Euthanasia-how to debate...

[JohnPaul]

How does one argue against euthanasia when the other side is using the freedom of choice argument? I find it hard to convince anyone if they think "hey, i can die if i want to" They put all moral good, it seems, in one person's individual freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt another person directly. Hence they should be able to ask for assisted suicide if they want because it doesnt hurt anyone directly...

your thoughts?

[vlad]

I would say its hard to perhaps convince those who do not believe in spirituality. And perhaps also those whose faith contains the notion of reincarnation, though I don't know enough about those religions to make that statement with any certainty.

But, I would say for those who have some sense of Judeo/Christian morality. A good point to begin is Hope. To have life is to have hope in redemption. To choose to end life is the ultimate act of despair, and despair is the ultimate sin against hope. By despairing to this point one is in essence giving up hope and thus faith in God. Doing so further rips us from communion with God and therefore endangers our soul. As the soul of man is the one aspect of us that is truly eternal its continuation is in some way our great hope and reward. For our soul to continue it must be linked to its creator, God. Thus suicide assisted or other wise sunders us from God and thus endangers our soul.

Assisted suicide further damages all complicit in the action in a similar way. Thus on the metaphysical plane the action is very destructive.

Now like I say this really only work if one accepts the precepts that the argument is founded on ie. those of Judeo/Christian morality and understanding of the relationship of Man to God. Though I myself being a Christian I can not judge how well my comment represents the Judeo part of Judeo/Christian. So, if there are any members of the Jewish faith by all means correct or expand on what I said. I'd frankly like to here what a Buddhist or Hindu would say about Hope and its importance.

Perhaps it can be approached from that perspective. If people can be made to see that Hope is a crucial and important thing. Then it can be shown even without reference to God that euthanasia is a slight against hope. Thus if hope could be elevated to the level of say reason (something people may choose to not apply but which we all agree should be) then the debate on euthanasia becomes easier to tackle.

The other thing I see is, removing the utilitarian mindset that spawns such thoughts. Euthanasia is in many ways a great slippery slope. Not just practiced on the old who choose it but also on the young deemed too crippled to have life. www.nationalreview.com/comment/campbell200603130818.asp it may seem as a mercy, but how is it less of a mercy to euthanize an old homeless man whose life is miserable and hard. It may one day be that men and dogs will get the same treatment, when they become unwanted. Really this notion of life being a burden is really scary because there is no end to its logic. If one has the intestinal fortitude to think up of examples one may find that all life is truly worthless, and is perhaps best when ended quickly and mercifully.

[JohnPaul]

I agree that it's much easier if the person has a Jewish or Christian background and I very much agree that it is a slippery slope. But even many Christians these days will say that they don't want to push their morallity on others so even though they wouldn't do it they think it should be legal. It sounds a lot like the abortion arguments however, abortion is easier to argue against because it obviously physically kills someone who doesnt want to be killed. Euthanasia, they claim, kills someone who wants to be killed. It seems to me that the best approach to argue against euthanasia with someone of these relativistic views would be to go for the fact that it is a slippery slope and that people will be taken advantage of as you said.

Anyone else have ideas on this?

[jwmeyert7]

In approaching euthanasia, I think it's difficult for people who have yet to confront it on a personal level (like myself) to apply the kind of subjectiveness to the issue as a person who has, but that said I agree that it is a slippery slope and one must truly consider what he thinks of the concepts of "life" as well as "death" when dealing with it. I think concepts of life and death must be considered within the context of whatever spiritual ideas one holds.

I also think that considering the idea in a secular sense which separates you from spirituality/faith is helpful and worth exploring because it transcends social divisions of faith, but in a personal analysis this can lead to dead ends. (This gets at the difficulty of solving these problems on a broader social level as opposed to an individual, personal one.)

The answer for how to argue this isn't easy - I think a couple good ways have been articulated above. I would suggest that anybody interested in the issue see the movie Million Dollar Baby; I'm not sure if the movie takes a stance on the issue, but it certainly has characters who do. I think that any piece of culture which raises the issue and discusses it in a serious way is worth considering because that's ultimately what we aim to do with discussions like this on a message board.

