What if YOU were in this kind of a situation? Would you want to die or would you hope for a cure? Or if your friend, relative or partner was paralyzed, and you’d think that s/he was suffering, would you stop the machines keeping him or her alive?
In cases similar to this one, death is usually the solution. We’d call iteuthanasia, good death. Basically, there are two types of euthanasia: the passive and the active. Passive euthanasia means not doing an act that keeps the patient alive, for example not giving him/her the medication. Active euthanasia means ending the patient’s life because s/he wants it.
“And no person can ever die except by Allah's leave and at an appointed term.” - Qur'an 3:145
“And no person can ever die except by Allah's leave and at an appointed term.” - Qur'an 3:145
However, euthanasia has been criticized by many and it’s illegal in some countries, for example here in Finland. Most religious people are against euthanasia due to their beliefs. But for example in Judaism active euthanasia might not be okay at all, but the passive one is allowed, if there is no way to cure the patient or ease his/her pain. Others might not be religious, but they think that there’s always hope, and they might rely on the evolvement of medical science. And finally, there are those who think that if legalized euthanasia will become a mean of cutting expenses.
Friends and relatives might not be able to make a choice on ending the patient’s life, if he or she is very dear to them, or a young person. Sometimes they might feel that ending his or her life would be a financial, mental or physical relief. In other cases they might think that euthanasia mustn’t be a good thing, because the law states it. Then again, as Jack Kevorkian, a euthanasia activist, said: “When your conscience says law is immoral, don’t follow it.” Knowing the sanctions and all sides to the case, breaking the law to ease someone’s pain might be an act of good will.
My perspective on euthanasia is that both the active and the passive should be allowed, if the patient is suffering and/or can’t be cured. Why? Because I don’t believe that it’s a sin to end the patient’s life, or that it’s the right choice to continue the suffering either. In some cases, it’s very clear if the patient doesn’t have a good future, so there is no point in keeping him or her alive. The human life is precious, but only when it is lived, or can be made better.
Friends and relatives might not be able to make a choice on ending the patient’s life, if he or she is very dear to them, or a young person. Sometimes they might feel that ending his or her life would be a financial, mental or physical relief. In other cases they might think that euthanasia mustn’t be a good thing, because the law states it. Then again, as Jack Kevorkian, a euthanasia activist, said: “When your conscience says law is immoral, don’t follow it.” Knowing the sanctions and all sides to the case, breaking the law to ease someone’s pain might be an act of good will.
My perspective on euthanasia is that both the active and the passive should be allowed, if the patient is suffering and/or can’t be cured. Why? Because I don’t believe that it’s a sin to end the patient’s life, or that it’s the right choice to continue the suffering either. In some cases, it’s very clear if the patient doesn’t have a good future, so there is no point in keeping him or her alive. The human life is precious, but only when it is lived, or can be made better.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti