Should Euthanasia be permitted for Terminally Ill Patients?
The question about the permission, need and legality of Euthanasia is a long pending one and generates heavy debate with strong reactions from both the sides. Understanding what Euthanasia is of paramount importance before getting into debate and form opinions. In medical terms, Euthanasia is defined as the painless, physician assisted killing for a person suffering from a highly painful and deadly disease (incurable in most cases). There are many angles and aspects to this debate of permitting or legalizing Euthanasia but over the years, Euthanasia for terminally ill patients has gained support not only among the medical and legal lobby but also among activists who voice against Euthanasia. Terminal illness refers to a disease or a medical disorder that is not only progressive in nature but cannot even be cured and treated and ultimately results in the death of the person. Terminal illness is often believed to cause a slow and painful death and hence the permission for Euthanasia for patients suffering from terminal illness becomes all the more important.
Euthanasia is a Greek term that necessarily means ‘Good Death’. ‘Good Death’ means a death that relives one of his/her pain and a death that benefits a group or many individuals. Euthanasia for terminally ill patients fits completely to this definition and hence renders it not only logical but correct both medically as well as ethically and morally. The momentum of the debated has indeed shifted towards the lobby, which favors mercy killing for terminally ill. Its acceptance has increased over the years and many states in US have legalized it and the stand of Canadian physicians has also softened off late. The Quebec College of Physicians task force on ethics, which has been privately debating the issue for several years, proposed that Euthanasia be included “as part of the appropriate care in certain particular circumstances (Collier 2009).” The particular conditions in this case referring to terminal illnesses which can hardly be cured and render life meaningless for an individual. There are several reasons which favor Euthanasia in case of patients who are terminally ill and for whom chances of living a dignified disease free life is remote. Some of the most important arguments for Euthanasia are as listed below:
The Right of an Individual: Every major democracy across the world offers its citizens the two very basic right namely Right to Freedom and Right to Live. The advocates of Euthanasia believe that it should be left to the patients to decide if he/she wishes to continue his/her life or not but nobody can judge it better than the person suffering. A person should enjoy this right of taking a decision about his life since it is nothing but a natural extension to most cherished democratic rights of Right to Freedom and Right to Live. A person should not be loaded with unnecessary restraints and should be free to make his/her own choices. This is not only democratically correct and is morally sound too since it bestows upon a person a choice to live his/her live they way he/she desires and end it, if he/she finds it too difficult (under medical ailments) to continue with it. Moreover, death is a personal matter and one’s right to die doesn’t obstruct someone else’s rights in any form. The right allows an individual to die with dignity.
Beneficence and Ethical Considerations: Euthanasia does a noble job of relieving a patient from immense pain and suffering which lead him to a slow and merciless death every moment. It is against the basic moral values of humanity and mankind to let a person suffer under the guise of Euthanasia as an illegal and by some aspects as a morally incorrect practice. A painless death is much better than pain filled meaningless life and that is what fundamental human values too stand for and hence ethically too Euthanasia is correct but only in the case of patients for whom the chances of survival are too bleak. In a recent opinion poll by Angus Reid, a staggering 80% of respondents in Canada support allowing a doctor to assist a patient in ending their life, 75% believe doctor-assisted death should be allowed and four out of five Canadians want Parliament to debate the topic (Canseco, 2012).
Medical and Nursing Ethics: It is often argued that Euthanasia is against the basic medical and nursing ethics since these ethics demand and expect the doctors and nurses to try and save the lives of patients come what may. The oath taken by doctors expects them to maintain utmost optimism towards human life and to save and value it. But, the ethics also expect doctors and nurses to relieve patients of their pain and to ensure that they live a dignified life without long-term suffering. In case of terminally ill patients, it is close to impossible for doctors and nurses to save patient’s life even if they try their level best and hence the point of them being unethical and lax towards their duty as medical practitioners does not arise at all. Moreover, by letting the patient suffer and feel exuberating pain due to a medical disorder indirectly leads to doctors or nurses being unethical and immoral. Moreover, it is left to the doctor to decide if a patient is a fit case for Euthanasia and hence only after examining all the aspects does he take a call. Under the new Dutch law that makes Euthanasia and assisted suicide legal under certain circumstances, ‘doctors or other medical personnel are not obliged to participate in euthanasia if it is against their conscience. In that case they can/will refer the patient to another doctor (Meijer, 2008).’ Such provisions not only safeguard the interests of medical practitioners but also let them decide the ethical considerations involved before getting into the act.
