Josh+On+Kevorkian+and+Euthanasia

Kevorkian saint or reaper, malicious or merciful, bringer of death or release? Know at times as "Doctor Death" was he morally correct in his insidious past practices? Though at times shrewd and slightly abrasive, Kevorkian in my opinion had delivered a final peace to those who have suffered for so long. His process could definitely be refined but in the end it is an act of mercy not murder. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is a just practice, and though some discomfort might be caused by the idea of one human being ending another's life without any legal recourse, that reasoning is not valid when brought to the terms of individual liberty, to the true ideas of justice and freedom. Opposition to euthanasia is found mainly within the Catholic Church, disabled rights advocates, and organizations of doctors.

The Catholic Church issued a declaration stating that passive euthanasia was acceptable, but active euthanasia was not. There reasoning was this, God has ultimate control over our lives and it is his responsibility to decide when we die, be it in a car accident or rotting away in a bed. To take a life is a most heinous act, be it your own or another's, for it is playing God, it is diving into a realm that should not be with in the scope of man. They believe the sufferer must bear their "cross" until their time has come and God takes them. The Catholic Church in my belief is not a reliable source on such issues. Their past is filled with murder, greed, and moral follies. They believe all life is precious, but didn't they also burn thousands because they were "witches", "werewolves", etc. They are said to be the only truth in the world, but haven't they been proven wrong many times before, (The world is round, earth is not the center of the universe, etc) and have attempted to cover up these mistakes by banishing, persecuting, or killing the discoverer. The Catholic Church is a religious organization, granted it is one of the oldest, but their duty is to give the faithful hope for what happens after death and moral direction, it shouldn't be taken as the only source of moral correctness and should be seen more as just another voice in the ultimate shaping of our opinion. The Catholic Church has been seen many times to be morally flawed and just because they decree something is immoral does not mean the rest of the world has to follow suit. Their ideology on this subject is misconstrued, if man cannot play god for it is a sin to do anything that would change the normal span of the individuals life, isn't the entire practice of medicine a slap in the face to God's will. Isn't any action that relieves pain, cures a disease, saves a child from bleeding to death, prolonging life that supposedly was going to end there and then due to God's will, a sin? How is it in anyway morally correct to allow someone to starve to death, but not allow them to gently drift off into an eternal sleep? The Catholic Church is not a source we should be looking to on this issue, for the ideals are just ridiculous.

Disabled rights activist only wish to help what see as their "people". They strive to bring more rights to those who fall into the same unfortunate situation as they have. It is understandable that when others who are disabled begin to kill themselves it reflects badly on the entire situation of being disabled. It cast a shadow over the dispositions of those who every day strive to live with their problems and smile while doing it. This however is no reason to deprive those of weaker wills from the choice to end their suffering. If you are disabled and have a great life and every day is a pleasure that is great, you truly have a strong will and an admirable attitude. However, there are those who everyday suffer, who look at the world only see what once was, they find no joy in everyday life, only harsh reminders. This dual perspective is not only found within those with disabilities, but within the entire human race, some of us can look at the world everyday and see hope, happiness, and possibility, others only see despair, doom, past happiness, suffering, and impossibility. Those with dispositions such as the latter should be helped, they should be moved towards a more positive outlook, but if this fails and everyday for them is a constant reminder of happiness, or brings them pain, suffering, or even humiliation, then they should be given the option to end it. Some of us are just not able to see the brighter side of things, somethings for some people are intolerable, if someone who is disabled chooses to end their life it is not a reflection on the value of a disabled life, it shows that individual had him or her self in a position they could not handle, and even after guidance and help, could not find worth in their own situation. The process of suicide is an individual matter it does control the value of others lives, it only shows what individual believed their life was worth.

Doctors... doctors are those we turn to in a time of need, in a time of pain, in a time of suffering. Doctors wish to help people, they want to aid people in living, happy, comfortable, and longer lives, ambitious goals. There are organizations of doctors in existence who do not support euthanasia because they do not want their precious title of helper to be disgraced by the malice brought forth with that of grim reaper. This is utterly ridiculous. Modern age doctors will deny their patients their right to die comfortably, because they don't want to be seen as those who end life? Even the notion in itself is ridiculous, they are not ending life because they wish to, they do so because its merciful, they are bringing about a final peace to those who have experienced incredible suffering. What is even worse is some would agree with such notions in private, but in public oppose them to protect their image. Doctors are suppose to aid their patients, and if a patient wishes to end it all, a doctor should be their first to console them, second to aid them. It says within the Hippocratic Oath "first do no harm", there are exception however such as to cure cancer by poisoning the patient, but couldn't this same idea be applied to those in incredible and incurable pain, that a doctor will cause harm in the form of assisted suicide in order to relieve the suffering of the patient. Doctors must not only support euthanasia but be active in it themselves, if patient cannot end their pain, then doctor should be able to assist them.

Euthanasia though the term brings discomfort to some and outrages others, is an individual right and should be respected as such. There are many existing arguments against this act, but most do not show enough reason to truly stem this act of mercy. Euthanasia may make some uncomfortable, but we would not ban a religion, nor a protest speech, in this country just because it made people nervous. Yes, we are dealing with human life in this issue, but the individual has control over their own destiny and it is wrong to think that others can decree that they don't. If there exist those that are in pain and suffer day after day, and they wish to end it, I don't see any reason that we should deprive them of that. Kevorkian was right euthanasia is just another extension of human rights and those who suffer should at least be given the choice to end it.