Contrary to popular belief, the #1 priority of doctors in their practice is not to extinguish their patients’ suffering from an illness, but to preserve their life at all cost. Doctors in many parts of the world will turn a deaf ear on patients who request to be euthanized in order to avoid continuing to suffer from a particular illness despite the severe intensity of the pain that their patients may be dealing with because of this illness, and doctors will deem such patients as merely “stubborn,” “silly,” or “lacking in clarity of thought.” This last perceived “trait” is used as an argument by doctors and oppressive pro-life governments of the world to deny anyone with a painful illness (especially those with mental illness) the legal right to be euthanized, assuming that every single instance where a person with mental illness expresses death wishes is an instance where that patient is lacking in clarity of thought that is needed to make rational decisions. However, deeper analysis on this argument tells us that a mere lack of clarity of thought probably isn’t what concerns doctors and pro-life governments in these instances. Otherwise, alcohol consumption would be criminalized in euthanasia-forbidding jurisdictions, considering that consumption of alcohol puts consumers at high risk of doing anything imaginable out of lack of clarity of thought. Therefore, when pro-life doctors and world governments assess situations where someone with a mental illness wishes to be euthanized, they are not nearly as concerned about the patient “lacking any clarity of thought” altogether as they are about what they think the patient is “lacking in clarity of thought” in regards to. In this case scenario, it would be in regards to their life. Their very life would be at stake here. And, sadly, the vast majority of doctors and world governments of euthanasia-forbidding nations simply refuse to come to terms with the idea of extinguishing life in order to end intolerable, recurrent pain and suffering that would hardly dissipate otherwise. Therefore, it becomes clear that the real argument that they use to deny their suffering patients an euthanasia procedure is that “Their life comes before their will,” “Their life comes before their sentience,” and “their life comes before them.” To make matters worse, society at large is no less resistant than doctors and their pro-life governments to endorsing someone with refractory mental illness ever being euthanized or the very idea of extinguishing life to extinguish suffering from a refractory illness and the plethora of problems that it may cause. As stated in previous posts, there is a general trend in society of devaluing people with refractory mental illness, but holding their lives dear; there is a blatantly contradictory behavioral pattern where society disenfranchises and ostracizes those with refractory mental illness, and yet demands them to remain alive. Some members of society may even become entirely submissive to the wishes of someone with mental illness that they once thoroughly rejected if they find that this person is near completing a suicide attempt. And the underlying message that society’s contradictory actions towards the mentally ill who wish to die convey is the exact same that doctors and their pro-life governments worldwide convey to their victims with refractory mental illness that they cause so much torment to: “I care about your life more than I care about your torment,” “Your life is everything, and you are way beneath it,” and, in sum, “Your life alone is more important than you as a person.”
LIFE PRESERVATIONISM AND RELIGION
Life preservationism in our day is likely to originate from traditionalist views that have (sadly) withstood the test of time, influencing how people have seen life through the ages. Many of these views have spoken in favor of life and against extinguishing it, and they often take root in religious teachings. Christianity (one of the most influential religions in the world for centuries) has been highly influential in forging the pro-life regimes of our day. Many people in our world today who oppose to the euthanization of the mentally ill point to the moral imperative of the sixth of the Ten Commandments, “Thou shall not kill,” often implying that euthanization of the mentally ill is “immoral” and would result in “bloodguilt.” The Bible takes Christianity’s pro-life stance further in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 by stating the following:
“Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.”
The Bible takes its views on the human body as god’s “temple” further in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 by stating the following:
“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”
Furthermore, the book of Ecclesiastes 7:17 specifically speaks against self-inflicted deaths by stating the following:
“Be not overly wicked, neither be a fool. Why should you die before your time?”
These Bible verses combined gives us a clear idea of how Christianity sees humans in relation to the Judeo-Christian god. According to Christianity, all people and their bodies are sacred “property” of the Judeo-Christian god, an extension of him, and subject to his will; and any extinction of a person’s life can ‘only’ be done at the discretion of the Judeo-Christian god himself. This is very consistent with common pro-life parlance, claiming that “the time hasn’t come yet” for those who wish to be euthanized to pass, or that it is “not within their power” to decide when they pass.
Why Are These Religious Arguments Against Euthanasia a Problem?
The first issue that stands out in these religious arguments against euthanasia for the mentally ill is that they objectify these individuals. For the Bible to state that someone “was bought with a price” implies the idea that people (and the mentally ill, in this case) are “objects” that can be bought or sold. The Bible further objectifies and dehumanizes people by claiming that they (and, most importantly, their life) are “property” of the Judeo-Christian god. These beliefs are particularly troubling as they dehumanize people, deeming the will of those who wish to die to end a chronic, painful sentient experience and recurrent discomfort as less important than their life, thus making them slaves, or prisoners, of a pro-life regime that hardly (if at all) acknowledges their suffering.
The Human Body: God’s Temple? Or God’s Prison?
