Summary and Conclusion
It is important to note the levels of laws
that come into formation whether they are faith based, natural, or positive. Consideration has to be made whether the position
from one of these areas is even admissible especially with the separation of church and state. The prior recognition of all
three levels of laws is one of thoroughness. Even if a court per se would not allow argument from every law, the impact in
the form of acceptance or rejection of a rule or practice can be formidable. It is to be noted that if existence is spiritual
there is a cognizant being that is directing all acts and judgments all levels. If existence is materialist this would only
occur at the positive law level. Nature is defined as being no more than physical laws of weak and strong forces.
What is seen in the question of euthanasia
is the classic political question of freedom of the individual versus the right of the state to regulate and bind the subject
for the good of the commonwealth. An important aspect of this decision is cognition. One cannot be absolutely sure than even
the most devout practioner is receiving revelation descending from on high for the benefit of all. Nature is a highly efficient
system and the individual and species must maintain a certain level of fitness or perish individually and collectively.
Advocacy of many personal instances of end
of life suffering by a range of professionals of persons deemed to be in the last stand of life with no remedy and best supporting
circumstances as stated by Young are the best personal examples cited by the pro euthanasia platform. Their suffering which
occurs at the physical level is natural and will confront a great majority of persons at the end of their life. Individual
liberty must be contrasted with those of the sustainable benefit to the greater majority. The death rate is 100 percent for
all. Such may be fast or prolonged.
The Sancticity of Life case is a common
ground platform. It is coming to the fore in bioethics and is required subject matter at many medical schools. To adopt such
gives one a chance to comprehend not only the background of medical specialists but also spiritual, psychological, and moral
considerations of many different perspectives. One may argue its roots are faith based but even materialist philosophy argues
positions which by an individual or collective manner have sancticity or value which should be recognized regardless
of ones type of spirituality, hence beyond matter or physically based morality.
The argument begins with eternal law and
what according to Catholic Christians binds one in act. It is common to many faiths but not all. No one can deny that there
is no natural law, only whether humans are competent to discern such. Natural law is binding on the individual. This case
at the present will be dispensed with by the court; the composition which by and large is civil in the world of our experience.
Historical precedences from case law will shape the decision at the Jurists discretion.
seen this problem is not new. The process should be deliberate and not hasty. Death is not a reversible condition. I do not
believe in the legal sense there is a liberty right as regards the individual to have autonomy in a civil state to
legally perform this act. To legalize euthanasia is to state sanction the practice as having moral healthy benefit for the
population and setting a precedent. For a government to rule entirely in the favor individual life as a principle may jeopardize
the stability of the whole nation or world community.
In conclusion, I argue that based on a deliberation
of the relationship of human life of many different levels of thought from the past and concluding to the present day, that
even though individual suffering may be horrendous, that euthanasia should be restricted in the interest of not committing
human errors in the name of the state and having such multiply to the whole. Such libertarian ideals, even if seen in liberal
construction in the manner of those who perceive such as their true feelings and morality are better not incorporated as an
individual right for the benefit of not injuring the many.