Opposition research listening narrative

Dialogue Development

Issue Being Addressed: Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS)

Sources Against Protagonist Argument

Liu, Joseph. “Religious Groups’ Views on End-of-Life Issues.” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, 27 July 2020, www.pewforum.org/2013/11/21/religious-groups-views-on-end-of-life-issues/.

Sulmasy, Daniel P, et al. “Non-Faith-Based Arguments against Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.” The Linacre Quarterly, SAGE Publications, Aug. 2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102187/.

Religious Groups’ Views on End-of-Life Issues: Prior to choosing this specific article, I had some basic understanding and

information surrounding the religious implications/viewpoints relating to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. I understood that most religious views are against such an ‘act’ or decision because it seems to negate God’s intentions of human life. Many denominations of Christianity and other separate religions have similar opinions surrounding the idea that humans should not get to play God, nor any other religious deity depending on the religion being considered. Once I found this article, I was pleased with the break-down of several religions and denominations and their views on this controversial issue. This specific article provides insight into the beliefs of 16 different world religions/Christian denominations including, but not limited to, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, the National Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon church), and Catholicism, to name a handful.

Though I was uncertain of what my findings from this article would be, I had an idea that most religions would not be supportive of my topic for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph. However, I thought that at least a few of them would take physician assisted suicide into greater consideration based on the quality of life of the person facing such a tragic decision. I was surprised to find that even my personal church denomination, which is known to be fairly forward thinking and progressive, is not supportive of euthanasia. While I can not list the views of all 16 religions listed in the article, some of the ideas I found most interesting come from Buddhism, Hinduism, United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian Universalist Association. The prior two religions oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia, while the latter two leave the decision to the person who is suffering. Buddhism opposes assisted suicide, but also belives that “...life need not be preserved at all costs and that one does not need to go to extraordinary lengths to preserve a dying person’s life.” However, while Buddhist worshipers believe treatment can be cut short, they still do not believe that assisted suicide should be considered at this point. In the Hindu belief, there does not seem to be a direct opposition of assisted suicide, however, there is a concern about a negative impact on a person’s karma. According to Deepak Sarma, a professor at Case Western

Reserve University, “...if you circumvent karma by taking some action to stop suffering, you will pay for it later.” After reading this, I felt as though this was a fairly clear oppositional statement, however, Sarma later continues by presenting the idea that there are some situations in which hastening death can be justified. In both the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association, believers are given the right to make their own decision concerning physician assisted suicide. I was surprised that in the midst of so much obvious opposition throughout the article, there were two religions/denominations that left the decision to the people. Among the majority of religions in this article, there was an overwhelming consensus that while assisted suicide is ‘bad’ or against God’s will, there is a point in one’s life at which treatment might become a burden to the sufferer. It is at this point, according to the article, treatment can be stopped to allow the person to die, however, the act of assisted suicide is still considered wrong.

Non Faith Based Arguments against Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia:

While I was certain of religious beliefs prohibiting or opposing euthanasia and physician assited suicide, I was interested to come across this article, which provides nontheistic reasoning against the controversial topic. The article explores four different arguments against P.A.S., including its offensive nature, a ‘slippery slope,’ the idea that all pain can be treated or alleviated, and the conflict of physician integrity and patient trust. After the introduction, the article begins with a word from Dr. Daniel P. Sulmasy, who expresses his concern for doctors and patients alike who support and choose physician assisted suicide. While he does support patient choice in refusal of treatment when it becomes burdensome, Dr. Sulmasy also believes that physician assisted suicide goes against medical ethics. I found it interesting that I could easily recognize Dr. Sulmasy employing several rhetorical techniques such as pathos, as he appealed to the readers’ emotions, and ethos, as he questioned ethics and presented himself as a credible speaker.

After Dr. Sulmasy’s statement, the article discusses the four arguments mentioned in the previous paragraph, beginning with the idea that physician assisted suicide is offensive in nature. The authors explain this argument by claiming that physician assisted suicide shows that someone does not value human life enough to continue living it, which devalues all human life and therefore should offend even those who are not directly involved. I struggled greatly with this argument because it seems to lack any type of grace or understanding for the person suffering so much that they choose to receive this type of treatment. However, I understand that I am supposed to be listening intently to the opposite ‘side’ of my topic. The next argument, the slippery slope, presents the idea that if physician assisted suicide is made legal across the United States, it will be followed by the legalization of others things, resulting in euthanasia of anyone for any reason eventually becoming legal. The authors use the Netherlands as an example, as it began with legal assisted suicide in the 1980s and later began to experience some involuntary instances of euthanising children under age 12 who were deemed to have in incurable illness. Once again, I understand I am to consider the opposing argument, I also think the example from the Netherlands is slightly far reaching when it comes to legalizing assisted suicide in the states. However, I appreciate the concern for legalization leading to further issues. Next, the article focuses on the

