"Thou Shalt Not Kill" or Shall They?

     In 1957, Dr. Hermann Sander was the first man convicted of mercy killing a patient (in his case, a fifty-nine year old woman dying of cancer.) Time magazine called it “the most controversial trial since the 1925 Scopes evolution case.” People gathered around the world to wait and see the results of the trial, which ended in an acquittal but also resulted in one of the biggest debates surrounding euthanasia. Nearly fifty years later, the debate roared as intensely as before when Terri Schiavo, a forty four year old woman in a vegetative state, passed away after her feeding tube was removed. The two sides of the story fight passionately for what they believe is right, and it has been nearly impossible to make a decision regarding which way the law should fall. As Tom Dowbiggin wrote in his article “From Sander to Schiavo: Morality, Partisan Politics, and America’s Culture War over Euthanasia, 1950–2010”, “The Sander Trial and the Terri Schiavo saga serve as book ends to a chapter in the history of euthanasia in modern America that witnessed momentous changes to the nation’s moral values surrounding death and dying.” 

While euthanasia began as a way to keep a patient pain free and comfortable as their death quickly approached, the period of the Gilded Age brought the idea of mercy killing into the picture. (Dowbiggin) Doctors injected lethal drugs in to the patients’s systems to kill them and end their suffering before their inevitable death came and wrecked their bodies even more than the illness already had. At the core of the debate is the idea of control. Who has it? Who makes the choice when life ends? Is it our decision, or is it left up to a higher power or simply a stroke of luck? That’s where the fine line lies, and discussing the issue of euthanasia finds the debater walking precariously upon it. 

In 1990, Terri Schiavo (twenty seven at the time) went into cardiac arrest followed by a vegetative coma. She spent the next fifteen years sustained by feeding tubes and around the clock care. While she lay completely unaware, her husband and parents waged war over whether or not her feeding tube should be removed. Michael Schiavo, her husband, petitioned for its removal, and her parents fought to keep it in. After petitioning every avenue of the government, the Courts finally rejected attempts for the reinstallation of the tube, and Terri passed away on March 31st, 2005. The opinions surrounding the trials reached far and wide, and Terri’s name was a household one. President Bush sided with the parents, and fought for a culture of life (Dowbiggin.) However, many of the Americans felt that the government was making the debate a personal one, and choosing their own sides over the people’s. The ethical debate was at an all time high, and each side fervently believed they were right.

Before going into details of the ethical standpoints of each side, it’s important to first note the difference between “voluntary” and “passive” euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia refers to the process when a physician “actively hastens death, by either providing the means where a patient can take drugs themselves, or by directly administering the drugs by injection” (Havill) Passive euthanasia occurs when life support is withdrawn in a patient who remains in a vegetative state, or one with little to no brain function. The request for voluntary euthanasia is made by someone who is completely in control of the decision and understands the consequences, whereas the decision for passive euthanasia is made by someone who has the power of attorney for the patient.

When questioning the ethics of euthanasia, two of the first statements to come up are the Fifth Commandment- “Thou Shalt Not Kill” and the Hippocratic Oath- “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to that effect.” (Havill) These both surround Christian values: compassion, etc. The Bible is clear about the fact that Christians should not kill each other; in fact it states: “Do not commit murder.” It’s hard to navigate around that fact. Of course, like any piece of literature, the words can be twisted to suggest otherwise, but like David Richmond says, “If Biblical values and teaching are not trustworthy guides on moral issues … then Christians who support euthanasia … have no secure Biblical base on which to mount their arguments.” Christians believe in the idea of life, from conception to death It is seen as a sign to end that life, and euthanasia, done out of mercy or not, terminates a life. Christians support the disadvantaged, and live their lives for others. as Jesus said in the Bible, "Looking at his disciples, he said: Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied... Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets." Their role should not be to help others end their lives, but rather to support them in their illness and deaths by being a positive presence and providing whatever pain relief and “support” they need. But the most important reason of all that Christians oppose euthanasia is God’s role in their life. They believe that only God has the right to control when their life is over. It is not in their hands to play the role of the Lord. Just as he determines when they come on to the Earth, they accept that he will decide when they leave it. 

However, there are groups of Christians, and non-believers, who believe that euthanasia is the more compassionate and ethical decision. Many view a life in pain as one that causes more harm than a death that ends the suffering. For the individual, life is precious only when it is worthwhile. From time to time, an individual will find the release of death to be more important than hanging on to a miserable existence of unbearable suffering, or stretching out the end in a terminal disease. (Havill) For those who are pro-euthanasia, they view the autonomy of the patient’s life as something that should be held to a high standard. An individual’s worth should not be determined heteronomously, but instead personally. It is the patient’s life to be or not to be lived. Those who support mercy killing recognize the paradox of being allowed to make all the decisions in their lifetime, but having the right taken away upon death. These Christians are not alone; a study was performed that concluded that three out of four Catholics agreed that if a patient was dying with no chance of recovery and asked for a lethal injection, it should be given to them.

I personally fall on the side that argues against euthanasia. After doing endless research on the subject for this article, and my own experience as a nursing student, I simply cannot support the ethics of ending a life. (It should be noted that I am also a practicing Catholic.) I have heard of too many miraculous recoveries to be okay with terminating a life that is said to have no hope left. The fact of the matter is, doctors never know for sure whether or not a prognosis is correct. They can do their best to guess how much time someone has left, but there are many stories where their estimate has been completely wrong. I believe that the role of a medical practitioner should be to offer support and compassion in the face of a patient’s struggle, but it is not a doctor’s place to play God and end a life on purpose. I also reviewed many statistics and found it fascinating that while many doctors agreed that euthanasia was an acceptable policy, they would not be able to administer the injection themselves. (Broekman) That was eye-opening and reminded me that it’s easy to use hypotheticals and support a decision that doesn’t affect you personally. However, if you don’t have the courage to kill a patient yourself, why are you supporting the decision? I understand that euthanasia is a controversial topic, and I can see how ending a life could cause less misery along the way. Despite that, death is permanent and can never be taken back. No one should have the right to voluntarily end someone else’s life and determine that their time is up. You never know if your miracle is waiting around the corner.

Bibliography:

"Bible Gateway passage: Luke 6:20-26 - New International Version." Bible Gateway.

              https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:20-26 (accessed

August 4, 2014).

Broekman, M., and J. Verlooy. "Attitudes of young neurosurgeons and neurosurgical

          residents towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide." Acta

Neurochirurgica 155, no. 11 (November 2013): 2191-2198. Academic Search

Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed August 3, 2014).

Dowbiggin, Ian. "From Sander to Schiavo: Morality, Partisan Politics, and America’s

Culture War over Euthanasia, 1950–2010." Journal Of Policy History 25, no. 1

(January 2013): 12-41. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed August

3, 2014).

Havill, Jack. “Voluntary Euthanasia in New Zealand: The Case for Support from

Christians.” Stimulus: The New Zealand Journal Of Christian Thought &

Practice 21, no. 1 (April 2014): 12-19. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost 

(accessed August 3, 2014).

Richmond, David. “How Should Christians Respond to Proposals to Legalise Euthanasia

         and Assisted Suicide?” Stimulus: The New Zealand Journal Of Christian

Thought & Practice 21, no. 1 (April 2014): 20-28. Academic Search Premier,

EBSCOhost (accessed August 3, 2014).