Human Life Is Sacred : Different Views About Abortion And Euthanasia Essay, Research Paper
`Abortion and euthanasia are the most controversial topics
faced by the world today, people hold different views about them some are in
favour whilst some are against it. In this coursework I will try to explain the
different views about the abortion and euthanasia and will end all this by
stating my own opinion on what I feel about abortion and euthanasia.First let us look at abortion:?Abortion? Abortion can be defined as:?Premature expulsion of the foetus from the womb either
done by operation or by medication?The meaning of abortion is quiet clear from its definition.
As far as different views are concerned mostly all sects of Christianity are
against the concept of abortion, there are humanitarian groups which are in
favour of it, they have their own views which are totally different then the
religious views, if we look at what different groups think we will find out
that there is equal acceptance and opposition on the concept of abortion. The
different views are given below:Opposition: Catholic Truth Society greatly oppose abortion, they give
their reason as:?We have been created by the almighty God in his own
image and likeness. No pregnancy is unplanned because no baby can be conceived
unless almighty God intends that conception and has willed that particular
unique and completely individual new person into existence. What has actually
happened in our society is that clever arguments has convinced those with no
anchor of belief in God to cling to, that merciless slaughter of unborn babies
is morally unjustifiable, and even essential for the happiness of the
individual and good of the society?The Catholic trust says
that the conception of baby is due to will of God and a human being has no
right to kill that baby, it is ethically unacceptable and morally wrong. Life
Campaign activist believe that:?Since human life begin at conception i.e.
fertilisation, and since all human life should be equally protected by the law
from conception to natural death, whether or not human being concerned is
wanted or handicapped it follows that destruction of unborn life is always
wrong.? According to Life
Campaign after conception foetus is a living thing and its right to live should
not be taken away.Favour: The groups in favour of
abortion are mostly humanitarian groups the have their own point of view,
according to National Abortion Campaign:?The decision to terminate pregnancy is so important
that it can only be made by the person most involved- the women. Women must
always have a choice and never have the decision forced upon them. Free
abortion facilities should on the NHS for every woman who needs them. We
believe that the right of women to control their own fertility is a fundamental
human right. Women will not be able to take a full and equal part in the
society when we can all decide for ourselves whether and when to have
children.?National Abortion
Campaign states the basic right of women to control its own fertility, they say
that women have a full right to chose when the want to have children. Humanist
Dipper supports abortion by suggesting that:?Humanist regards abortion
better than bringing unwanted into the world. It is a mistake to say that
Humanist are in favour of abortion; no one can be in favour of abortion, which,
except in unforeseen circumstances, is result of failed contraception. We think
there will probably always be a certain number unplanned pregnancies and that
the mother concerned should have the complete choice of either complete
abortion, or keeping the baby.?Opinion: If a man’s family is starving and
there is an unattended lorry filled with food outside his house should he steal
from the lorry to feed his family, but in doing this break a commandment. Or
should he leave the food so his family dies, but he does not break the
commandment. One type of thinking would say that the commandments say
"thou shalt not steal" so you should not steal. Another type of
thinking would ask the question "which would bring about the greater good,
him stealing the food or not?", and once they had looked at the individual
circumstances they would probably come to the conclusion that the greatest good
would come about him stealing the food.If this way of thinking is then
applied to the title, then having one strict law would be like having the
commandment and should under no circumstances be broken. Having each request
for abortion be judged on its own merits would be the one where someone asks
the question "what would bring around the greatest good, this woman having
abortion or not?"So if each request for abortion
is going to be judged on its own merits then someone has to make the decision.
Who? Has a special court got to be set up in order to decide whether or not
people can have abortions? This would not work because by the time the court
had made a decision the mother would probably be in labour.Is it up to her G.P. to decide?
This practice already has enough pressures of it’s own is it really fair to add
another one to it. Also would the decision made by the G.P. be one on sound
medical reasons or would it be made on personal views of the G.P. in question.
How could the doctor prove that the decision they made had a sound reason. The
best judge can be the woman herself who is undergoing through this problem of
unplanned pregnancy. If she thinks its religiously wrong then its between her
and God but she should have a choice to make a valid decision at the spur of
time. ?Euthanasia? The term ?Euthanasia?
