The topic of euthanasia is one of the burning issues of debate all over the world for a long time with the advocates for and against the act of mercy killing coming up with their explanatory views and perspectives regarding the matter. It is beyond doubt that the ethical dilemma encompassing the act of euthanasia would make one ponder about the correctness of ending a life. However, to shed more light on the matter, one should delve deep into the concept of voluntary euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia as well as involuntary euthanasia so that the intricacies of mercy killing are understood. Also, it has to be reckoned that mercy killing is not accepted in the human society uniformly with many countries and communities baring the practice. (Medical News Today 2016, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, para. 4) However, the advocates in favor of the act of mercy killing focus on the sphere of humanitarianism to give impetus to their claim and perspective.
Voluntary euthanasia is the kind of euthanasia that gets conducted with due consent from the person who wants to end his or her life on free will. Although euthanasia of this kind was illegal in the human society, in the year 2009, it has come to get legal status in the countries of Luxembourg, Belgium, Switzerland, The Netherlands, as well as the states of Washington and Oregon in the United States of America. However, universal acceptance of voluntary euthanasia will be achieved if the nation states realize the importance of letting someone end his or her own life under such testing circumstances that have the capacity to thwart normal life or actions. (MedicineNet n.d., Definition of Euthanasia, para. 3) In The Netherlands, the standard defense from the physicians who abide by the guidelines is accepted by the Dutch law. The law focuses on the non-relievable nature of the ailment or suffering of the patient. However, the request by the patient for conducting voluntary euthanasia should be explicit in nature and has to be made repeatedly. Moreover, the doctors can only opt for the action if there is no prospect of improvement whatsoever for the concerned person in context. (Stingl 2010)
On the other hand, non-voluntary euthanasia gets conducted when the explicit consent of the person in context is not available. In such a situation, the person who is concerned can be in a persistent vegetative state. This kind of euthanasia is also applicable in cases dealing with young children. Thus, the person should be in a condition where he or she is unable to take a decision on his or her own or even make the personal wish known to others. (Carmi 2012) As such, a person in coma can also be killed on grounds of mercy on the decision of someone else as the person himself or herself would not be able to take or communicate the decision to the doctors. The scenario is also applicable in the case of a senile person. The person will also be mentally retarded to an extreme extent to be under the contextual consideration. The person will also have had a very severe brain damage in case of being considered for non-voluntary euthanasia. Moreover, for making non-voluntary euthanasia applicable, it can be so that the person is so much mentally disturbed that he or she has to be protected from his or her own self. In most of the cases, the closest relative of the person concerned has the onus of taking the decision in this regard. The legal documents are to be signed declaring the decision of the relative regarding the act of non-voluntary euthanasia. (Pappas 2012) So, non-voluntary euthanasia should be judged from an ethical perspective keeping in mind the humanitarian side of not letting someone suffer more when there is no way to provide any respite to the concerned person.
Now, the other type is known as involuntary euthanasia. In this case, the euthanasia goes on to be performed on an individual who is in a position to provide informed consent about the matter, but does not. This is due to the fact that the person either does not want to end his or her life, or simply because the person is not asked. (Jackson & Keown 2012) It should be noted in this regard that involuntary euthanasia is widely opposed and is even considered to be a criminal act in all legal jurisdictions. However, it would only be a generalization if one outright opines that involuntary euthanasia is not ethical in nature. In case a soldier is terminally injured on the battlefield with the army physician knowing that he cannot be treated and would eventually die after sometime being in immense pain, the physician can opt to kill the injured soldier even though the soldier wants to live. So, it will be wrong to generalize the matter of euthanasia sans taking into account the context of the individual in concern.
