EUTHANASIA “BY THE PRISM OF THE LIFE–RIGHT”

Oxana ROTARI, Ph.D., associate professor

Aurelia CUPCEA, owner of Merit Scholarships

In the United Kingdom Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists intends to propose
that babies born under 22 weeks should not receive birth certificates. The Professor Chris Ra-
pley, director of British Antarctic Studies, supports the idea of reducing the human population
through euthanasia as a solution to reduce the environmental pollution. In August 2004, the
Dutch legal authorities and Groningen University Clinic signed an act authorizing an experi-
mental protocol aimed at extending the practice of euthanasia to children under 12. We started
therefore from murdering patients terminally ill and chronically ill it was who asked murdering
them being murdering depressed, which had no physical pain, but have asked to die, to simply
murdering babies for the fact that they had disabilities. Thus, euthanasia could become a new
idealistic border and ideological individualistic celebration of human freedom.
Keywords: Euthanasia; euthanasia active/passive; assisted suicide; gentle death; quality of
life; cultural genocide; treatment the option to; culture of death.

Eutanasia prin prisma dreptului la viaţă

În Marea Britanie Colegiul Regal al Obstetricienilor și Ginecologilor intenţionează să propună ca
bebeluşii născuţi sub 22 de săptămîni să nu primească certificate de naştere.Profesorul Chris Rapley
,directorul Studiilor Antarctice Britanice , susţine reducerea populaţiei umane prin eutanasie, ca
soluţie a diminuării poluării mediului. În august 2004, autorităţile juridice olandeze şi Clinica
Universitară Groningen semneaza un act prin care autorizează un protocol experimental orientat
spre extinderea practicării eutanasiei la copiii sub 12 ani. S–a pornit aşadar, de la omorîrea
pacienţilor bolnavi în faza terminală şi s–a ajuns la omorîrea bolnavilor cronici care au cerut–o
,la omorîrea depresivilor, care nu aveau nici o suferinţă fizică ,dar au cerut să moară; la omorîrea
nou–născuţilor pentru simplul fapt că aveau infirmităţi. Astfel, eutanasia riscă să devina o nouă
frontieră ideologică de celebrare idealistă și individualistă a libertăţii umane.
Cuvinte cheie: eutanasie; eutanasie activă/pasivă; sinucidere asistată; moarte blândă; genocid
cultural; ultura morţii.

Nature is eternal, not the circumstances.

Aristotle

The notion of euthanasia, first introduced in XVII century by Francis Bacon

means “easy death” which, however, has grown rapidly. So that, in the XVIII cen-
tury it designated the action of “gentle death” and in the nineteenth century — “a

215
mercy death”. Today the term has added new meanings, meaning — “mercy killing
to suppress or avoid children suffering extreme abnormal development of incur-
able diseases or mental deviations avoiding an unbearable life, involving too much
troubles for the family and society”. We started to “alleviate the suffering of people
who are in a terminal stage of disease” to reach young people with disabilities eu-
thanasia proposal, the mentally ill, the elderly and senile ones, those seriously ill and
persons in coma or just so sick and weak, that can not rather pronounce intelligible
sounds. Euthanasia advocates argue that such patients’ quality of life is “so low that
it would be better to dye”. So, for example, in the U.S. Frequently the way euthana-
sia is performed by starvation and dehydration — one of the most agonizing death
moods. Until 1994 in the U.S. the dominating procedure in the ways of suicide was
self–dose of sleeping pills followed by the introduction of per capita of a plastic bag,
which leads to slow suffocation.
Euthanasia advocates build their oral arguments on the concept of “low qual-
ity of life”. Thus, while traditional society believes that human life has absolute, the
actuality enters the idea the idea of human value, noting about that some people are
intrinsically superior to others. In addition, utilitarian philosophy maintains that an
individual’s value is measured by how useful can he/she be for a group or society to
which it belongs. In this context a person has the right to live as long as the society
benefits and has the duty to die when it can be useful to others. And then what can
you say about our society when we say that we don’t cease to care for a person as it
is unproductive or surplus?
The value of human life can not be measured by how many pieces of a machine
can do this person or as far as it could pay taxes. We had to live by engaging in
economic activities, but this is not why we live. Economic goal is to support hu-
man life, human life is not to support the economy. An infirm person, a mentally
retarded or elderly person is not less valuable than someone young and healthy.
The fact that it contributes less to the economy has nothing to do with its value as
a human being.
In December 1990 Health Care Society has published a critical report that aserts
that it’s the doctor’s right to refuse the treatment to a patient demanded that it is
too “burdensome”. Oregon case in this context is not singular. Thus, in September
1998 it has prevented the funding of a key–oxicontinul analgesic, making it inac-
cessible to many patients suffering in chronical or terminal stages. Basically patients
with diseases such as diabetic neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, and sympathetic reflex
dystrophy or other painful and fatal diseases have not benefited from the treatment
with oxicontin1.
The Medical Asistence Program of Oregon has not payed for the painkiller, but
instead of this it funded patients’ suicides. Thus, while financing the assisted suicide
for poors and handicapped the healthy program of Oregon healthy puts bureaucratic

