Euthanasia

We have all heard of Dr. Kevorkian, the physician- assisted suicide activist. So many people were in an uproar about his actions. They claimed he was playing God. That he was getting away with murder. The state of Michigan tried to create legislature to prevent Dr. Kevorkian from helping others die. Dr. Kevorkian's reason for assisting others in suicide was that he acted for others because he felt that "people have a right to decide when to end their lives" (Munson 704). A juror that sat on one of his trials said, "I don't feel it's our obligation to choose for someone else how much pain and suffering they can go through. That's between them and their God." (Munson 704). Others believe that Dr. Kevorkian was acting as an angel of mercy. Euthanasia, as defined by Munson, is the act of causing death painlessly so as to end suffering. The majority of people do not deliberate about euthanasia and the moral legitimacy that it has or does not have until they are forced to make a decision about someone they love. An issue that will arise in any euthanasia debate is: euthanasia is murder. Or is it mercy?

Recently on the news we saw the pain and suffering in the Terry Shivo case. She was in a and after so many years, her husband had moved on. He wanted to marry another woman. It has been debated that he wanted to stop the assisting machines to help keep Terry alive because she was a burden and he could not get married. He claims that she did not want to live this way. Her parents went to the courts to plead for their daughter's life; to get the power of attorney to keep her alive. They held hope for her recovery and for her life. Which side is right? After so many years of not being able to function in a world by standards set by somebody, should the parents have let go or the husband held on? Questions that should be looked at in my opinion are, did Terry have hope of recovery - was she aware, but non-responsive to what was going on around her Ð'- is this what she wanted?

By whose authority are we allowed to say when someone is going to die, or even how someone will spend their life? Is it necessary for the government to get involved and pass legislature telling us what "quality of life" is? Does our government have an obligation to speak for those who can no longer speak for themselves, whether they are screaming to live or screaming for relief from life? I wanted to find these answers because I honestly did not know where my boundaries lay and on what Biblical principles I could base my beliefs on. Just because I would choose one thing for me does not mean that someone else would choose the same. At the moment, when faced with the idea that I could go into a vegetative state and no longer be able to respond or function to life, I say let me go Ð'- unplug the machines. But I am not in that state nor do I have any idea what life would be like then. Science has yet to discover all answers to our minds and how our subconscious works. I think now, I do not want to live that way, but could I make that choice for my mother or my sister or my future husband? What right do I have to make that choice? When does life actually end and has science and technology gone so far as to redefine life and death? I want to know what God says. He is the holder of all authority and all life and He is the one we need to look to for our answers.

I believe that murder is wrong. No matter where and why it is done it is a sin against God. Some would say murder is justifiable in war or in defense of yourself or your family. The definition of murder is to kill a person unlawfully and with malice (Webster). I do not think that euthanasia is murder. I believe that killing someone to end their pain and to keep their dignity is merciful. I do not believe that we should have legislature in place to promote or allow the killing of another person. To do so would be creating a slippery slope. We would need to create a boundary somewhere or else people will take it too far. There are two main types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is a definite action to end a person's life. Passive euthanasia allow someone to die by not taking steps to prolong a person's life. I do not know which I believe would be the better. Some argue that active euthanasia is actually murder. Dr. Jack Kevorkian was convicted of murder and sentenced to ten to twenty years in prison by practicing active euthanasia on a patient. If the intent of euthanasia is to prevent suffering, the distinction between active and passive is hazy. Some think that by taking out a feeding tube and turning off a respirator they are allowing the person to die naturally and therefore are morally safe because they did not actually kill the person by a direct action. I think inaction is the same as a direct action. By allowing someone to die by starving them to death because the feeding tube was taken out has a similar underlying principle as someone giving a lethal injection to keep the dieing person from starving to death and slowly deteriorating. Euthanasia seems to be a situation based dilemma.

I did a survey of fifty-two people, and included myself, on whether or not they agreed to different statements regarding euthanasia. Two separate surveys from my group were thrown out because one went down my number of statements and circled undecided on every one and the other because they did not want to give any personal information asked for such as their age, race etc. and instead of circling whether they agreed or not skipped statements they did not want to answer. My survey originally included forty three statements with a scale for opinion ranging strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree, and strongly agree. The purpose for my statements was to find out what people believed euthanasia was, where the line was drawn, if they thought it was morally right, should there be legislature supporting or banning it, what they would choose for themselves or loved ones, if they thought they had the right to do so and if yes or no, why? The original statements are as follows:

1. I believe in absolute truths.

2. I believe all truth is relative.

3. Murder is wrong under any circumstance.

4. Suicide is wrong under any circumstance.

5. Murder is justified only in cases of war and defense.

6. Suicide is justifiable in some cases.

7. Murder is justifiable when it is out of mercy.

8. Euthanasia is wrong under any circumstance.

9. Active euthanasia is wrong but passive