Concerns about where accepting euthanasia can lead to

Why should euthanasia not be accepted?

The following is an opinion piece that I sent to Etelä-Suomen Sanomat. It concerns the euthanasia law, which is currently relevant in Finland. I took a stand on Pertti Vartiainen's writing in which he defended euthanasia. I brought up my own concerns about the topic:

Why should euthanasia not be accepted?

Pertti Vartiainen presented a positive position on euthanasia in his article "Euthanasia should be allowed in Finland too" (8.4). In it, he told about the last moments of his loved ones and supported euthanasia based on his own experiences.

Pertti also told about the artificial prolongation of life. He's certainly right about that. Sometimes the treatments may do more harm than good, but in all situations the pain can be removed. With current painkillers it is possible.

However, I see that the legalization of euthanasia will completely change the practice and ideology of medical care. It will be replaced by a culture that urges death. "Your life is not worth living if you are not completely healthy. Why don't you take a pill already so we can get rid of you?" Especially if a person is disabled, he is not beautiful, he does not have many loved ones or he receives expensive treatment, he may feel it is his duty to die.

In addition, it is certain that the line with what is a valuable life and what is not is constantly shifting. This has been observed in countries that have legalized euthanasia. Already depressed people have been killed there at their own request or small children. Little by little, there are smaller and smaller reasons why someone should die prematurely. It is not taken into account that not all suffering can be removed from people's lives. Unfortunately, suffering is a part of this life. Usually, suffering is more of a mental quality, such as interpersonal problems and rejection from others. Of course, these things can be alleviated by respectful behavior towards others or with the help of painkillers, but not all suffering can be removed from the world.

In addition, I see that if euthanasia is legalized, it will increase the mental burden on doctors because they are ultimately responsible for killing their patients. Whenever we talk about the right to euthanasia, it means that others - usually doctors - are obliged to kill. This change from the current practice of medicine will also increase distrust towards doctors. The patient can no longer be so sure of the doctor's benevolent attitude towards him. For example, in the Netherlands, where the practice has been carried the longest, more than a tenth of the elderly said they were afraid that their doctors would kill them against their will. In countries where euthanasia is not legalized, people have more trust in their doctors.

Jari Iivanainen

So there was my euthanasia document sent to the newspaper. It will hardly change the direction of development, but I nevertheless saw it as important to bring up my own concerns regarding the matter.

When this law supporting the acceptance of euthanasia is brought up, love is usually the driving force behind the issue, as in so many other cases, love is used as a justification. It can be used to justify adultery, premarital sex, homosexual relationships and many other things. However, the result is usually an increase in suffering, especially in the lives of children. I have written about it in my other writings. The new morality is not always as good as it seems at first.

The following quotes tell more about the topic. Now we are walking in the same footsteps as decades ago in Germany, before Nazism came to power. Even then, people began to support the view that some people's lives are not worth living. Gradually, the border was moved further and further.

The first of the comments is from the American psychiatrist Leo Alexander. He participated in the Nuremberg War Trials and in 1949 wrote an influential treatise called Medicine under Dictatorship. It was published in The New England Journal of medicine . Alexander stated that the change happened little by little and initially got its strength from how to relate to the terminally ill:

It all started with doctors accepting the basic idea of the euthanasia movement that some people's lives are not worth living. In the beginning, in this way, the seriously and chronically ill were treated. Gradually, socially unproductive, ideologically and racially undesirable people began to be included -- But it is important to realise that the extremely small stimulus from which this line of thought drew its strength was the attitude towards terminally ill people.

The following quote tells more about the topic. Now we are walking in the same footsteps as decades ago and repeating the same mistakes of history. Walter Trobisch has referred to this in one of his books:

I remember a movie that was shown in Germany during Hitler's time. It told about a doctor whose wife had an incurable disease. The film showed in detail how the disease tormented the woman until her husband killed her with an overdose of sleeping pills. After being tried for murder, the man defended himself by saying: "I loved my wife."

Here God's commandment "Do not kill" in the name of love was called into question.

Hitler used this film, which was shown in 1940, as a psychological preparation for killing the terminally ill and insane, for clearing out people he considered worthless. And the end was the murder of six million Jews in the gas chambers of the concentration camps.

If we try to set standards for love ourselves, we will fall into Satan's hands. When Germany questioned the commandment "Do not kill" in the name of love, it fell into the hands of the devil. If today we question the commandment "Do not commit adultery" in the name of love, we will likewise fall prey to Satan.

(Walter Trobisch: Love is a feeling to be learned, p. 29)