Why can’t we have the same peaceful death as a pet or Timothy McVeigh?

On June 11, 2001, Timothy McVeigh, the man who killed 168 people and injured 450 more when he bombed the Alfred P. 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 U.S. Federal Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana. Most reasonable people would assume he died relatively painlessly and quickly.

On June 11, 2001 hundreds if not thousands of dogs, cats and other pets were taken by their owners into their veterinarian to be euthanized because of illness, suffering or pain. Most reasonable people would assume that they died a painless and quick death.

On that same day hundreds if not thousands of people had either been diagnosed or were being diagnosed as being terminally ill and expected to die within six months. Still others were diagnosed 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 and will be, albeit a loving and caring one in some cases, a burden to their spouses’, children, grand children and others whom they care about.

It’s probably not unreasonable to assume that their ensuing death will generate intense emotional distress on not only them but their caregivers and those whom they love. In a lot of cases this will be exasperated as they watch the limited financial resources they have earned during a lifetime of work and effort, which is needed to sustain their survivors, drain away along with each remaining moment of their life.

In the first two situations, McVeigh and our pets, their death was decided by others. In the case of McVeigh, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, ┬áit was a better form of justice than he deserved and in the case or our pets, we make the decision for them because we believe it is the right thing to do if for no other reason than to end their suffering. Yet when it comes to us or those we love dying a lingering, painful death while living a life that is a burden to us and others we, as a government, society and individuals, come up with some idea that to provide options for dying a relatively painless and quick death is wrong, killing, and against God’s law.

From a governmental and society 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 chose to die a relatively painless and quick death in a dignified manner. At least in this case the choice would be made by the person choosing to die not by someone else choosing to kill them as in the case of the “freedom of choice” involved with an abortion.

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 really want to go there, especially this week?”

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 freedom of choice to die a dignified death that is at least as relatively painless and quick as the death afforded to mass murderer such a McVeigh or a family pet?

Leave a Comment