The Debate on Euthanasia
The word “euthanasia” is originally a Greek word, which means “a good death”. It is also commonly described as “mercy killing”. This is one issue that has sparked debate regarding its validity and ethical reasoning in the world of medical health care practice. It has cut debates ranging across many aspects of ideologies, including, from a legal point of view, human rights, religious, health, economic as well as spiritual and cultural aspects of a society. The law with regard to euthanasia is different in many parts of the world. However, countries that made euthanasia legal prescribed stringent conditions that needs to be met before assisted-suicide can be carried out. Netherlands was the first country in 2002 to legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The pre-conditions were, (i) the patient must be suffering from an unbearable pain, (ii) the illness must be incurable in nature, and (iii) the demand for death must be made by the person in “full consciousness”. Whether or not it should be made legal, or is already legal in several countries, its legality is a much debated and opinionated fact. Euthanasia is often interpreted with the “right to suicide” because assisted suicide is illegal and is within the realms of homicide.
Supporters' Arguments
Those who are in support of euthanasia argue, inter alia, that patients who are suffering from an incurable disease or mental illness should be given the liberty to die with dignity. Physicians should be allowed to honour the request of a patient who wants to bring an end to his life, provided there is “unbearable and hopeless suffering” with no hope of improvement. [1]
Euthanasia also gives a right to life to patients who are in dire need of organ transplantation.
Moreover, the right to die should be the choice of the person in issue. Many suffering from terminal illness that is unbearable would prefer ending their life than being a burden to family, in terms of medical costs, time and emotional trauma.[2]
Opposing Arguments
There is no justification of asking someone to live forcefully when the person himself doesn’t want to kept alive unnecessarily against his own choice. This argument is however countered[3]
on the point that such people should not be made to feel that they are a burden. Rather, it is a privilege to care for one’s loved one for as long as they are alive.
Physicians are morally and ethically responsible to heal patients when they are suffering from an illness. However, in situations when death is imminent and the pain is no longer bearable, then the physician’s role should shift from healing to relieving the suffering by abiding by the patient’s wishes.[4]
This argument is rebutted on the point of serious societal risk. When a physician is asked to assist in ending a life, it contradicts with their ethical values. They are ethically prohibited to do so.[5]
The right of asking for honour killing is measured against other basic rights of a human being protected by the laws of any country during his lifetime, such as the right to marriage, family, children, education, and extends to the refusal of life-saving medical treatment.[6]
However, this argument is countered by notable scholars on the grounds that such rights ectend solely to a happy living and liberty. Whether or not a doctor is to decide a person’s life, is a matter solely for God, and not humans.[7]
Professors argue that assisting death does not restrict in the theory of providing care by physicians and hospitals. It infact, promotes the autonomy of the patient by making death with dignity and without pain and suffering a realistic option, especially when it is already inevitable.
Controversies and Concerns
Many fear that legalization of euthanasia may amount to abuse of law and people might use this right in an inappropriate manner by killing a patient who doesn’t really want to die. Medical public funds could be saved and utilized by a great amount by being provided to patients who need the services more in contrast to a patient who has no hopes of living and is “forcibly” been kept alive with the use of life-saving machines and treatments. However, by virtue of the Hippocratic oath, doctors and physicians are required to keep their patients alive. There remains a “slippery slope” between euthanasia and murder, whereby legalizing the former might result in targeting the poor and deprived. Moreover, this would create incentives for the insurance companies to terminate lives and save money. Some argue that “hopeless” or “incurable” are terms that are considered obsolete in the world of medicine and healthcare.
Religion and ethics are some of the biggest cons when it comes to legalizing euthanasia. Almost all religions prohibit this practice since birth and death are matters that are only decided by the Divine power, and so human intervention is considered a sin. However, no religion allows self-harm and making one’s own life since all religions promotes happy and healthy living. Hence, if a person who is literally on his death bed and has zero to no chance of survival, then he should be allowed to ask to end his life and seek to “return” to the Divine.
Euthanasia is a self-made choice and not to be forced upon by a third person, which is one of the main reason why it should be legalized. With stringent conditions, the legal test to be applied can be made strict so as to allow euthanasia in extremely limited circumstances. This requires proper drafting of the law, keeping in mind the sentiments of the society, and striking the right balance between a person’s willful choice and social stigma.
Unbearable pain, loss of control, miserable life-style, dependence, and uncertainty, are amongst the few negative consequences of living life in difficult conditions before death and no person deserves this. Some believe in the concept of miracle, but miracle at the expense of hardships and abuse is best to be avoided. With some diseases, the pain and suffering worsens with time, it would be very wrong to live the last few days of a person’s life with so much hardships. Giving a person the right over his life and over his death is vitally important, especially if the person is in full consciousness and is in the mental ability to make a willfully informed decision. Not only does it ease the burden of the doctors and public funds, it also eases the burden of the family who are in equal hardship, if not more to the patient. It is difficult to allow someone to pass on, yet it is peaceful knowing that the deceased passed on in a peaceful and humane way.
Works Cited
Henk Blanken, “My death is not my own” , 10 August 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/10/my-death-is-not-my-own-the-limits-of-legal-euthanasia
Michael Irwin, “Euthanasia: The Right to Die should Be a Matter of Personal Choice,” Mirror, 19 August 2013
Richard Doerflinger, “Q"A with the Scholars: Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” Lozier Institute, 20 January 2017
Marcia Angell, “May Doctors Help you to Die?” NY Review of Books, 11 October 2012
American Medical Association, Code of Medical Ethics, June 2016
ACLU Amicus Bried, Vacco v Quill, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 10 December 1996
Tom Coburn, Consideration of House Resolution 2260, Pain Relief Promotion Act 1999, 27 October 1999
[1]
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/10/my-death-is-not-my-own-the-limits-of-legal-euthanasia
[2]
Michael Irwin, “Euthanasia: The Right to Die should Be a Matter of Personal Choice,” Mirror, 19 August 2013
[3]
Richard Doerflinger, “Q"A with the Scholars: Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” Lozier Institute, 20 January 2017
[4]
Marcia Angell, “May Doctors Help you to Die?” NY Review of Books, 11 October 2012
[5]
American Medical Association, Code of Medical Ethics, June 2016
[6]
ACLU Amicus Bried, Vacco v Quill, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 10 December 1996
[7]
Tom Coburn, Consideration of House Resolution 2260, Pain Relief Promotion Act 1999, 27 October 1999