[JohnPaul]

I started the thread because there was a rant on a forum where I work saying that they think it's hypocritical to have the death penalty legal and suicide/euthanasia illegal. The conversation eventually turned to if euthanasia should be legal. Here is what I ended up posting...I tried to stay away from "moral objections" because most of the others on the forum have no sympathy for individual morality being "imposed" on the majority. I'm open to suggestions and criticisms on this so here you go...its kind of long


*************
I see how it could seem hypocritical to kill someone who doesn’t want to die and to not allow someone who wants to die to be killed. I see it a little deeper than that I think. Here’s how I see these issues…

Death Penalty: I’m mostly opposed to the use of the death penalty in the US. I think the government has the right to have the option of the death penalty to protect society, however in our modern society there is hardly ever going to be a case when we can’t just lock someone up in order to protect people. I think we should give people a chance to finish their life even if they committed some horrible crime. I guess I believe there is an intrinsic value in every person regardless of their past, race, gender, age…etc. Which brings me to Euthanasia.

First off I wonder what Euthanasia means?
Well the word means “good death”. And dictionary.com says “The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.”

I would agree with that definition except for the last part because I think suspending extraordinary medical treatment isn’t ending someone’s life but its allowing them to die. I’d say there’s a big difference. Someone who would be dead anyway but is on a ventilator and has all kinds of tubes and such in them keeping them alive may be in more pain by prolonging the extraordinary treatment in which case I think I’d say it’s ok to stop the treatment and allow them to die. However, if there is some ordinary treatment needed like antibiotics or in Terri Schaivo’s case food and water (which isn’t really treatment at all) I don’t think it’s ok to stop their treatment.

As for the first part of the definition I think it speaks for itself “The act or practice of ending the life of an individual…” Sorry guys but if you fill that … with anything but “out of self defense” I’m going to have trouble accepting it as anything but murder. A lot of people say that this is about a person’s right to die. Well, everyone has the right to die…as a matter of fact no one can escape that. It’s more like a person’s right to kill or be killed rather.

I’m all for individual rights but I think euthanasia crosses the line. I can’t justify taking someone’s life whether they ask for it or not. Especially since many if not most people who attempt suicide or think about it look back and are glad they didn’t go through with it. When someone is in a time of desperation they most likely aren’t thinking clearly and need love and help not death.

This brings up the question: Who will really make the decisions? Who will decide which lives are worth living and which are not? Even if you think someone should have the right to decide if someone kills them or not it seems to me there would easily and quickly be many abuses. What about the elderly man who can hardly read a menu but is asked to sign away his life? Is he really making the decision? There are many scenarios such as this which scare me to death. It sheds a little light on where we could go with this.

This is where the beginnings of Nazism are found. A book called "Permitting the Destruction of Life not Worthy of Life" was published in Germany and although it argued that if someone should ask for assisted suicide it should allowed under very carefully controlled conditions, it was ultimately used to promote Hitler’s euthanasia practices. These included, even before the Jews, the killing of the sick and mentally disabled in order to “purify” the “master race”. This was usually focused on the elderly and the very young who displayed signs of things like downs syndrome. So, pretty quickly the most civilized and educated country of the time became quite barbaric. This can be seen even in the US when fetal testing shows that a child has downs many times the mother is encouraged to have an abortion…Nazi’s did it outside of the womb we do it inside.

This brings me back to the question…Who really decides?

It seems to me that the answer to that question, whether you think there’s a “right to die” or not, is way too blurry to allow euthanasia. It seems also that if we do allow it we will see an arbitrary line drawn in the human race dividing persons and non-persons putting more pressure on people to “ask” for death. It has already exisited and does now. Free vs Slaves, Men vs Women, White vs Black, born vs unborn, hetero- vs homo-. I just hope this isn’t extended to healthy vs sick, young vs old, desireable life vs undesireable life, “normal” vs different…etc.

So to answer your question I think it’s stupid to kill anyone who doesn’t want to die criminal or not. And I don’t think we have the means to know if someone really wants to die (they’re not crazy/depressed etc) nor do we have the means to keep euthanasia from being greatly abused. Therefore it’s wise to make assisted suicide illegal because protecting the innocent from death is more important than protecting someone’s right, if said right exists, to die.

"The fundamental question about euthanasia: Whether it is a libertarian movement for human freedom and the right of choice, or an aggressive drive to exterminate the weak, the old, and the different, this question can now be answered. It is both." ... Richard Fenigsen, Dutch cardiologist

There’s my 2 cents… wow that’s more like 25 cents…

**************

[Dean Covalt]

If you go to the Stand to Reason website at www.str.org they have several good articles on the topic of euthanasia and how to argue against it.

Dean Covalt, M.S., M.Ed.