Serves Best Interests: In case of terminally ill patients Euthanasia benefits not only the patients but the associated groups too. It not only saves the patients of unbearable pain, lingering and pathetic life but also saves their near and dear ones of the agony of seeing their loved ones suffering and dying a slow death each passing moment. Moreover, euthanasia is also vital and important to ensure that not only is there no wastage of medical resources but also that there should be fair distribution of life saving medical resources. Terminally ill patients with almost no hopes of revival or getting back to life pose a burden to the already cramped and overloaded medical systems in many countries and hence depriving many others of the suitable treatments. This is indeed morally and ethically incorrect and gross to term the least. Euthanasia ensures that there is no undue wastage, which is only correct considering the scenario in many countries where people die of lack and shortage of medical and health resources.
There are various arguments put forward by people who are against Euthanasia like the immorality of killing a person who is still not naturally dead, the fear of misuse of Euthanasia to claim lives of people who can be saves or who are not terminally ill and that Euthanasia is against the sanctity of human life. Though at the outset these arguments and fears may sound sane, but they have many inherent fallacies and errors. It has been proved that usage of Euthanasia can be regulated using proper provisions and laws as has been done in Netherlands and some states of America. Also, there is no sanctity of life living a painful life in which only does the patient but his/her near and dear ones have to suffer. Moreover the sanctity of life is about the sanctity of human being as a whole including his emotional and mental well being and not just the physical well being, which unfortunately is not true in case of terminally ill patients. The plight of patients who are terminally ill but are denied Euthanasia is hard to explain. As Toynbee says, ‘But all the same, linger she did, many weeks beyond what she found either dignified or bearable: it was no way to end a good life (2008)’, describing how his mother had to suffer just because she was denied euthanasia.
The debate on Euthanasia is a never-ending one. But letting the patient choose what he wants to be done with his/her life is the only moral and ethical call to take. Euthanasia should be strictly regulated and should only be available for terminally ill patients so as to make sure that it is not misused. Doctors and Patients should be allowed to make a voluntary call. The morality and ethics of nursing and medicine do not lie in ensuring that a person is kept alive even under unbearable pain, but depend on how easy and peaceful death you can organize for a patient who is almost as good as dead and has lost all interest in continuing his life. ‘Dying with dignity, about which there has been so much debate in recent years, ought not to be conceived of as a gentle death. Rather, it ought to be conceived of as a death that respects the dying person’s personality and history (Boisvert 2010).’ That statement justifies Euthanasia for terminally ill patients in the best form.
References
Collier, Roger (2009). Euthanasia debate reignited. Canadian Medical Association,
Retrieved April 6, 2013, from
http://www.ecmaj.ca/content/181/8/463.full
Canseco, Mario (2012). 80% of Canadians in favor of Euthanasia! Dying With Dignity
Retrieved April 6, 2013, from
http://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/resources/blog_news/post/287.php
Meijer, Theo (2008). Euthanasia in The Netherlands. Humanist Perspectives, issue 152, The
Trial of Evelyn Martens
Retrieved April 6, 2013, from
http://www.humanistperspectives.org/issue152/euthanasia_in_netherlands.html
Toynbee, Polly (2008). She Didn’t Deserve This. Humanist Perspectives, issue 152, The
Trial of Evelyn Martens
Retrieved April 6, 2013, from
http://www.humanistperspectives.org/issue152/she_didnt_deserve_this.html
Boisvert, Marcel (2010). Should physicians be open to euthanasia? YES. Canadian Family
Physician, Retrieved April 6, 2013, from
http://www.cfp.ca/content/56/4/320.full
