Views on Euthanasia
I've written, in various essays, that I support euthanasia. Yet I've never given it it's own essay and the topic has been mentioned or illuded to a great deal in the last few months in posts by myself and my Facebook friends. So here are my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to comment.
It has always struck me as odd that so many people agree with the idea that because a pet or other animal is sick and/or in pain, has harmed a human or because it's simply too expensive to care for him/her, he/she should be euthanised. In fact, many of these people would substitute "it" for "he or she" in my previous sentence. Yet as soon as the word person or human is substituted for animal or pet, these same people become angered. It seems to me that they've forgotten that we humans are animals too. The only thing which makes us different, and science is finding that there are several animals which can do this in a more rudamentary level, is that we can reason and make decisions. But this is not always the case. So when, for example, someone is in a coma or is criminally ill and supposedly unable to stop him/herself, by natural human conscience, is he/she not on the mental level of an animal?
Despite our advanced technology, we humans are not immune to illness. Sometimes, we become ill as a result of a disease, sometimes it's due to old age and sometimes it's a combination of factors. But there are those who know that they don't want to continue living if their mental capacity is decreased to a certain point. For some, this may mean totally brain dead, for others it could mean being unable to communicate or to remember loved ones or even not being able to care for themselves independently due to something like being paralised. Why, then, if these people wish to die with dignity, should they be forced to live in conditions that they hate or wouldn't want to experience had they the understanding? Why should they be starved to death or simply not helped instead of having their deaths be quick and humane? This is especially true with the young, who have had their innocent lives snatched from them, and the elderly, who have lived long lives but are now slowly losing their memories. Is it fair to them that they have to continue suffering, the former knowing that they'll never lead a full and normal life and the latter knowing that they've already done so and that they're ready to go to the next adventure?
Then, there are those who are mentally insane, and due to that, they commit violent crimes. As my readers will know by now, I fully support the death penalty and have also written an essay on that. In this case, though, it's more euthanasia, since these people honestly didn't know what they were doing. That said, they still shouldn't be allowed to clog up the system, be it the prisons or the mental wards of hospitals etc. These are dangerous individuals who have harmed the innocent and would likely do so again if they were let out into society. Remember that the dog who is rabid or extremely violent and untrainable also doesn't know what he/she is doing. So why should he/she be euthanised and not the man or woman with a dangerous mental illness which cannot be cured? Why should the dog or the person, both of whom don't understand the nature of what they've done, be punished by being imprisoned?
Sometimes, illness doesn't cause pain or loss of memory, but rather, haults the mental growth of an individual. This is known as retardation. Those who are mildly retarded can often live full and productive lives, sometimes with a little help and sometimes on their own. They may think on a slower level but can still understand who, when and where they are and can answer basic, and in less severe cases, more advanced questions. But when the retardation is so severe that they don't even know who they are, can't feed themselves, walk, talk etc. and when it is clear that they will never be able to do so, why keep them alive? I think it's a tragedy for them and their parents. While they may have wonderful parents and/or guardians, unless they're rich, what will become of them when said parents die? If they're given to a family member, than he/she and his/her family must now deal with another mouth to feed, knowing that the person will never be able to survive on his/her own. So he/she becomes a burden. Those who don't work but who are still mentally able can still contribute to the family by providing interesting conversations, playing with children, helping around the house etc. But what can one who is this severely mentally retarded do? If they're shipped off to an institution, then they may not understand why and will only know that they're away from the only home and people they've ever known. If they do have enough intelligence to think on the level of a very small child, they may decide that they did something bad and that Mommy and Daddy don't love them anymore. So it's best, whenever possible, to abort fetuses if they show signs of extreme mental illness. If, however, the signs show once the child is born, then it's best to study him/her for a time, and if there is absolutely no progress, euthanasia should be considered. Of course, this is a very difficult decision and shouldn't be taken lightly. But it is something to consider, for the sake of the family as well as society.
All of these cases, the mentally insane, the terminally ill and the mentally retarded, involve the care of others. This, in turn, involves a great expense. The difference here is that the money is not being spent on those who will hopefully be able to return to a normal or somewhat normal life, as in the case of an operation. Nor is it being given to those who simply need some extra help in life, such as adaptive technology or a nurse to come and check on things at home. Rather, it's being used to continue the lives of those who will never recover from their ailments, and in some cases, who could potentially harm others because of them. In the case of families, it's their choice. But I don't think that the government, even if the health care system was universal, should get involved in situations such as this, except to enforce the wishes of the terminally ill if they wish to die. If they wish to live, or if the family wishes to care for someone with a severe mental illness, they should be the ones to bare the burden. I would much rather them fund help for pets and animals whom the families can't afford to help but who could recover with an opperation or therapy. If the state has incarserated a criminally ill person, he/she should be euthanised as soon as possible.
In short, these are my reasons for supporting euthanasia. While I do agree that it can be abused, I think that, if proper laws were put in place, it would make it much more difficult to euthanise someone based on a totally false premice, such as age, race, religion, gender, various disabilities wherein the people can still think and mostly care for themselves, etc. None of these are ever good reasons and should be disqualified. But when a valid reason exists, this really is the best course of action for all involved.
