Denying people choice cruel and irrational

That we are rational and self-determined individuals that would live, and have lived, according to what is best for our quality of life within the societal moral and ethical bounds of society; why is a person to be denied the right, having lived a good life within their own capability, to have an equally good dying experience. Death is the outcome to our dying; how we die is as important as life itself.

The right to determine how we die and the challenges such wishes meet in the face of the religious establishment outcry and the reticence of the medical profession is too important to allow their hypocrisy: double standards and fallacious arguments to cheat us of a self-determined right and condemn us to a cruel, undignified death.

The religious establishment argues for the ‘sanctity of life’; we should stay at our post until God calls us. Really? Over thousands of years religion has been very good at overriding the ‘sanctity of life principle’ and the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’. Just give the Mesopotamian and fertile crescent folklore religions – from which Judaism; Christianity and Islam – take their precedents excuse to impose their will. They have, and some still are experts at barbaric, judicial ritual slaughter. Men were sent in to battle with ‘God on their side’ up into the 20th century, with the tacit approval of religion. The Pope was willing to turn a blind eye during WW2, to the mass slaughter of the Jewish people from the Axis and occupied regions. To say that you hold to the tenets of ‘the sanctity of life’ and the teachings of Jesus is risible. You are only a few hundred years away from barbarically and cruelly burning people at the stake because they followed the wrong Jesus sect. If the Roman Catholic Church and the Church Of England wish to proclaim they follow the tenets of the teachings of Jesus Christ, then give up your obscene wealth and distribute it to the poor and needy of all persuasions: not to do so flies in the face of its credibility. The hypocrisy of it all beggars belief.

Why we still follow the folklore of the Mesopotamian regions makes no more sense than the folklore of ‘Noggin The Nog’. God in the burning bush? The miracle is you can go to St Catherine’s Monastery today and still see it; if you pay. And very healthy it looked when I was there. There is a disturbing power principle applied by the church that pervades through the top echelons of the establishment. Each seeking global domination for their own ends. That they treat us as a means to their own end is morally reprehensible. As Kant laid out in one of his categorical imperatives; ‘always treat a person as an end in themselves, and not as a means to an end’. The church and establishment would do well to heed that moral and ethical tenet. The world would be a better place for it. But that would mean giving up control of our lives; hence their opposition to anything that gives us a right to self-determination.

Moving on to the tenets of the medical profession; ‘do no harm’! I would argue that making someone cruelly suffer is a greater harm than doing nothing. Does it not go on to say you need not officiously strive to keep alive? I can understand a person with deeply held convictions not wishing to be part of a ‘good death’ however illogical, but that is if they have never, or will ever apply the doctrine of ‘double effect’. This is where a doctor gives you a large dose of a barbiturate knowing that dose will likely kill you, but hold it to be within their moral compass by the prime motivation of giving it to relieve pain. It’s OK I am not euthanising you, I am relieving your pain. How does that salve your conscience? Your action means they will die; the intention to relieve pain will also bring about their death. The double standard and duplicity between the moral intention and the outcome negates the argument against assisting in someone achieving a good death.

This is not the only example of double standards. Those who hold against assisted dying should also be against the harvesting of organs. This is presented as organ donation and something seen as a good. What they are not keen to have pointed out is for the organs to be in a condition for transplant, they need to be taken while the patient is still alive.

Finally, for those who argue against assisted dying on the grounds of the fallacious ‘slippery slope’ argument that will lead to the vulnerable being pressured into ‘opting out’ early or the state intervening to end your life when you are no longer of use to society. Isn’t the case of organ donation an even greater example of a vulnerable person.

A person with a 50/50 chance of survival would, by the slippery slope argument, be even more vulnerable to organs being removed so that they can save more lives and earn bigger fees.

How long before an older person with a 60/40 chance of survival is declared less of a chance to survive so it can be justified to go in and get those organs. If the slippery slope argument is to hold against wished for assisted dying then organ transplantation should cease immediately.

When it comes to deciding our own moral compass on ethical issues, it is very easy to be swayed by the emotion of how we feel at the present and the indoctrination of ill-founded sentiments.

That a person should not be allowed to make an informed choice as to the type of death they should wish for is cruel and irrational. Remove the hypocrisy; double standards and fallacious arguments and there is no logical reason not to be able to achieve one’s chosen death in circumstances where they have lost everything that they would live for.

JANSON BEWEY, M.(PHIL). B.A.(HONS). DIP. EUR. HUM,

Ommadawn,

Rue Colin,

Vale.