Euthanasia: Right or Wrong?

I found a rather interesting blog saying all of the hype on this issue in American papers was due to 'clueless American journalism and religious fanaticism'. I don't know if that is the case, but the blog did reference some good information on the Groningen Protocol.

There is no answer to this question….there is just not.

Life is purposeful by nature. Even someone who is paralyzed can totally fulfill his/her purpose in life (ex: Steven Hawking). Some would even go as far to say that there is purpose in every action. St. Augustine said there is purpose even in sin….and he did not like sin. Even if someone is dying a horrible painful death, if they handle their death with dignity…..it can inspire someone else who is suffering….thus purpose. To quote Vicktor Frankel, “For the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day and from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person's life at a given moment.” How can a doctor say, “This person on longer can serve any purpose?” The whole idea of letting a person die naturally is that only God can say when an individual has served their purpose.

Then again, if someone is not even self-aware,…..

I think it was Aristotle who said that what separates us from the animals it the fact that we are self-aware. He went on to say that all human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsions, habit, reason, passion, desire. A person in Terry Schiavo's condition can not (as far as we are told) actualize any of the qualities that give us our ability to act as humans.

There is no right answer as far as I am concerned…..one more Vicktor Frankel quote, “Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked.”

The tragedy of Terri Schaivo showcases the need for moral absolutes. In this case the relevant absolute goes something like this:

"It is always wrong to withhold food and water from an innocent person."

Yesterday Patrick Buchanan wrote:

This was a state-sanctioned killing of a woman because she was brain-damaged, and the method of execution was by starvation and denial of water. These are methods most of us would protest if imposed on the Beltway snipers.

Moral relativism makes this case far more complicated and "multi-faceted" than it is, so much that the network news programs teem with more sympathy for Michael Schaivo and his "agonizing decision" than for the dying woman herself.

The Terri Schaivo argument gets thrown off track by the irrelevant question "will she ever recover?" just as the abortion argument's red herring is "what about cases of rape or incest?" Both questions are irrelevant in a world of moral absolutes.

Those who want to see this as a complex issue are merely adding that complexity to take the debate away from the horrific truth:

An innocent human being who left no legal instructions at all is being passively killed.

This case is about further cheapening the value of human life.