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 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.
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 another’s 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.
