EUTHANASIA

by

John Roberts

"I am come that they might have life: and that they might have it, more abundantly". (Gospel of John, Chapter 10 verse 10).

The principle of the sanctity of life is of paramount importance. In fact, life is the elusive element which is still a mystery to man. The achievements of modern scientific research are manifold, but the secret of life still eludes mankind and will continue to do so. Life remains the great enigma.

Of course, there are degrees of life. The unicellular organism is life of a lowly kind, yet still absorbing in its wonder and mystery. The life of Man is accompanied by the gift of intellect. He is able to ponder the meaning and purpose of his existence. He is capable of brilliant speculation as to his nature and origins: on the physical environment around about him, with the solar system and galaxies extending-out: beyond the bounds of infinity: to the barely comprehensible outer-reaches of the Universe itself.

It is common, nowadays, for us to talk about the "quality" of life. This involves questions regarding the degree of satisfaction which we, individually, derive from our lifestyle: our interests and activities. When Jesus of Nazareth mentioned, "more abundant life", he was, perhaps, speaking of life in this modern sense but in a spiritual way. He was, undoubtedly, referring to the fact that "life" involves much more than the mere possession of life, as evidenced in the "lives" of those creatures in the lower orders of the physical universe. An amoeba certainly possesses life, as we understand it, but whether or not this simple life form has any conscious awareness of the gift thus bestowed upon it by a beneficent "Creator", must remain a mystery. If uni-cellular organisms were able to communicate with us in some way, they would, perhaps, be able to enlighten us on this point.

As to the sanctity of life itself: this is a question of degree. One has little regard for the life of a creature in the lower orders of nature, particularly those microbes, insects and organisms which are considered to be harmful to mankind or objectionable for some reason. We have no hesitation in destroying these life forms, with no qualms of conscience, whatsoever. It is only certain Indian religious sects which observe a respect for life forms of any description. The Parsees, or the Jains, I believe, avoid taking life as far as possible. Some wear masks, in order to obviate the chance of inhaling, and thus destroying, a flying insect. This is a salutary but, to the Western mind, unnecessary precaution. There must be times, however, when even the most devoted exponent of the principle of the preservation of life must, unavoidably, be involved in the accidental destruction of small insects. Nevertheless, the example serves to illustrate the importance of the principle of the sanctity of life, in all its forms.

It becomes apparent that the question of the preservation of life and, particularly, that of the higher animals, becomes a problem for the individual. Man is, of course, a higher animal and, we are all reasonably satisfied, is the highest animal of all. He has been endowed with the gift of intellect and reason. He is able to modify his environment in a way which no other creature on Earth has been able to approach. To this extent, he has been endowed with almost divine attributes.

However, Mankind still has no control over the question of the span of his individual existence. In spite of the enormous strides made in the sphere of medical science, no person can be guaranteed that his or her period of sojourn on this sphere will be a minimum period of X years. We can not all be certain that we will be permitted to enjoy our allotted three-score years and ten.

Albeit, many of us are attaining longevity, far exceeding the reasonable limits envisioned by our predecessors. The numbers of those who live well into the eighties and the nineties are increasing year by year. This is particularly true in the case of those nations possessing a high living standard. I, myself, have almost completed my three-score and ten years, and might reasonably suppose that, barring accidents, I might survive for another ten or twenty years. Just what the quality of that life might be, is another matter.

When I was involved in welfare work, over twenty-five years ago, I occasionally visited Nursing Homes for the aged. One entered wards, in which aged and moribund patients were sleeping peacefully. These souls were well cared for and protected from accidental or premature demise. They lingered in this manner, sometimes for years, before they were finally released from their imprisonment in the flesh by the death-angel, who should have come along much earlier, but who, I suppose, had been detained: perhaps owing to the pressure of his other duties. Whatever the cause, whilst little physical suffering was occasioned to these elderly patients, they were well and truly drugged into a comotose condition. One could hardly affirm that they partook in any degree of any form of satisfaction or "quality" of life. In fact, they were a burden to themselves and upon the Society thus obliged to maintain them: alive in one sense, as a living corpse.

Had they been able to express their "feelings" in some way, supposing someone had asked them how they felt about remaining in this moribund condition for an indefinite period, they would, perhaps, have suggested that an early demise might be more appropriate.

