|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
In one of Shakespeare's plays the question "To be or not to be?" is
asked. What the question means is "Suicide and death, or life?" Today
the same question is being asked by a political lobby, and the word they use for
voluntary death, as opposed to voluntary continuation of life, is euthanasia.
As I see it, the whole subject of euthanasia can be broken into three main
sections. First, there is the philosophical view which deals with
the origin of life, Second, there is the situation existing at the time
of illness, and third there is the method of death.
Very briefly I would like to work backwards through these three points of view.
The method of death.
I am no expert on the subject, but I do understand, from personal experience
with dying patients, that there are many medications available today which can
make the final hours painless and reasonable. I have seen people in the last
stages of terminal cancer, pain free and still aware enough of the world around
them to smile and converse, and I know from anecdotal evidence that about 91% of
dying patients can die free of pain, while 98% can have the pain
controlled.
Dr. Malcolm Watson, now retired and previously a specialist physician for 36
years believes the discipline of palliative care that relieves symptoms with
intelligent and compassionate consideration "gives many people a kind of
care in dying they did not believe was possible."
The method of death need not be by direct intervention (deliberate
lethal termination), or passive intervention (switching the machines off,
stopping medication). The alternative method is to allow the patient to have
their pain relieved and give them loving, caring attention, making their last
moments of the highest quality.
This still allows a patient the free will to choose "to be or not to
be" but, with the palliative option in operation, they might decide that
living a little longer is more worthwhile than dying prematurely. This might not
have been the case many years ago, when medication was not so flexible, but the
option of dying without pain is a reality today.
The second part of the debate centres on the situation of the patient.
Every case is different, so there is no way a single article of law can cover
every possible situation. It would be quite unacceptable if a patient was
assessed as 'hopeless' and automatically given euthanasia. This is one of the
fears held by the anti-euthanasia lobby. Such an option removes the patient's
free will - something which goes against human integrity. Such an option may
also override the wishes of the patient's family and friends. Again, this is
unacceptable.
A further possibility is the extention of euthanasia to anyone whome the State
or some Authority deemed useless - old people, deformed babies, retarded people?
But the first part of the debate is perhaps the most important. It centres on
the philosophical. It has to do with the origin of human life, and is
really the basis of the whole euthanasia issue. There are only two main
views of the origin human life, each starting from diametrically opposed
points.
One view holds that humans are the product of chance and random processes,
merely evolved organisms, part of a chain of life, and therefore of no greater
or lesser value than the atoms and molecules from which all things are made. If
this is so, then life is irrelevant, and death is meaningless. Euthanasia
therefore is a logical procedure, because it simply terminates a meaningless
organism a little sooner than expected.
The alternative view is the Christian, or Biblical one. This holds that God
created the whole universe for Man, and that on this Earth God created humans in
His own likeness. Unfortunately Man sinned and brought pain, sickness and death
on himself. However, God loves all people, and desires to bless them inwardly
and outwardly, despite their fallen state.
Euthanasia is therefore not the best direction for a dying Christian to take,
although it is still an option, since God has given Christians (and all people)
the freedom to choose what they will. Christians have a responsibility to God,
right up to the point of death, and they are accountable to Him for their bodies
- however sick or dissabled they are. Much good can be done by Christians, even
on their death-beds. The agnostic view (above) holds no such value, considering
only the "rights" of the patient. There is no accountability to God
for the agnostic, only a self-centred decision, based on their own personal view
of life.
The euthanasia question may never be fully worked out, since every person who comes to it brings with them their own beliefs about life and death. All I have tried to do here is present the Christian point of view.