'The decision to terminate pregnancy is so important that it can only be made by the person most involved- the women. Women must always have a choice and never have the decision forced upon them. Free abortion facilities should on the NHS for every woman who needs them. We believe that the right of women to control their own fertility is a fundamental human right. Women will not be able to take a full and equal part in the society when we can all decide for ourselves whether and when to have children.'
National Abortion Campaign states the basic right of women to control its own fertility, they say that women have a full right to chose when the want to have children. Humanist Dipper supports abortion by suggesting that:
'Humanist regards abortion better than bringing unwanted into the world. It is a mistake to say that Humanist are in favour of abortion; no one can be in favour of abortion, which, except in unforeseen circumstances, is result of failed contraception. We think there will probably always be a certain number unplanned pregnancies and that the mother concerned should have the complete choice of either complete abortion, or keeping the baby.'
Opinion:
If a man's family is starving and there is an unattended lorry filled with food outside his house should he steal from the lorry to feed his family, but in doing this break a commandment. Or should he leave the food so his family dies, but he does not break the commandment. One type of thinking would say that the commandments say "thou shalt not steal" so you should not steal. Another type of thinking would ask the question "which would bring about the greater good, him stealing the food or not?", and once they had looked at the individual circumstances they would probably come to the conclusion that the greatest good would come about him stealing the food.
If this way of thinking is then applied to the title, then having one strict law would be like having the commandment and should under no circumstances be broken. Having each request for abortion be judged on its own merits would be the one where someone asks the question "what would bring around the greatest good, this woman having abortion or not?"
So if each request for abortion is going to be judged on its own merits then someone has to make the decision. Who? Has a special court got to be set up in order to decide whether or not people can have abortions? This would not work because by the time the court had made a decision the mother would probably be in labour.
Is it up to her G.P. to decide? This practice already has enough pressures of it's own is it really fair to add another one to it. Also would the decision made by the G.P. be one on sound medical reasons or would it be made on personal views of the G.P. in question. How could the doctor prove that the decision they made had a sound reason. The best judge can be the woman herself who is undergoing through this problem of unplanned pregnancy. If she thinks its religiously wrong then its between her and God but she should have a choice to make a valid decision at the spur of time.
"Euthanasia"
The term 'Euthanasia' comes from the Greek word for 'easy death'. It is the one of the most public policy issues being debated about today. Formally called 'mercy killing', euthanasia is the act of purposely making or helping someone die, instead of allowing nature to take it's course. Basically euthanasia means killing in the name of compassion. Euthanasia, can be 'voluntary', 'passive', 'active', or 'positive',
Voluntary involves a request by the dying patient or their legal representative. Passive involves, doing nothing to prevent death - allowing someone to die.
Positive involves taking deliberate action to cause a death.
Active involves giving a lethal dose of toxicant to cause death.
Euthanasia, at the moment is illegal throughout the world apart from in the State of Oregon in USA, where there is a law specifically allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs for the purpose of euthanasia. In the Netherlands it is practised widely, although, in fact, it remains illegal.
Opposition:
Majority of religions disapprove Euthanasia, Christianity disapproves it according to the belief human being have a special place in God's heart, eyes and in his creation:
"For you created my inmost being; you (God) knit me together in my mother's womb"(psalm 139)
So the alternative to euthanasia in Christianity is 'Hospice movement'. The kind of care hospice give to the patients is very distinctive for they offer tender loving care. The three aims of hospices are:
· To relieve pain.
· To enable patients and families to face up to death.
· To care for emotional needs of the relatives.
A hospice offers care to the patients and their families at the most difficult stages in their lives.
Opinion:
I believe that everyone has the right to choose how he or she live and die. Not everybody will have an easy death. Some terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best of care and the strongest of drugs. Other distressing symptoms, which come with diseases, such as sickness, no mobility, incontinence, breathlessness and fever cannot always be relieved. Pain is not always the issue - quality of life is too.
People should not be left lingering in pain. They should not have to suffer when death is inevitable. People do have the right to commit suicide, although it is a tragic and individual act. However euthanasia is not suicide. It is not a private act, you have the support of family and friends. Euthanasia is about letting a person assist anothers death to save them from long painful deaths.
Many people argue, however, that a person who is terminally ill may make a miraculous recovery - it has happened in the past. Most terminally ill people whose pain and sufferings are relieved by excellent care, given by hospices, hospitals and GPs do not require making decisions about euthanasia. It is only needed for those whose pain is not relived with any form of care or whose bodily disintegration is beyond bearing. Medical advances in recent years have made it possible to keep terminally ill people alive for beyond a length of time, without any hope of recovery or improvement. For this reason the 'living ill' has come into use in the USA as part of the right-to-die principle. Most states now legally allow the making of such wills that instruct, GPs etc., to suspend treatment or refuse life-support measures in hopeless cases.
A pro-longed life is intolerable for people with a condition, which leaves the brain alert but eventually shuts down all bodily functions and skills of communicating. How can people be expected to live like this? For people like this and also people in PVS, (persistent vegetative state) I believe that their legal representatives or close family should have the choice and the trust to let them live a prolonged life or to end their life and let them die with dignity. If people could make the decision themselves then I believe that the option of euthanasia should be open to them.
On the other hand, people believe that no one has the right to play God.
Christians believe that
'We are made in the image of God and therefore human life is God's gift to us and is uniquely precious - we are not the owners of life, but it's minders',
We belong to God because he made us. Many religions follow this belief; so do not believe in suicide and assisted dying.
The opposition to euthanasia does not mean that people insist on medical treatment at all costs. Good medical practise is the alternative to euthanasia. Sometimes a distinction is made between active euthanasia (e.g. Giving a lethal injection) and positive euthanasia (withdrawing treatment). However it is misleading to describe withholding or discontinuing treatment as 'euthanasia' unless it is done with the intention of killing the patient. Sometimes a treatment may be properly withdrawn even with the patient's consent, for example, when it is ineffective, merely prolonging the dying process in a terminally ill patient.
A lot of people believe that if voluntary euthanasia were legalised, society would soon allow involuntary euthanasia. This is based on the idea that if we change the law to allow a person to help someone die, we would not be able to control it. If there was to be a law like this, there would have to be strict rules, which involved the patient having knowledge of the whole process, making sure they are not forced into it and also that they are mentally able to make the decision.
So, should we allow people the choice of when they die? The debate about euthanasia props up all the time, even when it is not publicised, it is still happening secretly all the time. As an issue euthanasia refuses to die. Everyone has their own opinion on it, with many people wanting to see a change in the law.
When finally that person dies, their relatives' good memories may be overrun by the memories of that persons last few days of agony and misery, when all they could do was watch them suffer and loose dignity.
Legally, euthanasia is against the law. Simply put is it murder. The law is established by the religious and moral arguments, remembering that one of the Ten Commandments is
'Thou shalt not kill'.
This issue needs a lot of thought. Many people agree with voluntary euthanasia, many disagree but there is also a large amount of people undecided on the matter. The time will come when the Government and medical services will have to open their eyes to euthanasia, and there will be a lot of debate on the subject. Until then the euthanasia debate will continue to linger, like a terminal disease.