The Bible characterizes humans and their body as god’s “temple.” However, when one thinks of a holy temple, one thinks of a sacred establishment where troubled souls go to find peace of heart and mind. The human body, however, is quite different- it is an organic creation that houses the human soul, subjecting it to the vulnerability of the human condition, including the constant urge to satisfy needs like food, water, hygiene, medical care, love, etc., causing significant discomfort when these needs are not met, which is sadly the case for many people in developing nations. In that sense, the human body is nothing like a holy temple. Furthermore, many people all over the world experience chronic suffering within their bodies, such as movement difficulties, chronic physical pain, and refractory mental illness, and many of these unfortunate souls feel entrapped in these bodies like they would in a prison. Why, then, would the Bible compare disease-ridden bodies with sacred establishments where one would not be entrapped in such torment? Is the Bible making a genuine comparison here, or is it merely throwing struggling humans a bone?
The Incongruence Behind God’s “Ownership” of Humans and Their Life
It becomes very apparent that god’s claim in the Bible that the human body is “his holy temple,” is nothing more than meaningless flattery when one considers, for example, the millions of impoverished souls in developing nations which have no access to water, food, medicine, hygiene supplies, etc. which that god does little to serve. His meaningless rhetoric is just as noticeable for what it is when one considers the troubled souls in any part of the world, for that matter, who are troubled by some chronic physical or emotional pain which said god does little, in many cases, to provide any relief for. Why, then, does this god have the gall to claim human bodies and their lives as “his own” despite treating many of them (as troubled as they may be) as though he disowns them, giving them scarce attention and doing little to end their plight? To say the least, if this god does indeed exist, it would be very fair to say that he is not a “good” god like many of his worshipers proclaim, and that he is also a despot and a negligent hypocrite.
Religions’ General Consensus on Life Extinction
Most (if not all) religions of the world frown upon life extinction, whether it be through a self-directed death, or through a person extinguishing the life of another. No known world religion has a text supporting or even mentioning the practice of euthanasia in the first place, and when they do bring up the contemplation of suicide in their respective texts, readers are commanded to simply “have faith” and observe religious practices, thus implying that “euthanasia is not an option” like modern-day oppressive doctors and world governments that oppose euthanasia vehemently proclaim.
CONCLUSION
The unshakable life-preservationist regime that predominates in the world’s nations which forbid euthanasia to the mentally ill is likely to take root in ancient ideas about a person’s life and their spirit, like those found in the Bible, which “sanctify” a person’s life and body and deems it an act of sacrilege for a human to extinguish the life of another (even if it is done with the best of intentions). These views are very consistent with the leanings of oppressive clinicians and world governments of our day which deny euthanasia to the mentally ill, which do so out of the same aversion towards life-extinction that their religious forefathers have professed for thousands of years. There is also a notable correlation between ancient religious texts' lack of regard for those in chronic suffering who wish to die for the sake of religious doctrine on life, and the lack of regard of those who oppose euthanasia for the chronically mentally ill for the sake of modern medical practices prioritizing life preservation over pain extinction. Both religious texts and opponents of euthanasia for the mentally ill hold life alone in much higher regard than the will, sentience, and dignity of individuals with chronic suffering who wish to die, deeming the prospect of honoring the death wishes of people in chronic suffering as inconceivable, and both entities treat the mentally ill as though their lives are not their own, nor the agency to determine the timing of their death their own. Just as the Bible claims that a person’s life is god’s, modern day anti-euthanasia oppressors treat the lives of those who wish to be euthanized as though they practically belong to the state.
The pro-life, anti euthanasia inclinations of modern day doctors and governments which oppose euthanasia for the mentally ill align perfectly with those of ancient religious teachings, and it is very likely that anti-euthanasia attitudes of our day take root in religious doctrine rather than reason, morality, or true understanding of the suffering that the mentally ill who wish to be euthanized go through. It is time for those who oppose euthanasia for the mentally ill to wake up and realize that not everyone lives by any belief stemming from religious doctrine, and that they are no more gracious in their pro-life thumping agenda than their Bible-thumping cousins. Therefore, it is time for these euthanasia-denying oppressors to abandon outdated religious doctrine oppressing struggling individuals who wish to be euthanized and actualize their knowledge to the 21st century understanding of the world around us- to acknowledge once and for all that the mentally ill who wish to be euthanized have an authentic and unique sentient experience which, in cases of refractory mental illness, see very little recovery and therefore deserve to have a say on when and if their life should be discontinued. If any religious idea applies here, it would be that of Free Will which those with refractory mental illness who wish to be euthanized deserve. Their life and their body are entirely their own (and not a god’s or a government’s) to make life or death decisions on when they see no recovery from their troubling illnesses. Therefore, neither doctors nor their governments have any moral grounds whatsoever impose their life-preservationist agenda on these troubled individuals, much less on “we’ve always done it that way” grounds, or on grounds of religious superstition which force them to live against their will. Such pretexts to force someone to live are in no way morally or logically sound.
