The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1933-10-28
PAINLESS DEATH.

Tie GeTUlan government, uQQer t1err t1lL-
l. Ter, proposes to legalize euthanasia, or the
provision of painless and peaceful death. In
the preliminary memorandum it is proposed
by the government that ct shall be made
possible for physicians to end the tortures Of
incurable patients upon request, in the inter
ests Of true humanity"
Such a proposal is by no means novel or
unheard of. 1t has been recently discussed by
Or. Warren S. Thompson in his monograph
on Population Trends in the United States"
The present proposal in Germany seems to be
safeguarded properly. No one can be put to-
death except upon the request of himself, or,
if the patient no longer is able to express his
own desires, upon the request of his nearest
relative.
If properly enforced, this would insure
against arbitrary action contrary to the per-
sonal wishes Of those Immediately concerned.
Likewise, there is a proper assurance of care
full scientific scrutiny Before euthanasia can
be invoked and applied, not only the attend
ing physician but two official experts appoint
ed by the state must certify as to the incur
able character of the disorder and recon-
mend the infection of painless death
If carried out in an honest and straight
forward fashion, this measure is one which can
most heartily be Endorsed by every educated
person of humane sentiments. 1t would put
an end to a vast volume of unnecessary hui
man suffering which lies beyond the reach
of the physician. The most pathetic cases of
human misery are those in which the victims
lnger on helplessly for weeks, months or
years after it has become absolutely certain
that death is the only possible outcome.
1t is nothing short OF scandalous that such
an untold volume of human suffering has been
made necessary by theological and other con-
siderations which have prolonged the pain and
misery of hopelessly incurable types of hu-
man beings 1t is probably no eXaggeration
to state that such law, fairly and efficiently
administered, might eliminate almost as much
unnecessary human anguish as is averted
through the curative labors of physicians deal
ing with patients for whom there is a good
prospect Of recovery.
The opposition of some religious groups in
Germany and elsewhere to such a measure
need not concern us greatly. The old religious
resistance to such law as this has been based
upon the notion that God alone gives life
and, hence, He alone can take life. This ar
gument, does not stand up in the light of mod
ern biological science. Human life is produced
as a result of certain bio-chemical processes
which are participated in by man alone.
If man uses his discretion as to when he
will bring life into existence, he certainly has
a full moral and social right to decide when
life shall be ended. So far as I can see this
whole question is purely secular and socio-
logical one, and the arguments appear to me
to be wholly in favor of the measure.
At the same time, one may be legitimately
suspicious of any such proposal when it comes
from Hitlerite Germany. The sterilization
measure which has preceded it was equally
admirable on paper, but has been abused
greatly in administration. 1t has been applied
to Jews, radicals and other opponents Of the
Nazi as well as to the incurables and defec-
tives for whom the law theoretically was en-
acted.
If the proposed law to put to death incur
able types become no more than an alibi under
which Hitler can dispose of his enemies, it
will be only one more proof Of the vicious
character of many policies now dominant in
Germany.