In recent times, a topic that has simmered under the surface of society, and a topic that sits only just out of reach of polite conversation is that of euthanasia. It is a topic that is of keen interest to most of us by virtue of possessing a quality that moves the subject uncomfortably close to our own mortality.
Rare is the man or woman that has the power to influence the meandering course of their life in such a way as to be sure of time and means of their own demise.
I’m not going to run off and dig through recent stories, naming names and circumstances. I find that kind of thing to be intrusive and undignified, given the nature of the most recent cases in particular.
So for those who might doubt me, maybe
a visit to the BBC News website would help corroborate the following circumstances that happen to recollect.
A recent case was that of a woman in her forties who was struck down by an irreversible and progressively degenerative decease that had already taken away her ability to take care of herself.
She required constant care, and although her husband doted on her, her condition would only ever get worse until her body eventually gave up and she died.
The saddest thing is that her mental faculties were untouched. So she had to ignominious and unenvious fate of watching her own body descend into decrepitude.
So, she decided that she wanted to die.
However, the courts saw differently and she was refused the right to die a death of her own choosing and in a time of her own choosing. So instead, she was doomed to die a slow and undignified death.
Reasons for and against
I’m at a loss as to why the courts simply refuse to allow euthanasia when it is used so responsibly in other countries around the world. And given the shear weight of medical evidence showing that her condition would only worsen and that the quality of her life would grow inexorably worse.
There is the argument that euthanasia could be abused. For example: a family wishing to get rid of a wealthy family member so that they might inherit their fortune. With the help of a complicit doctor, between them, they could manufacture a way of dispatching said relative to a less than timely death.
I’m no news hound, but I’ve yet to hear of such an instance taking place. But that does not preclude the possibility of such a thing taking place. So I do not discount the possibility, but I would contest such an occurrence would be uncommon.
My reasoning is simple: in you imagine such people banding together, people so obviously prepared to end a life for simple material wealth, I feel sure their greed would ultimately betray them one way or another.
The other obstruction is one posed by those people that feel that euthanasia is just wrong. This mindset bares additional scrutiny in its own right, because it’s a point of view that owes more to an emotional response than an opinion couched in logic.
There is such an organization in Britain that is run by christians that opposes euthanasia vehemently and often instigates a media campaign as a means of attack against such people as those discussed above.
I’ll leave that aside for a second and move onto something else.
More recently, a couple went to court to fight for the right to travel abroad to a country that allows the controlled and managed practice of euthanasia so that they could find the dignity they were looking for. For a while, it appeared that the couple would be prevented from traveling abroad.
In the end, it was decided that the courts simply could not prevent them from doing so.
As expected, the aforementioned organization took exception to this finding and were suitably outraged and saddened by the decision.
I have to ask a very simple question: what would have been the alternative, given this could were so determined? Place them under house arrest? Place them into some mental care facility?
There is
a wealth of ethical duscussions to be found on the BBC website -- and almost anywhere else you might choose to look. But I’m not particularly interested in that kind of thing.
Why? Well lets go back to the issue I left open earlier, the issue of the christian organization that so opposes euthanasia.
I’ve often found that those who stand highest on the moral high ground, those that see themselves as the pious curators of all things moral and ethical are usually those that have the most tenuous grasp of the depth of the problems they oppose. Or if the depth and scope of the issue is not being lost on them, they instead prize something else in higher regard.
When you press these people harder, forcing them to base their opinion more in logic, you will find them curiously reluctant to do so.
I found this deeply suspicious, and on occasion, I’ve managed to force them to verbally paint themselves into such a dilemma-ridden corner, that they have resorted to something akin to what you’d expect from a petulant child. They would promptly fold their arms and make some spurious rebuttal coloured in its entirety by their religious beliefs.
And therein lies the problem.
It seems that in their mind, belief and the rigor in which they choose to follow their belief should not be questioned. In fact, in their mind, their belief is exempt from the scrutiny of logic and is, as such, unimpeachable.
Suffice to say, this is a deeply flawed way of thinking.
To place religion before the well-being and the welfare of your fellow man is to divorce yourself from logic in its entirety and to abandon common sense all together.
Worse still -- given that both the courts and medical establishments of Britain are conducted under principles that are secular in nature -- having such people infiltrating these establishments only undermines the efforts of those having more objectivity in their decision-making processes.
This troubles me deeply, because we enter into a world where human suffering is tolerated because it is seen as less sinful to allow someone to die an often miserable and agonizing death than it is to oppose the will of one god or another.
To simplify the point, the avoidance of guilt is a more desirable course of action.
I do not filter my perceptions in such limited and coloured ways. Objectivity and an adherence to logic and the needs and wishes of the sufferer are paramount, not an option to be considered secondary to your beliefs.
However, I hasten to add, this is not representative of all of ethicists. That would be both incorrect and unfair. There are some truly great minds out there.
Regulation of the practice of euthanasia
There’s no doubt that in light of such a contentious issue, regulation would be difficult. However, I believe it to be an attainable goal.
To begin with, we must first make the simple -- and yes, blatantly obvious -- assumption that human life is precious.
If the death penalty was still active in Britain, it would be a decision often not arrived at lightly. The sentence of death would be arrived at after an extensive trial which involves evidence presented by both sides for and against.
In that same way, euthanasia deserves, nay commands a similar level of scrutiny and deliberation.
To that end, would it not make sense that there be an extension -- or at least a provision -- be made in law whereby a judicial hearing be formed to oversee the submission of by a sufferer for the right to end their life?
A panel of experts in law, medicine and ‘clean’ ethics who would be able to pool their expertise and preside over each case in a more timely and focused manner.
After all, if we deny someone the right to die, then who are we to consign them to a living death?
