When the time comes doctor...

Nobody chooses their time of their birth, however, many of us would like to have a say in the manner and timing of their death. Nobody wishes a painful and violent death. Most would love to die old, happy, rich and peacefully. Euthanasia is a very controversial issue in the realm of religion, humanity, moral, legislation and ethics. Do human have the right to decide how and when they will die? If they do, do they have the right to help implementing the decision? If it does, is it possible to write legislation that will protect those who are old and chronically sick but wishes to live? My answer is yes, yes and yes.

The main concern of the opponents of euthanasia is the slippery slope effect from the legalising of euthanasia. They are afraid that by making euthanasia legal, many of the vulnerable group of old and sick would be coerced to the hastening of their death to suit the living. Yet, this argument is proposed based on one crucial assumption: it is impossible to make laws to prevent that. However, reality proved otherwise. It had be done before and can be done again. The Australian Territories Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill 2007 wrote an entire series of tight regulations to protect the terminally ill from being killed so that the family can obtain insurance money or any form of benefits. Moreover, the physicians carrying out euthanasia is also protected under the proposed law so that they are not forced to kill his/her patients. Plus, for one patient to be allowed to be killed, he/she must fulfill a lot of requirements stated in the bill. Therefore, there are no worries for the slippery slope because it is possible to write laws to prevent it from happening. The sick and the old who does not want to die can, indeed, be protected.

In the medical world, the term "double effect" raises quite a number of eyebrows and doctors of different doctrines squabble over it. It is the prescription of large doses of painkillers to patients so that they can kill themselves under the pretext of pain relieving. Legally, this is not a misdemeanour as long as the bottle didn't say "Take 50 and die". Yet, it is still a form of euthanasia, which is against the law. This shows that people can still circumvent existing laws to kill or assist killing the terminally ill. Take the case of Chantal Sebire. She suffered from a rare form of cancer called esthesioneuroblastoma, which she said, caused her pain sometimes up to four hours and her loss of almost all physical senses. Her plea for euthanasia was turned down by the French government (who has long been opposing euthanasia). Two days later, she was found dead in her house. Autopsy revealed that her blood contained lethal concentration of pentobarbital, a drug used for animal euthanasia not found in French pharmacies. When someone wishes his/her death, they will do anything to get what they want. Since suicide and attempted suicide is not illegal in most countries, why not just legalise euthanasia and let those people die lawfully with dignity? Euthanasia sounds much better than suicide, isn't it?

Another fear of the advocates of a "no to euthanasia" vote is that people will abuse it. Well, let's take a look at the figures of euthanasia carried out in the permissive Netherlands, which has over 30 years of experience dealing with this issue. From a publication of "Lancet", a medical journal, there are 35,000 general requests of euthanasia are made each year, together with 9,700 explicit ones. Given about 140,000 Dutch death annually, the number seems sky high. But bear in mind, they are just requests. Actual euthanasia is far rarer, about 5,000 a year, which amounts to 3.5% of the total deaths. Not a really big number. Even during the implementation of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 in the Northern Territory of Australia from 1995 to 1997, only 4, patients died under that act. Ergo, do these numbers show the abuse of euthanasia? I don't think so.

Religious people, on the other hand, argued that to live is a duty until one dies a natural death, that life is a gift from God and is not one's to dispose of, that it is a dignified death to die in the hands of God. Therefore, to them, performing euthanasia is playing God. Questions surround these arguments. If natural death means to die via sickness, old age or natural disasters, then what about those who are lost their lives in battlefields, motor vehicle mishaps, and any other forms of death? Are those who killed them, be it accidentally or not, playing God as well? What if a person is destined by God to die of euthanasia? Then, are their deaths natural? Any human action alters the nature's course of action, as pointed out by Hume, a Scottish philosopher. He gave an example that if a stone fell onto one's head, then he has already changed the natural course of the falling stone. If one accepts the dogma of that God is a "watch maker" who creates but don't interfere, then Hume's arguments seemed irrefutable.

The less religious argument against euthanasia is that it is plain unnatural to prematurely end one's life, and we owe the society not to kill ourselves. These are curiously double-edged. For the former argument, if it is unnatural to deliberately end one's life earlier than it should be, then it can be said the other way round that it is also unnatural to prolong one's life using life-supporting machines. As stated above, no human action is natural, because we interfere with every move, every breath, every act. As for their second argument, the opponents of euthanasia imply that human life is intrinsically valuable. But to whom? Oneself? The family? The society? Mother nature? God? If they are really valuable, just how valuable is it? Are the doomed lives of the terminally ill with quite a bleak future as valuable as that of a healthy young man with a much brighter prospect? As Hume said :"The life of a man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster.". Hence, euthanasia is not devaluing life after all.

