I begin in the name of God, with my hopes attached for my subject is complex and with a troubled soul that is at unrest with each word I type. It is said to be better to debate a question without settling it, than it is to settle a question without debating it. Having said that, my objective is to debate the subject and resolve it as well, keeping my readers into consideration.
Without further troubling the reader, the reason for my spiritual chaos and the constant war between right and wrong in my head is Euthanasia. For those who are unaware, it is the process of painlessly helping an incurably ill person to die, also very well known as “assisted suicide” and “mercy killing”. Generally euthanasia is performed by lethal injection, using the same drugs as those on death row are performed. Having it strictly banned in different parts of the world, there are reasons for supporting and opposing euthanasia which punctuate discussions in the mind of an individual constantly.
Karen Ann Quinlan collapsed on April 15th, 1975. She was twenty-one years old. Within hours, she entered a coma from which she could never recover. Her parents, Roman Catholics, knew their daughter would not want to be kept alive by extraordinary means. A year later, as Karen lay in a “persistent vegetative state,” the courts finally allowed her treatment to be stopped; but artificial feeding was continued and she was maintained as a living dead body until June 1985, when she eventually died of pneumonia. Consequently her case stimulated thousands of letters of sympathy and fuelled the “right to die” movement.
Ramon Sanpedro hunted, through the courts, the assistance of a doctor to help him die with dignity. He was paralyzed in Spain as a result of a swimming accident during his youth. He described himself as “a head attached to a corpse.” His exact words:
“Why die? Because every journey has its departure time and only the traveler has the privilege and the right to choose the last day to get out.
Why to die?, because at times the journey of no return is the best path that reason can show us out of love and respect for life, so that life may have a dignified death.” Ramon certainly did not suggest how other people confined in the same situation might feel. In fact, there are some people out there who, regardless of having the worst physical complexities in life, take enjoyment in living and continuing life as it follows. But Ramon made his choice and choice should be respected, however ensuring, according to the very concept of Utilitarianism, that no other individual’s life is endangered or pressurized.
Supporters of euthanasia are inclined to believe it is a dignified death and must be legalized as it proves to be a pain-free relief for many terminal patients.
On the contrary, a good question to ask is who benefits from the person dying? If a person dies, who will inherit? Who has the decision power? Is it a medical decision that is totally objective or a decision given by the family members that in some way may be biased? Are we not playing God’s role by choosing the time and procedure of our death? Is euthanasia not a nickname of “murder”?
Does it not rob one of his remaining times on earth? Who has the final say, the patient or the doctor?
The argument rages on and on. There are a lot of what ifs and whos and these need to be scrutinized in detail by lawyers, doctors and predominantly governments.
This article is open to all relevant comments, debate and solutions that bring this war between legitimacy and illegitimacy of euthanasia to a positive end!
hmmmm….. EUTHENASIA….. welll being a muslim ….its not allowed in our religion so there is no rooom for any further discussion on it … i may sound an EXTREMSIT or a MULLA or wat ever the pseudo intellectuals may choose to call me ….
In a bid to sound ENLIGHTENED (wat ever taht means….) ….PROGRESSIVE ….. MOD SQUAD…we have started ti indluge in discussions which are simply not open for discussion … Islam clearly states that LIFE IS IN HANDS OF ALLAH and no one has the right to take his/her own life or assist some one else in doing so …. WHAT EVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE ….its strongly prohibited and those commmiting suicide are destined to rott in hell…. so THATS THAT …. end of discussion as far as i m concerned ….PERIOD … FINISH
I agree with the person above me
It is not allowed in our religion.
And by way of explanation I’d like to say why it isn’t (in my opinion).
Because if Allah swt puts anyone is such a state where the question of ‘mercy killing’ may arise He is testing that person and his family to see what they choose. Its about standing strong in the face of an azmaa’esh
Seeing someone in a vegetative state is difficult, but there’s a reason why Allah Ta’ala has not given man life or death in his own hand, we might not know it but I trust Him
I read the following lines somewhere and somehow I think they are just right for this topic
“Those who joyfully leave everything in Allah’s hand, will eventually see Allah’s hand in everything. Because worries end where Faith begins.” (:
..anywayy you write well (:
I enjoyed reading “The Closed Wooden Doors” the most!
Euthanasia has been, and always will be, without a shadow of a doubt a subject that people will continue arguing and debating about for years to come. It is a subject, like many others whose acceptance is based entirely on personal opinion rather than judicial jurisdiction, that will never lose it’s notorious need to debated, even if and when it is made legal.
