Religion & Euthanasia

| January 6, 2009

Legislation is needed to define doctors' obligations to turn off life-support systems when appropriate.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are issues that affect the whole of society, and can have a significant impact on family relationships. Euthanasia (either passive or active methods of ending life with the direct supervision of a doctor) and assisted suicide (a patient's actions to end their own life following advice from a doctor) are difficult decisions which deserve to be understood in terms of human rights, freedom and personal choice.

It's abhorrent that our system imposes religious dogma upon non-religious people who are near death and want nothing to do with religious slogans, whilst enduring unbearable suffering at the end of their temporary existence.

A painful death might suit some religiously inclined people who believe that earthly suffering is good for their soul. Such individuals, who believe in emotive slogans such as "God gives life and God takes it away" should be entitled to their beliefs. It is their prerogative to die whichever way they want.

Likewise, people should be given the choice not to live in a vegetative state or in constant pain, even if they might survive longer with palliative care. We need to remove the stigma of ‘killing' from doctors who are trying to serve humanity and not be subservient to religious dogmas. The next of kin or legal guardian should be supported in their role to exercise a choice in deciding the fate of a terminally-ill patient, in a way that allows them to make an informed decision based on professional judgment, free from religious and political interference.

‘Mercy killing' is an emotionally loaded term. Opponents placing their emphasis on ‘killing' use it as a negative slogan to discredit the concept of euthanasia and assisted suicide, whilst proponents emphasise ‘mercy' as the positive aspect. Surely the termination of the life of a patient who is in constant pain and wants to die with dignity, humanely and peacefully with medical and professional assistance, should be classified as an act of ‘mercy'. Doctors using extraordinary means to prolong the life of the terminally-ill are not necessarily acting in the best interest of the patient or their devoted family.

The Hippocratic Oath, which dates back to the fifth century B.C and is attributed to Hippocrates, has evolved and been amended many times since. It is now due for an update to accommodate the question of euthanasia.

Reading Dr Bill Silvester's blog Respecting Patient Choices: Advanced Care Planning, one senses how frustrating it must be for such a humane doctor to deal with the lack of a legal framework to deal with the realities of passive euthanasia.

To overcome all anomalies and to clarify doctors' responsibilities and patients' rights, it has become necessary to legalise the practice or clarify the laws of passive euthanasia to allow doctors, in consultation with the next of kin or the legal guardian, to objectively decide upon a course of action that is in the best interest of the patient and the health system.

Religious definitions of death, generally something like ‘when the soul leaves the body' are based upon the metaphysical philosophy of religion, which as usual, defy logic.

Legislation is needed that provides a clear, scientific definition of death and brain death which is based on the loss of capacity for consciousness. Legislation is also needed to define doctors' obligations to turn off life-support systems when appropriate. These changes are necessary to safeguard doctors from next of kin or legal guardian objections to terminate life on religious grounds, especially when selfish religious fanatics insist on keeping patients alive until the last breath.

Expensive modern technologies, such as artificial breathing apparatus, can now keep a patient in a coma for years; occupying emergency beds that could be used by other patients with better chances for survival and recovery. In the absence of a clear legal framework, there has been a gradual increase in the practice of passive euthanasia, applied unevenly by various hospitals and medical practitioners. Incidences of passive euthanasia are now proportional to the increase of health costs, the scarcity of the emergency hospital beds and the change in social attitude.

Legalising other forms of euthanasia (active and assisted suicide) with strict guidelines, similar to those approved by the Northern Territory government in 1995, enacted in 1996 and overturned by the Australian Parliament in 1997 could free doctors from the stigma and legal shackles to enable them to use their logic, humanity, scientific knowledge and professionalism. Religion should not remain as the stumbling block preventing future legalisation to allow euthanasia and assisted suicide. Commonsense and the prevailing social attitudes should guide the way.  

