Euthanasia is a word derived from a Greek term eu thanos meaning good health. In medical terms it is defined as an act where a doctor intentionally ends the life of a person by the administration of drugs, at that person’s voluntary and competent request for reasons of compassion. This type of killing usually has mercy as motive thus its other name “mercy killing”. Euthanasia further implies a good death where the killing act should meet the criteria for “goodness” (Cavan, 41). This criteria maybe swift, relatively painless and causes minimal if any psychological suffering such as fear, anguish or deep regret. With the recent rise in cases of chronic diseases many medical practitioners are forced to suggest euthanasia to relatives and patients.
“Mercy Killing” or Euthanasia has continued to generate a lot of debate in that it deviates from social norms (Keown, 27). Arguments in support of euthanasia assume that we live in a world of ideal hospitals, doctors, nurses and families which is far from reality. We live in a fallen world where humans make mistakes and have selfish motives. For this reason alone, legalization of euthanasia holds a number of risks.
We cannot be sure that euthanasia, once legalized and socially accepted would remain voluntary. Vulnerable and burdensome patients may be subtly pressured to request termination of their lives, even though they really don’t want to. For example consider the difficulty of having a relative in hospital long term, the stress of daily visits and medication costs. The prospect of inheritance also brings out the worst in a lot of people where they can bring in the element of Euthanasia to achieve their ill motives. The patients also are not blind to the fact that they are indeed a burden to others. Legal euthanasia in this scenario presents a factor which should not be present in the environment of a sick person. The death factor may have negative psychological effects that may further worsen health conditions of these patients that find themselves in such predicaments. These patients require emotional support that will show them they are indeed valued and loved. It is the primary duty of any medical facility to commit itself to the patient’s wellbeing, even if it is an expensive affair in terms of time and money (Christian Medical Fellowship).
Many of the patients suffering from terminal illnesses may be pushed by dementia, depression and a false sense of worthlessness which may affect their judgment on matters to do with their lives. It has also been noted that many patients who on admission to medical facilities say “let me die” usually after effective treatment are thankful that their request was not adhered to.
Another ethical problem that arises due to the Euthanasia is the undermining of medical research. This is due to the fact that a lot exceptional medical advances have been brought forth due to the desire to develop treatments for these fatal diseases. Many medical practitioners managed all this through their eagerness to eradicate or alleviate unmanageable ailments and symptoms. In short medical research requires challenges in order to advance. The change of focus from curing to killing individuals via euthanasia will threaten and eventually impair the spirit of medical research when it comes to finding remedies for chronic and new diseases. Many ethical medical practitioners compare this factor with the increasing abortion and prenatal diagnosis for conditions such as Down’s syndrome, spina bifida that is endangering the gains made in the management of these conditions. Euthanasia just like abortion and prenatal diagnosis will see much funds being diverted from caring and consoling to searching and destroying.
The next ethical problem linked to euthanasia is change in public opinion or conscience. Legalizing this medical process will lead to much publicity which will lead to the public acceptance and less concern. This is practically shown by the case of Nazi doctors who practiced Euthanasia in the camps. They were initially motivated by compassion but it soon it became a norm in Germany. It is unethical as in the long run it numbs people to the dangers and the inhumane nature of this medical process. It slowly changes the once humane society to a monstrous one.
Euthanasia is also unethical as it gives too much power to doctors which might open up room for negligence. Through the legalization of euthanasia there would be increased cases of failure of doctor’s adequate medical symptoms control. There are bound to have more cases of insistence on provision of inappropriate interventions in some patient cases. Many doctors also will have the power to influence patients through information they provide to the patients in the case of voluntary euthanasia (Keown, 38). The doctors can misinform patient if he or she has carried out the prognosis, diagnosis and treatments available leading to euthanasia which would have been avoided. There may be new treatments recently developed or already in existence that the doctor may not be aware from. Additionally, doctors are human and can be subjected to temptation. Their decision-making may be affected or influenced subconsciously or consciously.
The next ethical issue that makes the legalization of euthanasia wrong. It denies patients the final stage growth. It is during this period that individuals that find themselves in such predicament get rare opportunity to reflect on their lives. These reflections go a long way in helping individuals achieve the proper perspective on the lives they lead, make amends and provide future security for their loved ones (Somerville, 68). Many health workers confirm that these opportunities help mend family ties and rediscovery of mutual care and love that may not have been possible for years in these people’s lives. These scenarios the true spirit of human character. It is a time that allows full growth where one reconciles with himself, loved ones and the world in general. Words spoken and strength imparted at this time go a long way in sustaining those being left ahead.
Euthanasia is disallowed by the traditional medical ethic codes that all medical practitioners subscribe to. The Hippocratic law states that a doctor will not issue any deadly medicine to anyone through suggestion or counsel. The International code of Medical Ethics adopted in 1949 by World Medical Association which was in response to the Nazi Holocaust. It cites that a doctor should always understand that his or her obligation is to preserve life from conception to death. In the early 1992, the World Medical Association noted that assisted suicide and euthanasia were medically unethical. In summary, any doctor that knowingly helps an individual die, acts unethically (Schadenberg, LifeSite News Blog).
The existence of alternative medication makes euthanasia as a practice unethical and morally wrong at the same time. Research over the years has shown that virtually all terminal illnesses can be relieved or substantially managed by techniques or methods already in existence. Energies should be diverted to enhancement of medical facilities to manage terminal diseases rather than terminating lives through mercy killing. There should be more training of medical personnel’s who can manage patients in hospitals and other medical facilities with the aim of achieving what medical science aspires to-support life. Legalization of euthanasia will undermine corporate and individual initiatives when it comes to creative caring of the patients.
In recap, the ethics debate around euthanasia should take Netherlands as an example of a country that adopted euthanasia in 2002. By the time the law had passed the courts had legitimized the death of patients who were not terminally ill. The Dutch are currently debating on the need to allow the elderly to be euthanized when they are eventually “tired of life”. Still in early 2005, a Dutch hospital made headlines by publishing its own guidelines on how to terminate disabled newborns. The chain of events at Netherlands started through legalization of the euthanasia bill that reduced the sanctity of life to nothingness (Pappas, 49). The public conscience was eroded by the legalizing of mercy killing such that life lost the true meaning in Netherlands. We can only ignore the Dutch scenario at our own peril. Euthanasia just like other fatal events will impact on the social conditioning making it animal-like rather than human.
Works Cited
Cavan, Seamus. Euthanasia: The Debate Over the Right to Die. New York: Rosen Pub. Group, 2000. Print.
Christian Medical Fellowship. "Twelve Reasons Why Euthanasia Should Not be Legalised."Christian Medical Fellowship - cmf.org.uk. Christian Medical Fellowship, 12 Feb. 2002. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.
Keown, John. Euthanasia, Ethics, and Public Policy: An Argument against Legalisation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.
Pappas, Demetra M. The Euthanasia / Assisted-Suicide Debate. Santa Barbara, Calif: Greenwood, 2012. Print.
Schadenberg, Alex. "LifeSiteNews Mobile | Legalizing euthanasia is not simple, and it is not safe." LifeSiteNews. LifeSite News Blog, 4 Oct. 2013. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.
Somerville, Margaret A. Death Talk: The Case against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001. Print.
