Euthanasia Position Paper - Against Euthanasia

Assisted Suicide, mercy killing, euthanasia; whatever you call it or however we justified it is killing by
all means. Euthanasia is a practice of ending a life to release an individual from an incurable disease
or intolerable suffering. It is an action which brings intentional death to a patient. In the case of the
elderly cancer patient, the family and the patient does not know whether or not to commit euthanasia.
The author response in this case, is that the elderly cancer patient should not go for euthanasia, since
she has a biographical life. He came to the right conclusion, even though he did not have a valid
argument. The author should have advised the patient not to commit euthanasia by using the three
main arguments against euthanasia, which are the Bible from a Christian prospective, the effective
pain management, and the fear of abuse if euthanasia were legalized.

Case History: A seventy one-year-old Christian woman developed cancer in her kidney. Physicians
helped her by removing the kidney. However, now the cancer has spread to other parts of her body.
The physicians say that she needs dialysis, since her second kidney is now failing. They believe that
dialysis might keep her alive for six to nine months. Without dialysis, she would probably survive a
couple of weeks. An experimental drug that might have some effect on her cancer is coming onto the
market.

The new drug might help her fight the cancer, if she could survive for six months. Despite her
insurance policy, she is sending a tremendous amount of money from her life savings. Her son thinks
death is unavoidable and wants to avoid dialysis. He thinks bankrupting the family for a long shot is
meaningless. Her daughter is a Christian who feels bad about not doing everything she can to help
her mother.

The question that is presented at the end of this case history is what should one say to guide this
family on whether or not the elderly cancer patient should go for euthanasia? Author's Response:
According to the article "James Rachels and the Active Euthanasia Debate" by J. P. Moreland, the
elderly cancer patient should not go for euthanasia. The author would defend his answer by stating
that the personal biographic life of the elderly cancer patient is enough to prevent her from committing
euthanasia. The author believes that the desire to die is rational only if one's lost his/her biographical
life. He defines one's biographical life as "the sum of one's aspirations, decisions, activities, projects,
and human relations".
This means that a person biographical life is the interests that are important and worthwhile from the
point view of the person himself. He argues that "the fact that something has biological life, whether
human or non-human is relatively unimportant". What is important from his point of view is someone
who has biographical life. He adds that all kinds of animals have a biographical life, since they have
thoughts, emotions, goals, and cares. As a matter of fact an animal with a biographical life has more
value than human with biological life. He believes that in the case of the elderly cancer patient, even
though she has cancer, she still has thoughts, emotions, goals, cares, and human relations.

The author argues that since she never told her children how she felt about terminal care, shows that
she still has cares, thoughts, and emotions. Having a daughter and a son also show that she has
human relationships. The author argues that since she is a Christian her goal in life should be to
praise Christ. According to the author, since she has thoughts, emotions, goals, cares, and human
relationships, therefore she has a biographical life. He also believes that her biographical life is more
than enough to give value to her life. Author's conclusion: The author concludes that the family of the
elderly cancer patient and the patient herself should not commit euthanasia.

His conclusion was based on one main premise, which is that the elderly cancer patient has a
biographical life. Criticizing the author's argument: The author believes that the desire to die is rational
only if one's lost his/her biographical life. This means if one lost his or her biographical life, they have
the right to commit euthanasia. I disagree with the author on that people might have the right to
euthanasia. The three most common arguments against euthanasia are the Bible from a Christian
prospective, the effective pain management, and the fear of abuse if euthanasia were legalized.

One of the biggest arguments against euthanasia is the religious argument, which was not mentioned
by the author. Most religious groups especially Christianity goes against euthanasia. The practice of
euthanasia is wrong because it violates the principle that life is given by God. God doesn't approve of
"hands that shed innocent blood". Life comes from God. It is God's decision to give life and to take it
away. In the Bible, "shedding innocent blood" is called murder.

The death of King Sol is an example of euthanasia. Saul did not want the philistines to find him alive.
He knew they would torture him. He asked his solider to kill him. When the solider refused, Sol fell on
his own sword and died. Sol committed suicide, but he did it to avoid suffering. He murdered himself
and therefore was guilty of sin. Not all suffering is bad. Even though one may not always understand
why he/she suffers, some good can come from it.

The apostle Paul understood this. He had a "thorn in the flesh" he asked God to remove, but he
realized afterward that it was for his good. Suffering, and relating to Jesus Christ's suffering on the
cross, a part of preparation for meeting God. It says in the Bible, "Do you not know that your body is
the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God and you are not your own? For
you were brought at a price, therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit which are Gods.

Therefore, the human being is merely a steward of his life, which is a gift from God, which only God
could take away. Many Christians who believe in euthanasia justify it by saying that the God whom
they worship is loving and tolerant, and would not wish to see them suffer. They do not see their God
as being unforgiving as refusing them the Kingdom of Heaven if they speed up the end of their life to
avoid unbearable suffer.

It is mentioned in the Ten Commandments "do not kill", it didn't mention any exceptions to the general
rule. The Bible made it clear that there is no such thing as merciful killing. Besides, human beings are
not God and they should not play God's role. Who are we to decide when to end a life? Christians
believe that Jesus can be found in those in needs, and by helping others who may be in pain or
poverty, human beings are acknowledging Christ's presence. However, by killing another human,
people are not respecting the fact that God is present and miracles can happen. Essentially, God is
the creator of life, and it is up to him to decide when a person should die, not up to us.

