"Euthanasia" has been one of the central expressions
in the right-to-die debate.
But it has been used so many different ways
that it is probably time to replace it with new terms,
which we can define and describe without baggage from the past.
In part because it has such a long history,
"euthanasia" has spawned a whole clutch of derivative terms:
"passive euthanasia", "active euthanasia", "direct euthanasia",
"indirect euthanasia",
"non-active euthanasia", "voluntary euthanasia", "involuntary
euthanasia",
"non-voluntary euthanasia", "voluntary active euthanasia", "involuntary
active euthanasia",
"non-voluntary active euthanasia", "slow euthanasia", etc.
People who attempt to define these terms find themselves going on
endlessly
with subtle distinctions intended to ward off common misunderstandings.
Is it worth the effort?
Can we really clarify what we mean
when we continue to use a word that is inherently ambiguous?
Perhaps "euthanasia" should be placed in the same
category with "communism".
"Euthanasia" was once a meaningful, useful expression meaning good death.
But it has come to be so
associated with such things as lethal
injection and Nazi atrocities
that we can no longer use the word without each time denying the
connotations.
Likewise "communism" was originally coined by Karl
Marx to mean the common good.
But history so distorted this common good into totalitarianism
that no one today would even dream
of promoting love within the family by calling it "communism".
When parents make sacrifices in order to provide for their children,
they do not think that they are being "communist".
"Euthanasia" has become such a code-word for people
opposed to the
right-to-die
that they can create an "anti-euthanasia task force" without blinking
an eye.
They know they will be understood as opposing something terrible,
even if those horrors are not defined or described.
COULD "GENTLE DEATH" REPLACE "EUTHANASIA"?
What we in the right-to-die movement favor is gentle
death:
1. Gentle death does no harm
to the patient.
Gentle death provides a major
benefit to the patient
because it eliminates unbearable suffering.
Gentle death ends unwanted pain.
And gentle death is achieved by methods that are painless.
2. Gentle death is freely
chosen by the patient
based on all available medical facts and projections.
When weighed against all the other alternatives,
death at this time is more
reasonable than death at some later time.
3. Gentle death is planned well in advance—when
possible.
The ideal death is organized over a period of months, perhaps even
years.
Gentle death is not capricious or rushed.
4. Gentle death is admirable and commendable after it has been
accomplished.
When the people who survive look back on a gentle death,
they say that it was a good death
—as
good as possible under the circumstances.
They have no regrets about how this death was achieved.
They can lament the fact that their dear friend or relative is dead,
but they do not lament the
manner of the dying.
In the past, death was seldom gentle.
When our ancestors died from cold or being eaten by animals,
it was not a gentle death.
They suffered extremely just before they died of disease or violence.
Rough death was much more common than gentle death.
But even last century, people spoke of the ideal as "dying in one's
sleep".
Nowadays, when most of us die in hospitals or
similar medical institutions,
we can all "die in our sleep"
because we can choose to have sedatives that render us unconscious
when the alternative of being awake means that we will suffer.
"Gentle death" would be contrasted with a violent or
pain-filled death.
And who could oppose a gentle death?
We are not surprised to hear or read such sentiments as the following:
"We are unalterable opposed to any form of euthanasia."
Various medical associations have made similar statements.
And they sometimes do not define what they mean,
suggesting that everyone already knows what "euthanasia" means.
But medical associations would never issue
statements like the following:
"This Medical Association strongly opposes any form of gentle death."
"Any physician who cooperates in a gentle death will be expelled from
the association
and criminal charges will be recommended when appropriate."
If we replace "euthanasia" with "gentle death",
then those challenge the 'right to die'
will never consider naming their organizations "the anti-gentle-death
task force".
They will not be able to launch media campaigns
denouncing the horrors of "gentle death".
The opposition will complain that we have just given
a new name to an old evil,
but the people in the middle will think twice
before they easily and automatically turn against gentle death.
Created March 16,
2007; revised 3-22-2007; 4-4-2007; 1-13-2008