COMM 220Intercultural Communications

Perception Project IIYou Cannot Simply Choose to Die

Professor Gina Sneddon
Lonnie Hardy
You cannot simply choose to die; you did not come here to take your own life.
Our place in life is a blessing, not just a personal one, but also for those who make up the
most momentous parts of our life. How can a spouse or significant other possibly imagine being
without a loved one? How too, could you conceivably abandon a child to believe life can be
traded so cheaply? What possible good can come from a totally one-sided and inconsiderate
choice? Consider further the implications associated with those around you, doctors, nurses, and
again a spouse or child; each who will wonder for the rest of their lives if they have created
murder by pulling the plug!
The choice we were given is life, plain and simple, life. It is a God given gift, which
cannot be trifled with, and any who would condone or support euthanasia is guilty of murder.
The implications of sanctioned murder and suicide from a religious perspective are eternal in
nature and simply are not options in a civilized God-believing world. There is not a Christian
country in the world which supports the taking of an innocent life.
Even if one chooses not to follow a belief in what God has planned, the ethical issues
associated with euthanasia overwhelmingly express how reprehensible the practice truly is.
Leading experts in the field of medicine, as well as many legal professionals from around the
world decry the wholesale murder of those who are often times perceived as terminally ill. The
most significant issue involving the use of legalized murder is the requirement for yet another
rule or law which imposes its will upon those who absolutely do not support the practice. From a
perspective of the rule of law such radical legislation based on the needs or desires of a few
makes zero sense. There is no way the elevation of the rights of such a small minority over the

rights of the majority is morally or ethically correct. Many countries see euthanasia as being
consistent with their stance on capital punishment. They do not put the most corrupt persons to
death, why in the world would they wantonly kill those who are innocent?
Euthanasia also introduces the massive conflict of interest for medical practitioners who
are expected to impose what could be a flawed decision making process. The impact upon the
ethos of the health care system from preserving life to providing death is impractical and
insidious in nature. From doctors of medicine the law would create a new generation of doctors
of death. Aside from the unethical choice which will be imposed upon health providers, the final
solution for the majority of people will in fact be the wrong one. Added to the ethical
implications will be the reduction of funding for palliative care and hospice services.
Furthermore, assisted suicide does not always guarantee a good death.
The moral/ethical approach I take in creating this argument is multi-faceted in that I
believe strongly in our place as Gods children while my approach to life includes a moral
compass that reveres the value of every human from those within the womb to those nearing the
end of their time on earth. I am equally convinced of the significant obligation medical
practitioners have to preserve life and to do everything possible to protect said life. Furthermore,
I absolutely abhor the opportunity government might seize in controlling my life through the
manipulation of health care and a supposed professionals decision to put me down like a sick
old dog.

In comparison to the authors of the various websites I used to construct my thoughts, it is my

belief the opinions I provided in this essay are written in concert with their accepted wisdom and
moral constructs. As I examine my personal views verses the arguments offered by the authors I

simply do not see a reason why a consensus cannot be developed which would allow for the
humane choices associated with end of life decisions. My argument is based on a human choice
each of us has based upon agency or free will. From a Christian perspective each of us has free
will or agency. Based upon said choice, I or a loved one are free to decide how or for that matter
when suffering should end. Frankly, being in a drug induced palliative stupor is just not a
suitable end of life choice. I fully respect the concerns changes in laws and rules have on the vast
majority of those who will die quickly or those who choose to live hooked to machines or
hallucination induced morphine drips. I get the moral imperative medical personnel have. That is
why it should never be their choice. The right to live as a vegetable or hooked to a machine
ought not be infringed, neither too ought the right to die with dignity.