The Road Less Traveled author M. Scott Peck, MD wrote about euthanasia in his book Denial of the Soul: Spiritual and Medical Perspectives on Euthanasia and Mortality. This is basically his stand: Euthanasia should only be considered when the physical pain accompanying a terminal illness can no longer be managed with painkillers. Peck claims that with the discovery of morphine, relatively few cases now fall under this category. What he doesn’t condone is euthanasia on a dying person who can no longer endure the psychological pain such as the humiliation of a tough chairman/CEO of a company who, because of Alzheimer’s or some other debilitating disease, is slowly losing control over his own mind and bowel movement. Peck explains that as long as the physical pain is properly managed (he even criticizes the doctors who lower the dose lest the dying patient overdose on morphine), the psychological pain is good for the growth of the soul.
And that’s where Peck’s views will have to be set aside because this is a freethought site and the existence of the soul is being met with healthy skepticism here. For those who do not believe in souls, the pointless psychological suffering of a terminally ill patient can almost be as hard to bear as physical pain, hence, euthanasia would be a logical choice.
I guess pain is a great stimulant while we are still physically and mentally active; pain encourages us to grow, to learn, to become better in whatever it is that we do. But when we stop being truly alive and start rotting in mind and/or body, pain ceases to be of any use to us. An ounce of humiliation might be a good thing for an arrogant CEO because it could make him become a better boss, but if this CEO can no longer do his job because of some untreatable disease, humiliation and humility will serve him no purpose.
In the wild, death often comes quickly. When an animal is sick or getting a little too old to catch up with the herd, it is immediately taken down by predators. Some are lucky enough to be attacked by lions because a single bite to the neck will sever the spine in two places, resulting in instant death. Others are unfortunate to be chased by a pack of African wild dogs because they are not as efficient in killing as lions. Nevertheless, no one grows old and decrepit in the wild.
Being on top of the food chain with only a few microscopic bugs to worry about, humans tend to hold on to something inevitably fleeting, stubbornly grasping at the vestiges of a life that will never grow back. Patients in an irreversible vegetative state are sometimes put on life support for as long as financially possible, draining the relatives’ funds by virtue of guilt, compassion, and “love.” But these good intentions are often misplaced, prolonging unnecessary suffering. A few may eventually realize and accept that, but sometimes just pulling the plug is not enough to prevent any more suffering. And sometimes even morphine is no longer effective in alleviating the pain.
The Catholic Church, of course, is strongly opposed to euthanasia. Let’s take a look at what some of their bishops have to say:
Does this mean that suffering – including intense, needless suffering – is the foundation of social and civil life?
“No person has the right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person. In euthanasia, the sick or elderly are killed by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion or misguided mercy. True compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person.” – Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron
Now how can ending someone’s suffering be intrinsically evil? Is compassion defined as the refusal to render rest and relief from excruciating pain with the assumption that God wants his beloved creatures to suffer a bit much longer before finally taking them into his loving arms?
Perhaps we take for granted or simply refuse to think of the fact that dying is not fun. And by ‘dying’ I don’t mean that exact instant when we take our last breath. I’m talking about the last few moments – which could be as “short” as minutes or as long as days – when you know you’re going to die because of the pain and suffering associated with a deadly disease. As Dr. House once described to a patient, “Your lungs slowly fill with fluid. You gasp to catch every breath but never can. Every breath is petrifying. It’ll be slow, painful; torturous.”
But an overdose of morphine can end all that. It will not only quicken the dying process – it will actually make the transition smoother and relatively pain-free. The patient will at first probably get high, then fall into a deep sleep, then finally die peacefully. How bad can that be?
Hello Doc nice article. Well i guess death is a matter of perspective. It depends on one's culture isn't? Some dread death while others welcome its coming.
taking any religious context out of the discussion, what remains still is the question of whether giving other people the right to take another person's life is right or wrong.
Your church didn't seem to have any problems with doing that in the past. Ask Torquemada.
If you take another's life with the intent to harm, then yes, it is wrong. But to end it when the dying person his/herself wants to, with valid reasons as stated above (physical pain from a terminal illness, at the bad end of an incurable debilitating disease), I don't see why not. Personally, if I do get a death sentence like that, I wouldn't want to leave my family poor and buried in debt when I die.
