How would you feel if you had an incurable illness and you couldn’t speak or move? Would your parents decide take you out of your misery? That’s what Shawn faced in “Stuck In Neutral’ by Terry Trueman. His father Syney wanted to take Shawn out of his misery. Legalizing euthanasia is a solution to the problem of a family who has an ailing member, which benefits both parties. It gives relief to the loved ones as well as the suffering victim. Yet the legalization of euthanasia supports the importance and worth of human life to the point where laws rationalize life extinction out of love. By definition euthanasia is the painless killing of a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or an irreversible coma. Euthanasia can be
…show more content…
One instance would be in “Stuck in Neutral” by Terry Tureman Earl. Detra suffocated his child with a pillow because he thought his son was living with unbearable pain. (Chapter 11) Colin couldn’t speak or barely make facial reactions. He was only two years old. He couldn’t talk, but how did Earl Detraux know that his son wanted to live or die. Moreover, just because he was the father didn’t give him or anyone else the right to take a life. Secondly, consider the case where Shawn’s statement in Stuck In Neutral”’ “…if we really love that child … shouldn’t we … end his pain?” in contrast to the victim’s desire, “As the seizure continues I begin to smile and laugh. I’ll trade their lives in a heartbeat if it meant keeping my seizures”. ( Terry Trueman, 1950) Who is to judge what quality of life is not worth living? The government played a role in the decision in the Terri Schiavo case where they legislated withholding life treatment to Terri Schiavo. The government stepped in and ruled to allow the removal of the feeding tube because her cardiac arrest left her in an irreversible persistent vegetative state. This ruling was against the desires of the parents and the want of the legal guardian her husband. Where in the Constitution is government given this right? In addition, at what point does the cost of
One instance would be in “Stuck in Neutral” by Terry Tureman Earl. Detra suffocated his child with a pillow because he thought his son was living with unbearable pain. (Chapter 11) Colin couldn’t speak or barely make facial reactions. He was only two years old. He couldn’t talk, but how did Earl Detraux know that his son wanted to live or die. Moreover, just because he was the father didn’t give him or anyone else the right to take a life. Secondly, consider the case where Shawn’s statement in Stuck In Neutral”’ “…if we really love that child … shouldn’t we … end his pain?” in contrast to the victim’s desire, “As the seizure continues I begin to smile and laugh. I’ll trade their lives in a heartbeat if it meant keeping my seizures”. ( Terry Trueman, 1950) Who is to judge what quality of life is not worth living? The government played a role in the decision in the Terri Schiavo case where they legislated withholding life treatment to Terri Schiavo. The government stepped in and ruled to allow the removal of the feeding tube because her cardiac arrest left her in an irreversible persistent vegetative state. This ruling was against the desires of the parents and the want of the legal guardian her husband. Where in the Constitution is government given this right? In addition, at what point does the cost of