The Legalization of Euthanasia - Admission/Application Essay Example

Euthanasia of the Module 3 December Euthanasia Introduction Legalization of euthanasia has been a much debated controversial issue over the past few decades. Supporters of euthanasia emphasize the right to die and perceive the right for mercy killing as free choice of individuals. Proponents of euthanasia argue that its legalization promotes individual autonomy, reduces needless pain and suffering, and offers psychological reassurance to dying patients (Emanuel, 1999, p. 640). On the other hand, the opponents of euthanasia stress on the value of human life and dignity. Today, both euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) are used interchangeably even though there is difference in the way mercy killing is carried out in both practices. In both cases the death inducing medicine is prescribed by the physician. As far as the patient is concerned both euthanasia and PAS are self-willed; while the latter is self-inflicted euthanasia is administered by another person (Boudreau & Somerville, 2014, p. 2). Today, there is growing societal acceptance of euthanasia while public opinion towards its legalization is steadily increasing in many nations. However, legalized euthanasia, as it is practiced today, raises a number of concerns and this paper seeks to explore the various aspects of the issue. In United States, Oregons Death with Dignity Act of 1997 marked the legalization of the nation’s first assisted-suicide bill. In Belgium and Netherlands, both euthanasia and PAS are legally permitted as medical treatments (Marker, 2006, 60). In Switzerland, PAS is permitted and can even be performed by non-physicians (Pereira et al., 2008, p. 1074). In North America, the national Hemlock Society founded in 1980 in Los Angeles acts as the leading proponent of active voluntary euthanasia. The Humane and Dignified Death Act is, in fact, an outcome of the society’s conscious efforts to raise public awareness on euthanasia and to gain public support in favor of the practice. Americans Against Human Suffering (AAHS), founded by the society, aims at proposing an act that would allow terminally ill patients to request for euthanasia. The organization stands for negotiated death wherein a patient ‘dying in an unbearable manner’ could request in writing to administer him “an overdose of a lethal drug, either orally or intravenously” (Humphry, 1988, p. 11). However, it is imperative to certify that the patient is suffering from a hopeless disease for which death will be imminent within six months. The patient is ultimately responsible for his decision even though his family members are informed of his request. However, the proposed act proves to be inadequate in the case of mentally damaged patients or patients who are unable to voice their opinion. The Humane and Dignified Death Act solves this issue, whereby the patient can name a proxy, while he is still competent, to take medical decisions in his favor (Humphry, 1988, p. 11). However, the act met with strong opposition and gave rise to a number of concerns regarding its misuses. Opponents of the act hold that the proposed act is nothing but “legalized intentional killing for the elderly, disabled, or poor” (Humphry, 1988, p. 47). Similarly, opponents of the act argue that it is likely to be misused by greedy relatives to gain inheritance while the future of physically and mentally impaired patients also remains bleak. Religion and religious beliefs have always played pivotal roles in the ongoing debates over the legalization of euthanasia. Both Catholic and Protestant churches condemned euthanasia even when enlightenment thinkers emphasized rationalism, individualism, and individual’s voluntary choice of death (Hamil-Luker & Smith, 1998, p. 375). Similarly, orthodox religious conservatives who attributed spiritual meaning to suffering also tend to oppose euthanasia (Courtwright, 2013, p. 6). However, today, various religious denominations differ considerably in their stance towards the legalization of euthanasia. Conservative Protestants are strongly against the practice of euthanasia as they firmly believe that mercy killing is against two key biblical tenets: “the sanctity of life and God as the ultimate arbiter of life and death” (Moulton, Hill & Burdette, 2006, p. 254). Moderate Protestants, however, offer greater individual autonomy and do not interpret the Bible literally. Consequently, their stance towards euthanasia is comparatively more supportive than that of conservatives. Liberal Protestants demonstrate more tolerant stance on social issues such as euthanasia, abortion or same sex marriage. They value individual human rights and hold that individuals have the freedom to take decisions concerning euthanasia (Moulton, Hill & Burdette, 2006, p. 255). Finally, Catholics strongly condemn euthanasia as they regard human life as sacred and believe that God alone has the right to take away the life He bestowed. However, a large number of studies have shown that there is increasing acceptance of euthanasia among Catholics in many parts of the world. The researchers, analyzing the General Social Survey data from 1977 through 2004, identify that only 32.7% of respondents oppose the legalization of euthanasia while each of the denominations demonstrated more liberalizing attitude towards euthanasia since 1977 (Moulton, Hill & Burdette, 2006, p. 267). Compared to Conservative Protestants, all other denominations demonstrate a faster liberalizing trend towards euthanasia. The researchers also conclude that even though the leaders of conservative Protestants and Catholics in the United States are strongly against euthanasia their religious followers are not so steadfast. Euthanasia devalues human life and questions the very humanity of patients with substantial disabilities or unconscious persons who are biologically tenacious (Fenigsen, 2012, p. 73). These patients are no