Like what you read?

Official Comments Policy:

This is my blog and I reserve the right to delete any comments that don't abide by these rules and/or don't contribute to the overall intellectual atmosphere of the blog. I don't mind comments from people who disagree with me, as I am very much open to reconsidering or revising anything that I write.

1. No swearing or otherwise profane language.
2. No insults or otherwise abusive language, toward me or any other commenter.
3. No spamming or trolling.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Unhappy? Euthanasia?

Today's article is a guest post by Daniel Rodger, who runs a blog called Mind the Evangelical.

Some people are sceptical of slippery slope arguments, and rightly so because very often they are based on some irrational fear. However, some slopes are slippery and to argue that starting from a certain premise one will one day arrive at a certain conclusion is sometimes actually justified. A case in point would be Belgium's ever more liberal requirements for being able to be put down by a doctor. Being intentionally killed by another person used to be called murder but alas we now call it euthanasia.

Nathan Verhelst was a transsexual who unhappy with the outcome of sex-change surgery later decided autonomously of course that he was in such a dire psychological state that the only 'treatment' was death by euthanasia. It is a sad state for any culture (and an individual) where treatment for those with serious mental illness now includes having the option to be legally killed by your physician. Doctors are no longer there to heal their patients but also to kill them, I'm sure Hippocrates would be rolling in his grave.

Euthanasia in Belgium (and the Netherlands) is proof that some ethical slopes are slippery, no longer is euthanasia something reserved for those with a terminal illness. If euthanasia is predominantly about pain and autonomy, why must that pain be connected with a terminal illness? Why must it be physical and not psychological? Why must it be autonomous? Surely the compassionate thing to do would be to put someone our of their 'misery' especially if you had previously euthanized a patient in a similar state. This has become the logic of many physicians who have been practising euthanasia for many years in these places, the result of a conscience numb and no-longer sensitive to the inherent value of the human person.

It is now the case that for every five people euthanized in the Netherlands one is euthanized without giving explicit consent. In Belgium euthanasia without explicit consent (involuntary and non-voluntary) is shockingly three times higher than in the Netherlands.

Pereira astutely summarises the slippery yet 'enlightened' journey places like the Netherlands and Belgium have taken:
'In 30 years, the Netherlands has moved from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill, to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill; from euthanasia for physical illness, to euthanasia for mental illness; from euthanasia for mental illness, to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering—and now to euthanasia simply if a person is over the age of 70 and “tired of living.” '
Once a culture starts viewing life as only instrumentally valuable life becomes nothing more than the sum of ones happiness and therefore unhappiness becomes a legitimate reason to end ones life. Nathan was the victim not only of his own mental anguish but of a society that subtly persuaded him that he wasn't worth any further investment, a lost cause who could benefit from being put down. It once again demonstrates the dehumanising power of a number of our moral 'advancements'.

1 comment:

  1. The difference between this issue and abortion, which you predominantly argue against, is in this case, these are adults capable of consenting to life choices, not unborn children who have zero say in the matter. An adult with a terminal illness or servere mental illness who decides they don't want to live is not an immoral choice. They have as much agency ober their lives as we do, or in your judgement, an unborn child does. If no one is forcing or coercing them into ending their life, it is theirs to do as they see fit with. Might it be a waste of a valualbe life? Probably, but it is their life, and as long as they are mentally capable of weighing out the consequences and understanding the finality of that decision, I see it as no different than making the choice to undero a life changing or life threatening medical procedure. Framing it in terms of the abortion debate is comparing apples to oranges. Abortion is done to someone else, which many argue makes it immoral as it violates another's right to life. Right to die statutes and euthanasia for informed adults with devastating illnesses physical or mental does not violate one's right to life as it is the individual who chooses what to do with their own life. An informed person's right to life and their right to make autonomous choices affecting that life also includes the right to terminate it too.