1 Bertrand, Vergely, “Death forbidden”. — Bucharest: Byzantine, 2006. — 240 p., p. 27

216
barriers in the way of painkillers and even in the subvention of effective ntedepresives.
Upon approval of the assisted suicide law in november 1997, the Oregon State initi-
ated series of actions to restrict funds for the care of the chronically ill or at a later
stage pacients, and limiting the oxicontin financing only for patients with cancer
is just one of them. Later, while assisted suicide has become a priority of medical
care, the State institutionalized the refuse to cover more than 150 medical services.
“The fact that Oregon State will not adequately fund our personal care services, but
instead will pay us is nothing else than to die in a “cultural genocide”, Ric Burger, a
member of Handicapped assistance program, decried the situation ”.
It is much easier and cheaper to kill a patient instead of treating him. Ratio-
nalization of health care programs has not a considerable only on old people and
incurable patients, but even on children. In the Indiana State was born a “Baby
Doe” in 1982 with Down syndrome and esophagus problem that could be easily
corrected by surgery. Parents have not wanted to operate their child, but asked to
let him die from hunger and thirst 2. Indiana State Supreme Court decided that they
may require this decision being based on the constitutional right to privacy, creat-
ing a precedent that allowed other children to die that are considered to have a life
subjected to inferiority.
In November 1996 the American–media reported that in the Texas rationaliza-
tion center of medical care, which used ultrasound to detect fetal heart damages
offered to their parents free taxes of abortion. IF they choosed to born the child, any
medical expenses related to heart defects are not covered by the center3.
We live in a “culture of death” in which those who once promised to maintain
life are too eager to destroy it. “Our medical profession is monopolized by compas-
sionate killers no longer subscribed to doctrine Hippocratic oath”, mentioned the
medical Ron Sutton. These doctors practice death rush to propose abortion when
the slightest defect was found in an unborn baby.
In recent decades the pro–life organizations have warned that euthanasia would
follow abortion. In the same way the right to die will be followed by a duty to die.
Death with dignity will be imposed on people who still live with a disability or a
lower quality of life. A society that throws away their unborn children will find
convenient ways to dispense its unwanted citizens — the burden. In the Nether-
lands, at least 3% of deaths through children aged between 1–17 years were caused
by euthanasia. In Finland, Belgium 7% of new deaths — babies have been caused
by an injection with a lethal dose of medicine4. Most children had birth defects or
were born prematurely. Three of four pediatricians have been trained to engage in

2 Cocora L., John B., Astarastoae V. Bioethics of terminal states. — Sibiu: Editura Universitatii
“Lucian Blaga”, 2004. p. 73.
3 Belis, V, forensic Treaty, 2 vol — New York: Medical Publishing House, 1995. — 171 p., p.
43.
4 Chelcea, S., Sociological research methodology. — Bucharest: Publishing House, 2001. — 75
p., p. 17

217
euthanasia new — born children. In the Netherlands, at least 1,000 patients are killed
every year by euthanasia without consent or their desire.
U.S. law provides to patients a series of acts now, legally valid, by which a person
may exercise the right to death. The most notorious act remains “life wish”. It is a docu-
ment whereby a person may agree in advance to discontinue medical treatment for life,
where, after an illness or accident would be unable to make decisions. If such a document
signature, the physician is determining authority and, moreover,it is not obliged to consult
the patient’s family according to the discontinuation of the medical treatment.
The first bill to the desire of living was referred in Florida’s law in 1975. The au-
thor argued that the legalization of such documents in 90% of retarded and mentally
ill in Florida would “get permission to die”, and the state would save in this way $ 5
billion. President Bill Clinton himself and his wife participated in the campaign in
favor of euthanasia, making pressure on people to sign living desire. In an interview
on NBC, Clinton said that signing the desires of life is a “way to wipe out some of
them”. Another argument is insufficient medical equipment and streamlining them.
Dr. Bowen said in 1987 in the plenum of the Senate Finance Committee that the only
way to reduce the high costs of using technical medical equipment was to encourage
Americans to sign the will to live.
In 1995, with the passage of “terminally ill Rights Act (wheels)” Northern Ter-
ritory of Australia became the first in the world to legalize euthanasia so as well as
assisted suicide — not necessarily by a physician, but by a computer5. The law entered
into force in July 1996 and was subsequently repealed on March 25, 1997. Australian
Medical Association opposed the legislation while it was in force, and continued to
oppose both euthanasia and assisted suicide as well. The law was in force during
eight months, in wich 4 patients received euthanasia.
Currently three European countries have legalized euthanasia: Netherlands,
Belgium and Luxembourg. Netherlands was the first European country to legalize
euthanasia, the resistance of opposing came from the Christian parties. All they did
was get them to raise the age limit at which patients may decide to be euthanized,
if the project provided 12 years old, Dutch Christian politicians have failed to raise
this threshold up to 16 years.
The Dutch government does not believe that the law is in conflict with its obliga-
tions under international law to defend its citizens “right” to life against violation by
government or by individuals. Conventions and other government denies the right
to life of an individual against his will (except in specified circumstances). These
provisions are intended to perpetuate unbearable suffering if there is no prospect of
improvement, but rather to provide personal protection against violation of his right
to life. No text, no editing procedure does not clarify what constitutes a violation
or unlowfulness. In general, it is believed that the Conventions’ signatories have
considerable freedom to interpret their provisions broadly within their national legal