comes from the Greek word for ?easy death?. It is the one of the
most public policy issues being debated about today. Formally called ?mercy killing?, euthanasia is the act of purposely making or helping
someone die, instead of allowing nature to take it?s course. Basically
euthanasia means killing in the name of compassion. Euthanasia, can be ?voluntary?,
?passive?, ?active?,? or ?positive?,
Voluntary involves
a request by the dying patient or their legal representative. Passive involves,
doing nothing to prevent death – allowing someone to die. Positive involves
taking deliberate action to cause a death.Active involves
giving a lethal dose of toxicant to cause death.Euthanasia, at the moment is illegal throughout the world
apart from in the State of Oregon in USA, where there is a law specifically
allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs for the purpose of euthanasia. In
the Netherlands it is practised widely, although, in fact, it remains illegal.Opposition: Majority
of religions disapprove Euthanasia, Christianity disapproves it according to
the belief human being have a special place in God?s heart, eyes and in his
creation:?For you created my inmost being; you (God) knit me
together in my mother?s womb?(psalm 139)So the
alternative to euthanasia in Christianity is ?Hospice movement?. The kind of care hospice give to
the patients is very distinctive for they offer tender loving care. The three
aims of hospices are:·
To
relieve pain. ·
To
enable patients and families to face up to death. ·
To
care for emotional needs of the relatives.A
hospice offers care to the patients and their families at the most difficult
stages in their lives. Opinion: I believe that everyone has the
right to choose how he or she live and die. Not everybody will have an easy
death. Some terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best of care and
the strongest of drugs. Other distressing symptoms, which come with diseases,
such as sickness, no mobility, incontinence, breathlessness and fever cannot
always be relieved. Pain is not always the issue – quality of life is too. People should not be left
lingering in pain. They should not have to suffer when death is inevitable.
People do have the right to commit suicide, although it is a tragic and
individual act. However euthanasia is not suicide. It is not a
private act, you have the support of family and friends. Euthanasia is about
letting a person assist anothers death to save them from long painful deaths. Many people argue, however, that
a person who is terminally ill may make a miraculous recovery – it has happened
in the past. Most terminally ill people whose pain and sufferings are relieved
by excellent care, given by hospices, hospitals and GPs do not require making
decisions about euthanasia. It is only needed for those whose pain is not
relived with any form of care or whose bodily disintegration is beyond bearing.
Medical advances in recent years have made it possible to keep terminally ill
people alive for beyond a length of time, without any hope of recovery or
improvement. For this reason the ?living ill? has come into use in the USA as
part of the right-to-die principle. Most states now legally allow the making of
such wills that instruct, GPs etc., to suspend treatment or refuse life-support
measures in hopeless cases. A pro-longed life is intolerable
for people with a condition, which leaves the brain alert but eventually shuts
down all bodily functions and skills of communicating. How can people be
expected to live like this? For people like this and also people in PVS,
(persistent vegetative state) I believe that their legal representatives or
close family should have the choice and the trust to let them live a prolonged
life or to end their life and let them die with dignity. If people could make
the decision themselves then I believe that the option of euthanasia should be
open to them. On the other hand, people believe
that no one has the right to play God. Christians believe that ?We are made in the image
of God and therefore human life is God?s gift to us and is
uniquely precious – we are not the owners of life, but it?s minders?,
We belong to God because he made
us. Many religions follow this belief; so do not believe in suicide and
assisted dying. The opposition to euthanasia does
not mean that people insist on medical treatment at all costs. Good medical
practise is the alternative to euthanasia. Sometimes a distinction is made
between active euthanasia (e.g. Giving a lethal injection) and positive
euthanasia (withdrawing treatment). However it is misleading to describe
withholding or discontinuing treatment as ?euthanasia? unless it is done with
the intention of killing the patient. Sometimes a treatment may be properly
withdrawn even with the patient?s consent, for example, when it is ineffective,
merely prolonging the dying process in a terminally ill patient. A lot of people believe that if
voluntary euthanasia were legalised, society would soon allow involuntary
euthanasia. This is based on the idea that if we change the law to allow a
person to help someone die, we would not be able to control it. If there was to
be a law like this, there would have to be strict rules, which involved the
patient having knowledge of the whole process, making sure they are not forced
into it and also that they are mentally able to make the decision. So, should we allow people the
choice of when they die? The debate about euthanasia props up all the time,
even when it is not publicised, it is still happening secretly all the time. As
an issue euthanasia refuses to die. Everyone has their own opinion on it, with
many people wanting to see a change in the law. When finally that person dies,
their relatives? good memories may be overrun by the memories of that persons
last few days of agony and misery, when all they could do was watch them suffer
and loose dignity. Legally, euthanasia is against
the law. Simply put is it murder. The law is established by the religious and
moral arguments, remembering that one of the Ten Commandments is ?Thou shalt not kill?.This issue needs a lot of
thought. Many people agree with voluntary euthanasia, many disagree but there
is also a large amount of people undecided on the matter. The time will come
when the Government and medical services will have to open their eyes to
euthanasia, and there will be a lot of debate on the subject. Until then the
euthanasia debate will continue to linger, like a terminal disease.