"EASY DEATH"

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 177, 29 July 1939, Page 9 (Supplement)

"EASY DEATH"

There Will Be No Euthanasia This Century

For And Against

A RECENT news cable from London brings to the fore once again the much-argued case of euthanasia ("easy death"). The affair has called for much discussion among medical and church men, and, of course, the general public. Starting within the last few years we find the problem being well chewed over by the medical profession in London. One of the latter propounded that, in cases of suicide, the verdict of "unsound mind" was not fair, for sometimes it happened that people in all sanity took "the best way out,*' knowing they had incurable maladies. In June of the same year the Rev. Dr. Oxford, chairman of the Samaritan Free Hospital for Women, quoted an experience of 30 years previously. Ht> had attended a young mother in a poor district; she was suffering mortal agony with cancer. She asked Dr. Oxford that he relieve her of the pain by death. The doctor felt that he was not in the position to do such a thing, but gave her enough morphia to induce sleep for six nights, telling the patient that an overdose, would kill her. The woman did not resort to more than the prescribed amount, as might have been expected, but preferred to live on in her agony realising that her children had to be cared for. A number of prominent English churchmen agree to "easy death." believing the practice not at all un-Christian. One, the T>ev. A. Wellesley Orr, deemed that if people who had committed euthanasia would have waited a little while, a cure might have been effected for them. That was well spoken, but unfortunately, in the great majority of cases, there was, and still is, no cure. Another "easy death" case worth noting was that of a young man sufferi ing from advanced tuberculosis. He was , fatally poisoned by his wife, to whom he was most attached. The young woman, immediately after causing her . husband's death, took her own life by ; the same method. At the inquest, although they found the deaths as being due to murder and suicide respectively, the jury had to acknowledge that the wife's action was most humane and brave. The late Lord Moynihan established a society for the legalisation of euthanasia, one of his reasons being that "if God ends suffering. He sends means for its relief and gave us the intelligence to make use of those means on appropriate occasions." Lord Ponsonby, taking up Lord Moy--3 nihan's work, introduced the Euthanasia 1 Bill to the House of Lords in November, - 1930. The bill stipulated that a patient o should submit to "easy death" only on t condition that he or she be of age and r really suffering from an incurable s malady, and that a written application e be accompanied by two medical certifie cates. The bill was allowed a second reading, but was thrown out by 3c

votes to 14. This, so far, has been the most practical of all suggestions put forward. Euthanasia has been defended and redefended, denounced again and again; yet in spite of ail it appears that it will not be made law for many years to come. The medical profession is divided, so a decision, it seems, cannot be left to it. On the other hand—most unexpectedly—we find ministers of relisrion in its favour, their reason being along the same lines as Lord Moynihan's. Many suggestions have been made. One of them is thaj the affair be left to the relatives to decide whether one of their kith and kin should die. That is a bad one, for unfortunately there are many who would take advantage of their position for personal gain. It would be the same if authority were handed to one individual to grant euthanasia.

By--Van Dreuten

Many people have an exceptionally modern reason for "easy death" which sounds too callous to be condoned. They say that no person who cannot be cured of a mental or physical disorder should not be permitted to live. This is extended to apply to peopfe of all ages, whether their trouble has been lifelong or began in adulthood, early or late. This theory is based on acceptance of a belief that these sufferers are of no use to the community—that this is a progressive world and that infirm people are a hindrance to those who wish to advance, that they are like drones in a beehive. That is all very well. In this day and age and for generations to come , (as human thought is slow to react to revolutionary matters) how many people : would agree personally to such a theory • in practice? Those Avho favour it may • even secretly think otherwise, because , they cannot escape from the fact that ; they are human beings. As such, they , have sentiment and, above all, they wish . to live in spite of all obstacles. L Mr. Bernard Shaw, interviewed recently on the subject of euthanasia, [ said that although he supported it, he • personally preferred to live on. He eon- : eluded: "It may seem a little incon--5 sistent, but I always like to be selfish." » Xo, Mr. Shaw! I'm afraid that is not - your reason. You are a healthy and active man, a benefit to the community - —and, even if you won't admit it, life i is as valuable to you as it is to all the , individuals in this world. t The main point to be remembered is i that euthanasia can never be handed to 1 any specific authority, for nobody seems e capable of doing the thing fairly. This n century will not see "easy death" made i- legal; all we can do ie to leave the subd ject for the common sense of the future 5 humanitarians.