The Language of Euthanasia
Our society is filled with controversial issues. Abortion, prostitution and euthanasia are all issues which lead to many heated debates in everyday conversation. An individual’s stance on these topics is often a direct correlate of society’s current environment as well as the individual’s own value system. These values are often based upon religion, upbringing, and one’s 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. It’s 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.
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 society’s 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. It’s 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 isn’t. One way to distinguish what is and isn’t 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 killing. 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.
