Mat+On+Kevorkian+and+Euthanasia

Euthanasia, or easy/good death in Latin, is a medical term/action in which doctor's or action terminate an individual's life through passive or active means. Passive euthanasia, while not universally accepted, is a legal course action (in most countries) which allows a doctor to remove or decease extreme and necessary means of prolonging of life. Active euthanasia, on the other hand, has been a hotly contested matter legal only in the state's of Washington, Oregon and the country of Sweden. The question - as currently debated - is whether or not active euthanasia a right reserved to patients and what are it's moral repercussions.

The Catholic Church, one of he main opponents of euthanasia, stand firm in their belief of protecting life in all stages. As stated in the "Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith," the Catholic's Church official stance, life, is an individual's duty to carry on, from birth to death, in accordance to God's "plan." Murder and suicide, as defined in the Catholic faith, is a sin of "utmost gravity" which obstructs God's love for an individual or, in the case of suicide, "refusal of love for self and flight from the duties of justice and charity owed to one's neighbors." The act of injecting chemicals within a patient is not a "natural death," equating it to murder, while the defined consent of an individual, although made in understandable circumstances of suffering, constitutes it as suicide. Therefore, the Catholic faith affirms, active euthanasia in it's entirety is a sin. A patient in grave suffering asking for death, the doctrine states, should not be understood as implying a true desire for active euthanasia, but is in fact a cry of help and love and should be remedied through palliative care. Furthermore, an individual's suffering is nothing more than another "cross" to bear, which, according to the doctrine, has a "special place in God's saving plan; a sharing in Christ's Passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which he offered in obedience to the Father's will." Other opponents, such as Alison Davis, an activist towards the rights of the handicapped, state that the acceptance of active euthanasia will lead to a slippery slope and eventually, a situation similar to Nazi Germany, in which handicapped people are regarded not as human beings, but as burdens to be disposed of. Davis, who is handicapped herself, affirms that if practices such as abortion and active euthanasia is allowed, then handicapped people like her might not have a chance a "full and happy life."

On the other side of the spectrum, people like Doctor Kevorkian, Pieter Admiiral, Chris Hill and Ramon Sampedro advocate active euthanasia. Doctor Kevorkian actively supports euthanasia to the point where, some might say, he martyred himself for the cause. Doctors are cowards, Kevorkian states, in the fact that secretly, half of the doctor's in America support him, and hypocritically support active euthanasia in the cover of the night while hiding in the light of day. Pieter Admiiral, a Dutch proponent for active euthanasia recounts his experiences as a practitioner of active euthanasia. He affirms that to deny a patient his/her right to active euthanasia is under some circumstances to fail the patient. He further justifies the practice of active euthanasia by denouncing the notion of the "slippery slope," saying that the boundaries between accepted medical services and Neo-nazi euthanasia is clearly defined by patient consent. Furthermore, Admiiral says, active euthanasia is practiced is a last resort action - an action painstakingly deliberated through the consent of the patient, the doctors, the psychiatric evaluators and even, surprisingly, their catholic chaplain. This banner of self determination is also carried not only by the doctors but patients/people in suffering themselves. Chris Hill, who once was a lively journalist, was paralyzed from the waste down. Although he tried moving on from the accident, the lost of his mobility and freedom had led him to believe that his current way of living was nothing compared to his previous lifestyle. Bereft from his joys, he committed suicide, leaving a note behind stating his intents and purposes, as well as his state of mind, saying that he acted under his own powers and under his own logic in rational state of mind, that he reserved a civil right to commit suicide. Similarly, Ramon Sampedro, who was also paralyzed but from the neck down, fought a 30 year battle with the Spanish government to commit suicide, citing the same reasons and using the same logic as Chris Hill, however, with an even more amount of time for contemplation.

While I disagree with Kevorkian's approach (and his countenance - there's a clear aura of manic obsession about his person and his eagerness in bringing about patient death completely unsettles me)towards legalizing active euthanasia, I, like Kevorkian and other proponents of active euthanasia, believe that active euthanasia is a right reserved to terminally ill and severely debilitated patients. Of course, I also believe strict regulations should be practiced.

It is shallow for doctors to deny patient rights all because of self image. As a doctor, you are indoctrinated and bound by the Hippocratic Oath to provide any means of care to your patient. In fact, by rejecting the right of a patient to decide for his health and livelihood, we fail to respect the patient as a self-determining person.

The Catholic Church, though I agree with their moral values, should have no place in the process of law and determination of the legality of active euthanasia. The system of the separation of church and state was put in place for a reason, and to abdicate the authority of logic to the powers of faith and religion within the process of government/legislation, is to undo one of the backbone's of American government. Furthermore, the Catholic justification of euthanasia, as Brent and I discussed, holds one serious and large flaw: the medical field in all of its entirety. The Doctrine of Faith states, in support of passive euthanasia, the discontinuing of "unnecessary and extreme means of prolonging life." If taken in perspective, the practice of medicine is in fact a practice in "unnecessary and extreme means of prolonging life," as evident in our drastically increased life spans.

Of course, all of this falls within patient consent. It is in my belief that the "slippery of slope" to a Neo-nazi situation, or devaluing the value of life through the legalization of active euthanasia, is as valid as the argument "Red apples are better, green apples are worse, and since you have green apples, you should kill yourself." No, it doesn't work that way. Active euthanasia cannot practiced without patient consent, a clear defining line from standard medical practice and neo-nazi killings. Furthermore, having the option of active euthanasia does not subliminally "suggest" that a handicapped individual's value of life is lower than everyone else's. That option is merely there for the INDIVIDUAL to decide when HE/SHE believes the HIS/HER standards of living, not mine, not the doctors, but the individual's own belief on whether or not life is too painful or too burdensome to continue. Like I said earlier, just because I think red apples are better than green apples, doesn't mean that everyone believes that red apples are better than green apples and that people who like green apples should commit suicide.

Active euthanasia is a practice in logic and respect - respect for an individual's wishes and respect to life. Is it really more humane, more moral to watch another human being suffer and beg for death against his own consent than letting him die peacefully through his own volition? Of course not. Hopefully, when I am a doctor, I can help patients the way they want and when I, myself, am bedridden, dying, and in horrible pain, I hope I can take a toast (cocktail pun) to the wonderful things I have (hopefully) done in my life, and easily sleep into the night.