Michael+H+On+Kevorkian+and+Euthanasia

The issue with euthanasia is that both sides have points that make sense (and those that do not). On one side is the Catholic Church, American Medical Association, and disability rights groups claiming that people should follow God’s will, that it is unethical, and that it implies that people with disabilities do not lead fulfilling lives. On the other side are people like Chris Hill, Daniel James, and Pieter Admiraal, who claim that for some, quality of life will never get better. They wish that their respective government would make it easier for someone to make choices about their own body.

The Catholic Church claims that interfering with someone’s life opposes God’s love for that person. Everyone must live according to God’s plan. Causing the death of someone, even with their consent and full knowledge of the implications, is murder. Alison Davis agrees, saying that legalizing euthanasia would mean that handicapped people would be discriminated against. She was born with spina bifida, but was glad that she was alive; she has led a fulfilling life so far. She gained an honors degree in sociology and now works full-time defending the rights of disabled patients. She believes that the legalization of euthanasia would deny handicapped people the right to be seen as equals. Libby Purves thinks that if people with disabilities like Alison Davis were to stick to living (which she agrees is not an easy task), they could become influential people like Steven Hawking or Oscar Pistorius. She admits the odds are small, but she said at least patients should wait more than a year; most suicide attempts in newly paralyzed men occur in the first year.

However, Chris Hill tried to live a normal life but failed. Life would not be the same anymore. He could not play with the kids and dogs at picnics and had no control over his bodily functions. Every day, he had to have someone shower and dress him. To him, life became demoralizing. Pieter Admiraal says he wishes that other countries would help people like Chris Hill die. What other countries do is they decide for the patient instead of the patient deciding for himself. In 1984, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that euthanasia was legal. Thirty years later, Admiraal sees no evidence of a slippery slope. He, like many other Dutch doctors, sees active voluntary euthanasia as one more way of delivering medical care. Steve Lopez argues that had California legalized euthanasia, there would be less unsuccessful and more painful attempts at ending life. Jimmy Wheeler would not have tried to gas his wife and himself. He attempted many times to kill himself and his wife, who had Alzheimer’s, and ended up shooting her. Lopez said it was an act of love, but would have been easier for Wheeler if euthanasia was legal.

The argument siding with the restriction of euthanasia is riddled with hypocrisies and generalizations. It is remarkable how deeply the Catholic Church (although, really, any large religious denomination) has infiltrated public life. They have a firm control of societal ethics. The problem with the Catholic Church’s argument is that most of their arguments usually include three words – God, natural, and Bible. In the “Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, the Church mentions that medicine has the capacity to prolong life, which leads to moral problems. Nowhere in their declaration did they object to prolonging life; rather, they have issues with ending life. The Church is so smug with the power they have among politicians that they generalize for all patients; even if a patient is atheist, their life is controlled by the Catholic Church. How ironic.

The slippery slope belief is unfounded. Even on slippery slopes there are rocks to help someone stop. Not everyone advocating for euthanasia is a Nazi. Calling someone a Nazi, like Kevorkian, is a logical fallacy. The Nazis mandated that all persons with a disability must be executed. Kevorkian merely provides an option for a terminally ill patient and does not pursue a modification of the law that would lead to mandatory executions.

Kevorkian’s actions are justified by the very oath that doctors take when they graduate. In the Hippocratic Oath, there is a phrase that reads, “It may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.” For a doctor to be able to pursue private practice, he must recite this oath, which means that he agrees to all the terms in the oath. Therefore, it would by hypocritical for the conglomerate of doctors to collectively oppose assisted suicide and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath is a code of moral conduct, and any violation of it would be immoral. Thus, those who oppose assisted suicide are immoral.

The most despicable thing about the argument against euthanasia is a widespread generalization. The Church is so smug with the power they have among politicians that they generalize for all patients; even if a patient is atheist, their life is controlled by the Catholic Church. How ironic. Alison Davis claims that disabled people would not have the same rights is only a claim. In the Netherlands, Admiraal and his Terminal Care Team give the best of care to the patients who decide to end their life.

Euthanasia should be one of many choices that a patient should consider. There is a potential for abuse by the patient, but the Netherlands proved how to circumvent it – have a few doctors evaluate the patient and keep the patient’s family informed of the choices and the patient’s decision. The main point is that a patient should be able to make a decision about their own body rather than having an establishment do it for them.

Doctors have nearly all bases covered. If what Kevorkian says is true, that half of the doctors support what he is doing, then those doctors are cowards. Although Kevorkian was too bold in his actions, other doctors are too meek. The least they can do is argue in favor of assisted suicide.