Category: Writers Block
I've written, in various essays, that I support euthanasia. Yet I've never given it it's own essay and the topic has been mentioned or illuded to a great deal in the last few months in posts by myself and my Facebook friends. So here are my thoughts on the matter.
It has always struck me as odd that so many people agree with the idea that because a pet or other animal is sick and/or in pain, has harmed a human or because it's simply too expensive to care for him/her, he/she should be euthanised. In fact, many of these people would substitute "it" for "he or she" in my previous sentence. Yet as soon as the word person or human is substituted for animal or pet, these same people become angered. It seems to me that they've forgotten that we humans are animals too. The only thing which makes us different, and science is finding that there are several animals which can do this in a more rudamentary level, is that we can reason and make decisions. But this is not always the case. So when, for example, someone is in a coma or is criminally ill and supposedly unable to stop him/herself, by natural human conscience, is he/she not on the mental level of an animal?
Despite our advanced technology, we humans are not immune to illness. Sometimes, we become ill as a result of a disease, sometimes it's due to old age and sometimes it's a combination of factors. But there are those who know that they don't want to continue living if their mental capacity is decreased to a certain point. For some, this may mean totally brain dead, for others it could mean being unable to communicate or to remember loved ones or even not being able to care for themselves independently due to something like being paralised. Why, then, if these people wish to die with dignity, should they be forced to live in conditions that they hate or wouldn't want to experience had they the understanding? Why should they be starved to death or simply not helped instead of having their deaths be quick and humane? This is especially true with the young, who have had their innocent lives snatched from them, and the elderly, who have lived long lives but are now slowly losing their memories. Is it fair to them that they have to continue suffering, the former knowing that they'll never lead a full and normal life and the latter knowing that they've already done so and that they're ready to go to the next adventure?
Then, there are those who are mentally insane, and due to that, they commit violent crimes. As my readers will know by now, I fully support the death penalty and have also written an essay on that. In this case, though, it's more euthanasia, since these people honestly didn't know what they were doing. That said, they still shouldn't be allowed to clog up the system, be it the prisons or the mental wards of hospitals etc. These are dangerous individuals who have harmed the innocent and would likely do so again if they were let out into society. Remember that the dog who is rabid or extremely violent and untrainable also doesn't know what he/she is doing. So why should he/she be euthanised and not the man or woman with a dangerous mental illness which cannot be cured? Why should the dog or the person, both of whom don't understand the nature of what they've done, be punished by being imprisoned?
Sometimes, illness doesn't cause pain or loss of memory, but rather, haults the mental growth of an individual. This is known as retardation. Those who are mildly retarded can often live full and productive lives, sometimes with a little help and sometimes on their own. They may think on a slower level but can still understand who, when and where they are and can answer basic, and in less severe cases, more advanced questions. But when the retardation is so severe that they don't even know who they are, can't feed themselves, walk, talk etc. and when it is clear that they will never be able to do so, why keep them alive? I think it's a tragedy for them and their parents. While they may have wonderful parents and/or guardians, unless they're rich, what will become of them when said parents die? If they're given to a family member, than he/she and his/her family must now deal with another mouth to feed, knowing that the person will never be able to survive on his/her own. So he/she becomes a burden. Those who don't work but who are still mentally able can still contribute to the family by providing interesting conversations, playing with children, helping around the house etc. But what can one who is this severely mentally retarded do? If they're shipped off to an institution, then they may not understand why and will only know that they're away from the only home and people they've ever known. If they do have enough intelligence to think on the level of a very small child, they may decide that they did something bad and that Mommy and Daddy don't love them anymore. So it's best, whenever possible, to abort fetuses if they show signs of extreme mental illness. If, however, the signs show once the child is born, then it's best to study him/her for a time, and if there is absolutely no progress, euthanasia should be considered. Of course, this is a very difficult decision and shouldn't be taken lightly. But it is something to consider, for the sake of the family as well as society.
All of these cases, the mentally insane, the terminally ill and the mentally retarded, involve the care of others. This, in turn, involves a great expense. The difference here is that the money is not being spent on those who will hopefully be able to return to a normal or somewhat normal life, as in the case of an opperation. Nor is it being given to those who simply need some extra help in life, such as adaptive technology or a nurse to come and check on things at home. Rather, it's being used to continue the lives of those who will never recover from their ailments, and in some cases, who could potentially harm others because of them. In the case of families, it's their choice. But I don't think that the government, even if the health care system was universal, should get involved in situations such as this, except to enforce the wishes of the terminally ill if they wish to die. If they wish to live, or if the family wishes to care for someone with a severe mental illness, they should be the ones to bare the burden. I would much rather them fund help for pets and animals whom the families can't afford to help but who could recover with an opperation or therapy. If the state has incarserated a criminally ill person, he/she should be euthanised as soon as possible.
