Introduction
Euthanasia is the gentle act of inducing death painlessly with the aim of reducing suffering of the patient . Debates for and against euthanasia have been going on since the early 1800’s, and they are still going on to date. Different countries have different takes and laws governing euthanasia . Despite the debates, euthanasia started being performed even before the debates started. It was supported by Seneca the Elder, Plato and Socrates in the ancient days. However, leaders such as Hippocrates were opposed to the idea of euthanasia even on those early days. Additionally, most Christians were also against the practice, and most still are to date .
Arguments on Euthanasia:
The four main arguments that Pro-life activists present are: (a) all deaths are not painful, (b) the use of painkillers can reduce the amount of pain being experienced, (c) the difference between passive and active euthanasia is significant, and (d) making euthanasia legal will lead to an abuse of the practice . On the other hand, Pro death activists argue that: (a) everyone has a right to choose their own fate, (b) helping a suffering patient to end their life may be better than allowing them to continue suffering, (c) the difference made between passive and active euthanasia is unreasonable, and (d) allowing euthanasia does not have to necessarily result in undesirable consequences .
There are a myriad of arguments concerning euthanasia, with different people supporting the right to life, while others support the right to die . On the right to life argument, people usually insist that everyone is entitled to the basic right of life, and no human being should be given the power to take that right away. They also argue that some patients simply want to commit suicide but they do not have the means or strength to do it painlessly, and therefore they turn to euthanasia . However, those supporting the right to die argue that one has the right to decide whether or not they want to continue living in case they are suffering from a terminal illness.
Humanists (Pro-death campaigners) consider euthanasia morally right in most of the cases. They argue that choosing euthanasia is in one’s personal freedom . Their argument is that refusing to respect one’s wishes for euthanasia is immoral, and its result could be more distress and injury to the patient. However, some Pro-life campaigners argue that, just because a patient is brain dead it does not mean that the other organs (such as the heart) are dead, and therefore euthanasia should not be allowed (British Humanist Association, A humanist discussion). These campaigners claim that euthanasia is carried out on patients whose lives are not worth living.
The Euthanasia Process:
Euthanasia is usually carried out when a medical professional determines that the chances of the patient recovering are extremely slim (Richard Hannaford. Euthanasia: An overview). A patient can draft a will stating exactly how they would want to die, especially if they begin to suffer from dementia (Barbara Kay, Euthanasia Report). However, relatives are the biggest influence on whether euthanasia should be carried out or not. When a patient’s relatives see the patient in pain, they tend to have the feeling that the best course of action is to let the patient die painlessly . The families usually support the doctor’s actions regarding euthanasia, especially in cases where the doctor is summoned by a medical council or Court of law to justify his actions.
Forms of Euthanasia:
Euthanasia can be either voluntary or involuntary . Voluntary euthanasia, or assisted suicide, is usually carried out when the sick person makes it clear that they would wish to have euthanasia carried out on them should they be in grave medical conditions that do not have the promise of recovery. Voluntary euthanasia is usually legal in some countries such as the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium (Richard Hannaford. Euthanasia: An overview). Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, is legal in all states of the U.S. Assisted suicide is permitted in Switzerland and some U.S states such as Montana, Washington, and Oregano. (The U.S deems assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia different by definition) .
On the other hand, involuntary euthanasia is one which is carried out without the patient’s consent. In this case, the patient is in a very grave condition. This kind of euthanasia is however regarded as murder in most countries . Non-voluntary euthanasia is considered illegal in all states and countries. However, the Netherlands decriminalizes it under special circumstances under the Groningen Protocol (Richard Hannaford. Euthanasia: An overview). Euthanasia can be carried out either directly, indirectly, or passively . Direct (or active) euthanasia involves the use of specific items to terminate life. These objects include lethal injections.
Passive euthanasia is one carried out whereby patients sign a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) document that gives the medical professional in charge the go-ahead to withdraw basic nourishment or treatment so as to consent to the patient’s wish to die (British Humanist Association, A humanist discussion). Passive euthanasia is also carried out in infants, especially when they are born with terminal illnesses. The family of an ailing infant can decide to let a doctor terminate the infant’s life in case continuing with treatment on the infant will only result in more pain and suffering for the child . Moreover, patients of less than 18 years of age can have their legal guardians consent to euthanasia should they (patients) be in a critical condition (such as being brain dead) that is better resolved with euthanasia. However, a Court sanction is usually necessary in this case.