That some compassionate medical attendant might relieve their condition by an accidental overdose of medication seems unlikely, as the duty of the nurse is to preserve life, not to destroy it. This is as it should be. It is not for individual medical personnel to make decisions of such a grave nature: nor should society seek to impose responsibilities of this kind upon these dedicated and conscientious people.

Nevertheless, there have, no doubt, been occasions when medical attendants, prompted by compassion, rather than by perverse motives, have sought to terminate the lives of aged and gravely ill people. This type of action is regarded by society as tantamount to murder. Hence, it is unwise and certainly undesirable that individual medical staff should be placed in the position in which they make assassins of themselves.

Nor can one disregard the possibility that a mentally deranged medical attendant might take upon himself or herself to dispose of moribund patients by poisoning or other means. It has happened in the past and needs to be prevented at all cost.

In recent years, there have been attempts to introduce legally permitted euthanasia into some communities. I believe that in the Netherlands there is such a system in practice. Here, in Australia, in the Northern Territory, a vast district administered by the Federal Government but with its own local legislature, an Act of Parliament was passed, permitting euthanasia, subject to certain strict conditions. However, there was an outcry from some religious groups, having objections on moral and religious grounds to the killing of the elderly and the sick. This legislation was quashed by the Federal legislature, but not before several terminally ill patients were able to take advantage of the Act.

The Aboriginal Community also had reservations about the introduction of Euthanasia, as it felt that mercy killing might be used as a vehicle for the liquidation of their own people.

Might I state outright that I have no qualms whatever regarding the introduction of Euthanasia, as a useful and necessary measure for the relief of the suffering of old age and terminal illness. Subject to the protection of the necessary safeguards, it should prove to be a useful, if not an essential, tool for the elimination of pain and suffering in the aged and infirm.

As a Spiritualist, I have very firm concepts regarding the nature of the immortality of the soul of Man and of the reality of the existence of the world of the Spirit. It is my belief that death is merely the discarding of the flesh and an awakening into the consciousness of the new life to come: a life in the world of Spirit.

Unfortunately, other world religions do not possess the same ideas regarding the nature of a future life. In fact, most Christians, Jews, Muslims, and perhaps members of other world religions have no firm or abiding concept of the nature of the life to come. This, in spite of all the prognostications of the professedly religious. Certainly, such ideas as they do possess are, in the main, erroneous. The Christian Church, in all its branches, clings to the idea that the dead remain in the grave until some indeterminate future time, when, at a given signal, they will rise to judgement and, in accordance with the nature of their worldly lives, be consigned to either heaven or hell. (The vast majority of human beings, will, we are assured, be consigned to the latter place).

It is the failure of Mankind to understand and appreciate the truth of the fact of the survival of every individual upon the physical death, which has led to this obsessive fear of death, as the termination of all life. Even the life of the dying and the moribund must be seen to be preserved from this event. How much easier would it be, if those who are suffering from persistent and grievous pain: pain which for most of us is inconceivable, and who have reached the end of their reasonable life-span, were allowed to leave this hellish world with the aid of medical science, in a painless and dignified manner. A panel of medical specialists and a public hearing, would ensure that no action was taken of a undesirable nature and the decayed wreck would finally, be free from pain and suffering.

In conclusion, one might comment on the all too plain fact that, we are busy maintaining corrupt and decayed lives at one end of the spectrum of life, on the principle of the sanctity of life. However, at the other end, we are squeezing out the life of tiny babies, before they have a chance of make their presence felt in the world, on the principle that the world can very well do without too many children. There has to be something distorted and wicked in such a view of things. When are Governments going to do something about these problems, which are crying-out for rectification?

No individual has the right to remain here from ever and, thanks be to the Creator of All, there will never come a time when individual men and women will be able to prolong their lives beyond a reasonable span. Death is the great leveller and the greatest blessing to humankind. Let us all pray that our own individual demise will be free from anguish and suffering. When the time comes, we might all be glad to avail ourselves of the swiftly acting injection, which will remove us from this worldly scene.

I do not advocate suicide as a general principle. My attitude towards this problem has been previously discussed in my notes, entitled, "Advice to potential suicides". Here again, there is much human ignorance to be overcome.

John Roberts 15th September l998.

mailto:robertsjno@gmail.com