The term "euthanasia" is of Greek origin and means "a good death." The phrase "right" alludes to giving patients a painless death in order to alleviate their suffering. The phrase refers to the process by which doctors end the life of a patient who has a terminal disease in order to spare them from suffering any longer. Washington, DC, Colorado, California, and Vermont all permit the practice within the US. Other places, like Montana, don't agree with the practice and forbid any practitioners from engaging in it. By putting an end to the patient's pain, euthanasia saves suffering. It is categorical that the method is only applicable to patients with terminal illnesses with minimal recovery chances due to lack of a cure. The unavailability of the cure dictates that the patient will still die due to lack of a viable solution. Legalization of euthanasia all over the 50 states will prevent the long suffering of patients with terminal illnesses and give closure to their families due to the psychological trauma of the illness.
History of Euthanasia
Euthanasia became a topic of discussion in the late 19th century during the development of the modern hospital system. The first supporters of the practice in 1894 were Felix Adler and Robert Ingersoll who argued that patients suffering from terminal illnesses needed to have the right to choose whether to live or die (Beville 205). The two supported the practice as a way of giving the patients a painless end to the terminal condition instead of waiting for the patient to die despite the pain endured. The first attempt towards legalization of the practice occurred in 1905 at a debate in the American Humane Association and later in the General Assembly of Ohio in 1906. The debate played a vital role in making the public conversant with the practice and gathering the views of the population. However, the topic became controversial especially on the conditions necessary for the practice to occur. In 1906, other states such as Iowa began pushing towards legalization of euthanasia, but the law did not materialize.
Most of the opposition towards euthanasia originated from the religious perspective. According to the religious leaders, euthanasia is murder irrespective of the circumstances. In 1949, an association by the name Euthanasia Society of America renewed the efforts to legalize euthanasia through a signed petition (Otlowski 364). The group presented the petition to the New York Legislature but faced stiff opposition from the Catholic Church. In 1994, Oregon became the first state to legalize euthanasia followed by Washington in 2008. Other states such as Colorado and California legalized the practice in 2016 and 2015 respectively. Currently, it is legal for physicians to assist patients to suicide in seven states in the country. The argument behind the legalization is the prevention of the patient from suffering as well as respecting the rights of the patient in choosing to live or die at the moment.
Advantages of Euthanasia
Ends Patient Suffering
The fundamental purpose of euthanasia is ending the suffering of the patient (Thomasma 27). When patients are suffering from terminal medical conditions such as cancer, the patients undergo extreme pain throughout. Such patients lose hope in life because they understand that the medical condition does not have any possible cure in sight. In such cases, keeping the patient alive exposes the patient to continued suffering through the pain experienced. In the long run, the patient succumbs to the condition despite the pain endured. Legalization of euthanasia would change the situation entirely by giving the medical practitioners the opportunity to assists the patients to end their suffering.
The primary role of the physician is to make decisions that improve the condition of the patient by reducing their suffering. Therefore, by keeping the patient alive, the doctor is not helping the patient in any way. Physicians should have the legal authority to advise the patient on the best method of eliminating the pain. The presence of two witnesses would ensure that the physicians do not collaborate with family members and end the lives of their kin for selfish gains. Therefore, legalization of euthanasia would prevent long suffering of patients in the hospital who suffer from terminal illnesses. The patients would have the right to choose what to do with their lives since they are the ones suffering and responsible for their decisions.
Euthanasia gives Dignified Deaths
Euthanasia would give the patients a dignified death (Biggs 15). A dignified death, in this case, means that the person dies while still having a fit body before emaciation by the illness. Some medical conditions such as cancer eat up the body of the patient leading to massive weight loss and loss of subcutaneous fat. The unnatural thinness leads to changes in the appearance of the body making it scruffy. The more the patient lives in the hospital, the more the duration of exposure to the condition leading to further emaciation. During such a time, the patient does not have any hopes of getting better. In fact, the patient undergoes psychological torture as he/she watches how fast the body is changing in appearance.
Every passing day continues losing value of the body. By the time the patient dies naturally, the body is in bad shape and the death is not dignified. The patients need to have the right to make decisions regarding their lives. It would be logical for the patients to endure the emaciation if a cure was in sight. However, the terminal illnesses that necessitate euthanasia have no cure. Legalization of euthanasia in the whole country would give the patients an opportunity to die dignified deaths and save them the torture of undergoing emaciations of their bodies. The patients would die with dignified and presentable bodies.
