Introduction
The term “euthanasia” has been dubbed as a form of “mercy killing”, which can be accomplished by doing a particular act which is unlawful or by some act of omission that is considered as lawful. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) had become the most talked about controversial issues around the world. Euthanasia is referred to as the administration of drugs with the explicit intention of terminating the life of the patient at his or her explicit request (Siu, 2010, p. 169). On the other hand, the physician-assisted suicide or “PAS” is recognized as the act of prescribing or supplying of drugs to a patient by a doctor, with the explicit intention of allowing the patient to end his or her life through drug overdose (Siu, 2010, p. 169).
A doctor is not punished for intentionally neglecting to administer some a remedy that can prolong the life of his or her patient by can be charged of medical malpractice or incompetence. Euthanasia is a historical and a contemporary problem in the field of medicine, law, religion and ethics (Banovic & Turanjanin, 2014). It involves multifaceted and interrelated concepts that have been the subject of legal inquiry in countries all over the world. Some of the legislators in other countries attempt to search for a practical solution that will solve the issue on euthanasia.
However, there is a thin line that will separate the admissibility and inadequacy of mercy killing by depriving a person of his or her life (Banovic & Turanjanin, 2014). The legalization of euthanasia and its complete prohibition has been the subject of debate. At present, there are three ways of regulating the act of mercy killing. The first concept is that euthanasia is considered as ordinary murder. The second view is that euthanasia is privileged murder. Finally, the third concept has recognized the validity of euthanasia and its decriminalization upon the fulfilment of the prescribed conditions under the law (Banovic & Turanjanin, 2014).
Thesis Statement: Prohibit the administration of euthanasia to terminally-ill patients who have endured prolonged pain and suffering is to be considered as an act of torture that violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution against cruel and unusual punishment.
Arguments and Discussion
Denying euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) is equivalent to an act of discrimination against people with chronic illness. Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands whether a person’s illness is physical or psychological, since the state does not allow its terminally ill citizens to be compelled to suffer longer than they should (Pereira, 2011). Euthanasia is justified by appealing to the duty of citizens to promote the right of the people enshrined in Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment.
However, some of the anti-euthanasia advocates believe that the medical practitioners had resorted to euthanasia and are compelled to commit technical “murder” to ease the pain of their patients as part of their responsibility. They consider euthanasia as an inhumane action on the part of physicians. Thus, in the case of a hopeless cancer victim, he or she remains to be at the mercy of the doctor since the laws which regulate euthanasia are flexible and can be the subject of fraud or abuse.
In the U.S., voluntary euthanasia should be implemented because it promotes the right of a person to autonomy and to decide to best decision for himself. It is unfortunate to see some people who had been forced to send their families away as these individual killed themselves in order protect their families from being subjected to prosecution for assisting suicide (Marszalek, 2013, p.29). In fact, some patients had become desperate that the resort to hanging, shooting, poisoning, or had jumped off buildings and train lines in order to end their pain after having been deprived of mercy killing or PAS.
Hence, it is about time the American legislators review the laws on euthanasia to promote the rights of competent and terminally ill individuals who deserve the safe regime of dignified death (Marszalek, 2013, p.29). However, there must also be a strict checks and balances on the alternatives given to terminally ill patients to avoid abuse of power. There are also some pro-euthanasia advocates who support the idea that the “merciful release” should be left to the discretion of a government-appointed board that is composed of a three-man team including two doctors and one lawyer, who shall vote whether euthanasia should be allowed (Banovic & Turanjanin, 2014). In fact, some legal luminaries who support the idea, but argued that there should be safeguards before euthanasia should be allowed.
The anti-euthanasia supporters who belong to religious sectors of society believe that each person must respect the sacredness of life. Hence, no one has the power to disregard the right to life of every person. This raises the issue on whether the act of euthanasia is an indecent act of paganism that results to indecent compassion to the sacredness of life that only God, the giver of life can take.
In a case where a patient suffers from a terminal disease such as cancer, who is already bedridden in a hospital and being kept alive by a life-saving device and medical skills and expert of physicians will need to consider mercy killing as an option.
There are some Islamic countries in the world that prohibits euthanasia, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, where euthanasia may be equated to the crime of murder that carries a punishment. The sentences may vary in every country where there are some which are lenient to the death penalty. However, there are also some countries which regard euthanasia as a legally punishable act.
In the U.S., some of the pro-euthanasia advocates argue that the Eighth Amendment of the American Constitution prohibits the imposition of any cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, to prohibit the administration of euthanasia to terminally-ill patients who have endured prolonged pain and suffering is to be considered as an act of torture that violates the Eighth Amendment.
