The
Sancticity of Life: A Refutation of Euthanasia
A positive and correct valuation of human life will support decisively
whether euthanasia or mercy killing is or should be moral, legal,
and ethical.
To undertake this issue, what must also be addressed is the right
of the
individual versus the collective. The idea of laws must also be invoked.
Does
any entity or feature of nature operate or bind us to participate in
our existence
in an absolute universal manner or is our existence and this subject
relavatistic?
Are we at liberty to choose our own preference without the fetters
of a macro-
organizer of sorts?
To state the case a very simple outline of the theory laws will be used
as an outline to which is common in philosophy and political science.
This
framework will support
the case of the Sancticity of Life: 1
1. Eternal law- This is religion and
universal
2. Natural law- This is the physical
laws of nature and universal. It may also include the natural reason of humans as philosophy
3. Positive law- This is the legal law
of a state or supranational organization; it may be universal or particular
The Sancticity of Life, in its
simplest presentation argues that all life has a value and status that should be recognized before any measures are deliberated
to extinct or terminate life. Death is an irreversible condition. Great aforethought should be taken in light of the end condition.
The Sanctity of Life case extends to all life not just the exclusive case of humans. However in the particularity of
the present issue of euthanasia we are dealing with humans.
The theory of laws is important. In
degree laws are stronger than principles. There are times when a law may be described as a principle. In analogy, all mathematics
are reducible to the operations of four laws: commutative, distribution, association, and addition. The same terms are used
in predicate calculus or formal logic.
The concept of eternal law is an extremely important feature, if not the
most important consideration in any debate. It is basically an abstract
feature
of the deity or Godhead. It is universal, eternal, and exists as a
higher
substance than events in natural and positive law, which would be subordinate
and descend from eternal law. As eternal, time and space would not
be able to
operate on eternal law which would have authored the two. As two eternities
cannot exist simultaneously, the eternal law must emerge victoriously
or such
does not exist. It is therefore only a fetish, or a perception.
Arguing in an existential manner, than is to say arguing in the positive
that eternal law does exist as authorized religious authorities say
such exists,
we will examine a few primary arguments. If a Godhead or deity exists
all
subsequent living entitities are drawn from such. As such we are dealing
with
propriety of office. This argument will also be reflected towards the
positive
law that has roots in religious traditions. I will use the Catholic
tradition for an
example. Christianity believes that there is a Triune Godhead that
exists a
priori to the human condition. The second person of the Godhead,
Jesus has
been handed over the power to judge mankind twice, once at death singularly,
and then collectively at a second coming. To deny this right makes
Jesus
human. It takes away his position as being sent to judge mankind. This
position
is to not be taken lightly (Thigpen).
A second case is that He created them and loveth them all. and
Thou shall not kill. Here we are referring to the Father or first person
and to
all life. But this verse in context is taken in regard to the power
and authority
to judge. Historically, as is pointed out by St Augustine in The
City of God,
there is no euthanasia for Christian soldiers on the battlefield. Other
soldiers
must walk past the fallen until God calls them home. This is also related
to free
will. This is also a moral instruction in courage, martyrdom
for the church, and
creating a sustainable culture. This is orthodox and is a facet of
Christian love,
not a mundane human communative relationship that is strictly neighbor-to-
neighbor (Thigpen). In continuo will follow a very direct passage
by Franjo
Cardinal Seper (Seper).
3.
Intentionally causing one's own death, or suicide,
is therefore
equally as wrong as murder; such an action
on the part of a person is to be considered as a rejection
of God's sovereignty and loving plan. Furthermore,
suicide is also often a refusal of love for self, the denial
of a natural instinct to live, a flight from the duties of justice
and charity owed to one's neighbor, to various communities or
to the whole of society--although, as is generally recognized,
at times there are psychological factors present that can
diminish resposnsibility and entirely remove it.
