Death with Dignity in The Case of Mother Teresa

Introduction

The concept of death with dignity has been a topic of considerable debate in contemporary society. Some view it as an opportunity to end unbearable suffering, while others, echoing the sentiments of Mother Teresa, argue that it involves departing from this world with the love and support of family and friends. Euthanasia, derived from the Greek words 'eu' meaning 'good' and 'thanatos' meaning 'death,' encompasses the intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who is to die. This essay explores the contentious issue of euthanasia and contends that the end, even if perceived as merciful, does not justify the means, as euthanasia is an ethically and morally problematic way to end one's life.

The Argument Against Euthanasia

Proponents of euthanasia argue that it offers a compassionate solution to alleviate the suffering of terminally ill individuals. Some terminally ill patients face excruciating pain and an intolerably poor quality of life, leading them to consider euthanasia as an option. Active euthanasia, or Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS), occurs when another person or physician administers a lethal injection or otherwise causes death at the request of the individual. PAS, on the other hand, involves a physician providing the means for the person to take their own life. Advocates for euthanasia believe that it grants individuals control over their life's trajectory, a sense of autonomy, and a dignified end. Surveys have shown that a significant percentage of the public supports the idea of individuals having the choice to end their suffering through euthanasia.

However, euthanasia raises ethical and moral concerns. Opponents argue that legalizing euthanasia may inadvertently lead to a "duty to die" phenomenon, where terminally ill individuals may feel pressured to choose euthanasia to relieve their families or society of the burden of care. Furthermore, religious viewpoints often condemn euthanasia as a violation of the sanctity of life, with many branches of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam rejecting active euthanasia. They contend that sovereignty over life and death ultimately belongs to a higher power, making euthanasia ethically abhorrent.

Euthanasia also raises concerns about violating the Hippocratic Oath, which is a fundamental ethical code for physicians. The oath commits doctors to use their skills solely for the cure of patients and to do no harm. Active euthanasia can be seen as contradicting this oath, leading to potential misuse and abuse of the power over life and death.

Furthermore, some argue that euthanasia denies individuals the opportunity for personal growth and spiritual reflection even in the face of suffering. It is believed that enduring pain and suffering can lead to personal growth and the discovery of spiritual strength, and prematurely ending one's life through euthanasia might foreclose these opportunities.

Moreover, the slippery slope argument cannot be ignored. Legalizing euthanasia for terminally ill individuals may pave the way for its expansion to cases where patients are not terminally ill but simply suffering from debilitating conditions. This could blur the line between voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia, leading to potential abuses.

Religious Perspectives on Euthanasia

Religion plays a significant role in shaping attitudes towards euthanasia. For instance, within Christianity, various denominations hold differing views on the issue. While some denominations oppose euthanasia outright, others permit restricted forms of passive euthanasia, which involves stopping medical treatment and allowing nature to take its course. The argument centers around whether ending one's life through active euthanasia aligns with religious doctrines.

In Judaism, the belief in the sanctity of life is a cornerstone of their faith. Many Jewish scholars and religious leaders strongly oppose euthanasia, arguing that it infringes upon God's gift of life. The inherent value of life in Judaism often leads to the conclusion that hastening one's death through euthanasia is morally and ethically unacceptable.

Islamic perspectives on euthanasia are equally complex. While some Muslim scholars allow for passive euthanasia in specific circumstances, active euthanasia is generally forbidden, as it contradicts the belief that life and death are solely determined by God. Like Christianity and Judaism, Islam emphasizes the sanctity of life, making the practice of euthanasia a point of contention.

The Ethical Dilemma: The Hippocratic Oath

The ethical dilemma surrounding euthanasia extends to the medical community and the Hippocratic Oath, which has guided medical ethics for centuries. The oath explicitly states, "That you will exercise your art solely for the cure of your patients, and will give no drug, perform no operation, for a criminal purpose, even if solicited, far less suggest it..." Permitting physicians to engage in active euthanasia creates intolerable risks of abuse and misuse of the power over life and death. Critics argue that this undermines the fundamental principles of medicine, which prioritize healing and alleviating suffering over hastening death.

An alternative to euthanasia lies in the realm of palliative care. Palliative care aims to provide comprehensive support to individuals facing life-threatening illnesses, focusing on pain management, symptom relief, and emotional well-being. It emphasizes the importance of preserving the dignity of life until its natural end. Palliative care teams comprise healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses, social workers, and chaplains, who work collaboratively to ensure that patients receive the best possible care while facing the end of life.

Conclusion

In conclusion, euthanasia remains a contentious and complex issue in society. While proponents argue that it provides a merciful end to unbearable suffering, opponents assert that the ethical, moral, and religious implications make it an inappropriate means to achieve this end. The end, however compassionate it may seem, does not justify the means when it comes to euthanasia. Instead of hastening death, society should prioritize offering support, comfort, and palliative care to those who are terminally ill. This approach not only respects the sanctity of life but also provides individuals with the opportunity to find meaning, hope, and solace even in the face of suffering. As stewards of the world and to each other, it is essential that we prioritize the well-being and dignity of all individuals, especially during their most vulnerable moments. Thus, euthanasia, as a means of departing from this world, remains an ethically questionable choice. In the face of suffering, our humanity shines brightest when we embrace the sanctity of life and work towards alleviating pain while fostering hope and dignity for all.