Our american culture romanticizes euthanasia. Movies and the Media tend to portray euthanasia as compassionate; however, there's nothing more compassionate than hope and acts of kindness. Ending life is the opposite.

Good write up Dan.

Good points. Proponents of euthanasia make strong religious claims without realizing it. They assume that ending physical pain here via suicide will improve one's situation. But that implies that they know what happens after death, and that it is always a good thing.

As withi most things, I like a lot of what you have to say on this topic.

However, I do have some disagreements as well.

First off, one needs to distinguish between the various types of euthanasia. Even if all are ultimately morally judge with the same verdict, one would arive there thru various means. There are two important distinctions within each case of euthanasia are method, and consent. I wanna look at some definitions.

Suicide: Self-killing.

• Typically there is not a distinction between levels of beneficence.

Euthanasia: “Good Death”(eu-good; thanasia-death) The killing of another at the request of the person killed.

• Distinguished from Suicide because another agent besides the self is the cause of death.
• the assisting the death of another for reasons of beneficence.
• Also known as “mercy killing or “mercy Letting die”
• There are several different “flavors” of euthanasia.

Assisted Suicide - Distinct from euthanasia in that it is the enabling of suicide by another party.

• Most commonly this takes the form of Physician Assisted Suicide, or PAS.

When considering the moral and ethical implications of these issues, be sure to distinguish between casual evaluations and moral evaluations. Casual refers to simply how something happened. i.e. The knife passing thru Matt’s head was the cause of death. Moral refers to the ethical evaluation of an act. i.e. It is morally impermissible to place a knife thru Matt’s head. A lack of this distinction is often the cause of muddled issues in biomedical ethics.

Casual Distinctions in Euthanasia:

1. Passive or Letting Die: The withdraw of treatment or sustenance that will lead to death.

• Also known as “Pulling the plug”
• Can take the form of removing food or water, discontinuing a vital treatment.

2. Active or Killing: actively bringing ab out the death of a person.

• i.e. lethal injection

Types of Consent involved in Euthanasia:

1. Voluntary - Person requests euthanasia
2. Non-voluntary - Person cannot request nor deny euthanasia due to a lack of decision making ability. This is found in long term comas.
3. In-voluntary- The person does not wish to be killed.

While there can be an argument made whether or not voluntary and nonvoluntary forms of euthanasia are morally permissible; all would agree that nonvoluntary euthanasia is tantamount to murder.

Now that we have casual and consensual distinctions within the term Euthanasia, we can combine them to form the six types of Euthanasia:

1. Voluntary Passive Euthanasia (VPE) - Patient requests to be allowed to die for the easement of their suffering
2. Voluntary Active Euthanasia (VAE) - Patient requests to be killed for the easement of their suffering
3. Nonvoluntary Passive Euthanasia (NPE) - Patient is not able to request death or sustained life and is allowed to die for the easement of their suffering.
4. Nonvoluntary Active Euthanasia (NAE) - Patient is not able to request death or sustained life and is killed for the easement of their suffering
5. Involuntary Passive Euthanasia (IPE) - Patient requests to be left alive/continue treatment and is allowed to die for the easement of their suffering.
6. Involuntary Active Euthanasia (IAE) - Patient requests to be left alive/continue treatment and is killed for the easement of their suffering.


Something else that I think needs to be considered is what I call the quality of death. We all will die. It is God's will that we do. One of the arguments against euthanasia (and murder) is that one is going against God's plan and will for the person being killed. This of course posits free will in action, but that is for another time. The flip side of this argument is that through many of our medical practices, we are keeping people unnatrually alive. If left to their own devices many of the people that we are talking about as subjects of euthanasia would naturally perish. Perhaps is was God's will for them to die earlier and thru natural causes. My point here is that the unnatural death issue is a double-edged sword.

John Hardwig, in his paper, Is there a Duty to Die? suggests that sometimes people have an obligation to allow nature to take it’s course. I read the article a couple of years ago and made some rudementary notes from it. Here is his basic argument:

1. People’s needs and wants and goods are interconnected. (rejection of the indivualistic fantasy)
2. It is immoral to impose serious burdens on others to further one’s needs and wants
3. One is not relieved of their moral duties when they are sick and dying.
4. Sometimes continuing to live will place serious (and undue) burdens on loved ones.
5. ? Sometimes one has a duty to die

While it seems to fly in the face of all of our notions about old age and death, I think he has a point. We are all mortal creatures. We will all die at some point, why is the onus on everyone else to provide individuals constant healthcare? I am not arguing against universal healthcare, just artificially keeping people alive and draining the energy and resources of the community for something that is ultimately inevitable. The community can be one’s family, one’s town, one’s state, ect…

Since this topic is a very sensitive one, Hardwig goes out of his way to dance around specific instances of when a person has a duty to die. He does this to avoid stepping on anyone’s toes.

Is a good death better than a prolonged, miserable life? Can anyone make that determination for anyone? It is a good can of worms.

Also, the argument about euthanasia being messy (i.e. drawn out, painful, etc...) I find to also be inconsistent. Those issues are accidental to the practice of euthanasia. I mean, if those things do happen, would you then be for it? If the death was painless and quick and released heavy suffering, would you then be for it? I don't think so. You want to make the case that any and all forms of euthanasia are inherently wrong. I think you can make a strong one, but that line of argument does not do it for you.

The last problem I have is about the mental condition of the patient requesting euthanasia. You make the claim that someone that would want to kill themselves is obviously not in the right frame of mind to make that judgment. At that point, haven't you defined the possibility of euthanasia out of all possibilities? I find that to be circular.