That was the case with my uncle when he passed away from lung cancer. He specifically asked that he stop taking the chemotherapy on account of the massive costs it had to his family, and on account that he was going to die either way, according to the doctor's prognosis.
That's why I'd prefer to look at euthanasia in a case-to-case basis – I think anybody who makes sweeping generalizations about the morality of the person's involved without reading the situation is a bloody fool, and should be thrown out of the hospital post-haste.
in this case, it is not euthanasia as your uncle is given the option of dying naturally, of dying without excessive medication all under the premise that it is hopeless and so costly for the family to continue the chemo to your uncle..
even the predominantly religion in the PH, the Catholic, allows this as stated in its catechism…
AS far as my Xtian ethics professor is concerned, euthanasia is acceptable to catholic church for as long it is a passive one, and not the other way around. for the church, an active euthanasia is considered a murder when there is an intent of taking one's life regardless of your cause. pulling a plug is a "big no" even when the patient is begging for it by reason of severe pain, fading sanity, etc. on the other hand, letting someone die in a natural process without his medication is called a passive euthanasia. i think the latter can take some painkiller to manage his suffering.. although overdosing him with morphin is not allowed. Anyway, be it active or passive, i think euthanasia is still humane on certain grounds especially when the intent is granting such request of the dying person.
I think pulling the plug is a form of passive euthanasia – not active – because you simply stopped giving medical support to the patient.
i agree. it so happens that my xtian ethics professor is allergic to the phrase "pulling the plug" since it connotes a negative action. but i guess from what i've understood from him, which i failed to reiterate on my previous comment, pulling the plug is a big "no" when it will cause the patient an immediate death.. and not on certain cases like withholding it plus his meds so he can die naturally. as implied in my earlier statement, letting someone die in a natural process without his medication is called a passive euthanasia, means withholding the same thing just like you stated in your reply. however, whether it is active or passive, it is immaterial for me since i consider mercy-killing as humane on certain grounds.
Life is about quality, not quantity..
When there is no more quality, that is the time to end life.
This is my specialty, BTW..I have actually prescribed morphine or its derivatives to dying patients..it is the best medication to decrease preload and afterload – in simple terms, ease breathing, decrease venous capacitance, thereby providing comfort…and may hasten death.
I have also attended some seminars about its leaglity..in fact, you cannot get sued for prescribing such, and the family will thank you for it.
Euthanasia is a choice, some states have legalized it already like Oregon.
As long as the person or the involved, is of sound mind, and or the family have chosen to end the suffering of a loved one, I have no qualms in prescribing morphine. Some doctors and nurses are too afraid of morphine because of ignorance.
I have a living will, health care proxy, and Durable power of attorney since 2000 (when my father in law died..Everyone is recommended to have them, so when the inevitable comes, you are ready with all your paperwork..
Everybody wants to die a sudden death if given a choice..but it does not always happen that way..75% of people will die with chronic illness and suffer before dying.
With the advent of cutting edge technology, we can choose our life-span granting we do not die in an accident or some unforeseeable incidents.
Personally, I do not want to be prolonged if there is no more quality of life..what is the use of breathing if your mind is no longer intact or your mental faculties devoid of reason and your body rotting while alive? There is no more benefit of being alive.
My oldest patient is now 111 years old..but she is in vegetative state which is comparable to 'dead body". The family has agreed not to resusciate her and just be on palliative care..to my amazement, she is still alive to this day even after a pathological fracture..soon her body will give way..she is on borrowed time only…but who knows..fortunately, she looks quite comfortable..
you finally finished this piece!Saw this in the writers forum earlier.Anyway,that's why people should write a "living will" or one where they give instructions to someone on what to do in such cases,such as having a "Do not resuscitate" guideline. The question on euthanasia only comes to mind because advances in medicine has made it possible to prolong life,sometimes in cases where it should not even be anymore.In the long run,its all about how prepared you are to confront the idea of your death, & taking matters into your own hands to prepare for any eventuality.
Yes, I finally finished it. For a long time I was stuck in the middle of the article because I ran out of things to say. Good thing I finally found inspiration in the CBCP website <a href="http://(http://cbcpnews.com)” target=”_blank”>(http://cbcpnews.com). 🙂