Population Control, People’s Rights on their Lives 

People’s Right on their Lives,Religions 

RPO Life Writing Workshop.

This article was written in 2009 and was presented to the Harris County Retired Physician Organization’s Life Writing Group and OLLI at UTMB in Galveston, TX. I thought it is a good subject to be reflected in my blog.

1. Religion

I was born and reared in a Muslim family. My father, a devoted religious man, taught me and my siblings what he felt was the core of the Islamic religion: do not ever lie, do not say anything offensive to anyone, help people in need, try not hurt anyone directly or indirectly, and many more romantic points. So often, I thought about how beautiful Islam was.

As I grew older, questions popped out in my mind requiring clarification and explanation, they were addressed n any written  religious writings. Who could help me better than my father? He was highly educated, spoke several languages, authored several books, was a teacher, revolutionary, patriot, and an individual with impeccable integrity and high moral character.

I was surprised to notice that he would dodge many of my questions. 

Sometimes he would say, “You must accept the religion as it is and know that it may not correlate with science!” That did not satisfy my thirst for acquiring knowledge and was not the answer that I anticipated hearing. On a more practical point, I wanted to know, for example, why the women had to wear veils. Why can a man have four wives, and a woman cannot have four husbands? Why can a man divorce his wife just by saying, “I divorce you,” and the wife cannot reciprocate the same? I was looking for answers to a myriad of questions occupying my mind.

In 1979, the so-called Islamic revolution took place in Iran, and Khomeini emerged as its leader. The events that followed created more confusion for me. Khomeini’s action sharply contrasted with the teaching I had received from my father. Who was right: my father or Khomeini? I decided to investigate the matter myself, and to my dismay, I discovered that my father had created a religion for himself, the way he thought Islam should have been, not the way it was. I realized that the true Islam was what Khomeini had established killing, stealing, destroying, depriving people of their human rights, and blocking anything that would curb the religion’s power, a power that  became his, as the leader.

The word “religion”, in use in English literature, dates to the thirteenth Century, and it is derived from the Anglo-French word “Lerigium,” which in turn is of the Latin origin of “Religio.” The latter’s source is obscure, and many historians believe it comes from the word “Ligare” or “Re-Ligare,” meaning to bind again or choose again. What I have seen and witnessed in religious institutions does not reflect what the name was intended to mean. Not only do they not bind people together, but they also use them to separate people to the leaders’ advantage.

I began to study different religions, and it became evident that most religions, if we scratch below the surface, have become money-making organizations benefiting the clergy, the mullah, the rabbi, and so on.

There is no question that many decent religious men and women run institutions for the benefit of human beings. People may call themselves Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Baha’is, or by other names, but they belong to one group: Humanism.  Throughout history, the religious business has created immense problems for people and caused more casualties than in many wars. Often it was the cause of wars, so their leaders could remain in power. These religious leaders were, for the most part, opposed to advances in science, education, healthcare, and many other areas that could eventually benefit humanity; remember stem cell research!

 II- Birth Control:

Almost all religions, in one way or another, are against the control of the population; in this respect, some go much further. The churches even interfere with the people’s private lives. In 1950 Catholic establishments in Latin America, under the direction of Pope Pius XII sanctioned the use of the rhythmic method  as a means of birth control[1]. In the 1960’s, with the advent of birth control pills, the Vatican created three special committees to evaluate the situation and to prepare a comprehensive report.

The consensus was that the Church had to liberalize its position to some degree[2]. Pope John Paul ignored their recommendation. The Mexican Government formed a family planning in 1973. The Catholic Bishop had to accept the Government’s plan, facing the fait accompli. The International Conference on Human Rights held in Tehran, Iran, in May 1968, concluded, “Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children.” The churches disagreed!

In 1959, the American Four-Star General William Draper, a high-ranking government official, indicated that the United States government should offer birth control information in connection with its Foreign Aid. The Catholic Church declared war against him.

In 1994, Pope John Paul II spoke harshly about the United Nations-sponsored resolution on population growth at the Cairo Conference that same year.

