|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Vol 7 Edition 1 Euthanasia is NOT Merciful
"Society's prohibition of intentional killing... is the cornerstone of law and of social relationships. It protects each one of us impartially, embodying the belief that all are equal. We do not wish that protection to be diminished... there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia." British House of Lords The questions of abortion and euthanasia must be answered from an ethical standpoint. Our Creator God has determined the number of our days, He has created us in His image and He has declared human life precious. We therefore must maintain that there are no conditions whatsoever under which it is ever justifiable to deliberately take an innocent human life. Once it has been decided that there are some conditions where it is possible to legally take innocent human life, then murder becomes a slippery slope as seen in other countries around the world. For example Nazi Germany. If we do not have an absolute standard, then who determines the value or worth of a human being? The individual? The family? Or a court of law? In the realm of individual medicine can a government lay down laws that will cover every situation and every "grey area"? In South Africa over the past few years, there have been moves to change several laws which protected the innocent from exploitation and abuse. Most notably the laws legalising pornography and abortion. In each case, the government and the media have proudly announced that the proposed law is one of the most liberal and progressive laws in the world. That could also be said of the South African Draft Bill on euthanasia. It is even more extreme than the law in the Netherlands, Australia and the USA. However, is more liberal necess-arily right? It could have been said that South Africa had the most liberal laws on separate development in the world, protecting the rights of one group while discriminating against the rights of another group. But it was morally wrong. The legalisation of abortion protects the "rights" of the mother to have "control of her body" while discriminating against her baby's right to life. The legalisation of euthanasia aims to protect the rights of the young and healthy while discriminating against the vulnerable members of our society, specifically the aged, sick and lonely. Euthanasia is morally wrong. The
Hospice Association of Southern Africa made this point in its submission
to Parliament: After
deliberating on this subject the British House of Lords observed in
their final report: "In the Western world aiding, abetting and assisting suicide is generally punishable," admits the South African Law Report, released earlier this year. The British Suicide Act, 1961, allows an imprisonment up to fourteen years. The Canadian Penal Code echoes this and reaffirms it in a report by the Law Reform Commission of Canada in 1983 which refused to recommend the decriminalisation of the aiding of suicide. In Australia the Criminal code states that it is a crime to aid another in committing suicide. This again was confirmed as recently as 1991 in a report by the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. The Netherlands also has an express prohibition against assisted suicide on its lawbooks. The danger of voluntary euthanasia extending to involuntary euthanasia is repeatedly mentioned in the court cases cited in the South African report. For this very reason, the Australian and American laws were overturned by higher courts. The US Supreme Court decided unanimously on June 26, 1997 that state governments have the right to outlaw doctor-assisted suicide. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said: "The difficulty in defining terminal illness and the risk that a dying patient's request for assistance in ending his or her life might not be truly voluntary, justifies the prohibitions on assisted suicide we uphold here." Of the 50 states, only Oregon has allowed physician-assisted suicides, and that law has been put on hold because of a court challenge. One wonders what the real motivation for a bill of this nature is in South Africa. This Draft Bill reminds one of Nazi Germany. Immediately after war was declared in 1939, Adolf Hitler held an important conference with key legal and medical officials of the Reich government. Hitler had decided that in view of Germany's desperate need for hospital beds to accommodate war casualties, an euthanasia programme must be undertaken. Many thousands, over the next five years were killed in this way. After the war, medical doctors and others who initiated and took part in this programme, were prosecuted and tried before Allied military tribunals, and a number of the more prominent figures were hanged for their complicity in these crimes of murder. Only 50 years ago, ordinary citizens in the civilised world were deeply horrified by the idea that any government could sponsor such ruthless, immoral policies as legalised euthanasia. Yet today, our government is promoting what is in effect the euthanasia policies of Adolf Hitler! This raises the question: What has prompted the proposal of this Draft Bill? The pending AIDS endemic with all its concurrent problems? The overpopulation theory? The crisis in our health care and the promises made by the State which it cannot financially fulfil? Surely our Government with its emphasis on human rights should strengthen the rights of the vulnerable in our society - their right to be protected from overt and covert pressure to end their own lives. Their right to live the last days of their lives with love and care from their families and caregivers, without the spectre of euthanasia looming over them, casting a shadow of fear and suspicion over the last part of their lives. 'LIVING
