This is the second instalment of articles on ‘sanctity of human life’. This week’s article focuses on euthanasia.
Euthanasia literally means good death, and it was originally used to describe a courageous att itude towards death. Euthanasia now refers to a painless and quick death, often induced by medical personnel, for those who suffer incurable conditions or who are in an extended coma without hope of recovery.
For example, the patient who has suffered massive head injuries and who is kept alive by machines.
People who support euthanasia do so by citing the right of the individual to choose the way they want to die. Just as we have the right to choose how we live, they maintain, we also have the right to choose the manner of our death. Euthanasia is a peaceful way to end the suffering of a person whose disease is incurable or whose capacities are no longer self-functioning.
Another argument for euthanasia is that it also saves the family from excessive financial or physical burden.
Those who oppose euthanasia do so by upholding the view that life is a gift of God, irrespective of how limited the form of that life may be.
Those who support euthanasia emphasise the right of the person to choose whether to die or not, yet more often than not, the person for whom death is being considered may be so incapacitated, he or she is in no position to make the choice for him or herself.
Theologically, euthanasia is problematic because it goes against the command not to kill (Exodus 20:13). It also opens the door for all sorts of cruelty, mercilessness, and even selfish dispensing of human life. Those against euthanasia maintain that human beings should not play God and decide who should die and when.
As the giver of life, they maintain, it is only God who ought to decide when a person dies.
Life is sacred and hallowed. It is good, as attested to in the first creation narrative (Genesis 1:10). So we need to ask the question: Does the life of someone declared brain dead, in a permanent coma with basic physical functions kept going by machines fit the description of life as sacred, hallowed and good? Life is about loving and being able to receive and respond to love, and being aware of one’s surroundings.
Euthanasia can be seen as a possibility if the life of the person has irretrievably ceased to have these capacities.
However, if euthanasia is supported for the rare occurrences, care should be taken in the decision-making process to involve more than one medical professional, to reflect the character of the person no longer able to function for him or herself, and to assess the quality of life currently being experienced.
For those persons diagnosed with terminal illnesses who remain alert and capable of making decisions for themselves, the consideration is, perhaps, more difficult.
Quality of life, the right to choose, the intentionality of life described as sacred, hallowed and good all need to be evaluated carefully.
The danger inherent in supporting euthanasia, without some kind of legal guard, is that it can lead to the justification of forms of genocide – removing people who are “sub-standard” in some way, for example.
The danger of not permitting euthanasia in some form can mean great financial and physical burdens to families or the State in the medical care of terminally ill and incapacitated people. The consideration of sanctity of life involves these kinds of questions too.
In the next edition, we will round off the topic with capital punishment.
Reverend Jan A Scholtz is the former chairperson of // Kharas Regional Council and former !Nami#nus constituency councillor and is a holder of Diploma in Theology, B-Theo (SA), a Diploma in Youth Work and Development from the University of Zambia (UNZA), Diploma in Education III (KOK) BA (HED) from UNISA.