Life Is Sacred - Do you Agree?
Life Is Sacred - Do you Agree?
Abortion and euthanasia are one of the most controversial topics faced by the world today, people hold different views about them some are in favour whilst some are against it. In this coursework I will explain the different views about abortion and euthanasia.
Abortion is the premature termination of the foetus from the womb either done by operation or by medication"
The meaning of abortion is quiet clear from its definition. As far as different views are concerned mostly all sects of Christianity are against abortion, there are however humanitarian groups, which are for it. If we look at what different groups think we will find out that there is equal acceptance and opposition on the concept of abortion. To get opinions on the two topic's I visited a few web sites and I e-mailed different people such as Christianity.net and the national abortion campaign website etc.
The Catholic Church feel that it is up to God if we produce a child or not, so we do not have the right to destroy what God has willed to be created.
Life Campaign activist's believe that since human life, begins at conception i.e. fertilisation, and since all human life should be equally protected by the law from conception to natural death, they feel even if the child is handicapped or at threat from a terminal disease it is still morally wrong to purposely kill it.
According to the group "Life Campaign" after conception a foetus is a human being after all and its rights to life should not be taken away.
The groups in favour of abortion are mostly humanitarian groups the have their own point of view, according to National Abortion Campaign the decision to end pregnancy is so important that it can only be made by the mother and father. Women must always have a choice and never feel under pressure to do what others tell them. Free abortion facilities should be in the NHS for every mother to be who needs them. They feel that the women's decision to get pregnant or to terminate it is a fundamental human right.
National Abortion Campaign thinks that women should have the right to chose if they want a child or not. Other groups feel it is better to abort a pregnancy than to have an unwanted child. Some groups feel there are exceptions in unforeseen circumstances, is result of failed contraception or being raped. They believe 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 to keep the baby in question. They are a few examples of why this is so controversial. Should a ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
National Abortion Campaign thinks that women should have the right to chose if they want a child or not. Other groups feel it is better to abort a pregnancy than to have an unwanted child. Some groups feel there are exceptions in unforeseen circumstances, is result of failed contraception or being raped. They believe 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 to keep the baby in question. They are a few examples of why this is so controversial. Should a man/woman beak a commandment and steal to feed their starving family or not and let them die. One type of thinking would say that the commandments say, "Thou shalt not steal".
If this way of thinking were 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 "would it be better for this woman having the 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. 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 it would be too late.
The best judge can be the mother herself who is undergoing this problem of unplanned pregnancy. If she thinks it's religiously wrong then it's between her and God but she should not have a choice to make a valid decision in a state of panic. What if she is in an abusive relationship and by having an abortion will save the child from the horror of being brought up in that situation. Maybe she has been raped or has become pregnant by not using protection, she could have a large family and another child would mean less money.
In my opinion a woman having an abortion is no easy thing, she will have to live with the decision for the rest of her life "did I do the right thing"? If I was in the position myself I do not know how I would react but there is one other option that could mean the child lives but not with the mother. This is "adoption".
Euthanasia is the termination of a fully-grown human through maybe terminal illness or extreme pain. The term Euthanasia comes from the Greek word for easy death.
Formally called 'mercy killing', euthanasia is the act of purposely making or helping someone die, instead of them dying they way it was supposed to be. Euthanasia can be 'voluntary', 'passive', 'active', or 'positive'. Voluntary is when the patient in question seeks legal help to get permission to die. Positive is when the patient takes action themselves to die.
Active involves giving a lethal dose of toxicant to cause death.
Euthanasia, at the moment is illegal throughout the world apart from one sate in the USA, the State of Oregon. They allow doctors to give out deadly drugs for the purpose of euthanasia. In the Netherlands it is practised a lot, but it is still illegal there.
Opposition: A majority of religions disapprove of Euthanasia; Christianity disapproves of it according to the belief human being had a special place in God
"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 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.
People should not be left in pain for the rest of their life they should not have to suffer when death is inevitable. Euthanasia is about letting an individual assist in another's departure from this world to save them from having a drawn out painful death.
Many people argue, however, that a person who is terminally ill may make a miraculous recovery it very rarely 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 a very long time, without any hope of recovery or improvement.
A pro-longed life is intolerable for people with a condition, which leaves the brain alert but eventually shuts down all 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 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). Sometimes a treatment may be properly withdrawn even with the patient's consent, for example, when it is doesn't work, merely extending the dying process in a terminally ill patient. So, should we allow people the choice of when they die? The debate about euthanasia is present all the time, it is still happening secretly all the time. 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.
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.
My opinion is that the patient in question should have the right to life or death and only they can decide. But if they are mentally disturbed and want to die due to a bad childhood or feel they can't cope with life G.P's should give a report to the court so the person has good reason to die due to terminal illness etc.
JANET CAMPBELL