If you did not notice yet, the above arguments are free of the suffering of the terminally ill as just by how much pain one endures can only be known by one. Others can never know and understand the suffering until they are in that position. And it is extremely subjective. The level of endurance differs from one to another too. Everyone has the right to choose their way of life, so why not their way of death as well? But they should, while doing so, respect other's choice and not condemn them to right or wrong. Legalising euthanasia gives one the right to die, as to whether to exercise the right or not, that is purely personal and not of others to debate on.

A reply to Sarah's "The Mysteries Of A Being"

Dear Sarah,

Words are not destroyers of everything.

The word 'everything' itself is too condemning. Not everything is destroyed by words. We live with words. Words are already part of us, stored in our own biological database, and they grow with us. We can hardly live through a day without words, we need them, like you said, to convey messages, to express ideas, to communicate. Even for those who cannot speak communicates through sign language, which also formed its basis from words. If words destroy everything, then words are now eating us up from the inside then?

We are not always the victims of words. Words can be constructive or destructive. In your typical example of divorce, words are destructive. But prior to that, when the couple is in love, it is words that brought them together in the first place - through the flirting, sweet talks, serenades and "I do". They just chose to use the words destructively later. Yet, as you said, words alone are emotionless. Hence, it is the human brain that interpreted the words in a negative way, which wrapped emotions around the words, which over analysed the cadence of speech, which formed the foundations of rage and irritation. Words alone are not destructive, it is the brain of ours that thought so.

You had also stated that understanding is impossible to achieve because the world is continuously changing. However, understanding per se is constantly changing. What is understood now is different from what is understood before and what will we understand in the future. Understanding something holds true at that time. The same sentence, the same words, can be deciphered differently at different times. The word 'understanding' holds true for what we know, what we can elicit from the given information at that time by that person. Not forever. Nothing stays the same forever. Ergo, it is not impossible to understand, because ultimately what we understand is what we know specific to that particular time.

'Pictures paint a thousand words', 'Silence is golden', 'Thy word is truth'. Hence, words speak as loud as pictures as silence. All three of them are equally important. Words help to clear up ambiguities in pictures. Pauses are needed in between sentences so that speeches and essays make more sense. Some parts of a painting are left empty to balance the whole. Words can form lies, pictures can be deliberately fabricated, and sometimes silence lose its golden lustre. How is it then, that words are destroyers of everything when pictures and silences are equally lethal?

Nothing is good or bad, thinking made it so.


(Oh my, mine were such disorganised words!)

I waited for my turn

It rained the night before, and the sky still heavy with grey cumulonimbus. It looked like it was seven in the morning, but in fact it was eight-thirty. The morning was cool with the saturated atmosphere, plus, the sunlight was softened by the dense clouds a few kilometres above. Far away, the tropical birds called each other amongst the thicket of evergreen foliage. Their chirping and singing was crisp and clear interlacing with the sound of water flowing through the pebbles in the river and the wind whispering through the leaves in this almost pristine rain forest. The noise of trucks, cars and alarm clocks are alien to them. The only form of obvious human civilisation is the wooden chalets built around the area. It is the almost sensual representation of tranquility.

Thirty or so KBU students climbed up a fleet of concrete stairs to a platform, about three storey's high. The boys are mostly excited, because they are going to cross the cable hanging bridge and do the flying fox today. The girls are excited as well, but some felt some fear among their excitement, because they have to cross the cable hanging bridge and do the flying fox today. All of the students had crossed the bridge once the day before; some confident as if he/she had walked the tightrope all the time before, while some shivered their way across the bridge, exaberated by the height and adrenaline rush. That was the day before.For those who were too afraid to walk across the bridge, they considered the alternative of climbing up a hill to reach the flying fox, exposing themselves to the clandestine attacks of thirsty leeches. Posed between the dilemma, some students were deep in their internal conflict, oblivious that people are now forming groups of 5 to cross the bridge.

Most stuck with their group the previous day. Some swapped. I, myself, was among the former, but Wei Xin replaced Franky, because Franky is the council member and have to do the flying fox first, and hence have to cross the bridge before the rest will. After the first few groups have crossed, it drizzled lightly. It felt like the sky is sprinkling powdered sugar down the earth, covering the Earth with a sweet layer of sparkling moisture. Some of the students complained about the rain and talked about how they are going to cross the bridge in the rain, but it was so light that nobody cared. The line is still moving, though slowly.

I enjoyed standing in the drizzle, let the raindrops settle on my skin and feel the instantaneous, highly localised coolness it provided at multiple spots on my body. I like how the raindrops settle on my hair - the moment I feel it, it's gone. I love watching the raindrops gliding through green background like a shooting star in a velvety black night. I love the raunchy smell of the Earth when the first raindrops fell into her. I did not realise when the drizzle stopped, but it gave the canopy a mysterious veil of translucent white mist. It was a beautiful morning. Peaceful. Serene. Quiet.

(to be continued...)