Language Research

Research Paper In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the subject

Language Research

EUTHANASIA

Submitted by: Mr. Bensen S. Reyes

Submitted to: Mrs. Cortez

Outline of the Research 1.0 Introduction Thesis statement “Believing upon the dignity and preciousness of life, no one is entitled to have the power of ending one’s life.” 2.0 Body 2.1 Euthanasia defined 2.2 Nature of euthanasia 2.3 Classification of euthanasia 2.3.1 Suicidal euthanasia 2.3.2 Homicidal euthanasia 2.3.3 Orthothanasia 2.3.4 Positive and negative euthanasia 2.3.5 Active (direct) and negative (indirect) euthanasia 2.3.6 Painless death 2.3.7 Voluntary euthanasia 2.3.8 Non- Voluntary euthanasia 2.3.9 Euthanasia by action 2.3.10 Euthanasia by omission 2.4 Death and human dignity 2.4.1 The positive arguments 2.4.2 The negative argument

2.5 People’s view on euthanasia 2.6 Frequently asked question about euthanasia 2.6.1 Are euthanasia and assisted suicide legal? 2.6.2 What is the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide? 2.6.3 Does the government have the right to make people suffer? 2.6.4 Should people have the right to commit suicide? 2.6.5 Since suicide isn’t against the law, why should it be illegal to help someone commit suicide? 2.7 The first promise of the Hippocratic Oath 2.8 The Dying Person’s Bill of Rights 3.0 Conclusion 4.0 Bibliography 5.0 Acknowledgement

Introduction

Today, the span of human life has lengthened compared from the past decades, thanks to the technological advancement in medical field, the rigorous practiced for development had become fruitful and worked for the benefit of mankind. Medicine of modern time becomes more effective because of extensive research as well as the breakthrough in development of top of the line equipment for life support. However, life will continue until it reaches its final destiny. Surely, there will be a point in time when neither the professional physician nor modern medicine can prevent the occurrence of death especially in an ill person. Since it’s expected that nobody can escape death, as death is inevitable. It is a frightening reality, though acceptance of death will depend upon person’s realization about his life, if he/he used his/her life to fullest and gave his/her on meaning for his/her ending life. While medical provider strives to do their best care for patients, instances arise when the patients themselves demand for assistance to have their lives ended, cutting the thread of life because the weight of pain, suffering and hopelessness has become too heavy for the patient to carry. During this crucial situation, medical practitioners are expected to act morally and justify their stand. Should they provide cure for the patient or otherwise commit death. Bounded by the oath which they had solemnly sworn to carry on and perform, doctors and other health care providers are facing the most challenging scenario of caring for human life. Believing upon the dignity and preciousness of life, no one is entitled to have the power of ending one’s life.

Body Euthanasia is defined as the intentional killing of a dependent human being, by act of omission, for his or her alleged legal benefit. The key word is “intentional”. If death is not intended, then it’s not an act of euthanasia. “Euthanasia” derives from the Greek word Eu which means good and thanatos which means death. It etymologically signifies “good death,” a pleasant and gentle death without awful suffering. It’s an action or omission that by its very nature, or in the intention, cause death, for the purpose of eliminating whatever pain. Francis bacon used the word euthanasia for the first time in 1623. He affirmed “that the task of the physician is to bring back health, to mitigate suffering and pain not so much in that this mitigation can lead to a cure, but that it may also serve to procure a peaceful and easy death” Today the word euthanasia is used to signify that procedure which facilitates death and liberates one from all types of pain, provoking the of the hopeless patient and suppressing “useless” human lives” People in ancient times don’t have scruples to eliminate in any way those individuals considered useless to society. Plato, for example, stated: “Discipline and jurisprudence shall be established by the state; this will be limited to caring for healthy citizens in (body and soul). The unhealthy are left to die”. A laudable exception is found in the Hippocratic Oath (450 B.C): “I will give poison to no one when asked; nor will take the initiative of suggesting such act.” But the ethical issue on euthanasia was not presented until the advent of Christianity. During this period, there was moral renewal following the divine law “thou shall not kill”.