In short, these are my reasons for supporting euthanasia. While I do agree that it can be abused, I think that, if proper laws were put in place, it would make it much more difficult to euthanise someone based on a totally false premice, such as age, race, religion, gender, various disabilities wherein the people can still think and mostly care for themselves, etc. None of these are ever good reasons and should be disqualified. But when a valid reason exists, this really is the best course of action for all involved.
I chose not to post my Views on the Death Penalty essay here, since I've posted a great deal on the subject in another thread not started by me. If you type death penalty in the search box for The Boards, you'll find my posts. But if anyone does wish to read my views in one essay, let me know and I'll gladly post them.
Eleni, two hastily put together thoughts.
One: I'm not sure where I stand where it concerns the issue of assisted suicide. If someone is terminally ill, and does not wish to continue living, etc. It goes against what I've believed most of my life, but I'm starting to think I'd support it, because I'm starting to realize it may be what I would want, if it ever came down to it.
However, I disagree with you when you start talking about euthanizing those like the severely mentally retarded. It's one thing when a person chooses to stop living: it's entirely another when the choice is made for them. And, you're on an incredibly slippery slope there. Where does it stop? There are those out there who view blindness itself in the way you view severe mental retardation. I hope you realize it could very well be us you are writing about: us as blind people who might one day be, "euthanized," if your logic were to be put into effect. Even if not us as blind people, it's still an incredibly slippery slope. What defines severe mental retardation, severe mental illness, and so on? Who makes those decisions?
Again, if someone wishes to end their own life, to die with dignity rather than suffer the effects of a terminal illness, that I get. It is their choice. But I absolutely do not think we should make this choice for an individual.
The fact that we're both having a philosophical debate on a moral issue completely disqualifies us from this group. If you know who you are, where you are and can handle responsibilities enough to either live on your own or to need only a little assistance from others, then you're fine. When I say severe, I'm talking about people who don't have the mental ability to have self-identity, to be able to express themselves in meaningful ways, to be able to do simple things like feed and dress themselves because of their mental impairment etc. This does not include those who are paralised but who can otherwise communicate/think. However, I do feel that, if they're in such a serious state that they need to be waited on hand and foot, and if it's not temporary, the family should take responsibility for them and not the health care system. I fully support universal health care, which is why I needed to clarify. But those who are in wheelchairs but otherwise mobile, the deaf, the blind etc. are all fine and should receive help to be more independent.
I only have one philosophical question though. If you had a child who was severely mentally handicapped, to the point that they would qualify in your book for euthinasia, and you decided to go through with that, only to find out a month later or so, that there is an operation in existence which would have saved them, how would you feel?
The problem I can see with your second scinario is that not everyone knows of all the different options that are open to them; not even all doctors do. So while you may think that the child in question is so handicapped that they cannot survive on there own, and believe that it is permanent, it may not be so.
Plus, babies fit into your definition. What is to stop a mother from murdering her child if she gets tired of feeding it?
I don't disagree with assisted suicide, I think that is someone's choice, but I hesitate on the second scinario.
I would do some of the most serious research that I've ever done in my life before deciding on something like that. I would speak with as many doctors as possible and try to figure out what would be the best approach. Of course, I would feel horrible if a cure was found so soon after the child's death. I would be a monster if that were not the case. But I couldn't say that I did it as a spur of the moment thing and would need to content myself in the knowledge that I did everything possible before making my decision and that it could have been that a cure wouldn't be found for many years or not at all. When in doubt, keep the child alive a little longer. The problem, of course, becomes that a little longer only gets longer. But if the parent is willing to take care of the child/adult, that's his/her choice.
Thanks for bringing up the point about babies. They would absolutely not fit into this category, as their condition is temporary. I know of only one exception, in the entire world, where a baby has literally remained a baby for her whole life. She's 16 now but never grew passed a year old or so, both mentally and physically. Everyone else begins growing, and most begin learning and becoming more independent as they age. So the murder of a baby is just that and should never be excused. If one needs to be euthanised, then it should be done by a competent professional and only after tests for the child and counseling for the parents.
Like Alicia, my views have morphed over the years. At one time I was strongly opposed to euthanasia of all types primarily because insurance would pay for that before expensive procedures, etc. And you private-industry-health-care people may say otherwise, but I've seen similar things happen in private insurance. They make money by not issuing claims.
That wasn't the only reason, but a pretty profound one.
Where I say this has morphed for me is the issue of quick extermination versus long and lingering survival based on modern technologies. If you keep a body alive and in pain, or quite imprisoned, are you really serving anything?
There are certainly no easy answers. I will admit to a double standard: if my wife or daughter were terminally ill I would never even think of wanting them to be terminated. However, to be honest, I'd rather do myself than leave them with mountains of hospital debt for years and years after my passing. When I was in college I worked at McDonald's and a woman who worked there was in her 60s. She was going to work there for the rest of her natural life to pay for hospital bills, used to keep her husband alive on machines, at a time when there were no living wills and no prospect of extermination.
This isn't natural, or lifesaving, I watched a life being ebbed away.