longer regarded as humans who are to be cherished and cared for but as are mere creatures, insecticides, or things that can easily be destroyed. Smith (2009, p. 41), in this respect, conceives euthanasia as the ‘legal taking of human life’ and laments over the emerging trend to view euthanasia as a normal part of medical practices. For Fenigsen, the proponents of euthanasia forcefully emphasize the right to die while they do not understand euthanasia as a sad necessity (2012, p. 73). Similarly, the terms ‘physician assisted suicide’ and ‘aid in dying’ are consciously substituted for euthanasia to perpetuate the message that physicians are assisting patients to experience a happy and painless death. Euthanasia also poses the danger of doctors exterminating children with disabilities or sick elderly people without their request (Fenigsen, 2012, p. 74). Such exterminating practices are also prevalent in the United States, though on a smaller scale. Euthanasia, as it is practiced in Holland, culminates in a compulsion to die and the denial of the right to live. Another danger is that patients, who feel that they are hopelessly ill, may request for euthanasia. Studies also show that there is a strong feeling of fear towards involuntary euthanasia among the older patients who refuse to take medicines or juices when admitted into hospitals (Fenigsen, 2012, p. 80). There are also reported cases where the family members pressurize the patient to request for euthanasia. Euthanasia of newborns and children with disabilities poses the greatest threat to mankind and prompts one to reconsider the inhumane practice. Similarly, it has been argued that allowing euthanasia or assisted suicide within palliative care units will prove to be a source of distress for patients and families while it may also cause tension and conflict among palliative care staff (Pereira et al., 2008, p. 1074). Patients who oppose euthanasia may be reluctant to admit their dear ones into palliative care units for fear of being subjected to the practice either directly or indirectly. Similarly, the nature of care in palliative care may change once the patient has finally decided for euthanasia. The researchers also warn that, one allowed, palliative care units may become a dumping site for patients who express their wish for euthanasia. Legalization of euthanasia and the right to die compel medical professionals to act against their moral conscience and those who oppose the practice face strong resistance. In this respect, Smith (2009) points out that there have been no provisions within the law to protect the moral conscience of medical professionals. The author emphasizes the need to protect traditional Hippocratic maxims and traditional morality in medical practices. For this, it is essential that the rights of medical conscience are guaranteed to all medical professionals (Smith, 2009, p. 43). Legalization of euthanasia prompts medical practitioners to keep aside all sorts of moral scruples and the author anticipates a time when all medical professionals will be compelled to take human life irrespective of their religious or moral objections. For instance, in Holland, doctors or nurses who try to save their patients from euthanasia face strong resistances, reprimands, and very often are sued by the Dutch Society for Voluntary Euthanasia (Fenigsen, 2012, p. 76). Similarly, physicians who oppose euthanasia in Holland, face difficulties in applying for post-graduate training, trying to obtain residency, or opening a family practice (Fenigsen, 2012, p. 77). These factors pose serious concerns over the way euthanasia is practiced today. It is worthwhile to analyze the attitude of physicians towards euthanasia. A study conducted by Essinger among Tennessee physicians shows that 47% of the participants were against euthanasia and PAS while majority (75%) refused either to administer a lethal overdose or prescribe medication for euthanasia (Essinger, 2003, p. 427). The participants of the study also emphasized the need to safeguard vulnerable patients against the misuse of the practice. Similarly, a literature review of research studies on physicians ‘attitudes on euthanasia in the United States between 1991 and 2000 also revealed that majority of the physicians would not participate in euthanasia even when it is legalized (Dickinson, Clark, Winslow & Marples, 2005, p. 49). It is quite paradoxical that physicians who are supposed to play their healer role become involved with acts that intentionally inflict death on patients (Boudreau & Somerville, 2014, p. 8). On the other hand, the law safeguards physicians against the cruel act when euthanasia is legalized. This has well been suggested by Marker (2006, p. 59) when the researcher observes that legalization of euthanasia creates an atmosphere whereby a criminal act proves to be acceptable or an appalling act turns to be an appealing one. This legal immunity may prompt certain physicians to engage in intentionally fatal prescriptions. In spite of the various social, ethical and religious concerns over the legalization of euthanasia, one can find increasing societal acceptance of the practice in many states. Hamil-Luker & Smith (1998, p. 373) postulate that public opinion in America over the past fifty years were moving steadily in favor of euthanasia. Similarly, Fenigsen (2012, p. 71) shows how public opinion polls in Holland reveal the increasing social acceptance of euthanasia among the public (from 67% in 1986 to 82% in 2001). The author purports that most of the thousands of publications and telecasts on euthanasia during these three decades were in favor of the inhumane practice. In Holland, publishers were not even ready to publish articles or arguments opposing euthanasia. Similarly, supporters of euthanasia make use of extreme cases to win public opinion in their favor. Fenigsen (2012, p. 73) points out how supporters of euthanasia depict horrific hospital scenes and use