The Language of Euthanasia Essay Example

The Language of Euthanasia Essay Our society is filled with controversial issues. Abortion, prostitution and euthanasia are all issues which lead to many heated debates in everyday conversation. An individuals stance on these topics is often a direct correlate of societys current environment as well as the individuals own value system. These values are often based upon religion, upbringing, and ones own personal experiences. One personal experience that most of us have endured at one point or another is that of having an elderly loved one die. Death and dying are an inevitable part of our existence which we must all face one day. Its interesting then to think that, there are those individuals that make the conscious decision to embrace death while others attempt to put off their last moments on earth. The power and ability to control when death is inflicted may soon become readily available to the elderly and society. Would this not then allow mankind to play God? It is this very question, which in the last decade has come to the forefronts of society, government, and organized religion. With its increasing popularity Euthanasia appears to have become an easy answer to a much more complex underlying problem. In essence then Sheila Grant in her article. The Language of Euthanasia accurately describes the concept of euthanasia as simply being a fancy word used to describe the immoral act of killing another human being whether old or young. We will write a custom essay sample on The Language of Euthanasia specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on The Language of Euthanasia specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on The Language of Euthanasia specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer As the title of the article indicates the language of euthanasia plays a pivotal role in the issue. The author methodically builds up her position on what exactly the language of Euthanasia is and how it is exploited. The author partially contributes the rising popularity of euthanasia to the fact that society misunderstands the exact connotations attached to the concept. Not being able to fully comprehend the fundamental elements of an issue results in difficulty understanding and arguing that particular issue. In this case advocates of Euthanasia are able to build their case by feeding off societys lack of knowledge. These advocates use euphemisms like deliverance, death with dignity, aid-in-dying and gentle landing. If their position has to be promoted with euphemisms, this may be due to the fact that the use of accurate, descriptive language would make the distressing reality too apparent. Its disturbing then to think that it is the definition of a term that often compels one to take either a negative or positive approach on an issue. Confusion has clearly reined throughout society about the exact meaning of Euthanasia. This is clearly illustrated in the article with the example of the CBC talk show host. In this particular example the host is provided with a faulty definition instead of the more precise medical definition of Euthanasia. This new inaccurate definition results in the talk show host altering his original belief of the concept. Had the host been adequately educated he would have stood his ground and not altered his beliefs. This proves the point that there is a lack of consistency in the use of the term Euthanasia. To examine the term in itself, euthanasia, is any action taken to help procure death. It is here that we must understand that Euthanasia is different from prolonging inevitable death. Instead euthanasia is deliberately causing the death of someone who is not dying. It is the intentional killing usually by the act of omission of a dependent human being for their alleged benefit. In the past euthanasia included both voluntary and involuntary termination of life. This was the main contention for mass confusion. It has for this reason become vital to differentiate between what is euthanasia and what isnt. One way to distinguish what is and isnt euthanasia is to examine the last act of the third party before death occurs. If without this last act death would not have occurred then euthanasia has been committed. This act by the third party is what essentially brings upon death, without this act death would only have occurred naturally. The act can then be viewed inherently as one of killin g. Euthanasia is therefore not about the right to die, instead it entails the right to kill. Some might state that kill is too harsh a word for euthanasia but the word kill means to cause death. The actions taking place in euthanasia do kill a person therefore euthanasia is an act of killing another human being. This is a direct violation of our moral code of conduct. To encourage euthanasia is to encourage the act of killing and suicide. This opens up many ethical and moral implications as suicide is considered a mortal sin. The Judaeo-Christian belief condemns all suicide whether it be is assisted or not. They believe that euthanasia violates ones natural desire to live. We are born into this world to live and when it is our time to die we die. To hasten along this process is tampering with nature. Pope John Paul II, stated during a speech on October 7th 1979 Almighty God, our Father, You have given us life and intended us to have it forever, grant us Your blessings. Enlighten our minds to an awareness and to a renewed conviction that all life is sacred because it is created in Your image and likeness. Help us to teach by word and the example of our lives that life occupies the first place, that human life is precious because it is the gift of God, whose love in infinite. Give us the strength to defend human life against every influence or actio n that threatens or weakens it, as well as the strength to make every life more human in all its aspects. From this it is quite clear that life is a gift which God has bestowed upon us and only God has the right to take it away from us. Another human being should not have enough power to decide whether a human being lives or dies. Ethically speaking as well euthanasia is also considered an immoral act. Take for example