Assisted Death — An Individual
Liberty Or A Right of the State
YOWUSA.COM, 01-August-01
Jacco van der Worp
…Continued
Taking the Final Step
Once the final decision has been made, how is it carried out? Does the patient have the final say in this too or is that to be decided by the State, which would again remove the freedom of that choice?
Although there are countless methods of committing suicide, most of them are not humane. While a patient may consider jumping off of a bridge or in
front of a train to be quick and painless, survivors and witnesses to these acts would be severely traumatized by the experience. Other, less intrusive
methods are needed to end a life without causing too great a trauma to others.
Another premise is that it should not cause pain in any case. There must be no risk of agony for the patient in case things do not go as planned.
Therefore, the method needs to be aimed at reducing the pain to zero and then take it on further until death sets in.
Much careful thought has been put into developing various methods of assisted suicide. One widely used method involves lethal combinations of
drugs, such as those used in executions performed in the United States by lethal injection.
Furthermore, there are less intrusive methods. For instance the doctor may switch off life-support for a comatose patient and let nature take its course.
However, this choice is only available to patients who completed a "last will and testament" or a "living trust" that specifically provides for the possibility
of a similar situation without hope of recovery.
 In the United States, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a pioneer in the field of human euthanasia, performed valuable, groundbreaking, though illegal, work in this area.
Kevorkian, designed what are now called ‘death machines', allowing the patient who wanted to end his own life, to do so entirely by himself, thus emphasizing the free choice aspect of the matter.
The Threshold of Life: Who Decides
So far, we have covered the subject of an assisted death for someone suffering without any prospect of improvement. That person however still has
the final say over his own fate. His no is a final no and it cannot be overruled. What if the patient is a person too young to indicate any willingness to die? What about the issue of abortion?
This is not an opinion for or against abortion. This is an attempt of looking at the problem in a reasonable, humane and objective way for the victim, and
his or her family. Readers are encouraged to decide for themselves whether they are for or against the possibilities presented. The honest consideration of new views can only make one's view more balanced.
Do We Take a Life or Do We Save One?
 A question dividing the people of the
world to the core is the question if any parents-to-be should be given the right to end the growth of their baby, thus effectively killing it. Is this murder or not?
Because it touches religion as well as human rights of both mother and child, it is one of the most delicate problems to handle. Who should have the power to decide?
In nations allowing abortion, the circumstances under which it may be performed are the source of heated debate.
- When, during the course of a normal pregnancy, should it be permitted?
- Should it be allowed only in the first trimester or even into the second?
- When is it no longer a ‘fruit' or ‘embryo?'
- When is it a viable person?
- Once heartbeat is detected, should abortion be disallowed or is brain activity regarded as the true beginning of life?
Furthermore, should there be responses to outside stimuli, like sound and light? What is a valid reason to terminate a pregnancy and what is plain
murder? The fact remains standing that the decision to abort should never be taken lightly, as the following examples may show.
Suppose a mother finds out when 10 weeks into
pregnancy that her child may be born severely handicapped due to an almost complete lack of spinal tissue (‘open back')? The baby will most likely will live its entire, extremely short lifespan in
agonizing pain?
Wouldn't it be humane to terminate the pregnancy immediately rather than allowing the baby to be born alive? Letting the baby die peacefully, without pain, could well be most humane to both baby and
parents, but there is no way of assuring that. The decision is gut-wrenching at best and may best be guided by the love for life and quality of life.
In some cases, a full-term pregnancy may endanger the life of the mother. What to do if a choice HAS to be made between two lives? The decision is heartbreaking,
whichever point of view is taken. Should the rights of the mother be subjected to that of the unborn child or not? If there would not be, for some
reason, a father to take care of the child if the mother dies, is it humane to let the child come into this world and lose its parents right at the start of life?
In nature, in the animal kingdom, its chances would be zero!
The examples above, though they are few, involve moral dilemmas so deep that even institutions like the great world religions do not always readily have
answers. Even if they appear outwardly to have an answer (rejection, most of the time), inwardly, they continue to be deeply divided on the issue
The Risks
Regardless of the grounds for termination of pregnancy, there will always be a risk to the mother as well, simply because abortion is an invasive
procedure. An abortion may permanently damage or end her possibilities of ever becoming pregnant again. If things were to go dramatically wrong it
could jeopardize her life or even kill her during the procedure. Considering these risks, terminating a pregnancy is never an easy decision.
