Dr Kevorkian was recently released from prison after serving 8 years. I was always a bit of a fan of his. Modern medicine extends the life of people who previously would have died much sooner. And it often just extends their suffering and the suffering of those who love them.
For those cancer patients in great pain — who are going to die — if they wish to end their suffering should they not be allowed to do so? With assisted suicide they can do so with dignity and minimal pain. What are the alternatives? Slit your wrists? Blow your brains out? Leave a bloody horrible mess for your loved ones to clean up? Is that the final memory that you wish to leave your children? Or what if you are truly unfortunate enough to contract some horrible debilitating disease? Should this happen to me, I would prefer that my children remember me as strong, independent, and healthy. I would not want to burden them with the disgust of cleaning up my vomit or changing my diapers. Nor to leave them with sad memories of me wasting away in frailty. Should I be so unfortunate I would not want to inflict this on those I love. I would instead probably choose suicide, but I would not want them to have to clean up my spattered brains from the walls. I would want to end my life in a practical, reliable, clean, and as pain free method as possible. Thank you, Dr. Kevorkian for promoting this alternative.
To me it is a contradiction that conservatives tend to oppose assisted suicide and the right to die. I see a direct extension from the root of conservative philosophy to the freedom to end one's life. At the root of Conservatism is the belief in responsibility for one's own life and actions. Conservatives believe in the autonomy of the individual. My life is my own. It does not belong to the State or the King. So IF my life is my own, then who can tell me that I don't have the right to end it?
Unfortunately, many conservatives do not grasp this crucial right. Most conservatives, having religion, and in the West generally Christianity, they believe that God gave us life and therefore only he has the right to take it away.
I understand the argument but I do not agree with it. I sure don't remember "Thou shalt not commit suicide" as one of the Ten Commandments. And I don't think "Thou shalt not kill" covers it, as I also don't think that covers killing in defense (personal or national), or in punishment. If God had meant for us to never take our own lives then he should have worked it in there — perhaps instead of that one about graven images. Somehow that was more important.
Does the Bible prohibit suicide? Not that I can find out. I am no Bible scholar, but my search revealed the following key points: The 4th century theologian Augustine posited that suicide was "self-murder" and therefore violated the Sixth Commandment. Later, Thomas Aquinas opined that suicide was contrary to observed nature and therefore contrary to God's ordained laws.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1911
Eventually Christian doctrine held that suicide was a mortal sin.
http://ise.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/ideas/suicide1.html
On a personal note, the first I ever knew about the "sin" of suicide was from Hamlet. In the graveyard scene the gravediggers, talking amongst themselves, wonder why a woman who killed herself is receiving a Christian burial…
"Is she to be buried in Christian burial that willfully seeks her own salvation?"
No Christian burial for suiciders back then it would seem. On the other hand, many other religions and cultures (the Japanese come to mind) respect those who take their own lives, especially for honorable reasons.
I find these arguments against the right to die to be unconvincing. I see no holy message from God against it (and frankly, that wouldn't mean much to this "reluctant atheist" anyway...).
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Well put, but I personally disagree with the conclusion based on my "Irrational Christian" beliefs. You are absolutely correct that your body does not belong to State or King. However, the most basic tenant of Christianity is that we give up our sovereignty to God. We go when it's time to go - not before.
I also tend to disagree about the "mercy" of not putting your loved ones through the torture of a messy and prolonged death. We come into this life a helpless mess (babies) and we leave it that way. It is certainly NOT pleasant for the loved ones that have to take care of the baby and the invalid, but perhaps this is the way life (and death) are supposed to be. Challenging, sickening and brutal - this is life on Earth. Christianity holds out the promise of a better afterlife.
Re: Pat Riot comment:
Then feel free to give up your sovereignty to God and suffer a protracted miserable death, but please do not attempt to legislate that I or others must do so.
And on the side, do you really believe in an afterlife? The logical implausibility of that is one of the chief reasons for my non-belief. I mean, how does all that Heaven stuff really work? Like in the movies? In childhood stories? Have you thought it out?
Of course it’s implausible, of course it’s illogical. I don't pretend to make a case for religious belief based on rationality. It’s purely a matter of faith. As to my vision of an afterlife and the question of “heaven” – I see no point in speculation as to the particulars. It is by definition unknowable. If the spiritual soul was understandable by means of human examination and observation it would necessarily be less than divine. And lose a great deal of its beauty….
I heard about the good doctors release from prison. My first thought was what a shame a tape was made and aired. Why did the doctor make the tape, I wonder?
I am the keeper of my body. My body is my temple. You are what you eat.
Any of these expressions, tell me that I am in control of my body, but most of the laws state otherwise.
Why are we allowed to euthanasia our pets when they are hopelessly sick and painful, but not humans. Where is the humanity?
If a individual has come to a point in "their" life where they have decided that "life" has become "hopelessly sick and painful" it should be a decision for no one else but them to make.
I believe currently the State of Washington allows for what is beginning called, "Assisted Suicide." The name needs to be changed, maybe "Last Day".
Societies attitudes need to change. We need to give the individual the right to decide; what happens to their own body. The choice should be mine and mine alone. We as a society have to decide whether or not as a group if we are intelligent enough to make a wise decision for ourselves and about ourselves.
This is now where the pro-choice and pro-life collide.
I have had some personal experiences, with neighbors that have taken guns and blow their brains out, and other suicide attempts.
Religion began to explain the unexplainable. The basis of any religion is faith. Do you just trust enough to believe in something you can't see?
We are social creatures us human’s. We are people in my experience that need to feel as they belong, whether it is a group at school, work, church or society.
Follow up: A recent issue of National Review, a magazine I trust and enjoy, had a short article on Kevorkian. They state that most of the people he killed were not terminally ill and that he got the moniker "Doctor Death" as a young doctor because he tried to photograph patients at the moment of death. I wish the article had supporting evidence. But taking it at face value, perhaps Kevorkian is not a person to be admired. Yet, he's the visible advocate of assisted suicide and what I consider to be a very important right -- the right to die. Kevorkian's character is not relevant to this argument.
Post a Comment