Abstract

Beware of improper arguments against euthanasia

Article

A prominent Archconservative clergyman recently published an article opposing euthanasia.  It appeared in The Australian.

 

It was very persuasive.  It persuaded me that if he could not find a rational argument in opposition, there must not be one.

 

The tone, quality and content of his argument was offensively aggressive in a dressing of pseudo-rationality.  But he quickly showedhis hand by referring to a reasonable quality of the other side “so-called”, he persisted in using the emotive and pejorativve term, “kill” and he directed his attack to a limited view of the charitable persons who would mercifully aid euthanasia and away from the prime mover, the person whose life is worse than the death which is desired.

 

The content of his argument had all the virtues of one who would oppose birth control (despite the danger ofpregnancy to the life of the woman or the threat of starvation to large families in third world countries), divorce (despite that the behaviour of one partner may be intolerable), abortion in any circumstances (despite that the mother’s life may be in danger and that the pregnancy was due to rape), the marriage of priests (despite the revelation of extensive child abuse by the clergy), women priests, etc..

 

The content also bore all the marks of ecclestical dogma and want of understanding of  a less strict view which was not of that mindset.  It alsoinvoked the authority of god, marking the arrogance of those who claim to know how god thinks, and feel that he prefers strict dogma to mercy and love,which one might have thought was the message of one who claimed to be his son.

 

The argument also claimed that there is a long standing human recognition that killing (that word again) another human is wrong.  This is correct as far as it goes, but it is an abomination of logic in that it is a gross generalisation which does not acknowledge the qualifications to it.

 

Killing is recognised to be justified in many circumstances, self-defence, protection of another, defence of one’s country, accident, mistake, emergency, and the like.  It is regarded as not only moral but good for a person to sacrifice his own life to save another.  Euthanasia is but an extension of this line of exceptions to the broad rule, which is really directed at killing for improper motives.  A wilful blindness to this thought and the article’s omission to refer to it condemns it from its own mouth.

 

It might also seem inconsistent that the absolute sanctity of human life should be invoked by a member of an organization which over the centuries has resorted to killing in large numbers those who did not agree with it.  The methods, the stake, the rack, the block and the like, could not really be described as palliative care.  On an even larger scale, it has fought and supported wars of aggression, mostly in the interests of its power.  When its morality in doing so has been questioned, the word of god has been the central justification.

 

The article warns that there should be long and profound thought before euthanasia is permitted.  There has already been a very long time for thought on this subject, indeed millenia.  Of course, its opponents wold benefit from further delay, and would always call for more delay when there is a possibility that it may come about.  Further, infinite delay and discussion would never lead to its acceptance by closed minds.

 

It also speaks of the virtues of palliative care (though the pejorative “so-called’ was not used for it). It is certainly valuable as far as it goes, particularly for those who choose to prefer it, but it is far from perfect, both in its effectiveness and in its side-effects.  Those who for their own religious tenets would oppose euthanasia for those who need it and would want it are of the same order of thinking as those who would oppose palliative care because of a belief that it is too expensive for society and that the world is over-populated anyway.

 

The worst fault of the opponents of euthanasia is that they would impose their religious beliefs as to a person’s control of his or her escape from intolerable agony on that person, whether that person shared their belief or not.  After all, supporters of euthanasia do not wish to impose it compulsorily on its opponents.

 

Fortunately, the article did not descend to the depth on one argument that is sometimes used in trying to avoid the power of the proposition that in many such cases the person is doomed to die soon, and the interval will be full of pain and of no joy.  The answer postulated is that euthanasia is disqualified because it is “not natural”, which of course damns palliative care in keeping dying people alive – it is not “natural”.

It may be only a coincidence that the author of the article was not among the many churchmen who, in their Christmas messages, urged greater government actionon climate change.

His heavy conservatism is almos matched by the high Sydney cleric, noted for his extreme conservative views, who lkened abortion to Herod's "slaughter of the innocents".  There is strong historical evidence that Herod died four years before Jesus, so he would not have been around toorder any slaughter.