In 1950, the world population was 2,555,982,611, and the estimated number for 2009 is 7,667,947,833, a threefold increase in fifty-nine years. I would have liked to ask His Holiness, what would be his recommendation in settling these people? How would he propose addressing hunger, education, and healthcare for these multitudes? It was unbelievable for a great personality like John Paul to be so narrow-minded toward world problems. Was he aware of Earth’s limited capacity for growing food and its limited water supply, both essential to life?

            III- Assisted Suicide:

In recent months, much to my dismay, I had to witness the death of a close friend and a distant relative who succumbed to malignancies. Their last days were the most painful to watch. They were in a hospice facilities, half unconscious and heavily sedated with narcotics. Their breathing was laborious, and they could not utter a word when slightly off sedation.

Watching them brought tears to my eyes. They had no intravenous fluid supplement. They were catheterized, and the plastic container contained a small amount of urine. The urine was extremely concentrated,  like oil, with dark brownish color indicating severe dehydration.

When my wife and I visited our friend during a short time that he was awake, he recognized us and tried to say something. No words came out of his mouth. His tongue was dry as a piece of board, and his lips could not be opened with difficulty because of dryness exudates covering them. The direct answers we received from the nursing staff were, “They are not here for a cure of their ailment, and we try to make their lives more comfortable.”

What an irony. If this meant being comfortable, I certainly did not want any part of that. It constituted torture.  Why not increase their fluid intake and make their last days or hours more comfortable? Or why not end their lives if they or the family wished to pursue that line with ease and comfort, the action known as assisted suicide?

The status quo proponents believe, “How could we do such a thing”? This action is against our moral and religious beliefs. How could we be so careless as to disregard the sanctity of human lives? Of course, it is different when sending thousands of our young men and women to be killed and kill others for the benefit of a few. There, the sanctity of human life is not considered. Our high moral standing will allow us to commit such crimes, and the religious business, as a rule, remains in agreement.

Watching the brutal death of these two people caused me to review this problem. To my surprise, the subject had been under evaluation and discussion for centuries. It is known as euthanasia or, in cases such as mentioned, assisted suicide . Euthanasia comes from the Greek word “Eu~Thanatus,” meaning “Good Death .” The controversy about the subject is as old as our history can determine. The Hippocratic Oath (300-400 BC) says, “To please, no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may ease death.”

In the nineteenth Century, a problem sparked in the United States between the proponents and the opponents. New York State was the first to pass an anti-euthanasia law in 1828. By the end of the 19th Century, the problem again surfaced, and discussions began. At this time, a few physicians approved the procedure. In the early 20th Century societies were formed in Europe and the United States to promote the idea and educate the populace; England in 1935, Switzerland in 1937, and the United States in 1938.

The events occurred despite severe opposition from religious groups across the board. Meanwhile, the opinion of the people in the United States began to alter the picture, and fostered gradual changes.

The case of Karen Ann Quinlan (March 29, 1954-June 11, 1985) was the first to bring the problem to the public attention. At the age of 21 years, she became unconscious after using Valium, Darvon, and alcohol. She collapsed twice at 15-minute intervals and dropped into a vegetative state, where she remained until she died in 1985.

The hospital rejected the parents’ demand to stop the artificial life-preserving devices. The family asked for a court order to force the hospital to honor their demands. The court ruled in their favor, and the hospital complied. After discontinuation of life support, the patient survived on feeding and intravenous fluid therapy and lived another nine years in a vegetative state before her death from pneumonia in 1985. She suffered so much for no purpose at all.

Most likely, the case of Quinlan triggered debates, and some states began implementing methods to alleviate this difficulty. In 1977, California was the first state to legalize living wills. This action was a step forward for individuals who wanted to have a say about their future.

In the 1990s, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, in Michigan, got involved in performing physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients who wanted to end their lives. Dr. Kevorkian was sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment for the crime of manslaughter.

