Abstract
This study would focus on euthanasia, otherwise referred to as mercy killing or good death. There have been varied perceptions on the morality of this process with proponents and opponents disagreeing sharply. Just as there are varied views and perceptions at individual level concerning euthanasia, different countries also have different laws concerning euthanasia. This research would investigate whether euthanasia is a viable and moral option to alleviate pain or not, and how people feel towards the whole act.
The data collection process would involve randomly selecting 30 participants who would then be subjected to interviews and filling a questionnaire. The researcher intended to find the different opinions of the respondents on the morality of euthanasia. Using closed questions, the researcher was able to collect quantitative data. Secondary sources like online articles also provided the necessary data on the research topic. The results of this research indicate that a big number of people were against euthanasia citing religious reasons and the immoral nature of the act, and the fact that no one has absolute knowledge about when another person would die. The null hypothesis for this research was; euthanasia is morally unacceptable since there is no justification for killing whatsoever.
Basing on the analysis of empirical evidence, the researcher accepted the null hypothesis and concluded that as much as euthanasia might be controversially the right of the patient and the doctors’ decision to make, it is morally unacceptable since there is no justification for killing whatsoever.
Introduction
There have been intensive arguments for and against euthanasia with proponents and opponents failing to reach any consensus. Different countries have different views regarding euthanasia, and as such, these countries have enacted legislation that addresses euthanasia from different angles. In Britain, for example, the house of lords defines euthanasia as a premeditated intervention by a medical practitioner with an express intension to end the life of a patient after ascertaining that the patient is going through intractable pain.
In the Netherlands, Euthanasia is defined as the doctors’ act of terminating life as requested by the patient. The medical and legal professionals have categorized euthanasia in different categories: voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in most countries of the world, while non voluntary euthanasia is illegal in most if not all countries in the world. Involuntary euthanasia, on the other hand, is considered as murder. This poses a complicated situation, where it would not be clear the type of euthanasia a doctor executes in the event that questions are asked .
This research aims at ascertaining the facts on the ground about the people’s perspectives on euthanasia. The doctors’ and the patients’ perspectives about the research problem would be incorporated to come up with conclusive deductions.
Background
Self-determination and autonomy are some of the important concepts any researcher should focus on while discussing the whole issue of euthanasia. The right of everybody to make their own decisions and accept the consequences is key to accountability and responsibility. Euthanasia, as contentious as it is, does not override everything else. Some proponents and opponents have come up with the following schools of thought:
Arguments in favor of euthanasia
The supporters of euthanasia claim that it gives people an opportunity to die with dignity. This is opposed to living in suffering with a pre-determined eventuality; they would eventually die soon. They argue that it is way better to die peacefully instead of having to live in some hell on earth. Others claim that every patient has the right to make autonomous decisions. They, therefore, believe that every patient has an absolute right to choose when and how to die.
About the concerns of possible abuse of euthanasia by the medical teams in health, the proponents argue that the government has jurisdiction to regulate it. The government can make it a public policy, which limits the actions of the doctors and the patients within the parameters stipulated by that policy.
Counter arguments
The opponents argue that there is no justification of taking someone’s life, and that is murder considering the fact that there is no justified killing. In case the patient is in such pain, there are always alternative treatments like hospices and palliative care. There is nothing like the right to be killed, since allowing voluntary euthanasia would certainly pave way to non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. The doctors should not be given the power to decide when a patient lives or dies by deciding who is worth living and who is not.
The opponents continue by arguing that it would be difficult to control euthanasia since doctors rarely report it. Further, creating a notion that patients have a right to die would encourage the doctors on duty to kill.
Hypothesis
H0 = euthanasia is morally unacceptable since there is no justification for killing whatsoever.
H1 = euthanasia is a necessary act as dictated by circumstances, and the patient has the right to decide how to die.