5 Minois, G. History of suicide. — Bucharest: Humanitas, 2002, p. 57

218
systems. However, even if their agreements can be interpreted as imposing a general
prohibition on the termination of life on request or assisted suicide, the national law
of signatory states should ensure a sufficient protection to meet the criteria “respect
for life”. Performing euthanasia in response to a request from a patient volunteer
is not an intentional deprivation of life, the meaning of the art. 2 of the European
Convention on Human Rights6.
Belgian Act to legalize euthanasia was adopted on 28 May 2002 and entered into
force on 23 September 2002, setting the limit euthanasia to adults. However only 2
years later lawmakers have introduced a proposal to extend euthanasia to children
and people suffering from dissabilities.
Liberals project but did not last. In early 2005, a pharmaceutical company an-
nounced that the kit–kit “home euthasia” will be available soon in more than 200
Belgian pharmacies so that doctors could carry out home deaths, more easily7. Reports
have shown that such kits contain a barbiturate, paralyzing agent, an anesthetic,
and instructions for use, and would have cost about 45 euros. As in the Netherlands
euthanasia and assisted suicide practices were initially accepted for difficult cases,
and were extended to death–on–demand.
Luxembourg MEPs adopted in March 2009 a bill to decriminalize euthanasia.
Luxembourg becomes so after the Netherlands and Belgium, the third country in
the European Union and non–criminal sanction doctors who put patients end their
lives at their request.
We express our firm conviction that, once legalized euthanasia and it’s catastrophic
effects as a result of this action would most likely be impossible to remove or:
1. Euthanasia, once legalized, can not be controlled. If euthanasia were legalized,
would be killed and patients who did not want to.
2. Legalizing euthanasia would impose pressure on the sick and those who feel
that due to illness, disability and expensive treatment, have become useless
to the society and especially to their relatives.
3. To legalize euthanasia would bring about profound changes in social attitudes
to illness, disability, death, old age and the role of the medical profession.
4. Once euthanasia is legalized, will become increasingly a “treatment the option
to” among other common medical or surgical treatment.
5. Legalizing euthanasia would ultimately undermine medical care, particularly
palliative care and seriously undermined the doctor–patient relationship.
6. Euthanasia will become accepted in terms of depression, stress, loneliness,
fear of illness or decline.
Like abortion, which is an option for any pregnant woman, euthanasia, once
legalized will become an option for any patient. Or, after its legalization in Canada
6 Gh Scripcaru, Astarastoae V., Ciuca A., Scripcaru C., Bioethics, life sciences and human
rights. — Science: Polirom, 1998, p. 7
7 John B., Gavrilovici C., Astarastoae V. Bioethics? Famous cases. — Iasi: Editura Junimea,
2005. — 88 p., p. 75

219
in 1969 were 11,000 recorded in 2002 interventions that increase their number up to
102,0008. This impressive growth shows a loss of respect for the sanctity of human
life. Once the law allows the construction of a human life is to destroy all life paved
the way vulnerability, or the law serves as a guide for conscience. What is legal is
perceived as morally permissible.
Interested in the situation in the Republic of Moldova on the legalization of
euthanasia we plan aimed at making a statistical survey on a sample of 350 persons
(aged between 18–65 years). After processing the data we found, unfortunately,
that 35% of those questioned were in favor of legalizing euthanasia, and even more
unfortunate is that most of them have never thought about the admissibility or in-
admissibility of this process. Here we offer some data for illustration:

— To legalize euthanasia are:

agreed
total agreement
disagreement
disagree
neither agree/
nor disagree

— Do you think euthanasia is acceptable?

Yes, if the patient requires

I have never thought

In any case

Only in exceptional cases

8 Trif AB, Cocora L., Euthanasia, eugenics and assisted suicide. — Bucharest: Infomedica, 2002,
p. 17

220
 — If you find that your child, that had to be born has an incurable disease that
will make him suffer all his life, do you use to euthanize for him?

Yes

No

Public discussions about the euthanasias’ legalization opportunity “is not only
for sociologists and gold issues of journalistic fashion whims, but is vital needs of
society in reform”.
It seems that there are a huge gap between what the laws prescribes and what
happens in reality, in such a way that not only we can say that we live in a social
hypocrisy at the highest level. Voluntary euthanasia should not be legalized nor in
our society and in Western societies too, although we are in a new millennium, we
are assaulted by an open discriminate, ruled only by a racist and an insensitivity to
vulnerable people utilitarian. Therefore we can not have a casual attitude like “your
will can be done” on the issue of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. As Gomes
says: “The debate over euthanasia takes place under the sign of ignorance and fear.
When we are in full health reform and cost reduction it becomes a solution when a
major problem reveals assisted suicide is a madness”.

221