The picture below shows the statics that I have found from http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k7/veteransDual/ veteransDual.htm about the Serious Psychological Distress (SPD), Substance Use Disorder (SUD), and Co-Occurring SPD and SUD in the Past Year among Veterans, by Age: 2004 to 2006. From 2004 to 2006 indicate that an annual average of 7.0 percent of veterans aged 18 or older (an estimated 1.8 million persons annually) experienced SPD in the past year in the United Sates alone.
Based on the results mentioned above, I believe that physical wars are not to be done. They caused physiological disorders to almost everyone involved. Not including the ones that also got physically disabled because of it. People have different perspective at how to handle things but I believe their memory about wars will never disappear naturally. It may fades but I believe that those images of the war especially if they saw and experience people who just a while ago talk to them become corps in a split seconds. That is why I don’t think it is okay to kill in wars. I also believe that this effect doesn’t only happen in wars. Traumatic experiences may also happen between conflicts, or killing that happen in a small neighborhood. Most importantly, I don’t think violent wars/conflicts should happen. It is best to avoid conflicts. Rather than wars and conflicts using violence and brutality, it is better to find another way to solve the problems, such as the non-violent resistance being introduced by Gandhi.
The central concept of Gandhi’s philosophy is satyagraha, which means following the Truth in a non-violent way. It is sometimes translated as non-violent resistance or as passive resistance. It means that people try to make change happen without using violence. For example, they could resist a law by not cooperating with it or by actively breaking it. They do not, however, fight or resist violently when police or soldiers try to arrest them or attack them. They simply do what they think is right and accept the consequences of their actions. This kind of resistance takes much courage and self-control.
Euthanasia
Known as a way to deliberately kill a person for the benefit of that person, euthanasia, in most cases is carried out because the person who is dying asks for it, or when they are being decided to do it because they are unable to make the decision themselves.
Even though there are many issues that brings controversy about euthanasia, such as religious believe that refers to suffering as something good, like what Pope John Paul II has written; "It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls.” and also legislation issues that still indicate euthanasia as killing someone, personally, in my point of view, euthanasia is the right thing to do. Especially in the circumstances where people are having severe or terminal illness. I believe that people should have the right to die painlessly rather than suffering from severe pain.
Either than helping the one suffering, euthanasia can also alleviate the physiological and emotional burden of the patient’s relatives and families. Even though they can be considered ‘killing someone’, they will not have the mental burden of actually killing someone but relieving the person’s illness. I personally had experienced something really similar to this, when my grandfather was passively euthanized. Even though his body is working quite well, considering he is an 88 years old, his brain was speaking otherwise. He had a brain damage and would not be able to function well even when he pass the critical situation then. By that time he had been in the hospital for more than 2 months.
My mom and her siblings decided to let him go by not treating him with injection that will pump his heart when he gets critical. Even though this is considered as ‘killing’, there was no guilt. Instead my mom and her siblings felt relieved because their father is not suffering anymore. In my point of view, their mental burdens were much worse when they saw my grandfather was in the hospital critically sick.
However there are cases of euthanasia called the ‘involuntary euthanasia’ that I did not agree on. Involuntary euthanasia is when the person who dies chooses life and is killed anyway. I believe that if there is still an option to life consciously, either normally or not and the person is willing to do so, it is not the rights of the people to decide since it is the person’s life.
Euthanasia, up until now is still illegal in most countries. However doctors still sometimes chooses to do so (with the consent of the family). In Holland euthanasia has been legal since 2001. Under Dutch law, doctors can administer a lethal dose of muscle relaxants and sedatives to terminally ill patients at a patient's request.
“Britain's religious leaders claim that one in every 32 deaths in the Netherlands is a result of legal or illegal euthanasia.”
Even though I accepted most of the euthanasia method, I don’t think it is good to overdo it. From the static I obtained from BBC website mentioned above, it is quite clear that people in country that legalized euthanasia are now depending on that method more than ever. I think the medical personnel there should increase their standards of allowing euthanasia and decrease the span of selection to legalize euthanasia. However euthanasia is still appropriate for those with terminal illness and is acceptable to do.
Summary
In my personal opinion, killing is inhumanely a wrong thing to do. Even though the golden rule, the bible, say are not to kill, in cases where there are no other way, such as when someone threaten to kill us and the only way to stop him is to hit him in the head and he died. However it is best to restrain conflicts and avoid killing since they can cause physiological trauma to the personnel.
There are also acceptable cases like euthanasia to alleviate the pain of the person. I agree to this concept very much if there are almost no hope for the person to life like, for example, a brain defect. However of course if the person is conscious and don’t agree, others should not force the method. On the other hand, people who want to have euthanasia should also be restrained by doctors if there might be a way to solve the problem.
Therefore, in my opinion, it is acceptable to kill someone when they are a pinch and their life are at stake or when a sick person cannot function at all (without anything left to be done and when every other way have been done).
Bibliography:
American Red Cross’s International Services “Summary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Additional Protocols” Fact Sheet () [28 Mar 2009]
McReynolds, D. “The Problem of dealing with evil; There is no Ideology without holes” Philosophy of Nonviolence: Introduction () [29 Mar 2009]
McReynolds, D. “The uniqueness of being” Philosophy of Nonviolence: The Inevitability of Conflict () [29 Mar 2009]
Duffy C. and Deryn P. Verity “Expressions of Peace” PEACE EDUCATION () [29 Mar 2009]
Maj Martin L. Fracker (BA, Seattle Pacific University; MS, Western Washington University; PhD, University of Illinois) “PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTSOF AERIALBOMBARDMENT” () [30 Mar 2009]
SAMHASA® “Serious Psychological Distress and Substance Use Disorder among Veterans” Federal Government of USA’s lead agency of the Department of Health and Human Services () [30 Mar 2009]
Bureau of Democracy “IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE COVENANT” Report Concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) () [31 Mar 2009]
BBC home “Euthanasia in other countries” Religion & Ethics –Ethical issues () [31 Mar 2009]