ongEuthanasia Is Religious, Medically, and Legally Wrong Euthanasia is defined as “a painless killing,espacially to end apainful and incurable disease;mercy killing”. The righteousness of this act isbeing debated in several countries throughout the world,and Canada is noexception.Euthanasisa must not be accepted for religious,legal and medicalreasons,as alternatives to such a dramatic end.To begin,the law,both civil and religious,forbid killing.
Individualsare prosecuted in courts of law for committing murder. An example of this isthe case of Robert Latimer. Although he claimed to have mercifully ended thelife of his daughter who suffered from an extreme case of cerebral palsy,hewas convicted of murder in the second digree. The courts were obliged to findhim guilty as he broke the law by taking the life of another human being.Robert Latimer took it upon himself to decide that his daughter would neverlead a full life. Tracy Latimer was never given an opportunity for success, asher life was taken. A not guilty verdict would have told people that parentsof disabled children can perform both voluntary euthanasia on their children.
In the United States, euthanasia was voted on for the first time in the stateof Washington. Although polls before the vote revealed strong support forit,the ballot was defeated by fifty-four to forty-six percent,and euthanasiaremains illegal in Noth America. In addition to violating civil law,euthanasiaalso contradicts the laws of many religions of the world. It is God whocontrolls life and death. Man will take this responsibility if euthanasia ispermitted. It is stated in the ten commandments,”Do not commit murder”. Murdercan take many forms,one of which is suicide,the taking of one’s own life. Thisis forbidden by the Christian religion.
There is a picture on my grand-motherswall which stated that”human life is not merely the possession of the one whobears it. It is an inherited gift,as such,has meaning not only for oneself butfor those who bestowed it,those who have shared it and those who will follow”.This is an unselfish Christian attitude which states that life not only belongto the one who leads it,but also to the friends and family of the person, bothpast,present and future. Therefor, euthanasia does not serve a purpose within asociety where murder is wrong ,both legally and religiously.In addition,active euthanasia,if legalized will say OK to practicinginvoluntary euthanasia.
Presently,there is much research being done concerningthe need for euthanasia and its effects. Over time, the care and cautionexercised in making dicisions exercised in making decisions as to who shouldreceive euthanasia may become sloppy. According to Daniel Callaham, director ofHastings House,a medicial ethics center in New York:”The slippery alopeargument against euthanasia has always been that once you start voluntaryeuthanasia, you are likely to gravitate towards involuntary euthanasia. startsin the hands of a few very cautious,responsible people, but when it becomes amass phenomenon,don’t count on the same high standards”.
In theNethalands,where active euthanasia is allowed,this situation is beginning toarise. One third of the five thousand patients who receive lethal amounts ofdrugs from their doctors do not give their concent,five percent only do so outof unbearable pain and one third because of a fear of because dependant onothers. Patient will begins to look at thier illness and its effects on theirfamilies in assited dying,with it being offered most readily to those leastable to pay for medical care”. This must not take place as it will reduce thelifespans of an increasingly large group of people in society:the elderly. Itwill also fill thier remaining days with worry over the termination of thierown lives,for reasons other than lost hope and unbeleivable pain.Therefor,euthanasia will lead to the unnecessary termination of many lives.Also,euthanasia cotradicts the point of medicine.
Doctors cannot beexpected to heal as well as kill. The purpose of medicine is to get rid ofsuffering and death. Euthanasia is in contrast to this purpose. Overtime,euthanasia would eventally corrupt the medical system. It could be used asa excuse for malpractice.
A false diagnosis or surgical procedure on a patientwho had been suffering or near death for quite some time,could be covered upby claims that the patient wished to die in thefirst place. This would avoidan investigation or a rise in malpractice insurance for the doctor. Also,thefield of disease cure research would suffer.
In some cases,the finding curesand new treatments because its victims will be killed