THE #1 PRIORITY OF TRADITIONAL MEDICINE

When we think about the role of medical practitioners in our society, the first thought that comes to our minds is the relieving of symptoms of people’s illnesses. And this is true to an extent- doctors give people medicines that bring about relief from symptoms of illness. However, it’s also important to dig deeper and question: what are practitioners priorities when treating illness? These priorities come to light in situations where there’s no cure for a particular illness because these situations put doctors at a crossroads where they have to decide what to prioritize when treating these incurable illnesses. And sadly, doctors around the world hardly give relief from symptoms of illness #1 priority in these cases.

Doctors’ #1 Priority When Treating Illness

Doctors’ priorities when treating illness are quite evident in cases where the illnesses to be treated are refractory mental illnesses. In the majority of cases of refractory mental illnesses, its sufferers have dealt with illnesses severe enough to bring about recurrent torment and difficulty to function in many areas of their lives, bringing about problems that exacerbate the distressing symptoms of their illnesses and often leading to suicidal ideation. Often times, patients with refractory mental illness will tell their doctors that they want to end their life in order to end their pain, and out of desperation may urge their doctors to euthanize them for that very purpose. Sadly, many doctors around the world will be deaf to those requests. Their #1 priority, after all, is not extinguishing pain. It is life preservation. After all, doctors around the world have been indoctrinated by their traditionalist studies to believe that life preservation should always be a greater priority than the will and dignity of the suffering patient with regards to their life. These doctors (and their government’s) sanctification of life and their lower prioritization of the dignity and relief of their patients from illness are the main driving force behind their unshakable pro-life agenda.

Doctor’s #1 Pretext to Oppress Death-Wishing Patients Into Living

Many governments around the world, and the doctors that practice under their mandate, always use the “lack of clarity of thought” argument to justify their oppressive measures when forbidding the mentally ill the option to be euthanized. The lack of clarity of thought argument claims that the mentally ill are always lacking in “good judgment" when they express wishes to be euthanized. This argument is called a pretext here because it isn’t, in fact, the ultimate reason why doctors and governments around the world oppose to euthanization of the mentally ill. If clarity of thought was truly deemed a valid enough reason to validate legally forbidding euthanasia on the mentally ill by euthanasia-forbidding governments, then why do they not criminalize the making and consumption of alcohol in their soil altogether? After all, alcohol is an intoxicating substance that not only makes its consumers much less capable of rational thought than someone who suffers distress from mental illness, but it has great potential to cause death (the outcome that pro-life governments so frantically want to avoid), including fatal crashes that kill drivers or pedestrians from a true lack of clarity of thought and from the truly impaired mental functioning of a drunk driver. Therefore, because alcohol is legal in many euthanasia-forbidding jurisdictions despite its potential to impair mental functioning, the “lack of clarity of thought” argument is less likely to be what leads governments of the world to forbid euthanasia for those with refractory mental illness. It is the long-lived pro-life traditions that are more likely to compel this, most notably the commandment of thou shall not kill, and the standard of bioethics to do no harm.

Implications of Medicine’s #1 Priority

As doctors’ radically pro-life agenda comes to the surface in countries where euthanasia for the mentally ill is illegal, it becomes evident that doctors in these jurisdictions prioritize life-preservation over pain extinction, and therefore prioritize life imposition over pain relief. This is especially the case when these doctors deny euthanasia to the mentally ill out of wholehearted conviction. However, looking at this oppression from a larger scale reveals that these doctors themselves are also oppressed in their countries. The laws that forbid the mentally ill from being euthanized also forbid these doctors from performing euthanasia on their psychiatric patients. If the doctors were to oblige to the wishes of the mentally ill, they would be subjected to imprisonment and to revocation of their licenses by order of the law of their oppressive nations. Consequently, their hands are tied, whether or not they support euthanasia for the mentally ill. Therefore, world governments are ultimately the agents to blame for the oppressive measures that the mentally ill who wish to be euthanized are subjected to. World governments are directly responsible for orchestrating dictatorships which deny the mentally ill who wish to be euthanized the right to euthanasia, and which decree that life-preservation is more important than pain extinction. It is therefore imperative for those of us who support euthanasia for the mentally ill to raise our voices, stand up to our governments, and proclaim that we do not want to be forced to remain alive by any clinician or government authority, especially if our being alive means enduring intolerable pain from mental illness. Most importantly, we must make it clear to the governments of the world that we want everyone with mental illness to have the freedom to live by choice, and not by a government decree that does not necessarily have their best interest in mind.