I am a good practising Christian. “Thou shalt not kill” is the 6th Commandment in the Bible. Nobody has the right over another person’s life, doctors inclusive. The sanctity of life should be preserved. Contrary to every expectation, I support “mercy killing.” I am not a sadist. I am not heartless. I do not enjoy seeing people die. Yet, I believe that euthanasia is mercy killing.
Let me tell you why. My father died in November 2000. He was 85 years old. He went into a coma 48 hours before he died. I knelt and thanked God for taking him away clean. I had a maternal uncle who lived for six months as a vegetable. He had two wives. His wives, his children, and we, his nephews prayed that God should take him away. My uncle was a real hunk of a male chauvinist. A macho man. Proud, tall and elegant. We daily watched with agony as he was shattered to smithereens by stroke. He defecated and urinated involuntarily on his body. The wives and hospital attendants suffered to keep him clean and odourless. I wouldn’t wish my worst enemy the same. If I had the courage, I would have relieved him of those pain-ravaged, disgusting six months.
I know it will sound unchristian, but I shall tell my only son, verbally and in writing, to let me be dispensed of, if I ever become a vegetable and a burden to the family. Yes, I have made up my mind about this. I am resolute about it.
From Medical Science, we know that euthanasia was derived from two Greek words, eu (good) and thanatos (death). When combined, the two words mean “good death.” The new standard Encyclopedia Britannica defines euthanasia as painless, peaceful killing or the deliberate putting to death of a person suffering from a painful and incurable disease – mercy killing.
Last month, Dr. Harold Shipman, otherwise known as “Dr. Death” committed suicide in a British prison. Quite an irony. He was known to have killed 217 with lethal injection under the guise of mercy killing. He was a heartless sonofabitch. What he did was no mercy killing. It was a calculated rip-off, because he forged the wills of some of those he killed, willing their assets to himself.
As I said earlier, euthanasia is an act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from painful and Incurable diseases or incapacitating physical disorders, or allowing them to die, by withdrawing artificial life support measures. Because there is no specific provision for it in most legal systems. It is usually regarded as either suicide – if performed by the patient himself or murder if performed by another.
Physicians may, however, lawfully decide not to prolong life in cases of extreme suffering, and they may administer drugs to relieve pain, even if this shortens the patient’s life.
In the late 20th century, several European countries had special provisions in their criminal codes for lenient sentencing and the consideration of extenuating circumstances in prosecution for euthanasia.
The opinion that euthanasia is morally permissible is traceable to Socrates, Plato and Stoics. It is rejected in traditional Christian belief, chiefly because it is thought to contraven the prohibition of murder in the Ten Commandments.
The organized movement for the legalisation of euthanasia commenced in England in 1935 when C. Killick Millard founded the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society. The society’s bill was defeated in the House of Lords, in 1950. In the United States, the Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938.
The first countries to legalise euthanasia were the Netherlands in 2001, and Belgium in 2002. In 1997, Oregon became the first state in the United States to decriminalize Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). Opponents of the controversial law, however, attempted to have it overturned. In 2009, the Supreme Court of South Korea recognized “a right to die with dignity” in its decision to approve a request by the family of a brain-dead woman, that she be removed from the life support system.
The potential of modern medical practice to prolong life, through technological means, has provoked the question of what courses of action should be available to the physician and family in cases of extreme physical and emotional suffering, especially if the patient is incapable of choice. Passively doing nothing to prolong life, or withdrawing life-support measures, has resulted in criminal charges being brought against physicians. On the other hand, the families of comatose and terminally ill patients have instituted legal action against the Medical Establishment to make them stop the use of extraordinary life support.
There are three types of euthanasia about giving consent for euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia, which is at the patient’s request. Non-voluntary euthanasia, which is without the patient’s consent. Involuntary euthanasia is a case where the patient is not in a position to give consent.
There are procedures for mercy killing. It is not a “one-doctor show.» At least, two to three senior specialist doctors must corroborate one doctor’s finding. Also consent from the immediate guardian of the patient must be obtained before contemplating mercy killing.
To kill or not to kill. Miracles do happen, where a person given up for dead could suddenly recover. Would this be enough to leave our relatives, who are terminally ill, in agonising perpetual pain and almost a walking corpse to continue to wallow in an irredeemable vegetative state?
On the other hand, would we be termed murderers, for relieving the suffering of a terminally ill patient, by assisting him to find rest, by assisting him to die? This looks like a Catch-22 situation. Heads they win. Tails we lose. God have mercy. Always be medically guided.
Please follow me on Twitter @_DRSUN.