Euthanasia is defined as the act of terminating an extremely sick person in order to alleviate them of their pain (BBC). In most cases, it was performed because the dying patient asks for it. However, in some cases when the patient can’t make such a decision, the family decides. The argument about whether or not euthanasia should be legalized has been going on for quite some time already, but the government has yet to reach a decision about it. Although some states in America have already legalized it, such as Washington, Oregon, California, Vermont, and in Bernalillo County in New Mexico. Euthanasia, also called PAD or Physician Assisted Death, have been argued for by those who support it. When one looks at it in terms of someone’s rights, euthanasia is in whole a matter of one’s personal right or liberty to choose to die or not. No one else would be able to understand the pain that patients are suffering from a chronic illness or a condition that causes one’s body to waste away or deteriorate everyday. Apart from the pain, a patient also carries the stress of being weak and helplessly lying in a hospital bed while loved ones suffer from sleepless nights, financial problems, and stress of seeing their loved one lying there, all weak and almost close to dying. If a patient chooses to end his/her life for all these reasons, other people do not have the right to oppose because they are not carrying the patient’s pains and suffering. In the same way, the patient’s decision to die does not have any effect, be it adverse or otherwise, to other people. as such, euthanasia should be legal especially if it is a choice the patient wanted. This right is also the same right that the philosophy of libertarianism is suggesting. According to this philosophy, any decision concerning a person should be made by the person alone and no one else. The philosophy invites several interpretations and reactions from different fields, which explains why it has been applied by several disciplines. However, the most important thing to keep in mind on this issue is that everyone has their own rights and as such, one should be able to exercise it without any interference from anyone so long as the decision is according to the person him/herself.
On the practical side of it, euthanasia provides other people the right that they also possess to get treatment from a health institution, which could not be given to them because someone else is still being treated. A person who is on the brink of death, but is only alive because of the machines and medicine being used and fed on them takes away another patient’s right to get the same treatment because someone else is getting it. For instance, a patient whose undergoing dialysis for a severe and chronic kidney problem, uses several machines for the dialysis, is being given new sets of medicine for the dialysis, the machines are all being used for that person’s dialysis, and the room where the patient is staying at could all be given someone else who also deserves the same treatment and has a higher probability of recovery instead of using everything to let another patient live longer when the body is already refusing to. It should also be considered that manpower such as the doctors who go on rounds daily to check on a dying person, a nurse or someone else who always responds to the patient when needed. These medical personnels can dedicate their strength, time, and concentration to other patients who would live longer than the one who is in deep coma, and if euthanasia is reviewed from this perspective, it is only right to allow the person to die if s/he chooses to, without the doctors or medical personnel having to go to jail to do it. In addition, a person’s death is personal and should only bear importance to the person him/herself. From this perspective, it is also important that the patient be given his/her death if s/he wishes to. However, the law should be clear about the most important factor that should be taken into consideration, and that is the decision to die should come from the person him/herself and no one else. It is not the physician’s place to decide on it, thus, as long as it is the patient’s decision to die, and not someone else.
Philosophically, euthanasia satisfies the idea that moral rules should be universalisable, meaning anyone who decides to die should be given the right to get what they want. Not being able to get it when one has decided on it for reasons that the patient or the family has agreed on is a violation of the universalisable of one’s morals. Another factor that also proves to be a strong argument for euthanasia is the idea of death itself. Of course, it is understandable that some people would fear death, but in the case of a person who’s chronically ill, who is suffering from intense pain as caused by the disease, death may be a sweet thing. If it is going to end one’s physical, mental, financial, and psychological sufferings, wouldn’t death be a good and welcome chance? After all, death is the end all and be all of everything that has life, and if life doesn’t allow one to function like a normal and alive person would, wouldn’t death be better? If we keep on holding on to life, even though the body and mind are already weakened by the illness, where there isn’t any guarantee of going back to one’s normal bodily functions even if one is able to heal, survive, or wake up from a come, does that even constitute life?
In the event that the patient is not awake and could not make the decision for him/herself, the family should be allowed to make the decision for the patient because it is the family who understands the situation, in terms of financial and emotional considerations. However, this should only be honored if and when it is absolutely guaranteed that the patient has zero chances of recovery. When the decision is made, the doctors administering the medication should not be held liable for the act, as it was the family’s decision they were following. The law should be implemented as such in order for people and their family achieve peace in a loved one’s passing.
Perhaps one case that could be considered sensational regarding euthanasia is that of Brittany Maynard. She was an advocate for the legalization of aid in dying as she herself chose to do so when the time came to it. According to her story published by CNN.com, she and her husband found out that she had brain cancer after suffering from severe and debilitating headaches for several months. She was only 29 years old and was only married for more than jus a year. She and her husband didn’t even get the chance to have and raise their own family, and yet, cancer is already forcing her away from it. According to her, her life started to move around going to hospitals, having consultations and doing medical research. After nine days, Brittany had two operations done on her head, efforts to stop the growth of the tumor on her head. But then, after a while, the doctor told her that the tumor had gone back and was even more aggressive. The doctor told her that due to the size of her tumor, she should have full brain radiation which would have burned her scalp and hair. She and her family did their own research and arrived at the conclusion that there wouldn’t be anything that could save her life, and all the hospital could do was just abate the growth of the tumor and make it less painful for her. If she decides to just wait for her time, she would still be under medication and could still develop morphine-resistant pain and suffer changes in her personality, or lose verbal, cognitive, and motor skills. And because she was still young, her suffering could be longer, which her family could all witness. With everything taken into consideration, Brittany decided to go through the process of death with dignity, wherein she could ask for a medication that she could self-ingest to put an end to her pain when it becomes unbearable. Her mind set, her family moved to Oregon because it was one of the only five states where death with dignity is legal.
When she and her husband arrived in Oregon, they found out how hard it was to establish residency before she could go through the process. She had to find a new home and a new physician, change her voter registration and driver’s license, and enlist people who would look after their animals. Her husband had to take a leave of absence from work while her family and friends struggled to find time and resources to adapt to the changes. Despite the many difficulties, Brittany was relieved that she had her medication with her, which gave her the option to use it or not when she changes her mind. She had her passing all planned out, including the when, where, how, and with whom, and this gave her immense relief, that she had a choice about these things. Brittany, as we may have heard in the news, died on November 16, 2014. She had with her her husband, mother, stepfather, and best friend in their upstairs bedroom. She got what she wanted in her passing like she planned, but what’s more important was that she had the freedom to die when she wanted to.
All these arguments embody all the arguments that support euthanasia, and proves that it should be legalized so that patients won’t have to suffer, both from the pain of the illness, and even more in the process of moving and settling like Brittany and her husband experienced. It was already bad that she was sick and in pain, but she still had to move and take care of a lot of things just so she can die in her own terms where it is legal to do so. This is the right of every man, to choose when and how to die, just as it is also the right of every man to live. As such, euthanasia, be it assisted by a physician or self-administered, should be legalized.
Work Cited
BBC. “Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.” bbc.co.uk.2014. Web. 20 March 2016.
Maynard, Brittany. “My right to death with dignity at 29.” CNN.com. 2 November 2014. Web.
20 March 2016.
