Euthanasia Or Mercy Killing: Should It Be Legalized? - Mercy killing should be legalized or not?

It is really more like, "Thou shalt not MURDER." There are quite a few cases in the Old Testament where specific types of killings were not "murder," including self-defense. They even had a variation on Castle Doctrine for home defense: if you killed an unarmed intruder in your home in broad daylight then you could be charged with murder, but if the intruder entered your home at night then it was to be considered self defense (you cannot be expected to determine whether the intruder is armed or dangerous when woken up in the middle of the night and in the dark).

But regardless, taking a life is always a serious undertaking with grave consequences. God says in Genesis that "There will be an accounting..." of all blood that is spilled. I consider this even when killing livestock for meat: we share the same breath of life and that life must be treated with great respect.

As far as "mercy killing" goes specifically, there is evil to be weighed on both sides: if we act and end a life which God created for WHATEVER REASON, we take that blood on our own hands and it is much more than a question of mere legality or what the State can do to you. But, if we really "love our neighbor", then sometimes love might require acting in ways that risk not only our lives but our very souls. We have to keep in mind that we will stand for that in the end and let God judge our actions--- and that we might just be in the wrong.

So, to me, it is pointless to make euthanasia legal. If the act is really necessary and it is really done for the right reasons, then someone (the doctor, the family, a friend) will act regardless of what the law says and the earthly consequences will mean little or nothing to them. The jury may hear the case and decide to acquit or the judge may suspend sentence if they believe this to be true and the act to be just, but everyone considering euthanasia should be prepared to face consequences. Fear of those consequences may stop the people who may act for the wrong reasons and NO ONE should ever act to end life without careful thought and total commitment.

If there were a law (as in England) against using violence to defend a victim of a crime, say someone being raped, the law would not stop me from doing what is right. I would hope that the judge or jury would act appropriately and take exception to the law, but I would not count on it. In the US, it is generally legal to defend yourself or someone else facing a real threat of physical harm, and it should be, but self (or other) defense is typically a much more clear-cut issue than euthanasia where every case is unique. Even if there are rare cases where it might be moral, I do not think it should ever be legal and the State should never get in the habit of deciding who it is OK to euthanize and who it is not: madness lies that way.

That is one of the reasons I am leery of current health "reform" proposals. The proposals do not explicitly say: "We are going to euthanize the elderly (or the permanently disabled, such as myself) because they don't contribute to society," but they give very broad discretion to the government to decide "standards of care" and "end-of-life" procedures. There is no way to word such powers in a way which does not allow, effectively, selective euthanasia or even bureaucratic murder by simply withholding critical treatment at a critical time. Such murder could easily be covered in mounds of paperwork as "bureaucratic error" or "processing delays". We have that possibility now with Medicaid/Medicare, but it is currently still possible for individuals to sidestep these bureaucracies by seeking private treatment and charity contributions toward those treatments. As we get closer to some people's goal of a "single-payer" system, those outlets become harder to find. US politics is dirty in ways which seem unique to our nation. We have some of the best and worst aspects of government in one people. And, yes, I believe we have bureaucrats who are just petty enough to take advantage of any power given them to strike out at enemies or even those who just irritate them. Look at how government power (FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, etc.) was misused against Martin Luther King, Jr. (among many other activists) and tell me it would not happen here. Events in the 60's are WHY we had very strict laws put into place to reign in the authorities from targeting people politically. We have mostly stripped those laws in the past few years and are now preparing to give them even more ammunition to use against Americans. I think this is a very bad idea.

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)