Artificial Life or Death
Euthanasia has been a hotly debated about topic for the past couple of decades, but has
recently been thrust into the limelight by many controversial court and hospital
decisions.
Euthanasia is defined as the "mercy killing" of a person who is brain dead, terminally
ill or otherwise at death's door. This usually, but not necessarily, affects people who
are are separated from death only by machines. Whether you personally believe "mercy
killing" is a viable solution in a hopeless situation or not the proponents for both
sides provide arguments that can be quite convincing. Supporters of euthanasia say that
it is such an improbability for a miraculous recovery and a return to a normal life that
it is not worth putting the patient through all the suffering and agony that prolonging
their life would cause or the fortune of hospital bills that you would pay. The
opposition feels that it is not right for people to abandon other members of the human
race because there is always a chance, even though it is a small one, that they will
regain all functons and return to a normal life.
There are many cases in which euthanasia is acceptable. Brain
death is one situation which merits euthanasia. It is also one of the more
common cases where euthanasia is requested. Brain death is when all brain
activities cease.
The lines are fairly well drawn in the law about patients who are suffering but are
still compotent, but when the law is asked to determine the fate of a lingering,
comatose, incompotent patient the lines begin to blur. In many cases the courts turned to
the patient's family, but what if there are not any or they disagree? In such cases who
decides? In a controversial decision a Massachusetts court allowed that it would invoke
its own "substitute judgement" on behalf of a mentally ill woman. In a second case
mentioned in the January 7 issue of Newsweek, a Minnesota Surpreme court turned to three
hospital ethics committees to review a dying loner's case, followed their collected
wisdom and ordered him off the respirator so that he could have a dignified death. "It
is the first time ethics committees played a significant role in the court" says Dr.
Ronald E. Cranford. Still the easiest way to know and respect the patient's wishes is
through a simple piece of paper called a living will. (18)
It was stated, in the Bible, by the same preacher in Ecclesiastes who said there is a
time to be born and a time to die also said there is "A time to search and a time to give
up" (Ecclesiastes 3:6)
We need the honesty to admit death and the courage to discontinue life extending
measures, because of the extreme amount of funds that go into supporting a brain dead,
comatose, or terminally ill patient for any amount of time. Although brain dead and
comatose patients do not feel pain terminally ill patients do, so is it not better to
stop the pain that prolonging life would cause?
It also seems to me that the brain dead patient lying in the hospital bed coupled to
machines is unlike the person that you knew and loved. In U.S.A. Today a situation was
written about that promotes this way of thinking, it says "Typical is the inert body of
an eighty two year old woman, victim of a massive coronary, lying day after day hooked up
to tubes and wires with no prospect of returning to consciousness, much less to last
week's vitality which her daughter remembers as she says, 'That is not my mother lying
there'." (34)
Many think that "We should be very careful in terms of our technological miricals that
we do not impose life on people who, in fact, are suffering beyond our ability to help."
In Christianity Today January, 1990 there is a statement that I think is the epitome of
all that advocates of euthanasia say and believe, "In todays society, where technological
advances have given us the power to prolong the quantity of life long beyond what many
believe is life with any dignity or degree of quality, pulling the plug or removing the
tube should not be considered a sin of commission, murder, or suicide ; but a humble
acknowledgement of our finitude." (6)
Should we ever give up on our friends and family, isn't there always a chance of normal
life? "After an accident that seems to wipe out all or most of its victim's vital
functions, it is often impossible to read
the future. The person might someday surprise us, wake up, and walk." (Christianity
Today Jan 1990 p.6)
Is it not better to attempt to keep them alive and they still die a natural death than
to not try and give up all hope on our loved ones? The Cruzan case is one example where
a comatose girl named Nancy needed a loving, praying, and caring family. She did not need
a family that would just give up on her and let her slip into the eternal sleep of
death.
Is it fair that people that barely new the patient are the ones to choose the patient's
fate. Like the time a Minnesota Surpreme Court turned to ethic committees, followed what
they said and killed a dying man.
(Newsweek Jan. 7,1985 p.18) I do not see how people who never even met the patient before
he was condemned to die are knowlegeable of the patient's wishes or realy even what the
family desires. (18)
The Holbrook case is one example where a man was miraculously revived after being in a
coma for eight years after he was hit on the head with a piece of firewood. Effie
Holbrook said that she never gave up hope on her son. Her prayers were answered February
25, 1991 When Conly Holbrook, called her name. Holbrook then told his mother the names of
the two people he said hit him. After the assault, he was in a coma for three months
before they had to remove part of his skull to relieve pressure on his brain. He had been
in a comatose state ever since.
Living Wills are growing in popularity since the numbers of "mercy killings" have grown.
A living will is a declaration of the desire for a natural death. It is a means of
retaining control over what happens at the end of your life, even when you are no longer
able to express your wishes.
To many people, the fear of a lingering death is worse than the fear of dying, and a
Living Will permits you to make certain choices when there is not doubt that you are
compotent. North Carolina and many other states have adopted Living Will laws. North
Carolina has recognized them since 1977. G.S. 90-321 provides that if an idividual has
declared in the proper manner a desire that his or her life not be prolonged by
extraodinary means, and if attending physician determines the individual's condition is
terminal and incurable and is confirmed by another physician, then extraodinary means may
legally be withheld or discontinued.
When you sign a Living Will the decision does not have to be a permanent one. You may
revoke a Living Will at any time by destruction of original and all copies or by
communication of your intention to evoke the will.
The line between whether euthanasia is acceptable or not is quite fine and we all need
to be careful when it comes to the point of euthansia. You must have your priorities
straight before you make a final decision on your, or someone elses, fate. Would you want
to be killed? Would you want your wife killed after a car wreck or would you rather allow
her or you to go on living by life support? Euthanasia is so touchy that most people
would never, and should never want, to have to make this decision between life and
death.
|