Immoral or Human Right?
Recent debates over active euthanasia, "killing" a terminally
ill patient, in Holland, has risen the question whether euthanasia
is immoral or a simple human right. Doctors seem to have no doubt.
They made an oath.
The definition of Euthanasia depends on whether it is active
or passive. Active Euthanasia i only allowed in Holland, and it
means that the doctor takes direct measures to put a patient to
sleep, whereas passive Euthanasia only involves stopping pill
consumption, or stopping treatment. In England, only passive
Euthanasia is allowed.
Euthanasia touches some of the deepest feelings in human
beings. It is the power over life and death, and responsibilities
no one wishes to take, have to be taken. This, of cause, leads to
the ultimatum, that it is the patients own choice. But can we allow
some one to take their own lives? Doesn\'t this mean that everyone
else around the patient have failed, that more could have been
done? From the patients point of view, a lot of arguments talk in
favor of euthanasia. For one, no body wants to be a burden. If a
person has had a car accident which paralyses him from neck and
down, and is doomed to sit in a wheelchair for the rest of his
life, he knows that he will be 100% dependant on the ones that care
for him, his lived ones, forever. It can also be mentioned that the
life quality of a terminally ill patient, gets reduced a lot. Never
being able to walk again, never being able to talk to your children
again, never being able to go shopping, swimming, playing, driving
etc. must be terrible for anyone. The whole situation only gets
worse, if the patient himself, can see that his condition is
worsening, and only time keeps his thoughts clear. A third very
important point, is pain. If people see a deer, which had been hit
by a car, and is in terrible pain, they will kill it, out of pitty.
Why shouldn\'t the same be allowed with humans, if pain reaches a
level, where it is unbearable? For these people, who do not have
the choice of active euthanasia, self-starvation is the only
The doctors view on euthanasia, seems to be overall different.
First of all, they have taken their wove, always to assist patients
in prolonging their lives, and Euthanasia completely contradicts
this. Their approach is "Where there is life, there is hope", so
even a person, who has 20 tubes stuck in them, feeding them,
breathing for them, there is still life, and who knows? Maybe the
future will bring the cure?
Euthanasia does mean "Good death", but there can still be no
conclusion to a question, whether Euthanasia should be accepted or
not. Psychologists, philosophers, doctors and everybody else, will
consider this question for all time. My opinion is, that anyone who
is terminally ill, should have the choice, but to all rules there
are exceptions, and to something as serious as this, there
shouldn\'t be.

There are at least two forms of suicide. One is \'emotional suicide\', or irrational self-murder in all of it complexities and sadness. Let me emphasis at once that my view of this tragic form of self-destruction is the same as that of the suicide intervention movement and the rest of society, which is to prevent it wherever possible. I do not support any form of suicide for mental health or emotional reasons.
But I do say that there is a second form of suicide -- justifiable suicide, that is, rational and planned self-deliverance from a painful and hopeless disease which will shortly end in death. I don\'t think the word \'suicide\' sits well in this context but we are stuck with it. Many have tried to popularize the term \'self-deliverance\' but it is an uphill battle because the news media is in love with the words \'assisted suicide\'. Also, we have to face the fact that the law calls all forms of self-destruction \'suicide.\'
Let me point out here for those who might not know it that suicide is no longer a crime anywhere in the English-speaking world. (It used to be, and was punishable by giving all the dead person\'s money and goods to the government.) Attempted suicide is no longer a crime, although under health laws a person can in most states be forcibly placed in a psychiatric hospital for three days for evaluation.
But giving assistance in suicide remains a crime, except