idea that almost all pain can be alleviated medically in one way or another. Because of this, PAS, should not need to be considered when other medical options should and can be explored to alleviate nearly all pain. While I appreciate and fully support exploring other options before death, I also think a life can reach a point so full of suffering that no amount of medication can make it worth living. I have watched my uncle’s life decline and quality for the past 18 years as he battles highly aggressive Multiple Sclerosis. This is a personal story which will be used in my dialogue, but it makes it difficult for me to agree with the statement that all pain can be alleviated. Finally, the article discusses physician integer and patient trust. The authors cite the Hippocratic Oath, which in summary states that a physician will not administer any deadly drugs to a patient, but rather will keep patients away from harm by administering helpful medicinal measures to the best of their ability. The Oath also mentions that a physician will not perform an abortion, but that is a completly different topic which I will not be exploring at this time. The article claims that any physician who is willing to perform PAS/E undermines this oath, and therefore undermines the trust of his/her patients because they are going against what they have vowed to do as a medical professional. I can appreciate this concern because physicians are trained to save and improve lives, however, I also think there are certain circumstances where a life can not be saved or improved, which the authors of this article neglected to address.

Lee’s Strategic Listening Questions

1. What do they want? a. Those who do not support the use of physician assisted suicide want to

avoid the use of this medical procedure being legalized in the United States, whether this be for religious, medicinal, or ethical reasoning. They also want to educate those who do support PAS about the inhumane nature of this type of death by sharing information from medical professionals and religious church authorities.

2. What do they believe? a. They believe that PAS violates human morality and undermines the value

of human life, as well as attempting to play the role of God in deciding who dies and when. While I respect their views, I also think there are misconceptions both medically and religiously. Although I do not want to undermine religious beliefs of others, I do believe there needs to be greater consideration of what is best for the quality of life of any individual who might be suffering. Just as I don’t think suicide should be considered a crime that can be committed, I also do not think it should called a sin, as it is by many denominations. Considering the medical article, I do not think that all pain can be medically alleviated, especially not in a way that returns quality of life to an individual. If someone is suffering so greatly that they consider PAS/E, I think their decision should be willingly explored and discussed to great lengths, but not denied.

3. What do they think you want? a. I would imagine that those against my view would believe that I am

someone who does not value human life because of my acceptance of physician assisted suicide in appropriate situations. They also would

probably think that I do not respect the intentions of doctors to ‘fix’ people who are ill or injured because PAS goes against the Hippocratic Oath.

4. What are their sources of information? a. From a religious standpoint, information most likely comes either from

religious authorities, or directly from scripture. I would consider the use of some scriptures to be ‘cherry-picking’ for text that supports their views, however I can respect where those on this ‘side’ of the argument are coming from when they claim that PAS goes against what God intended. Medically, it seems that doctors find their sources to not support PAS from places that describe the job of doctors as being people who serve others by healing. This is taught to doctors in medical school, and can also be found in places like the Hippocratic Oath. I am certain that younger doctors also seek information regarding this subject from authority figures like older and more experienced doctors. While I do not know what types of news sources people on this ‘side’ might trust, I would expect it to be more conservative, though I think authority figures might be where much of the information comes from.

5. What language do they use? a. While I did not find any language that I was unfamiliar with in either of

the two articles, there were some paragraphs that explained religions or medical situations that I was not aware of until reading. For example, I am unfamiliar with the beliefs of world religions outside of Christianity, so reading about PAS from the viewpoint of Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism were new to me. I also was unfamiliar with issues surrounding the potential overuse of PAS/E in the Netherlands after the practice was legalized in the 1980s. I was also unaware of the Hippocratic Oath that doctors use for ethical purposes. While there was little to no confusing language, there was information and situations that I was not previously aware of.

6. What are they worried about? a. It seems as though the primary concern of those against PAS is that

extensive legalization across the United States will eventually lead to the overuse and misuse of assisted suicide, even when a situation is not dire enough to warrant this type of medical attention. While I agree that this is a valid concern, I also think that there are many measures that can be placed in order to prevent this from happening, including extensive education of doctors who participate in PAS, as well as various levels of discussion and information gathering from potential patients. From a religious stand, they are worried that they are interfering with God’s role in life and death, as well as practicing too much power and control over life that God created.

7. What do you have in common? a. Although I hold a very different view from those who oppose the

appropriate use of PSA, I do think there are a few things we have in common. I was raised in the United Methodist church, and therefore have an understanding of the beliefs held by members of the same denomination. I have a basic understanding of other Christian

denominations, if I happened to be having this type of discussion with another Christian. If I were talking to a doctor, I would tend to agree with the statement that doctors are meant to save lives, not end them. However, I would argue that the type of doctors who perform PAS are highly specialized for this type of medicine, rather than simply being a normal physician. I might also argue that not every life will benefit from being saved, as not all pain can be fixed. I might agree with the idea that there could be concern for misuse if PAS is legalized across the United States, however, I would also suggest that there would likely be extensive restrictions and guidelines placed to prevent this from happening.