Jonathan Evatt Online

I found a discussion on Amazon.com regarding whether or not medical assisted death (euthaniasia) should continue to be outlawed, or made legal. See that discussion here: http://bit.ly/nvjS4

I had something to add to that discussion, and I post it here on my website for those who are interested.

Thanks for your thoughtful input.

I assume you are referring to "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect," when you say that euthanasia goes against the H. Oath.

I question the idea that "euthanasia breaks the Hippocratic Oath" is a valid argument to outlaw it. There are many things the medical system and Doctors do these days that technically violate the Hippocratic Oath. Iatrogenic disease (death by medicine) is one of the leading causes of death in the USA. What's more, how many doctors do you know who will actively prescribe intelligent dietary changes as a means of treatment, without resorting to drugs and surgery as the primary approach to a disease, in accordance with the Oath stating "I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment". As far as I know (from doctors who have told me so) the medical training many doctors receive does not come close to equiping them with intelligent dietary measures for the treatment of disease, in some medical schools less than 2 hours is devoted to the topic, and even then the lecturers often skip over it because they don't consider it worthy of the classes attention. This approach to health is left to the naturopaths and Ayurvedic doctors... which many in the medical establishment consider to be misguided at best, and "quackery" or "should be made illegal" at worst.

The Oath also states, " I will keep them [the sick] from harm and injustice". Where is the justice is removing a person's right to be responsible for their own life and death? Is it more or less harmful to a person and their indwelling spirit (yes, the dictionary definition of health is "soundness or wholeness of body, mind, and spirit") to unnaturally keep them alive? And what about if they are being unnaturally kept alive against their own free will? Is that just?

America loves to espouse that it is "the land of the free" yet people here are not even free to be responsible for their own life and death. What are we collectively so afraid of? It is my observation that the fear of death only arises in the mind of those who are equally afraid of Life.

The Oath also states, "Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy," yet abortions are legal in many parts of the world, and many States in the US. Of course, that is not without some contraversy, but legal none-the-less.

How many doctors are following the directive that states "In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art" which is also part of the H. Oath? These days medicine is not even considered to be an "art" and it is typically anything but "holy". Spirituality and Art have for the most part been striped out completely by Newtonian and Euclidian science as the only valid approach to reality, life, and nature. The once "art" of Medicine is now, for the most part, a mechanical, soulless, and (he)artless means of "disease management" dominated primarily by the commercial interests of large drug companies, insurance corporations, and what have you. Where does this fit into the H. Oath?

You say (as does J. Wisdom in another post) "How do you know that man didn't want to live?". Yet how is that a relevant question? Is it not about that person him/herself deciding whether or not they wish to live or whether they feel too sick and unable to enjoy life?

The bottom line for me is this. Man alone should be responsible for his/her life and death. If a person decides to take his own life (be they terminally ill, or otherwise) that is their free will to do so.

Later in the discussion I shared the following thoughts...

(@Brent R. Kelly)
You make some interesting points.
I do, however, question your perspective. I don't wish to invalidate it, because it is, of course, your right to approach life and reality through whichever perspective you prefer.

Why is a "good death" (thanks for the definition) not a human right?
In today's society we consider it our right to prolong our life, and to extend our life beyond the point of natural death through the use of all kinds of modern medical technology and drugs, etc. Deborah Tornillo states that "God is in control - not man", and yet who is in control when we stick people onto machines to keep them alive? God, or man?

(Brent) You say that we have Hospice for the terminally ill. That is indeed correct, and there are many other options, yet I fail to see how the fact that we have services in place for those who wish to die (relatively) slowly from a terminal illness precludes alternatives (such as euthanasia) for those who do not wish to be in a Hospice.

"The reality is that it is not" - how exactly is this not a "good thing"? I am interested to hear your view on this, although I not sure which "reality" you are basing this on. Your own, or that of a person who is numbed from head to toe on a few hundred mgs of morphine a day, is hooked up to renal dialysis machine due to failed kidneys, and a ventilator due to collapsed lungs, are unable to enjoy even the smallest and simplest pleasures of life, and may continue to be in this state for many months, even years, against their own will? Scenarios like this are playing our every day.

Is it not an assumption to think that euthanasia specifically means "a doctor deciding that someone is not WORTH the medical effort"? Personally I think the more likely case is that of a person deciding they themselves are ready to pass on. To me, it is a secondary issue -- although a very important one, that I think would require strict protocols to be in place to avoid the kinds of potential negligence and marginalisation you propose.

