The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Playing God with lives of innocents

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by S. Kyle Pauly:

Abusive lawsuits reflect on society (March 9, 2005)
Squabbling over some numbers (February 4, 2005)
Playing God with lives of innocents (December 7, 2004)
Proud to be an American (November 16, 2004)

by S. Kyle Pauly

Tuesday, December 7, 2004

What gives us the right to play God? And just how far are we going to take this new charade of ours?

Recently a hospital in the Netherlands started carrying out mercy killings of terminally ill newborns and those deemed incompetent of making their own decisions. The hospital has guidelines set for this procedure, which includes euthanizing babies who doctors feel either suffer from incurable pain, are born with extreme deformities or whose parents think it is best, with large doses of sedatives.

Right off the bat, a hundred questions should come to mind. With such flimsy guidelines as these, are parents soon going to be able to commit post-labor abortions because they claim it’s in their and the child’s best interest?

Also, how can a doctor actually know what the patient is feeling?

Being a patient numerous times myself, I can assure you doctors rarely know the severity or lack of pain one feels, so how can they commit these killings based on pain or deformities? With our technology today, many of these can be corrected, and for those that cannot be, it may still be possible to live a fulfilling life.

Yes, there are guidelines set to prevent the murder of healthy children, but why should those who have no say in the matter not be given a chance? Also, they allow the mercy killings of those who they say are incapable of making any decisions for themselves, such as the severely mentally handicapped and coma patients.

Miracles are always possible, and with the way medicine continually advances, a cure could always be just around the corner.

If we allow these killings to happen now, based on assumptions, where could this take us down the road?

Will we one day be able to end the lives of our family members because that would be easier and less expensive than going through life-saving procedures?

Where will we draw the line?

There are currently thousands of life-debilitating diseases and defects, yet many living with them would much rather wait out for hope than to see their family choose to end their lives. Euthanizing those who cannot speak for themselves is jumping the gun, not allowing one to see what could be.

This new legislation is just one more example of how our society is continually loosening its morals. We have become so “tolerant” of each other, and this is not meant in racial or cultural terms, simply different beliefs of right and wrong, that we have driven ourselves into a moral black hole.

On an even smaller level, in some public schools around the country, children are no longer allowed to celebrate Christmas in the classroom for fear of religious persecution to those who do not celebrate this holiday. Yet, is it not persecution to silence those who wish to express their joy for the birth of their savior Jesus?

Christians are asked to tolerate different religions and most do without any remorse, yet oftentimes their beliefs are not tolerated in return. This idea can be expressed into even broader terms. Many people who still hold onto what are considered “old-fashioned” morals are often harassed because they do not embrace what appears to be the new culture, but how is this in and of itself not prejudice?

Our world is in a fragile state now and continues to become ever more fragile as we allow more and more activities to go unchallenged. It is time for all of us to reevaluate our moral stances.

We have become scared to tell each other that certain activities are just plain wrong for fear of being deemed ignorant or prejudiced, but if we continue to not stand up for what we believe in, what will our world look like in 30 years?

S. Kyle Pauly (spauly@badgerherald.com) is a pre-med sophomore majoring in biology.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (December 6, 2004 @ 11:17pm):

Miss Pauly, history is full of accounts of Christian fanaticism, from the persecution of all Jews for all time for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ to the Crusades to the continued persecution of Jews after the Protestant Reformation to the forced conversion to Christianity of Native Americans, among other atrocities.

There were times when Christians were the oppressors. And we still have to remind you that there is a seperation of Church and State in our Constitution. If it seems like you're being persecuted for you beliefs, maybe it's because you need to step back and take a look at the negative impact some Christian ideologies have made on people of other faiths. There, you will see the necessity of curbing the influence of religion over public policy.

Anonymous (December 7, 2004 @ 1:56am):

HAHA....if you believe it's possible for a mere human to "play God" then you are saying one of two things:

1. Humans are on the same level as God

or

2. God doesn't exist

Maybe it's time to be a little more responsible with the phrase "playing God".

Anonymous (December 7, 2004 @ 3:51am):

God does exist, but only metaphorically. Hey, it's a place too.