Literature review
According to Borry, Schotsmans & Dierickx (April 2006), euthanasia has been generally defined to refer to the practice or act of ending the life of a person in extreme pain and suffering. Euthanasia could be voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary. The laws that accept or reject euthanasia are different in many countries. The British House of Lords committee on Medical Ethics defined euthanasia as a deliberate action taken for the intention of relieving one from suffering. In a country like Netherlands, euthanasia is considered as an act of ending the life of a person by a doctor by the request of a patient. These different definitions provide the different perspectives of different laws in various countries. Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries, whereas some countries consider involuntary euthanasia as murder.
The researcher Philippe Letellier (2004) gave the various definitions of euthanasia and its classifications in detail. According to Letellier, euthanasia could be voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia involves the consent or request of the patient. In some countries, the request of a patient to terminate their life with the physician’s help is termed as assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is active in some states of the United States like Washington, Oregon and Montana, and countries like Switzerland. Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg also allow active euthanasia.
Non-voluntary euthanasia is where the consent of a patient is unavailable. The patient might be in a coma, or in too much pain to make a decision. This type of euthanasia according to Letellier is illegal all over the world, but in some parts of Netherlands, it is allowed under special circumstances. A good example is child euthanasia. However, the practice is being criticized all over the world according to Letellier. Involuntary euthanasia is when the act is conducted against the will of the patient. This means that the person is available and is able to give their consent but it is not considered by the party conducting euthanasia. Generally, it means that another party would make a decision to end the life of another because they are suffering, even when the patient is willing to die.
Methodology
Participants
There are 30 participants in this research, consisting of both doctors and patients. The sample was randomly selected from different hospitals and recruited to participate in the survey.
Procedure
The researcher asked the respondents closed questions about their take on euthanasia, either as patients or as doctors. The responses were then recorded and organized quantitatively, ready for analysis.
Design
Descriptive statistics were obtained on the collected quantitative data with respective percentages of and numerical values of those who were for and against euthanasia recorded, and analyzed.
Results
Discussion
The three categories of euthanasia could be further divided into two groups. Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary could be termed as passive or active. Passive euthanasia involves withdrawing and withholding the treatment and medication that a patient was receiving in order to sustain them. These treatments should have the effect of taking their lives if not administered. Active euthanasia on the other hand is administering a substance that would cause the death of the patient. It includes lethal injections, a drug or any other form of killing. According to the author, some researchers think that these two terms are irrelevant and misleading to the public .
Many reasons have been given that are for and against euthanasia. The arguments are based on personal, ethical, medical, bio ethical, religious and moral perspectives. Many people think that euthanasia is needed because it is merciful and compassionate to let people die with their dignity, instead of suffering and they are most likely to die anyway. Other supporters of euthanasia believe that patients have a right to choose when to die. This is because they have attained autonomy to make their personal decisions. Government advocates and public policy makers in support of the argument believe that the policy is necessary and they can control it through laws and legislation.
One of the reasons for not supporting the argument is that euthanasia is not necessary due to the development in technology and coordination. Palliative care and hospice agencies have cropped up all over to assist people in extreme pain. Also, critics think that governments could not really control euthanasia, because it would open ways to non-voluntary and involuntary killings. Basing our knowledge on the assumption that we have a right to death, doctors would possess the mandate to kill instead of cure and heal people.
Conclusion
Even though the results of this research show that most people are against euthanasia, there remains a variation in some situations. The researcher, therefore, concludes that it may not be moral to accept euthanasia as the best solution. Alterative solutions are available for exploration because many people are still divided on the issue.
References
Borry, P, P Schotsmans and K Dierickx. "Empirical research in bioethical journals. A quantitative analysis." J Med Ethics (2006): 32 (4): 240–5.
Kohl and Marvin. The Morality of Killing. New York: Humanities Press, 1974.
Philippe, Letellier. "History and definition of a Word, in Euthanasia:." Ethical and human aspects By Council of Europe (2004).