"No, no, no Euthanasia is not a human right, any more than suicide or homicide is". I appreciate your point, yet I fail to see the parallel you draw between suicide and homicide. Please explain. I understand a society having laws the preclude homicide (the taking of another person's life against their wishes), because in that scenario I am impinging upon another human being's right to live. I am doing harm to another. In the case of suicide, medically assisted suicide, and euthanasia (where the person consents to it themselves), no one is violating another person's rights. I also happen to think that it is meaningless and irrational to make suicide illegal. To me this can only be a hangover from past religious ethics. Think about it for a moment. If I wish to take my own life, I do not direct harm to another. I don't violate the rights of another. What's more, if I do end my own life, how can such a law (against suicide) be effectively implemented? What are we going to do? Punish a dead body? I consider this to be a very strange way of thinking.

I should perhaps point out that I neither agree or disagree with a person taking their own life, with or without the aid of a doctor. It's ultimately of no consequence to me if someone takes their own life, of no real consequence to society, and thus not my responsibility to judge their actions, and thus none of my business. All I am saying is that a person's right to live a happy life, or as he so pleases (given he does not violate the same rights of others), is also that person's right to die in whatever way he so chooses (given that he does not violate the rights of others).

Before I close, I would invite us to consider the many yogis and mystics who have been conscious enough within their life that they "know" when it is time to die, prepare themselves accordingly, take care of all their personal and life affairs, and then consciously die. Many have simply sat in meditation and pass away. Has this person committed a crime? Should the police smash their way into this person's chosen place of death, and arrest them before they leave their body? Has this person not lived and died in a way that is more impeccable and life-giving than the person who dies most other ways, such as getting drunk and falling off of a boat at sea, or getting so ill and decrepit that the only way to keep them alive is with expensive medical procedures, care, and equipment? Not that I in any way condemn a person of the latter example, yet the question begs asking.

The following is some dialogue I have had with a friend who has been living in the UK for the past year or so, and is now visiting Florida for a while. With her permission I am posting this dialogue here as I feel it makes a good learning piece---both in terms of her own observations of life in Florida, and in terms of the points we have discussed regarding what she is going through.

The following is from an email I received from Rachel.

... you know, I have had to draw on your wisdom a number of times in the past week. We talked about there being no 'right' or 'wrong', yet for me this particular judgement is the one that seems to be the first one I make. Many times I have caught myself judging, reminding myself to bring myself back to 'being', and remembering that the way it is, just is.

Florida is WAY behind in terms of environmental issues and general awareness of the world. In comparison the UK looks like the most environmentally conscious place in the world. I find it particularly hard not to judge in terms of their relationship with food. the past 6 months I have been eating minimal meat, mainly organic food, lots of veggies and beans and trying to avoid supporting companies with dodgy ethical practices. Wow, to be thrown into Floridian mass consumerism is quite a culture shop. I spend a lot of time with my host mother, Jane, and our realities are worlds apart. I am managing to be patient with her, and observe her views, rather than react to them. I feel in a way they feel threatened by my different views, so are immediately defensive about these issues.

It is interesting to observe the different relationship she has with food. It is hard, but it is not my place to step in and disagree; this is just her reality and the way she has experienced the world. I have had some interesting conversations, and I'd like to share them with you. I mentioned the benfits of home-made babyfood. Her reply was:

"I just can't understand that with how strict the hygiene standards are these days, why anyone would risk making their own baby food".

I was about to put some eggs in the trolley. Jane said, "don't get those, these 'egg beaters' are so much easier". (I looked at what she was pointing at - 'egg beaters' are the brand name for eggs in liquid form that have already been cracked and beaten and sealed in a tetra pack.Only thing is, in addition to 'eggs' on the ingredients label, there were about 10 other ingredients, all of which were nothing that sounded that beneficial to my body!). It was hard to say, "Oh no, just plain eggs are fine for me", and to try and justify that statement, without sounding condescending or pretentious.

This evening I was discussing my fantastic results with Chinese medicine with my host sister Wendy, who is pregnant with her 3rd child. All three pregnancies have been very medicalised, in a way that it seems pregnancy is a 'disease' that needs to be constantly monitored. As a result, (in my view), both previous pregnancies have been caesarean. Anyway, she was impressed with how I was now having periods etc, but then spoke in a hushed dramatic tone, "But Rachel, you must understand that if you do decide to get pregnant you must stop taking the herbs immediately, they are completely unregulated and haven't even got FDA approval".

