edge of self-destruction.
|
Dr. Annie Bukacek MD |