Indirect euthanasia (or the double effect) is carried out through the use of pain relievers that have the effect of speeding up the dying course . However, this process is only legal if the administration of the pain relievers was not intended to bring about death. In countries like the UK where euthanasia is illegal, a doctor is legally allowed to give a patient an overdose of a pain reliever even when it has the effect of hastening death if his intension is to ease suffering . With these grounds, the doctor cannot be prosecuted for murder. However, it is important to note that the doctor should only result to these measures after they have exhausted all other options.
Countries’ support for Euthanasia:
Most European countries prohibit euthanasia even in cases where the patient himself wants to die. Therefore, the consent of the patient cannot be used as defense in a Court of law. Incase euthanasia is carried out deliberately; the person responsible for conducting it is liable for murder . However, the murder charge can be reduced to manslaughter if the basis of reduced responsibility is applied.
In Canada, the Criminal Code of Canada was amended following a recommendation by the Royal Society of Canada so as to allow ailing patients to exercise their right of euthanasia or assisted suicide (Barbara Kay, Euthanasia Report). The main basis was the fact that the elderly and terminally ill are fully aware of what euthanasia really entails, and they are not coerced into resorting to it by friends or family. The explanation also extended to the argument that just because euthanasia would be decriminalized, people would end up abusing it, or having it transform from voluntary to involuntary euthanasia (Barbara Kay, Euthanasia Report).
In the Netherlands, the law only permits a doctor to perform euthanasia if the patient has expressed his wish and consent towards it. The Dutch Supremacy Court gave its declaration in 1984 about the legality of voluntary euthanasia (Richard Hannaford, Euthanasia: An overview). The Dutch law allows the doctors to have a defense if they have followed the ten set conditions and guidelines regarding euthanasia. Moreover, the law provides that the client does not have to be terminally ill to consent to euthanasia. However, only Dutch citizens are allowed to practice euthanasia in Holland; non-citizens are eligible (Richard Hannaford, Euthanasia: An overview).
Euthanasia conflicts:
The arguments for and against euthanasia are a slippery slope. Some Pro-life activists argue that, the moment voluntary euthanasia is allowed, involuntary euthanasia is definitely bound to follow (British Humanist Association, A humanist discussion). They argue that it is quite difficult to determine the difference between justified and unjustified euthanasia cases. However, Pro-death activists insist that there is a very distinct boundary between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. They also insist that most, if not all patients who opt for euthanasia are in total understanding of what it entails, and they have not been forced into it (British Humanist Association, A humanist discussion). Moreover, the fear that euthanasia may be easily resulted to by relatives of depressed or Alzheimer patients with the excuse that these patients would have eventually resorted to it were they in their correct state of mind also nags the Pro-life activists, and makes them fight against the legalization of this practice even more (Barbara Kay, Euthanasia Report).
Other Pro-life campaigners state that, should a policy regarding euthanasia be enforced, there could be subsequent erosion in the psychological barriers between justified and unjustified killing, thus leading to m ore wrongfully enforced deaths . Humanists, on the other end, see this argument as quite weak, since they do not see how enforcement of a policy on voluntary euthanasia would lead to more cases of murder . They argue that assisting a patient who is terminally ill and wants to die painlessly and peacefully is quite different from murder.
Religion and Euthanasia:
Religious people, however, consider euthanasia morally wrong in all instances, regardless of whether the patient really wants to die or not. Their argument is that only God has the right to terminate life, despite the circumstances presented (British Humanist Association, A humanist discussion). They insist that only God has the power to decide when a person should die and no man should interfere with that. Their arguments, however, are to some extent, vague. This is because, if man should not interfere with another man’s life, then doctors do so all the time; they do this by treating all types of illnesses, whether terminal or not (British Humanist Association, A humanist discussion).
Humanistic views:
Humanists argue that human beings go for vaccinations all the time to protect them from all kinds of illnesses, and religious people go for these types of vaccinations too (British Humanist Association, A humanist discussion). Should medical practitioners decide not to administer these types of drugs, what would happen? Wouldn’t people die of simple illnesses, yet God has provided us with resources to prevent that from happening? With this regard, therefore, voluntary should not be viewed as an act of “playing God”, but rather as an act of helping people in too much pain rest from it .
Religious and Humanistic arguments:
Humanists on the other hand counter-argue that medical intervention does not necessarily mean that doctors are playing God. They persist that everyone has a right to decide how they want to use medical powers available to them . Moreover, they maintain that the interference in the course of nature is unacceptable, but it is quite the opposite. In addition to that, they are adamant that laws governing euthanasia should not be set just on the basis of religion, since there are other people who do not believe in God (British Humanist Association, A humanist discussion).
