For every living being, death can come through two main methods: natural or unavoidable circumstances, such as old age and accidents, and the actions of a living entity or those of another party, such as suicide and murder. With a particular interest in human beings, the given categories of dying are not as clear-cut as one would assume. On the contrary, some natural causes may be avoidable. For instance, disease outbreaks can wipe out civilizations without vaccines and proper medication; hence, although natural, the necessary quality becomes baseless because appropriate and timely interventions can save lives. Meanwhile, suicide can take place via different channels that include assisted death and euthanasia, actions that require a second person or even more people to be present for success. In both cases, the loss of life is neither natural nor unavoidable because there is the possibility that the person receiving the assistance to die would have lived to see the next day, week, or even year. To that end, questions emerge on the moral grounds on which one can take a pro-euthanasia stand without any blame in the eyes of the society. At the forefront of such debates are the religious convictions that hold life as a concept subject to God’s will; in other words, no human has the right to end his or her personal life or that of another person. To that end, this paper explores the understanding of death and life in both the medical field and societies before determining the instances in which physician-assisted deaths may be morally permissible.
Foremost, death is a complex phenomenon that no living person can explain or describe unless he or she dies then lives again to explain his or her experiences. For that reason, there are different perceptions of what it means to die and how the dying feels. Religion provides solutions to the given questions by defining death as the process through which the heart stops pumping blood and allows the soul to leave the body for either heaven or hell depending on the earthly deeds of the man or woman (Neumann 2016, par.11). Contrastingly, atheists insist that there is no such thing as an afterlife because there is no God; therefore, death is merely the point at which a person ceases to exist in the physical world, and that would be the end of his or her being. Still, medical practitioners approach the matter from a different angle that happens to rely on human anatomy to determine what defines life. Apparently, unlike in the ideologies of religion, the heart is not the only organ that is responsible for life because brain activity is also essential. Apparently, a 1981Presidential Commission asserted that “when all brain functions are lost irreversibly,” then a person is dead regardless of the heart and the respiratory function (Neumann 2016, par.12). Thus, in the case of Jahi McMath, a brain dead young girl who cannot “eat, open her eyes, speak, or leave her bed”, religion and her parents hold that she is still alive because her heart is pumping blood (Neumann 2016, par.1). However, McMath’s doctors insist otherwise because the heart functions with the aid of a ventilator tube.
With the disparities of what death constitutes in mind, the following fact worth considering is the notion of living. Apparently, it is possible for people to qualify as being alive while the lack the qualities of life. The given case of Jahi McMath is perfect illustration because while she meets the criteria of being alive, her heart functions by circulating oxygenated blood through her body, she is unable to enjoy the basic forms of her life. For instance, her mother has to turn her within certain intervals lest she develops bedsores because of her two-year coma (Neumann par.2). Now, McMath’s case may be unique because she is in a coma; however, there are instances in which even the people of sound body and mind realize that their lives are lacking in quality. For example, in “By the time you read this, I’ll be dead” John Hofsess informs his readers that he was leaving for Switzerland where he was to die willingly. According to the man, after suffering from an “undiagnosed rectal bleeding” for two months and other medical conditions, his quality of life was no longer wholesome (Hofsess par.41). Hence, to end his suffering, John Hofsess opted for euthanasia in Switzerland because he desired to die and the procedure was still illegal in Canada his home country. Subsequently, Hofsess’ article was also a confession as he informs his readers of his participation in the “Right to Die ¬Society” and his active role in the deaths of eight different people between 1999 and 2001 (par.6). In each case, the individual was suffering from a terminal illness that caused him or her unbearable pain and life was not worth living anymore. Thus said, the killings were merciful because they allowed the individuals to die before deteriorating further and at the same time, eased them of their pains.
The cases of death and life remain intertwined in the sense that when the physical body fails to meet certain specifications, it qualifies as dead but in some instances, said qualifications may be present but lacking in quality. Hence, another conundrum emerges because if life is not worth living should one live it at all? Especially when one has the option for a physician assisted death that guarantees no more pain for those who opt for the same?
Bibliography
Hofsess, John. "By the time you read this, I’ll be dead." Toronto Life, 2016.
Neumann, Ann. "Redefining Death: Can a Brain-Dead Teen Claim Religious Freedom? The Case of Jahi McMath." The Daily Beast, February 22, 2016.
