In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, decided it is within the rights of any woman to end a pregnancy under certain circumstances and guidelines. Whether or not you agree with the court's decision is irrelevant. What matters is the court ruled that women have control of their bodies which in essence means all citizens of age have control of their bodies. However, this is not true.
Today, 34 U. S states have the death penalty as part of their criminal justice sentencing. Criminals found guilty of certain crimes and circumstances may face execution.
In cases of both abortion and execution, it can be argued that the state is allowing for the taking of a human life and depending on your religious beliefs, may also be argued we are doing "God's work."
All states also have laws that allow the use of deadly force by law enforcement in an attempt to protect and serve its citizens. Few would complain about the police shooting a crazed gunman who takes hostages but again it could be argued they are doing the work of God.
Unfortunately, we do not allow citizens, under certain circumstances, to take control of their bodies and decide for themselves whether or not it is time to end their life. High rise buildings and hotels have windows that do not open up to prevent citizens from committing suicide. Bridges and over passes are covered in wire to prevent someone form throwing them self over to their demise.
You can easily argue a suicidal people are mentally ill and if they could just receive proper mental health support they might go on to live productive lives. But what about those who are not mentally ill? What about those who are only suffering from the ravages of old age or are terminally ill? Should they not have greater say as to how and when they pass?
Eighty to ninety percent of all the money we spend on medical care during the course of our lives is spent in the final two years of life. This is neither cost effective nor fair to the dying person who may prefer to leave this world sooner and leave behind whatever money they may have to loved ones.
What is so wrong with an elderly person who has decided they have lived enough and they have nothing left to offer this world from taking their life? What about the terminally ill? Is it so wrong that they choose to go out on their own terms rather than feel like a burden to their family? The only people who benefit from keeping an old person alive is often times the medical industry.
Now, I am not suggesting we start authorizing the killing of elderly or sick people. However, I do think the decision to live longer or not should be theirs just as it should be a woman's decision to decide whether or not it is best for her to go through with a pregnancy. What is the big deal if someone with a terminal illness decides they would rather swallow a few pills and end their life instead of going through a slow process that may end up leaving their loved ones emotionally drained while emptying their savings? Some, perhaps many, would prefer to die on their terms with their dignity rather than on society's terms.
Does it make us a worse society if a cancer patient who has put all his affairs in order and said all of his good-byes decides to die on his terms rather than be kept alive as long as possible? We allow citizens to donate their organs to others upon death in order to help someone else live longer. Family members often are encouraged to "pull the plug" so doctors can harvest their organs for someone else. Isn't this playing God? A person of sound mind should be allowed to die in the manner of their choosing and not be forced to resort to extreme measures.
If you support a woman's right to an abortion or believe in either the death penalty or use of deadly force, you should support euthanasia. We either have total control over our bodies or none at all. You can not play God in some cases of life and death and not in others.
No comments:
Post a Comment