Legislation modelled on laws currently practiced in Belgium and the Netherlands, or based on the Northern Territory legislation of 1995, should be introduced in Federal and State Parliaments without delay. Hopefully, the forthcoming Bob Brown's private member bill for legalising voluntary euthanasia will be passed by Parliament.

More thoughts on the subject of Religion and Euthanasia are expressed in Chapter 7, of my book titled "Thorny Opinion". The book can be previewed on Google Book Search and Amazon.com, and can be purchased from Amazon.com and BookSurge.com.

Australian readers can purchase the book directly from the author by emailing hanimontan@optusnet.com.au ($20.00, postage free within Australia)

_____________________________________________________________________

Born in Iraq in1939, Hani Montan arrived in Australia in 1969 and acquired citizenship in 1973. In 1966, he post graduated with a Masters of Science Degree in Civil and Industrial Engineering. Prior to that, he was a primary school teacher in Iraq. In addition to his extensive travelling around the world, he has studied and worked in Iraq, Russia, Algeria and Australia. Hani worked at Sydney Water as a project engineer and group leader for twenty years, which was followed by fourteen years of managing a retail business and a further four years of study and writing.

SHARE WITH:

0 Comments

  1. Maguy Nakhl

    January 9, 2009 at 2:22 am

    Religion & Euthanasia

    After reading Hani Montan's comments on this very contentious issue, I wish to relay some of my thoughts. Whislt I agree with the majority of the arguments of "mercy" for those very much struggling in their ailments and possibly a vegetation state, there is a need to remember that Religion has served and still remains as a means of providing guidance and nurturance to many people who need to have a faith and be provided with pathways.

    I understand that certain people, in the name of religion, have sought to attain power and political persuation and in fact taken advantage of people, there still remains a place for religious teachings and a way of life for many who otherwise would wonder aimlessly through life.

    In saying that, I do not believe that laws should be made to allow or inhibit people for their faith or beliefs, whatever these may be. By introducing laws legalising Euthanasia, we may well be introducing or at least condoning those that will use this in the wrong manner, to the wrong people, and may also enter the terrain of criminality. An introduction of any law dealing with Euthanasia, needs to be extremely careful in its instrumentation, so as to inhibit those from using it in any manner that which was not intended in the drafting.

  2. Hani.Montan

    January 14, 2009 at 11:37 pm

    Response to Maguy

    Hi Maguy,

    On reading your comments, I feel compelled to clear some of the misunderstandings:

    First, there is nothing in my blog to suggest that religious freedom is denied to anybody. It is the opposite, what is sought here is to give the terminally-ill and suffering believers and non-believers the freedom of choice for the way they decide to end their life. It is in terms of freedom and human right principles and rejecting the notion that these principles can be crushed by religious dogma.

    Second, there are strict guidelines in the implementation of all euthanasia laws in Belgium, Netherland and Oregon-USA.

    The Northern Territory's euthanasia laws, which Bob Brown is now attempting to revive in Parliament, also come with strict guidelines. Two doctors have to confirm a patient is terminally-ill and suffering unbearable pain before life could be ended. Additionally, a psychiatrist had to confirm the patient is not suffering  treatable clinical depression. In accordance with the guidelines, each of these practitioners must follow comprehensive procedures before the final act. In my book "Thorny Opinion", to allay fear and to counter religious scare tactics, a behavioural therapist and a social worker are suggested to be included in the certifying group. This can also remove any possibility of malpractice. The following is an example of guidelines in the euthanasia law of Oregon-USA:

    • The person must be terminally ill.
    • The person must have six months or less to live.
    • The person must make two oral requests for assistance in dying.
    • The person must make one written request for assistance in dying.
    • The person must convince two physicians that he or she is sincere and not acting on a whim, and that the decision is voluntary.
    • The person must not have been influenced by depression.
    • The person must be informed of "the feasible alternatives," including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care, and pain control.
    • The person must wait for 15 days.