Paige+On+Kevorkian+and+Euthanasia


 * "First do no harm". Every doctor swears to it, but the interpretation of it is where things get complicated, as pertaining to euthanasia. It's proponents believe that allowing a patient to suffer, to watch their body completely deteriorate, to fully rely on machines to breathe or get nutrients into their bodies, is doing more harm than allowing them to die on their own terms, with dignity. It's opponents believe that it is merciless killing, which completely devalues the preciousness of life. So which is it, mercy or murder? I think that the practice of euthanasia is an act of mercy and that each and every person has the exclusive right to their body and to decide what happens to it. I think that doctors who refuse to practice euthanasia, or practice it quietly, are cowards who use the Hippocratic oath to hide, refusing to admit that they know they are doing good for a patient, even if it means aiding in their death. If a person wishes to die with dignity, they have every right to it.

Those who agree with assisted suicide are often those who have dealt with intense suffering first hand. Doctors, patients and family members who have witnessed their loved ones in agonizing pain. One man, Ramon Sampedro, fought for the right to die for 29 years. He was a quadriplegic, a "head in a bed", what he considered a humiliating slavery. Because of this, he did not posses the ability to take his own life and had to fight for it. He said constantly that he should be allowed to die for the simple fact that he knew it was what he wanted, that he was not living with dignity. He believed that living was "a right, not an obligation" and stated to the court that "to deny the private property of our own selves is the biggest of cultural lies. For a culture that worships the private property of things -among them, earth and water- it is an aberration to deny the most private property of them all, our personal Land and Kingdom. Our body; life and conscience. -Our Universe. " It was his firmly held belief that his body belonged to him and no one else and if he should choose to want to leave this world, no one should have the right to stop him. With the aid of a few people, each person playing a small enough role as to not be charged with assisting in suicide, Sampedro finally was able to take his life. At the very end of the video, he states "It is not that my conscience finds itself trapped in the deformity of my atrophied and numb body; but in the deformity, atrophy and insensitivity of your consciences." The issue was not so much that his mutilated body trapped him, but that everybody else's views trapped him.

A Dutch doctor by the name Pieter Admiraal practices actie euthanasia "openly and unashamedly". He feels that euthanasia is sometimes required by doctors, that "to fail to practice euthanasia under some circumstances is to fail the patient." His practices are very well thought out, passed through a full team before being carried out. Practicing openly and unashamedly does not mean mindlessly or always. He was simply "always willing to listen." He explains some cases in which he has helped a patient to die and says "if we can't restore a patient's health, we should try to reduce their suffering. That duty entails that we listen closely to our patients, and respect their wishes." Admiraal believes that sometimes the best treatment for a patient is death.

One of the strongest opponents is the Catholic Church. They believe that it is a direct violation of God and his plan to assist in suicide. That, it is a “violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.” In their eyes, God is the sole decider on when someone shall pass and life should be protected by any and all means. They support the idea that whatever happens to a person is a part of God's plan and that they must live with it if they are a true follower of God.

Often, people who live with disabilities and are still happy with their lives or who work with the disabled are extremely adamant against euthanasia. Allison Davis, a woman who was born with spina bifida, and whose parent's were advised to have an abortion, believes that euthanasia devalues the life of the disabled. She responds to the idea that babies with congenital defects being aborted because they will have "no worthwhile quality of life" by saying, “legislation of the type proposed could well also lead to the de facto decriminalization of the act of killing a handicapped person of any age, just as it did in Hitler’s Germany." She believes that euthanasia for the disabled, especially babies, will lead to a slippery slope of inhumane murder. She says that she has led a "full and happy life" and she sees no reason why any other disabled person can't do the same.

My view can be mostly described with the quote, "The task of health care is to cure sometimes, relieve often and care always." If a patient can no longer be cured or relieved, a doctor should are enough to take them out of their misery, if it's what they want. A doctor should always care enough to respect their patient's wishes, doing otherwise is "doing harm". I agree with Admiraal's idea that the best treatment I think that because each and every person has the right to life, they should have the right to die. I understand why some people may not want to be euthanized, but legalizing it does not force them to be. Legal euthanasia does not take away anyones right to a natural death, if that is what they wish. Making it illegal, however, makes it impossible for anyone who does wish to choose when they want to die. My body belongs to myself and no one else and I should not be forced to remain on this Earth because someone else thinks I should. It is selfish and goes against our basic right as humans to keep someone alive when all they want is to die. ||


 * The "slippery slope" idea is ridiculous to me. Killing someone out of compassion and killing someone because you conciser them to be a lesser being are two extremely different things. Legalizing suicide will not make us a "Nazi-like" society, when the views come from two completely different places. They stand in direct contrast with each other. In my opinion, forcing someone to live against their will is more "Nazi-like" than allowing them to die, if it is their wish. I also think the idea that euthanasia being illegal because its "against God's plan". First, if this were true, the entirety of medicine should not be practiced. Giving me a shot to prevent whooping cough is "going against God's plan", and I still got it. Secondly, even if someone believes this, God has no place in deciding whether or not something should be illegal in this country. We are founded on the right to separation of church and state, so an argument like this should never be able to hold up.

I think that euthanasia should be every single person's right. It should not be up for the government to decide who specifically has the right to die. Each and every person should have complete and total control over their own body, and every person should have the right to die if that is what they desire. The only regulation I would place on it is requiring a waiting period, because it is common for humans to have temporary fits of complete depression. But if a person wanted to end their life for a reasonable amount of time and has shown that they have put logical thought into their decision and it is exactly what they want, that right should never be taken away. ||