Euthanasia refers to the process of painlessly terminating the life of an individual who is either terminally ill or has an incurable disease (Battin, Rhodes " Silvers, 2015). It is also known as the mercy killing. Throughout history, the topic of euthanasia has been controversial eliciting mixed responses from different individuals. Christians argue that euthanasia is against the Ten Commandments where people are obligated not to kill. On the other hand, liberals and proponents of euthanasia posit that it is necessary to alleviate the suffering of people and allow them to die with dignity (Muson " Perry, 2014). Mercy killing occurs in two forms: active and passive. Active euthanasia entails the termination of an individual’s life to minimize their suffering and agony caused by some illness. Passive euthanasia involves the patient’s refusal to take medication aimed at prolonging his/her life (Battin, Rhodes " Silvers, 2015). Euthanasia is either voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is done upon the request of the dying individuals whereas involuntary euthanasia is done against the wishes of the sick person (Nunes " Rego, 2016). The active voluntary mercy killing is sometimes referred to as physician-assisted suicide. The bulk of this paper concerns itself with showing why the federal government needs to legalize euthanasia in the USA. The essay examines the arguments put forth by both the proponents and opponents of euthanasia by reviewing pertinent data obtained from the relevant literature.
Plato is the first person who argued that euthanasia was morally permissible. The Stoics emphasized further Plato’s arguments. The Euthanasia Society of America came into existence in 1938, and it agitated for the legalization of mercy killing (Battin, Rhodes " Silvers, 2015). In most of the states in the US, euthanasia is illegal. Mercy killing is licit only in Oregon, Hawaii, California, Colorado, and Washington. Oregon was the first state to make euthanasia legal in the US in 1997 (Muson " Perry, 2014). The other states followed after that. The first nation to decriminalize euthanasia was the Netherlands in 2001, which was followed by Belgium in 2002. The Korean Supreme court in 2009 recognized the right of an individual to die with dignity (Muson " Perry, 2014). However, despite this, opponents of the controversial law have engaged continuously in actions aimed at overturning the law. Proponents of euthanasia usually suggest that the decision for termination of life should be left to an individual, as it is him/her who is experiences the suffering. The opponents of euthanasia usually use the counterargument that legalizing euthanasia will make it prone to misuse by individuals with ulterior motives. The opponents suggest that legalizing euthanasia will set precedence for the adoption of involuntary active euthanasia (Nunes " Rego, 2016). They further argue that it is almost impossible distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary acts of euthanasia. Because of the indistinct nature of murder and involuntary euthanasia, this will lead to legal problems making it difficult to bring to justice offenders who murder because their acts may pass out as involuntary euthanasia. The opponents of euthanasia also argue that euthanasia is not necessary if there is sufficient palliative care.
The US government needs to legalize euthanasia since unlike often averred it does not shorten life. The opponents of Euthanasia often cite the irreversible nature of the process as its limitation arguing that it is improbable to know whether an individual’s miraculous recovery was only around the corner. However, data analysis results prove otherwise. In Nations where Euthanasia is legal, it is often restricted to the terminal ill. The terminal ill individuals are usually in their last phase of life awaiting death. Terminal illnesses are characterized with unbearable agony and pain. A study conducted in the Netherlands in 1991 showed that in approximately 80 % of the cases euthanasia shortened the lives of individuals by a maximum of one week and in most cases a few hours (Baker " Horder, 2013). Herein we observe that the patients would also have died even if they had not been euthanized. Thus, euthanasia was only done to relieve the patients from extreme agony and pain. The process did not aim at shortening lives.
The US has one of the highest health care costs in the world. A vast majority of the state resources are spent in treating terminally ill individuals. The US government spends seventy percent of its health budget treating the older adults (Baker " Horder, 2013). Eighty percent of these individuals are usually on their last month of life. The costs typically cater for intensive, aggressive and life-sustaining health care. Although these patients dying may have personal values to their loved ones, when looked from an economic perspective the benefits offset the costs. Again, with the healthcare costs continually increasing, the only sure way of reducing these costs without compromising on the overall quality of healthcare is legalizing euthanasia. Still, the USA has a significant aging population and having earlier showed that the US healthcare expenditure it is apparent that these costs are set to increase. The result will be an extra burden on the taxpayers with no meaningful progress in the healthcare standards. Again, in recent years there has been an increase in the prevalence of lifestyle diseases in the USA. Some of these diseases are incurable when they reach a particular phase and only subject the patient to additional pain with no hope of relief. For instance cancer, the chemotherapy treatment regimes do not cure the disease but extend the life of the patient. Cancer treatment is an expensive venture that has deprived most families of their savings (Muson " Perry, 2014). Hence legalizing euthanasia is one of the mechanisms by which the state and families can save funds that would have otherwise been used in the treatment of incurable diseases.
