 Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide Liberal perspective
The liberal perspective is that euthanasia (sometimes called mercy
killing) should be legalized. The liberal perspective believes in
the individual right to die with dignity and at the individual's own
hand by personal choice. The most common example is that of a person
having a terminal illness or condition. When pain and suffering is
constantly present in a person's life and it becomes a condition
that is beyond medical interventions to relieve the suffering, the
liberal groups believe the person should have the right to choose to
end their pain and suffering by ending their life. The liberal group
believes the government should establish laws and regulations that
would provide the means for the terminally ill person to decide when
to end personal life. The liberal perspective believes it is morally
wrong to force a person to live in pain and suffering if the
individual has the desire to end natural life.
In the opinion of the liberal perspective, any questions regarding estates, life insurance or after-death
responsibilities should
be handled by the regulations of government to decide such matters
as the person wishes. The counter-argument that legalizing
euthanasia would increase the probability of doctor-assisted
suicides of people without terminal illness is simply that
euthanasia would not prompt that action. There is no evidence that
it wouldn't increase doctor-assisted suicides, but the proponents of
euthanasia believe physicians would maintain a moral standing of
doing no harm to those who wish not to practice euthanasia.
The liberal perspective believes that euthanasia would help in the
reduction of healthcare costs for those who require long-lasting
treatments with terminal conditions. By saving the funding to
continue treatment for those whose condition is terminal, the
liberal perspective believes it makes more funds available for
others who could benefit from treatment and other types of medical
care.
Conservative perspective
The conservative perspective believes euthanasia should not be
legalized. Concurrently, the conservative perspective believes the
physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized either. The
conservative assigns a certain amount of morality to the issue of
euthanasia or assisted suicide. It is immoral to plan for and
implement an end to a life of a human being who is terminally ill or
wants to end their own life.
Unlike the liberal view, the conservatives believe legalizing
euthanasia will likely lead to more doctor-assisted suicide. There
could be a move from insurance companies to urge physicians to
counsel individuals to end their lives rather than waste the funding
on treatments that are expensive and will not significantly extend
lives. Finally, conservative perspectives remind us that many
religions are against suicide and euthanasia because it is taught
against in their respective churches. As it is with abortion, the
wholesale ending of life, so says the conservative perspective, is to
devalue human life. It is exactly the opposite of the rights
afforded everyone who is a citizen that people have the right to
pursue life and happiness.
Religion and government Liberal perspective
The liberal perspective supports the separation of the church and
the state. The liberal group believes that the United States Bill of
Rights implies the church and state should be separated. The liberal
group believes the "evangelism" aspect of most religions prohibits
the presence of that religion in the political government debates.
Not only should those two be separated, they should run parallel
with each other, never meeting on the public state; one should stay
in the churches or places of worship, while the other stays in the
political sphere.
[to top of second column] |
 The liberal point of view states that government should never
support any kind of religious expression. Even the age-old practices
from the very beginning of the constitutional form of our government
should preclude prayer in the seat of government. If it exists at
all, it should be neutral of any reference to any deity. It should
be excluded in all public places where tax support is used; all
references to any examples from the Bible should be removed and
prohibited. The liberal perspective believes all references to the
Ten Commandments should be removed from courthouses and statehouses
as well as all federal buildings. Conservative perspective
The conservative perspective observes that the phrase "separation of
church and state" is not written anywhere in the United States
Constitution. In fact, the conservative group believes the rights
American citizens have are not granted by the government, but
granted by God Himself. The First Amendment to the Constitution
states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…." The argument
from the conservative group is that government is prohibited from
establishing a national religion and then compelling citizens to
practice that national religion. The Constitution does not prohibit
citizens from practicing their right of free speech by restricting
that speech from mentioning God in schools or public buildings.
Conservatives point to bygone generations who have regularly read
the Bible and said prayers in both public places.
The bottom line for the conservatives is that the government does
not have the legal authority under the Constitution to interfere
with religion and religious freedoms practiced by citizens of the
United States.
So, as with the issues discussed in other articles, these issues of
euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide and religion and government
add to the voter's personal political profile and will help guide
the voter through the election. Each candidate will be examined
regarding their standing, not just on their political party
affiliation, but how they stand on the issues of abortion, energy,
gun control, economy, healthcare, immigration and personal property,
euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, and religion and
government. The candidate who matches the voter's personal
perspective will win the vote from that person. Again, this is very
important not just in the general election, but in the primaries as
well. During the primary cycle there is usually an array of
candidates from the same party, but with differing viewpoints
regarding how they will approach solutions for any given issue.
The voter may want to take the stated positions discussed in these
articles and create a list of positions each candidate claims. If
the candidate, through interviews, reports, articles, speeches and
other information from or about their positions, shares their ideas of
government and any of the issues discussed, the voter should list
those out to determine if the candidate is leaning toward the
liberal or conservative viewpoints. The party affiliation should be
considered as well. If the candidate is more liberal, it is likely
the candidate is a Democrat; if the candidate is more conservative,
it is likely the candidate is a Republican.
The voter may feel more comfortable in voting for a candidate who
more clearly matches personal views. If the voter identifies more
with the liberal point of view, the Democrat candidate will likely
receive that person's vote. Conversely, if the voter identifies more
with the conservative point of view, the Republican candidate will
likely receive that person's vote.
This is the final article in the series of personal political
profiles regarding various positions. Happy voting!
[By JIM KILLEBREW]
Click here to respond to the editor about this
article. |
