On Mercy Killing(對「安樂死」的看法)
With advancement of modern medicine, more cases of illness, such as cancer, or illnesses related with oncology, emerge. Their emergence creates the necessity of physicians’ helping patients to keep them alive as long as possible. However, medical treatment on the other hand, prolongs the suffering of patients. Patients’ pain and suffering might be extended in proportion to a period (long or limited) in which they receive medical treatment. To ease or eliminate such suffering, Assisted Suicide was thus devised and became legalized. Assisted by whom? Physicians or someone else.
As an Asian myself, I’d like to talk about my viewpoints regarding so –called “mercy killing” of course from the position of an Oriental.
Influenced by ancient philosophy of life for thousands of years, most of the Orientals view death as a matter of course in life. They believe that there are four stages, namely, birth (生) 、seniority (老) 、illness (病)and death (死), which are a natural course and cycle of life. Among them illness in is naturally unavoidable. When faced with serious illnesses, such as those beyond cure, ancient Asians either committed suicide or helplessly procrastinated their suffering until death. They very seldom, if ever, asked someone else to help them to kill them either kindly or mercilessly. Because there existed a traditional moral code, 『身體髮膚受之父母，不可毀傷』-literally meaning “Bequeathed and inherited from parents, each part of our body, including hair, skin etc. should not be destroyed or damaged.” This emphasizes the importance of taking best care of our body as a gratitude to our parents. Therefore, assisted suicide was never thought of in the Oriental culture before, not to speak of putting it into practice.
Assisted Suicide was never mentioned also partly because of a firmed concept of morality about life and death, and partly because people were not intelligent or cruel enough to devise such statutes to allow physicians or others to help ill persons to end their lives. They believe that life is controlled or predetermined by Heaven or by fate. Physicians did not play a role of ending patients’ life. It is an Oriental concept about life that they could do nothing but yield themselves to fate, which is the key determiner. (聽天由命 or 恨命莫怨天) No one else, and nothing else.
As for physicians, they knew better than to help their patients to terminate their lives by adding purposely some poisonous or fatal drug to kill patients even if patients would have been very grateful for physicians’ benevolence to help them end their life. This was against morality, rule of mortality and social ethics, let alone that of physicians, whose responsibility was to help people to get rid of illness. In the mean time, helping some patients to die sooner than they would have been otherwise destined to be is an act of murder rather than mercy. And murdering someone is the last thing most people will do because it is a crime, an act of breaking law. Some groups or organizations even in the West today are still in strong opposition religiously, ethically, legally, theologically or morally, to mercy killing, another name for Assisted Suicide.
Around two thousand years ago, there was a dictator and emperor, named Tsao Tsao (曹操) in the Era of three-country, who was always troubled by an illness, possibly suspected to be brain tumor related, which caused severe pang from time to time. To treat his illness, one day he sent for a very famous surgeon by the name of Hua Tou (華陀). Dr. Hua proposed to have a brain surgery for Tsao Tsao by cutting open Tsao’s skull to remove the tumor. Upon hearing this, Tsao flared up, and put Dr. Hua to death, mistakenly thinking that Dr. Hua had an ill attempt on his life. This did not by any means constitute a case of Assisted Suicide though Tsao Tsao was not humorous enough to think of it as one. Because Tsao was lacking in any intention to have himself “get killed”, too.
(Neurosurgery was invented as long as 2,000 years ago? Had it been the case, Chinese medicine would have been much more advanced than the Western one! Unfortunately, all the people related to Dr. Hua were killed as accomplice in the “murder”. And legend has it many important and unique books of medicine written by Dr. Hua were also burned up.)
In my opinion, the Orientals do not accept mercy killing so easily or readily as do some Western people because of deeply rooted morality for centuries. In deciding to employ such a method to eliminate patients’ suffering, I think the position of physicians must be less active or initiative than that of patients or their family in the Orient. However, with the urgency or necessity of employing ‘mercy killing’, physicians’ evaluation of illness must be seriously taken into account. However, should a patient lose his power of expressing his/her free will, then a physician, a power of attorney of patients’ family, some other people concerned, and or justice should be responsible for the adoption of such a drastic measure.
After all, not only is a patient’s suffering crucial but his/her family people’s is. In some people’s minds, “an act of euthanasia” (causing death painlessly so as to end suffering) is one in which one person kills another person for the benefit of the second person, who actually does benefit from being killed. That is the key point that it is legalized in some countries in the world.
Broadly defined, sometimes suffering refers to more physical pain than a spiritual one, or may be both. Besides the cases in medicine, for those wishing to terminate their own lives for a divine cause, they might sometimes seek for assistance from someone else. For instance, killing oneself by stabbing one’s belly in ancient or modern Japan, the so-called “hara kiri- 切腹自殺 (腹切りin Japanese). In this specific kind of committing suicide, a person needs someone else to cut off his head by standing at his side. Why is another person needed to serve as an assistant of the killer? Because, the assistant will ease greatly the pain of the one who kills oneself before one dies. And of course, he helps speed the one to death otherwise a person’s dying very slowly is extremely painful.
Both persons deem it an honor to perform in collaboration such a noble deed- killing oneself and helping the other to get killed. The above tradition in the Orient may be called Another-Assisted Suicide. In medical cases, both assisting physicians and the patient are not honored at all. The beneficiary is the patient himself or herself, all right. But, can an assisting physician be called “a benefactor of the suicide”? I doubt it. But to some physicians, they rather think they are. Maybe is it out of a guilty feeling? The physicians assert that they are innocent of the killing and their act is absent of crime on any account. What a good and perplexing defense! How do you like it?!
As for the Oriental people who suffer, they of course long to die sooner than be tortured to death. Their pain and or suffering can be evidenced by some famous idioms expressed, such as “痛不欲生” (so painful as to desire to be dead to end suffering) or “生不如死” (ceasing to live is much preferable to going on living). Of course, the above two phrases sometimes are referred more to spiritual pain than to physical suffering. Indeed, suffering sometimes is indescribably great for someone inflicted with incurable diseases and yet it is subjective. Too bad! None but the one who experienced or is experiencing such pang can tell if suicide is preferable to suicide assisted by someone else.
Someone argues that there is a difference between euthanasia and PAS. For me the former may include the latter; and the latter did not come into existence as long as the former. The word "euthanasia" was first used in a medical context by Francis Bacon in the 17th century. “Euthanasia must be defined as death that results from the intention of one person to kill another person, using the most gentle and painless means possible, that is motivated solely by the best interests of the persoen who dies.” PAS (Physician-Assisted Suicide) involves the physicians who serve as pain relievers at first, but finally as executioners. PAS,euphemistically called, is always at the request and with the consent of the patient, since he or she self-administers the means of death.
Whatever the minor difference between Assisted Suicide and euthanasia might be, both are concerned with one’s killing of the other, in a painlessly way of killing, and with the consent of the other or his/her family. Both must incorporate four elements: an agent, a subject; an intention; a causal proximity. And a patient’s will to his/her life is the key factor to be considered. The will includes voluntary and non-voluntary intention. And a physician’s roles are inclusive of active or passive involvement. Either a patient’s will or a physician’s role has to be under strict surveillance and regulation of a law. That is, a court’s ruling comes first, and then a “suicide” happens later. It seems to be a win-win plot, with a happy ending. Haha! These are the procedures the way they are. However, they are hardly acceptable as yet in Asia. But who knows when it will become as popular or prevalent as birth control?
12/14/2015
沒有留言:
張貼留言