Euthanasia Saves Funds
Euthanasia saves families of the patients from excessive wastage of funds. Some of the patients that qualify for euthanasia survive with the help of life support machines. Some of the patients do not have the ability to breathe on their own necessitating the use of tools to support their lives. Others rely on electronic gadgets to keep their hearts beating while they are unconscious. Those machines are very costly to the family of the patients and may lead to financial constraints (Cruz 297). In terminal medical conditions, the patient has minimal chances of survival. Therefore, the usage of funds in keeping the patients alive is not advisable since the patient will not recover.
In such a case, the physician, as well as the patient, should have the ability to make a paramount decision that will salvage the funds available in the family. In such times of hard economic times, paying for the machines would require a high financial ability which is not possible for many households. Legalization of euthanasia in the whole country would prevent wastage of hard earned money for patients with terminal conditions whose chances of recovery as almost zero. With the practice remaining illegal, many families will have no choice but to suffer financial constraints while paying for a patient to live under life support machines leading to depreciation of all the family savings. After the death of the patient, the family will result in a hard life due to limited resources remaining.
Euthanasia Respects Personal Decisions
Legalizing euthanasia gives the patient the right to decide what to do with his or her life (Jackson 953). During the period of the illness, it is only the patient who understands how they feel. As much as the doctors might try to understand the pain endured by the patient, they cannot be in a position to understand the pain as well as the patient. The patient had a right to decide what to do with his or her life. The doctors and the law should not hinder the person from deciding their life. In terminal conditions particularly when the patient is not in a vegetative form, the patient needs to have the right to decide what to do with their lives.
Denial of such rights amounts to imposing conditions to the patient and infringing on their rights. It is clear that each patient has the right to life and the law should protect the lives of every citizen. However, the life must be in a substantial form where the patient is in a position to enjoy the life. Terminally ill patients live under a constant pain as they try to come to terms with the conditions. Therefore, the law will allow them to exercise their human rights through choosing whether to live or not. Making the practice illegal is violating their human rights. All the states in the country need to pass the law as a way of respecting the rights of every citizen to life and personal decisions.
Legalization Prevents Malpractices
When euthanasia becomes legal in the whole country, it will be easier to regulate the practice and avoid unethical practices in the medical field. Most people opposing the practice fear that family members might team up to eliminate a sick relative for selfish gains. As much as the concerns are valid, legalizing the practice would create a chance for the Congress to formulate strict laws that will ensure the practice is ethical. In some families, there might be tussles over the inheritance of property which might make the relatives prefer to eliminate a fellow family member. In such cases, euthanasia will not be performing the required task. On the contrary, it will be eliminating the member for the selfish interests of the others.
Legalization of euthanasia will ensure that strict laws are in place to govern the practice. All states would join efforts in creating a framework that would guide the physicians as they make crucial decisions in the field. For example, all the physicians would require consulting other physicians before undertaking the procedure (Almagor 117). Secondly, a lawyer should be present, and two more witnesses as the patient makes the decision or as the family decides in the case of an unconscious patient. Having different states applying different laws on the practice may create a loophole for malpractice which is unethical. Therefore, the whole country should adopt the practice to create a platform for tightening the loop on physicians and family members who might authorize euthanasia for selfish gains and not on the interests of the patient.
Euthanasia Frees Life Support Machines
Legalizing euthanasia would free life supporting machines used by the terminally ill patients and help those with chances of recovery ( Kemp281). In this current era, many people suffer from serious medical conditions due to lifestyle and unhealthy eating habits. Besides, other patients from accidents and emergency services require the important use of life support machines. Therefore, at no given time will the life supporting devices be idle for a long time. Having a terminally ill patient using the machines denies the other patients the chance to salvage their lives. The terminal patient stands no chance of surviving. However, the other patients such as accident victims have better chances of survival if given the necessary medical attention using the limited number of machines.
By retaining euthanasia as illegal, both the terminal patient and the ones that do not have slim chances of survival due to device shortage. However, legalization of the practice would free up the machines and allow other patients to use the tools and get better. As much as euthanasia aims at giving the patient a painless death, it is evident that other patients may also benefit from the process. It is therefore imperative that all the fifty states adopt the practice to ensure that the patients do not keep the life supporting machines busy hindering other patients from using them. The law will go a long way in making sure that the tools help those people with better chances of survival instead of denying them the opportunity to live.
