Euthanasia: Moral Duty or Moral Wrong? A Platonic Debate

Introduction: Euthanasia Through the Ages

In Ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt, the general view was that if an individual was no longer interested in continuing their existence, society had no right to compel them to remain alive. The idea of euthanasia — ending one's life to alleviate physical or mental suffering — has thus been a continual controversy for thousands of years. In modern times, organizations such as the Hemlock Society and the Voluntary Euthanasia Society emerged in the 1930s to advocate for awareness and legalization of voluntary and assisted suicide. The issue became a media frenzy in the late 1990s surrounding high-profile assisted suicide cases, and it continues to remain a contentious and heavily debated topic.

While there is no universal answer — much as there are different protocols for different diseases — it is clear that 21st-century morality requires a focus on the individual's ability to make sound and considered decisions about their own life. For some, this may mean placing their faith in a higher power. For others, the option to terminate their own life in order to avoid pain, suffering, and burden should be allowed.

Setting the Stage: Participants and Format

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

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

AS: Welcome, everyone, to tonight's informal debate and discussion on a topic that has been in the news for decades: the moral nature of euthanasia. In general, euthanasia is a term that carries different meanings across different disciplines. It is a philosophical subject, a medical issue, a legal contention, and a moral question 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 involves intentionally withholding treatment or medication; active euthanasia involves directly assisting in the death of another human being. Both are extremely controversial and raise dozens of difficult questions: What is quality of life? Does a person have the right to choose the time and means of their own death? What constitutes suffering, and who defines it? What if a person fears debilitation so profoundly that they prefer death? And what constitutes a painless or "happy death?"

While it is unlikely that we will reach an agreement tonight, given the breadth of disagreement between our guests, we might ask ourselves: in the 21st century, how do we define personal responsibility, and how do we distinguish between life and mere existence?

Our guests tonight are two individuals who have written and spoken on this 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 deaths, stating that "dying is not a crime." Dr. Kevork spent ten years in prison for his 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 is an ordained Baptist minister, host of his own evangelical television program, and author of several books on modern spirituality. He is a co-founder of the Moral Majority as well as two Christian academies, and has been vocal about his views on pornography, the teaching of evolution, homosexuality, and the conviction that only God has the right to determine when a person should live or die. Welcome, gentlemen. Let us begin by allowing each of you to briefly summarize your position. By a coin toss, Dr. Kevork will go first.

Opening Statements: Two Opposing Views

The Case for Euthanasia: Individual Rights and Dignity

MK: Thank you, Alison, for allowing me to be part of your program tonight. I certainly agree that the subject is of great moral and personal importance. We live in a society in which medical science has 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 individual's quality of life is in any way apparent. I bring up the case of Terri Schiavo. Mrs. Schiavo was injured and diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. Her doctors — many of them world-renowned specialists who examined her directly — gave her less than a 1% chance of recovery, and even then, an almost 0% chance of recovering to the point where she could care for herself, participate in adult conversation, or engage in a meaningful life.

Terri's husband, perhaps the single person who knew her 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. Schiavo's motion. In total, the case involved over 14 appeals, hundreds of motions, petitions, and hearings in the State of Florida, five hearings in Federal District Court, proceedings before 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 litigation, the local court's original decision to allow Terri to die was carried out in March 2005.

Imagine being in such a state for over a decade — connected to a feeding tube, unable to perform any bodily functions, to communicate, to self-actualize, or to be fully human. The tragedy of this kind of thinking put Mrs. Schiavo and her family through unnecessary pain, with no gain other than prolonging a situation her husband believed caused her immeasurable suffering.