On Euthanasia, Part 2

Medical science has progressed in leaps and bounds, but the fountain of youth remains elusive -- stem-cell research being the closest to attain this panacea. Death ultimately is unavoidable; it is only tempered by the means it is approached. In addressing such an emotionally charged matter, a clear distinction needs to be made between the similar, but cardinally different concepts of Active- and Passive euthanasia:

Active Euthanasia is the express intervention with the purpose to kill for the relief of mental/psychological suffering; or the alleviation of economic burden; or for the convenience of the patient/family/society. This can further be divided into voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. The former is done with the consent or at the behest of the patient or proxy, while the latter is performed without consent.

Passive Euthanasia is the withdrawal or failure to implement artificial life-support in terminal patients, where death seems imminent with no hope of recovery or cure. The physician accepts the inevitability of death – having tried to save and prolong life; the patient is remitted to the forces of nature. In such cases, the disease or injury is the death-causing agent, not any intervention from the physician. This ethical form is practiced in most hospitals.

I’ve already handled the issue of personal autonomy with regards to suicide or ‘surrogate-suicide’ by the physician in part 1 so will take it from a broader perspective:

The only remotely ethical ground that I can see for the justification of voluntary euthanasia is if it believed that the death would be to the benefit of the patient; it would be morally wrong to kill if it were thought that the patient had any prospect of still living a worthwhile life. From this it follows that voluntary euthanasia is only merited when the physician believes that the patient does not have a worthwhile life. This is tantamount to saying that the ongoing life of the patient lacks any value, hence it can be terminated. I find the gall of such a statement repulsive; what hubris to even think of making such a call.

Further, when assimilated into a legal system that purports to enforce a just social order, these concepts are mutually exclusive. How can such killing be legalised on the premise that some lives lack value when justice in society is based on the non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory premises of ineliminable human dignity and worth.

With the acceptance of voluntary euthanasia, the most compelling reason to reject involuntary euthanasia is removed. Is someone can benefit from being killed, is it reasonable to deprive someone from this benefit simply because they haven’t or are incapable of asking for it? At the very least, acceptance of voluntary euthanasia, allows the claim that certain people cannot be harmed by the termination of their worthless lives – they may be allowed to exist on the indulgence of society. Hence one would find the most vocal advocates of voluntary euthanasia also endorse involuntary euthanasia and even infanticide: enemy of civilized humanity #1, Peter Singer, being case in point.

I won’t even bother going into all the complexities of how voluntary euthanasia can result in coerced ‘voluntary’ euthanasia where ‘the right to die’, becomes ‘the duty to die’. With the horrifying onset of HIV/AIDS as a terminal disease, such a ‘culture of death’ would have inestimable results in Africa which has prided itself as a culture of resilience and life.

DOH regulations allow embryonic stem cell research in SA

(Cartoon compliments of Zapiro)

The proposed regulations published for review on Jan. 5, 2007 can be found here.

Section 9.a states:

"[Ownership of] excess embryos from in vitro fertilisation, for the purpose of research, is vested with the donor."

While Section 10.a states:

"[Ownership of stem cells derived from] excess embryos for the purpose of research, is vested with the State."

For those not savvy with the SCR method -- harvesting stem cells from an embryo effectively destroys it.

The problem is that these 'embryos' are immature human beings. This is supported by medical, embryological and biological science. From the moment of fertilization, this genetically unique entity will require only nutrition, oxygen and a suitable environment to develop into a fetus, baby, toddler, adolescent and ultimately adult human being. This dynamic process of growth gives very little in the form of distinct moments where functional humanity can be determined.

Bioethicists may use Personhood Theory or suchlike to propose that these embryos aren't in fact human -- or rather they're not human enough to be entitled to any of the rights that functioning humans are (e.g. the right to life). In response, there are convincing rebuttals which suggest that the latency exhibited by embryological/fetal growth is fundamentally comparable to the functional latency of sleep or a short-term comatose state. If the likes of Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, had their way, parents would be able to 'off' their retarded children.

Obfuscation aside, I suggest that the DOH is grossly neglecting clear scientific evidence by allowing free reign to embryonic experimentation and to crown it all claiming ownership of another human's stem cells: biotech slavery.