In a country such as the Netherlands, euthanasia has been permitted by law upon compliance with mandatory requirements. The first requirement is that the request for euthanasia must originate from the patient, where his or her consent to administer mercy killing has been freely and voluntarily given (Banovic & Turanjanin, 2014, p.1319). The second requirement is that the patient has been suffering from intolerable pain for a long period of time and the pain cannot be facilitated. The third requirement is that the patient is fully aware of his or her medical condition and perspectives (Banovic & Turanjanin, 2014, p.1319). The fourth requirement is that euthanasia is last sanctuary for patient since there are no other alternatives or options available to him or her. The fifth requirement is that the doctor or physician who has decided to perform euthanasia on the patient has consulted a colleague who is also an expert in the medical field, after complete examination of the patient and affirms that all conditions are met for euthanasia or assisted suicide. The sixth requirement is that euthanasia or assisted suicide has been performed with the necessary care that has been considered as legally permissible under the law (Banovic & Turanjanin, 2014, p.1319).
In the U.S., the right of a person against cruel, degrading, inhuman and unusual punishment has been enshrined in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. Thus, allowing the prolonged suffering of a patient who has been diagnosed to be terminally ill and inflicted with an incurable disease should be allowed euthanasia to end the patient’s suffering. The patient must not be allowed to experience the lingering pain and suffering by depriving the doctors to administer euthanasia, despite the consent of the patient. The perception on mercy killing or assisted suicide will change if the American government shall by adapt the mandatory requirements that are imposed by the government of Netherlands.
In some lenient countries around the world, mercy killing is considered as a privilege and recognizes euthanasia as an act that is less serious than the crime of murder. In this research study, the position of some U.S. legislators who strictly prohibited euthanasia, and those that support the privilege of assisted suicide out of compassion to the patients prolonged suffering and regard it as a lawful medical procedure (Banovic & Turanjanin, 2014, p.1321). However, in some Islamic countries such as Iran, Turkey and part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, euthanasia or mercy killing is regarded as an ordinary crime of murder that is to be punished by serious criminal sanctions.
However, the modern view on euthanasia of Western European countries known as the “Benelux countries”, composed of Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg, should also be recognized. These countries argued that there is no deprivation of life after the grace of the patient has been given. Euthanasia does not constitute a crime, provided that it was carried out in accordance with the clearly defined legal rules and provision on such medical procedure (Banovic & Turanjanin, 2014, p.1321).
In the U.S., there had been some proponents of the new public health movement which calls for the redefinition of the doctor-patient relationship concerning euthanasia and PAS. In the case of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, there is express stipulation that doctors are restricted to provide a prescription for lethal drugs, rather than to administer a lethal injection. The shift in the doctor-patient relationship in the final illness had given the doctors a more direct and active control to their patients, which ignited the formation of a new social movement to legalize euthanasia and PAS (Siu, 2010, p.171). Thus, the euthanasia activists in Oregon are considered to be the leaders of this new social movement who shall promote the legislative activity on euthanasia and PAS. However, there are other pro-euthanasia activists in some other U.S. states who have yet to achieve their goal of legalizing euthanasia or PAS (Siu, 2010, p.171).
Conclusion
One of the alternative ways to resolve the issue on euthanasia and PAS is to investigate into the dynamics of media coverage, public opinion, and policy formulation on the legalization of euthanasia and PAS (Siu, 2010, p.196). At the same time, the patients must also be allowed to become the self-determining agents in the health decision-making. The modern perception should be recognized as a legislative solution by the American lawmakers in the country. However, there had been some adverse events which took place, such as death tourism, wherein some of the inhabitants of one state where euthanasia is strictly prohibited, had to travel to another state which allows the administration of euthanasia for being a lawful act of physicians. In order to avoid the confusion, it is imperative that a certain level of harmonization of legislations should be reached in order to set the mandatory requirements and proper limitations after careful deliberation of legislators to allow the legalization of euthanasia.
References:
Banovic, B., & Turanjanin, V. (2014). Euthanasia: Murder or Not: A Comparative
Approach. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 43(10), 1316-1323.
Marszalek, J. (2013). Legalise euthanasia, pros say. The Gold Coast Bulletin , 29.
Pereira, J. (2011). Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and
controls. Current Oncology, 19(3). e227. Web. US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/.
Siu, W. (2010). Communities of interpretation: euthanasia and assisted suicide debate. Critical
Public Health, 20(2), 169-199.
