Introduction:
The unbearable, unreasonable pain and suffering that may prompt the person to think in line with ending this beautiful gift of life. There are also times when one has to decide for the life of the other, wanting to end the suffering of the other and decide to go for Euthanasia. Thus bring about peace and harmony to that person and the family.
The word
euthanasia is used in a more particular sense to mean "mercy
killing," for the purpose of putting an end to extreme suffering, or
saving abnormal babies, the mentally ill or the incurably sick from the
prolongation, perhaps for many years, of a miserable life, which could impose
too heavy a burden on their families or on society.
Here I am to
discuss and reflect on one such case on Euthanasia.
Case:
This
is the story about Ramesh, person from a lower middle class. Ramesh was married
just 5 years ago and has two kids. One is of 4 years old and the other is two
years old. Ramesh is the sole bread winner of the family. His wife Laxmi is a
house wife. They are catholics.
One
fine day as Ramesh was coming back home, met with an accident. He’s seriously
injured and hospitalized. Some how Laxmi managed some money by begging here and
there for the treatment. He is mutilated now and and due to the damage to his
brain, he’s in coma. Doctors have given up hopes. His survival will only mean
that he will be a burden to the family and to keep him alive is almost
impossible given the economic condition of the family. Spending on Ramesh, means
the future of the children is at stake. Thus doctors have suggested that given
the circumstances, the best choice Laxmi has is to go for Euthanasia and end
the suffering to her husband and to the family. This might help her at least to
invest to the future of her children. She is in a dilemma, whether to go ahead
on this matter or not.
Action involved: Taking a decision to kill Ramesh by
giving consent to Euthanasia.
Explanation of
the situation: Laxmi
is indeed in a situation to make a choice for the life of her husband. It’s
also a choice between the life of her children and her husband, who will anyway
suffer even if he survives. Ramesh’s living also means everyday dying for him
and also a cross for the family. Doctors themselves have given up hopes and it
seems that there is no way he could be fine. Even if he survives, he will not
be able to enjoy his life, given his state of health and having lost his legs.
Given the economic condition of the family, it looks almost impossible to find
money for the treatment. On the other hand, the children need care and need to
be educated and Laxmi has the responsibility to shape their future too. Thus
keeping the common good of her husband and her children, can Laxmi go ahead to
take the decision of mercy killing of Ramesh?
Intention or
goal of the act: By
ending Ramesh life, the passive suffering of Ramesh ends. She can focus on the
future of her children. Lest she will neither be able to help her husband nor
be able to take care of the children. Thus, Laxmi needs the good of her husband
and the children and wants to end suffering.
Moral Judgment: Laxmi will be morally wrong if she
decides to end the life of her husband, though he is of no use, as church holds
the life of a person, supreme value.
Some scriptural
passages, related to this act:
1. Life
comes from God, to take it is murder. ‘Human
life is sacred because we are made in His image’ – Gen( 9:5-6)
3. Every
example of suicide in the Bible was by a sinful man.
Arguments for Euthanasia:
·
Laxmi’s
husband is not able to decide and there is no guarantee that he would survive.
Therefore Laxmi, as a free person has the responsibility and right to decide
for her husband.
·
What is the
use of unnecessary suffering and pain. If there is a way to end if, why not go
for it.
·
Treating
Ramesh also means, practically sacrificing the lives of her children. Isn’t it
just to take care of the children’s future by ending the life of Ramesh?
·
There is
hardly any use for the society and the family by his living.
·
The beds, cots
and the medical facilities, that serve Ramesh, can be used for someone else.
Why waste economic and human resources?
·
Even if he
lives, what will be the quality of his life? Will it not be an everyday death
for him?
·
If this action
best serves the interest of everyone, why not go for it?
Views against this act:
ü If Laxmi goes in for euthanasia for her husband, she
in fact will be murdering her husband.
ü It looks as if she is the sole responsible person
for the life of her husband. But it is not true in reality.
ü It will be a violation of the sanctity of human life
that belongs to God. Thus in reality she has little freedom to make choice for
the life of her husband.
ü Moreover, in no state, she will really be able to
know the mind of Ramesh.
ü If it is the point about the productivity of her
husband, even if he lives,-life is meant not only to be actively productive. Even the
presence of the person itself has a value.
ü As long as there is life, so long there is hope.
Ending this life means going against the natural law; the life given by God.
ü If Laxmi goes in for euthanasia for her husband, then it might slowly become a practice in the
society.
ü Whatever the situation, it’s clear that since Laxmi
is involved in the event, her decision will not be a decision of the free mind.
Church Stand on Euthanasia:
§ On
May 5, 1980, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an
official "Declaration on Euthanasia," which reaffirmed the Church's
prohibition of all forms of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Performing euthanasia on another or allowing it for oneself is called a
"violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human
person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity."
§ In
the most recent version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2003), all
forms of suicide and euthanasia remain strictly prohibited.
§ It
is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully
and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards,
not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose
of.-If this is the case, what right one has, to decide about others life.
§ Those
whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or
handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
§ Whatever
its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the
lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
§ An
act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to
eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the
human person and the creator God.
§ Discontinuing
medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or
disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal
of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death;
one's inability to impede it is merely accepted.
§ Every
person has a right to life.
§ Intentionally
causing one's own death is therefore equally as wrong as murder; such an action
on the part of a person is to be considered as a rejection of God's sovereignty
and loving plan. Furthermore, suicide is also often a refusal of love for self,
the denial of the natural instinct to live, a flight from the duties of justice
and charity owed to one's neighbor, to various communities or to the whole of
society--although, as is generally recognized, at times there are psychological
factors present that can diminish responsibility or even completely remove it.
Pope Benedict XVI on Euthanasia:
Addressing to the participants of
an international congress entitled: "Close by the Incurable Sick Person
and the Dying: Scientific and Ethical Aspects"
- Reiterated
that the Church is against all forms of euthanasia.
- "No
believer", he said, "should die alone and abandoned".
- Families
tried by the sickness of one of their members receive support, especially
if the sickness is serious or prolonged".
- He
affirmed, "The firm and constant ethical condemnation of all forms of
direct euthanasia, in keeping with the centuries-long teaching of the
Church".
Morality
in the case of Laxmi:
For me, Laxmi
seems to be a helpless lady. Yet, if she decides to end her husband’s life, it
is still morally wrong, no matter what the situation is. For everyone and
especially to a Christian, life is of utmost value and no one has the right to
act against it. Thus amidst all her struggles she needs to find a way to tackle
with the situation. Community needs to help her. Euthanasia is intrinsically
evil and cannot be justified. It is against the dignity of human person and
sovereignty of God. I personally understand the struggle of Laxmi, but I will
not support any act or decision of taking the life of Ramesh.
Conclusion:
Every life is precious and gift of
God. This life is given to be preserved and thus given glory to God. Acting
against this gift, in any circumstance is nothing but a crime or a sin. Thus amidst
the conflicts, confusions and chaos of the life Laxmi is in, she needs to find
meaning and find a way to move on, carrying her cross.
No comments:
Post a Comment