Euthanasia: About Life,
Not Death.
A lot has been spoken
about death lately. Amongst talk about death and dignity, and about giving
the ‘dying’ a voice, has been a quiet yet passionate minority who have
suggested that perhaps the euthanasia debate should be defined by life.
Perhaps we should be celebrating the lives of the individuals rather than
defining them by their deaths.
A change of legislation
would provide alternative avenues for the vulnerable to be exploited. The
potential for financial exploitation would certainly be in some cases be too
great for ‘emotionally distraught’ families. If we place the fate of terminally
ill patients in the hands of their often greedy ‘next of kin’ then surely there
will be cases of families euthanizing ‘loved ones’ because of the financial
burden or to obtain an inheritance. It's a slippery
slope. This represents a failing of our ‘duty of care’ as a society.
We should be protecting the most vulnerable within our community, not
increasing the potential for them to be exploited.
Rather than protecting
the dignity of the terminally ill as has been suggested we would essentially be
stripping these individuals of the little power they have. Power which comes
from the ability to live and from the life they have enjoyed. ‘The Euthanasia Laws Act’
of 1997 repealed a Euthanasia law that threatened the rights of the terminally
ill and protected the power they have. Ultimately the law was a celebration in
humanity. Protecting the rights of the terminally ill and celebrating the life
and value of the lives they represent.
We should
be celebrating life, embracing it, protecting it. Euthanasia destroys it.
purposefully ending life prematurely. That's murder. And murder is NEVER
dignified.
In your blog 'Euthanasia: About Life, Not Death' you contend that preventing euthanasia is essential in protecting the terminally ill within our community, however perhaps the only way to truly protect the rights of such individuals is to instead provide them the right to control their death, as in life.
ReplyDeleteThese terminally ill individuals have a right to die in the same fashion as they live. With a sense of dignity, a sense of freedom and a sense of personal control. Removing the ‘right to die’ represents the confiscation of an individual’s personal freedoms at a time when they are most important to them.
The need to leave a lasting impression is represented in death and the importance to have control over this facet of death is very important. It is important that as a society we are protecting the memory of the most vulnerable within our society and providing the same sense of control that these individuals have in death. I think it’s fairly clear that Euthanasia is ‘about life, not death;’ that is, we should enjoy death as an extension of life.
Your post talks about how we should be celebrating the lives of the terminally ill, and protecting there dignity. But do you forget these people are going through pain that is to excruciating to be described.
ReplyDeleteGiving them that dignified death gives those who are lying on their death bed hope of death that envolves no pain and can pass knowing that there pain was no longer prolonged.
It also allows their loved ones to accept the fact that the ones they loved didn't have to suffer and that they accepted that the end was at their doorstep. The loved ones will suffer a lot more knowing that the death was undignified and painful.
Remember that it's the choice of everyone to choose how their life concludes, be respectful of that.
I agree. #equality
DeleteIn your blog post you argue that allowing euthanasia would be putting the lives of the terminally ill in jeopardy. However, euthanasia will give the terminally ill a sense of safety as they would be able to end their suffering when they can't continue.
ReplyDeleteNot allowing euthanasia is robbing the I'll of their right to end their suffering, we are forcing them to die a slow painful death rather than a swift, peaceful one. If you were the one lying immobile in the hospital bed constantly suffering unbearable pain, wouldn't you want to end it? We shouldn't be forcing the terminally ill to live the remainder of their once fulfilling lives in pain.
Jack Aldersea ^
DeleteIn your article you mention that allowing euthanasia is "murder" and opens up those suffering to "exploitation". Maybe you should realise that if consent is given and the process of euthanisation is performed, then it is simply a medical procedure. Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". You explain to me how is this in any way linked to euthanasia. At the end of the day every life deserves to be respected, even if that life chooses death.
ReplyDeleteAs saddening as it is to see someone die, it is comforting to know that the ill's final wishes were abided by. Their voice heard by the brave carers who facilitate the deed of death. I understand your concerns that those who know or care for the dying patient may exploit them for their own selfish desires such as money. But if we strip these ill individuals right to ask for Euthanasia we are basically imprisoning them in their decaying cell of a body. If we all agree that "the most vulnerable within our community" don't deserve the right to choose their own paths, we begin to infringe on their freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteDeath may not be the only true way to find peace, but sometimes it can be the only way. Do we really want to leave these terminally ill individuals to suffer day in and day out because we are too caught up in our own ideas to face the truth? Are these patients going to have to beg, like 14-year-old Valentina Maureira, to the president of their own nation for their wish to be heard? Euthanasia may be a last resort, but it is a resort we must allow to exist.