Call me a paraniod but when I saw the debate about euthanasia, seeing comments from people who pro this idea “we should have the right”, “we have the right to die with dignity”; I was really worried.

As the 21st century unfold itself, I sense we are marching towards a world whereby people want to redefine a lot of things, their bondaries and rights about many facets of life. Human right, I feel is a phrase many a times misuse to the extense that some laws are passed just to please these people hiding behind a mask, for other motives.

Euthanasia could be a topic originally on people who couldn’t suffer their pain and wouldn’t want to be a burden to others and choose to end their lives in a so-called “dignify” way, or actually, suicide. When this disucssion started in Singapore, yes, it is about dealing with patients suffering from terminal illness who couldn’t bear the pain. To be honest, I really empathise those in suffering and in pains.

However, my concern is, with this floodgate open, it would lead to something very scary, something people that had probably forgotten even history of just 50 years ago!

Euthanasia may start with people who are in the suffering asking to legalist to allow them to have that choice to end their lives. Yes, the key word here is “choice”. The very person in pain and suffering choose to end his/her life. The justifications of it, arise from debate are about: burden to the family, society, limited resources, costly to maintain blah blah blah.

I smell something that makes me uncomfortable that the value of human is measured most importantly is monetary. Everything seems to boil down to cost, $. We overlook the fact that to each his/her own that a life exist on this earth is purposeful and with respect to each of us, most of us, if not all, contribute to the country, society, the earth etc… big and small way.

It is such an irony that when asking for donation, we show our gratitude that big and small, we welcome your donations. But when come to a terminally ill patient, on the other side of the balance, is about the asscoiated medical cost/resources blah blah blah..

Yes, I empathise those in sufferings and in pains but when the argument to have the right to die with dignity is on monetary reason, that the whole situation will evolve and no one can stop that, lawmakers could pass law to ’solve’ an aging generation associated with problems on budget/resource constraints very conveniently. Hospitals, doctors would just default to the ‘convenience’ to recommend euthanasia for every single person who has diagnosed with terminal diesease. There is no cure, no purpose to treat them, they are burden to the society, resources should be put on to something worthy (and who is going to decide what is worthy?).

So, does that mean that it is therefore also eventually becomes meaningless to invest, to train, to educate and to innovate new treatment or to find cures for terminal dieseases?

21st century is also a century that science has broken many secrets about life i.e. genes. While there are scientists to work to understand how gene works and how a disease could be triggered due to a genetic weakness; others are started to look into playing God’s role in the direction of predicting how long a person would live, what would be the health problem that terminate a person’s life.

This, without regulation under the respect of human life, would one day giving the lawmakers the power for example: to decide who should be born and who shouldn’t be, envisaging that this person due to his/her inherited genes defect, would probably die after 10 years of living.

What about insurance company refusing your future insurance forseeing at 50, you would get heart disease? What about government employers turn you down on your job application because you are going to have cancer at age of 45?

The exertion of right for the present temporal convenience would only lead to opening the floodgate for mad people like H* during world war 2, experimenting the fastest and the cheapest way to wipe out an ethnic group of people. The justification? Oh sure he had. But who gave him the right to look at life in that manner? Was it just because of assuming political power that gave him the power (not really the right) to justify his right? It is no wonder that there are many groups out there trying to get their rights through political movements and influence and it can only be proven futile to the future generation/s, because of fighting the so-called right, defined by a particular group.