Euthanasia in the strict sense is gravely illicit because it implies homicide. Therefore, no reason (like commiseration, humanitarianism or apparent piety) can justify the act of suppressing life. Man is not the absolute owner of his life. The fundamental principle of natural law and Christian morality, over and above medical science and human endeavors, is the absolute respect for human life. “Anything that goes against life itself, e. g. , homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, is evil and undermines human civilization, degrades those who practice it more than those who suffer from it.
It is a grave offense against the honor of the Creator (Dowbiggin, 2003). Suicidal euthanasia is just another form of suicide; it is equally immoral. Ortothanasia , on the other hand, is professional negligence through neglect of attention and the necessary measures for the patient. Eugenic euthanasia (for political, economic, racial motives, etc. ) is universally condemned today. “To kill directly by mandate of public authority those who have not committed any capital crime, but are considered useless to the nation due to physical defects or psychiatric problems is contrary to the natural law and divine positive law” (Pius XII, Aloc.
July 2, 1940). This was written about 50 years ago when Europe trembled with the barbaric acts of Adolf Hitler, among which was the elimination of the old who were considered useless to the nation. Hitler’s concept of “utility” is well known. In this respect, will approval of the law not endanger many lives, leaving in the hands of the unscrupulous a means very similar to that hands of Hitler? The right to life is a fundamental human right. If an individual in the future were to be compelled by the social environment to abandon his life, human freedom would be greatly chiseled away.
Besides, let us not forget that if some states have legislated regarding the inception of human life (Szasz, 1999); will they not feel tempted also to dispose of life, which has reached its final stage? Moreover, euthanasia out of compassion is illicit. Some, however, have tried to justify and even legalize it. Regardless of sentiments or economic motives, its moral character remains the same. Human life deserves absolute respect. Thus, euthanasia is always illicit. Compassion does not change the morality because what remains at issue is the direct suppression of human life.
Euthanasia is homicide. Besides, to consider some “compassionate” arguments is to open the floodgates to sinister opportunities: compassion may be utilized to justify the elimination of the feeble pressure by reason of public interest (with more or less basis) (Downing & Smoker, 2001). It may also invite the aged people to “freely” or spontaneously seek euthanasia. Another social consequence of legalizing euthanasia is the patient’s loss of trust in the physician. A patient can consider a doctor a future assassin.
Homicide by euthanasia could be easily committed in order to hasten taking possession of an inheritance. Let us add the risks of error in diagnosis that could lead to euthanasia, e. g. , persons being considered “incurable” when they are in fact curable. The scientific and humanitarian endeavor in taking care of the insane would disappear (Szasz, 1999). Not only hospitals but also welfare institutes, homes for the aged, etc. would lose their physiognomy and become sinister establishments, dedicated to professionally and scientifically plan killing.
But the heart of the matter remains this: leaving it up to the physician to decide what is suffering and what is death. The goal of Medicine is to impede death and alleviate suffering through science and technology. The brutal solution to eliminate life is contrary to the very essence of a medical act. IV. Conclusion As a conclusion, euthanasia is an ethical act and should be abolished because it is another way of killing other’s lives. Everyone has the right to live and extend his own life as possible.
Euthanasia may become a scapegoat by doctors and nurses to excuse themselves from their responsibilities in giving proper treatment to the patient. Moreover, suffering is surely a terrible thing, and we have a clear duty to comfort those in need and to ease their suffering when we can. But suffering is also a natural part of life with values for the individual and for others that we should not overlook. We may legitimately seek for others and for ourselves an easeful death. Euthanasia, however, is not just an easeful death. It is a wrongful death. Euthanasia is not just dying; it is killing.
Reference:
1. Baird, R. M. (2001). Euthanasia: The Moral Issues. Prometheus Books. Place of Buffalo, NY 2. Corless, Inge (2003). Dying, Death, and Bereavement: A Challenge for Living. Springer. 3. Dowbiggin, I. (2003). A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. Oxford University Press. New York. 4. Downing, A. B. , and Smoker, Barbara, eds. (2001). Voluntary Euthanasia: Experts Debate the Right to Die. Rev. ed. London: Peter Owen. Extended debate, with bibliography. Extended edition of Euthanasia and the Right to Death (1969). 5. Hooker, Brad (2002).
Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford University Press. 6. Johnson, Sally (1994). Hospital Euthanasia: Compassion or Murder? Insight on the News, Vol. 10 7. Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, Ethics, and Public Policy: An Argument against Legalisation. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England. Publication 8. Neuhaus, Richard John (2007). The Always Lively Newsletter Catholic Eye Reflects on Why It Is That Older People Who Are Strongly Pro-Life Are Tempted to Succumb to a Measure of Ambivalence When the Subject Turns to Euthanasia.
First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life. 9. Otlowski, M. (2001). Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 10. Szasz, T. (1999). Fatal Freedom: The Ethics and Politics of Suicide. Praeger. Westport, CT. 11. Young, Robert. Voluntary Euthanasia. Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Mon Feb 19, 2007. http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/ 12. The arguments against the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia. http://www. portfolio. mvm. ed. ac. uk/studentwebs/session3/55/eagainst4. htm