The great debate on the ethical and legal issues concerning euthanasia is an ongoing

Transcription

1 Eleni-Melina Petratos, Socratic Dialogue: For the Love of Life The great debate on the ethical and legal issues concerning euthanasia is an ongoing process that has divided the nation as many other controversial issues such as abortion and death penalty have done for decades. Clearly the similarities of these issues are compelling due to the fact that they deal with life and death and they all arouse moral and religious passions, with the State in the middle trying to deal with legislation concerning these matters. As it stands today neither the United States nor the New York State constitution grants individuals a right to suicide assistance or euthanasia. The courts have distinguished the right to refuse treatment from the right to get assistance in euthanasia although the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment is constitutionally guaranteed. It is my thesis that we must respect the right of an individual to choose and decide if euthanasia is in accordance with his or her moral values and if such an action would be in their best interest. Suicide assistance generally constitutes a form of second-degree manslaughter under New York law. Euthanasia falls under the definition of second-degree murder, regardless of whether the person consents to being assisted in ending their life ( Six years ago my father was diagnosed with cancer and within four months of his diagnosis --and after repeated treatments of radiation and chemotherapy the standard treatment for all cancer patients-- his condition kept deteriorating and finally the cancer metastasized to his bones. The metastasis resulted to excruciating and constant pain that was not alleviated by any painkillers provided by his doctors. In the ensuing months of my father s Golgotha I was faced with myriads of moral, legal and economic decisions but none was more important than his wish and will to have a dignified end to an honorable and autonomous life. Thus my decision to assist

2 my father to euthanasia resulted in a charge of second -degree murder and brought me before this court. Standing here before you in this austere room and in the grim reality that surrounds me, there is a wan ray of sunlight that is trying to penetrate through the bars of the window. This daring little ray of light inadvertently takes me back to another room and another reality of which the anguish and consequences I wish upon no one in this room. The pale ray of light in that room-- that hospital room-- only accentuated the sorrow and the agony that flowed like a storm in what used to be my father s calm hazel eyes. The deadly silence of the room was interrupted only by my father s moans and gasps of pains. The solid sterility of the whiteness of room was colored only by the red fluidity of blood from my father s body. Hours and eternity indiscernible, pain and agony his sole companions and his implorations not as father to a daughter anymore, but as a human being to another, compelling and justified. To deny my father a good death was equivalent to dishonoring his life. Unceasing pain and loss of human dignity were not a legacy he deserved. Do your duty as your conscience dictates, but ask yourselves this unyielding question; is life which is completely depleted of the smallest joy and fraught only with anguish and pain, worth living? This court feels deep compassion for patients in those rare cases when pain cannot be alleviated even with aggressive palliative care. As a society, however, we have better ways to give people greater control and relief from suffering than by legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia.

3 The society you speak of gives greater control to alleviate pain to those fortunate enough to afford the best possible health care and leaves the rest to grapple with debilitating illnesses with little hope of relief from pain. Therefore in addition to denying them the right to end their suffering this humane society and the State deny them through a less then ideal social system the opportunity to have the best possible health care entitled to every person you so much seem to deem as valuable. What about the autonomy of the individual and the will to choose? Does it not translate that from this will springs forth the value of freedom and that society must respect that will and allow you to decide your fate? Isn t it true that when society tries to rule the will of a person they inevitably diminish his categorical imperative and interfere with the intrinsic moral values those individuals rightly so deserve? We as a society and under the laws that govern us must learn to respect the sanctity of life. The sanctity of life as it pertains to a life that is cognitive, fulfilling and free of suffering, or to a life that is sustainable and valuable through religious beliefs and doctrines? Is it grounded law that permits the refusal for sustained treatment resulting in the slow death of a patient while actively assisting the same patient to die is considered illegal and unconstitutional? Is it a hypocrisy that is grounded in a modern day plague called politics of economics and a morality based on institutionalized religion? Are we going to evoke the belief in God as the Creator and ultimate designer of who lives and dies? And if we were to adopt that

4 philosophy should we stop all medical technological advances and let God do his deed without any interference from mere mortals? Can this court honestly ascertain that all laws regarding the sanctity of life as it is represented in the law is not or has not been influenced by religion? If not, why was I made to swear on a bible to tell the truth? Moreover shouldn t this court respect the autonomy of the individual and his inherent right to understand life and its meaning as he or she deems appropriate according to their values regardless of religious or any other coercive forces that can undermine their autonomy as human beings? Human endurance for man has always been at the psyche of his very being when it augurs an exodus from hardship and suffering to a productive and creative life. When that life disavows the very same merits that make man an eager participant the right to cease that nebulous existence should not be denied. You seem to adopt a utilitarian approach to the meaning of life which leads to two hypotheses: One, that your father s illness rendered him useless therefore dispensable; the other that your criteria can be said to closely resemble the social engineering of Nazi Germany. The analogy is preposterous at best. What you have alleged is a systematic method of physicians and geneticists to exterminate a certain population regardless of their health status. What I have presented here is the right of a terminally ill person to ask assistance in ending a life of pain and suffering--a life that has become alien and burdensome-- and the moral obligation of a family member to carry out this wish. In doing so it restores the dignity and

