Euthanasia and assisted suicide

The growing campaign for euthanasia and assisted suicide

The campaign for euthanasia has followed closely on the heels of the pro-abortion movement. Logically, this makes perfect sense: If it’s acceptable to kill one class of human beings (the unborn) because they’re unwanted or disabled or burdensome, why not other classes of human beings for the same reasons? 

As Ronald Reagan once said, “We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life—the unborn—without diminishing the value of all human life.” Once we’ve rejected the intrinsic worth of all human beings, we have no firm basis for equal treatment regardless of unequal abilities or characteristics.

Just as the pro-abortion movement devalues life at its earliest stages, the pro-euthanasia movement devalues life primarily in its later stages, often touting euphemisms such as “patient autonomy” and “death with dignity.” Now more than ever, elderly and disabled persons are at risk of being killed.

What exactly is euthanasia? How does it differ from physician-assisted suicide?

Euthanasia is when a patient is intentionally killed by another person. It can be requested by the patient, requested by someone else for the patient, or carried out against the patient’s wishes.

Assisted suicide is when a patient is provided with the means and instructions to intentionally kill himself or herself.

It is extremely important to distinguish between euthanasia and assisted suicide, as defined above, and other end-of-life circumstances with which they are often confused. This difference is between intentionally taking a human life and allowing a natural death. The first is morally wrong; the second is not.

Neither withholding artificial treatment from terminally ill patients nor hastening death through treatment aimed at controlling symptoms necessarily constitute euthanasia or assisted suicide. As long as the purpose of such actions is either to allow the natural dying process to continue or to comfort the patient—and not to deliberately kill—they are not morally wrong.

Both euthanasia and assisted suicide, as defined above, are morally indefensible because their intent is to deliberately and directly kill an innocent human being.

Arguments for euthanasia and assisted suicide

ARGUMENT: “Euthanasia prevents needless suffering.”

RESPONSE: Multiple responses can be given to this argument. First, research from the Netherlands (where euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal) shows that the vast majority of euthanasia requests are due to mental illness, not physical suffering. So this claim doesn’t hold much weight.

Second, current medical science is such that nearly all kinds of physical pain can be alleviated; euthanasia, in almost all cases, isn’t necessary to “prevent needless suffering.”

Third, and most importantly, if killing the elderly or disabled in order to prevent their future suffering is justified, why can’t we kill everyone else for the same reason? After all, we all have suffering in our future. As Norman Geisler and Frank Turek write, “If avoiding suffering is really a valid justification for ending someone’s life, then we should commend every act of murder as an act of mercy!”

ARGUMENT: “We must ensure patient autonomy and respect the wishes of the patient.”

RESPONSE: While every person possesses a great deal of autonomy and personal liberty, there are obviously certain limitations. Life has traditionally been regarded as a higher value than liberty, and for good reason: Without life, liberty isn’t possible. No one has the freedom to intentionally take innocent human life—even one’s own life. Whether a patient consents to the taking of his own life is irrelevant; we can consent to evil, but that doesn’t make evil right.

Ironically, euthanasia doesn’t ensure autonomy—it ends autonomy. Dead people can’t make choices!

ARGUMENT: “Euthanasia allows people to die with dignity.”

RESPONSE: How can one dignify life by deliberately ending it? Facing death with courage and hope might be a dignified way to die, but being “put to sleep” like a wounded animal certainly is not. Nothing could be more dehumanizing or cowardly.

The tragic consequences of euthanasia and assisted suicide

• Euthanasia and assisted suicide blatantly violate the Hippocratic Oath, part of which states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” The legalization of euthanasia has the perverse consequence of allowing or pressuring physicians to kill, rather than care for, their patients.
• With the availability of euthanasia, doctors in the Netherlands often fail to correctly diagnose a patient’s mental illness; instead of getting proper treatment, they are euthanized or allowed to commit suicide.
• Once euthanasia becomes widely accepted in a society, patients may feel a “duty” to die and may experience pressure and coercion from doctors and family members to not be a “burden” on their family and society.
• Voluntary euthanasia leads naturally to involuntary euthanasia. If it’s acceptable for a competent patient to choose death for herself, how can we deprive an incompetent patient of that possibility? Someone else must be allowed to make the decision for such a patient—and possibly against her wishes, were she able to express them. Such is the flawed reasoning of euthanasia advocates.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide, like abortion, take the life of an innocent human being.  In our quest to end the killing of the unborn, pro-lifers must never forget those at the other end of life who need protection as well.