Unlike often posited by the opponents of euthanasia, it is possible to institute legal measures and frameworks that guide its practice. Legalizing euthanasia will not make dying easy for patients who think they are experiencing unbearable pain. In the Netherlands, approximate three thousand people make euthanasia requests. However, this accounts for about 2 % of all the total number of deaths. Herein we note that applying for euthanasia does not guarantee that the approval of the request. Legalized euthanasia in the Netherlands is more bureaucratic and complicated. The applicant needs to be assessed by two independent doctors before the giving of approval. It is evident this removes the room for medical errors. About 60 % of the patients who apply for euthanasia are usually denied (Baker " Horder, 2013). It is important to note also that the Netherland government considers euthanasia a criminal act unless administered by a qualified doctor and that it follows the predefined protocols.
Legalizing euthanasia does not violate the medical Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath is an ancient code that guides doctors and health practitioners in their practice, instructing them not to do any harm. However, opponents of euthanasia wrongly interpret this clause to refer to aided killing as harm, when this is not the case. In the case where death is preferable compared to keeping someone alive, then continuing to hold such a person alive is harming him/her (Nunes " Rego, 2016). Thus, we may be subjecting patients to extreme suffering and mental anguish by allowing them to live instead of dying. Hence, a doctor who does not allow euthanasia in such cases does not alleviate the plight of the patient but instead subjects the patient to more pain.
Ironically, Legalizing euthanasia will save lives. Although euthanasia is illegal in some states, doctors in such states practice it. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that about 0.5 % of mercy killing procedures were carried out without the explicit permission of the patient in the Netherlands (Baker " Horder, 2013). In 1991, before the country had legalized euthanasia, the number stood at 0.8 %. Herein we observe that by the Netherlands state legalizing euthanasia it reduced the number of unwanted deaths by half. A study conducted in the UK in 2012 showed that over 50,000 patients in Britain are killed annually without prior information regarding the halting of their life-sustaining measures will (Baker " Horder, 2013).
Euthanasia does not target the vulnerable population as often thought. Opponents of legalizing euthanasia often argue that legalizing euthanasia will lead to the disproportional targeting of vulnerable people such as the old, sickly and the ethnic minorities. However, a study conducted in Oregon revealed that this is not the case. A majority of the Oregon residents who died between 1998 and 2008 through euthanasia were young college graduates (Nunes " Rego, 2016). Additionally, most of them were likely to be of Asian origin, divorced and diagnosed with some terminal disease such as cancer. Herein we infer that Euthanasia does not target the minority populations as often posited. In 2007, a study by the journal of medical ethics showed that the vulnerable people were as likely as other populations to be euthanized, refuting the previous arguments that legalizing euthanasia would target the vulnerable groups (Baker " Horder, 2013).
People have the right to end their life whenever they need it. Legalizing euthanasia will accord people with the power to control their lives without the unnecessary restraints by the government. Everyone has the right to decide on their life, when and how they will die. Nobody should interfere with an individual’s decision regarding his/her life. Besides someone ending his/her own life does not expose the large society to any risk. Death is a private matter. For as long as euthanasia promotes the best interest of the parties concerned and there is no violation of any human right, it should be made legal. Additionally legalizing euthanasia will support and uphold the autonomous status of individuals. Everyone should be left to decide what he/she wants for his/her life.
Euthanasia is not immoral. An action is considered unethical if it violates the societal norms and practices. The opponents of euthanasia argue that it is immoral because of the sacred nature of life that requires it to be preserved. However, the preservation of life is highly dependent on an individual’s need and not that of the health practitioners. Murder is immoral because it infringes on the person’s right to choose whether to live or not. Murder traces it immorality by removing the element of choice from individuals. However, when a person decides for himself when and how to die, that is not immoral. Therefore legalizing euthanasia will accord an individual with the power to make essential health decisions concerning themselves.
As we have shown above, there exist strong arguments from both parties concerning the legalization of euthanasia. However, it is clear that the opponents of the legalization of euthanasia do not base their arguments on statistics but instead on what is widely accepted by the society. With increased liberalization, many states will legalize euthanasia. Nevertheless, it is apparent that there exists a strong case for the legalization of euthanasia. Countries and families every year waste many resources on sickly individuals who have no hope of relief. The weak individuals are an extra burden to the taxpayers and the nation because they do not have any economic benefit to the society. Again, we also showed that contrary to widespread opinion euthanasia saves lives. There is still illegal euthanasia undergoing in the states where it is not licit. However, legalizing mercy killing will lead to the establishment of structures and frameworks that prevent unwanted deaths. We also showed that it is possible for states to regulate mercy killing practice. Netherlands has controlled mercy killing by establishing highly bureaucratical processes that ensure only those individuals legitimately I need of mercy killing are granted permission. We have also shown that legalizing euthanasia shows the ability of states to recognize the autonomous status of people. That is anyone has the liberty to make a personal decision, which he/she deems fit.
References
Baker, D.J., " Horder, J. (2013). The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law: The Legacy of
Glanville Williams. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
Battin, M. P., Rhodes, R., " Silvers, A. (2015). Physician-assisted suicide: expanding the debate. Routledge
Muson, C., " Perry, J. K. (2014). Negotiating a good death: Euthanasia in the Netherlands. Routledge.
Nunes, R., "Rego, G. (2016). Euthanasia: A challenge to medical ethics. Journal of Clinical Research in Bioethics.doi: 10.4172/2155-9627.1000282