Anonymous (December 7, 2004 @ 7:32am):

To the first anonymous- find some different arguments. That's the same two arguments everyone uses on this campus against any beliefs rooted even in part in Christian morality. And no, there is NOT separation of Church and state in our Constitution.

Also, why isn't anyone actually arguing on the subject? Actually, I'll answer my own question. It's because this barbaric practice of euthanizing babies is completely indefensible and downright scary. Oh but wait, Europe does it, so it must be OK and we're just behind the times.

Good column Kyle!

Anonymous (December 7, 2004 @ 11:16am):

"And no, there is NOT separation of Church and state in our Constitution."

It's right in the First Amendment, you ignorant dolt! Read it:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No law respecting an establishment of religion! Got it?!

Anonymous (December 7, 2004 @ 3:32pm):

S. Kyle Pauly wrote in her column wrote against euthanasia, claiming that this might lead to people killing family members because it would be "easier and less expensive" than prolonging their lives. Playing God with the lives of innocents, as the headline read.
It's a dramatic way to condemn euthanasia, but I think very few people would choose to end a life because it was more convenient to them. One particularly dramatic term, which she used to describe allowing an infant with a fatal disease to be given a lethal dose of sedatives, was "post-labor abortion". This is an incredibly appalling term for one of the most difficult decisions a parent might face.
Women who do not want to have children practice birth control, and in the event that they do become pregnant and believe an abortion would be the best choice, they have the abortion as early into the pregnancy as possible. Women do not carry a baby for nine months, just to have "post-labor abortions". During those nine months, the parents choose names, decorate the child's room, and dream of the life that the child will have. Many parents would choose to keep the child alive by any means, to avoid having to deal with losing the child. It is an act of selflessness to allow the baby to die peacefully in the hospital, rather than sentence the child to a prolonged and painful death. It is indeed an act of mercy.
This is not to say euthanasia should be unregulated. There needs to be strict guidelines in place to be certain that decisions are made with the best interests of the patient in mind. This is why it is important for families to have a dialog about quality of life and end of life issues, before they ever find themselves in a situation like this. I would not want to live in a vegetative state, or have my life prolonged if I were suffering a fatal and painful disease. My husband has made it known to me that he does not wish to live under those circumstances either. We hope never to be faced with such a grave decision, but understand the need to make our decisions known to one another while we are able to speak for ourselves. Cures are not "just around the corner"--even when a possible cure looks promising; it takes years for medical studies to be completed and for the government to grant approval for new drugs and procedures.
We allow our doctors to play God every day in this country. They prescribe drugs and provide treatments that allow us to continue living our gluttonous, slothful lifestyles. The provide fertility treatments which are hailed as "miracles", when in reality they are just another example of us playing God--an unnecessary act, when you consider there is no shortage of children waiting to be adopted. Even Christians are lining up to ask their doctors for the latest cholesterol medications, when eating a healthy diet and exercising can replace the need for many drug. So much for avoiding the seven deadly sins...
Our society plays God each and every day. We can embrace or reject this, as the Christian Scientists have. But you cannot embrace it selectively without becoming a hypocrite. And you cannot judge another human being, when you have not walked in their shoes. You are not God--the only one who is able to judge us.

Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 10:31am):

To the last anonymous, if you don't believe people would use it as a form of post-labor abortion consider the babies left in trash cans in our own country. Don't underestimate the selfishness and immorality of people. More likely than killing perfectly good babies, though, would be a couple or mother, surprised that their baby turns out to have Down's Syndrome or otherwise disabled, deciding to kill it rather than raise it. It would happen. People abort Down's babies now; they would avail themselves of infanticide if it became legal.

Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 10:57am):

Don't worry about the 30-year-future things. The ancients also worried about whether the world would collapse down in near future because of immorality. Just go prepare for finals and if you have a time, just think about the tons of innocent people who are killed in Iraq even without a bit of consideration taken in practicing euthanizing.

Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 3:16pm):

I apologize for using the politically-charged word 'immorality'. However, should we ignore domestic abuse, racism, and breast cancer as well as infanticide since worse things are happening in Iraq?