Euthanasia allows Organ Donation
Euthanasia legalization will allow for the patient to donate vital organs to other deserving patients. Donations of organs such as the kidney and the liver have been instrumental in supporting the lives of the recipients. However, for the organs to work, they need preservation immediately the donor dies. Through euthanasia, it is possible for the medical practitioners to harvest the organs of the patient and use them on other deserving patients. However, it is critical that the professionals seek the permission of the patient before death or that of the immediate family members. Therefore, euthanasia stands a good chance of saving the lives of other patients through organs donations. The physicians would assist the patient to die and prepare to harvest the organs when the patient is still healthy, and the organs are viable. However, when euthanasia is illegal, it becomes hard to harvest the organs since some terminal conditions make the organs unhealthy and render them useless. If the whole country embraces euthanasia, many patients on the organ donation waiting list will benefit from the organs donated by the patients opting for the mercy killing.
Critics of Euthanasia
Critics of euthanasia oppose the practice on the basis that it goes against the ethics of the doctors. According to them, the practice goes against the ethics of the doctors which should be to preserve life and not take the life. The critics point out that assisting the patient to die amounts to breaking the ethics of the practice. However, it is imperative to note that the decision to undergo euthanasia depends on the patient. It is illogical for the physician to keep the patient in pain yet the condition is terminal. As much as the critics term the practice unethical, it is the duty of the doctor to relieve the patient off his or her suffering with the best practice possible. It is also the responsibility of the physician to respect the will of the patient and advise the patient appropriately.
Secondly, the critics make reference to the Hippocratic Oath which guides the medical practitioners (Murdick 43). The oath prevents the medics from undertaking any actions that may harm the patient at any time. More so, the pledge calls on the doctors to uphold work ethics at all times. The critics state that killing the patient goes against the oath which the medics observe. However, euthanasia does not harm the patient. As a matter of fact, the practice ends the suffering of the patient by giving him/her a painless death. Therefore, euthanasia contributes to end-of-life care administered to the patients by the physicians. Allowing the patient to endure a painful and lengthy end shows that the doctor does not consider the safety and suffering of the patient.
Prolonged suffering of patients with terminal conditions not only stresses the patients but the family as well. The family lives in a state of psychological torture as they wait for the patient to die. During the time, the family undergoes a lot of stress and financial constraints. It is important for the critics to consider the mental torture of the family and consider supporting the legalization of euthanasia. As stated above, euthanasia has the potential to benefit more people through organ donation, elimination of the suffering for the patient and vacation of the medical machines for use by other patients. Euthanasia is an informed personal decision aimed at giving the patient a painless death instead of a prolonged suffering and painful death. The critics need to consider the overall benefits of euthanasia and support the motion to have all the states support the practice.
Conclusion
Seven states in America practice euthanasia in a legal framework. The decision to allow the practice came from the countless benefits associated with the practice. As noted earlier, euthanasia allows terminal patients to have a painless death that ends their pain and suffering. Euthanasia not only helps the patient but also gives closure to the family. A family with a patient suffering from a terminal condition ensures a high amount of stress associated with spending time with the sick patient as well as the financial implication of maintaining the patient in the hospital. In the long run, the patient dies leaving the family with huge bills to settle yet the family did not see the benefits of the laws. Therefore, euthanasia benefits the patient as well as the family by giving closure to the psychological stress of seeing their kin suffering. Lastly, euthanasia benefits the whole community as a whole. When the patient opts for mercy killing, the life supporting machines become available for other patients who are suffering from other medical conditions. Also, the physicians are in a position to harvest the organs of the patient and use them on other patients. Such scenarios indicate the benefits of euthanasia to the individual, the family, and the community. Therefore, the legalization of euthanasia in the fifty states will ensure the whole country benefits. Besides, it will create a platform for the creation of strict laws guiding the practice to limit any chances of misuse.
Works cited
Almagor, Raphael. Euthanasia in the Netherlands : the policy and practice of mercy killing. Dordrecht Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004. Print.
Beville, Kieran. Dying to kill : a Christian perspective on euthanasia and assisted suicide. Cambridge, Ohio: Christian Publishing House, 2014. Print.
Biggs, Hazel. Euthanasia, death with dignity, and the law. Oxford England Portland, Or: Hart Publ, 2001. Print.
Cruz, Peter. Comparative healthcare law. London: Cavendish Pub, 2001. Print.
Jackson, Emily. Medical law : text, cases, and materials. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2016. Print.
Kemp, Alan R. Death, dying, and bereavement in a changing world. London: Routledge, 2016. Print.
Murdick, William. A student guide to college composition. Fremont, Calif: Jain Pub. Co, 2011. Print.
Otlowski, Margaret. Voluntary euthanasia and the common law. Oxford New York: Clarendon Press, 1997. Print.
Thomasma, David C. Asking to die : inside the Dutch debate about euthanasia. Dordrecht Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2008. Print.
