Plato's dialogues and philosophical method

Euthanasia in the Style of Plato

Euthanasia -- a Moral Duty or a Moral Wrong?

In Ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt, the general view for society was that if an individual was no longer interested in continuing their existence, society had no right to ensure that they remain alive. The idea of euthanasia, or ending one's life to alleviate physical or mental suffering, has thus been a continual controversy for thousands of years. In modern times, in the 1930s there were organizations that aided in awareness and legalization of voluntary and assisted suicide (the Hemlock Society, the Voluntary Euthanasia Society). The issue became media frenzy in the late 1990s with the media attention surrounding assisted suicide -- and continues to remain a contentious and debated issue. While there is no universal answer for the topic -- much like there are different protocols for different diseases -- it is clear that 21st century morality requires a focus upon the individual's ability to make sound and cogent decisions for their own lives. For some, this may mean placing their faith in a higher power, for others, though, the option to terminate their own life to avoid pain, suffering and burden should be allowed.

Participants: Dr. Mack Kevork (MK), President of the U.S. Hemlock Society and Reverend Jerry Followell (JF) Senior Minister for the United Evangelical Forum; mediator, Alison Stewart (AS), co-Anchor of PBS's web newsmagazine Need to Know.

Event: Informal debate/conversation presented by the Association for Public Broadcasters.

Transcript: AS: Welcome everyone to tonight's informal debate and discussion on a topic that has been in the news for decades, the idea of the moral nature of euthanasia. In general, euthanasia is a term that has a number of meanings for different disciplines. It is a philosophical subject, a medical issue, a legal contention, and a moral issue that divides people of all ages, races and locations. Essentially, the term means purposefully ending a life in order to alleviate an individual's suffering, pain or discomfort. Passive euthanasia is intentionally withholding treatment or medicine; active euthanasia is assisting in the demise of another human being. Both are extremely controversial, and focus on dozens of issues: what is quality of life? Does a person have the right to choose their time and means of death? What constitutes suffering and who defines this? What if a person so fears debilitation that the prefer death? And what constitutes a painless or "happy death?" While it is unlikely that we will come to an agreement tonight considering the span of disagreement between our two guests, we might ask ourselves if in the 21st century how do we define personal responsibility and the actual definition of life vs. existence.

Our guests tonight are two gentlemen who have written and spoken about the subject for many years. Dr. Mack Kevork is an American pathologist and pro-euthanasia activist. He champions individual rights and has claimed to have assisted over 100 patients in their death saying "dying is not a crime." Dr. Kevork spent 10 years in prison for a direct role in the suicide of a patient on the condition that he not personally assist anyone in terminating their own life. Reverend Jerry Followell, an ordained Baptist Minister, host of his own evangelical television show, and author of a number of books on modern spirituality is a cofounder of the Moral Majority as well as two Christian academies. He has been vocal about his views on pornography, the teaching of evolution, homosexuality, and the notion that only God has the right to decide when a person should live or die. Welcome Gentlemen; let's start first by allowing you to briefly summarize your position on the topic of euthanasia. By a coin toss, Dr. Kevork will begin.

JK: Thank you Alison, for allowing me to be a part of your program tonight. I certainly agree that the subject is of great moral and personal value. We live in a society now in which medical science has now progressed to the point where certain heroic measures can keep a physical body "functioning" for an indefinite period of time, even without any brain activity. Unfortunately, this does not mean that the quality of life for the individual is even apparent. I bring up the case of Terri Schiavo. Mrs. Schiavo was injured and diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state and her doctors, many of whom visited Terri and were world-renowned specialists, gave her less than a 1% chance of recovery, and even then, an almost 0% chance of recovery to the point where she could care for herself, participate in an adult conversation, or engage in a meaningful life. Terri's husband, perhaps the single person who knew her the best, petitioned the Court to remove her feeding tube and free her from what he called "inhuman torture." Terri's parents and a host of conservatives, including President George W. Bush, opposed this and legally sought to block Mr. Shiavo's motion. In total, this case involved over 14 appeals, hundreds of motions and petitions and hearings in the State of Florida, five in Federal District Court and the Florida Supreme Court and four denials of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, after 15 years of expensive, time consuming and heart-rending legislation, the local Court's original decision to allow Terri to die came in March, 2005. Imagine being in such a state for over a decade -- hooked up to a feeding tube, unable to perform any bodily functions, to communicate, to actualize, and to be human -- instead, the tragedy of this type of thinking put Mrs. Schiavo and her family through unnecessary pain with no gain other than her husband's wish that she be able to peacefully move on.

JF: I, too, thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. It does appear, surprisingly, that Dr. Kevork and I will agree on one point initially -- the Schiavo case was a great tragedy that caused an enormous amount of pain and suffering to all those involved. However, as I have stated many times, the Schiavo case is simply part of the American "death syndrome," starting with legalized killing of the fetus and now deciding that humans can dictate the end of life with euthanasia. According to the Bible, which we Christians hold as sacred, there are not different types of killing, whether mercy killing, abortion or murder- they are all homicide and against the law of God. Suicide, whether assisted or not, is human interference in the natural process of life -- the order of things as set forth in the Gospels. Human life is sacred, and as such deserves exceptional protection -- hospices and institutions abound in which a patient can be made comfortable and, as you said in your introduction, medical science has advanced, but is not omnipotent and cannot ever predict remission or recovery. There are factual and documented cases of seemingly miraculous recoveries long after all hope has been extinguished, giving the faithful the courage to believe that we humans cannot know God's plan, but instead must trust that in his infinite wisdom, each life has value, something to teach, and is part of the order of things -- life will expire according to God's plan, not man's whim.