Madam, – Michael O’Driscoll’s letter (April 13th) unfairly dismisses euthanasia as a threat to society akin to child abuse or infanticide. To presume that life must be extended to its unnatural limits – simply for the sake of preservation – makes little sense and is certainly not humane.
No one would seriously suggest that we encourage people to end their lives, but that is not the purpose or effect of euthanasia. Systems can be put in place to allow people who are of sound mind to make decisions for their own reasons without outside pressure. Euthanasia is not about killing sick people but rather about allowing individuals to control their own passing. Murder is a reprehensible act, but no more so than forcing people to struggle on in pain and depression simply because we feel they should.
Proper end-of-life care is provided in the interest of patients, according to their wishes. Many objectors paint euthanasia as a dreadful picture of despair, when in fact it is often a joyous relief.
Patients go from being in the grip of sickness to having control over their own passing – how wonderful a feeling to be able to cheat death at its own game. Let us not be so naive as to think that such decisions are without dangers or moral implications, but surely refusing to engage in debate is not the best way to deal with such issues.
Death and dying have perplexed and concerned us since humans first evolved consciousness and it would be silly to think it will all go away if we ignore it.
I am 25 years old. I love life and I hope to live to see the next century. Yet, if illness were to arrive and limit my remaining days on Earth, I would expect the right to choose a dignified and controlled exit. I absolutely support the right of any individual to live for as long as possible, if that is what they wish. Equally, I would expect the right to choose my own end-of-life care, even if that includes euthanasia.
Mr O’Driscoll’s motives are surely positive, and I would not presume to dictate what he should value. However, it would do us all good to consider the reality of death and the fact that it is far too often a drawn-out and horrifying experience for the dying and their loved ones. How wonderful it would be at the end of my days to be able to celebrate with my family and friends a life well lived and choose to pass away peacefully the way I see fit. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Michael O’Driscoll (April 13th) celebrates the cancellation of the lecture on euthanasia in Cork University Hospital as a moral victory. I would argue that this is not the case. Furthermore, his comparison of euthanasia to “child abuse” and “infanticide” misrepresents the intentions of doctors who participate in this practice in states where it is legal and denies the dignity of terminally ill people who want to put an end to intolerable suffering for themselves and their families.
His assertion that time is not given over to debating the merits of things our society fundamentally rejects is true, yet he is mistaken in suggesting that euthanasia is held in this regard by society as a whole.
In a year in which the Irish Hospice Foundation has organised a national discussion on death and dying through the Forum on End of Life in Ireland, surely representations on subjects such as euthanasia are to be welcomed so we may stimulate discourse and facilitate understanding of such a pertinent issue?
Nothing can be gained from burying our heads in the sand and running from this difficult and controversial matter. The prevalence of underground “assisted suicide” groups supports my point.
Ignoring the existence of people who wish to take this course and those who would assist them further reinforces the clandestine nature of their endeavours and marginalises vulnerable people in need of empathy and compassion.
How can consensus be formed on moral issues in the absence of debate and argument from both sides of this divide? Is it not right that health professionals have a profound and nuanced understanding of sensitive ethical issues?
By funding this lecture the HSE did nothing more than try to achieve this end. Among its many failings, the HSE has not blotted its copybook with this action, rather its capitulation to those who would silence meaningful examination of such topics in favour of stifling moral torpidity shows how far we have to go in this country towards having a true moral compass to guide us. – Yours, etc,