I am also acquainted with a situation where a retarded man gets up, takes a lot of meds, just sits in a chair and is out of it for the duration of the day, then returns to bed for a 14 to 16-hour sleep. He literally cannot do any more than that, is sometimes quite frustrated with his situation, and my daughter anway has told me he looks sad all the time.
He can't speak, so I never know what he's thinking, but those who can see him say he definitely knows what's going on, but can't participate. If he at all gets excited, he goes into a seizure, even over something that should be a good thing, like Christmas.
I find myself wondering, like charles Darwin, at the abject cruelty of nature. Not that I think nature is anything other than bio and geo mechanics, but we are. And to us, well, if a humaan rendered these conditions on another human being, we would call that human heinous.
And, what Cody pointed out is absolutely something that must always be considered: the prospect there may be a new treatment on the horizon.
I realize what I said about myself seems drastic to some, but honestly, as long as we have private insurance, I know if I get a drastic illness that exceeds my costs, self-termination is the only responsible action in this country, at least for the one paying for things in the house.
I wouldn't ask someone else to do it, nor make it any worse than it has to be, but it's just the way things are now.
I agree with post 2. In Helen Keller's day she'd have fit the mold of not being able to care for herself, before someone learned a way to comunicate with her. It wasn't that she couldn't, it was that others had no idea how to teach her things.
Now if a person decides to die on his or her own, I say allow them to die as they please. It is your life, so you should be able to decide to end it.
I can't say I understand suicides when a person's healthy, but I feel we shouldn't try to stop a person that has seriously decided this is how they wish to go. Sure talk with them, maybe set a thinking period, but after that set time if that person is wanting to die, allow it.
Legalize it. I'm sick of hearing this sanctity of life horseshit. Humans are animals too.
Well, for those that say it is all in God's timing, God must be a combination of medical machines and insurance companies: so-called nature or natural ends have little to do with it.
And, if the medical establishment in question is required to keep this person alive, and said person or family cannot pay for it, these medical people are the first ones to lose in the deal. Ironically, it was the Christian right cheering for the idea of letting the uninsured die, but they allegedly are opposed to euthanasia.
I understand the need to control costs, and as for the so-called slope effect: we already have it. It's called ability to pay. One of their great icons, Rush Limbaugh, compared payment for health care to the purchase of a mercedes. If we are operating completely without morals, as they are in true formm, he is right.
Only per operation or procedure or hosspital stay, no individual medical professional makes very much out of the deal. Not when you add up their preliminary costs of the schools they attend, the long periods of residency and internships, and the expenses of continuing education: none of which any insurance company employee undergoes. Said insurance companies are more likely to make your end-of-life decisions than your doctor is. Your doctor is too busy trying to help you out, and fill out a ton of paperwork for each procedure. It's under the guise of choice, but people of course rarely have the opportunity to actually choose.
It is a marketing game for the insurance companies, no more and no less.
For some odd reason, I missed the last three posts or so. So I'm replying now. To LeoGuardian: As difficult as it would be, I know that I would help my family end their suffering if one of them became that ill, either mentally or physically. We all share the same beliefs, that we don't want to live in those conditions and I think it would strip them of their dignity otherwise. The same, of course, holds true for me. I also completely understand what you said about not wanting to leave your family with serious debt should you become ill. I would feel the same way, as I'm very economical and frugally-minded. The only exception would be if I was recovering and the bills were for therapy etc. At least then I would have a chance at a normal or somewhat normal life once more.
forereel: That's a very interesting point about Helen Keller. She was an extremely rare example of a success story of a deafblind person in that time. Today, of course, they're much more independent and can live on their own. But back then, unless the person belonged to a rich family, they would most likely be institutionalised, though I do know tht some were sent to schools for the blind and the deaf. Part of me says euthanise in those times and part says no. These were people who were still mentally competent. As you said, they could learn. It just came down to how to teach them, which, thankfully, they figured out. Still, what could most of them do back then? They couldn't really communicate with the hearing and seeing world as they can today. I guess, though, that since they were kept alive, science was able to not only enrich their educational experiences but also their communicational ones as well. So I think I would choose to keep them in this world after all.
To LeoGuardian: That's probably very true and certainly very sad. I don't trust the pharmaseutical companies at all to really care what happens to their customers, so long as they keep buying products or diseases etc. are passed onto the next generation to bring on a new loyal fan base. But there are some doctors who really do care and I truly feel sorry for them. They may wish to do a life-saving surgery or to help someone with more physical therapy etc. but are prevented from doing so due to insurance either not paying for conventional treatments or not covering natural ones. Some know that various medicines, natural or synthetic, are better for the patients than others. But again, either the companies won't pay for them or they push some other drugs and expect the doctors to play along, which, sadly, many do. This is why I fully support health care for all, with the option to go to a private hospital/doctor if you have the money. While it's true that not everyone will get the same treatment, at least people won't be turned away because they can't afford anything!