Last month, Diane Pretty was refused the moral right to select the circumstances of her death. She suffers from motor neuron disorder and is experiencing the disintegration of her body. She faces a death that she knows will lead to indignity and suffering. And she cannot physically kill herself (euthanasia). The court rejected her request that her husband is allowed to help her. This decision may be in line with the legal precedent. But it is morally wrong. It is the reason why we need a change in the law.
- People on both sides of the euthanasia issue are debate care about suffering and want to prevent suffering.
- The discussion is NOT over whether a person should be allowed to end his or her own life.
- The argument is whether it should be legal for someone else to be interested in ending a person’s life.
This issue is controversial. There are threats to public protection when people end their lives by choice. This is a matter of social justice – protecting vulnerable people from pressure and violence.
What Is Euthanasia?
Euthanasia is the act of a doctor or other third party who ends a patient’s life. They do this in response to severe, permanent, and untreatable pain and suffering. People often refer it to as assisted suicide, physician-assisted death, mercy killing, etc. However, there are differences between assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.
Assisted suicide intentionally provides the means for another to commit suicide. For example, to give prescription medication to somebody who thinks they want to use it for suicidal purposes.
Euthanasia requires a doctor, such as a psychiatrist. For, e.g., a doctor will inject drugs to induce a coma and then stop the heart.
Is Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Legal?
Voluntary Euthanasia in most parts of the world is not legal. The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Colombia are the only countries to approve it. Involuntary Euthanasia is not legal at all.
Physician-assisted suicide is currently legal in many states in the United States. These include Oregon, Vermont, California, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, etc.
Physician-assisted suicide is performed only when a patient has a terminal illness. And he suffers little or no relief. Of such situations, a patient may want to control when and how they die. A key part of Doctor-Assisted Suicide is how suicide is enacted. The patient must be the one who should take the medicine. It is illegal for a friend, family member, or someone else to prescribe the medication. To do so crosses the legal line into the concept of Euthanasia. Whether or not medical-assisted suicide is ethically viable is the subject of contentious debate.
The Pros and Cons Of Legalization Of Euthanasia
Many accept that allowing an ill person to pass away on their own will is morally correct. Still, some people reject the practice on religious, legal, and ethical grounds. They argue that we must allow nature to take its course.
Here Are Some Of The Main Reasons For and Against The Legalization Of Euthanasia:
Pros:
- The End of Suffering
In 1996, Supreme Court case on assisted suicide, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claimed that the right of a mentally stable person facing a terminal disease to choose a prompt and dignified death, rather than suffering excruciating pain in their final days, can be seen as implicit in the principle of ordered liberation.
Allowing people to relieve their misery is not just morally valid. It is also necessary to maintain the right to personal and bodily autonomy. A ban on medical assistance to suicide substantially interferes with this interest in liberty.
- Death with Dignity
People in the late illness stage often end up dependent on nurses and family for simple tasks. These include eating, bathing, and going to the bathroom, degrading.
In 2008, a woman with terminal multiple sclerosis had left her unable to take care of herself. She told The Daily Telegraph that such a life was “torture.”
Allowing dying patients to choose how they die makes it easier for them to control their lives. And how their loved ones remember them.
- Eliminating fear of the financial burden
According to the New Zealand Life Information website, a study in the U.S. state of Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, showed that 66% of euthanasia requests included people who did not wish to be financially burdened.
Inadequate funding for palliative treatment contributes to the despair felt by those who:
- Reach old age
- Suffer from frustrating physical disabilities
- Suffer from chronic conditions
However, it adds that the opponents of Euthanasia claim that providing adequate treatment:
- Could improve the quality of life
- Eliminate the need for Euthanasia.
Cons:
1. Corruption
Many believe that legalizing Euthanasia would place much power in the hands of doctors. Many of them would abuse their role.
Rita Marker is Executive Director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia. She says laws against Euthanasia and Assisted suicide are to avoid violence. And protect patients from unscrupulous doctors. They are not, and have never been, meant to make anyone suffer.
Euthanasia and Assisted suicide are not a matter of the right to die. They’re for the right to kill.
2. The Slippery slope
Opponents also contend that normalizing Euthanasia will be a slippery philosophic path. It can legalize murder.
Edmund Pelligrino, is emeritus professor of medical ethics at Georgetown University. He argues that in a society obsessed with healthcare prices and the principle of utility, the risks of slippery slopes are far from fantasy.
He continues is the end of life is a benefit? Then should Euthanasia be limited to those who can give consent? Why do we need to ask for consent?
3. Religious Concern
Many religious people, particularly Catholics, believe that life is the greatest blessing. And that taking away it is usurping power that belongs to God only. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the United States rejects Euthanasia. It is because life is a gift over which we have stewardship, but not absolute dominion.
The Catholic tradition clearly and firmly affirms that, as the responsible steward of life, one must never, by action or omission, directly aim to cause one’s death or the death of an innocent person.
The Bottom Line
In conclusion, the only human choice is to encourage people suffering from opting to end their suffering. Also, the contradictions of the laws and how they are enforced have contributed to uncertainty. This confusion leaves the doctors, their patients, and their loved ones unprotected.
If we do not discuss these issues openly and head-on, there would be continuing uncertainty. There will also be unregulated use of Euthanasia in fear of punishment.
The medical profession’s goal should be to save lives. But this should not be at the cost of compassion and the right of the person to choose to end their life and die with dignity.
