РефератыИностранный языкLeLet Them Die Essay Research Paper Euthanasia

Let Them Die Essay Research Paper Euthanasia

Let Them Die Essay, Research Paper


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 legalise [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.


Works Cited


Albom, Mitch. Tuesdays with Morrie. New York: Doubleday, 1997.


Humphry, Derek. Final Exit. 28 May 2001. Euthanasia Research Guidance


Organization. 01 Nov. 2001. www.finalexit.org/faqframe.html#3


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.


http://www.ves.org.uk/cgi-bin/bizdb-search.cgi?template=homepage.html&dbname=veshome&f10=homepage&action=searchdbdisplay

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: Let Them Die Essay Research Paper Euthanasia

Слов:1702
Символов:11176
Размер:21.83 Кб.