WILLS' OR ADVANCE DIRECTIVES Perhaps
an example will help to explain. This example was given by Dr Foye in
testimony before a US Senate Committee on Ageing: The central question as to whether the death of the patient can be brought about legally may be simply answered. If the patient is not guilty of a crime worthy of death, he should not be killed. His proxy may, however, refuse medical treatment on his behalf so that while he is given all the life he is entitled to, his act of dying will not be prolonged. 'Medical treatment' should not include life's essentials: air, water and food. As long as life-sustaining treatment is defined to exclude artificial feeding (by nasogastric tube, gastrostomy or intravenous therapy) we would support the viewpoint that it can be morally acceptable to withdraw medical treatment under specific circumstances and subject to certain conditions. However, death from thirst or starvation cannot be defined as a death from existing natural causes. In
a case where an agent has not been appointed by the patient, families
should have the authority to make the best possible decisions in the
interests of the loved ones at that particular time. However, if Advance Directives are legalised then they should be surrounded with all possible safeguards. These include: The document should be drafted by an attorney. It should lapse automatically after five years (as in California ). It should be signed by two independent witnesses who should not be the patient's doctor, an employee of his doctor, not related to the patient and not (to the best of the witness' knowledge) a beneficiary in his will. As in the state of Victoria, Australia, the Advance Directive should relate to a current condition about which the patient is sufficiently informed regarding the nature of that condition, relevant treatment and expected prognosis and they should be limited to cases of 'last illness' as discussed in the Saskatchewan Commission. The
warnings given by the drafters of the Western Australian Law Reform
Commission , the Alberta Law Reform Institute , and the Manitoba Law
Reform Commission need to be heeded. We totally reject the legalisation of active voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. In a very recent unanimous US Supreme Court decision, the Court has upheld the banning of physician-assisted suicide. Chief Justice William Rehnquist declared: "Legal physician-assisted suicide could make it more difficult for the state to protect depressed or mentally ill persons or those who are suffering from untreated pain from suicidal impulses... The state also has an interest in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession." The legalisation of euthanasia most certainly conflicts with the right to life clause in the Constitution. As Christians we maintain that human life is precious and created in the image of God. Therefore we reject voluntary and involuntary active euthanasia considering it murder. We also reject passive euthanasia where it involves the withdrawal of air, food and water. Those of us who are medical doctors, nurses, pharmacists or medical orderlies find it particularly objectionable that attempts are being made to compromise our healing profession by involving us in the murder of innocent people. In rejecting Voluntary Active Euthanasia (physician-assisted suicide) the American Medical Association stated: "physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer." Instead of removing suffering by killing the sufferer, we should seek to relieve the sufferer of his distressing symptoms. Dr. Richard Lamberton of Hospice declared:"Once a patient feels welcome and not a burden to others, once his pain is controlled and other symptoms have been at least reduced to manageable proportions, then the cry for euthanasia disappears. It is not that the question of euthanasia is right or wrong, desirable or repugnant, practical or unworkable. It is just that it is irrelevant. Proper care is the alternative to it, and can be made universally available as soon as there is adequate instruction of medical students in a teaching hospital. If we fail in this duty to care, let us not turn to the politicians asking them to extricate us from this mess." August 1997 by Miriam Cain THE
BIBLICAL BASE FOR OPPOSING EUTHANASIA
As
Christians, it is vital to know what the Bible has to say about euthanasia
and how we can help those who are desperate enough to seek it. Although
it is a topic that creates a great deal of emotional debate, euthanasia,
like suicide, is never the right way. We have been created in the image
of God and our bodies do not belong to ourselves but to God. Therefore
human life is sacred. So we are not to kill but to care! 1.
Report of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics of the British
House of Lords, published on 31 January 1994, par 236-239 as reported
in the SA Law Commission Report p37-28.
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright
© 2003 Africa Christian Action. All rights reserved
Contact the webmaster for comments and questions about this site |