Andrew+On+Kevorkian+and+Euthanasia

Euthanasia; the act of taking one’s life out of an act of mercy, with their consent, in a humane, relatively painless manner, has over the past couple years been the issue in the spotlight of debate. This topic has become focused upon the polarizing sides of the debate, such as the Catholic Church in opposition, and Pieter Admiraal and Dr, K advocating the practice of active euthanasia, while I have a qualifying opinion on the subject.

In the 1980 paper by Cardinal Frejo Seper, layed out the catalogued position of the Catholic Church on the issue. In the article Seper states, “no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable diseas The Catholic Church, one of the biggest opponents to doctor assisted suicide, has a hardened stance that life should be protected at all stages no matter the burden. e, or a person who is dying… for it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offence against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.” The Catholic Church’s position, leaving no room for exceptions, believes there is no such thing as a mercy killing, when committing euthanasia. Even in cases, when a patient is in extreme suffering, or a mother is going to die from her unborn child, the Catholic Church would not permit the act of euthanasia upon the terminally ill, or an unborn child to save another life, or to end one’s suffering. The only leeway seen form the Catholic Church is the fact that they will allow passive euthanasia, by allowing patients to say they don’t want any extreme measures made to keep them alive, like claiming DNR.

Advocates for euthanasia of all types see euthanasia as a right, and a governing of ones own autonomy. Pieter Admiraal, a Dutch doctor, and defender of the active euthanasia, has been helping individuals die since the 70’s. Admiraal’s stance, similar to that of Dr. K’s, sees euthanasia as right which all terminally ill, and severely handicapped should be able to practice. Admiraal in his article gives examples of people he helped to die during his career as a doctor. One such person, Carla, who after a long battle with cancer, and no more preventative options on the table, decided she wanted to end her life on her terms, and while still attentive, chose to end her suffering with the help of doctor Admiraal. Doctor Admiraal, after eye witnessing the amount of suffering this woman had to deal with, decided “How god could have wanted this,” in reaction to the Catholic Church’s position, and decided to go forth with the procedure, with the acceptance of another doctor, a nurse, and a priest. However, similar to Dr. K, Admiraal believes that doctors are “sometimes required” to carry out these acts of euthanasia for their patients and as Dr. K would say, are cowards if they don’t “help” them.

After spending several weeks discussing the subject of euthanasia, I have almost switched on my opinion by 180 degrees. I’ve gained a new understanding of those seeking to end their own life, under the pretences of “ending their suffering”, and believe the choice should ultimately be left up to the patient, with some limitations. I also believe Dr. K was in fact right to help those in need of his assistance, by effectively and humanely ending their suffering, but I still dislike the guy. Claiming doctors are cowards, because they do not want take someone else’s life is going just a little too far into the deep end. No doctor, unless voluntary, should be put into that situation, which is why I do believe that assisted-suicide should be legal, but only passively, and never actively, and to those who are either terminally ill, or severely disabled. When a human being is in a situation with unbearable and intolerable pain, I do find it appropriate to give them the option of doctor assisted suicide, and though I do understand the position of many patients seeking this permanent treatment, I also believe most only seek it out of depression. This is why I also hold a strong opinion that before the final decision is made, all patients seeking suicide, should be counseled with, in hopes of finding an alternative course of action to relive their pain, and/or misery.

Although as of now it is still considered illegal, without a doubt in mind I am sure that in the near future, every state in the union will allow assisted suicides from doctors. However I hope that in long run, the value of life will not be demeaned or that people will become more desensitized to the idea of it. Suicide to me is simply disturbing, and from a religious perspective immorally, yet I do wish that those who hold a strong opposition to the procedure overall can come to terms, and understand that it is done to truly end a patients pain and suffering, and perceive it under as an act of compassion rather than murder as I once did.

Overall I find that both sides of this argument presented in class are the polarizing figures, who are either so caught up in the religious aspects of it, they are blinded to the positive outcomes it may have for some, while on the other side people such as Admiraal, and Kervorkian believe so strongly about active euthanasia that they disregard the moral implications, and the fact that most doctors go into the healthcare business to save lives, not to end them, and in response calling them cowards like Dr. K did, being juvenile and insensitive. Because of these reasons, I decided that euthanasia should in actuality be legal, but the procedure should be kept passive, to avoid the doctors dilemma, and give the patient, ultimately the final decision.