Another Great Post, there are Many Christians who Support
ReplyDeleteChoice, Compassion and the Growing Right to Die, Death With Dignity Movement for Any and All Suffering people, Including for people with Mental illness. We are both Intelligent people.
A person typed online
ReplyDelete"The goal of modern medicine is to prolong life at all cost. It is excruciatingly unnatural. People wouldn’t exist as zombies in nursing homes if it if it wasn’t for the interference of modern medicine. We don’t treat our pets this way, why do we do it to our loved ones.
There is a tremendous amount of money to be made by the healthcare system so of course we are told it’s the right thing to do. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY. Death is as natural as life and not to be feared. I make my position clear to my family. Do you?"
About Life Preservationism Crap and Extremism , a person recently typed on the Internet
ReplyDeleteRight To Die Group
"Did anyone read the report suggesting using brain dead women as incubators for babies? I think it is disgusting how this world wants to use and exploit human bodies no matter what. First keep the person alive and then propose using her body as a womb even if she is under no position to give consent on how her body shall be used? Whenever one thinks this shit world cannot get any worse, there comes some expert academic barking crap. What was worse that a woman herself suggested it. Yuck!
Proves once again they just want to exploit human to last breath, consent be damned!"
The website
ReplyDeletewashingtonexaminer.com has an article about this Insane idea headlined
"Using ‘brain stem dead’ women to incubate babies is objectification at its worst"
by Matt Lamb on
February 14, 2023 this article says :
"An immoral proposal to use “brain stem dead” women to act as incubators for babies should be rejected for the ethical problems it presents. The idea of “whole body gestational donations” goes back decades, but it has recently been resurrected in an essay by University of Oslo ethicist Anna Smajdor, which has prompted further media coverage and debate.
“I suggest if we are happy to accept organ donation in general, the issues raised by whole-body gestational donation are differences of degree rather than substantive new concerns,” Smajdor argued.
But the donation of organs to another person is different than using a woman’s body for surrogacy, regardless of consent.
“Patients who are brain stem dead cannot recover,” Smajdor explained, to differentiate them from someone in a persistent vegetative state. The distinction does not matter. The whole surrogacy industry turns the beautiful gift of pregnancy into a commercial transaction, and the use of unconscious women adds further moral problems.
First, surrogacy separates childbearing from the procreative act. Whole-body gestational donation takes that a step further and uses a woman who is unconscious to carry a baby for someone else. This further turns those who are brain stem dead into commodities by treating some of them as valuable and worth sustaining because of the service they can provide while treating those who are not surrogates as less valuable. Decisions about end-of-life care should be made based on religious and moral beliefs with a view toward protecting the dignity of the human person, not on their utility to gestate.
It is disingenuous to argue that because it is a “donation” it is not commercialized. Surrogacy is currently a billion-dollar industry; it follows that other forms of surrogacy would also require payment, either to the woman who signs up for it ahead of time or to her family.
Second, women’s bodies should not be commercialized or treated as simple vessels available for creating children.
Finally, surrogacy poses problems when there are medical risks to the pregnancy. Oftentimes surrogacy contracts allow or even require abortions in cases where the pregnancy is dangerous, even if the carrier objects. What will happen when someone is carrying a baby, there could be medical risks from the pregnancy, and the parents want an abortion? The carrier is not able to share her opinion.
Surrogacy continues to compound moral problems. Sometimes academics propose wild ideas for shock value or to see what kind of reactions they engender. Other times it is done to continue to push the edges of what a society will tolerate, such as when Princeton professor Peter Singer makes arguments in favor of infanticide or bestiality.
But the proposal to allow women to sign away their bodies in the event of becoming “brain stem dead” is an idea that should be stomped out and rejected without exception."
The Above article asks
ReplyDelete"The Human Body: God’s Temple? Or God’s Prison?"
Myself, personally as a devout Christian I can honestly say that sadly often the human body is definitely A PRISON, definitely
A PRISON of horrible Mental and/or Physical Sufferings.
I have personally seen horrible Mental and Physical Suffering in my family but Also in Various Friends of mine over the years
Again we cannot sugarcoat or whitewash the sad ugly truth that
ReplyDeleteoften the Human Body is definitely A Prison, definitely A Prison of
Horrible Mental and/or Physical Suffering
A person recently typed on the Internet Right To Die Group
ReplyDelete"Medicine should be about keeping the quality of life and not keeping someone alive just for the sake of it."
Another person typed in response
"That's what life apotheosis is all about, and it is what leads the most traditionalist clinicians (such as assholes like Mark Komrad and Richard Pies) use the hippocratic oath as an excuse to justify their mediocre mentality of preserving life for its own sake. What a sad world we live in, where people's lives are more valued than their dignity, comfort, and their right to choose death over life."
Greed is bad, People Before Profits