Religion and the Moral Meaning of Euthanasia
We have reached a stage in our society's ongoing debate over ethically controversial end-of-life decisions where such matters have been put up for public vote. A Washington State initiative to legally permit physician-assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia was defeated in November 1991 by 53% to 47%, but supporters, heartened by the fact that the initiative received over 701,000 votes, have announced plans to place similar proposals before citizens in California (1992) and Oregon (1994). The expectations for ultimate success rely heavily on a perception that such "right to die" or "death with dignity" initiatives reflect a strong populist sentiment. In the forums of public discussion, the voices that have come to the fore are those of terminally ill patients, and their families who have become their principal caregivers, and these stories resonate with many other persons who have come to see the Karen Ann Quinlans, Nancy Cruzans, and Janet Adkins of the past 15 years as visible symbols of what it means to die in a culture obsessed with the technological conquest of death. The common parameters of the public debate are already familiar to us from other contexts: the right of expanded choice is pitted against claims about the sanctity of human life, thereby making the political polarization of the discussion seem unavoidable. Nevertheless, it seems moraUy myopic to reduce the question