First and Last, Do No Harm
In this edition of TIME Magazine's Viewpoint column, author Charles Krauthammer demonstrates his opinion on contemporary euthanasia practices. Thus, as the reader can see, the use of language is purposeful and targeted.
Beginning with a quotation from the Hippocratic Oath which each doctor has to give on their day of graduation from university, an air of atmosphere is already created as it will later become apparent how bitingly ironic this quotation is in context with the rest of the article. The quotation, stating that the soon-to-be doctor will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, is based on the ancient Hippocratic philosophy and represents a part of the very essence of being a physician.
In the first three paragraphs, the reader finds themselves directly addressed, being told a prospect of their personal future. Here attention must be paid to several of the phrasings; Krauthammer first uses definite future tenses such as you will be old, infirm and [...] near death, and then goes for the indicative form when he writes You may or may not want to live; [...] you may have no intention of shortening your life. His choice of this certain grammatical form indicates his intention to direct the reader's thoughts into a certain direction, because from the point at which one gets addressed directly and faces personal questioning, the whole matter becomes at least semi-personal for them (here, the author practically confronts the reader with their very mortality).
These things set, Krauthammer continues reviewing the 1996 decision of authorities to legalize active euthanasia in several U.S. states, and explains how the judges plumbed the depths of the Constitution to find the right to give this permission. He does this by utilising the term the judges who plumbed the depths, instead of something more simple like searched or looked for, which implies there had been a long search before the authorities had been able to find any support in the written work. This impression is also underlined by the short addition to this sentence that the right they looked for is a right unfindable for 200 years.
The text goes on with a rhetorical question asked, and a somewhat ironic statement on the court's answer (Psychological pressure [...] to hasten death? -- Why, "there should be none," breezily decrees the court [...]).
After the following comparison to a persona named King Carnut, a character apparently not too close to real life, who, according to Krauthammer had a better grip on reality, he goes on explaining the situation on euthanasia laws in the Netherlands; in rhetorical questions he describes how the situation escalated into a frequent practice of involuntary euthanasia, and how the authorities had to re-sharpen the laws in order to prevent the nightmare scenario.
Quoting a federal judge, Krauthammer states this man uncomprehendingly admits the reality of the Dutch situation; the term of uncomprehending admission not only reflects on the judge's attitude, insight and understanding in an almost insulting way, but is also an attribute for the authorities in general and the way this matter is handled.
Krauthammer then continues explaining how good, ordinary doctors, with the blessing of law, in their zeal to be ever more compassionate in terminating useless and suffering life (where he clearly makes an insinuation), exceeded their narrow mandate and acted like God. The added one-word sentence Surprise just highlights the sharp sarcasm of this passage. Krauthammer almost goes one step too far in laying out his opinion here; insinuations and attributes are adding up until the soon-to be reached climax of the text from here.
Then, after a quotation defining the essence of the new laws, the author for the first time openly states his point of view by calling the quote in the previous sentence pernicious nonsense and adding that there is a great difference between (Krauthammer's definitions of) passive and active euthanasia which he describes quite emotionally. In this paragraph the reader finds no more irony, implications or meaningful comparisons, but instead a sincere statement, the judging of which is up to everyone individually-- one could call this a break in style.
The beginning of the next paragraph shows a similar level of sincerity as Krauthammer here explains how the distinction between the two levels of killing a patient also has a psychological aspect, that killing is hard to do. Then there is again a break as, without warning, Krauthammer goes back to his old sarcasm with the rhetorical question of How [to solve this problem] ?, followed by the answer By giving doctors who actively assist in suicide the blessing of law and society. Here he is back with the somewhat strongly ironic style he kept up through most of the text, and continues on with it while explaining how he suspects that active euthanasia has been practiced in the United States for 77 years until the legalization in New York State and California.
Then there comes Krauthammer's ultimate point in criticism; the actual cause for the sudden will to openly execute this practice is the modern American craving for "authencity" which Krauthammer describes in his ironic style, once again showing he does not think too much of it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main topic of Charles Krauthammer's "First and Last, Do No Harm" article?
The article focuses on Charles Krauthammer's opinion regarding contemporary euthanasia practices and the legalization of active euthanasia in certain U.S. states.
What is the significance of the Hippocratic Oath in the context of the article?
The Hippocratic Oath, particularly the promise to "give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked," is used to highlight the irony of doctors participating in euthanasia, which goes against the fundamental principles of their profession.
How does Krauthammer engage the reader in the early paragraphs of the article?
Krauthammer directly addresses the reader, presenting potential future scenarios involving old age, infirmity, and end-of-life decisions. This direct address aims to influence the reader's perspective on the issue.
What criticism does Krauthammer levy regarding the legal justification for euthanasia?
Krauthammer criticizes the judges who legalized active euthanasia, suggesting they had to deeply "plumb the depths of the Constitution" to find a right to euthanasia, a right he states was "unfindable for 200 years."
How does Krauthammer depict the situation regarding euthanasia laws in the Netherlands?
Krauthammer uses rhetorical questions to describe how the situation in the Netherlands allegedly escalated into a practice of involuntary euthanasia, requiring authorities to re-sharpen the laws to prevent a "nightmare scenario."
What is Krauthammer's opinion of the authorities' handling of euthanasia?
Krauthammer criticizes the authorities, implying their actions are insensitive and lacking in understanding. He questions the motives and actions of "good, ordinary doctors" who, according to him, "exceeded their narrow mandate and acted like God."
How does Krauthammer define the difference between passive and active euthanasia?
Krauthammer describes the difference between passive and active euthanasia quite emotionally and sees active euthanasia as "pernicious nonsense."
What psychological aspect does Krauthammer emphasize regarding active euthanasia?
Krauthammer points out the psychological difficulty associated with actively killing someone ("killing is hard to do"), contrasting it with his view on the ease with which doctors might now perform the act due to legalization.
What does Krauthammer believe is the underlying cause for the push towards legalizing active euthanasia in the US?
Krauthammer attributes the drive for active euthanasia to the "modern American craving for 'authenticity,'" a concept he views with irony and disapproval.
What is the concluding tone of the article?
The article concludes with a sarcastic and almost insulting tone, implying that elderly individuals may soon have to fear for their lives due to overly eager doctors potentially taking them if they feel like it, because of this "authenticity" in American society.
- Quote paper
- Nadine Stratmann (Author), 2001, First And Last, Do No Harm - an analysis, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/100904