It has always struck me as odd that so many people agree with the idea that because a pet or other animal is sick and/or in pain, has harmed a human or because it's simply too expensive to care for him/her, he/she should be euthanised. In fact, many of these people would substitute "it" for "he or she" in my previous sentence. Yet as soon as the word person or human is substituted for animal or pet, these same people become angered. It seems to me that they've forgotten that we humans are animals too. The only thing which makes us different, and science is finding that there are several animals which can do this in a more rudamentary level, is that we can reason and make decisions. But this is not always the case. So when, for example, someone is in a coma or is criminally ill and supposedly unable to stop him/herself, by natural human conscience, is he/she not on the mental level of an animal?
Despite our advanced technology, we humans are not immune to illness. Sometimes, we become ill as a result of a disease, sometimes it's due to old age and sometimes it's a combination of factors. But there are those who know that they don't want to continue living if their mental capacity is decreased to a certain point. For some, this may mean totally brain dead, for others it could mean being unable to communicate or to remember loved ones or even not being able to care for themselves independently due to something like being paralised. Why, then, if these people wish to die with dignity, should they be forced to live in conditions that they hate or wouldn't want to experience had they the understanding? Why should they be starved to death or simply not helped instead of having their deaths be quick and humane? This is especially true with the young, who have had their innocent lives snatched from them, and the elderly, who have lived long lives but are now slowly losing their memories. Is it fair to them that they have to continue suffering, the former knowing that they'll never lead a full and normal life and the latter knowing that they've already done so and that they're ready to go to the next adventure?
Then, there are those who are mentally insane, and due to that, they commit violent crimes. As my readers will know by now, I fully support the death penalty and have also written an essay on that. In this case, though, it's more euthanasia, since these people honestly didn't know what they were doing. That said, they still shouldn't be allowed to clog up the system, be it the prisons or the mental wards of hospitals etc. These are dangerous individuals who have harmed the innocent and would likely do so again if they were let out into society. Remember that the dog who is rabid or extremely violent and untrainable also doesn't know what he/she is doing. So why should he/she be euthanised and not the man or woman with a dangerous mental illness which cannot be cured? Why should the dog or the person, both of whom don't understand the nature of what they've done, be punished by being imprisoned?
Sometimes, illness doesn't cause pain or loss of memory, but rather, haults the mental growth of an individual. This is known as retardation. Those who are mildly retarded can often live full and productive lives, sometimes with a little help and sometimes on their own. They may think on a slower level but can still understand who, when and where they are and can answer basic, and in less severe cases, more advanced questions. But when the retardation is so severe that they don't even know who they are, can't feed themselves, walk, talk etc. and when it is clear that they will never be able to do so, why keep them alive? I think it's a tragedy for them and their parents. While they may have wonderful parents and/or guardians, unless they're rich, what will become of them when said parents die? If they're given to a family member, than he/she and his/her family must now deal with another mouth to feed, knowing that the person will never be able to survive on his/her own. So he/she becomes a burden. Those who don't work but who are still mentally able can still contribute to the family by providing interesting conversations, playing with children, helping around the house etc. But what can one who is this severely mentally retarded do? If they're shipped off to an institution, then they may not understand why and will only know that they're away from the only home and people they've ever known. If they do have enough intelligence to think on the level of a very small child, they may decide that they did something bad and that Mommy and Daddy don't love them anymore. So it's best, whenever possible, to abort fetuses if they show signs of extreme mental illness. If, however, the signs show once the child is born, then it's best to study him/her for a time, and if there is absolutely no progress, euthanasia should be considered. Of course, this is a very difficult decision and shouldn't be taken lightly. But it is something to consider, for the sake of the family as well as society.
All of these cases, the mentally insane, the terminally ill and the mentally retarded, involve the care of others. This, in turn, involves a great expense. The difference here is that the money is not being spent on those who will hopefully be able to return to a normal or somewhat normal life, as in the case of an operation. Nor is it being given to those who simply need some extra help in life, such as adaptive technology or a nurse to come and check on things at home. Rather, it's being used to continue the lives of those who will never recover from their ailments, and in some cases, who could potentially harm others because of them. In the case of families, it's their choice. But I don't think that the government, even if the health care system was universal, should get involved in situations such as this, except to enforce the wishes of the terminally ill if they wish to die. If they wish to live, or if the family wishes to care for someone with a severe mental illness, they should be the ones to bare the burden. I would much rather them fund help for pets and animals whom the families can't afford to help but who could recover with an opperation or therapy. If the state has incarserated a criminally ill person, he/she should be euthanised as soon as possible.
In short, these are my reasons for supporting euthanasia. While I do agree that it can be abused, I think that, if proper laws were put in place, it would make it much more difficult to euthanise someone based on a totally false premice, such as age, race, religion, gender, various disabilities wherein the people can still think and mostly care for themselves, etc. None of these are ever good reasons and should be disqualified. But when a valid reason exists, this really is the best course of action for all involved.