the age old Hippocratic Oath that every doctors pledges. This oath states that even gravely defected babies should be treated like any other patient. It is only if the treatment doesnt help the child that they are then allowed to die they should not be killed. Every human life should be worth preserving regardless of the quality of life criteria this is the view that morals, religion, and the medical profession all advance. Hippocrates further advances this position by stating that medicine is to do away with the suffering of the sick, to lesson the violence of their diseases, and to refuse to treat those who are overmastered by their diseases is realising that in such cas es medicine is powerless. When doctors aid in the process of euthanasia they are violating the very principles they have pledged to abide by. We look to doctors as being in a position to exert tremendous influence as they alone have all the medical facts. Nevertheless, every year there are thousands of cases of malpractice reported against doctors. Being human even doctors are prone to human error. Is it then wise to endow so much clout and blind faith into the hands of such medical professionals? There have also been reported cases where patients have been coerced and exploited either by their doctors or family members into accepting this course of action. This brings much concern as death can them be used to facilitate ones own self-interests. Another important factor causing concern is the timing involved in taking such an extreme measure as euthanasia. The patient is often enduring unbearable pain which may cloud their judgement. In making the choice to opt for euthanasia the patient often cant see beyond that short term benefits of such actions. To them euthanasia becomes a permanent solution to a temporary problem. They see it as a release to their pain and suffering. Often times though all they require is effective pain management through medication or counselling . These methods can greatly alleviate physical and emotional pain and allow a person to have an enjoyable life; one which they would have lost had they embraced euthanasia. The author goes on to explain that even the families of patients facing the choice of euthanasia are swamped with grief, fear, and guilt. These are all emotions which limit the clarity required to make such a complex decision often resulting in a haphazard and emotionally laden decision. Nevertheless, unfortunately if for some reason Euthanasia is legalized perhaps there should be a mandatory waiting period as well as counselling sessions. By providing such services both the patient and their family would be required to reflect on both the short term and long term implications of their decision. Commonly financial restraints also play a huge role in both the short and long term implications. With the baby boomers aging and with a greater burden being placed on our health care system it has been suggested that euthanasia be used as a means of health care cost containment. With hospitals budgets being slashed these institutions are likely to benefit financially from providing less, rather than more, care for their patients. Its not wise then to completely trust such institutions as they have their own priorities which may not always coincide with those of the patients. In order to survive the healthcare system in Canada has started on the road to privatization. There are millions of individuals who across the world dont have access to medical insurance, medication, or pain control. In the future with this privatized system treatments would only be available to those able to pay for them. Then the dangerous circumstances arise where euthanasia becomes the only affordable choice for an individual. This results in the further widening of the gap between the poor and rich and where wealth and power are the deciding factors between life and death, not God. In conclusion then we must begin to understand that we as able bodied humans see things from a narrow scope. Often times the disabled or sick are content with their lives and we merely inflict death on then due to our lack of compassion and understanding towards their condition. Education is necessary in order for us to completely understand what these individuals endure. Without such knowledge how can any of us make the choice for them between life and death? Euthanasia has undoubtedly become a matter of public concern as it can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people among us. There was a time when we had social restraints protecting the weak and sick today even these are eroding leaving a world where people selection has become the norm. We must uphold such restraints if we wish to continue to live in a civilized moral society. Sidebar: Documenting Your Wishes Sidebar: What Are Advance Directives? Sidebar: Are Living Wills Honored? Glossary Sabina and Perry Elfmont talked often about how they would face death. As a retired physician, 88-year-old Perry had seen many of his patients suffer at the end. Perry had lived a rich life with his wife of more than 30 years. He had run the New York blood bank and, despite his age, he still could enjoy theater and museums. He and his 78-year-old wife traveled, making visits to his homeland of France. They took walks in New York City, where they shared an apartment. A voracious reader, Perry was fluent in five languages. A Living Will Perry told Sabina if he became seriously ill he didnt want heroic measures if it meant he wouldnt live his life to the fullest anymore. Perry had suffered three heart attacks that forced him to retire from his active physician practice after 25 years. He knew exactly what life-prolonging interventions could be imposed if he reached a critical stage. Perry completed a living will and delineated what he did not want if he became incapacitated, including resuscitation, mechanical respiration, and renal dialysis. It even included his desire to be cremated at burial. One May morning in 1994, Perry woke up disoriented. Sabina found her husband in a state of confusion and paranoia. She immediately called his doctor. A stroke was a possibility so he told Sabina to bring Perry immediately to Mt. Sinai