Death versus Life

Like the abortion debate great strides have been made by those in favour of the hastening of death to soften the language of the debate. A good death, Death with dignity, Mercy killing, Physician assisted suicide the list is added to day by day. No matter how one looks at the issue it is still the shortening of life by commission or omission, it is still killing. Voluntary euthanasia is where someone has decided for himself or herself that they wish to end their life. Involuntary euthanasia involves the killing of a patient for their supposed benefit, contrary to their wishes. Non-voluntary euthanasia is the killing of a patient for their supposed benefit when they are incapable of making such a request.
Who are to be singled out for the death penalty? Is it only the terminally ill, or do we include the incurably disabled? One of the arguments used against the legalisation of euthanasia is the ‘slippery slope’ theory. If someone who is terminally ill with motor neurone disease is euthanasised, then does everyone suffering from the same disease have the same treatment?
The case of Tony Bland in February 1993 was a milestone in the handling of patients who were in a Persistent Vegetative State or PVS. This is also an example of the misuse of language to dehumanise the person. PVS is a comatose state. Those who specialise in the treatment of PVS patients state that they do not know whether or not these patients are aware of what is happening to them, at least part of the time if not all of the time. In known cases such as Tony Bland — he could digest food normally though he could not feed himself, his heart and lungs were functioning and he was not on a life support machine. His eyes were open a great deal of the time and he reacted to painful stimuli. When the House of Lords ruled that feeding and hydration could be withdrawn from Mr. Bland and he would be allowed to die many carers of PVS patients, in the main their families, were horrified and feared that their local health authorities would push to have their loved ones put to death.

There are obviously various phases and conditions of PVS. To examine the ignorance of some doctors over this condition one could quote from the case of Carrie Coons. Carrie, who was diagnosed as having PVS was 86 years of age; six days after the New York Supreme Court ruled that it was in order to withdraw her feeding tube she regained consciousness. This took place in 1989.
History has proven that it is very difficult to draw a line where one person has a life worth living and another has not. If voluntary euthanasia is legalised, how long before involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia is made legal?
The Netherlands brought in a form of legalised euthanasia with guidelines to prevent involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia from being practised. In 1991 the Remmelink Committee discovered the following figures. Voluntary Euthanasia cases — 2,300; without patients’ consent — 1,000 cases; assisted suicides — 400 cases. It is apparently obvious that boundaries can be crossed over regardless of any constraints. In the same country ending life was not restricted to the terminally ill. A patient was put to death because she was depressed, not terminally ill.
There is also the great danger of allowing the acceptance of euthanasia on any grounds to take hold in society. It is remarkable how easy it is that situations and changes in law can be campaigned against in one decade and accepted as the norm in another. This can be done especially by the careful manipulation of language and statistics. Dr. Leo Alexander, who was a consultant at the Nuremberg Doctors’ trials, took an interest in how the philosophy that some people were not worthy of life was accepted into German society in the 1930s. He wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, 14 th July, The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans.
Also in the same article Dr. Alexander shows how acceptable such a solution became amongst the physicians. Note the dates. Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933. Sterilisation and euthanasia of persons with chronic mental illness was discussed at a meeting of Bavarian psychiatrists in 1931. By 1936, extermination of the physically or socially unfit was so openly accepted that its practice was mentioned incidentally in an official German medical journal.

Have we learned from the past? Re-member that if we do not learn from the past we are condemning ourselves to relive it.
A few years ago I was made to recall the quotes from Dr. Alexander when I read a report in one of Scotland’s national newspapers. The headline in The Scotsman of 23 rd May 1996 read More than 50% of doctors are in favour of a change in law to allow physician-assisted suicide. It covered a story about a survey carried out by Glasgow University which revealed these worrying figures and because of the results of the survey there is a possibility of a Bill (prior to an Act of Parliament) being drawn up to legalise assisted suicide. On investigating the report, in particular the figures involved in the survey, it was found to be questionable.  
Just over 700 doctors, hospital physicians, anaesthetists, psychiatrists and pharmacists were questioned. This was from a total of between 180,000 and 200,000 doctors registered with the General Medical Council (GMC) and 10,000 to 15,000 pharmacists practising in Great Britain. Therefore a total of 378 doctors, who would seek a change in law, is a mere drop in the ocean. However, one can see how figures can be manipulated and influence sought in the National media to effect change. The survey was commissioned by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society.
One of the many reasons that the Voluntary Euthanasia Lobby would seek to legalise euthanasia is the question of uncontrollable pain. In discussing with medical professionals who work in hospices there is a belief that most pain, if not all pain, can be controlled. Dr. Andrew Fergusson of HOPE — Healthcare Opposed to Euthanasia — reported that in 98% of cases pain can be controlled without causing unconsciousness. The Hospice Movements in Great Britain and Italy have led the way in developing palliative care. This form of medicine practised in hospices affirms life and regards dying as a normal process. It neither hastens nor postpones death, it provides relief from pain and other distressing symptoms. It provides support to patients to live as active as possible until death and support for families to cope during the patients’ illness and in their own bereavement.

In his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae Pope John Paul II warns about the senseless and inhumane practice of euthanasia. We are faced with one of the more alarming symptoms of the culture of death, which is advancing above all in prosperous societies, marked by excessive preoccupation with efficiency and which sees the growing number of elderly and disabled people as intolerable and burdensome.(Evangelium Vitae 64). Those who promote euthanasia by saying that they wish to put an end to the misery of the chronically or terminally ill should be honest and say that it is the misery of society that they wish to end. There is a danger that we have become a costing instead of a caring society. If so then it is not only the terminally ill who will be burdens to a progressive but intolerant elite.