In such complicated scenarios, legislation regarding euthanasia is one of the burning issues of debate all across the world. Most of the nation states of the globe have come to refrain from letting people opt for euthanasia. Moreover, the perspectives of various religions on the matter of euthanasia further complicate the understanding and influence the public opinion. Majority of Christians are against euthanasia. The arguments provided by the religion include the belief that human life is endowed by the grace of God, and individuals are created as the image of the Almighty. The Christians are of the perspective that human lives have an intrinsic dignity as well as value- something that is identical for all humans. While a patient is in a persistent vegetative state, he or she still remains to be a living human entity, thereby retaining the intrinsic value like any other person in the society. (Cundiff 2012) It is believed that the entire process of dying is spiritually important, and it should not be disturbed in any way. Thus, Christianity thinks that euthanasia interferes with the spiritual connection between the dying person and the almighty.
On the other hand, if one takes into consideration the view of Islam regarding euthanasia, it will become clear that the Islamic people too are against euthanasia. The Muslims are of the belief that all human life is very holy as it is a blessing of Allah. Suicide and euthanasia are not included among the number of reasons allowed for taking life in the Islamic religion. In fact, a huge number of Muslims believe that DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders are representative of a soft form of euthanasia and hence are strictly forbidden in their religion. Islam does not allow killing or even be complicit in the killing of anyone, if not for the cause of justice. Keeping this in mind, one can take into perspective the stand of IMANA or Islamic Medical Association of America that believes that turning off the life support for the people taken to be in a persistent vegetative state of health is permitted as per the codes of the religion. The organization is of the view that all mechanical life supports provided in such a scenario are temporary in nature. Thus, while turning of a life support is permitted, the Islamic people do not allow the hastening of demise by the use of certain pain-killing drug as they are equated with the act of euthanasia. (Pereira 2011)
The entire matter has to be viewed from the humanitarian perspective. Euthanasia is not just about killing any person. Instead of being arbitrary in nature, euthanasia is something that provides a proper way for relieving the sufferings and pain of any individual who is bound to die in course of time but facing all the impediments of his or her health issues that cannot be relieved in any other manner. (Basri 2012) Any legal perspective or even social perspective regarding euthanasia has to take in account the immense amount of pain or suffering that the patients are subjected to. Since it is not possible to relive their problems in any way even in this modern era of medical science and advancement, it is surely of no logic or propriety to let the ailing persons suffer, with the law or the society being apathetic toward the sufferings of such a person. There must be active debate all across the society on this matter in context so as to make way for a constructive change in the laws of the countries or states. (Vignette 2013) First of all, the debates and introspective discussions or considerations will pave the way for better understanding of the problem and make people empathize with the problems and inevitability of the ailing people. Euthanasia should be seen from the perspective of humanism and not anything else.
Euthanasia is a matter of medical ethics as well as the basic ethical essence of human nature that should play a major role in shaping the lives, decisions and perspectives of the people of the society. The innate institutionalized bias of the human society cannot be let to thwart the path of emancipation from pain and suffering for the ailing patients. The people who are against euthanasia have to endeavor to understand that the matter has immense subjectivity associated with it. So, it will not be right to remain objective while judging euthanasia. Instead of being judgmental about euthanasia, one should think of how it has the potential to free terminally ill people of the impending suffering, thereby helping them rather than anything else.
Bibliography
Basri, Zakyah 2012, Euthanasia: Which "M" is it? Mercy or Murder, AuthorHouse,
Bloomington.
Carmi, A. (ed.) 2012, Euthanasia, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Cundiff, David 2012, Euthanasia is Not the Answer: A Hospice Physician’s View,
Springer, New York.
Jackson, Emily & Keown, John 2012, Debating Euthanasia, Hart Publishing, Oregon.
Medical News Today 2016, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Medical News Today,
viewed on 28 Aug. 2016, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951.php
MedicineNet n.d., Definition of Euthanasia, MedicineNet, viewed on 28 Aug. 2016,
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7365
Pereira, J. 2011, ‘Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and
controls’, Current Oncology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 38-45.
Pappas, Demetra M. 2012, The Euthanasia, Greenwood, Denver.
Stingl, Michael (ed.) 2010, The Price of Compassion: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,
Broadview Press, New York.
Vignette, Case 2013, ‘Physician-Assisted Suicide’, The New England Journal of
Medicine, pp. 1450-1452.
