Euthanasia
Saturday, January 01, 2000
When the emotion dies down, the logic remains. I can well understand the strong feelings of those who have seen loved ones slowly decay in hospital beds and are crying out for “death with dignity”.
But letting doctors actively end life is a serious change of rules and we must think it through coolly. It is prudent to minimise the pressure for euthanasia before contemplating its introduction.
Some of the “indignity” which is all too real is the result of over-eager medical intervention such as eleventh hour amputations and unwanted external life support. We must publicly defend the right of the patient to refuse medical treatment.
Also, palliative carers should be freed to dispense illegal drugs for the terminally ill. Alleviation is an honourable human service and the issue of addiction is only relevant for those who have a future.
My opposition to euthanasia is not based on religion. I pass no public judgement on suicide. My concern is convenience killing. Once a law is passed, all it will take to get rid of an alleged invalid is to have the correct forms filled in – the key witness will be dead.
There are innocent motives for wishing to speed another’s death. But many of us have ulterior motives too – financial, emotional, etc. Some doctors are gullible, some corruptible. Carers for the aged face business pressures.
Most people are not moral philosophers. If you change the principles of the law, you will consequently change the way people think. A right to life exists only if it is upheld.
Convenience will automatically prevail where morals don’t. Humans become closer to farm animals, expendable. We lose our special status. Without a revered right to life, membership in society becomes insecure.
With rubbery rules covering life and death, cunning replaces dignity, and dog eats dog.
Philip O'Carroll