highly disturbing language such as “people slumped in wheelchairs,” “decaying bodies,” or “patients hooked on machines” to refer to patients waiting on rows for mercy killing. For instance, one may tend to support euthanasia being administered on a person who has been completely paralyzed down the neck and somehow managed to set his bed afire in a futile attempt to end his miserable life. The argument, that euthanasia is administered on patients to get rid of their pain and suffering, needs to be reconsidered. Mitchell (2010, p. 5), in this respect, argues that while the physical pain and suffering of hopelessly ill patients can be alleviated through medicines it is their feelings of alienation, guilt, and unworthiness that cause them the greatest misery. Such patients often perceive themselves as economic, social, and emotional burdens on others. Similarly, it causes them unbearable pain and sufferings when family members and other near ones regard them as burdens. The researcher thus argues that when these emotional impediments are removed from their minds through human compassion they will no longer think of voluntary euthanasia. Complications occurring during euthanasia also pose concerns over the practice. While everyone wants the procedure for euthanasia humane and painless many regard lethal injection as cruel and unusual punishment as it leads to pain and suffering (Macejko, 2008). The author also points out that more researches on the desirable effects for euthanasia have been conducted on animals and exhorts the medical community to reconsider the use of pentobarbital in humans which is successfully administered by the veterinary community in animal euthanasia (Macejko, 2008). In most cases, physicians who prescribe the lethal drugs may not be present during euthanasia. While proponents of the practice guarantee happy and painless end of life there are reported instances of vomiting, adverse physical symptoms, panic, feelings of terror, assaultive behavior, and even incidents of patients regaining consciousness after a few hours (Marker, 2006, 63). There are also six reported assisted-suicide deaths in Oregon because of financial concerns as the patients were unable to afford alternatives such as comfort care, hospice care, and pain control (Marker, 2006, p. 67). Similarly, official Oregon reports do not contain deaths of depressed patients or patients with dementia who are administered euthanasia. However, news accounts of such deaths in Oregon raise concerns over the law’s provision that euthanasia can only be administered to capable adults. Conclusions It can be seen that legalized euthanasia, as it is practiced today, raises a number of concerns over its misuse. While public opinion towards the legalization of euthanasia is steadily increasing it is interesting to note that majority of the physician community are still reluctant to prescribe the lethal medicines. Similarly, one can never undermine the value and dignity of human life. The strongest argument against euthanasia is that it keeps the vulnerable people in the society in a highly disadvantaged position. As Himchak (2011, p. 8) purports, the legalization of euthanasia, which is initially restricted to the terminally ill, may “eventually extend to the vulnerable people in society, including the disabled, the senile, the mentally ill, and the chronically ill elderly.” While society has a moral responsibility to care for and protect its vulnerable population, euthanasia may be used as an easy solution to get rid of such people. Legalized euthanasia, therefore, necessities a strong body of advocacy and supervision, that monitors and evaluates the eligibility criteria of each request for euthanasia, with a view to minimize the inhumane practice. References Boudreau, J.D & Somerville, M.A. (2014). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: a physician’s and ethicist’s perspectives. Medicolegal and Bioethics, 14 (4), 1–12. Courtwright, D.T. (2013). Morality, public policy, and partisan politics in American history: An introduction. The Journal of Policy History, 25 (1), 1-11. doi: 10.1017/S0898030612000322. Dickinson, G.E., Clark, D., Winslow, M & Marples, R. (2005). US physicians’ attitudes concerning euthanasia and physician-assisted death: A systematic literature review. Mortality, 10(1): 43-52. doi: 10.1080/13576270500030982. Emanuel, E.J. (1999). What is the great benefit of legalizing euthanasia of physican-assisted suicide? Ethics, 109 (3), 629-642. Essinger, D. (2003). Attitudes of Tennessee physicians toward euthanasia and assisted death. Southern Medical Journal, 96 (5), 427-435. Fenigsen, R. (2012). Other peoples lives: reflections on medicine, ethics, and euthanasia. Issues in Law & Medicine, 28 (1), 71-87. Hamil-Luker, J & Smith, C. (1998). Religious authority and public opinion on the right to die. Sociology of Religion, 59 (4): 373-391. Himchak, M.V. (2011). A social justice value approach regarding Physician- Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia among the elderly. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 8 (1), 1-14. Humphry, D. (1988). Legislating for active voluntary euthanasia. The Humanist, 10-12 & 47. Macejko, C. (2008). More humane executions? Some look to veterinary model. DVMNEWS, 33. Marker, R.L. (2006). Euthanasia and assisted suicide today. Society, 59-67. Mitchell, C.B. (2010). Killing Euthanasia. Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics, 26 (1), 5-6. Moulton, B.E., Hill, T.D & Burdette, A. (2006). Religion and trends in euthanasia attitudes among U.S. adults, 1977–2004. Sociological Forum, 21 (2), 249-272. doi: 10.1007/s11206-006-9015-5. Pereira et al. (2008). Assisted suicide and euthanasia should not be practiced in palliative care units. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 11 (8), 1074-1076. doi:10.1089/jpm.2008.0093. Smith, W.J. (2009). Pulling the plug on the conscience clause. First Things Online, 41-44. Read More