In a word, “Yes!” On June 11, 2001, Timothy McVeigh, the mass murderer responsible for the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, was executed by lethal injection at 7:14 a.m. in the federal execution chamber of the U.S. Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana. Most reasonable people would assume he died relatively painlessly and quickly.
On that day and every day since, owners bring hundreds, possibly thousands, of dogs, cats and other pets to their veterinarians. The purpose is to euthanize them because of illness, suffering, or pain. Most reasonable people would assume that they die a painless and quick death.
On that same day and every day since, hundreds if not thousands of people receive diagnoses or are suffering from conditions of extreme physical or mental “pain” and/or are terminally ill. Still others with diseases such as Alzheimer’s, etc., where the prognosis for survival with any meaningful quality of life was extremely minimal, if existent at all. Most reasonable people would assume that the vast majority of these people will not die relatively painlessly and quickly. It’s not unreasonable to believe that their ensuing death will generate intense emotional distress on not only them but their caregivers and those whom they love. In many cases, it will be exasperating as they watch the limited financial resources they have earned during a lifetime of work and effort drain away with each remaining moment of their life.
In the first two situations, McVeigh and our pets, their death was a determination made by others. With McVeigh, by the justice system. For our pets, we decide on their behalf because we believe it is the right thing to do, especially if it means ending their suffering.
However, many people who live “painful” lives and face agonizing deaths do not have the choice to die quickly and painlessly. Society, our government, and others not only deny this option but also label it as wrong, killing and against God’s law. From a governmental and societal point of view, an Ole Seagull finds it ironic and even “moronic” that they can support the funding and the killing of unborn children under the banner of “freedom of choice” while denying the same freedom of choice for those who are mentally competent to choose to die a relatively painless and quick death in a dignified manner. In this case, the person choosing to die makes the decision, unlike the situation with abortion, where someone else decides to end the life of another in the name of “freedom of choice.”
In terms of killing and being against God’s law, is it not possible that the word “kill” as used in the commonly cited language for the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” Exodus 20:13, from early translations of the Bible such as the King James Version, is more accurately translated from the original Hebrews as “Murder?” Do not the words “Kill” and “Murder” have different definitions?
Besides, would anyone argue that if a person could have the right to exercise their freedom of choice to die a dignified death and went into a hospital or other facility and was euthanized by someone else, that it was either “killing” or “murder? “Well, got you there, Seagull; you made the choice to go in and have it done; you could have changed things at any time, but you didn’t, so you ‘murdered’ yourself.” “Wow, outside of your illogical application of the term ‘murder,’ do you want to go there?”
Ecclesiastes 3:1 and 2 says, “There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven—A time to give birth and a time to die.” That time will come for the Ole Seagull, perhaps not soon enough for some, but it will come. When it does, if the circumstances are appropriate, is it inappropriate to expect to have the choice to die a dignified death that is at least as relatively painless and quick as the death afforded to mass murderers such as McVeigh or a family pet?
Comments