Euthanasia may be classified as follows: Suicidal euthanasia it is called as such when the Subject himself (alone or with the help of other people) resorts to lethal means to interrupt or suppress his life. Therefore it’s done with subject consent. Homicidal euthanasia comes in two forms: Euthanasia for piety or pious homicide is performed to liberate person from a terrible disease. Today this type of euthanasia is the most ‘reasonable” compared to other types. It prescribes “death without suffering” for hopeless patients; saving them from further “useless”, “unnecessary suffering”. Social or eugenic euthanasia seeks to eliminate “lives devoid of vital value” or to” purify the race”. Orthothanasia means passive death. The subject is left to die by omitting any medical assistance. But for some authors, this terminology has another meaning (just death, death in its due time) which is considered ethical. Positive and negative euthanasia. Positive euthanasia provokes death through adequate intervention (equivalent to suicidal and homicidal euthanasia). While on the other hand. Negative euthanasia results when medical support omitted. Active (direct) and negative (indirect) euthanasia. “Active or direct euthanasia” actually means to procure death in order to eliminate pain. ”negative or indirect euthanasia,” on the other hand, is not strictly euthanasia since it seeks to alleviate a patients suffering with the accompanying risks of shortening his life. Painless death is not euthanasia in the strict sense drugs are administered to modify or suppress pain and not to provoke death. Neither can we call euthanasia the acceleration of death when it is due to drug therapy which shortens life but it is not intended for this end. Voluntary euthanasia actually means that a person request to be killed. Non- Voluntary euthanasia is when a person didn’t request and gave no consent to be killed. Euthanasia by action means intentionally causing a person’s death by performing an action such by giving a lethal injection. Euthanasia by omission means intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care such as food and water.

The issue of death has become more complicated than it used to be because of ethical conflict. The moral issue of euthanasia revolves around the preservation of human dignity in death even to the individual’s last breath. This issue has both its positive and negative sides. The positive arguments states that euthanasia aims to preserve human dignity until death. Not only does one have a duty to preserve life but one also has the right to die with dignity. To die with dignity means that one should be able to make the decision to die when dying would be better than to go on living with incurable and distressing sickness. The negative argument, on the other hand declares that euthanasia erodes human dignity because it means cowardliness in facing pain and suffering. People who have faced the realities of life with courage die with dignity. Whereas the positive side insists that mercy killing preserve human dignity, the negative side claims the opposite since the act hastens the death of an individual. Individuals from around the globe have different views or perspective about euthanasia or mercy killing. According to T. Gary Williams he considers euthanasia to be morally wrong because it is intentional killing which opposes the natural moral law or the natural inclination to preserve life. He argues that euthanasia may be performed for self-interest or other consequences. Also, physicians and other health care professional may be tempted not to do their best to save the patient. They may resort to mercy killing as an easy way out and simply disregard any possibilities that a patient may survive if other alternatives are take into considerations. James Rachel opts for euthanasia believing it to be humane in so far as it allows a speedy end to suffering. In his view, killing of any kind may e right or wrong depending on the motives and circumstances under which it takes place. “If you help an agonizing, medically hopeless patient to die painlessly you will be doing him/her a favor and it would be wrong and inhuman to prolong the patient’s suffering needlessly. Philippa Foot endorses both active and

passive euthanasia in which the patient explicitly gives consent. In her view, everyone has a right to life; hence it is what a person wants that counts. Father Pavone, Executive director of Priest for Life, insist that we cannot apply this mindset to human or persons. A person is never more trouble than he/she worth. Notice that, we do not use the pronoun “it” to refer to a human being. There’s a reason for that. A person is not a “thing”, an “it”, an object whose value is to be calculated on some kind of economic cost analysis scale. Human life is of infinite value, and this remains true no matter hoe small, weak, incommunicative, disabled, or “unproductive” (in the eyes of a materialistic, consumerist society like ours) it may be. Take up the torch of life. Defend human life from euthanasia. As issues on euthanasia rise there are frequently asked questions about it. These questions are the following: Are euthanasia and assisted suicide legal? The state of Oregon in the United States, The Netherlands and Belgium are the only places in the world where euthanasia or assisted suicide is lawfully permitted. Oregon permits assisted suicide. The Netherlands and Belgium permit both euthanasia and assisted suicide. In 1995 Australian’s Northern Territory approved a euthanasia bill. It went into effect in 1996 but was overturned by Australian Parliament in 1997. Also in 1997, Columbia’s Supreme Court ruled that penalties for mercy killing should be removed. However, the ruling did not go into effect until guidelines were approved by the Columbian Congress. What is the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide? One way to distinguish between euthanasia and assisted suicide is to look at the last act – the act by which death occurred. Using this distinction, if a third party performed the last act that intentionally caused a patient’s a lethal death, euthanasia occurred. For example giving a patient a lethal injection or putting a plastic bag on her head to stop his/her breathing is considered euthanasia. On the

