Killing_the_Dying

Clint Mott Mrs. Scraper AP English 2 March 2010 Killing the Dying Euthanasia derives from the ancient Greek words eu thanatos meaning “good death”. Euthanasia in more modern terms;however, is any act or omission to end the life of a patient on grounds that his or her life isn't worth living. Euthanasia is an issue consisting primarily of moral and ethical dilemmas. Supporters of euthanasia believe that the right to die is part of our civil rights. Supporters obviously fail to see the problems that arise with euthanasia. The deliberate termination of a life is controversial to medical ethics, and it can be misused and corrupted. Modern medical ethics and procedure can be traced back to a single document. This document is known as The Hippocratic Oath, written by a philosopher known as Hippocrates. The purpose of the document was to maintain morality between patient and doctor. Euthanasia is a contradiction to this document on more than one condition. Supporters of euthanasia disregard this logical argument against euthanasia. They believe the document is outdated and holds no ground in our significantly advanced world. The Hippocratic Oath should not be taken so lightly. Without this document medical practice would no longer be a matter of morality. Instead it would conform to a matter of technique. Leaving patients defenseless to any corruption in the medical field. The first violation of The Hippocratic Oath applies directly to physician-assisted suicide. “I will apply for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment [sic] and therapeutic nihilism”(Lasagna). To prescribe a lethal amount of drugs to a patient with or without his/her approval directly violates the folkway above. This piece of the oath is practically screaming “physician-assisted suicide is wrong!” Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save {text:soft-page-break} a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.”(Lasagna). For a patient or doctor to decide that a life is unworthy of living and proceed to terminate that life can be considered opposition to the above excerpt. The decision to end a life belongs in the hands of a deity. The responsibility is far too great for a human being. To put such power in a persons hand is to give away the responsibility of our creator. The final violation of The Hippocratic Oath at the hands of euthanasia addresses the equality of the medical environment. The oath says, “I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligation to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.” Pro-Euthanasia members say that euthanasia would be used on people who's lives aren't worth living. Many of these members believe that the physically and mentally infirm fall under this category. In respects to the mentally infirm this is a conundrum. The infirm of mind are most likely unable to distinguish life from death. Therefore they cannot make the decision for themselves. That leaves the responsibility to the family or in some cases an extremely “compassionate” doctor. This scenario is described as non-voluntary euthanasia. The process of acting out euthanasia without any request from patient. Once again we see man playing the part of a deity and deciding whether to take or give life. The most compelling argument against euthanasia is the gateway that will be opened for corruption. Supporters of euthanasia strike out at pro-life activist describing them as paranoid. Their argument; however, is not result of paranoia. In 1939 the infamous Chancellor of Germany Adolf Hitler began the program “Aktion T 4”. His plan was to eliminate “life unworthy of life”. Hitler was to act out euthanasia against all member of society who were unworthy of his standards. If we legalize euthanasia, we'd be following in the foot steps of an egotistical psychopath. First it would start out as “innocent” voluntary euthanasia. Killing by request. Then doctors become “compassionate” and make the decision their selves without consent. Finally we'll have created a standard to meet if you want to keep on living. Having trouble believing this' In response to American advocates of euthanasia {text:soft-page-break} justifying euthanasia by pointing towards the Netherlands, Nat Hentoff says “Yet the September 1991 official government Remmelink Report on euthanasia in the Netherlands revealed that at least 1,040 people die every year from involuntary euthanasia.” 1,040 people killed a year without a request to die and euthanasia supporters declare the Netherlands legalization of euthanasia fruitful. Abuse and corruption due to euthanasia is unavoidable. Reports from several government supported committees show that the legalization of euthanasia would ultimately be a bad decision because of the inability to prevent abuses. The first thing to consider is stress due to the pain that comes along with the illness. Studies show that the majority of the pain that causes this stress can be alleviated and is not. Thus due to under-treatment patients are victim to despair and choose death as an escape. Depression is often responsible for the request to die. Depression in the elderly and terminally ill is significantly under-diagnosed and treated. Studies show that treatment removes suicidal ideation up to to 90%. The true nature of a sustained wish to die, even in the dying, is widely misunderstood, too often being accepted as a natural response to the threat of death. Many persons with terminal illness have suicidal ideation at some time, but never attempt or commit suicide. The great power of fear was revealed in a study that found that more people over 50 committed suicide in the mistaken belief that they had cancer than among those who actually had cancer and committed suicide. (Pollard). The most logical argument against euthanasia is that it is quite simply wrong. To kill somebody is wrong in many ways, regardless of reason. In criminal law murderers are not proven innocent because their victim requested death. The same should apply to the medical environment. The very foundation {text:soft-page-break} of our country is based upon three unalienable rights; life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. By taking innocent lives we go against the foundational principles. The biggest purpose of the law is to uphold the sanctity of human life. It is the law's job to protect human life from conception till natural death. If euthanasia were legalized the law would no longer protect human life. Instead it would be a threat. The law would no longer play the role of protector. Instead it would be seen as the enemy.