5 respectability one holds for the true sanctity of life which entails quality and negates physical, spiritual and mental annihilation. The term 'terminal', as defined by medical experts, means a disease that cannot be cured nor has a remedy. In fact, the final remedy is death. The senseless, atrocious killings in Nazi Germany cannot be compared to carefully regulated policies--which should be legislated-- that will allow euthanasia in selective cases. Such an extreme comparison should not prevent a merciful euthanasia policy for the terminally ill in unbearable pain who request it. Aside from what you have inferred to, as the religious implications that may interpret God as the Creator and sustainer of life, people do get sick and in the process they deteriorate physically, and eventually do die, but not before their time. You say your father asked for euthanasia, people when they are sick they get depressed and do idealize death but no one wants to die if they can prolong life. Life is laughter, sunsets and dusks, life is also pain and struggle but the splendor of life lays in the enosis of all of these and not only in the monolithic burden of extreme pain and suffering. Are we so afraid of death that we are led to believe that a wretched life engulfed in constant suffering and pain is better than the alternative? Demystification of the death process must begin with the patient, his physician, family members and any others involved in frank conversations on the issues concerning the end of life. With such an approach we would not be devastated when someone close to us who is waiting for death in the most horrendous possible condition asks for euthanasia --a good death.my father did just that he asked for a good death and I would not deny him that small spark of

6 dignity and watch him suffer not only from bodily pain and rapid deterioration but from despair of what had become of his spirit and mind. It is not for you to decide who lives and who dies. I agree; that decision should be the right of each individual and as such my father chose to end his life rather than prolong a dismal existence wrapped in a coarse blanket of pain, an existence reduced to a pathetic figure consisting of flesh and bones void of vitality and the strength for creativity-- meanings which constituted his definition of life. As you stated, if it is the right of each individual to decide to take his or her life under these circumstances--something this court disagrees with---that negates your right to do it for them. You allow him the right to decide and yet knowing the debilitating effects of his illness and his inability to carry out the action, you negate him his right to ask for assistance in that right thus to arrive at the desired result of his choice. Your father could have gone on living for months with the care he was provided for and we have cases of many patients who have surpassed that time frame and went on to live for almost a year. You speak of him as a statistical entity, as a mean not an end when he was a vibrant, robust man, one who valued life for the opportunities afforded to him through the dictum of his forefathers Healthy mind, healthy body and in the belief that when one is severed the other is but a useless vehicle with no purpose or destination. If everyone s belief became a law the outcome would be anarchy at best.

7 You have your laws and you speak with convincing arguments regarding the legalities of the matter and yet you disregard a universal law, one that entails human dignity and the right to a life that is conducted in the most productive, and fulfilling way. I stand here before you charged with a heinous crime, amidst my pain and sorrow of losing a loved one and I have neither the wisdom nor the courage to tell you that what I did was noble or that it were carried out with the utmost certainty. No, esteemed court I m standing here and I tell you I have suffered and I have struggled with this decision. I remember one morning eons away when he and I walking through his pride and joy of what was a small field of grape vines we came upon a small wounded bird lying on the ground. He picked it up and gently examined it then laid it on the ground again watching carefully as the little bird tried in vain to walk away but unable to do so, dragged its little body in a failed attempt to do what it had being doing all its life: to fly. He asked me to look at some wild flowers that were audaciously growing in a soil that was meant for grape vines and when I returned my attention to him after a few minutes and searched for the bird, it was no where to be found. I knew then what he had done, appalled and truly disturbed I started screaming Why did you do that, how cruel can you be? He looked at me with a calmness that revealed his profound reasoning for the deed he had committed and said Birds are meant to soar, Melina, not to slither like reptiles. This is how my father valued life as the rarest and most wonderful opportunity to soar in the ethers of humanity and nature and to so with magnanimity. It is inhumane to stand idle and watch a man who celebrated life with pride and

8 dignity, become a nondescript organism, without offering any aid that is asked of you. I will accept the punishment that your laws define for my action, I will not, however, be judged or sentenced on the morality of my action because it holds clarity and confers with the undisputable right of each human being to choose a life that permeates quality, creativity, human dignity and appreciation of these meanings.