Overall, I think that argument centers around choice. I think people should, no matter what the religious/moral evaluation is, have the ability to freely choose their death. People are free to sin in other ways in our society. However, and this is a big however, if the death of the person goes against God's will it is a serious, serious, sin. It is so serious because all future opportunities for that person are gone now. But it is between that person and God.

I know this is rambling, but I hope it adds to the discussion in a positive way.

If I were in a horrible accident or botched operation, I have decided that I do not wish to be sustained artificially, my wife has made the same choice.

Of course much of the debate about euthanasia is related to the Ms. Shivo's case, which really underscores the importance of making a living will and not leaving family members in a "Sophie's Choice" moment.

Henry,

Thanks for you comment! It's one of the best we have received.

euthanasia: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.

Therefore, assisted suicide is NOT distinct from euthanasia. It is a form of euthanasia. I was not incorrect when I wrote that euthanasia must be active killing rather than also including passively letting a person die.

I meant my blog to deal with active euthanasia (voluntary, nonvoluntary or involuntary), so I will focus on those forms.

--"Also, the argument about euthanasia being messy (i.e. drawn out, painful, etc...) I find to also be inconsistent. Those issues are accidental to the practice of euthanasia. I mean, if those things do happen, would you then be for it? If the death was painless and quick and released heavy suffering, would you then be for it? I don't think so. You want to make the case that any and all forms of euthanasia are inherently wrong. I think you can make a strong one, but that line of argument does not do it for you."

I made no argument regarding the "messiness" of euthanasia as it relates to the acceptability of that practice. I wrote that sometimes euthanasia is prolonged and painful in order to correct the notion some people hold that euthanasia is always peaceful. In addition, since we don't know if death releases any suffering, the release from suffering argument is invalid anyway. I think we agree on this point.

--"The last problem I have is about the mental condition of the patient requesting euthanasia. You make the claim that someone that would want to kill themselves is obviously not in the right frame of mind to make that judgment. At that point, haven't you defined the possibility of euthanasia out of all possibilities? I find that to be circular."

I never made the claim that someone who wants to kill himself is obviously not in a right frame of mind. I was responding to the question of what would I tell a terminally ill person who wished to be euthanized. I stated that I would tell the person that he is probably not in a rational state of mind to make such a decision.

The issue at hand is determining the will of God when it comes to active euthanasia. I can't see any argument where God would desire a person to "opt out" of this life to relieve suffering of any sort. At the very least, we should consider the fact that death is (usually) irreversible and might be wrong. A choice for life is a choice to allow God to continue to use us in the way He sees fit.

I agree with you about the Halo 2 ending. Terrible.

Hi Henry,

"Is a good death better than a prolonged, miserable life? Can anyone make that determination for anyone? It is a good can of worms."


Your comment reminded me of a recent story titled: Pillow Angel.

pillowangel story

Unless you are in the situation, it is hard to really understand the pain, agony, and frustration - whether Christian or not. My hope is that a good Christian counselor is close at hand for a loving, and caring shoulder to lean on.

Interesting, my wife and I were just talking about this topic this afternoon. I don't know all the ins and outs but apparently there is young boy who is terminal in Texas who is being refused treatment from the hospital because they deem his life "quality" not worth living.

It is examples like this that make me agree completly with the original post, it is a slippery slope. First, we are ok with voluntary Euthanasia so guys like Jack Kevorkian become a dark cultural outlaw/hero, promoting deat with dignity. We think it is our right to determine for ourselves whether our lives are still worth living, this is step one.

Next we move to scenarioes like that of Terry Shivo where there is a third party of a relative making the decision whether or not her life is worth living. Now we also have the young man in Texas and I would almost say this is a step further than the Shivo case because it is not even "loved ones" making the decision as to whether the life is worth living any more but an institution.

My thoughts are that unless we recover a Biblical view of life these trends will only continue and people will be getting euthanized against their will as the grow old or become "expendable". The only reason to keep people alive is to make money off of their medical treatments so it would seem this would most crucially effect the poor...these are just some radical predictions that I don't think will seem too radical in 30 years.

Bob,

Good point about keeping people alive to make money off their medical treatments. I'm certain living people will begin to be harvested for organs if this isn't happening already.

Dan,

Sorry if I misrepresented you. Alot of what I was saying there came from a pool of arguments outside what you were specifically saying. I will admit I sometimes attached those outside arguments to yours.

E. I. Sanchez,

That is a difficult case, as all cases of this nature are. If anything, I argue for a natural life... and death.

Morally speaking, I agree completely with you all on active euthanasia. I can't really think of a case where it would be morally right to have someone actively kill you (or to actively kill yourself). Allowing someone to die is another matter entirely.

As I said on my site last week, in reguards to how abortion and euthanasia are different...

How are the two morally different? It boils down to who is making the choice. The fetus has no control in the situation. It is being killed and robbed of all possible future choices. The adult that chooses to end its life (although there are many types of euthanasia - the biggest being active vs passive) has control in the matter making is completely morally different. There is also the issue of euthanasia vs. assisted suicide.

From a legislation standpoint, I think it should be legal - your life, your choice. From a moral standpoint, I have always maintained that it is a different matter. I think that passive euthanasia is moral (letting nature run its course) and that usually active euthanasia and suicide is immoral. The key is that it should still be allowed under our laws.

I make a distinction between the morality of the action and the legal status of an action.

Bob,

I don't buy the slippery slope arguments. There is a vagueness there that undermines the SS argument. Because there is hypothetical chain of similar but distinct events A, B, C, D.... Z and Z is bad, so is A. But A is not Z. So I don't buy the legalization of euthanasia lead necessarily to forced euthanasia.

Henry,

Once again good comments. Thanks for reading.