I tried to have a discussion to the contrary, but this life they live here is so regulated by drugs, than an alternative is not comprehendible. It is so so so so sad. How did humans get to be this way? How have so many of us completely lost our connection with nature, with who we are? I feel they have handed over their relationship with themselves over to someone else, to the doctor in the white coat who can 'cure' any ailment, to the multinational junk food corporations who cause most of their ailments in the first place... ...so I started off this email with the idea that nothing was right or wrong. But realise I am actually still judging it as 'wrong'. Which makes me sad as I love these people dearly. They are all suffering from an assortment of various illnesses, and all take a cocktail of drugs. Jane even keeps a packet of antibiotics in her purse in case she starts to feel sick. I would like to be able to enlighten them some how, wishing I had your ability to share and teach, as you did me.

My reply to this email was as follows:

A splendidly interesting email.

Poignant with the woes of stepping outside the evolutionary path that most of humanity (in our culture, and many others) are choosing to be on. As you "wake up" you literally leave the evolutionary path that most of humanity is on. It might be more accurate to say that you jump to a point in the path that is "way ahead" of where most of humanity is currently at, and hence, for all intents and purposes, it's like jumping to a different evolutionary path.

One of the unavoidable trials of that "jump" to another track through time and space is that this wide chasm opens up between the aspirant and the collective (un)consciousness of the non-aspirants (those that are still bustling along in tick-tock reality... the "rat race"). As you know... the primary falacy of the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat. This apparent chasm can at first be a source of frustration and perhaps loneliness for the one that has left the race, and it can also be a stimulus of deep fear, insecurity, and threat for those that are still choosing to be in the mad rat race or tick-tock reality.

It's only that way "at first" because it's only whilst you yourself still have a foot in both evolutionary paths that you'll experience this apparent "chasm" at all. Your individualised and limited sense of ego (your false sense of "self" as opposed to who and what you really are) will try to keep at least one of your feet in the camp that the world ego is living in for as long as you allow it. Our limited sense of ego can only exist in relation to a collective (all other egos) subscribing to the same limitations. Once you see through its games and tricks, and remember and heal and reconcile whatever it is you need to in order to let go of the world (and your false worldly sense of self --- the human ego) even more than previously... and eventually enough to take the full leap into the unknown... into this other evolutionary path... then the apparent chasm will vanish. A deep love and respect for the reality and experiences that each person is choosing for their self will arise.

Many people will still find you a threat... but it won't matter anymore. Nothing in you will depend at all on what the world thinks of you nor how it reacts to you. Their choice to be that way too will also seem quite perfect. If, on the other hand, someone still in tick-tock sees you and identifies something in you that they feel drawn to... and they come to you and ask for help or advice... well, then you'll be happy to share what you know. If they don't ask then it's really none of your business to say anything and you generally wouldn't feel to because you will respect their evolutionary path, their choices as a Divine Being, and just let them get on with it. I have found that many people only despise me if I try to offer uninvited advice that is beyond their current paradigm.

If you see someone that has come to you with their apparent "problems" but they've not directly asked you for help... then (if you feel compelled to) you might choose to ask them if they are open to some feedback and a different perspective in relation to what they have just said or what they are going through. If they agree (and they generally will, otherwise you wouldn't have felt it was right action to ask in the first place) you can share what you know. It's them up to them to do what the will with it. There is an article I wrote on the feal.org blog which I think was called something like "The error of making the world wrong". It recall that it perhaps goes into exploring this right / wrong thing you've described.

My friends follow-up to the above was this:

Yes, I can identify the 'foot in both camps' way that I am at the moment, while I am here with this lovely family. It is hard and I feel very torn at seeing them as victims of mass consumerism and everything that goes along with it. There is no recycling, and the amount of waste generated by each person is sickening - I feel awful each time I throw yet more perfectly recyclable material in the bin to fill up another landfill. But your words free me a little. Enable me to stand back. And give me reassurance. Thank you.

My reply...

It's this "seeing them as victims of mass consumerism and everything that goes along with it" this is tripping you up. You are seeing them through the perception of the ego and not through the Vision of the Soul. This may, therefore, be a key to unlock more of your Inner Power. For instance, where in your life (past / present / future) do you still harbour the belief (most likely unconsciously) that you are "a victim to the _______ aspect of the world" ?

Whatever aspect that might be... fill in the gap when you discover what it is. Where do I still formulate my sense of what is real and what is possible based on what has been fed to me by the outer world? In what ways do I feel victim to that? What, therefore, is my Soul asking me to forgive and let go of?

I encourage you to take some quite time out to reflect on these things. Out in nature would be best -- although not entirely necessary if not an option.