Another case that has attracted both national and international attention was the case of a Floridian woman, Terri Schiavo. On February 25, 1990, she collapsed; seen by paramedics and found to have no heartbeat or breathing. She was managed with emergency care and transferred to a hospital. Terri never regained consciousness and remained in a vegetative state.

Numerous neurologists and physicians of different specialties evaluated her without any results. She was on life support. During this period, a neurologist, Dr. G. J. DeSouza, an internist, Dr. V. Gambone, and her family physician independently examined her and reached a diagnosis of “Persistent Vegetative State.”

In May 1998, her husband, Michael Schiavo, petitioned the Court to have her feeding tube removed. This petition met with a severe reaction from her parents, devoted Catholics. The battle began! The religious organizations, the Catholics, the far-right group, and the politicians found heaven to meddle. The process went on for some seven years.

Many times, the tubes were removed just to be replaced again by another order. Finally, in October 2002, the Court ruled that her vegetative state was factual and not subject to dispute. The Florida legislature, per request of the Governor, Jeff Bush, passed a law known as Terri’s Law, giving Jeff Bush the authority to act on the family’s behalf. The governor immediately ordered the reinsertion of the feeding tube.

On May 5, 2004, Judge Baird declared Terri’s Law unconstitutional and struck it down. The problem reached the Florida Supreme Court, which concurred with the lower court decision. Religious members of all faiths poured their support for the reinsertion of the feeding tube. Reverend Jessie Jackson traveled to Florida to offer his help. Governor Bush, sensing the problems getting out of hand, asked the US Congress for help. In 2005, both the Senate and the House were under Republican control. 

To delay the court decision, Congress subpoenaed Michael and Terri Schiavo to testify before Congress. They knew that in her state of health, Terri could not attend and would invalidate the lower court decision. Judge Green refuted Congress’s subpoena. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened him. Senator Rick Santorum and the House Majority Leader, Republican Tom DeLay, all have shady pasts. Congress passed a law to make Schiavo’s case a federal case and President G. W. Bush flew from Texas to sign the measure into law. Meanwhile, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

As events unfolded, it became clear that this was driven for political reasons. The governor, the Senators, and the congressman were involved in this case. A letter written by Brian Darling, the Legal Counsel to Florida Republican Senator Mel Martinez, surfaced. It suggested that Schavio’s case would help the party base, and the Republicans could use the occasion against Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat. What a disgrace!

Pope John Paul II commented on this case, siding with the religious organization that case providers are morally bound to provide food and water to patients in a persistent vegetative state.

Jeff Bush finally bowed to the ruling of the Florida court despite the pressure exerted on him by right-wing politicians and the religious group. Terri died on March 31, 2005. The autopsy performed showed substantial and extensive damage to her brain. It weighed only 615 grams, about half the standard size. Is this where our moral and religious values stand? You be the judge!

Fortunately, the people, once awakened, make the right decisions, as was done in Oregon. In 1994, Oregonians approved Proposition 16, the “Death with Dignity Act,” giving the rights to terminally ill patients to end their lives. It was challenged by the Oregon Legislative Assembly. On Oct. l7, 1997, the people reaffirmed their desire by a margin of 60%.

President George W. Bush’s Attorney General, John Ashcroft, tried to block the law. The matter ended in the United States Supreme Court in 2005. On January 16, In 2006, the Justices voted overwhelmingly in favor of Oregon (six to three). Oregon was represented by its Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson, and Paul Clement represented the Bush administration. Since the inception of this law, a little over 200 Oregonians have taken their lives.

In 2008, Washington was the second state to approve assisted Suicide. The people voted for Washington Inhibition 1000 in November of 2008. We, as people, shall have the right to decide our destiny; we must force the the government should respect our will and intelligently determine how we want to live our lives the last days. I do not wish religious or political groups to determine how I should live or die. I have asked my wife and told my children that when the time comes, I can no longer settle for myself, they shall honor my will and terminate my life so I can leave this world with peace, comfort, and integrity.

[1] – Journal of the Study of Religion @ Ideologies # 2/ Summer 2002, p. 70.

[2] – Ibid, p. 71.