Interesting
We recently read an article in class, which I thought showed an interesting point, though at some points it wasn't well thought out. I'll share it with you, asking you to please keep in mind that this is the opinion of Rev. Dr. Leslie Weatherhead and not my own! I think it's a very difficult subject which none the less needs to be thought and talked about. Therefore I will now share with you, said article:
In my opinion the doctor who recently told how, at her request, he had given a lethal dose to a patient suffering from an incurable cancer, did the right thin. But he did it the wrong way. It is not fair that the community should leave this responsibility to the merciful feelings of one doctor, or that a patent's escape from suffering should depend on one doctor's views.
The Euthanasia Society, of which I am an enthusiastic member, has worked out careful conditions under which a patient suffering agonies of useless pain from an incurable disease could slip away in peace and dignity with the help of a Government-appointed, medically-qualified referee.
I hope that when a Bill to legalize carefully guarded euthanasia comes before Parliament it will be passed.
I myself would be wiling to give Holy Communion to the patient and to be present with the doctor concerned with the case so as to share the responsibility.
I know that this will shock some people. I know that it is highly controversial. But I think that those who vote against properly safe-guarded euthanasia can never have visited regularly, over a long period, a patient suffering from a painful and incurable illness. While the patient can make such a heroic reaction to pain as to deepen his spiritual experience and inspire others by his courage, one can only look on and admire.
But when mental faculties go, and there is complete loss of control, both mental and physical; when the patient is an unresponding mass of decay in a stinking bed, then it seems fatuous to me to talk of the "sacredness of human life". Death is preferable, for death is a release to a happy life no longer limited by a decaying body. Those who vote against easy death must tell us why they want to punish people who keep a dog in such a condition and punish those who help a human being to escape it.
If euthanasia under careful conditions does not become legal, I hope the community will cease to regard suicide with the horror which has surrounded it.
When Captain Oates, during Scott's Antarctic expedition, finding that he was hindering his companions and that he was crippled himself, walked out into the snow, no one called it suicide. The world applauded the action as of "very gallant gentleman".
If I find that incurable illness makes me an intolerable burden to my dear ones as well as to myself; if I say my prayers and say goodbye and slip away, I am called a cowardly suicide.
If I succeed in escaping, a verdict is usually recorded of "unsound mind". If I fail and recover, it is plain that I am not regarded as of unsound mind because I am then prosecuted for a criminal offence.
The whole situation cries out fro examination and reform.
Many think that death should not be in human hands, but what the devout call "left to God", with great respect, I call this nonsense. Do we leave birth to God? Do we not control birth and destroy the life of the newly-born if the life of the mother is threatened? Do we leave our gardens to God..?
As man makes progress he leaves little to God. He tries rather to cooperate with God. A wise word of St. Augustine is worth quoting: "Without God, we cannot. Without us, God will not".
This idea of leaving the incurable suffering to God will one day seem as inhuman as leaving the agony of some cases of childbirth to God without the use of an anaesthetic, because the Bible says woman are to bear children in sorrow and pain.
If disease is not the will of God- and the cures of Christ proclaim that fact- then the pain and agony of incurable diseases are not His will either, and man, whose progress is marked by his growing mastery over evil, should be the master of death and not allow its postponement to burden human life without useless agony.
In my opinion the doctor who recently told how, at her request, he had given a lethal dose to a patient suffering from an incurable cancer, did the right thin. But he did it the wrong way. It is not fair that the community should leave this responsibility to the merciful feelings of one doctor, or that a patent's escape from suffering should depend on one doctor's views.
The Euthanasia Society, of which I am an enthusiastic member, has worked out careful conditions under which a patient suffering agonies of useless pain from an incurable disease could slip away in peace and dignity with the help of a Government-appointed, medically-qualified referee.
I hope that when a Bill to legalize carefully guarded euthanasia comes before Parliament it will be passed.
I myself would be wiling to give Holy Communion to the patient and to be present with the doctor concerned with the case so as to share the responsibility.
I know that this will shock some people. I know that it is highly controversial. But I think that those who vote against properly safe-guarded euthanasia can never have visited regularly, over a long period, a patient suffering from a painful and incurable illness. While the patient can make such a heroic reaction to pain as to deepen his spiritual experience and inspire others by his courage, one can only look on and admire.
But when mental faculties go, and there is complete loss of control, both mental and physical; when the patient is an unresponding mass of decay in a stinking bed, then it seems fatuous to me to talk of the "sacredness of human life". Death is preferable, for death is a release to a happy life no longer limited by a decaying body. Those who vote against easy death must tell us why they want to punish people who keep a dog in such a condition and punish those who help a human being to escape it.
If euthanasia under careful conditions does not become legal, I hope the community will cease to regard suicide with the horror which has surrounded it.
When Captain Oates, during Scott's Antarctic expedition, finding that he was hindering his companions and that he was crippled himself, walked out into the snow, no one called it suicide. The world applauded the action as of "very gallant gentleman".
If I find that incurable illness makes me an intolerable burden to my dear ones as well as to myself; if I say my prayers and say goodbye and slip away, I am called a cowardly suicide.
If I succeed in escaping, a verdict is usually recorded of "unsound mind". If I fail and recover, it is plain that I am not regarded as of unsound mind because I am then prosecuted for a criminal offence.
The whole situation cries out fro examination and reform.
Many think that death should not be in human hands, but what the devout call "left to God", with great respect, I call this nonsense. Do we leave birth to God? Do we not control birth and destroy the life of the newly-born if the life of the mother is threatened? Do we leave our gardens to God..?
As man makes progress he leaves little to God. He tries rather to cooperate with God. A wise word of St. Augustine is worth quoting: "Without God, we cannot. Without us, God will not".
This idea of leaving the incurable suffering to God will one day seem as inhuman as leaving the agony of some cases of childbirth to God without the use of an anaesthetic, because the Bible says woman are to bear children in sorrow and pain.
If disease is not the will of God- and the cures of Christ proclaim that fact- then the pain and agony of incurable diseases are not His will either, and man, whose progress is marked by his growing mastery over evil, should be the master of death and not allow its postponement to burden human life without useless agony.