The best response to patient in pain is not to kill them, but to make sure that the medicine and
technology currently available to control pain. According to a 1992 manual produced by the
Washington Medical Association, Pain Management and Care of the Terminal Patient, "adequate
interventions exits to control pain in 90 to 99% of patients." Therefore, there is no need for euthanasia
since pain can be controlled and eliminated. Dr. Seale, president of the Act Right to Life Association
mentions that the problem is that uninformed medical personnel using inadequacy methods often fail
to bring patients relief from pain that today's advanced techniques make possible.

Jack Kevorkian, called Dr. Death, argues that mercy killing is necessary because patients with
terminal illness experience uncontrollable pain. He also argues that the only way to relieve the pain is
to eliminate the patient. It is obvious, that it is better to eliminate the pain insisted of eliminating the
patient. The social and mental pain suffered by ill patients may exceed the physical pain they
experience. Dr. Seale says, "Failure to remember this complexity is one of the most common reasons
why patients fail to achieve adequate symptomatic relief". Effective pain control therefore requires a
team of effort of doctors, nurses, and counselors to address the total pain a patient is suffering. There
are several approaches to effective pain management.

Proper administration of an opioid, particularly morphine, has been proven to provide effective pain
management in the majority of patients with severe pain. Many methods other than opioids are
available. Some patients may benefit from radiation therapy, nerve blocks, and non-pharmacological
methods. Despite our ability to control pain through medicine and technology, there are some patients
who suffering due to beliefs and practices, which disrupt proper pain management.

Poor pain assessments by physicians, patients' failure to report pain, and patient hesitance to take
drugs, are some barriers that prevent proper pain management. While there do exist some barriers to
the implementation of the medicine and technology, effort are being made to remove those barriers.
Instead of trying to legalize the killing of patients in pain, the public should be making sure that
doctors are tough how to use effective pain management.

The most common argument against euthanasia other than pain control treatment and religion
argument is the fear of abusing the Law if euthanasia were legalized. According to David, a writer at
Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, in 1973, euthanasia was legalized in the Netherlands. Since that
time, doctors and nurses have been involved in killing people who were not ready to die. In 1990, nine
percent of all deaths in the Netherlands were carried out by doctors. Half of these were cases where
patient was killed without his knowledge. People with mental illness, permanent disability, and even
simple old age can now find death as a legal solution for their problems.

Legalized euthanasia raises some dangerous situations in which doctors could find themselves better
off financially if a serious ill or disabled person chooses to die rather than receiving a long term care.
Many doctors become at a finical risk when they provide treatment for patients. How can we possibly
be sure that euthanasia when legalized will only take place with the patient's consent, and that their
death was not the action of a foul doctor or family.

Proof of wrongdoing would be hard to find, which means allowing murder to happen with no
prosecution. Euthanasia can be highly abused if legalized. A movement has developed in the US on
the legalization of physician-assisted suicides. Dr. Jack Kevorkian attempts to convince people about
the goodness of his proposal to legalize "doctor- assisted death" in his book Prescription: Medicaid.
But eventually he wasn't successful because some opponents of euthanasia have feared that the
increasing success that doctors have had in transplanting human organs may lead to abuse of the
practice of euthanasia.

The author came to the right conclusion, which is that the elderly cancer patient should not commit
euthanasia. His argument is not considered valid, because of two reasons. First, because he used
only one premise, which is that, the elderly cancer patient has a biographical life. Second, because he
did not use any the three main arguments against euthanasia, which are the Bible from a Christian
prospective, the effective pain management and the fear of abuse if euthanasia were legalized. These
three arguments make it clear that euthanasia is morally and ethically wrong. Conclusion: The case
history of the elderly cancer patient is becoming to be very common in today's world.

The author concludes that in the case of the elderly cancer patient, the family and the patient should
not think of committing euthanasia, since the patient has a biographical life. The author should have
had more premises before reaching this conclusion. The author should have argued that Euthanasia
is morally and ethically wrong. Doctors should stop euthanasia, because human beings are warned in
the Bible not to kill, and if they do so, with whatever intentions, there will be consequence, which are
not considered.

By allowing euthanasia to be legalized people are opening the door for doctors, nurses, and others to
abuse the system. Moreover, by legalizing euthanasia, people have made an exception to the law
against murder. In times of suffering human beings often learn the most, and for that reason they
should not give in to pain and suffering as euthanasia allows us. Modern medicine has the ability to
control pain. A person who seeks to kill him or herself to avoid pain does not need legalized suicide
but a doctor trained in relieving pain. We should not get rid of people to whom problems happen, but
we should deal with the problems to find a solution.

A request for assisted suicide is typically a cry for help, which is in reality a call for counseling,
assistance, and positive alternatives as solutions for problems. In times of suffering a person may feel
like committing euthanasia, but if we put our trust in God, all will end well. We should leave it to God
to control life and death. People, as humans, understand so little, and their judgment can be distorted
in times of suffering. God knows what is best for His creation, even if it means one has to suffer
before dying.

Don't know where to start with your assignment?

HIRE VERIFIED EXPERT
Let our experts help you