The methods used to abort a pregnancy are too graphic to describe in much detail here. Without exception they are both physically and mentally very
straining to the woman undergoing them and may pose a serious health risk to her as well.
Part 2: A (relatively) Unstable Time
Changing the Setting: Children of War
So far, this article has assumed the luxury of a structured and open debate, resulting in a balanced view of the matter. This may not always be the case,
though. How may this issue be addressed during a large multi-national ethnic conflict, such as we continue to see in the Balkans?
 Countless women have been raped in that war, but not in
that war alone. In wars all over the world, women fall victim to rape. Furthermore, in a war situation birth control of any kind is not likely to be available, so they must carry these children.
Should they be forced to give birth to children they may not be able to love? Should these women be continually traumatized for the rest of their life as they look repeatedly into
the innocent faces of children of rape? Should they be expected even to risk death when giving birth in war-torn areas, where health care is often far from
adequate? Whose human rights should prevail? Again, a black or white decision destroying at least one person's life is needed.
Unfortunately, the above situation is all too
real. For times like this, not even the
above-mentioned world institutions have an
answer. They want to treasure life without
exception, but realize the choice is harsh at
best. For this very reason, they have serious
doubts and are deeply divided on this issue.
The third world nations can only barely support their population, so it's no wonder that they do not desire growth to continue at its current pace. Birth
control is one possible way to gain control over population increase, but which forms will they allow? Will they allow contraception only or abortion as
well? Maintaining and improving quality of life for for those already living should be the motive behind a decision of this nature because of the
scarcity of resources. Again, this is a harsh, but necessary decision.
Disease Control: Saving a People
One scenario, even more drastic than those already discussed here is the potential for use of toxic biological warfare agents. In his most recent series
 of articles, Steve Russell touched on this subject. He dug into the almost limitless
possibilities in the search for a ‘perfect' bio-weapon, which discriminates when used. This brings immediately to mind the provocative question whether euthanasia could be an option in
major-scale disease outbreaks, caused by, for example, bio-weapons. Has this presentation finally reached an unsurmountable threshold or should we cross this also?
YOWUSA.COM, June 18, 2001
Iraqis and Palestinians Facing Israeli Ethnic Bullets
In 1998, a series of events began taking place in the Middle East that could now culminate into a shocking realization, should all
out war between Israel and Palestine break out in earnest. Israel may already posses a biogenetic weapon targeted specifically for Iraqi and Palestinian genetic traits. If faced
with the possibility of defeat by large land armies, Israel may resort to using these "ethnic bullets" to save itself.
The Threat of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
During WWII, the Nazis exterminated 6 million Jews, and many of those were gassed to death in the concentration camps with Zyklon
B. Those who survived the concentration camps never forgot the horror and since the Jews have as an ethnic group suffered more fatalities from chemical extermination than any other ethnic
race, and this has left the Jews with an indelible fear of chemical weapons.
The question is what to do with people who fall victim to either the selective bio-weapons or to the chemical weapons that oppose it. Their chances are
slim, as the weapons are far-advanced today. So a lot of people will die in such conflict. Wouldn't it be more humane not to let them agonize to death if
one knows that there is absolutely no chance of recovery?
 Indeed, neither biological nor chemical weapons
need be used to quickly spread a deadly disease. The movie ‘Outbreak' starring Dustin Hoffman showed us a scenario in which a sailor
takes a pet monkey carrying a deadly disease from Africa to another continent. The carrier animal itself is immune, but people exposed to it start dying at an alarming rate. Towards the end
of the film, after careful consideration, it is decided that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is the only way to kill off the breeding ground of the epidemic.
Although the film had a happy ending, reality might not have this luxury. In such a scenario, the decision of whom to kill and whom to spare needs to be made as quickly as possible. Lives
will be lost in any case. The decision of whom and how many to kill then lies in the hands of those fighting the outbreak.
No one can tell right now who will be spared in the event of such an epidemic, but without doubt, scenarios are already being thoroughly considered. In that case, the good of the individual would be subjected to
that of the population, but euthanasia continues to remain a solid probability. A decision to kill, or to allow the patient to die, may have to be made on behalf of the victim in order to save many lives.
|