Of course, if one must indulge in discussing this subject, the argument should not be two dimensional – it has to be multifaceted.
From a religious point of view, it is clear that Euthanasia would be considered a moral crime. Not only through the eyes of a Muslim, but also through the eyes of the Jewish, Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, etc. And why would it not be? It is not so much “playing God” (which mind you is and will always remain a mere expression – because regardless of how hard you try, that role’s just not meant to be played by a human) as it is a blatant disregard of faith. The very foundation of religion is faith – the act of the belief that whatever comes our way, irrespective of its nature being good or bad, is sent to our way by a divine being and that persevering through it is what makes us faithful. You take that away, and what’s left? Not just in terms of religion, but in terms of faith, belief, fate, destiny etc? These things are reduced to mere terminology, when you take the ACT of believing and having faith away! Ofcourse, even those who might be believers could argue the fact that alleviating someone’s pain and misery is also in itself an act of kindness and righteousness – but to what effect? You would not go unpunished for assisting in the end of someone’s life, and that person would inadvertently end up in the fires of hell, so where’s the righteousness in that? To top it off, there’s so much pain in the world anyway, how does packaging one man’s misery and sending him off to another world will alleviate this world of any? You want to alleviate pain, do it here, do it now – feed a hungry child, assist an old arthritic across the street, even if she’s the “maasi” and would stink up your backseat, give an abused woman a roof to live under, a man with a debilitating disease the assurance that his family will be helped as he’s exiting this world – those are acts of righteousness, those are acts of faith!
From a secular point of view, it should be more acceptable, right? In my opinion, those that are not looking at it from a non-secular point of view ought to be far more accepting of it. If God’s not there to take into consideration, and no moral obligation is to be thought about – it should be a perfectly acceptable act, right? I would think so, except I don’t! People might argue that this is my opinion tinged with my moral bias, but it is not. The point is, there is no way to gauge when it is acceptable to take this step. Any action that has some moral ambiguity, to have some social standing, needs to have the clarity that it is performed under sound judgment – so when should it be acceptable to end someone’s life? When they are in a vegetative state? But at such a time, is this an acceptance of the patient’s wishes or merely the easing of the misery of his/her loved ones? Are we to follow the patient’s wishes, or the wishes of the loved ones? Perhaps this liberty ought to be taken when the person is terminally ill, and knows his/her end is near? Well, that sounds acceptable, right? Except how many patients have been told they have merely six months to live, and have lived to battle their disease for years to come? Robert Schimmel (a comedian) is an example! So who can say without any doubt when life will end? And dignified death? There is no such thing as dignified death! Life’s beautiful, and the end of life always ugly. Whether writhing in pain, or going serenely in your sleep – death will always give way to grief, misery and tears – it will never be pretty, and it will never be satisfying. You can only live your life with dignity, so that people remember you and your dignified ways, but your death will never be a vaudevillian act, it’s always sad, painful and undignified. I’d have far more respect for a man who tried to fight his diseases, showing his loved ones how badly he wants to experience life with them…or a man who endured the pain for those short months, in order to make more memories with his family and loved ones, if not for his sake but for theirs, rather than trying to beat time to his own death.
But then again, it’s all merely a matter of opinion, isn’t it!
I agree with each and every post above, but I must say, Hira, you got it so right that it hurts to read your comment. Esp about having the ability to help others in ways that you described.
well written…it really makes you think regarding moral and ethical concerns
Hira, girl I do not know you but what you’ve written is great!
May I use some of your lines sometime? (giving you due credit ofcourse)
Amna….Sarosh…thank you both very much for your compliments – I am, although truly unworthy of them, truly flattered! Especially by the insinuation that my writing to you is so appreciable, that you’d want to “quote” it! *Sigh* but in answer to your question, Sarosh, I wouldn’t mind if you quoted me, and I appreciate you being kind enough to give credit where it’s due. And Manay, this subject can bring up such pent up emotion, because how can it be that you can talk about death without inevitably facing the worst of our fears — death? And the galling apprehension of death, and how it will come to us…along with what we stand for during the life we live that will result in death…all these subjects are emotional, without a doubt!
It’s a pleasure ladies…just continue writing about things that feed the imagination, and spark such fiery interest. By provoking thought…you’re giving life…to ideas, creativity! Remember that!