THE ABORTION CORRECTION:  THANATASIAN BIO-ETHICS

______________________________________________________________________

EUTHANASIA:

eu·tha·na·sia (y¡´the-nâ¹zhe, -zhê-e) noun

The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

[Greek, a good death : eu-, eu- + thanatos, death.]

Euthanasia, also mercy killing, practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering. The term is sometimes used generally to refer to an easy or painless death. Voluntary euthanasia involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. Passive, or negative, euthanasia involves not doing something to prevent death— that is, allowing someone to die. Active, or positive, euthanasia involves taking deliberate action to cause a death.

Historical and Legal Aspects

In ancient Greece and Rome it was permissible in some situations to help others die. Voluntary euthanasia for the elderly was an approved custom in several ancient societies. With the rise of organized religion, however, euthanasia came to be considered morally and ethically abhorrent. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all hold human life sacred and condemn euthanasia in any form. Following traditional religious principles, Western laws have generally considered the act of helping someone to die a form of homicide subject to legal sanctions. Even a passive withholding of help to prevent death has frequently been severely punished.

Organizations supporting the legalization of voluntary euthanasia were established in Great Britain in 1935 and in the United States in 1938. They gained some public support but were unable to achieve their goal in either nation. In the past several decades, however, Western laws against passive and voluntary euthanasia have slowly been eased.

Medical Ethics

The medical profession has generally been caught in the middle of the controversies that rage over euthanasia. Modern technological advances have made it possible to keep persons alive for long periods of time, even when they are permanently unconscious or brain damaged. Proponents of euthanasia, however, believe that prolonging life in this way may cause great suffering to the patient and the family. In addition, certain life-support systems are so expensive that they cannot be provided for all potential patients.  New professional and legal definitions of death and medical responsibilities are slowly being developed to fit these complex new realities.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THEOHEURISM ACCEPTS THESE DEFINITIONS, AND FURTHER ELABORATES THEM INTO SECONDARY EUTHANASIA—WHEN SOMEONE ELSE DETERMINES THAT YOU CAN NO LONGER LIVE FOR VARIOUS AND SUNDRY REASONS.

THEREFORE, THERE MUST BE A PRIMARY EUTHANASIA, WHERE THE PERSON IN QUESTION MAKES THE DECISION; THIS AREA IS YET TO BE FURTHER DEFINED BY LAW, AND RESTS WITHIN THE SAME NEGATIVE PURVIEW AS SECONDARY EUTHANASIA.

HOWEVER, THESE TWO CONCEPTS YIELD A NEW NOMENCLATURE:  THANATASIA, WHICH WOULD (ACCORDING TO THEOHEURISM) BE TERTIARY EUTHANASIA (WHEN THE DECISION IS MADE TO TERMINATE A FETUS/EMBRYO IN ORDER TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER (OR THE EXAMINATION OF OTHER STRINGENCIES INTERPRETED BY LAW WHICH ALLOW IT—SUCH AS “MY BODY, MY CHOICE,” ETC.).  THIS NEW NOMENCLATURE LEADS TO LEXICON WHICH MUCH MORE ADEQUATELY DEFINE THE LAW.

THANATASIAN BIO-ETHICS, THEREFORE, WOULD BE A THEOHEURISTIC REPLACEMENT FOR THE WORD “ABORTION,” ALLOWING THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE TO BE ALLOWED IN THE DEFINITION OF THE ACT ITSELF.

IF WE LOOK AT THE ACT ONLY AS AN ABORTION, IT LEAVES BEHIND THE CONNOTATION OF RIGHTS THAT TERTIARY EUTHANASIA, OR THANATASIA, WOULD DEMAND.

THANATASIAN BIO-ETHICS WOULD ALSO HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL ASPECT:  THAT OF THE ADVOCATE FOR THE FETUS/EMBRYO.

WHEN A PERSON IS SERIOUSLY SICK, AND CANNOT MAKE THE PROPER DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES, THEN AN ADVOCATE IS ELECTED OR SELECTED BY THE PROCESS OF “POWER OF ATTORNEY.”  THIS PROCESS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS STILL REPRESENTED PROPERLY—EVEN THOUGH THEY CANNOT MAKE THESE DECISIONS THEMSELVES.

IN THE MOVIE, “MINORITY REPORT,” INDIVIDUALS ARE ARRESTED BEFORE THEY COMMIT A CRIME; IN THIS WAY, JUSTICE IS EJUDICATED PRIOR TO THE ACT ITSELF.  AN ADVOCATE WOULD OPERATE IN A SIMILAR FASHION:  REPRESENTING THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF THE EMBRYO PRIOR TO WHEN THE EMBRYO DEVELOPS THE CHARACTERISTIC AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS TO REPRESENT ITSELF.

IT SHOULD REMAIN AN UNPUBLISHED STRETCH TO COMPARE THIS TO A SCIENCE-FICTION MOVIE—BUT THE PHILOSOPHY IS PLAIN.  THE LAW IS SAYING THAT AN ENTITY THAT WILL DEVELOP—IF LEFT ALONE—INTO A HUMAN BEING HAS NO RIGHTS.  THE ADVOCATE ARGUES FOR THE RIGHTS WHICH WILL NATURALLY COME COMMENSURATELY WITH SAPIENCE IN ADVANCE.

AN EMBRYO, THEN—UNDER THE POSTULATED LAWS OF THANATASIAN BIO-ETHICS, AND BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT DUE TO STATE OF BEING IT CANNOT MAKE OR PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION ITSELF YET AS ADMITTED AND DEMONSTRATED ABOVE—WOULD HAVE THE SAME SUCH RIGHTS IMPUTED TO IT THROUGH THE COURTS IN THE FORM OF THE ADVOCATE, THEREFORE, WOULD BE ASSIGNED BY THE COURTS TO BE CERTAIN THAT THE DECISION FOR THANATOSIA IS UNAVOIDABLE.  THEOHEURISM THEN RENDERS THE QUESTION OF FAIRNESS, LEGALITY, RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, AND MURDER MOOT IN ONE FELL SWOOP. 

PARRC RESEARCH WONDERS HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE FOR THE CORRECT NOMENCLATURE TO GUIDE US...

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PARRC RESEARCH, INC., 2004-2010, ALL RIGHTS AND TRADEMARKS RESERVED