Mr. Barnes Case Against Euthanasia

Mr. Barnes is a young History Professor with a wife and two young children. He is also an insulin dependent diabetic, who must also receive dialysis three times a week because of a failed kidney transplant. Being insulin dependent means that Mr. Barnes’s pancreas does not create enough insulin for his body to convert the sugar into the needed energy and therefore he must get insulin from an outside source. Dialysis is a process that cleans out the body’s blood if there is a problem with a kidney; the process however usually leaves the patients tired and feeling unwell for the first few hours. Mr. Barnes’s condition makes it hard for him to recover from infections and this has caused four fingers on his right had and right foot to be amputated. …show more content…
If Mr. Barnes’s goes through with stopping his treatment forgoing treatment has occurred but this is not considered euthanasia since, “Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit” since Mr. Barnes is choosing to stop treatment no one is harming him (Goel 224). While it is Mr. Barnes’s choice to stop his treatment, he is a patient at a hospital that has protocol about these types of situations. However in the medical profession it is a caregiver’s job to allow for the patient to do as they please when it comes to their treatment. While many do not agree with the choices we are only there to provide care for as long as they want. In Mr. Barnes case, he is refusing treatment, which does not mean that he is getting anything that would cause him to pass. He is stopping the treatment because it does not make him feel any better or make him feel that he is ever going to …show more content…
To the church everyone is created with human dignity and that should not be taken away because of someone else. Since everyone is created in God’s image then everyone should be given a chance to live the life given to him or her. The church frowns upon the idea of physician assisted suicide as well as euthanasia, however in Mr. Barnes’s case he is not asking for a drug to end his life. Mr. Barnes simply wishes to stop trying to prolong the inevitable and the church does not look down at that choice. The treatment is something that is causing Mr. Barnes to suffer; therefore they condone him wanting to stop the suffering. He also understand that if he stops the treatment that he will eventually die but it seems to him continuing the treatment only hurts him. Since Mr. Barnes is using his right to autonomy and choosing the way he wants to live the church would respect his decision to stop the