Medical Center emergency room. Sabina brought a copy of his living will. Perrys cardiologist had a copy and Sabina wanted the attending doctors and hospital to know his wishes. Do Not Resuscitate Once her husband was moved to a bed, Sabina informed the attending residents that he had a do not resuscitate (DNR) order. She then filed the information with the hospital. It simply came naturally to me because I knew his opinion about having unnecessary things done. Sabina stayed by Perrys side until Perrys son, Andrew, came by on the second day. Sabina went home to get some rest, a decision she says she will regret forever. When she returned the next morning, her husbands hands were restrained and he looked terrible. Sabina asked what had happened. She was told that Perry had gone into respiratory arrest in the middle of the night and they had resuscitated him. Sabina looked over at Perry. He was tethered to his bed, unable to speak, unable to do anything. All the fears he had expressed in their conversations had come true. The events of that evening are now the subject of a lawsuit between Sabina and Andrew Elfmont and Mt. Sinai. But essentially the medical resident on staff resuscitated Perry after the DNR order had been countermanded by a physician overseeing his care. Sabina says Perrys cardiologist admitted that a mistake had been made. She confronted a neurologist who was treating her husband. I said, How could you do it? A living will is a patients wish.' Sabina says the doctor told her his job was to keep patients alive, not to let them die. When she asked why her husbands hands were in restraints, she was told it was to prevent him from yanking out his tubes. He knew exactly what he wanted to do, she said. Twenty-Seven Months Two days later, Perry was released from Mt. Sinai and he and Sabina spent the next 27 months together in their apartment. Although Perry could initially walk with difficulty, he was depressed and despondent. He couldnt speak, he couldnt read, and he couldnt care for himself. His friends found it hard to visit, says Sabina. She hired a nurse to care for him to help keep his life as normal as possible at home. But Perry didnt have much of a life, she says. He wouldnt get up in the morning unless Sabina woke him; he wouldnt eat unless food was put in front of him; and he couldnt hold a conversation. Toward the latter part of his life, he lost bodily function. After a few months at home, Perry refused to go outside. He did not want to be in a wheelchair. Sabina says she was so worried that he would commit suicide that she only left the apartment to go to the bank and supermarket. A Widows Crusade In August 1996, Perry died at home at age 90. Sabina and Andrew cremated him and spread his ashes in France. While still grieving Perrys loss, Sabina has become a crusader for assuring the rights of the terminally ill. A Polish-born Holocaust survivor, Sabina says if she had been with Perry the night he almost died, she would have respected his wishes. I wouldnt have let there be a resuscitation. As hard as that would be, I know how important it was to him. New York attorney Lewis Fishlin, who represents Sabina and Andrew, says that Perry should have been permitted to die. This is not a man who meandered around the subject [of death]. This is a man who focused clearly on what his wishes were and made it clearly known. Sabinas message to others: If you have a living will, be on top of it. Perrys experience taught her that its not when you die, its how you die. A living will should be enough, but it seems it didnt work . . . Once you write a living will, put your family around the table and talk to them about it, she says. Perry talked to me very often about it. Sabina, now 80, isnt sure whether she can sustain a legal battle with a major New York hospital but she says for Perry she must try. I wanted to fulfill his wishes and they didnt let me. Association for the right to die with dignity To enjoy the closing years of our life to the full, we need every possible reassurance about the way it will come to an end. Will the end of our life be left to mere chance ? Will it depend on somebody elses decision ? Will our final moments be prolonged against our will until our physical degradation is complete? Should we be entitled to make decisions about our last moment before anybody else, namely relatives, friends or physicians ? Have you ever asked yourselves those questions ? We have, and these very questions are the reason why our association was created. ADMD (the Association for the Right to Die with Dignity) campaigns for the right to end ones life in a peaceful, dignified manner. This can be achieved only if one is given full freedom of choice regarding ones last moment in the near or in the distant future. ADMDs goal is to promote change not only in the minds of the general public, but also in the way the healthcare profession responds to end the moral misery, physical decay and unnecessary pain preceding and accompanying death. ADMD strongly objects to resorting to euthanasia for political, social or economic purposes. Ever since 1980, ADMD has relentlessly crusaded for the right for all to receive the best pain relief and to refuse any unnecessary prolongation of life by medical means. Those legitimate demands have now been met by a French government memo (ministerial circular of May 1995) which recognises the patients new rights. However, a law is now required to ensure compliance with the circular in everyday situations. ADMDs priority is to get the authorities to endorse a declaration of the will to die with dignity , a genuine living will enabling those requesting it formally to receive active assistance in dying. ADMD is open to everyone irrespective of their political or religious backgrounds. Though formerly virtually unknown or misunderstood, the ideas advocated by the Association have gained ground among the public at large. Several opinion surveys clearly indicate that an overwhelming majority of the French people supports the right to an assisted death when patients experience pain and suffering which have become unacceptable in their own judgement You do not accept physical degradation : this is your own decision.