Religion, Politics, Euthanasia
Last November we had elections in The Netherlands to chose a new cabinet, after which a new government would be appointed. I didn’t doubt for a second to use my right to vote, even though voting day was the day my grandmother passed away. Something like your right to vote is too important to let it just pass by or not use it.
Only now they have decided and agreed on a coalition cabinet which consists of CDA, PVDA and CU. Concessions had to be made during formation talks and I’m still trying to read up on everything that is now decided. Dutch cabinet formation is usually a coalition cabinet as there is no dominating party.
So what has religion got to do with this; well obviously something as there are two Christian parties involved, but that’s not what I had in mind to write about. With all the fuzz around the Coalition Agreement there were other party leaders talking about the (at that time) preliminary coalition agreement. I was watching a discussion program on TV with Kees van der Staaij (Second Chamber of the States-General member for SPG) in it. They were talking about euthanasia an ethical issue in which our policies are among the most liberal in the world, which I’m very proud of.
Kees van der Staaij said that he felt the euthanasia policy should be changed or, preferably, disappear. Had said this based on his religious believes. He feels God has the final say and not us, humble humans. Hearing him say that, really bothered me. Not that I don’t believe in anything but because we get to and have to make life changing decisions all throughout our lives. So why can we not have the final say in ending our life. It’s not like you can say it and have a doctor legally end your life straight away, it is of course, not so black and white and it shouldn’t be.
I can totally understand it if a person who is terminally ill and suffers incredibly wants to end one’s life in a way one feels is very humane. Also, it usually gives an opportunity to say goodbye to your loved ones while you still can.
Van der Staaij said there are other ways; which basically comes down to pain prevention. In most (if not all cases) of terminal ill patients there already is pain prevention going on. What if the pain is so severe that normal pain prevention doesn’t work anymore? We all know the morphine dose can go up, which usually results in a coma after which the patient either dies of an overdose or the illness itself. Is that a humane way to die? Just dose a patient up until he’s dead, whether or not that involves a coma?
I don’t think that anyone’s religious believes should be the sole base to make (or change) a law. One person’s (or a party’s) religious believes certainly aren’t those of someone else, so how can a law be based on that? Who is he to say that I can’t decided about my own life and end it in a humane way because God will do it for me. What if one doesn’t believe in God and therefor doesn’t believe God will make that decision?
With that in mind I don’t think laws should rely on religious believes, especially not in a multicultural country like The Netherlands.
Also, what if you turn it around; if God decided about our life (and death) why should we interfere with his decision and give a patient medication? We have the knowledge, and we use it all the time, so if we believe that it should all be in God’s hands we should ditch the knowledge and everything that comes with it and start living again as they did in the old days; survival of the fittest.
We don’t do that because ‘it’s not humane’ to let one suffer without pain prevention or relief. And we do use euthanasia for animals to put them out of their misery. It’s a well accepted concept for pets while they can’t even decide for themselves. So how can it be so wrong for a person to request euthanasia and make a decision about their own lives?
I’m glad with the euthanasia policy we have right now, it’s still not easy to get euthanasia and it shouldn’t be. But after speaking with family members of patients that underwent euthanasia and those who had a family member die of pain prevention / relief I feel that it’s a good thing to have policies like that. Being able to say goodbye to a loved one in a certain way gives closure to the people that stay behind and generally also acceptance of the ‘why’.
Plugged: 5 Comments on "Religion, Politics, Euthanasia"
I completely agree with it being legal. It’s not their body and therefore they have no hold over what people do with theirs. It isn’t fair to make them live when they do not want to be alive. What if they are in a coma? That’s not living, that is existing. Two very different things.
I didn’t doubt for a second to use my right to vote, even though voting day was the day my grandmother passed away. Something like your right to vote is too important to let it just pass by or not use it.
I’d just like to say… I love you. Seriously, far too many people nowadays are far too apathetic about voting. It’s refreshing to see someone who isn’t; kudos for that.
On the euthanasia thing, you’ve essentially just pointed out the difference between (classic) liberal and ‘soft’ conservative (a.k.a. liberal conservatism in the West) values, and religion-driven neo-conservative values.
The traditional, liberal/conservative, view is that the state should have minimal interference in the private decisions of its citizens; if you want to quietly commit suicide to escape an incurable, terminal illness, that’s your choice not anyone else’s. If you want to terminate a pregnancy in order to avoid having an unwanted child, that’s your choice. State policy is formed on the rational, secular humanist notion of the relief of suffering. “If we allow or do not allow people to perform action x, will suffering in the community go down?” (I call this ‘soft conservative’ since true conservatism is the desire to preserve existing institutions without succumbing to radical change; in the West, our state institutions are formed from several hundred years’ worth of liberal, secular humanist thinking. Thus, ‘true’ western conservatism is both liberal and secular. Unfortunately, most soft conservatives got killed off in the 1970s when the neo-cons rose to power, and now they just wander lost amongst liberals/left-wingers never really feeling that they fit in.)
Religion-driven neo-conservatism, on the other hand, is less interested in the relief of suffering than it is the preservation of its particular brand of religious dogma. Decisions are not based on “will this relieve suffering?” but rather “does this fit in with my religious belief?”. It’s irrelevant whether a particular piece of legislation will cause further suffering here and now, because the ultimate goal is — of course, and kudos to Nietzsche — to prevent citizens from going against the narrow, neo-con view of God’s Will in order that they have a good afterlife. Upholding dogma (“God’s Will”), irrelevant of the personal beliefs of the citizenry, is paramount.
Long comment, sorry, but you got me thinking. ^^”
I’ll put this simply:
I believe that if you want to die, you should be allowed to make that decision. If you believe that a family member should die because of pain that they are in, then it depends.
I don’t think you should help someone along by giving them some type of drug that will kill them. If they will die naturally, then let them do so, do not use preventative measures. But, in my opinion–whether or not the person in question has given permission–you should not take it into your own hands to get them to die. That is murder to me, call it assisted suicide, call it dusting the rugs, call it whatever, that’s what it is.
That’s why I believe living wills are important. You should let people know what you want to do in cases where you can no longer make the decision yourself.
Leave a comment
Before you post be aware that first-time commenters are moderated and anonymous comments will be deleted.
I think that euthanasia should be legal. I think that countries like the Netherlands are more advanced than Australia, because your policies are generally more liberal than ours. I would be proud of those policies too, if I lived there.
Here in Australia, I think the Northern Territory actually did legalise euthanasia for a few weeks before the federal government overruled it. The federal government is trying to make it more and more difficult for people to get abortions and things like that. And they definitely do not want homosexuals to be able to have civil unions.
If I was old enough to vote, I would be using it to vote for the other party (in Australia, I mean).