By Lida Prypchan
I
Death is sometimes a punishment, sometimes an honor, but for some it is a favor. (Seneca)
Here are two examples of euthanasia: 1. A man, bedridden lies in extreme agony. His death is imminent! Is it a human right to opt for a quick, painless death instead of a slow, painful one? 2. A man is kept alive with artificial respirators. The autopsy shows that his brain died several days before his heart. Would it be murder to disconnect the artificial respirators? Is it his life that’s being prolonged here, or is it his death?
The precise moment for reasonable vagueness: Euthanasia, a term coined by English philosopher and politician Francis Bacon (1561-1626), means “death induced painlessly by appropriate methods.” The implication of the term is indeed vague, but reasonably so. Proof of such claim is that euthanasia has also been called mercy killing. This juxtaposition of apparent opposites explains the vagueness.
Killing generally implies “death carried out illegally and violently.” In contrast, mercy implies “tenderness, respect and compassion.” To kill is a crime, but to be merciful is an act of kindness. There appears to be a disturbing and hopeless confrontation between good and evil. Those who support the legalization of euthanasia or mercy killing and those who oppose it, lose days and years arguing about it. Proponents of the procedure say, “For us, the principle of the matter is to induce death with the ‘laudable’ intent of helping an individual avoid the unnecessary suffering resulting from a debilitating disease or escape an artificial respirator or some other apparatus that keeps him alive in this world as a mere vegetable – a living corpse – and doesn’t allow him to derive either pleasure or satisfaction from life. We could summarize our justification in just one word: compassion.” In response, those who oppose the legalization of euthanasia say, “Nothing you’ve just said changes the fact that we think the procedure is a crime and we have come to the conclusion that what you call ‘laudable intent’ is not so laudable that it doesn’t deserve to be called ‘criminal’!”
The two types of mercy killing: In the case of a patient who is medically deemed a vegetable and kept alive artificially by a respirator, is there a moral difference between failing to initiate artificial respiration and stopping it once it has been started? Here we should point out that there are two types of euthanasia, passive and active. The first is when death results from the omission of acts intended to prolong life. The second is the deliberate application of measures intended to produce death.
Why does this issue present so many problems and cause such controversy? Because the most powerful sectors of society are involved in the matter: the Law, the Church, the Health Care System and the people who are close to the person dying, namely, the family members.
A final picture: Here, if I could, I would paint the following picture of a human being on the verge of death. At one corner of the bed I would place the doctor with the member of the family, at another corner a representative of justice, at another corner a priest, and in the remaining corner a serene and immutable lady named Death, who awaits the dying person.
II
Let me not beg for my pain to be eased, but rather that I should have the courage to bear it. Let me not be cowardly, rather, let me feel your hand strengthening me in my failure. (Rabindranath Tagore)
Euthanasia is the voluntary termination of the life of a person who requests it, because he is otherwise obliged to endure extreme suffering caused by debilitating disease.
The Euthanasia Society was founded in England in 1935. Historical facts exist, however, to prove that euthanasia was practiced long before that. In Sparta deformed children used to be sacrificed. The Bretons would kill individuals with incurable diseases and the Hindus drowned them in the Ganges. Plato commended disciplinary procedures for protecting those who were sound of body and mind, believing that those who weren’t should be left to die. We mustn’t forget Hitler either, who established a new type of euthanasia, based on eugenics and economics. On September 1, 1939, Hitler issued a diabolical decree – as was everything emanating from him – in which he exhorted “thorough” medical examination (i.e., of their Hebrew name or appearance), were declared incurable. He thereby wiped millions of innocent lives off the map. This type of euthanasia is an improper application of the procedure, since it presents an unscrupulous regime with an outwardly legal way to dispose of its opponents.
The euthanasia drama: Some people refer to it as “the euthanasia drama” because of cases that have moved public opinion, where the criminal act was perpetrated by relatives or persons close to the patient who, dispensing with ethical dogma and with no intent other than the desire to put an end to the pain of loved ones, performed dreadful acts. Such cases have occurred in other countries, not Venezuela. I will cite just one of them. “In 1950, a twenty-one year old American student shot his father, who was bedridden with an advanced cancer.” In this and other cases, the judges were lenient.
The law and euthanasia: In traditional doctrine, express admissions of the impunity of euthanasia are decidedly in the minority. The majority of penal codes adopt a neutral position regarding this issue, granting special extenuation in cases of mercy killing, without actually legitimizing or justifying the act.
I don’t know if it is fear of the unknown, or fear of revolutionizing what has already been decided and established. What is certain is that all this indecision causes suffering for a human being who sooner or later must die, in the shackles of a terminal illness.
If we are to agree about anything, it is that scientific advances have abruptly and unexpectedly forced man to acknowledge that the central problem of modern medicine is of a moral nature.
What irony! We are victims of that monster known as progress!
III
Never before has man been so alone during his last hours as today, shut away in some room with his pain, his fear of death and his need for human affection. (Kschocke)
The legalization of euthanasia is for the moment unlikely, even impossible, since for each opinion in its favor there are fourteen against.
“Poor unfortunate man!” Those who oppose such legalization raise their voices saying, “Legalized euthanasia isn’t necessary because, with the discovery of sedatives, analgesics, hypnotics and anesthetics, pain and other discomforts can be kept within a tolerable limit. No competent doctor lets his patients die in agony.” Those on the other side reply, “But you forget a very important factor that should be considered – poverty. Don’t you think that there are very few people who can afford the luxury of easing their pain with all the latest medications? – And that very few people are fortunate enough to receive care in hospitals set up to ensure that the terminally ill spend their last days in comfort? Are these hospitals accessible to the general public? And, talking of pain, we’d like to tell you that although we’ve taken great strides toward conquering it, our conquest is nowhere near complete!”
“Poor unfortunate man!” isn’t the title of a popular song. No, it’s an expression that encapsulates a social tragedy. There is not enough room in our hospitals for the current demand upon the Public Health System. Consequently, not everyone can have his medical needs care for. It’s also very sad to see only one seriously ill patient admitted when two arrive at the same time – perhaps the youngest, or maybe the one with the better chance of survival. This is what Dr. Efrain Zukerman calls “social euthanasia”. Father Rivolta, an equally learned and capable man, calls it a social crime or “war on the poor”.
The length of life and God: Some oppose euthanasia because they believe that length of life is predestined by God and we cannot interfere with His decision. I am among those who feel that every opinion deserves respect, whatever it may be. Using this as a starting point and even accepting the principle that our lives are predestined by God, we should also consider that to postpone death by medical or surgical procedures would be to interfere in God’s plan. After all, God gave man free will!
Conclusion: We can draw three conclusions from all of the foregoing: 1. Medical progress has made the act of dying more traumatic for the patient, as well as for his family members and society; 2. Advances in ethical maturity have not kept pace with technical progress; 3. Euthanasia is a subject upon which we should all deeply reflect, since it is an ethical dilemma somewhat ironically, “How hard it is to die with dignity!”