Religious campaigners usually use terms like “life is sacred” to justify their views regarding euthanasia. With this argument, they maintain that life should not be destroyed no matter what. On the other hand, humanists also see the value of human life, but also respect individuals who have decided to end their lives on rational grounds .
Pro-life activists also insist that there is a clear moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia, in the sense that active euthanasia is a deliberate action to cause death, whereas passive euthanasia is as a result of an omission which leads to death . With this explanation, they find passive euthanasia more morally acceptable. However, humanists find this explanation inconclusive, since they deem active euthanasia quicker and kinder for the all the parties involved, though both methods are deemed painless for the ailing.
Since humanists do not believe in obeying dogmatic rules, they base their beliefs on moral principles that are based on respect for others and reason . They believe in fulfillment and happiness, and thus if someone will gain fulfillment by being able to end their suffering, then so be it. These beliefs help them appreciate the quality of life, and thus encourage people to make choices that will help improve their happiness in their lifetimes. In this regard, therefore, they make it clear that everyone has free will to choose a dignified and painless death. According to them, postponing death without intervening early enough is not necessarily being morally upright (British Humanist Association, A humanist discussion).
Although humanists are in support of voluntary euthanasia, they maintain that some safeguards need to be put in place to ensure that the practice is not abused. They uphold that counseling of patients and their relatives before hand is imperative to ensure that all the involved parties are fully aware of what the process will entail, and to be fully prepared of the outcomes (British Humanist Association, A humanist discussion). Additionally, patients should not be pressured to opt for euthanasia if they themselves do not really want it carried out. Moreover, patients should be encouraged to provide clear instructions on what the process will entail so as make the doctors involved to fully understand their needs.
Political views:
However, most politicians are of the opinion that it may be easier for doctors to withhold treatment than it would be to administer lethal drugs. However, this explanation does not necessarily make passive euthanasia more right according to them . They are also of the opinion that forcing doctors to undertake euthanasia is not morally right, but on the other hand, any patient willing to turn to euthanasia as the last resort should be given the go-ahead to find a doctor to help them .
Effects of euthanasia:
Pro-life activists argue that assisted suicide is wrong since it leaves the friends and relatives of the patient in deep pain while dealing with the loss of the patient; pain that could have been avoided in the first place by not going through with it . Pro-death activists, however, view the assisted death of a terminally ill patient as a burden-reliever for all the parties that will be left behind, in addition to reduction in the pain being experienced. Moreover, they argue that, since assisted suicide is not really suicide, the effects are much less.
General discussion:
All in all, there is no set distinction between actively or passively allowing someone to die, since the outcome is basically the same. Though active euthanasia is considered more passionate than passive euthanasia, they both result in the same thing eventually. Attempts are therefore being made by several states to reform laws on voluntary euthanasia . In addition to that, there should be the involvement of several doctors in the patient’s decision-making process so as to eliminate the chances of biased decisions. Besides, the doctors should first rule out any chances of recovery so as to avoid involuntary euthanasia .
Conclusion:
The debate on whether euthanasia should be carried out or not in cases where the patient cannot make the decision himself still rages between the Pro-life and Pro-death sides. The main puzzle is who exactly should make the decision in such a case. Another pressing issue is whether or not doctors and nurses should be allowed to impose their views regarding euthanasia to their patients. Moreover, religious participation continues to bring conflict between religious and non-religious campaigners; the issue being whether or not religious people should inflict their moral views onto non-religious persons. These issues continue to cause unending rivalry between the supporting and opposing groups, and the two groups may never come to a common ground. Therefore, all that is left is hope.
Works cited
British Humanist Association. A humanist discussion ofEUTHANASIA, N.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2011.
Richard Hannaford. Euthanasia: An overview. 12 May, 1999. Web. 20 Nov. 2011
Barbara Kay. Euthanasia Report is Reassuring But Misleading. 16 Nov. 2011. Web. 20 Nov. 2011
Biggs, Hazel. Euthanasia, death with dignity and the law. Ohio: Hart Publishing, 2001. Print.
Jackson, Linda. Euthanasia-Face The Facts. Indiana: Raintree, 2005. Print.
Jennifer Fecio McDougall, Martha Gorman, Carolyn S. Roberts. Euthanasia: a reference handbook. New York: ABC-CLIO, 2008. Print.
Keown, John. Euthanasia, ethics, and public policy: an argument against legalisation. London: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print.
Seamus Cavan, Shean Dolan. Euthanasia: the debate over the right to die. New Jersey: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2000. Print.