other hand, if a person who died performed the last act, assisted suicide took place. Thus it’s assisted suicide if a person swallowed an overdose of drugs provided by a physician for the purpose of causing death. Does the government have the right to make people suffer? Absolutely not. Likewise the government should not have the right to give one people (e.g. doctors) the power to kill another group of people (e.g. their patient). Laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. They are not and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer. Should people have the right to commit suicide? People do have the power to commit suicide. But suicide is a very common and tragic individual act. On the other side, euthanasia and assisted suicide are not private acts. Rather, they involve one person facilitating the death of another. This is a matter of very public concern since it can lead to extreme abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people among us. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not about giving rights to person who dies but, instead, they are about changing public policy so that doctors or others can directly and intentionally end or participate in ending person’s life. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not about the right to die. They are about the right to kill. Since suicide isn’t against the law, why should it be illegal to help someone commit suicide? Suicide and attempted suicide are not criminalized in many countries. This is not because of any “right” to suicide. Penalties against attempted suicide were removed so that people could seek help in dealing with the problem they’re facing without being prosecuted if it were discovered that they had attempt suicide. Just current public policy does not grant “right to be killed” to a person who is suicidal because of a lost, neither should it permit people to be killed because they are in despair. With legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide, condemned killer

would have more rights to have their lives protected than would vulnerable people who could be pressured and exploited into what amounts to capital punishment for the “crime” of being sick, old, disabled or machine dependent. The first promise of the Hippocratic Oath is to never euthanize patients, the relevant portion of the Hippocratic Oath reads, "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death." This oath is the center piece of medical practice and ethics. How can euthanasia be practiced in the medical profession when it so clearly violates its principal ethical code.



The Dying Person’s Bill of Rights 1. You have the right to be treated as a living human being until you die. 2. You have the right to maintain a sense of hopefulness however changing its focus maybe. 3. You have the right to be cared for by those who can maintain a sense of hopefulness however changing its focus maybe. 4. You have the right to express your feelings and emotions about your approaching death in your own way. 5. You have the right to participate in decisions concerning your care. 6. You have the right to expect continuing medical and nursing attention even though “cure” goals must be changed to comfort goals. 7. You have the right not to die alone. 8. You have the right to free from pain. 9. You have the right to not be deceived. 10. You have the right to have help from, and for, your family, in accepting your death. 11. You have the right to die in peace and dignity. 12. You have the right to retain your individuality and not the judged for your decision which may contrary to the beliefs of others. 13. You have the right to discuss and enlarge your religious and/or spiritual experience whatever these may mean to you. 14. You have the right to expect that the sanctity of the human body will be respected after death. 15. You have the right to be cared for by caring, sensitive, knowledgeable people who will attempt to understand your needs and will be able to gain some satisfaction in helping you face your death.

Conclusion “Anything that goes against life itself, e.g. homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, is evil and undermines human civilization, degrades those who practice it more than those who suffer it. It is a grave offense against the honor of the Creator.” (Gaudium et Spes, # 27) “If they cannot alleviate your pain, please don’t ask for euthanasia. Go to another physician because the present one is incompetent” (Dr.Wilke, Spanish Newspaper, Ya, June 3, 1988) Euthanasia is the strict sense is gravely illicit because it implies homicide. Thus, there is no that reason can justify the act of ending human life. Man does not absolutely own his life. The law of Christian morality, above science of medicine and human endeavors, is the absolute respect for human life. Performing euthanasia is a barbaric act and should be condemned by everyone not only by those who are experts in medical field rather; all individuals must act to defend this precious life even it belongs to the weak, sick or vulnerable one. The heart of the issue remains like this: leaving it up to the doctor to decide what is suffering and what is death. The aim of medicine is to alleviate suffering and impede death through Science and Technology. The brutal solution to eradicate life is contrary to the very essence of medical act. As for social consequences, euthanasia will lead to the loss of trust by the people for the organization of health providers. It will become a clear view that doctors and other health provider will become future assassin and sinister who are likely to take away the life of patients. No one is exempted from the horrifying thought of dying and death. On the other hand, no one has been given the right to annihilate and suppress the supreme human life.

Bibliography Books: Ethics for Health Professionals (pages 129 – pages154) Glover, Jonathan, “Causing Death & Saving Lives” (London, 1977) Lafollette, Hugh, “Ethics in Practice: An Anthology” (Malden, 1997) Internet: http://wwww.euthanasia.com/argumentsagainsteuthanasia.html (cited 17, Aug. 2008) Downloaded file from www.anwers.com (cited 20, Aug. 2008) Downloaded file from www.wikipedia.org (cited 21, Aug 2008)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the following persons to make this research possible.

First of all, to our Lord Almighty God, who guided me and gave me the strength to complete this research.

To our language Research Instructor, Mrs. Cortez, who guided us in making this research and also shared us her knowledge and further information about making a research work.

To my friends and classmates, for always being there to support and always helped me in times of need.

To my beloved parents, who provided me all the support and inspiration to accomplish this research.

This study will not be completed without their precious assistance and inspiration.