Euthanasia is religious, medically, and legally wrong. It is defined as a painless killing, especially to end a painful and incurable disease; mercy killing.”
The righteousness of this act is being debated in several countries throughout the world, and Canada is no exception. Euthanasia must not be accepted for religious, legal, and medical reasons as alternatives to such a dramatic end. To begin, the law, both civil and religious, forbids killing. Individuals are prosecuted in courts of law for committing murder. An example of this is the case of Robert Latimer. Although he claimed to have mercifully ended the life of his daughter who suffered from an extreme case of cerebral palsy, he was convicted of second-degree murder.
The courts were obliged to find him guilty as he broke the law by taking the life of another human being. Robert Latimer took it upon himself to decide that his daughter would never lead a full life. Tracy Latimer was never given an opportunity for success, as her life was taken. A not guilty verdict would have told people that parents of disabled children can perform voluntary euthanasia on their children. In the United States, euthanasia was voted on for the first time in the state of Washington.
Although polls before the vote revealed strong support for it, the ballot was defeated by fifty-four to forty-six percent, and euthanasia remains illegal in North America. In addition to violating civil law, euthanasia also contradicts the laws of many religions of the world. It is God who controls life and death. Man will take this responsibility if euthanasia is permitted. It is stated in the Ten Commandments, Do not commit murder.” Murder can take many forms, one of which is suicide, the taking of one’s own life.
This is forbidden by the Christian religion. There is a picture on my grandmother’s wall which states that human life is not merely the possession of the one who bears it. It is an inherited gift, and as such, has meaning not only for oneself but for those who bestowed it, those who have shared it, and those who will follow.” This unselfish Christian attitude states that life not only belongs to the one who leads it, but also to the friends and family of the person, both past, present, and future. Therefore, euthanasia does not serve a purpose in a society where murder is wrong, both legally and religiously.
In addition, if active euthanasia is legalized, it will allow for the practice of involuntary euthanasia. Currently, there is much research being done regarding the need for euthanasia and its effects. However, over time, the care and caution exercised in making decisions as to who should receive euthanasia may become sloppy. According to Daniel Callaham, the director of Hastings House, a medical ethics center in New York, The slippery slope argument against euthanasia has always been that once you start voluntary euthanasia, you are likely to gravitate towards involuntary euthanasia. It starts in the hands of a few very cautious, responsible people, but when it becomes a mass phenomenon, don’t count on the same high standards.”
In the Netherlands, where active euthanasia is allowed, this situation is beginning to arise. One third of the five thousand patients who receive lethal amounts of drugs from their doctors do not give their consent. Five percent only do so out of unbearable pain, and one third because of a fear of becoming dependent on others. Patients will begin to look at their illness and its effects on their families in assisted dying, with it being offered most readily to those least able to pay for medical care. This must not take place as it will reduce the lifespans of an increasingly large group of people in society: the elderly. It will also fill their remaining days with worry over the termination of their own lives, for reasons other than lost hope and unbelievable pain. Therefore, euthanasia will lead to the unnecessary termination of many lives.
Also, euthanasia contradicts the point of medicine. Doctors cannot be expected to heal as well as kill. The purpose of medicine is to get rid of suffering and death. Euthanasia is in contrast to this purpose.
Overtime, euthanasia would eventually corrupt the medical system. It could be used as an excuse for malpractice. A false diagnosis or surgical procedure on a patient who had been suffering or near death for quite some time could be covered up by claims that the patient wished to die in the first place. This would avoid an investigation or a rise in malpractice insurance for the doctor. Also, the field of disease cure research would suffer. In some cases, finding cures and new treatments would be hindered because its victims will be killed.
