EUTHANASIA.
PREAMBLE: “Chris, please give me a break am your father. Just do me this last favor by telling the good doctor to get it over with. I know it’s no use .I ’ve been like this four years now” Chris replied, “but father, you know God those a lot of unforeseen things in our lives. Be patient things will improve” out side the corridor, Chris sternly warned the doctor not to yield to his fathers plea or he would sue him to court if he complies. But in a weeks time, the father mysteriously died; and the doctor acquitted of all charges.

EXPOSITION: euthanasia ranks as one of the controversial issue in contemporary society. It evokes a lot of feelings and means different things to different people in different places. Its connotation varies from meaning almost nothing to the poor market woman to being a matter of utmost importance to the church leaders and legislators; and to doctors and patients at home with the reality itself.

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, euthanasia also called ‘mercy killing’, is the act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder. Because there is no specific provision for it in most legal systems it is accounted either suicide (if performed by the patient himself) or murder (if performed by another).A physician may however lawfully decide not to prolong life when there is extreme suffering and he may administer drugs to relieve pain, even though he knows that this may shorten the patients life.

It would be pertinent at this point to concisely dwell on the forms of euthanasia before an insight into its diverse connotations to the interested parties. The forms of euthanasia generally recognized are voluntary euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia. In the words of Dworkin R, ‘VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA is mercy killing with the consent of the terminally ill person.’ Here the terminally ill person makes the decision because death seems a better alternative than the life he or she has come to despise. In NON VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA, the subject is incapable of choosing between life and death. Hence the decision is made for him or her as in the case of terribly disabled newborn infants. INVOLUNATRYU EUTHANASIA according to Ogbu Alexander, is carried out on a person who is capable of consenting to his own death but does not do so, either because he is not asked or because he is asked an d chooses to go on living. Simply, it is done to a person without his consent. It is important to note that whether ACTIVE (whereby a direct action is taken) or passive (whereby treatment is withheld) it is still involuntary.

The opinion that euthanasia is permissible goes back to Socrates, Plato and the Stoics. However this is totally rejected in the traditional Christian belief because it goes against the fifth of Ten Commandments. Hence, it is contrary to the church’s teaching on the sanctity of life. In the words of John Paul װ, he Roman Catholic pontiff,’ euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God. Since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person, depending on the circumstances this practice involves malice proper to suicide or murder '‘e goes further to state that such killing is incompatible with respect for human dignity and reverence for life.

According to Shopenhauer, ‘If the criminal law forbids suicide, that is not the argument valid in the church and besides the prohibition is ridiculous for what penalty can frighten a person who is not afraid of death itself.’ The stance of some of society’s legal system against euthanasia is purely based on practical absence of safeguards, as it would give free reins to psychopaths to rationalize wanton destruction of human life. A typical example is the Nazi T4 euthanasia program of 1939-1945 that was established with a mandate to kill anyone deemed to have a ‘life unworthy of living’. Hence, the past defeat of Euthanasia society’s bill in the house of Lord’s in both 1935 and 1950.

The ability of modern medical practice to prolong life via sophisticated technological means is evident in the modern society. The physician is at cross roads because passively doing nothing to prolong life or withdrawing life support measures has resulted in criminal charges being brought against physicians; but also legal actions have been instituted against physicians by relatives of the terminally ill patients to remove sophisticated life support apparatus.

According to Robert Harney, “Law as conceived in the declaration of independence is not a social device to advance of virtue, it is a protective device to insure the freedom and the opportunities that men needed for their happiness and their developments. Freedom is not the right to be virtuous; it is the right to do as one pleases.”

CRITIQUE: The foregoing has been an evaluation of euthanasia, its diverse meanings according to individual differences and beliefs. We have on one end the church that strongly abhors euthanasia and the pro-choice group that endorses euthanasia. This is more or less a contest between tradition and liberal dissents. In the words of Chinonso Ndukwe. “Euthanasia is scientifically approvable but religiously abominable.”. Which also more or less about reason and morality. The basis of its condemnation by the church hinges on morality while science upholds individual freedom in its defense.

In the final analysis, it solely depends on our choice. What is morally right or wrong is dependent on time because what is frowned upon today tends to be extolled tomorrow and vice versa; nothing is really eternally morally or reasonably right but oscillates with the ‘age’ and majority.